Arnold: Time to discuss marijuana legalization, even though I oppose it
posted at 12:55 pm on May 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Talk about mixed messages! California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says it’s time to discuss marijuana legalization in California. Then he says he opposes legalization. The Governator then suggests that the state could realize some tasty revenues from a marijuana tax — but then says revenues shouldn’t be the motivator.
You may need a joint for the pain from whiplash on this one:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says California should study other nations’ experiences in legalizing and taxing marijuana, although he is not supporting the idea.
He says it’s time to debate proposals such as a bill introduced in the Legislature earlier this year that would treat marijuana like alcohol. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, says taxing marijuana at $50 per ounce would bring more than $1 billion a year to the state.
Schwarzenegger said during a Tuesday news conference that “it’s time for debate” on the idea. But he warned against making harmful decisions just for the sake of raising money.
Is the notion really so radioactive that Schwarzenegger has to do this dance just to raise the possibility? We used to tweak John Kerry for his flip-flops, but this makes Kerry look practically Churchillian in comparison. It’s akin to a politician picking plaid as his favorite color.
There is nothing wrong with considering potential revenues in a debate over legalization, and that isn’t the only economic factor that should be considered. How much does California spend on enforcing marijuana prohibition? Has medical-marijuana legalization, conducted in a particularly lax manner, resulted in escalating crime and dependency and marijuana-related deaths, or just less hassle and less infringement on civil liberties? Maybe the governor of the state could focus on producing answers to those questions.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I assume you’re not taking into account the two most costly drugs in society — alcohol and tobacco. Or do you really believe that you are not currently affected by the use and abuse of those two drugs?
deesine on May 6, 2009 at 2:25 PM
With $50 an ounce in taxes tagged on? You’ve got to be kidding. How is that going to make it cheaper?
An ounce right now, while it is illegal, runs you anywhere from $150 and $250. Legalizing it, thus vastly increasing the supply and reducing financial costs for growers, will probably cut that price in half if I’m being conservative. Even WITH the tax, legal weed will be cheaper than illegal weed.
Yes, pot heads will grow, as they already do.
No, most pot heads DON’T grow their own. It takes a crapload of work, and they are usually to lazy for that. The bathtub gin industry ground to a halt the moment booze became legalized, and the “I’m Growing a Couple Plants in my Closet” industry will almost certainly take a similar hit once industrous businessmen start offering cheaper, higher quality product to the public.
justfinethanks on May 6, 2009 at 2:28 PM
I like the idea
All of the potheads can migrate to California and mellow out.
I’m sure buisnesses in the area will have no problen with iteither, when everybody rolls up a fatty at lunch and comes back stoned.
kangjie on May 6, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Do people really crave tomatoes or any other vegetable for that matter? Also, they’re cheap enough already, so it’s not nearly as cost effective.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:24 PM
This is hilarious. Do you KNOW why tomatoes are so darned cheap? Cheaper, probably, than the time and effort that would go into growing your own? BECAUSE TOMATOES ARE LEGAL. Legalizing things allow it to be mass produced, which decreases production expenses and increases the supply, which makes crazy cheap tomatoes for all.
justfinethanks on May 6, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I’d gladly pay that extra $50 bucks. It sure would beat hunting done some unreliable college kid or driving thru less than desirable neighborhoods to find the stuff.
As far as your arguement about the ditch weed…..I don’t know where it’s been, what type chemical may have been sprayed on it or whose dog pee’d on it.
I have glaucoma, and detached retina’s in both eyes, held together with buckles. The pain is horrible at times and I was declared legally blind 2 months ago and lost my drivers license.
Can you not see it from others perspective? I have a prescription in Illinois that I can’t use for obvious reasons.
Knucklehead on May 6, 2009 at 2:37 PM
What a load of crap. I know guys who grew the crap year round in a fish tank with a glow light and did nothing but water it. The stuff was fine. It’s pot for the love of pete not Cabernet. Bathtub gin requires alcohol which would be taxed so theirs no point to it. Do you really think people would be paying for vodka if all they had to do was grow the plant?
Other than drying it there is nothing do do with pot to get it ready to use. Grow it, dry it, smoke.
Comparing it to tomatoes is about right and yes millions of tons of tomatoes are grown, and sold on the roadside, by home farmers every year and tomatoes require a hell of a lot more care then pot. Will it be great pot? No, but it will get you stoned. One batch of home weed would carry the average user for a year no problems.
Rocks on May 6, 2009 at 2:38 PM
And if they were taxed to crap people would be growing their own. Hell people do it now and that’s when tomatoes go over a few dollars a POUND. Why the hell would anybody pay $50 an ounce for anything that’s legal that isn’t a precious metal?
