RSS
I Don’t Care if You Criticize It, But Legalize It
The stage is set: In November, Californians will go to the polls and either legalize and tax marijuana or keep it decriminalized. Marijuana is the number one cash crop in California (and in several other states), grossing an estimated $14 billion per year! Grapes, by comparison, gross roughly $2.6 billion annually. Conservative estimates suggest that through legalization and taxation the cost would drop, tax would be applied and the net expense would be the same for the consumer, resulting in a windfall $1 billion for Sacramento. The time is right, the money is right and the resistance is small and shrinking.
Marijuana is relatively harmless as it is non-addictive, posses no substantial health threat, impairs users much less than alcohol and like alcohol, it comes in countless varieties and strains. Simply put, there is no reason to make this plant or its growth and consumption illegal. Legalization provides income to our strapped state, dramatically reduces its availability to minors and removes it from the control of sometimes violent criminal organizations.
The chief arguments against marijuana legalization are unfounded (think Reefer Madness). Those that clamor for its continued ban largely do so out of an over-inflated sense of “moral” superiority and ignorance. However, there are others that will not support legalization. Growers, organized crime and dealers will not want their source of income jeopardized by allowing government to regulate the business. You see, regulation means control. As it is marijuana is illegal and, thus, one of the last sources of truly free-enterprise. Nevertheless, applying criminal sanctions, banning its use and overcrowding our jails are a travesty. The time has come to undue almost 100 years of bad policy.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Logistically, your idea is impossible. The dime-bag dealer won’t collect or pay income taxes on his sales, and the government won’t let him operate, so they’ll still be chasing, arresting, and jailing him and hundreds of thousands of others. That coupled with the fact that people simply don’t want weed stores cropping up next to the daycare where they drop off junior or a hemp section of the grocery store anymore than they want Hustler at the Safeway checkout or a liquor store next to the rectory means traveling to the seedy sections of towns where more crime festers and will create new opportunities to fester means trouble and more government, and a new government cartel. It’s ridiculous to arrest people and jail them for this plant, I agree, but taxing it is about the worst possible “solution” I could think of.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
I believe Mike’s objections are, for the most part, red herrings. While I agree that there are some who will object to its being sold at Speedway gas stations next to the Milk Duds. Once the weed distribution is legalized and regulated, most producers will channel their product through those channels. Like legal drugs, there will no doubt be those who attempt to skirt the legal distribution and you and your brethren, Mike, will still have a job to do. But, the vast majority of the drug will be channeled through the distribution channels that do not expose its producers to prosecution. Why would they? They could make a healthy profit legally. As far as having weed stores crop up next door to daycares, that can be handled in mush the same way that adult book stores are handled – through reasonable zoning restrictions. In short, dime bag sellers will have to move on to other products that have not been legalized, but their clientele will have diminished demonstrably because weed will be legal.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Yeah, worked out just that way when they legalized alcohol! Small time dealers would soon be put out of business by larger, better organized businesses. As to locations, bars are also often not permitted close to schools and are in both good and bad neighborhoods. Your objections have no merit.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Not that I need to sell legalization to pot smokers, but another “benefit” would be that the quality of weed would suddenly become much more uniform and, as larger companies become involved in its production, its quality would also improve. As Bill mentioned, it would also get cheaper. So to sum up, less crime, better weed, lower price. Seems like a win for everyone to me.
January 14th, 2010 at 7:33 am
Legalize it!
January 14th, 2010 at 8:21 am
Yeah, more government, woo-hoo!
Better organized controlled substance business? Awesome! Hey, I really could use a few bumps of cocaine! And some heroin. They’re nowhere near as harmful as tobacco, and I can find 30 doctors who will say so. Maybe even a few hundred doctors. Why not let me get my fentanyl over the counter? Just tax it. That way it’ll be safe. Far more people get lung cancer and die from ingesting burned herbs like tobacco and marijuana into their lungs than ever get hurt by using so-called harder drugs. What gives? And what if someone gives your little girl some (now improved quality) weed on the playground at school? Hell, it’s legal and safe, right?
Anonymous, you’re absolutely right. There aren’t bootleg stores anywhere in the country. There aren’t moonshiners anywhere at all. Those businesses went totally by the wayside.
What if little Jimmy hophead up in Chico decides he doesn’t want to tow the company line and cheapen his product and use government mandated pesticides and cloning techniques which actually reduce the THC content to the new, acceptable “sensible” levels the government will enact? (You people do realize that THC content has exploded since just a few decades ago, right?) What if all his customers demand the “old weed,” and seek it on the black market? What, you don’t think the government will start regulating and mandating standards?
I’m telling you plainly, as when the government starts taxing anything, that thing necessarily shows a decline in quality and an increase in circumvented prevalence. Take labor, for example.
Where did I get these crazy ideas?
The point you are all missing is that it is in no way conservative to give leviathan more money from new sources. What the hell is wrong with you people? Have you been smoking weed?
January 14th, 2010 at 8:25 am
Because if there’s one thing you need in California, it’s more government spending. That’s worked out reeeeeeeally well for you.
January 14th, 2010 at 8:33 am
By the way, Karl, I thought one of the arguments for legalizing it was to bring it out from the shadows, not rezone it into the shadows even more. And just how big are these rezoned areas going to be? Will there be lobbying to get licenses, thus creating new cartels? Will it soon be McMaryjane? Weed-Mart?
