Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
This perennial burner came up yet again in Mr. Bildo’s thread about a marijuana initiative in Washington. The question seems to be often raised on Ricochet yet rarely answered: can we legalize risky recreational activities (such as gambling, marijuana, motorcycle riding without helmets, etc.) when we have the safety nets of welfare and Medicaid, or will the moral hazard bankrupt the state? So let’s have at it.
Here is my take. Most people know how to act responsibly, and those who don’t are already engaging in self-destructive behavior, legal or not. My sense is that if someone is responsible enough to refrain from a desirable activity because it is currently illegal, they are probably responsible enough to retain control over themselves when that activity is allowed. Are there really that many people teetering on the border between self-responsibility and loss of control?
The idea that the moral hazard of welfare is equivalent to that of a bank bailout is also questionable. Does any motorcyclist think to themselves, “I don’t need a helmet; if I become a paraplegic, Medicaid will look after me!”? Of course not. No one plans to become addicted to gambling or dependent on pot, and thus no one partaking in these activities would consider welfare a contingency plan if things go south. And knowing that no one will help you if you become addicted is not a deterrent if you don’t believe it can happen to you.
I think we have only a poor understanding of what causes people to become charges of the state. Is marijuana abuse, or gambling addiction, a cause or a symptom of one’s inability to assume personal responsibility? I believed it is a symptom – as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of those who have ever gambled or smoked pot have no lasting problems. The inability to care for oneself is likely ingrained at a very early age.
In fact, the most pernicious cause of dependency, next to a poor economy and horrible educational system, is probably the welfare state itself. Welfare destroys strong families, employment, and self-reliance – all of which are much stronger determinants of one’s fate than whether some soft vices are legally available. In that sense, removing people from welfare roles is much more important than any expansion of individual freedoms into recreational areas – but I don’t think the two have much, if anything, to do with each other.
Enough rambling from me. Anyone else have an opinion?
- Comment (145)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
Disclaimer: while I consider myself to be a libertarian, these "individual freedom" issues aren't really my hobby horse. But since the question keeps popping up, I thought it might be nice to focus on it.
Jul '10
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
"Self destructive behavior" is somewhat open to debate, very much depending on one's point of view. I, for instance, ride motorcycles from time to time. While I happen to wear a helmet, I fully understand those who don't. Flying airplanes, racing autos, etc. can all be defined by some as self-destructive behavior.
A better overall answer, I would think, is your libertarian stance, which would give people freedom while leaving them responsible for their own actions. That seems harsh, but it is the lesson of life that is necessary. One can be saddened that someone didn't buy health insurance when they could have, as a recent article in the NYT had, but how else does one allow one to choose. ?Why is such a decision to be totally society's care, while things like combat loss only slightly so.
If you are truly free then you can only choose if you are also responsible for such choice. Choice is risk, and no risk is no choice.
May '11
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
Mendel, you have so much there that I apologize in advance for the length and/or of my reply. I will start by saying that I would also call myself something of a libertarian, but like you, I do not consider any of this a hobby horse.
I do, however, work in criminal defense. A vast majority of my clients engage in drug/alcohol use (to an extent that I consider harmful), and literally all of them are on the public dole (by definition, as I am a public service).
I agree with much of what you've said, but I think you understate the amount that things become a lifestyle and are taken for granted. While it is true that those people who would refrain from illegal activity due to it's being illegal are the same people who would not abuse drugs in the first place, I don't think most people's rational decision-making is quite that deliberate. Your point illustrates a way in which our criminal justice system is broken - which I've addressed in other posts, and will address in one I plan to write this evening - but
(cont...)
May '11
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
(...cont)
- but I would disagree that the two (drugs and welfare) are quite as disconnected as you suggest. I don't have any clients who tell me that they use drugs because they know that the government will bail them out. But at the same time, one of the things I do on a daily basis is have lengthy conversations with these folks. What I really sense is a mindset that is fostered by so many of the things that the state does. They do not anymore consider welfare a bailout, but a right. They really do buy into Obama's rhetoric that they are owed by those "millionaires and billionaires," and they also buy into the leftist rhetoric that society is to blame for all of their problems. Drugs are something that they get into as part of a larger attitude that revolves around a lack of responsibility-taking. They may not think about the fact that the state will be there with WIC to care for their kids, will be there with SSI and unemployment, will be there with foodstamps; but that doesn't change the fact that the government is there with these things. (cont...)
May '11
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
(...cont) So whether they consciously think about it or not, their decision making is directly influenced by government action.