That’s the whole point. Legalize pot but it’s never going to be a revenue generator for taxes.
Rocks on May 6, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Exactly. You can make beer in your garage (I know a couple guys who do, on occasion), but unless you make a whoooole bunch, it’s cheaper to buy it at the store. It’s called economy of scale. Legalization will see the entrance of large scale growing, which will definitely lower the retail cost.
However, there is a tax point at which you negate this effect. I think that $50/ounce might be the bottom of that zone. So, let’s make it $25/ounce. Problem solved. Even at $10/ounce, that is still many times the tobacco tax rate.
Yes, there will always be home-grown smokers/growers not paying the tax. However, after a period of time (5-20 years), I don’t see why it would be any different than those who brew their own beer at home, and don’t pay any tax on it.
New York, like several states, just raised tobacco tax rates. There will now be a large increase in black-market tobacco from Canada: it happens every time the tax is raised.
With the proper tax rate, the black-market is kept in check, or at an acceptable level. I don’t see why this is an argument to not decriminalize/legalize.
deesine on May 6, 2009 at 2:43 PM
And you know all this about the vegetables you buy and eat every day now?
Rocks on May 6, 2009 at 2:45 PM
That’s actually a good point. Designer clothes are already legal. Anyone can buy one with the right amount of money, and yet, there’s market for knockoffs even though they are illegal.
Why? Because they’re much cheaper.
Why would anyone believe this wouldn’t be true if the taxes on pot are as high as they’re claiming they’ll be?
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:46 PM
I know guys who grew the crap year round in a fish tank with a glow light and did nothing but water it. The stuff was fine.
And the only reason they tolerated that ditchweed was because its illegal. If they were given the choice between waiting weeks or months before getting high on subpar product and putting down $40 for a couple grams of primo bud at their local liquor store, fundamental economic theory state that they would choose the latter option.
Do you really think people would be paying for vodka if all they had to do was grow the plant?
Assuming vodka was legal, absolutely. When people are motivated by profit, they will work extremely hard to provide products cheaper and of high quality to the consumer than what the consumer can do themself.
Comparing it to tomatoes is about right and yes millions of tons of tomatoes are grown, and sold on the roadside, by home farmers every year and tomatoes require a hell of a lot more care then pot.
Uh, not nowhere near as easy in my experience.
The fact still remains is that even though virtually every single person CAN grow their own tomatoes, 99.9% don’t because its easier, cheaper, and more convenient to just get it at the store.
One batch of home weed would carry the average user for a year no problems.
What kind of massive, tree like MJ plants are you growing exactly? For even a casual user, a plant represents two and half months of work for a month’s worth of weed.
justfinethanks on May 6, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Home brewing requires a lot of work and effort to even get a drinkable beer, nevermind a good one. Tobacco needs very specific growing and drying conditions to even be smokeable.
Pot is ridiculously easy to grow by comparison.
They can get away with taxing cigarettes so high because they can’t be produced at home easily and you smoke an ounce a day. Do people smoke an ounce of pot a day?
How much of a tax generator would tobacco be if people only bought 6 or 12 packs a year?
Rocks on May 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Sure, where you live, and that’s likely good stuff, not the cheap stuff.
Never said most, but plenty do. Cause it’s so easy.
That’s a ridiculous argument. The sole reason they’re cheap is because they’re legal? Not because of the hundreds of illegal workers in this country working for almost nothing?
Really?
And if it’s legal, why wouldn’t you just grow your own? That way you wouldn’t have to hunt down anyone anywhere.
So you buy all organic veggies and talk to the farmers before buying?
Try to be objective here. I’m not even arguing against legalization. I’m arguing against the arguments people here are using. Surely you have better ones.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Why the hell would anybody pay $50 an ounce for anything that’s legal that isn’t a precious metal?
Rocks on May 6, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Wait, I thought you said you knew potheads before?
That’s the whole point. Legalize pot but it’s never going to be a revenue generator for taxes.
Rocks on May 6, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Well, maybe you should take it up the nobel prize winning economists (including the late, great Milton Friedman) who think otherwise.
justfinethanks on May 6, 2009 at 2:56 PM
I’m sure they won’t have any problems with it either as currently they encourage their employees to “drink” their lunch and came back to work intoxicated.
Seriously, there are plenty of arguments against this, but that is just asinine.
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Again, obviously you like the good stuff, but not everyone does. Many people like regular stuff and prefer it even. It’s a different kind of high.