On the plus side, I am already working on the script for Smokey and the Bandit IV: Westbound and High. See, Bandit and Cledus are delivering a load of Tennessee red-hair sinsemilla to California since the government there outlawed weed from east of the Rockies, and…
January 14th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Ahh, the old playground argument! Under that train of thought, tobacco, alcohol, hell, Tylenol, guns, knives, pornography, etc… better be banned because kids could get their hands on it. But wait, any kid will tell you it is way easier to get a bag of dope than a bottle of booze. You see, it’s much easier to prevent sales to minors when it’s legalized for majority age persons. This is the essence of regulation.
Bootleg stores?! Moonshiners?! Really? This is your argument, Mike? So, it’s illegal to grow a tobacco plant without a license. The proposed Cali law will allow you to grow your own. So it’s illegal to distill your own booze without a license. So what? This speaks to how the government handles tax revenue. Instead of arguing that these activities (and marijuana consumption) should continue to be illegal, it seems a real discussion on making distilling and tobacco growing legal is in order.
THC levels have increased. So what? You can also find various levels of alcohol in different kinds of drinks from beer to ever clear. The same with tobacco and nicotine. So, what is your point? With even the strongest level of THC, it is impossible to overdose. A user may get lazy, even sleep, but that is the extent.
“I’m telling you plainly, as when the government starts taxing anything, that thing necessarily shows a decline in quality and an increase in circumvented prevalence. Take labor, for example.”
Umm, not so much with alcohol or tobacco and these are the only close comparisons.
If your argument was simply against the tax that would be one thing, But to argue legalization will increase the size and cost of government is disingenuous at best. The war on drugs, with marijuana abatement and enforcement being a leading cost, has cost the taxpayers (those who smoke and those that do not) over $600 a SECOND. Do the math, that is almost $20 billion a year!
In short, you have been trained per your occupation to despise marijuana. You have been indoctrinated with nonsense and lies and the result is you arguing for decreased liberty with zero benefit to anyone.
January 14th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
No, I haven’t been trained by my occupation to despise marijuana. I haven’t been because I don’t despise marijuana. I don’t despise any plant. I don’t despise bullets, I don’t despise cars without seat belts. I don’t despise rattlesnakes. I don’t despise scorpions. I don’t despise any number of dangerous things. But I don’t want my children getting the idea that it’s okay to use them, nor do I want ever more societal approbation of the dangerous, despicable, or dastardly.
That notwithstanding, I realize there are plenty of people speaking from ignorance (or contempt) of their religious and societal traditions who pooh-pooh such cautious and respectful attitudes as “puritanical,” “backward,” “outdated,” etc. So be it, if that’s the anti-conservative side you wish to (again) come down on. But that wasn’t “my argument.”
My argument was against your point of using marijuana as a source of tax revenue, and the inconsistencies resulting from that. Please be consistent and advocate immediate repeal of driving laws, the control of all pharmaceuticals, oh, man, the revenue possibilities are endless! Sacramento needs your help, Bill. They’ve got more spending plans for your great state!
January 14th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
So, to be clear, you are against taxing marijuana because it gives the government revenue. You are also against legalization because then your kids will think its okay to use it.
Therefore, you should stop paying your taxes and force all questionable habits underground by throwing people in jail for partaking in those habits. Nice police state you advocate for, Mike.
January 14th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
And to be clear, neither my religion nor my society’s traditions rally against Marijuana. But way to try to make it look like those that are for legalization are immoral anti-americans. You should start your own Ministry of Truth.
January 14th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
CCC Paragraph 2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.
January 14th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
But way to make it sound like you knew what you were talking about. I’ll give you the benefit of being ignorant of the Church’s teachings instead of being opposed to them. Even though this has been pointed out to you before, I might add. Psychotropic and psychoactive drugs, even the supposedly “harmless” THC, are dangerous to the soul. Might I suggest that you write to someone who was deeply involved with them, say Fr. John Corapi, or I could put you in touch with some folks I’ve run into in my line of work who could educate you about what they do to people.
January 14th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
“Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.”
If marijuana is legalized, production and trafficking in it would no longer be “clandestine” and therefore legalization would render this portion moot.
CCC 2290: “The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine.”
So are you saying that the CCC contradicts itself by insinuating that alcohol and tobacco in moderation are acceptable even though they are certainly drugs? Is drinking alcohol a sin? Is smoking? The answer is no. It is abuse that is of concern. Marijuana is different from alcohol in that it generally does not lead to a loss of self-control, does not having any lasting health effects and is non-addictive.
You always fall back on how much more you know about Church teachings than others. The fact is that you misinterpret so much, so often. Either that or you flat out lie about what it says to make your point seem valid.
At any rate, sinfulness aside, there is no legally justifiable reason to continue the criminalization of Marijuana.
January 14th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Well now, there’s no call to accuse anyone of lying.
My own feeling is that I support legalization for both libertarian and practical reasons (lower crime, etc) but I’m not convinced of MJ’s utter harmlessness, either.
If nothing else, it’s clear that different communities have different standards about such things. Let them make these decisions.
