Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
Thus far, the best justification for legalizing marijuana has been put forth by Ricochet's Joe Escalante. "Prop 19 would be a blow to the Mexican Drug Cartels," Joe argues. "[It] would drive them out of business or at least throw a wrench into their operations." Judging by the comments in Joe's conversation, it seems that the Ricochetoisie agree with his stance, by and large. And if not with Joe's particular premise, then at least with one of the arguments that Claire articulated.
But I've yet to be persuaded. I simply fail to see how society has anything to gain from legalizing pot. And articulating the counter-argument to the notion that legalizing pot would put any dent whatsoever in the business of the drug cartels, Ricochet member and Daily Caller contributor Scott Erickson:
What many in the drug legalization crowd fail to recognize is that government, in its infinite wisdom, will ultimately distort this newly legitimate marketplace to such a degree that it will render the perceived benefits of its creation insignificant. In its zeal to capitalize on what it sees as a major new source of revenue, government will popularize marijuana use among the general public and, through overzealous taxation and regulation, fail to reduce the aforementioned black market and all of its attendant criminality...
While Proposition 19 would make the possession and recreational use of marijuana legal in California, levying a ten percent tax on those selling it lawfully, coupled with a host of other fees related to its cultivation, will increase its cost to such a degree that many pot smokers will simply continue to buy their weed from sources unencumbered by the state’s regulations, e.g. drug dealers.
- Comment (31)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
Hmm... I remain indifferent but wary towards drug legalization.
I used to be merely indifferent, but reading this essay by Theodore Dalrymple (both because I respect his hands-on experience with the issue and because he is such a fine writer) caused me to feel a renewed surge of wariness.
In particular, he raises the following point:
"...if the use of narcotics and stimulants were to become virtually universal, as is by no means impossible, the number of situations in which compulsory checks upon people would have to be carried out, for reasons of public safety, would increase enormously. Pharmacies, banks, schools, hospitals—indeed, all organizations dealing with the public—might feel obliged to check regularly and randomly on the drug consumption of their employees. The general use of such drugs would increase the locus standi of innumerable agencies, public and private, to interfere in our lives; and freedom from interference, far from having increased, would have drastically shrunk." (italics mine)
He concludes, "The present situation is bad, undoubtedly; but few are the situations so bad that they cannot be made worse by a wrong policy decision."
This prediction gave me pause, at least.
Jul '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
What was Erickson smoking when he wrote that?
Alcohol is regulated and highly taxed, but I can't remember the last time I ever met a moonshine vendor.
Legalized marijuana could be produced very cheaply. Think about it: why would the actual production cost of marijuana be higher than, say, broccoli? Actually, given marijuana's shelf-life and the lack of need for refrigeration, it should be cheaper to produce and bring to market than broccoli.
Drug gangs, on the other hand, have high distribution costs: bribes, payments to mules, the loss of seized product, "security" expenses. There is simply no way they can compete with cheap, legal product.
Will government get greedy with marijuana taxation? Of course. But as the insane taxes on cigarettes demonstrate, people will still service their vice so long as the product is readily available and the sanctions for sale and possession of unauthorized product are stiff enough.
There may be good reasons to oppose legalization, but Scott Erickson's argument is not among them.
Jun '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
If it passes, it'll be one more reason for the more serious and level-headed among us to avoid opening a new business or office in California. It wouldn't make me want to live there.
Jul '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: Hmm... I remain indifferent but wary towards drug legalization.
I used to be merely indifferent, but reading this essay by Theodore Dalrymple (both because I respect his hands-on experience with the issue and because he is such a fine writer) caused me to feel a renewed surge of wariness.
In particular, he raises the following point:
"...if the use of narcotics and stimulants were to become virtually universal, as is by no means impossible, the number of situations in which compulsory checks upon people would have to be carried out, for reasons of public safety, would increase enormously. Pharmacies, banks, schools, hospitals—indeed, all organizations dealing with the public—might feel obliged to check regularly and randomly on the drug consumption of their employees.