Cause you’ve also grown tomatoes? Seriously, just because you don’t have a green thumb and can kill a cactus doesn’t mean it’s difficult to grow a weed.
It’s not.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 2:59 PM
OF COURSE. If you use the government to prohibit a high demand product, the price skyrockets. This is terribly obvious.
Well, your “people will grow their own” counter to the taxation argument is pretty miserable. Do you have anything better or are you done playing devil’s advocate?
justfinethanks on May 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM
I’m not sure what your point is. Are you trying to guestimate future marijuana tax revenue? Are you saying that since it’s so easy to grow, and that regardless of the low retail cost legalization will bring about, that people will still purchase black market marijuana? Are you saying that future marijuana tax revenue will be so low that it’s not worth legalizing?
I don’t see anybody making the case that we should legalize marijuana solely because we can increase tax revenue. It’s one of the reasons, and I believe not even that compelling of a reason. I would be happy legalizing just to see the billion$ saved from not spending on prohibition efforts.
deesine on May 6, 2009 at 3:00 PM
putting down $40 for a couple grams of primo bud at their local liquor store, fundamental economic theory state that they would choose the latter option.
Really? Then why does 3 buck Chuck outsell Mondavi?
The fact still remains is that even though virtually every single person CAN grow their own tomatoes, 99.9% don’t because its easier, cheaper, and more convenient to just get it at the store.
99.9% really? Where did you pull that figure out of?
Again, you obsess over quality, most people don’t.
For even a casual user, a plant represents two and half months of work for a month’s worth of weed.
That’s some casual user there. Is smoking pot daily casual now?
Even the average user could grow 4 or 5 decent plants, with minimal work by most gardening standards, and be good to go for a year.
But yet people would pay $50 an ounce anyway?
Right, $10 an ounce would be pushing it and people would be buying that and paying the taxes no more than 12 times a year in most cases.
Rocks on May 6, 2009 at 3:01 PM
You will never get Humboldt County to go along with this foolish legalize idea…(for those not in CA. that’s a joke)
right2bright on May 6, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Give me a better argument than taxing the hell out of it for revenue, and we’ll see.
Except your argument seems to be in part that it’s already so easy to get and already so plentiful, so you’re either lying or making it legal won’t lower the price any.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 3:03 PM
I’m saying that if pot is to be legalized tax revenue shouldn’t be used as a selling point for the argument,because there will be very little tax revenue.
Rocks on May 6, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Rocks on May 6, 2009 at 3:01 PM
He got carried away, it is in fact 99.3%, so you sure got him there.
right2bright on May 6, 2009 at 3:06 PM
I haven’t smoked in about five years personally.
You seem to be arguing that people will invest months of effort into having crap weed when they can get better stuff cheaply across the street whenever they want. Your entire theory rests upon the idea that people who like weed are masochists.
You also sorely misunderstand just how lazy the average pothead AND how long it takes and how much care it takes to grow weed. I’ve seen potheads let ferns die. FERNS! Are you seriously arguing that people who can’t be bothered to bathe will bother to bone up on the basics of horticulture. This whole idea that everyone will grow their own and it won’t generate tax revenue is based upon some sort of bizarro world where the laws of economics are reversed and people who like to smoke pot are hard working.
justfinethanks on May 6, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Well, maybe you should take it up the nobel prize winning
Ok I’ll bite, where does that figure come from? Perhaps the figure actually represents 99.3% of tomatoes SOLD are commercially grown? That accounts for road side sales how? Millions of people grow tomatoes in home gardens every year in the US. It is higher than .7% of the population and would be very much higher if tomatoes were $50 an ounce.
Rocks on May 6, 2009 at 3:11 PM
I have no other arguments, mine are purely for selfish reasons, I guess. I cannot grow my own anymore because I live in a condo, because I had to move to this type of living because I could no longer take care of my home, but I used to grow for my own personal use.
Oh yeah……I can wash my fruits and vegggies.
Knucklehead on May 6, 2009 at 3:14 PM
“Very little” is still an increase in tax revenue, every little bit helps (damn, I sound like a bureaucrat). But I generally agree with you — increase in tax revenue is probably the least attractive and substantive result of legalization. I would say decreased government intrusion/abuse would be the best reason.
The government initiated a large scale social experiment with the first Prohibition. It failed. We largely corrected that. The government’s second attempt at prohibition has also failed. It’s time to correct that.
deesine on May 6, 2009 at 3:14 PM
You have yet to present an intelligible case against the fact that marijuana will generate tax revenue, so there is really no need. But I suppose I could throw in all the money that we are pissing into the drug war could be saved and we can stop once and for all the gestapo style paramilitary raids (and occasional murder) of innocent US citizens because of faulty drug intelligence.