January 14th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Federalism is sooooo out, Willmoore. Get with the times.
January 14th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
What California proposes is a step in returning to federalism! Maybe we can (to quote Johnny Cash) “Make a move to make a few things right.”
January 14th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Bill, please read the first, unambiguous sentence of p. 2291. “The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life.”
Do you know why the Catechism says that? Do you accept the traditional teaching about the association of illicit use of pharmaceuticals and openness to demonic activity upon the soul of the one using them? Or don’t you? Or do you know what the background of those teachings are? Do you know what the Greek word for “sorcery” that was used in the New Testament is, and what the connection that the Church drew from that? I do, because I’ve studied it. Among other things I learned consequently from these studies was the very real connection of such usage of illicit pharmaceuticals in those and later ages with inducement of abortion and so on, so that one key factor that church authorities often looked for in investigating witchcraft was usage of potions containing abortifacients and/or psychoactive ingredients. There are very good reasons for the Church to condemn the usage of illicit pharmaceuticals while reserving the right to allow enjoyment of wine and liquor or tobacco, while condemning their abuse (which cause one to lose self-control and proceed to gluttony, which, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught, was a gateway sin leading often to murder, lust, and sloth). So, it is not merely “abuse” that is of concern in 2291. I have a number of references if you are interested, but it would be better if you sought competent counsel from your ordinary and see what he has to say. Have you done that before advocating your position? Should you?
I don’t know everything and I don’t claim to, but I do claim to be serious about what I do believe and know. You haven’t given me any reason to believe I’ve misinterpreted Church teaching, so I won’t lose sleep over your latest accusations.
Also, I wanted to address the misconception that marijuana “generally does not lead to a loss of self-control, does not having any lasting health effects” whether or not we disagree about psychological addiction or physical addiction. Marijuana affects people in different ways, but one thing we do know after numerous studies is the serious damage it does to developing reproductive systems, what it does to the lungs, what it does to brain cells and how it affects judgment and perception. The fact that I knew friends who could drive from point A to point B while slightly high does not mean I could. I could not. We also know that repeated – even non-abusive – usage leads to significantly higher incidence of paranoia, schizophrenia, and a host of other cerebral maladies. It affects kidney function, liver function, and other systemic functions as well. Many a teenage mother would beg to differ with your assessment that its usage doesn’t lead to loss of self-control. I could go on and on, but you have an agenda and it is, I suspect, not your stated goal of increasing tax revenues, so perhaps it would be best for me to leave this discussion having said my piece and advising you to seek other counsel than NORML and the guy at the head shop who makes a big deal out of colonists growing hemp for rope and clothes.
January 14th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Mike, I certainly don’t harbor any pretensions that I am as learned in Church teachings as you are, but I did note one thing in your argument. Both times you referred to drugs, you referred to “illicit” drugs. Of course, if the objection is illicit drugs, then one way to cure that is to make those drugs not illicit, i.e. by legalizing them.
I don’t think that is the heart of your argument, but that was the qualifier you used in every instance. I believe (and tell me if I’m wrong) your point is that marijuana’s weak psychotropic effect is what would call down the forces of heaven against it. Certainly, I don’t think there’s any evidence that marijuana acts an abortifacient. And, certainly no more so than alcohol or tobacco which has documented ill effects on unborn children. If marijuana were to lose its illicit status, would that harm your argument?
January 14th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
No, and I wasn’t suggesting that marijuana was one of the abortifacients that medieval witches used. The psychoactivity of THC (which, as noted before, has become higher and higher such that it is orders of magnitude stronger than in the hippie era) is the reason why I called it illicit. I think a case could be made for removing it from the Schedule I and placing it with opiates on Schedule II so that doctors could prescribe it legitimately for medical purposes (glaucoma and appetite stimulant/anti-nausea for chemo patients, for example) but other medicines and treatments are available so one needn’t use marijuana or even marinol. My inclusion of the word illicit was intended to mirror “non-therapeutic” from the CCC. The clandestine production and trafficing are still said to “encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law,” which I described briefly. In short, getting out of your head and into potential communion with the spiritual realm of principalities and powers through use of psychoactive and psychotropic drugs is “gravely contrary to the moral law.” It is seeking that which is forbidden to us, may entail necromancy (even unawares), and any number of other things. That’s why the state calling it good doesn’t affect my argument.
January 14th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
One doesn’t use morphine therapeutically for the fun of it, or for the soporiphic or hallucinogenic effects it can have, one uses it therapeutically for its palliative effects and does so legitimately, even if one unintentionally runs the risk of addiction, altered states, potential spiritual harm, etc.
The state sanctioning recreational use of a psychotropic is necessarily an improper use of human authority.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Mike-
Re: 19. No, I do not accept that the use of any and all illegal drug opens oneself to “demonic activity” per se. I can agree that persons can become addicted to drugs and this leads to a number of damaging effects to mortal health and spiritual well being. If witchcraft is your argument, and the inclusion of abortifacients in drugs is your rider, then you have defeated your own argument against Marijuana. It’s fairly well agreed by all that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco and, therefore, it only stands to reason that if an occasional carve out is made for alcohol, tobacco et al, then marijuana and other lesser drugs (i.e. caffeine) can reasonably be assumed to not be sinful if not over-indulged in. And yes, I have spoken with a few priests on the issue. Some agree with you, most seem to take a more reasonable position: that if not abused, its occasional use is not, by itself, sinful.
