What does legalising cannabis do to a city?

A cool person in Colorado doing something cool. Image: Getty.

It’s 4/20, a.k.a. National Weed Day: the day that a heady smog rises above every capital city, and hard currencies are replaced by fistfuls of crushed Doritos. In anticipation of 4/20, states in Australia and the United States have blazed up early, by announcing their plans to (partially) legalise cannabis.

Such decisions are made at national and state level. But, while advocates used to cite data collected from cannabis convivial countries like the Netherlands and Uruguay, a move towards legalisation in many U.S. states has lead to a spate of research at city level.

So, with this in mind, what impact does legalising cannabis have on a city and its infrastructure?

Economic benefits and drawbacks

Established weed welcomers have been long been aware of the economic benefits of legalisation: in the Netherlands, tax on coffee shops alone nets the government over €400m per annum. This is despite efforts by city councils to curtail the number of people who can buy and smoke cannabis.

Since Colorado legalised cannabis in November 2012, the state capital Denver has seen a “gold rush” of tourists, investment and new residents. A recent report from the Drug Policy Alliance found that the opening of just two dispensaries in Denver created 280 jobs and an economic output of $30m in the first half of 2014. There has also been an impact on the city’s housing market, with rent prices increasing by 9.6 per cent in 2014 and real estate prices rose by 10 per cent.

That said, these numbers are only impressive if a city actually wants drugs tourists and half its workforce priced out of the housing market.

And even though the sale of cannabis has benefited the Dutch economy, in October 2011 the border-city of Maastricht started banning foreigners from buying and smoking it. City authorities declared that drugs tourism was causing major traffic problems and disrupting residents’ ability to use the city. More recently Amsterdam, has started closing coffee shops in an attempt to make its central tourist district a bit more classy (elitist) and less sketchy (fun).


Less petty crime, more serious crime

Colorado legalised cannabis in 2012. Two years later, arrests for possession were down by 95 per cent in comparison to 2010. (You can still be arrested for carrying more than one ounce at a time.)

In theory, fewer arrests means less police time spent harassing teenagers suffering from pink eye. That in turn means fewer tax dollars spent on processing (in New York City the average possession charge costs $1000-$2000); fewer non-violent, first time offenders in prison; and an economy that benefits from not having a large proportion of its potential work force behind bars.

This theory holds true for cities that have legalised cannabis in the last five years. But! There has been a slight increase in serious crime. Not enough for residents to retreat into gated communities and start hoarding Fray Bentos pies; just enough for anti-legalisation advocates to start getting twitchy.

In 2015 burglaries at Denver cannabis businesses made up 2.5 per cent of attempted robberies in the city. And local police report that the number of “marijuana related crimes” are on the up – although there’s a gaping chasm of information about how these crimes were “related” to cannabis).

It is(n’t) easy being green

By now, it’s hopefully clear to everyone that people who illegally grow cannabis are basically the Hufflepuffs of crime. But, apparently, smoking something grown in weird Barry’s asbestos-ridden attic isn’t always 100 per cent safe. Legalisation means regulation – and while there’s something rather endearing about the idea of furtive farmers taking over an old Debenhams building, the potential for large electrical fires isn’t quite as cute.

In built up areas there is a real danger that herb happy Hufflepuffs might accidentally endanger hundreds of residents. But even if a city does decide to eliminate this risk, the issue of energy consumption remains. Cannabis cultivation uses a massive amount of water and energy, something that Californian residents are starting to notice is taking a toll.

Water use by cannabis farms is already impacting some city residents’ water supply. Increased consumption will place greater pressure on politicians to consider the environmental impact of legalisation, too.

 
 
 
 

Which nations control the materials required for renewables? Meet the new energy superpowers

Solar and wind power facilities in Bitterfeld, Germany. Image: Getty.

Imagine a world where every country has not only complied with the Paris climate agreement but has moved away from fossil fuels entirely. How would such a change affect global politics?