One holdout remnant of accountability is our legal system. I know this sounds terribly non-libertarian, but drug use really is something that rides the line; especially marijuana. I think we can all agree that Bloomberg's soda ban or San Fransisco's happy meal ban is pure insanity. But if you've ever seen the effects of crystal meth, then you are unlikely to lump those things all together as protected freedoms. At some point, we actually do have a representative democratic system whereby certain laws are enacted for the good of the nation as a whole. I am in 100% agreement with those who say this is dangerous ground to tread, but let's not forget that the slippery slope, as a disqualifying argument, is still a logical fallacy.
I know I am being a bit disjointed, so I will try to wrap it up and hope for some conversation. I am going to acknowledge the limitations of this thread (and hope that others do the same) as involving the relationship between drugs and welfare only. (cont...)
May '11
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
we can talk all day long about the dangers of drugs or whatever else - and as I alluded to above, I think that we can sometimes even vote morality (though we have to be extremely careful with that sort of thing), just considering the sort of environment we want our kids to grow up in, how we want to present ourselves as a nation, etc.... but that is off topic.
As far as welfare is concerned, I think that our state doesn't just encourage dependency, it creates an atmosphere, followed by attitudes - really, a way of life. This has an effect even on people who are otherwise responsible... I think it is the only thing (in this country) that could have given rise to something like OWS.
Lastly, Fred mentioned in that other thread "can I renounce welfare and keep my freedoms?" That's a bit like asking "can I stop using the roads and not pay taxes?" No, you cannot. As much as we might idealize individualism, we have to face the fact that we live in a society. In a society it is possible for a few bad seeds to ruin something for everyone... (cont...)
Sep '12
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
Dude. Pot and welfare go together like chocolate and peanut butter.
More seriously: I'm personally opposed to marijuana use, though not passionately so. I'm very uncomfortably ambivalent about its legalization, largely because of what Ryan is saying (assuming I understand him correctly).
The welfare state creates a serious problem in a world of maximum personal liberty because some people are prone to sexually, financially, and chemically irresponsible behavior. The welfare state enables these people to live truly parasitic, socially destructive lives. And some of them are even aware that it does so.
Some people are happy to live very depraved, and short, lives as long they're not too uncomfortable while they're conscious.
May '11
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
(...cont) and in a society, it isn't really possible to bow out. As conservatives, we have to at least admit to some of the premises of liberals. We simply are not all Randian individualists. This country could not run on that sort of attitude; it was not founded on that, and it was most certainly not made great by Randian thinking. Quasi-libertarian beliefs form a cornerstone of our system of freedoms, but there is at least something of a collectivity of morality. At least, there was. It may be that this country is fundamentally changing, and is simply no longer the country that it started out as. Maybe we have a fork in the road with Randian individualism on one side and marxist collectivism on the other. I don't think that is the case. I think that we need to recognize that there are values that we still want to foster for the good of everyone - it sounds "progressive" but it isn't. They are lying (or stupid) when they say that we are evil and we don't care about people ... and those extreme libertarian arguments only encourage that notion (cont... last time, I promise)
Sep '12
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
I forgot to add that I see the welfare state as an immovable object at this time. There's just not enough public support to either shrink it or remove it at this point--at least that's how it looks to me.
May '11
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
(...cont) Which means we need to make ourselves a bit more clear. We actually do (as I said) want to foster values that will benefit our country as a collective. I believe that welfare moves us in the wrong direction. I also believe that drugs lead us in the wrong direction. Whether there is a direct causality or even correlation I really cannot say (without further research), but I think it would be foolish to allow both at the same time. I would much prefer to tackle the welfare issue, because that is to accomplish something that I think is undeniably good. If we can begin a trend to break people out of a mindset that discourages personal responsibility and accountability - then I am far more in favor of drug legalization. But I think that it needs to be a matter of priorities, and to prioritize legalization of drugs just seems counterproductive.
******
ok. sorry about that awful disjointed rant. I hope it wasn't too far off topic.
Edited on October 19, 2012 at 7:42amMar '11
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
Ryan, thanks for your response - I wrote much of the post anticipating your response. Although now that I see its length, I wonder if it might have been better for you to write the post and me to comment on it....
In general, I think we are on the same wavelength: that welfare, and the dependency (and expectation of more welfare) it engenders are by far the biggest problem. Welfare is the cause, drugs a symptom of dependence on the state.
I also agree that drugs and welfare dependency are often intertwined, and that drug use aggravates and enhances that dependency. But would legalizing the "softer" drugs make that problem any worse than it is now? Would welfare recipients really smoke more pot than they already do if it were legalized - because my impression from your post is that they already consume about as much as they can.