Almost all of the negative health effects you have cited have been debunked by various studies not performed by NORML or other proponents (i.e. Jack Herrer) but by legitimate medical orgs. New England Journal of Medicine is a good resource as are the several UCLA medical studies. Actually, there are hundreds of studies on the subject, mostly from overseas as marijuana’s listing as a schedule I drug prevents truly open research in the U.S. Now, I am not arguing that there are NO consequences; of course there is when marijuana (or anything for that matter) is smoked. SO if you want to go back and forth on citing studies, we could be at this all year.
But really, the purpose of this post was to discuss legalization of marijuana by government, not authorization to toke up by the Church. If my “agenda” was anything other than as I outlined, I would assuredly support continued de-criminalization over legalization and taxation. You see, pot is easily acquired and one (in California) faces no real sanctions for possession of less than an ounce. So, for you to assume I am advocating legalization and taxation for another reason is nonsensical and demonstrates your unwillingness to have a discussion on the merits. What if I “assumed” that your agenda is not moral as much as job security and your desire to arrest for victimless crimes? Wouldn’t make much sense would it?
January 15th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Number 1, you’d have to know that I make such arrests. Come ride along. Number 2, witchcraft is a broader category than simply providing abortifacients, and as I said to Karl, I didn’t say marijuana was one. I said it is a psychoactive/psychotropic drug that affects the rational soul differently than alcohol or tobacco or caffeine. Noone disputes that. Obviously, I disagree that the negative effects I cited have been “debunked” by legitimate medical studies, and I have sources for doing so.
I’m curious why you reject the notion that the use of drugs which inflict grave damage on human health and life, and which are (and lead to even more) practices gravely contrary to the moral law, do not open one to the possibility of demonic activity and/or influence. Do you suppose that engaging in practices gravely contrary to the moral law stems from seeking holiness? Does engaging in practices gravely contrary to the moral law lead to the pursuit of holiness? I’d appreciate your clarification.
As to your motivation, I read what it was and I criticized it: you want legalization for the purpose of increasing “Sacramento['s]” budget, that it would provide “income to our strapped state,” as you put it. That is a spurious argument for its legalization, and I said so. You made a bare assertion that it “is relatively harmless as it is non-addictive, posses no substantial health threat, impairs users much less than alcohol,” and then made another unsupported assertion that “there is no reason to make this plant or its growth and consumption illegal” when it has already been made illegal, and I pointed out some of those reasons you said were non-existent. You admit there is conflicting counsel from priests you’ve spoken to; what about your ordinary? What about the ordinary magisterium? The catechism is unambiguous in the passage I cited.
I also pointed out the illegitimacy of the “government” calling “good” (read: legal) that which is not good, whether abortion, confiscatory redistributive schemes (theft), recreational drug use, etc. They are not identical, but they are all grave matters and the voice of the religious and societal traditions we inherited ought not be disregarded with a postmodernist flourish or a glib equation to a sensationalist movie called “Reefer Madness” as you did. Mille pardon for presuming you had a different, or, better, a concurrent motive.
You’re welcome to the last word.
January 15th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Alcohol, tobacco, Zoloft, Prozac, Ritalin, caffeine etc… All are psychoactive/psychotropic drugs, Mike. That you can claim to know how they effect the soul is outrageous.
“I’m curious why you reject the notion that the use of drugs which inflict grave damage on human health and life….”
I reject your assertion that marijuana “inflict(s) grave damage to human health and life.” Some drugs surely do. Marijuana is not one of them. That is not to say it produces no negative effects but none have been proven to do “grave damage to human health.”
“Do you suppose that engaging in practices gravely contrary to the moral law stems from seeking holiness? Does engaging in practices gravely contrary to the moral law lead to the pursuit of holiness?”
Not every action is either holy or evil, Mike. And again, the harmful effects of marijuana pale in comparison to any of the psychoactive/psychotropic drugs mention above. So, pray tell, if the effects of marijuana are lesser than those which you have sanctioned (alcohol and tobacco) then why is occasional use of Marijuana not permitted?
Oh, and your reasoning that marijuana results in the user conjuring the dead, using it as a medium to contact spirits (even unawares) and other wise “seeking that which is forbidden to us” in some metaphysical sense is damn funny. Maybe we should ban voodoo dolls, incense and candles as well!
January 16th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Bill, there is no question that THC and other psychoactive drugs affect the rational soul differently than caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. If it didn’t, people wouldn’t use it, they’d use caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. That you suggest I know how it affects the rational soul is an implication I didn’t make. I said it affects people differently and differently from those other substances.
Ingesting substances intentionally for recreational purposes which necessarily increases one’s risk of developing cancer, which putting any kind of smoke into one’s lungs does, poses a threat of grave damage to human health. Purposely ingesting substances which repeated and repeatable medical studies demonstrate significantly increase the risk of incidence of paranoia and schizophrenia poses a threat of grave risk to human health. Purposely ingesting a compound with the intention to alter one’s consciousness for no legitimate or therapeutic reason poses a significant threat to the continued use of those mental faculties of standard conscious behavior. You’re welcome to cherry-pick whatever science you’d like to bolster your claim that marijuana doesn’t do those things. I trust my sources, you trust yours. In neither event are the ones I rely on invalidated, and the risks are borne out by personal observation I make on a daily basis among the far greater portion of society with whom I come into contact and directly interact with and converse with about these very matters than you. I don’t think for a second you’d dispute that I talk to people daily about drug use, about its effects, about its properties, and that I have a far broader base of observation and acquired knowledge than you do.
