| Scenario | What Indiana Does | Result for Residents | Fiscal / Policy Consequences | Indiana Fiscal Repercussions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active Regulation | Passes enabling laws, licenses retailers, sets zoning/tax rules. | Residents can buy cannabis locally through licensed outlets (dispensaries, liquor stores, or hybrid models depending on state choice). | Captures state excise/sales tax revenue, creates jobs, and shapes retail landscape. Keeps control over zoning and consumer protections. | Indiana could capture $150M–$250M annually in new state tax revenue, plus job creation in cultivation, processing, and retail. Savings from reduced enforcement/incarceration estimated at $30M–$50M per year. Net effect: strong fiscal gain and local economic development. |
| Ban | Explicitly prohibits retail cannabis sales within the state. | Residents may legally possess and cultivate under federal law, but cannot buy in‑state. They may travel to other states for purchases. | No state revenue; enforcement costs remain. State risks losing commerce to neighbors while still living under federal legality. | Indiana forfeits an estimated $150M–$250M annually in potential tax revenue. Enforcement costs continue at ~$30M/year. Border states (Illinois, Michigan, Ohio if they regulate) capture Indiana consumer spending. |
| Do Nothing | Passes no new laws; takes no action. | Residents can legally possess and cultivate under federal rules, but no retail system exists. Effectively a “dry state” for cannabis. | Forfeits tax revenue and regulatory control. Interstate shipments may pass through but cannot be sold locally. | Indiana loses the same $150M–$250M annually in potential revenue as in a ban scenario. Enforcement costs decline slightly (since possession is federally legal), but without retail, the state gains no fiscal upside. Net effect: Indiana becomes a pass‑through state, with residents spending in Illinois or Michigan. |
Bottom line for Indiana: Choosing to regulate means hundreds of millions in new revenue and reduced enforcement costs. Choosing to ban or do nothing means Hoosiers’ dollars flow to neighboring states while Indiana shoulders enforcement costs without fiscal benefit.