Well, it seems common sense is rearing its practical head in the midst of recession, as Californians ask whether their gov’t should prioritize spending billions to pursue, apprehend, prosecute, and incarcerate marijuana smokers when the state is in deep financial trouble. Captain Ed has details, and makes an interesting point:
Besides decriminalizing marijuana, which would actually remove the profit potential of the criminal gangs…
Of the many unexamined assumptions in the WOD, perhaps the most egregiously illogical is the notion that if drug sales are legalized, criminals will simply turn to other illegal activities. This defies all economic sense; a life of crime is only attractive if crime pays. Willie Sutton didn’t rob banks because that’s where the crime was.
Creating a highly profitable monopoly for criminals naturally generates demand for crime. Imagine for a moment that the government, in a fit of insanity, outlawed food; suddenly a hot dog is selling for $100 and you can only get it from an illegal operation. Because the gov’t is interfering in a consensual transaction, this legitimizes criminals even as it enriches them, and since they have no access to traditional conflict-resolution mechanisms like the courts, disputes tend to be settled violently, often with calamitous results for the surrounding community. Yet this is the government’s approach to drugs.
UPDATE: The wave of the future?
Poll analyst Nate Silver notes that the percentage of Americans who favor marijuana legalization hit or exceeded 40 percent in three recent surveys… a level of support that seems to be unprecedented. “There has been a long, slow-moving upward trend in favor of legalization since roughly 1992,” Silver says. He projects that if the trend continues (which, in light of the public opinion setbacks ”during the Just Say No years of the 1980s,” it might not), support for legalization could reach 60 percent in 13 or 14 years
{ 19 comments }
I find it hard to believe that California has spent much on pursuing marijuana crimes already. Most of this is symbolic, I doubt it will have any real financial impact.
Unless the federal government decriminalizes marijuana I don’t see much change in things anyway.
As far as I’m concerned marijuana is comparable to alcohol in terms of societal impact. I’m fine with decriminalizing it. But I have to point out that it opens the door to other drugs being decriminalized as well. Where do you draw the line? I dunno.
I don’t disagree with you CC, but “where does it stop?” is not an argument against, it’s simple fear mongering. There is no governmental process by which legalizing one drug causes legalization of another. Not even the courts. If that were the case, the “tobacco and alcohol are legal, pot should be too” case would have been won long ago.
“Where does it stop?” isn’t necessarily fearmongering. It could simply be forethought, the absence of which has produced all kinds of nice economic situations recently.
My point being that decriminalizing any drug is a change in policy, and policy changes have side effects. “What is the criterion by which we determine which drugs should be legalized?” is potentially a longer way of asking the same question. I’d rather we have an intentional process rather than a passive one, where drugs are legalized through lack of enforcement of the existing laws.
Of course, if we do decriminalize marijuana (probably treating it more like tobacco), I think it should have a warning label.
I have tolerance for no substance abusers whatsoever. My concern is that I want neight drunkards, acidheads, potheads or any other such freaks licensable to operatre motor vehicles on public roads. And if this stuff were sold legally, I would want it seld through some state institution that would carefully record what substance was purchased, how much of it, at which state run special store.
And I would want a publicly-accessible logsheet which would be available to anybody under the public records laws of the State of California. Would I discriminate against a known user of such drugs? You are damned right I would. Among other consideration, it is unlawful for users of most controlled substances to have access to firearms. Let them fry their brains in the privacy of their own homes. But I want them neither motorized, armed, or performing any professional services that call for totally clear minds.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
So, Arnold, are you in favor of changing all the current laws to record who, how much, and when beer is purchased ? You did essentially equate all the users, so why not treat them all the same way ?
And thank you very much for showing everyone exactly what “fear-mongering” – in regards to the use of marijuana – really looks like.
I would also ask you how far you have gone to outlaw aclohol since there is almost an infinite relationship between the number of alcohol users and drunk driving as compared to marijuana use and “high driving”. One of those things doesn’t really even exist. But by all means, you keep on thinking that those dirty potheads are out frying their brains and endangering everyone by jumping in their cars.
And sorry, Derek, but “where does it stop” is not an argument against anything. Using a fact based process of evaluating the pros and cons for each substance individually is a great idea. I’m completely in favor of it. Of course, that would exclude everyone’s pet anecdote about how so-and-so is addicted to pot and so we just can’t do it.
But that does not constitute anything close to “where does it stop ?”.
“Where does it stop” is nothing but a rhetorical question aimed at stifling the debate, not furthering it.