And do you detect a class of non-pot smokers who are barely staying off welfare, that would start smoking and move onto welfare if it were legalized? Maybe these people exist, but I am skeptical.
Mar '11
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
Sadly, I agree.
But I also sense that some conservative commentators use the permanence of welfare as a way to pay lip service to drug liberalization without having to actually support it. "I'm for legalizing pot, but only when we drastically reduce the welfare state" is, in my opinion, something of a copout.
Drug legalization isn't high on my list (heh), but if it is coming up for a vote, I think we should discuss it on its merits and not hide behind a "it'll flood the hospitals and shelters" argument that likely has no basis in reality.
May '11
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
well - on that point, I kind of have to concede. I am not sure what effect it would actually have. I can say that the majority of pot smokers are state dependent, and I think that if we legalized, the number of users would go up. But I also know people (I'd be lying to say I've never smoked pot) who smoke and are not dependent.
I guess I am just given great pause by the people I encounter every day. We kind of have to face the facts that pot doesn't really have any positive effects - I have heard all of the arguments, and I simply don't buy them. It is harmless recreation at best.
So when we talk about legalization, I just consider that so far down the list of priorities it isn't even funny. And when people say our laws don't work, I kind of agree. But I'd make penalties WAY harsher. How about you smoke and drive and get into a wreck you have an automatic 30 days in jail? That sort of thing. Criminal law needs to actually bite, or nobody cares.
Nov '11
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
Wow, these are especially long replies.
And I am way too high to read them right now, so I'm gonna just c&p what I said in the other thread and then come back later.
There's a couple of things
1. If I renounce any future welfare benefits, can I have my freedom back?
2. The whole idea of dismantling the welfare state prior to legalization is premised on the idea that as soon as legalization happens, millions of people will begin consuming drugs, their life will get [expletive] up, and they'll get on the dole.
This ignores two things:
First, plenty of people who aren't on the dole smoke marijuana already.
Second, plenty of people on the dole already smoke marijuana.
Sep '12
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
I don't know how strong a prediction one can make, one way or the other, about whether pot use would go up or down among welfare-dependent people if pot is legalized.
Legalization, in addition to removing criminal penalties, makes pot more mainstream. I have a hard time believing that mainstreaming would have no effect. But I am, I admit, speculating.
Jun '12
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
Mendel, good thread. I consider our family a stable family. Yet had pot been legalized when our teenager was home, it would have been impossible to stop him from experimenting as he had with alcohol. The problem with pot and meth, being more addictive and the mindset it creates. Every time he felt sad or unhappy, he can zone out easily with a small dosage of drugs. I am quite certain he would have lost his fighting spirit altogether. Even with our helicopter support, being a child from divorced parents have left him scars that withdrew him with periodic burst of depression. I could always tell when he was down. If he had been on drugs, I probably missed all the opportunities to work through with him about solving life's problems. He would not have made it to college, much less, one of the most prestigious in this country. He is 20 now and I have completely no say in his life. I am quite sure, he would have ended up relying on the welfare system. Look at all the countries who has legalized drugs, then look at those we are tough on drugs and you have your answer.
Jun '12
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
Fred Cole: .
This ignores two things:
First, plenty of people who aren't on the dole smoke marijuana already.
Second, plenty of people on the dole already smoke marijuana. · 1 hour ago
As freedom supporters, I agree the argument for legalizing marijuana is strong. So is the argument for prostitution. While we are at it, why not murder. Just because someone is allow to kill doesn't necessary mean they will go out and actually kill another person.
Nov '11
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
Joan Greathouse
As freedom supporters, I agree the argument for legalizing marijuana is strong. So is the argument for prostitution. While we are at it, why not murder. Just because someone is allow to kill doesn't necessary mean they will go out and actually kill another person. · 6 minutes ago
Really, Joan?
Murder directly impacts a third party, the person being murdered, who most likely didn't consent to it.
I don't know what else I need to say. Do I really need to swat this down?
Nov '11
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
I mean, if I promise, you can write it into law, no welfare for me.
I consent to that. In fact, if you want, I won't even pay into the welfare system.
Can I just politely decline welfare?
And then can I be allowed to decide what I put into my own body?
Nov '11
Re: Can We Have Pot and Welfare?
Joan Greathouse:
He would not have made it to college, much less, one of the most prestigious in this country. He is 20 now and I have completely no say in his life. I am quite sure, he would have ended up relying on the welfare system. Look at all the countries who has legalized drugs, then look at those we are tough on drugs and you have your answer. · 18 minutes ago
Joan, not for nothing, but how do you know your kid never used marijuana?