But it’s nowhere near as plentiful as if it could be grown legally, because people would be allowed to grow it in MASSIVE batches out in the open like corn. No more hiding away in the woods or basement hydroponics setups. Much supply + almost same demand = cheaper product.
justfinethanks on May 6, 2009 at 3:14 PM
I know a couple of hard working pot smokers that manage to keep their use to a recreational status, not because it’s hard to manage that status, it’s as much of an irritation trying to work high as it is trying to work drunk.
Anyway, nobody I knows that partakes in a toke grows their own simply because it’s not as easy as one might think to grow weed that has enough quality make it a desirable smoke. Skunk is called skunk for a reason.
Spiritk9 on May 6, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Maybe I would, if it wasn’t a specious argument to begin with.
Baseing the potential tax revenue for something based on it’s illegal street value is just dumb. It’s like suggesting the average home price in the US should be based on NYC prices.
Rocks on May 6, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Just for a little perspective here, let me point out what it’s like on the ground.
I live in Sonoma county now, which features billboards advertising medical marijuana certification on Interstate 101 (discounts for seniors and vets.) For about $125 a year, virtually anybody can get a prescription which allows them to buy marijuana, hash, etc from a “club.” The clubs also sell cloned starts of plants designated by strain, and provide horticultural advice to novice growers (not to mention a thriving economy in “how-to” books and magazines, even discounting the info available on the Web.) It’s worth noting that this occurs in the home of Luther Burbank, who famously said that you could grow anything here. Included in the “prescription” is the legal right to grow up to 25 plants at any one time.
The number of growers, legal and otherwise, is so great that the cops are necessarily forced to concentrate on methamphetamine cookers and gang-bangers, which is demonstrably a greater problem. I once lived in a semi-rural area where there were 5 neighbors growing high-quality pot in their back yards (within a half-mile of my place,) most of which was selling for $4-5,000 a pound over 5 years ago and ounce prices are so high that most people sell it by quarters and eighths. There was literally no way to ignore the skunk smell during growing season. If you can grow tomatoes, you can grow high-end marijuana.
In addition to this, Sonoma is on the edge of what’s called the Emerald Triangle (which was populated by back-to-the-land hippies over 30 years ago,) and where authorities freely admit much of the economy would collapse without illegal growers. Many large marijuana plantations are also maintained in National Forest areas by narco-gangsters from Mexico, and staffed by illegals.
The idea that “legalizing it” would have the least effect on this level of underground economy is ridiculous, and beyond disingenuous on Schwarzenegger’s part. How much money would be saved by stopping law-enforcement efforts to eradicate it is anybody’s guess, but the advent of homemade meth has essentially made the illegality of marijuana a moot point. Planning on tax revenues is a pipe dream, for the reasons stated above.
The situation simply doesn’t admit of any easy answers. One thing for certain is that criminality is rife in the growing areas; whether marijuana is the cause or just coincident with the type of people who like to ignore the law, the fact remains.
I don’t think government is the answer. Where have I heard that before?
warbaby on May 6, 2009 at 3:25 PM
But, we have to replace all of tax revenue that we lost when we convinced people to stop smoking tobacco. Right?
I’m looking forward to the day when “pot agribusinesses” are hauled before Congress to elucidate upon the negative health effects of their smokable weed. I’m looking forward to the day when pot agribusinesses are sued in court by life-long clients suffering from emphysema. I look forward to seeing their records subpoenaed in a driven search to prove what pot agribusiness knew and when they knew it re: health side effects. I look forward to the bans on pot advertisement in places where kids can see them (no more cute drawings of Joe Camel smoking a doobie). Anyone want to place bets on which will be the smokable weed du jour and the next source of California tax revenue after that. Hash? LOLOLOL.
_________
“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.”
Kalifornia Kafir on May 6, 2009 at 3:25 PM
OK. So you used to like the good stuff.
No, not at all. I’m talking specifically about what people will do when pot is NOT cheap. Maybe that’s what your problem here is.
And you act like it’s months of working. It’s months of having a plant. Since when are gardeners masochists?
Seriously, you’ve gone way off here.
And you underestimate how much pot heads like pot and how EASY it is to grow it.
So? What are they missing with a fern? Something to look at? With pot, you get pot, and it’s not more work than a fern.
So you didn’t use to bathe? Good to know.
Do you know how many pot heads go to extreme lengths creating new ways to smoke? Making brownies (which is much harder than growing weed), making gas masks, water pipes, hookas and all sorts of other things that take time and effort, and yet they do it. The stereotypical stoner who never leaves his couch is just a cartoon.