Oh, BTW, for the record, I work in a highly regulated industry with strict testing and zero tolerance. I haven’t touched any of the stuff in well over 15 years. Considering my industry, it is highly unlikely that even WERE marijuana legalized tomorrow, it would remain strictly prohibited for me.
I just wanted to get out in front of any accusations that I just want to smoke up, dude.
Nope, my support for legalization is entirely based in principle, recognizing that the stuff is entirely benign and far, FAR less of a burden on society than either alcohol or tobacco.
I’m pretty much for legalization, since the current state of affairs is certainly not optimal. But I share some of Arnold’s concerns too.
If there were an easy way to test for recent marijuana use, I would be whole heartedly in favor of legalization of pot. But I’ve got some reservations related to that issue.
At least with alcohol, there are quick and reliable tests that can determine a person’s state of inebriation (well, BAC level at least, but that’s another discussion). So if you find impaired users causing mayhem, it’s fairly straightforward to assign them responsibility and/or charge them with crimes.
As far as I am aware, that’s simply not possible with weed (though it is with many “harder” drugs.) So someone might have say, smoked a joint 3 days ago, be totally clear headed at the time, get in a car crash, and still test positive.
So there might need to be some sort of concession from the stoner crowd (of which I was once a proud member). Maybe they’ll need to accept the fact that if they are involved in an accident or crime or whatever, if a drug test shows they have used something within the last week or so, they are considered to have been under the influence at the time of the incident.
In over 20 years of arguing over this issue, I’ve finally given up.
The drug warriors have no rational point of view. They just don’t. And, because they did not arrive at their position through reason, you cannot use reason to bring them out of it.
The truth is, they hate hippies. That’s really all they’re about. Nothing rational is part of their reasoning process. They want to punish, punish, punish. It’s really all they’re about.
I’ve been looking for 20 years and I still can’t find an exception.
By the way, the Drug Warriors almost always trot out this classic excuse for their shitty behavior:
“Drugs hurt families!”
Yeah right. So put my mom or dad or brother or sister in jail. Because you want to support my family. Put my daughter or son in jail because you care about my family.
Give me a break.
Stop lying. You don’t give a shit about my family. You just want to punish druggies.
You want. To put. Sick people. In jail. That’s all you’re about. Why don’t you just admit it, you hypocrites?
Dean,
I’m in favor of legalizing most drugs, but not all drugs are the same. Drugs like heroin can be really, amazingly bad. In places (well, more times) where heroin was legal, it caused amazing amounts of damage. And if drugs are generally legal, that means that research into synthetic drugs which are far more addictive will be legal. As I understand it, for many people heroin is the sort of drug where unlike alcohol, there’s no such thing as responsible usage. Once you try it, you have to have it. With synthetic drugs, we can expect that researchers will find drugs that are far more addictive, and for more of the population.
It’s not obvious that all drugs should be legal.
The law is a blunt instrument. Welfare reform does mean that you’re punishing people who are poor. People will only get better when they want to get better, and sometimes that means that you have to make things worse for them before things will get better for them.
There’s a reason, after all, why Winston Churchill called this a “world of sin and woe”.
Heh, sadly, Dean, I agree with you 100%. There are very few, if any, rational arguments to be made against legalizing marijuana, at least. And for ctl, I don’t think anyone is all that interested in legalizing heroin, ever.
BTW, jay, while there are currently no chemical tests for being impaired due to marijuana, there are field sobriety tests that you can use just like you can for alcohol.
I would, however, point out that there are occassionally prosecutions for driving while impaired due to drugs. But they are very rare. Why ? Well, because the simple fact of the matter is, drunk people often get drunk at a bar and are compelled to drive home. That decision making process is both driven by the alcohol and impaired by it at the same time. On the other hand, people that smoke pot generally do so in private and are not compelled to go anywhere for the most part.
Simply put, the idea that there will somehow be a spike in “driving while stoned” the truth is, there are millions of people smoking pot regularly, and they don’t commit that crime, really, at all.
I would also point out that what I just posted above, is EXACTLY why alcohol is a far, FAR more dangerous substance than marijuana.
It’s really not even close.
My concern is that I want neight drunkards, acidheads, potheads or any other such freaks licensable to operatre motor vehicles on public roads.
Everyone agrees you shouldn’t operate dangerous equipment when intoxicated, but we have those rules for all kinds of legal substances.