I never said something has to be either holy or evil, either. But, again, specifically and purposely altering your state of consciousness is not in the realm of the morally neutral per se. The problem isn’t even that the one doing so is seeking to communicate with the dead or with spirits; the problem is that that is not a one-way street. I really don’t know what your personal beliefs about demons and their activities are. What I believe from my study is that they are more than willing and able to take advantage of those situations to tempt people with any and every kind of sin: sloth, apathy, false “enlightenment,” gluttony, and so on, and purposely ingesting a substance which – even you will concede – quite characteristically leads to those behavior patterns gives more than the appearance (and in fact exhibit every hallmark) of openness to demonic influence.
As an anecdotal side note, though, when considering practices and their neutrality, morality, or immorality, a nice little rule of thumb might be to ask “what do the monks do?” Smoke a little tobacco in moderation? Some do. Drink an ale or some wine or whisky? Ditto. But I daresay we’d both be hard-pressed to find a pothead Cistercian.
But I guess you’re right. The silly catechism lessons I learned when I was very young about not using ouija boards, tarot cards, voodoo paraphernalia, etc., were all just superstitious hokum. The catechism lessons I learned about not seriously consulting mediums was just going overboard. Those passages in the Bible about the habitually intoxicated not inheriting the kingdom are so much dismissable Puritanism. Thank goodness we have Science (TM) now. Thank goodness – er, Science – that we are more enlightened now.
January 16th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
“Purposely ingesting substances which repeated and repeatable medical studies demonstrate significantly increase the risk of incidence of paranoia and schizophrenia poses a threat of grave risk to human health. Purposely ingesting a compound with the intention to alter one’s consciousness for no legitimate or therapeutic reason poses a significant threat to the continued use of those mental faculties of standard conscious behavior.”
Crap! Here in a couple hours I will be heading to the local pub to watch the Indianapolis Colts crush the dreams of the city of Baltimore (again). In the process, it is quite likely that I will smoke a large number of cigarettes and drink a fair amount of beer. If I’m going to risk my immortal soul with eternal damnation, the Colts better win!
January 16th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
As I said, but infinitely more importantly, as the Catechism and Scriptures say, I think you’re okay: you’re not going to smoke cigarettes so as to see visions, alter your perspective on reality, lose control of your mental faculties so that you giggle uncontrollably for a few hours, eat uncontrollably and then slouch on off into a one or two day slump of ennui and inactivity. Nor, I suppose, are you going to drink beer until you stumble into the street blind, engage in untold debauchery, black out for several hours and wake up in a pool of vomit and feces with no memory of how you got wherever the hell it is you wake up.
As you well know, I’m not some moralist prig. I’m not telling anyone what to do or not do. I listed reasons why Bill’s assertions of harmlessness are lacking. I pointed out the impropriety of giving big government more money and more power. I’m advocating a set of positions on a position advocacy site, and none of them have been successfully assailed, in my view.
Go Colts.
January 16th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
“…see visions, alter your perspective on reality, lose control of your mental faculties so that you giggle uncontrollably for a few hours, eat uncontrollably and then slouch on off into a one or two day slump of ennui and inactivity.”
Nor would you if your smoked some marijuana.
“Nor, I suppose, are you going to drink beer until you stumble into the street blind, engage in untold debauchery, black out for several hours and wake up in a pool of vomit and feces with no memory of how you got wherever the hell it is you wake up.”
This is a distinct possibility. It sort of accompanies most footballs I have seen at the pups!!
January 16th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
“‘Nor, I suppose, are you going to drink beer until you stumble into the street blind, engage in untold debauchery, black out for several hours and wake up in a pool of vomit and feces with no memory of how you got wherever the hell it is you wake up.’
This is a distinct possibility. It sort of accompanies most footballs I have seen at the pups!!”
I was taking a more “wait and see” approach to responding to this assertion.
January 16th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
“Nor would you if your smoked some marijuana.”
Bill, you didn’t smoke any of the reefer I did way back when, and if you have smoked some and it didn’t affect you that way, then I guess my earlier point was borne out: it affects people differently and perhaps it will affect you that way the next time you do, should you choose to do so. All those stereotypical movie depictions of stoned people are just complete b.s., I suppose. Perhaps you get suddenly cogent, consistently conservative, and write and conduct operatic arias when you hit the bong?
The point is, neither you nor I know how it will affect us, especially with repeated usage, and the best policy is to, as I was also taught by my dear Gram and Mom all those years ago, avoid any near occasion of sin. But by all means, my friend, toke away if you think you’re unaffected. But if it didn’t have those typical effects, why bother?
January 18th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Gen 9:3: Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
Seems to me that gives a person whatever moral authority he may need.