Again, my argument isn’t about modest taxes but about significant taxes, like $50 an ounce.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Sadly, with a few exceptions, all of those “tomatoes” you buy in the supermarket are “tomatoes” in name only. They have had all the taste bred out of them, and also the breeders have modified them so they have thicker skins. Hell, they can fall off of the back of a tomato truck down in Florida and won’t even be damaged. They’re not worth your time, but the mainstream idiots (who all voted for O’bama) have never had a real tomato before, so don’t know the difference.
Contrast that cardboard tomato with an heirloom tomato, one that you can actually taste. There is absolutely no comparison.
Many supermarkets now sell heirloom tomatoes, but they are not cheap. Here in the Northeast they sell for $3.50 a pound or even more.
Del Dolemonte on May 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM
That is an offensively silly “argument”.
DaveS on May 6, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Technically you can boil pot and smoke it. Still, are you saying you’re more worried about something you would smoke than something you ingest?
And you’ve yet to prove that it would, except to claim growing a weed is just so hard, even though it’s a weed.
As to spending less on enforcing it, isn’t California doing that already?
Yeah, people do that already.
No, more like: potentially greater supply + likely higher demand (don’t pretend there aren’t people who would smoke only if it were legal) + massive taxes = likely greater price
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Ah yes, now the Penn-and-Tellar “ITS YOUR RIGHTS” tripe comes in…
roninacreage:
While I disagree with restrictions on cigarettes, forgive me if Marajuana- with its far more radical effects on self-control- is more important to restrict.
deesine:
They are the most costly because they are legal, and thus have a larger market.
Tell you what: let’s put everything out on the market with producers and suppliers just as well funded and well publicized as Big Alcohol or Big Tobacco, and wait about a year.
THEN let us see how dangerous the rest are in comparison.
And this isn’t because I am against the idea of somebody turning their brain to mush, but because they often endanger others in the process (crimes under the influence of drugs in Columbia are NOT something you want to look into).
But you won’t, because you lot just like tossing around that statistic without any context, now don’t you?
justfinethanks:
Are you that shortsighted to not see the obvious problem here?
OK, let me start with the whole bathtub gin/Prohibition allegory:
Do you know why Bathtub Gin, in spite of being 98% garbage, became popular?
Because there was no legal, finer alcohols.
And the reason it died out?
Because the breweries were either handed back to their legal owners or put up for auction, and few people drink poor quality, outright toxic tripe that takes a lot of effort when you can simply pay for higher-quality, more readily avalible alcohol.
Unfortunately, the paradox with drugs such as Marajuana is exactly the opposite.
Legalization will simply hand a massive advantage and a ready-made market to those best prepared to run and operate it, those with experience and contacts.
And guess who those are?
The Drug Cartels.
In short, while a repeal of the Prohibition shot down the illegal “moonshine” breweries and gave rise to legalized brewing, that was because the legal brewers were of far better quality and had more experience.
This is the exact inverse of the drug market, which has always been used by unsavory individuals.
For instance, do any of you hear about the “Poppy Cartel” of Interwar Columbia?
You had a rough collection of landowners, businessmen, military leaders, and outright thugs taking advantage of lax Western drug laws to sell them LEGALLY from California to Poland, and guess what they used them for?
That’s right, a coup.
It got so desperate that we actually had to send the AAF to bombing Pabon’s troops on the road to Caracas to allow the Federales to disperse the coup.
And yet this is never something ANYBODY on the legalization side talks about.
Look, if you want to legalize drugs, fine, as long as you put in a few restrictions like with alcohol.
But before you do that, will you PLEASE go in and burn down the cartels and the Islamist “farms” FIRST to make sure those SELLING them will not be using them to buy bombs and bullets to kill us with?
THANK YOU.
Turtler on May 6, 2009 at 3:41 PM
I’m old enough to have seen the Change Over happen: in the last two decades most smokers, especially older ones, have switched from low quality field weed to high quality indoor chron. It went from “who’s got the chron” to “what kind do they got”. There’s places where unless you know some city teens, you probably wont be able to find $60/ounce dirt weed at all.
I believe this is mostly due to government abation and interdiction efforts. It’s also due to the evolution of indoor growing techniques and equipment. Most of the weed smoked in the US today is grown domestically, indoors: it does not come from Mexico or elsewhere. The only way for the government to continue prohibition is to find more ways to get into our bedrooms, a further decrease in our rights and more government abuse of power. It’s pretty simple.
Marijuana tax revenue, no matter the amount, is a minor reason to want less government abuse of power.
