Legalization

[JDoors]

We agree on something?

[Matt]

Here's an interesting video. It goes against Obama, and I agree.

What a Harvard Professor and Republican Ron Paul have to say about legalization:

[JDoors]

I don't know what this says about the online audience.

Just what is he saying? That people who use the internet are pot smoking law-breakers? Nice.

I don't believe that is a good way to grow the economy.

THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. God I'm sick of lawyer-speak.

Then it goes off on the usual disasterous argument comparing marijuana to alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and tobacco kill tens of thousands of people and destroys tens of thousands of families EVERY YEAR. The government sure makes a ton o' money off of those products though (Gee, ya wonder if that's why 'legalization' is getting traction all of a sudden?), so to hell with people's lives. Just promise to spend the money on medical care, "the children," prevention, PSA's, you know, all the usual "good stuff." Politicians don't keep their promises but hey, whatever it takes to grow the government, right?

You're playing right into their hands.

[Matt]

So then why did the prohibition of alcohol fail so miserably? Isn't it possible that marijuana is a similar scenario?

but hey, whatever it takes to grow the government, right?

Ron Paul is likely the biggest supporter of small government in all of congress.

THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. God I'm sick of lawyer-speak.

Then it goes off on the usual disasterous argument comparing marijuana to alcohol and tobacco. Alcohol and tobacco kill tens of thousands of people and destroys tens of thousands of families EVERY YEAR. The government sure makes a ton o' money off of those products though (Gee, ya wonder if that's why 'legalization' is getting traction all of a sudden?),

I agree that wasn't the question. But its the main point of your argument.

How about what Representative Paul said about the drug cartels and violence due to it being illegal? Even if you think that the economy should have nothing to do with this, couldn't this point be valid?

You're playing right into their hands.

No, I gained my opinions independently.

[JDoors]

Other than being illegal there's no similarity between the prohibition of alcohol and the situation with marijuana. Different drugs, different useage patterns, one was entirely legal with millions using it and millions more depending on it for a living before it was suddenly withdrawn from the market, the other's been 'underground' practically forever. Where's the similarity?

I don't know what you mean by "it's the main point of my argument."

The mob (which, uh-hem, doesn't exist, or so they'd like us to believe) still makes money off of alcohol and tobacco, generally in distribution. There are all sorts of crimes committed due to alcohol and, to a lesser extent, tobacco. That some countries have armed conflicts due to drugs that are illegal here reflects more on those country's national situations than on demand or any other factors. Marijuana can be grown almost anywhere, but MOST countries have no armed conflict or powerful drug lords. The difference isn't about demand or legalities.

I was kidding about playing into their hands (hence the laughing smilie).

[bozodog]

You don't have to be a Harvard economics professor like Jeffrey Miron to know that America's war on drugs has been a lost cause for decades. Now a bloody war between the Mexican government and vicious drug cartels is raging just across our southern border, killing thousands and threatening to spread into the U.S.A.

The Obama administration's response, typically and predictably, is to send more police and troops to try to protect and control the border. But as Miron recently pointed out in a piece for CNN.com, the cause of the violence in Mexico is our country's own misbegotten policy of drug prohibition, which drives the market for drugs underground and creates the same kind of violence, corruption and disrespect for the law among the populace that we saw during our failed war against alcohol.

Interesting Read Here

Edited March 31, 2009 by bozodog

[JDoors]

I didn't see any new or compelling arguments in that column. At least the interviewee didn't try to say that legalization would be a panacea, eliminating underground drug crime entirely. One "caveat" he repeats several times is actually the crux of the problem with his argument; Reasonable taxation, Reasonable restrictions. Who believes the government WILL be reasonable? What would you base THAT assumption on, history? Or wishes and unicorns?

What percentage of the price of a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of alcohol is tax? A "reasonable" amount? Not if you ask anybody paying five dollars for a pack of cigarettes or a drink at a bar. There's already a considerable underground alcohol and tobacco economy (illegal import and transport across state lines of tobacco, illegal brewing and distribution of alcohol). When marijuana legalization proponents discover they can't AFFORD the legalized product, what then?

Whatever tax structure they implement, there will be constant pressure to increase it. "It's for health care! It's for drug education! It's for the chil-l-l-ldren!" Like tobacco, it'll wind up being a regressive tax that'll put the product out of reach for many of the people who are most likely to use it, or place an inordinate burden on their income, destroying productivity (without going into the psychoactive effects in the first place). Yeah, too bad for them, it's their choice. I get that. But do we really need more trailer park communities? (Uh-oh! That wasn't politically correct! )