The term “Lawmaker”, offends me.

You’re more likely to have a heart attack than be killed by a terrorist. Does that mean we should not be vigilant against terrorists or that what they do is not evil? I’m guessing you’re answer is no.

Forgot to include the “not”. I do actually think terrorism is evil, as I assume you do.

Give me a break! Legalization will result in more users, higher demand, which will result in a price at least as high as today’s, a more “impaired” citizenrey (sic) who will be less and less able to support themselves. We can supply them through the new Government Pot Program though. And we can pay for all of the “rehab” programs through a new tobacco tax?

edgehead on April 21, 2009 at 5:53 PM

Let me repeat myself… the economic illiteracy of some of us who consider themselves conservatives never fails to shock me.

Tell me edgehead, do the words risk premium mean anything to you?

Of course they don’t… because if they did, you would understand basic economics enough that you would be ashamed to put forward such a weak argument as you did there.

Just so you know in the future, risk premium, for the sake of this argument, is the amount that a supplier charges a consumer to compensate the supplier for the risk that he might go to prison as a result of the act of supplying the product.

Bill Buckley, in his essay arguing for legalization in 1996, estimated the risk premium, from manufacture to consumption, for illegal drugs to be approximately 5000%. That is, drugs purchased in the black market are 50x as expensive under prohibition then they would be in a free market.

There is simply not enough people in the world to demand cannabis who don’t demand it today to make up for a risk premium that high. That you claim otherwise is a mark of your economic illiteracy.

If you really want to engage people like that, then actually go with substance, not insults, assuming you actually want to engage these people, otherwise, just ignore them.

Esthier on April 21, 2009 at 3:34 PM

I don’t think I used an insult, though I could maybe see you thinking I was insulting. And I don’t see anything wrong with using the term “prohibition”. If there is something wrong with using it with marijuana and other drugs, then it was wrong to use it for when alcohol was prohibited.

The monopoly the government holds on lawful violence is at the root of enforcement of every law, even minor ones. And, practically speaking, people are routinely arrested and/or detained by armed officers for using marijuana. Sometimes armed officers break down doors with guns pointed, albeit maybe not for people just suspected of using. Nevertheless, if I want to grow a plant and trade some of that plant with an adult for something, I am still an adult minding his own business.

You’re more likely to have a heart attack than be killed by a terrorist. Does that mean we should not be vigilant against terrorists or that what they do is evil? I’m guessing you’re answer is no.

I agree with sticking to the arguments, but some people don’t care- people like Limerick seem to just want drugs illegal and that’s all there is to it. I think that’s unwise, but that’s their deal. I may not try to change their mind, but I don’t mind letting them know they’re not, in my opinion, true limited-government types. I suppose they may still claim they are, which is fine, but even a socialist wants some limits on government. However, I wouldn’t classify them as a being for limited government unless we want that term to lose all meaning, even though, technically, they might be correct. In any case, back to arguments:

Legalization will result in more users, higher demand, which will result in a price at least as high as today’s

Edgehead, though I don’t have a study at hand, there is no way this is true. For one, I have heard, as far as pot, a higher percentage of people have used pot in the U.S. than in the Netherlands where it’s legal.

And even if demand went up, that force would in no way come close to influencing price the way keeping it illegal does. Being legal, a lot more people would be willing to grow/manufacture it, countering the rise in price due to demand. Being illegal, though, only so many people are willing to risk being thrown into jail to make a profit.

Do you really think demand could be so high that people would pay $400 an ounce for a weed?

galenrox on April 21, 2009 at 4:07 PM

I agree with you almost 100%. But there are a few problems with total legalization.

First of all, as economists, we have to consider the cost benefit analysis of total legalization. True, the costs of prohibiting cocaine and methamphetamine are huge, compared to the cost of prohibiting cannabis, so we can safely assume the benefits of legalizing them will also be huge. But the cost of legalization of these stimulants (and I think the worst drug problems do come about as a result of stimulants) would also likely be huge.

Cannabis users, absent prohibition, pose a near zero threat to society. Likewise, given market-priced heroin, opiate addicts are not huge threats to society. By this, I mean anti-social behavior doesn’t result from heroin use, but rather from activities needed to purchase prohibition price supported heroin. However cocaine, and certainly methamphetamine, do cause anti-social behavior in some users. Much like users of alcohol, some of these people are likely to commit violent crimes, merely for the sake of committing violent crimes, or because the voices in their heads tell them to do so, or whatever.

That is not to say that the benefits of legalizing coke and meth outweigh the costs; just that the gap between the two is not as clear as it is with heroin and cannabis.