Dalrymple seems to be waaaay out of touch with the ubiquity of drug testing in the United States. The overwhelming majority of employers do pre-employment testing. Those employers who have jobs with potential safety issues, such as trucking, do random tests. Schools require drug testing for kids who want to participate in sports programs.
In other words, we're already where he fears we might be.
Jul '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
Man, that comment really harshed my mellow...
Jul '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
Dude! Mellow! The whole pot legalization thing fascinates me. My libertarian side (and my '70s college persona) make me scream "it's not big a deal".
But you know what? Even if we were to legalize pot, those badass Mexican gangs would just find a new venue of corruption. There is such a difference between the sides of the border that there will always be something to make illegal money doing.
Jul '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
Patrick Shanahan: Dude! Mellow! The whole pot legalization thing fascinates me. My libertarian side (and my '70s college persona) make me scream "it's not big a deal".
But you know what? Even if we were to legalize pot, those badass Mexican gangs would just find a new venue of corruption. There is such a difference between the sides of the border that there will always be something to make illegal money doing. · Oct 8 at 7:12pm
Like smuggling Al Qaeda cadres across the border....
Jul '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
I'm agnostic on the whole legalization thing, by the way.
One of our dirty little secrets is the true societal costs of alcohol.
I'm no expert, but I rarely hear about marijuana-fueled domestic violence or marijuana-induced cirrhosis.
To the extent that people replace alcohol consumption with marijuana consumption, perhaps we'd be better off?
Aug '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
well Clinton empowered another previously highly taboo practice to become a universally low limbo and the weeds culture becomes a somehow suitable subject one is formerly deviate sex the other is dope how have they completely reversed all values ? a world gone awry fun for sure media dream society nightmare cultural meltdown sad
Aug '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
Kenneth
Dalrymple seems to be waaaay out of touch with the ubiquity of drug testing in the United States. The overwhelming majority of employers do pre-employment testing. Those employers who have jobs with potential safety issues, such as trucking, do random tests. Schools require drug testing for kids who want to participate in sports programs.
In other words, we're already where he fears we might be.
What I envision when I read Dr Dalrymple's words is a testing regime 100 to 1000 times more intrusive than what we have already. Like being pulled over by traffic cops for no reason other than random drug testing. Or having drug tests become part of the routine confiscation that happens before standardized exams.
Perhaps I have been lucky -- or perhaps I'm such an obviously boring person -- that I, at least, have avoided drug testing altogether, except for the occasional emergency-room visit. This despite having had jobs where I teach and mentor kids (!)
I hesitate to say this, as I'd guess you pride yourself in yielding to no-one in your pessimism, but are you being pessimistic enough? Think of how much worse it could get!
Edited on Oct 8, 2010 at 9:31pmJul '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
By the way, have we drug-tested Meg Whitman? I just heard one of her radio ads and I swear she's gotta be on some sort of downer.
That woman needs to smoke crack...punch up the volume.
(Yeah, I know this is off-topic. Shoot me.)
Jul '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
I hesitate to say this, as I'd guess you pride yourself in yielding to no-one in your pessimism, but are you being pessimistic enough? Think of how much worse it could get! · Oct 8 at 7:24pm
Wow, do you misunderstand me! I am - honestly - an extremely optimistic person.
Well, on a personal level.
Otherwise, I'm absolutely convinced the world is going to heck in a handbasket, but since I'm aging and childless, that's not my problem.
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
My puritanical proclivities predispose me to believe that the popularization of pot would be a net loss to society. I love liberty because it frees us to pursue virtue. But I will not fight for the species of liberty that expressly enables us to pursue vice.
This isn't any sort of argument. It's just perhaps the reason I'm so hard to persuade on this subject.
Jul '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
Diane Ellis, Ed.: My puritanical proclivities predispose me to believe that the popularization of pot would be a net loss to society. I love liberty because it frees us to pursue virtue. But I will not fight for the species of liberty that expressly enables us to pursue vice.