No reasonable person wants the streets and workplaces filled with stoners. And I’ve yet to read a convincing study/report that shows the number of smokers would drastically increase due to legalization.
There’s approx. 50 million people in the US who smoked marijuana at least once last year. That puts the number of casual users at about 15 million. The vast majority of those people are not abusers. They never get arrested. They never cause an auto accident under the influence. They never cause a workplace accident under the influence. They’re what we could call a “responsible” user. And despite the government’s efforts to put those people in jail for their and everyone else’s good, they start and stop smoking marijuana all one their own. No government help or interdiction needed. That’s the vast majority of users.
By the government’s own numbers, the rate of smokers to non-smokers has almost imperceptibly changed in the last 30 years, despite the tens of billion$ spent on prohibition and the millions of people sent to jail.
When do we look at the evidence and not our first instinct to tell us that this huge government program of prohibition is wrong, and has failed?
deesine on May 6, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Intense taxes are an abuse of government power.
How do you know any of that?
And what makes you think, as Turtler put it, that once pot gets the Big Tobacco treatment, that there won’t be more smokers?
It’s naive to think no one will try it out just because it’s legal. As many have noted, right now, you have to know someone. Not everyone has a dealer. If it’s legal, that won’t be a problem.
Prohibition itself, while largely a failure, did result is less Americans drinking. That’s merely a fact. Why should pot be any different?
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Indeed. But any more so than the current abuses? So, let’s not tax at the intense level: maybe at or slightly above tobacco rates.
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/
http://www.cga.state.ct.us/lrc/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicyRpt2.htm
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/
These should get you started. There’s plenty more: just google “marijuana use rate” and “marijuana abuse rate”.
There probably will be more. How much more is another question. And, assuming there is “much more”, is there some social control equation whereby we automatically use the ban stick? Is alcohol and tobacco abuse beyond our means to control?
This seems like a means justifies the ends argument. Some (maybe most?) people said booze was bad, and had to be ended. On what legal grounds? At what social cost? At what criminal cost?
I too wish less Americans would abuse alcohol. But I don’t pretend and suppose that government should or even can be a major part of the solution.
I’m running out of time, or I’d get the DOJ’s numbers on incarceration and seizure rates. But, talk to most any police officer that’s been involved and they’ll tell you the same thing: they really don’t make a dent in the amount of available marijuana and the number of people smoking it. The really honest ones might even tell you how many on the force they know to be smokers.
-
deesine on May 6, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Oops, an “end justifies the means argument”.
deesine on May 6, 2009 at 4:33 PM
No, they are most costly because medical science and analysis shows them to be more physically addictive and have direct links to numerous negative and pathological health conditions.
The argument that marijuana has a “far more radical affect on self-control” is silly and completely unfounded.
deesine on May 6, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Any more so? At least on par.
That might actually get you revenue and prevent people from seeking alternate sources.
Pretty sure no.
Yeah, pretty much.
Not at all, not from me anyway. I’m not arguing that it was justified, just that it wasn’t a total failure, as many like to claim.
(oddly enough, I read this as “ends justify the means” anyway)
That doesn’t really do away with my argument that legalization would very likely result in a large increase in smokers, something you said you didn’t want.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Sadly, with a few exceptions, all of those “tomatoes” you buy in the supermarket are “tomatoes” in name only. They have had all the taste bred out of them, and also the breeders have modified them so they have thicker skins. Hell, they can fall off of the back of a tomato truck down in Florida and won’t even be damaged. They’re not worth your time, but the mainstream idiots (who all voted for O’bama) have never had a real tomato before, so don’t know the difference.
A neighbor a few doors down takes great care to grow tomatoes organically and they are so delicious and melt in your mouth. Supermarket tomatoes don’t compare. But … even his tomatoes don’t go for $50 an ounce. He’ll give you 8 good-sized ones for $5. They will last you a week or two.
Paul-Cincy on May 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Oops, posted some bad links, I see.
Try these:
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/drugdata/index.html
http://www.justicepolicy.org/
http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion1.htm
-
deesine on May 6, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Darn, been sucked into this discussion (it’s been a while).
I’m not sure there’s many folks, including teenagers that have wanted to try marijuana in the last year but didn’t, because of its illegal status. It’s everywhere, and anyone who wants to partake eventually does.
I surmise that your large uptake position is mostly based on the power of advertising. How about we treat marijuana advertising like we did alcohol for years — strict limitations, even barring some media? I can’t say I believe that’s the best solution, but would find it far better than the current incursion of privacy and prolific penalization.
deesine on May 6, 2009 at 5:28 PM
.