Second, politically legalization of cocaine and meth is a lot more difficult then legalization of cannabis. A hundred million Americans have tried cannabis, and 20 million of them smoke it with some regularity. Most of these people can sympathize with the legalization of a substance that they can point to themselves as examples of its harmlessness.

Only a fraction of that number have used cocaine, and a lot of them will tell you that cocaine poses real problems for the individual and society at large. Trying to leverage them to attain legalization is a Sysiphean task.

JohnGalt23 on April 21, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Yea, yea, yea…
I’ve heard it all before. Every jerk, cut-throat, and street thug who are currently supplying all of you “casual users” is going to go out and get a tax number and set up shop in the mall. Think of all the tax revenue!! No more crime, no more violence…
Give me a break! Legalization will result in more users, higher demand, which will result in a price at least as high as today’s, a more “impaired” citizenrey who will be less and less able to support themselves. We can supply them through the new Government Pot Program though. And we can pay for all of the “rehab” programs through a new tobacco tax?

10s of thousands of people are growing their own pot already. Legalizing and taxing it would have no effect on them whatsoever. In fact, if the desire is to legalize it so it can be taxed, most people would bypass the tax by growing it themselves. Legalize it because it is natural and harmless.

If and when the American public changes their minds on marijuana, it will be because the prohibition costs far more than it’s worth, both in terms of cash and in civil liberties, and not because Harold and Kumar went to White Castle, or the Family Guy dog went to jail.

Ed, these are American voters you’re talking about here. Do you really expect them to form a well-reasoned opinion based on facts? Look who they just put in the White House. I think a few more sit-coms will be enough to tip the scales.

habitual pack-a-DAY smoker

D’oh!

Studies have shown that while carcinogens are in marijuana smoke, it doesn’t lead to cancer the way tobacco smoke does.

Because the substances are not used in nearly the same way. Druggies don’t do the equivalent of a “pack a day.” quantities. Pot is a more immediately self-regulating activity than most. If our president did doobies out back the White House at the same rate as a habitual pack-a-smoker after the third one he’d have a hard time lighting the match. Or remembering which pocket the matches are in. (The guy with the nuclear codes would likely help him out, though.)

I’ve heard a lot of lung testimony and looked into it a bit (I’m against all this tobacco-fascism too, but I don’t smoke.)

Some doctors will tell you they don’t even consider tobacco-related disease unless the patient has ten pack-years minimum. That’s a pack a day every day for ten years.

In other words, keep yourself to about a pack-a-week and you’ll be okay. Good luck with that though.

Just like with global warming, there’s another side that you…will…never..ever…hear. Second hand smoke? Don’t get me started.

If and when the American public changes their minds on marijuana, it will be because the prohibition costs far more than it’s worth, both in terms of cash and in civil liberties, and not because Harold and Kumar went to White Castle, or the Family Guy dog went to jail.

.
Forgive me but that sounds rather naive. With all due respect Ed. I think you have it backwards. In this era, Harold and Kumar and Brian the Dog ARE the molders of public opinion. Sad but true.

The pro-gun control liberals point to how we have over 10,000 gun deaths every year, and say it’s because we have a violent culture, which is nonsense. We have 10,000 gun deaths a year because of gang wars, gang wars that are fought because of drug prohibition. We fight against drugs more and we spend more money on drugs, so the money is there, gang warfare is a given.

Is there anyone who honestly thinks that the police can stop this? It’s a goddamn warzone, more people were killed in the city of Chicago than in Iraq, does anyone think that the CPD has any shot in hell to stop what’s going on? And then look at the welfare that has to go to these neighborhoods because they’ve been ripped to shreds because they live in warzones, how the hell does anyone think this is a good idea?

You know what a successful war on drugs looks like? The Taliban before 9/11. That’s what you have to do to stamp out drugs. Is anyone stupid enough to think that cocaine and heroin are threatening enough to justify that? And if not, does anyone think it’s worthwhile to half-ass it, so we still have just about the same amount of drug usage, but we imprison huge portions of our population and waste a huge amount of money on failing to stamp out drugs?

Our borders aren’t dangerous because of Mexicans looking to paint houses and manicure lawns. They are dangerous because of drug smuggling. The problems we face throughout Central America is because we have developed a market where the most successful are the most violent and corrupt.

It corrupts our police forces, it creates warzones in our inner-cities, it endangers our border agents and anyone who lives along the Mexican border, it undermines our civil liberties, it undermines the principles of federalism, it costs billions of dollars in terms of what we spend and billions of dollars in money that we wouldn’t have to spend on keeping any semblance of order in Central America. And on top of all of this, it fundamentally fails at everything it attempts to achieve. It is an unmitigated disaster.