If a man is not free to ingest whatever he wants, then he ain’t very free.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Go back a few chapters. Never was man more free than in Eden before the Fall, and yet Genesis 2:17 contradicts your argument succinctly. Not to mention that Genesis 9:3 speaks specifically of sustenance and not recreational pharmaceuticals, so that’s an inappropriate proof-text.
January 18th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
It is a little disconcerting when a person with whom you generally agree suddenly takes a position which, to you, seems to be out of left field. It is all the more troubling when you know that person to be possessed of a high caliber of intellect (as evidenced by how often he agrees with you). In such an instance, one casts around for explanations for the disparity. “Could it, perhaps, be me?” one asks.
I cannot but think that your position, Mike, is influenced by your profession. I too find myself in the position of having to stick it to the possessor of marijuana as a part of my job. Yet, I am able to divorce my intellect from my job (a phrase I am sure my boss will love to read). At work, I must train my mind to channel that of a hidebound rule-follower and write my briefs accordingly. To be sure, it results in a level of schizophrenia which I am sure is not healthy. But, then again, I still have to eat.
I daresay you see people all day every day who are toked to the gills. And yet most of them conduct themselves quite differently than your caricature of the giggly weed-fiend allows. I have known a large number of regular pot smokers who do not react that way. Indeed, I would be surprised if the majority of the persons you stop and talk to professionally in the course of your day were not high on something – at least based on my experience with the sort of people who draw the attentions of the local gendarmerie. And, in any case, I don’t understand why a cop would not want to promote widespread use of a drug that makes people easy to police, because they become lazy, pliant, and complacent.
January 18th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
And yet God did give them the freedom to make that wrong choice. And then provided the means of redemption from it. Amazing, isn’t it?
Seems to me Noah interpreted the instructions as including recreational mood elevators as he shortly planted a vineyard and made some wine.
I took care of my father for 10 years in my house. We had to put him on Zoloft, but I do wish it would have been easier to give him the green plant. Too many of your brethren, Mike, would have been too eager to show me the error of my ways. They would lock me away with a bunch of really bad people and hope that I learn how to be “good.”
January 18th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Gentlemen, if I could quote myself from the very first comment I made on the post:
“It’s ridiculous to arrest people and jail them for this plant, I agree, but taxing it is about the worst possible “solution” I could think of.”
I have advocated, publicly and privately, for at least half as long as I’ve been doing my job, if not longer, that incarceration is not an appropriate remedy. Neither is legalization and subsequent expansion of Leviathan. A decade long moratorium of marijuana prosecutions, along with a similar moratorium on prosecutions of non-violent drug offenses, so that police can actually concentrate on crimes against persons and property is long overdue. This still leaves in place valuable legal standing for officers to legitimately further investigations of other criminal activity which can be and is correlated with those crimes when those crimes are encountered. Neither of you would want to live with the consequences of a totally emasculated police force who would like to pursue further evidence but are prevented from having it be admissible because formerly criminal conduct — quite widespread, I might needlessly remind you — is now perfectly legal. We conservatives used to argue that standards don’t need to change. Apparently, we’re all Gramscians now.
One final thought, Karl: the last thing I want is a dependent class kept stupid and stoned.
January 18th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Well, Mike, it warms my heart to hear you say that much. Kudos.
February 11th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Maybe mine is a simplistic question but who will be supplying the newly legalized marijuana? Right now the vast majority of marijuana that is used in the United States comes from organized crime in Mexico. If you smoke marijuana now there is essentially a 90% chance that you are using product that is fueling a deadly drug war in Mexico. Now, if the US chooses to legalize the drug, who will step in to supply? Will the government? Will we automatically make legitimate businessmen out of these Mexican cartels? Both seem like rather ridiculous ideas.
February 12th, 2010 at 11:57 am
The California model would have Sacramento licensing growers who would in turn sell it to the state. It would be sold to the public in state owned pot store, a la ABC stores of the east coast variety. In addition, the proposed law would allow all individuals over 21 to grow a 25′x25′ plot of their own, not for re-sale. You 90% figure, I believe, is more fiction than fact, but I digress.
Your contention that the industry is currently run by bad men so legalizing it is ridiculous seems fair enough on its face but history tells us different. The alcohol industry was run by equally bad men (some from Canada, the horror!) during prohibition and once legalized it was taken over by legitimate business. The infrastructure is already here: farms, tobacco corporations, and even non-violent growers in Northern California, Oregon, Kentucky, etc…. Competition would drive prices way down, supply up and your Mexican cartels, I suspect, would re-focus on cocaine and other illegal, and thus black-market profitable, drugs.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Help me understand how “competition” among growers who have to get a license and sell it to the state which will be the only legitimate seller will drive down prices so dramatically.
Help me understand how the water supply and so forth will not be affected by the massive increases in the use of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc. required for a successful crop.
Help me understand how crime will go down when you have so many more targets for violent robbers/burglars more than willing to break in to the increasing number of houses and/or gardens which will be producing these crops (so they can then sell it to the state-owned stores or just continue their tax-free black market).
Help me understand how more and more of California will escape the exceedingly disturbing fate of Humboldt, Mendocino, and other counties where it is already de facto if not de jure legalized.
Help me understand what the state is going to tell Washington when the DEA continues its operations against the bigger targets despite Sacramento’s actions.