This isn't any sort of argument. It's just perhaps the reason I'm so hard to persuade on this subject. · Oct 8 at 7:41pm
Well, I'm no puritan, but I'm inclined to agree with you. During my lifetime we've gone from "Leave it to Beaver" and "Lassie" to Kim Kardashian sex tapes and Tila Tequila.
I'm hard-pressed to think of a liberal "advance" in our culture that hasn't been a disaster.
Aug '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
Kenneth:
I'm no expert, but I rarely hear about marijuana-fueled domestic violence or marijuana-induced cirrhosis.
I don't know about marijuana-fueled domestic violence or cirrhosis, but temporary marijuana-induced psychosis? Even in my limited experience, I've seen it, and psychosis tends to beget violence.
Interestingly, Wikipedia claims that the effect of smoking marijuana on the lungs is simply not well-studied. Weird, I thought (but then I'm so allergic to the smoke of the stuff that even being briefly in the same house with it means reaching for for the rescue inhaler and antihistamines).
My very limited experience is that marijuana seems to combine the impaired judgment of alcohol with the secondhand-smoke problems of tobacco. (At least there is no secondhand alcohol effect.) But my anecdotes hardly constitute a justification for policy one way or the other.
Edited on Oct 8, 2010 at 8:57pmAug '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
I'm against Prop 19. As I've stated in a previous comments on a Ricochet post on drug legalization I don't buy the idea that the drug cartels, or gangs, will lose any power or influence by legalizing pot. Either they will undercut whatever the price is of government-pot, or they'll provide a "better" product. If one avenue is cut-off they'll just find another one. I don't think it's as simple as legalize pot, and the drug cartels will take their ball and go home.
I also agree with Diane and Kenneth's responses in comments #13 and #14.
Plus, I'm tired of being near pot-heads at concerts, and legalization will only exacerbate the problem...
Jul '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
Diane Ellis, Ed.: My puritanical proclivities predispose me to believe that the popularization of pot would be a net loss to society. I love liberty because it frees us to pursue virtue. But I will not fight for the species of liberty that expressly enables us to pursue vice.
This isn't any sort of argument. It's just perhaps the reason I'm so hard to persuade on this subject. · Oct 8 at 7:41pm
See, Diane? As I said yesterday, I find Ricochet folks like yourself often persuade me to change my views. I came into this agnostic but find your simple moral argument influential.
May '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
Some random thoughts:
It's much more common for people to go to work or school stoned than drunk. While I've known people who drank every night, I've never met someone who was drunk 24/7. Not so with marijuana. I agree with those who expect this to hurt California's image with potential employers and visitors.
California will gain "tourists" from other states. But it will also face people smuggling marijuana out.
A joint might lack carcinogens, but it's equivalent to a filterless cigarette in regard to ash and tar. Government will eventually demand filters, though not immediately.
One or more cigarette companies will enter the market. They will blend marijuana with chemicals, as they do with tobacco.
As wine often affects people differently than beer or hard liquor, there are many kinds of weed. Some are more powerful than others. Some are laced with hallucinogens.
I agree with those who believe legalization of marijuana will not hurt the cartels in the long run (though it might in the short term) and there will remain a black market. As someone suggested before, this will provide them a great opportunity to create front companies.
Edited on Oct 8, 2010 at 9:19pmMay '10
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
As my friend's drug dealer told him not too long ago, "you better vote against legalizing pot, cos you certainly won't get any quality stuff at this price once the government takes it over".
Re: Are You Sure You Want to Put Government In Charge of Regulating Pot?
Kenneth
See, Diane? As I said yesterday, I find Ricochet folks like yourself often persuade me to change my views. I came into this agnostic but find your simple moral argument influential. · Oct 8 at 8:31pm
Wow. Influencing Kenneth. That's got to be one of my life's crowning achievements right there.