No such thing.
ronsfi on May 6, 2009 at 5:34 PM
The funny thing is that California, as a state, might lose big time if marijuana were legalized. It’s already the #1 cash crop in several counties, and — again — it’s just not that difficult to grow.
So you can have a bunch of back-to-nature hippies grow each batch up north (getting paid “living wage”, presumably), you can get the tax stamp, and you can ship it and store it, then tack on a markup to run the shop — or you can get the cutting on the cheap and stick it on your patio and harvest for years, just so long as you don’t forget to water.
Or you can have the back-to-nature hippies being paid a premium for “dangerous” work, pay for security, pay for lawyers, pay for gangs to move the stuff, pay for prisons to house those too stupid to get off, and ship most of it out-of-state to collect cash from other areas.
I’m thinking that legalizing cannabis might just bankrupt the state, seeing as how employment there is currently being supported by outsiders.
cthulhu on May 6, 2009 at 5:38 PM
deesine:
Sources?
Harvard, Oxford, and a few others seem to disagree on that matter.
Oh yes, and any reason you are choosing a relatively unimportant part of my argument to attempt your counterattack? Can you refute my larger point about Marajauna legalization?
ronsfi:
Police records would indicate OTHERWISE.
Turtler on May 6, 2009 at 5:39 PM
It is to an extent. But not for the types of people who actually waited until they were 21 for their first drink, and I think there are more of those than you realize.
Plus, there’s always that subset that believes if it’s legal, it’s OK. If it’s not, then there’s something wrong with it.
And there are just those who don’t care one way or another about it and who wouldn’t be around it normally without a legal avenue, like a coffee shop.
I think that would help. Certainly, but once the “genie is out of the bottle,” I just don’t think it will matter.
And I think that’s something we need to be honest about in these discussions. Are we prepared to accept all of the consequences?
You seem to be very reasonable on this subject. I appreciate your responses, though get out while you still can. I’ll check back with the thread if you post later.
Esthier on May 6, 2009 at 5:45 PM
There is little doubt that Tax Revenues would be generated, considering that California ALREADY DOES generate some tax from medical pot. If you suspect that growing pot is so damned easy, why don’t medical MJ patients just get a liscence and grow their own supply?
Answer: the professionaly grown stuff is cheaper and better.
The feds still raid legal dispenseries and local police departments still harsses doctors when they don’t have anything better to do. It’s still a major legal point of contention and still a tax drain.
Small potatoes compared to what could be acheived if it were legal. And with no risk of being raided, it would be cheaper to produce too.
Yes, but there supply will probably increase several fold while the demand will just tick upward. About half the nation has toked up sometime in their life as it is.
And there is just no way that MJ prices will actually be MORE expensive than what it is currently after legalization cuts the price to a fraction of what it is now.
The “there will be no tax revenue” argument is beyond silly. Even those rare, fringe economists who actually oppose MJ legalization admit that it will generate tax revenue.
justfinethanks on May 6, 2009 at 5:55 PM
justfinethanks:
True, but you are ignoring a larger point:
It will generate income for the government, yes, but it will also generate income for those who are indisputably in the best place to take advantage of legalization.
Those like the “Poppy Cartel” over eighty years ago: FARC, the Taliban, the Shining Path, a laundry-list of Chinese, Vietnamese, and Japanese gangs/organizations, and the Mexican drug warlords fighting to overthrow the justly-elected governmnet.
Simply put, we cannot ignore the lives of dozens of thousands (AT LEAST) endangered around the world (not to mention the very real health effects of various stripes here, though they are a secondary issue) for the sake of even the “Responsible” ‘potheads.’
We did not trade with Japan in 1938, why should we trade with Chavez and the Taliban now?
Turtler on May 6, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Turtler,
That part seems the basis for your argument: if marijuana is no more degenerative than either alcohol or tobacco, then why continue with the prohibition?
Marijuana was not made illegal because of its demonstrable negative effects. And while analysis does exist today showing some negative effects from marijuana use, none of them are pathological. With around 15 million marijuana users in this country, why don’t we see the death toll? Is the press not looking hard enough?
(While the CDC has reported some deaths in the last 30 years with marijuana as the “underlying factor”, none of them are because marijuana is “toxic”. In other words, you can’t overdose on it. It’s about as deadly as falling off a curb, probably less so. Much more dangerous than smoking or ingesting marijuana is being caught with it.)
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nutshell-marijuana.htm
-
deesine on May 6, 2009 at 6:18 PM
deesine:
Once again, you miss the forest for the sake of the trees…
It IS, but it isn’t the main one.