Help me understand how the prohibition of private sales is going to work, and how it isn’t hypocritical in the extreme.
Help me understand how the state is going to rake in that much more in marijuana-based revenues than it already does through the “medical” marijuana cafes and “pharmacy” sales, especially when they will inevitably start spending more to continue the war against their black-market competition. There is presumably a price-point below which the state can’t sell without negating the revenue factor, and we know there are thousands upon thousands who already don’t care about the illegality of the enterprise and will continue to undercut the government.
Help me understand how more government money isn’t going to be spent trying to intercept shipments out of the “legal” California market to the rest of the United States when there will be more people having their now-legal 25×25 grows.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Indeed, I should have been clearer in my comment. I don’t know that anyone can help you, Mike, but I will try to explain my latest comment in a better manner.
First, my comment was in two paragraphs. The first dealing only with the California proposed model and the second on more open legalization without the same regulations California is discussing.
You question regarding competition and pricing is legitimate: under the California model, the price is set by the state (figures floating around are at about half of street cost) and there is no storefront competition as only the state my sell through the stores.
Water supply in California is a serious concern. But which crop is grown and by whom is not the government’s business. I say let the free market handle that.
Your break-in question is a joke, I assume.
Your question regarding counties is the same…a joke I presume. If not, please elaborate on what you think is so horrible about these places.
The president has called off the DEA on matters of marijuana legalized under state laws. But you are correct; another administration could force the DEA back on the case. Still, this small step (California legalization) for increased revenue, let alone state’s rights and individual liberty is worth taking.
The prohibition against private sales will be (as it already is) hard to enforce. And yes, it is hypocritical in the extreme. But it is this way with alcohol in many states (again, think ABC stores) so it is not with out precedent.
Cafe sales are not currently taxed in California as they are supposed to be nonprofit collectives. Applying any tax at all would raise more revenue that we have on it now.
You’re right; the Federal government should not waste money attempting to enforce impossible marijuana laws. It should stay out of the issue and leave it up to the states to decide its legality.
February 12th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
When the government decides to allow more people to legally grow a crop which was formerly forbidden which requires excessive amounts of the toxins I mentioned, it is no longer a legitimate response (when one advocates that governmental action) to say “let the free market take care of that.” Has the free market taken care of the water supply problem in California thus far? What makes you think more government-caused problems will increase the likelihood that such free-market solutions will occur?
The pricing model raises a number of questions, not least of which is “when was the last time the government overestimated the cost of something,” meaning here’s my laying odds that after it’s legalized, state prices will be higher than street prices, and the government, which will have counted on the revenues, will instead spend more on an invigorated drug war against its competition. I’ll take all wagers.
You took my break-in question as a joke? You show your naivete more and more every day. You seriously don’t see that more of a desirable commodity (weed after legalization) will lead to more thefts, burglaries to get to it, and armed residential robberies of those who will be growing it? Again, I will simply remind you of my line of work and cite one simple example: flat screen televisions. Their proliferation caused a massive spike in burglaries here and elsewhere. Now imagine, if you will, sophisticated cartels of growers who will be first to obtain what will no doubt be expensive licenses turning down someone who comes to them with a few hundred extra pounds a week. Imagine those who are not in those cartels and who don’t have licenses just giving up their criminal ways because, “oh well, I can’t legally sell it and even though it will be easy pickings, I guess I’ll go find a job driving a forklift now.” We’re talking about a multi-billion dollar industry in California alone. Yeah, I was joking. It’s just retarded to think that more of something will lead to more theft, burglary and robbery to get that something. Just hysterical. Especially when there is still going to be a black market available just a Fed-Ex, DHL, or UPS office away. Because we never get any pot from California here in the Midwest. And I’m sure we won’t get even more (most of it stolen) once you guys legalize it. Nope, I must be batshit, out-of-my-mind crazy.
As to Humboldt, Mendocino, and other places where the business has become the main reason for trade, either directly or indirectly, why don’t you call the sheriff’s offices up there and ask them if they’ve seen an uptick in violent and other crimes, and an outflow of professionals and others not involved with the drug trade. I know some cops out there and I know people who aren’t there anymore. I also recommend watching CNBC’s documentary “Marijuana Inc.” (You can watch it free on their site or at Hulu.) Those people don’t consider it a joke, believe me. I don’t need to elaborate on what I think is so increasingly horrible about those communities. The burden of proof isn’t on me. They already legalized it up there and they’re reaping the consequences. If you want to think there aren’t any that’s your business. I’m not the one advocating the legalization of it. You are. We are all responsible for the consequences we either intend or should have foreseen when we advocated a position. You can do your own due diligence.
Your attempt at appealing to states’ rights was amusing.
There is already taxation of the proprietors of the dispensaries which operate legally in California. There may not be direct sales taxation yet, but if I could just ask you again why California’s government should be given more money, I’d appreciate an answer that is consistent with your “states’ rights, individual liberty” limited government conservatism. Unless of course your limited government conservatism is a facade for libertarianism. But then, that would be inconsistent with your strident advocacy for the perpetual wars the big-government liberals in the current and past three administrations have been fighting. So, I’m still confused, Bill. Which are you? And why give Sacramento more money to play with? I haven’t even mentioned the rising energy costs associated with the grows. But I’m sure the good folks getting their licenses will just rely on the sun, right?