And if drugs are generally legal, that means that research into synthetic drugs which are far more addictive will be legal
Given what people will do for heroin and coke, I doubt anything can be significantly more addictive than what’s out there now. In any case, it will always be an individual’s choice whether to consume something. We need to educate people not to use drugs rather than using government force to oppress them when they do.
I’m not a drug warrior, Dean.
It’s just that I’ve had it up to my eyebrows listening to people whine about their rights to use the stuff. I just wish to hell these folks would hide themselves in some (hopefully air-conditioned) closet and zonk themselves out where none of the normal nine-tenths of humanity have to listen them acting pious about taking dope. As if this were some sort of crusade for human rights.
And just to get things straight, Deadrody, I don’t drink anymore. Because it’s bad for my lo-cal starvation diet. I don’t even drink real coffee anymore. Just decaf once/twice a day, with some salt-free peanuts, almonds, cashews, raisins and figs. So I have to be numbered as one of the most cold sober dudes alive.
And I never said I want to punish druggies because I care about their families or their communities. To be utterly candid with all of you, it’s my ass I care about. When I’m behind the wheel of my auto, I have to think:
“That guy coming at me down the opposite lane of this 55 mph highway at a combined closing speed of 110 mph, is that guy stoned out of his mind, like so many kids these days? How long would it take me to flick the steering wheel to the right and run it into that ditch, in case he steers his buggy into my lane? Will the crash into that ditch save my life or will it kill me just as if I took a head-on? Or will the airbags snap open like a big white parachute and save me?”
Do I trust people in general anymore to use common sense in the daily management of their lives? No way. It’s not that kind of America anymore. Maybe it hasn’t been for 60 years and more, and I’ve been fooling myself about it.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold,
Making drugs illegal does little to make driving safer. If someone wants to intoxicate themselves before driving, there are all sorts of ways they can do so legally.
In any case, I’m guessing you aren’t that familiar with marijuana, as marijuana causes risk-averse behavior. You’re much more likely to be honking at him for driving 10 mph under the speed limit.
And sober isn’t necessarily safe. Frankly, your lo-cal diet probably makes you a much bigger risk than someone who smoked a couple puffs on a joint before heading to the local movie theater. In addition to the strong possibility of hypoglycemia-dulled reflexes, there’s also the well-known correlation between hunger and rage.
CTL: Heroin isn’t as bad as people make it out to be. No, I don’t use it, and I don’t want to use it. However, it has long been documented that heroin is less destructive than morphine and any of a number of other drugs, including many legal drugs. In terms of ill health effects, alcohol is much worse for you than heroin.
However, just to be clear, opposing our obscene drug laws does not mean that we take a lassez-faire attitude. I have no problem whatsoever with strict labeling laws, restrictions on where, when, and how you can use or sell it, etc. Heck, if you want to, let’s have a law that says selling or even giving the stuff to minors merits you a 20 year stay in the slammer, and if a kid dies using drugs you sold them, you get charged with their murder. I’m fine with that.
Arnold: Your response illustrates my point perfectly: the only reason you support these obscene laws is because you just don’t like druggies. I actually admire you for your honesty on that one.
I also admire the fact that you do not trot out the obscene lie that these laws are a protection for families. Becaue they aren’t. They destroy families more effectively than any drug possibly could.
“And sorry, Derek, but “where does it stop” is not an argument against anything. “
I never said it was. I said it wasn’t necessarily fearmongering.
While I agree that pot CAN make lead to some risk averse behavior, it can also lead to just plain stupid behavior. One of my friends was in prison last year (for driving under the influence of a controlled substance, i.e., pot). He was allowed to go out each day on work release. About 2 weeks into his work release, he showed up back at the prison in the evening with a bag of weed in his pocket. His excuse “I forgot.”
And he’s the kind of person that worries me. He does it over and over again. He’s wrecked his car 3 or 4 times, always while driving stoned. Luckily, he’s never killed or injured anyone but himself.
And field sobriety tests are OK as far as they go. But they don’t work so well if the driver is already unconscious in the hospital or dead in the morgue.
And as far as the “most people don’t get high and drive, they do it in private places.” argument, well, in my experience, we always* did it in private locations BECAUSE IT’S ILLEGAL!
*Except for concerts….
And like I said, I think the current system is seriously broken, and I do think some sort of legalization is in order. The lessons learned from alcohol prohibition are pretty clear. And if weed were suddenly made legal, I’d plant a few seeds myself.
I’m just saying, there are potential consequences that we really need to think through with this stuff.
Comments on this entry are closed.