Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Let’s Just Criminalize Prohibition
As marijuana legalization and decriminalization gains traction nationwide — DC this morning, as well as Alaska, the first red state to decriminalize — I can’t help but feel that it is inevitable that my own home state of New Jersey will follow suit sooner rather than later. Although New Jersey can, at times, feel like living in a liberty hinterland, the state’s blueish nature should, at least theoretically, lead to gains on the civil liberties front. Nonetheless, we still find that our politicians rely upon old saws in constructing their political positions on the intoxicant.
For instance, take the claim that marijuana is a gateway drug that will lead to a general decline of society. Assemblywoman Mary Pat Angelini (R-Monmouth) is putting together an anti-legalization activist group. Its platform will include arguments relating to “health and incarceration statistics about marijuana users, and questions about additional costs that might be incurred as a result of legalization.”
I’m certain the assemblywoman means well, but, frankly, the tide of facts and history moves against her efforts. Without having the benefit of really being able to parse her incipient group’s position, it seems hard to believe that legalized marijuana will do anything but dry up a significant portion of the criminal trafficking in our state and nation. Thus, at the outset, a major social cost related to enforcing prohibition disappears — if not overnight, then very quickly.
No doubt, there would be health care costs borne by society for people who choose to smoke marijuana — but society must already bearing those costs. I am not a user of marijuana, but I am pretty sure someone within my immediate circle is and could get it for me. Prohibition has not done much to dissuade users, it has only provided a steady supply of inmates to prisons. Thus, whatever healthcare costs marijuana imposes are already being imposed, and prohibition has done nothing to stop that.
Further, granting the assemblywoman’s belief that the use of marijuana will be similar to the use of alcohol — and thus may require police to become involved in domestic disputes because combatants are high — the argument is still unpersuasive. Society must surely already be dealing with this problem (if it even exists).
Further, the logical implications on this point are disturbing. The assemblywoman directly draws a parallel to the use of alcohol in citing the undesirability of citizens having legal access to marijuana. The implication lurking behind this — though I am not at all certain it is what the assemblywoman intended — is that prohibition as a general social policy should be more extensive. Maybe it should include alcohol?
In a free society, we need to put up with each other’s vices so long as they do not directly harm or interfere with our lives. I would expect my neighbor not to get high around my kids or blow smoke in my face, just the same way I would expect him not to tie one on and stumble around my yard completely drunk. I would never expect my neighbor to be unable to drink or smoke whatever he wanted on his own property or with his own social circles.
Yes, there are healthcare costs to smoking (anything), just like there are healthcare costs to skydiving, being obese, serving food with peanuts, playing hockey… and so on. Life itself is a risky proposition, and our means of controlling our fear of death and the unknown cannot be to rob it of all flavor. We are surely more mature than that as a people.
(edited to add in “decriminalization” as per EJ’s comment below)
Published in General
Nope never heard of the stuff, but I noticed that you changed the argument and then went off on a complete bender.
We are talking about prohibition here. There is absolutely nothing in your argument that would be different if this were 1925 and we were talking about alcohol.
I.E moonshine is stronger than rye therefore…
Prohibition encourages higher concentrations and potency. Legalization is the only way to control that.
Omitted in these let’s keep the prohibition on arguments is the fact that none of these scary things change by keeping it illegal.
The fact that people can abuse substances and kill themselves and others is not an argument for prohibition. IF you could effectively outlaw and significantly reduce substance abuse, then the prohibitor nannys might have an argument. But it has been proven that they can’t, no matter how many trillions have been spent and relatively innocent lives ruined and sidetracked.
Through the years the reliance on scaremongering and demonization has backfired and those who have been snowed by that propaganda rely on lazy, outdated arguments.
The arguments don’t even address the problem they themselves supposedly are arguing for. Here is what is implied at least in their do-goodery of prohibition.
They want to reduce the use and availability of presently illegal drugs, right?
How does prohibition accomplish that? What is the track record?
The want to keep it out of the hands of vulnerable young people. Prohibition actually exacerbates that problem. Consider how tobacco is everywhere gasoline is sold and relatively cheap. Smoking among teens has gone down significantly in the last ten years. How did that happen?
I think these folks really want to believe that the pot laws are being enforced effectively and that just a little more needs to be done and the problem -as it exists – would be solved. They are living in complete fantasy.
They also apparently want to hang onto the notion that they still hold some credibility and effectiveness using these ridiculous arguments that seem to persuade the already alarmed and ignorant, but no one else. As though the horse hasn’t already left the barn.
The fact that drugs are bad, mkay is not an argument. Do these folks want to outlaw all the things that are bad or could be abused?
I cannot help but disagree with Mr. Stout and agree with Assemblywoman Angelini and Governor Jerry Brown. I don’t have a solid argument against legalization or decriminalization but my common sense makes me think a more potheads is a bad outcome for our society (That does not necessarily have to follow decriminalization but I suspect it does). I can see that decriminalization cures some problems associated with enforcement and black markets and I like that, but are we really sure this is a good idea? I am eager to see the medium term results in the states that have decriminalized.