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.
Legalize Weed. Or Don’t … Whatever, Just Pass the Funyuns.
Last year, Colorado legalized the recreational use of marijuana, thanks to a popular initiative. I was happy with the voters’ decision, even though I’m not a fan of weed and would recommend people avoid it. Our society doesn’t need another way to avoid reality, but the drug war has staggering costs, both in personal freedom and government spending. That’s why I’m happy to see a few states roll back the restrictions on something as commonplace as pot.
Earlier this week, Ohio voters rejected a referendum to legalize grass, though this proposal also created an unwieldy cartel to distribute the product. I was fine with Ohio voters’ decision, as well. My own state of Arizona is expected to have a ganga legalization vote next year and, though I’m currently undecided, I wouldn’t be surprised if I voted against it. So why am I fine with Coloradans and Washingtonians passing around blunts, and also fine with Ohio and Arizona just saying no? It’s not as inconsistent as it seems.
The first reason is federalism. What works in Delaware might not work in Idaho, so we don’t want our betters in the Beltway issuing one-size-fits-all mandates for both states. Obviously, the federal government is essential in deciding national issues like defense and foreign policy, but whenever possible local and regional governments should decide local and regional matters. Reefer madness isn’t exactly the biggest issue on DC’s plate right now. If California wants a top state income tax rate of 70 percent and Texas wants no state income tax at all, fantastic. May the best economic theory win.
Likewise, if Ohioans frown on patchouli-soaked hippies smoking the Devil’s Cabbage while Coloradans embrace them (while holding their breath, I hope), vive le différence. May a thousand buds bloom.
The second reason I’m not adamant about the push for immediate legalization everywhere is because I’m a conservatarian, and not a full-blown libertarian. We should increase liberty and use history as our guide to do so in the best way. As Russell Kirk wrote, “the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night.” Yes, change and reform can at times be good things, but “a people’s historic continuity of experience” is very good indeed. Our society was not created ex nihilo a week ago Tuesday, but evolved slowly while maintaining a healthy dose of custom, convention, and continuity.
The last reason is perhaps my most cynical: I would prefer that other states make the mistakes, adjust accordingly, and develop best practices over several years. After that, I’m happy for my own state to adopt their tried-and-true regime, saving countless wasted years, dollars, and perhaps lives. For its part, Arizona is pioneering education reforms that are being tweaked and slowly exported to other states. Why doesn’t Phoenix focus on school choice while Denver tackles the far less urgent policies regarding righteous Kush?
Maybe I’m not being cynical. According to Kirk, Aquinas — hey, go all the way back to Plato — Prudence is chief among virtues. In drug policy as in most others, there’s no need to rush into a half-baked proposal. Though it’s tough for politicians not to jump on the fashionable ideas of the moment, few voters will be harmed by taking a few extra years to roll back cheeba codes which have existed for nearly a century.
Is my viewpoint hypocritical or is it consistent in a roundabout way? Let me know in the comments. I’ll be over here with a bag of Funyuns, standing athwart history muttering, “just chill, man.”
Published in Law
I don’t see commercialized pot as a negative. I think it’s better that someone can go into a liquor store and have vast choices with known quality than to buy bathtub gin from a gangster. And I don’t think people are as susceptible to advertising as some might think. I’ve seen a fair number of ads and store displays for whiskey in my life and I’ve never bought a bottle of it, except when it was a gift for a friend. I wonder how many tens of thousands of times I have seen ads for Diet Pepsi. I’ve tasted it, it’s awful, and a million ads won’t persuade my to buy a can.
I’m glad you cited federalism. I’ve been disappointed in how few conservatives on Ricochet (or whatever they are) actually believe in it any more, except for cases where it doesn’t matter. Your approach is refreshing. I wish it was less rare.
How exact do we need to be? Is it OK to round the number to the nearest ten?
Spin, you;ve done a couple of ungood things here. First, you smuggle the term “world will end” into Jon’s mouth and refuted that. It’s a strawman by misquote. Second, do you smoke cigarettes? I invite anybody who uses the “one more state legalizing drugs ain’t gonna end the world” argument to take up smoking. After all, one cigarette isn’t going to kill you. That’s just crazy talk.
This is a good thing? To use government power to restrict business and consumer choice?
Like alcohol, which is orders of magnitude more dangerous than pot?
Deciding things on the state, or better yet local, level is better than at the federal level, but that still doesn’t make it good policy to make pot illegal.
Federalism is a great way to keep bad policies from affecting too many people with too little ability to make changes, but it is not a cure all for bad policy.
This analogy is stretched at best. There is less evidence for the pernicious effects of pot than alcohol and yet I don’t see people calling for the reintroduction of prohibition.
Surely they sell Lottery Tickets also? Red Bull and Gasoline?