And so yeah, I think pot should be legal, but realistically I don’t care that much. It’s bad policy to keep it illegal, it violates our right to decide what we like to do privately, but we have all sorts of bad policies. Our borders aren’t undermined by pot smugglers, they’re undermined by heroin and cocaine smugglers, gangs aren’t fighting over pot-territory, they’re fighting over crack and heroin territory. The legal regulations associated with pot are not the problem. The problem is prohibition, and all of the subsequent problems it creates.

Heroin, cocaine, meth, all need to be legal, or at least decriminalized. They are horrendous drugs. My uncle lost decades to heroin, I’ve seen too many friends have their lives ruined by cocaine. They are horrific, and if prohibition worked we’d have a serious question on our hands, because ideally we could eliminate these drugs. We can’t, we’ve tried and we can’t, so the question is much easier. Education and drug treatment, education that doesn’t have to be predicated on lies to justify prohibition. When I was young my mom sat me down and said “You’re almost certainly going to have friends that will smoke pot, and you’ll probably do it yourself at some point, and if you keep it in moderation that won’t be a big deal. But never mess with cocaine or heroin, they will ruin your life before you even know what’s happening.” That had more of an impact on me than all of the drug education I received from DARE and in school, because it was honest.

The war on drugs has to be ended.

Face it, the majority of conservatives aren’t stupid enough to be lured into stupid habits.

kregg on April 21, 2009 at 12:18 PM

That’s true. Very few conservatives drink alcohol or use tobacco products. /sarc

13,000 killed every year from drunk drivers approximately and close to 1,200 from alcohol poisoning, overdosing. That is just the US. No one is advocating the legalization of coke or meth, just taking a fresh look at this issue.

My point legalize marijuana and tax both.

Be sure to include hash (a personal fave) and while you’re at it legalize coke and heroine too for grown-ups.

Make honest men out of the drug lords, just like the 21st Amendment did for Joe Kennedy.

Law enforcement and their unions will resist. For them it’s a budget and dues drain, respectively.

Health concerns? Hell, shouldn’t they ban 48 ounce non-diet fountain sodas? I saw a 300-pound woman coming out of the mini-mart with two of them for the road and no one else in the car. She will die young but she’ll be happy before her pancreas dies of suffocation.

Driving? Heck, the breathalizer didn’t exist before legal alcohol driving limits hit the books. The market will provide.

Legalize.

Cheech & Chong … anything.

juanito on April 21, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Seriously, Cap’n Ed, you left out the most (in)famous stoners in Hollywood history?

Impossibly dumb, no discernible plot, lame jokes… but Dude!

You want the government telling adults who are minding their own business what to do at the point of a gun.

scotta on April 21, 2009 at 3:13 PM

If you don’t want people tuning out of the debate, then don’t engage in such obvious hyperbole.

If you’re smoking in your own home, you’re more likely to have a heart attack than be accosted by police. It’s actually because we’re not throwing every pot smoker in jail that it’s been allowed to become as socially acceptable as it has.

And drop the prohibitionist term. Very few people want everything legal, so don’t single out the ones who aren’t OK with pot.

If you really want to engage people like that, then actually go with substance, not insults, assuming you actually want to engage these people, otherwise, just ignore them.

Dopers are dopers. No changing my mind. No “but crime will disappear” horsepotatoes. Argue away and I’ll keep the weed-b-gone at the ready.

Limerick on April 21, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Sweet. Thanks for being an active, informed citizen. I hope you put a lot more thought into far less consequential matters, for your sake. For the sake of our country, world, liberty, and justice, I hope you are in the minority.

Next time a lefty claims capitalism sucks because of racism or something, then they put their fingers in their ears because listening to you might mean they’d have to change their mind on something, know you’ve found a brother.

To all the prohibitionists, it’s fine if you want to believe what you want to believe, but don’t think for a second you are for limited government and liberty. You’re on the same side of all the lefties you demonize. You want the government telling adults who are minding their own business what to do at the point of a gun. Congratulations.

If and when the American public changes their minds on marijuana, it will be because the prohibition costs far more than it’s worth, both in terms of cash and in civil liberties, and not because Harold and Kumar went to White Castle, or the Family Guy dog went to jail

IOW, time to legalize it.

I’ve hired hundreds of people in my career and those who smoked pot or drank were sometimes lousy and sometimes great, just no correlation.

bagoh20 on April 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM

Agreed. Though most people are better when they don’t overindulge any habit, not that there’s anything you can necessarily do about that.