The main one is that, unlike the Prohibition, where the breweries were reopened in legit hands, the fact is that most of the groups growing them are not some I would like, ie. FARC and the Taliban.
It depends. The bottom line on Marijuana is that you rarely see people die from overdosing on it or from getting intoxicated. What you often DO see is somebody’s inhibitions being lowered making them do something stupid. Like (to use a real example) taking your rifle out to start shooting up your old job and the poor souls who work there.
It is correct that it does little directly on the individual front, but it does a considerable amount indirectly.
But that isn’t may main point.
Only 30? How the hell are they counting these things?
Well, if we were to count the “UNDERlying causes,” it might even be lower, but that is beside the point.
“Mary Jane” almost never makes you do anything you don’t want to (and even then, the issue is with those with pre-existing mental issues).
It is that it makes you do things you want to but that you KNOW you shouldn’t. It lowers the natural defenses of an individual to do stupid or outright evil things that they probably otherwise wouldn’t.
But that isn’t my major point.
Alcohol and Tobacco can probably be traced to even more extreme examples of that, but (save for Prohibition) they can RARELY be traced to organized crime (or worse).
Why? Because breweries have been all over the world for centuries, and the manufacture is comparatively “Democratic;” you don’t get major monopolies from any individual company.
On the other hand, most of the “newer” (yes, I know not all of them originate from the modern era, but they only came of agree recently) drugs are concentrated on relatively small portions of the world, and have traditionally been cultivated by the less-than-savory or by small farmers who the less-than-savory can dominate.
The “Poppy Cartel” (or “Poppy Junta”, which is more accurate, as Cartel did not have the connotations it does now) was a sterling example of that.
And so are FARC, the Taliban, the Shining Path, various Oriental mobs (THE Yakuza (as opposed to generic Yakuza) is particularly of note here), and our dear friends the Triads.
Now, perhaps you can argue that Marijuana and its ilk have been ripped off by history and that, had the fates been different, it would be Tobacco that would be financing the world’s swine. And you might have a point.
But, unfortunately, we have to accept that well over half of the “Other” drugs (such as Mary Jane) are under the control of those who at best are merely ruthless and immoral thugs, at worst are fanatics like FARC or the Talibs who would use the money of those in the West to organize the slaughter of those very same individuals.
And that is not something we can just ignore.
An often-parroted thing I have heard is how the ban is somehow funding the Mexican warlords seeking to overthrow Calderon. However, this fails to note the disconnect between the Prohibition and the Marijuana ban by not noticing that those same warlords would likely be the very ones to benefit from a larger market as opposed to underfunded and inexperienced legitimate growers, who (if black market history has taught us anything) are more likely to be bought up or forced out of business.
This is part of the reason I am not terribly enthusiastic about government attempts to seize medical Marijuana: while I despise the drug, at least it comes from a “clean” source, unlike most of those on the market (and many of those that are smoked by the “responsible potheads” you mentioned).
Without this key factor, I would still not welcome legalization, but with some restrictions put in place like those with Alcohol or Tobacco, and I would be more than capable of dealing with it.
But before that happens, let’s deal with the AK-wielding thugs who control most of the world’s drug market and thus help give rise to a cleaner, legitimate market.
Turtler on May 6, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Turtler,
You seem to agree that alcohol prohibition was a huge factor in the growth of organized crime in America. Yet, you exempt marijuana prohibition from that mechanism. In fact, you seem to think it works in reverse for marijuana: while bad groups are part of the supply network right now, if we legalize it then those bad groups will take an even greater role in the supply network. Huh?
I believe the opposite will happen. Legalization will bring more competition, thus lowering profit, thus lowering the incentive for the bad groups. Bad groups mostly deal in black markets: that’s where the high profit margin is. Legalization will drastically reduce the black market.
The black market for alcohol and tobacco is small because those drugs are legal. The black market demand for any product is most directly related to its legality and the degree to which it is regulated (with high-regulation and high-taxation increasing black market demand.)
deesine on May 6, 2009 at 7:23 PM
-moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney-
Politicians can smell “revenue sources” from an adjoining galaxy.
oldleprechaun on May 6, 2009 at 9:51 PM
I used to have much respect for this man and his life story.
Now he’s dead to me and I couldn’t care less.
SilverStar830 on May 7, 2009 at 12:24 AM
I’m kinda pro-legalization, but why stop with weed? If you can tax weed at $10/pack, why not tax theft at $20/house?
Armed robbery – $75
Murder – $150
Rape – $150
Having a net positive carbon footprint – $100,000,000
Think how quiet the jails would become! (I just put that last one in the mix to give it a California-e feel.)
Kevin M on May 7, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2