I did not say that. There is lots of room between the War on Drugs and legalization, more than I can go into with 250 characters.
Can we retire this argument? We know more about alcohol because it has wider use. Alcohol causes more problems because it has wider use. Alcohol has been part of culture since the dawn of civilization, pot as not. Pot has never been used mainstream in a western culture.
You see the point, right? If we had as wide spread of use of pot as we did drinking, it would be bad for pot too. Maybe not as bad for DUI, but pot stays in your body for far longer, and gets accumulated in your brain. I have seem heavy users take 6 months or more to clear up.
But what do I know? This is just my job.
Besides that, my analogy was about the single snowflake, not the ground upon which it falls. No single snowflake believes it is to blame for the avalanche. But far be it from me to stand in the way of a pernicious strawman getting a well-deserved ass-kicking.
Federalism is great, but when you live in a state like California, where the state government consists of “regulators gone wild,” it doesn’t help very much. Federal laws and regulations are almost unnoticed in California because, whatever subject you’re talking about, state law is more restrictive than federal law.
Well, many of us would like to be free of the influence that your state has in DC.
It won’t be long before there is no one left in California except illegal aliens. One can hope that having no legal voters will lessen California’s clout. Me, I moved out this year.
It’s already illegal, so restricting it’s promotion is hardly imposing new government restrictions on business. The objective should be to reduce the use and profits from heroine, cocaine, etc. and the harm the business does to all it touches. It would be insane to allow some business to promote heroine or cocaine use and the rigid insistence on treating these toxic substances as chewing gum is the reason we can’t kill the war on drugs. So if you like the war on drugs by all means remain rigidly libertarian. As to weed. We won’t know what harm it does until it’s been widespread for years but what purpose does it serve to treat it like wine, or like cigarettes the way we did in the 50s .
If it weren’t for federalism, all states might be like California. So how can you say it doesn’t help?
I said it doesn’t help the people who happen to be in California. Which is why I left. I suppose leaving the state is less of a disruption than leaving the country, but it is far from ideal. Trust me.
But I also said “Federalism is great.” I don’t think we have a disagreement here. Happily for me, there is a city I really like, that is a four hour drive from Los Angeles, in a state with no income tax, and which is as close to a libertarian mecca as exists in the world. Viva la Federalism! It’s not perfect, but it’s better than nothing.
Not to focus on the irrelevant, but I’m impressed with the range of terminology in the OP: Marijuana, pot, weed, grass, ganga, devil’s cabbage, righteous kush, and cheeba, not to mention reefer, blunt, and buds.
Heeey man, don’t bogart that hipster thesaurus.
That reminds me, maybe a week ago I saw an article somewhere that said it’s wrong for English speakers to use the word marijuana, because the word is of Spanish origin. So add that to the list of words that gringos can’t use. Somewhere this conversation taking place between two college students:
Hey, I just scored some marijuana. Want to fire up?
You can’t call it that. That’s a microagression against Hispanics. But, yes.
Oh brother, it’s come to this, has it? Here’s what you do, tell them from me that Marijuana is the Latin appropriation of Mary Jane, and the English took those two names from the Norse invaders and corrupted them, the original being Maarta Jaana. Though I’m not a user, I’m claiming the term back for my culture. Big tokers, the Vikings.
I for one would be all in favor of that, but as a law-and-order conservative it bugs me when laws on the books are selectively enforced. That just gives too much discretion to officials and leads to rule by men rather than rule of law.
For that reason alone I’d love to see the next GOP administration send in the DEA to raid and shut down pot shops in Colorado and the “medical” pot dispensaries here in California. At least it would force the issue, plus it might even prompt some lefties to reconsider their belief that “states rights” is just a dog whistle for racism.
This kind of expertise, it’s a surfer thing .. :)
Yeah, if any of you were thinking of researching this, I wouldn’t bother. It’s a Dan Ratherish/Clintonian kind of accurate.
Half-baked, heh.
Uff… … … … DAAAAAA
Thank God for Google, haw, haw.
Or you could just count for them how many English words they used telling you about it.
Whenever people tell me that marijuana has fewer health effects than alcohol or tobacco, I assume they are a stoner. I knew some engineering students who were stoners. Nice people, but they were smart when they started toking, and kind of dumb after a few years of it. It had a cumulative effect.
I think our current war on drugs is at an unhappy medium — not repressive enough to actually reduce drug use, but repressive enough to harm our civil liberties and constitutional order.
I would support legalizing drugs at a federal level, with the states free to regulate or ban as they see fit — as long as businesses were free to perform drug tests and free to discriminate against legal drug users (including alcohol and tobacco). Let each state decide their own policies — and people will migrate to where the laws and society suite them.
How wonderfully condescending of you.
Tends to be true however; Users seem to be more concerned about the absence of health effects than non-users.