February 12th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Mike, I think you’re delusional. I will not defend California’s plan, because I believe their method will be counter-productive. But, assume that a state simply legalized the herb without imposing government ownership. What if it simply treated the herb as equivalent to cigarettes? Now the analog is not flat screen TV’s as you suggest, but cigarettes. How many time have investigated a burglary based on the criminal intent to steal cigarettes in someone’s home? While I would admit that such a break in is not impossible, I think you would agree that is not the typical target when a criminal commits burglary.
Further, supposing a free market legalization, where the price of marijuana were allowed to seek the equilibrium price in an arena where there is no risk of arrest for its possession, I think you would agree that its price would be substantially less than its current street price. That said, (and acknowledged), wouldn’t that hamper the drug war south of the border. My experience is that major drug dealers tend to rely on marijuana for about half their income. The rest of their wares have tended to account for the other half. If this anecdotal experience holds true, then the Mexican cartels’ income could be cut in half or thereabouts by stealing their market by making illegal marijuana no longer an issue. Sure, they could still sell it for the market price, but the costs of bringing black market marijuana into the country when risk-free marijuana is available would almost certainly be higher than the market price. In short, legalizing marijuana would likely force Mexico out of the market – presuming that government did not artificially raise the cost of marijuana (i.e. allowed the free market to operate with minimal tax burdens).
As for the idea that there is a price point below which the State loses, you forget thaqt currently the State spends untold amounts of dollars on interdiction and eradication. Even if the State were to lose money on the sale, they’d probably still be ahead. And yet, there’s no indication that the State would lose any money on taxing marijuana. Indeed, even a little piece of the pie is better than no pie at all. Especially when currently, the State is paying for several pies and the criminal are the only ones who get to eat any of it.
February 13th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
We’ll see, I suppose. Sooner rather than later. Flat screens aren’t illegal in 49 other states. Every residential robbery we deal with is because the perp thought — rightly or wrongly — that there was dope and/or money there. The overwhelming majority of burglaries here are aimed at flat screens, computers, and/or XBox 360s, PS3s, Wiis and the like. Quick, portable, profitable through a built in series of well-established fencing operations which pretend to be or actually do function as legitimate businesses in the front while moving the stolen stuff through the alley. It’s not rocket science. But why not try it and see? Let’s presume the best about people, because we know from experience that they’re all basically good. You guys are right, I’m sorry. I feel bad for casting aspersions on the criminal element in our midst. I’m sorry, crooks and dopers. I apologize, young desperate thugs. I beg your forgiveness, disadvantaged youths. I beseech your indulgence, prospectless parolees. I entreat you to overlook my affront, undocumented second-generation vatos. Karl and Bill have shown me the error of my ways.
And the point about government needing more and more money is spot-on, too. I love Big Brother.
February 13th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
I’m with you, Mike, on the whole leviathan issue (which is why I would reject government run stores). But, I also don’t think it is necessarily a given that legalizing and even imposing an excise tax on marijuana will lead to bigger government. I think you would acknowledge that the State already spends gobs of money on interdiction, eradication, and enforcement of its “War on Drugs.” If the taxes paid on the sale of marijuana were to finance that “war,” that would tend to reduce the burden on taxpayers who do not partake. The burden could be shifted from property owners who finance local policing to people who voluntarily smoke pot. The size of government (at least as measured by the burden its costs place on me, a taxpayer).
As for your sarcasm about offending criminals, you cannot honestly believe that I, of all people, would be castigating you for sticking it to the folks who offend the peace and dignity of this great State. Sure, there will still be burglaries, thefts, and fencing operations if we legalizing marijuana, but I have to think that quite a few of those people who break into a house to steal a television so they could buy an eighth of weed would no longer feel the need if they could go down to the Marathon station and buy a pack of blunts for $10. If you believe that drugs are a main cause of property crimes, then you would have to believe that legalizing marijuana would decrease the incidence of those sorts of crimes. After all, how many burglaries are committed because the criminal wanted to buy a pack of Kool filter kings? Or because they thought the homeowner smoked his brand?
February 13th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
No, Karl, I don’t think you’re soft on crime. What I do think and what I have said repeatedly is that legalizing something yields more of something, and when we’re talking about a mind-altering “mood elevator” or whatever Dean called it, you’re going to further entrench people’s partaking, and they’re not about to slow down consumption of it and get a job so they can run down the Weedmart and grab $50 worth of kind.
Cargo thefts (literally stealing entire truckloads of stuff, tobacco included) is a booming industry these days. Factor in legal weed, already a multibillion dollar industry in CA, and there’s a whole new sector. Most property crimes are committed to ultimately get drugs. Legalizing and making them more socially acceptable makes them more prevalent, thus raising the property crime rates. This is simple.
February 14th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Bill said: “Nevertheless, applying criminal sanctions, banning its use and overcrowding our jails are a travesty. The time has come to undue almost 100 years of bad policy.”
In principle, you may be right. Unfortunately our immoral climate gives us no good solution. In a free society where there’s social shame for substance abuse and miscreant behavior, legalization could work.
But today, legalize it and you’ll see plenty of abusers and addicts, who now have another temporary escape from their meaningless, disconnected lives. And no one around them will care.