The 20th century was dominated by coal, oil and natural gas, but a shift to zero-emission energy generation and transport means a new set of elements will become key. Solar energy, for instance, still primarily uses silicon technology, for which the major raw material is the rock quartzite. Lithium represents the key limiting resource for most batteries – while rare earth metals, in particular “lanthanides” such as neodymium, are required for the magnets in wind turbine generators. Copper is the conductor of choice for wind power, being used in the generator windings, power cables, transformers and inverters.

In considering this future it is necessary to understand who wins and loses by a switch from carbon to silicon, copper, lithium, and rare earth metals.

The countries which dominate the production of fossil fuels will mostly be familiar:

The list of countries that would become the new “renewables superpowers” contains some familiar names, but also a few wild cards. The largest reserves of quartzite (for silicon production) are found in China, the US, and Russia – but also Brazil and Norway. The US and China are also major sources of copper, although their reserves are decreasing, which has pushed Chile, Peru, Congo and Indonesia to the fore.

Chile also has, by far, the largest reserves of lithium, ahead of China, Argentina and Australia. Factoring in lower-grade “resources” – which can’t yet be extracted – bumps Bolivia and the US onto the list. Finally, rare earth resources are greatest in China, Russia, Brazil – and Vietnam.

Of all the fossil fuel producing countries, it is the US, China, Russia and Canada that could most easily transition to green energy resources. In fact it is ironic that the US, perhaps the country most politically resistant to change, might be the least affected as far as raw materials are concerned. But it is important to note that a completely new set of countries will also find their natural resources are in high demand.

An OPEC for renewables?

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a group of 14 nations that together contain almost half the world’s oil production and most of its reserves. It is possible that a related group could be created for the major producers of renewable energy raw materials, shifting power away from the Middle East and towards central Africa and, especially, South America.

This is unlikely to happen peacefully. Control of oilfields was a driver behind many 20th-century conflicts and, going back further, European colonisation was driven by a desire for new sources of food, raw materials, minerals and – later – oil. The switch to renewable energy may cause something similar. As a new group of elements become valuable for turbines, solar panels or batteries, rich countries may ensure they have secure supplies through a new era of colonisation.

China has already started what may be termed “economic colonisation”, setting up major trade agreements to ensure raw material supply. In the past decade it has made a massive investment in African mining, while more recent agreements with countries such as Peru and Chile have spread Beijing’s economic influence in South America.

Or a new era of colonisation?

Given this background, two versions of the future can be envisaged. The first possibility is the evolution of a new OPEC-style organisation with the power to control vital resources including silicon, copper, lithium, and lanthanides. The second possibility involves 21st-century colonisation of developing countries, creating super-economies. In both futures there is the possibility that rival nations could cut off access to vital renewable energy resources, just as major oil and gas producers have done in the past.


On the positive side there is a significant difference between fossil fuels and the chemical elements needed for green energy. Oil and gas are consumable commodities. Once a natural gas power station is built, it must have a continuous supply of gas or it stops generating. Similarly, petrol-powered cars require a continued supply of crude oil to keep running.

In contrast, once a wind farm is built, electricity generation is only dependent on the wind (which won’t stop blowing any time soon) and there is no continuous need for neodymium for the magnets or copper for the generator windings. In other words solar, wind, and wave power require a one-off purchase in order to ensure long-term secure energy generation.

The shorter lifetime of cars and electronic devices means that there is an ongoing demand for lithium. Improved recycling processes would potentially overcome this continued need. Thus, once the infrastructure is in place access to coal, oil or gas can be denied, but you can’t shut off the sun or wind. It is on this basis that the US Department of Defense sees green energy as key to national security.

The ConversationA country that creates green energy infrastructure, before political and economic control shifts to a new group of “world powers”, will ensure it is less susceptible to future influence or to being held hostage by a lithium or copper giant. But late adopters will find their strategy comes at a high price. Finally, it will be important for countries with resources not to sell themselves cheaply to the first bidder in the hope of making quick money – because, as the major oil producers will find out over the next decades, nothing lasts forever.

Andrew Barron, Sêr Cymru Chair of Low Carbon Energy and Environment, Swansea University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.