Former Governor Gary Johnson is set to announce his candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination for 2012. Personally I would vote for the former Governor over most any other candidate if not for his position on drugs, specifically for legalizing at least marijuana among others. Comedian Daniel Tosh was first to state that the only good reason to legalize pot is so that so potheads never have anything to talk about ever again.
Proponents of legalizing drugs have many reasons for their stance. Some are honest, it’s because they want use it. Too many insist on righteousness and making statements analogous to curing all of our societal ills by legalization, which to them are apparently caused by prohibition of drugs. These arguments are made up of straw men and are tired as they are unknowable. Let’s examine a few in regard to marijuana.
Why treat pot different from alcohol, they’re similar and alcohol’s even worse because of DWI. Some argue that pot is a “mellow” high and some people insist that they have a heightened awareness when they are high. That’s nonsense. THC, the active ingredient in pot is a psychoactive substance, and in that sense is similar to alcohol. The effects though are different and it is my opinion that alcohol is more readily moderated. DWI’s key component is intoxicated, some are attributable to pot already and it is reasonable to assume that more would be if pot were to be legalized.
The ‘war on drugs’ is a failure. Has there ever been a more misunderstood nebulous term than the ‘war on drugs’? What is it exactly? Its failure is often attributed to the fact that illegal drugs are basically abundant. Which is a fair point but in many districts there is little enforcement for many drug offenses. Education on the dangers of illegal drugs is counteracted many times over in popular culture. When there are no real consequences for casual use for many and it is glamorized in culture, why is it surprising that the ‘war on drugs’, whatever that is, is considered a failure?
Drug legalization has driven market demand higher than if pot were legal. This is just dumb. So dumb that it seems as though I made this one up, but no I’ve heard it many times before. This is just unknowable but in economic terms seems unlikely that the market for pot would shrink if legalized.
It will clear prisons of basically harmless drug offenders. This one may be true, but the prison population is not mostly made up of casual drug users, they typically get a slap on the wrist. Violent drug offenders, dealers and criminals who use their ill-gotten gains to purchase drugs make up the majority of drug-related prisoners. And if pot were legal those in prison for offenses related to it would likely be in there for something else.
It will raise tax revenue. If regulated by the state this one will be true, but the cost of regulation likely will equal or surpass in cost any new intake making this argument essentially null.
People should be responsible enough to make their own decisions in regard to what they ingest and inhale. In a perfect world maybe but unfortunately too many are irresponsible. This is not a perfect world and addiction is a serious problem and as a society we must determine a line in regard to psychoactive substances. I believe that marijuana and other drugs are over that line and should remain illegal. I think that the consequences outweigh the loss in freedom in disallowing some responsible citizens from being able to procure it.
And that’s my opinion. There are others who differ. If they want to use pot, that’s their preference and if they’re honest about that fact, fantastic. I still think they’re wrong. Making up all kinds of reasons and statistics meant to persuade is meaningless PR. Marijuana advocates are often very adamant in the righteousness of their many arguments, they never ask themselves the simple question, what if what they say isn’t true? What is true is that pot is harmful.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dude, you've been listening to too much Rush. Most of the reasons for legalizing/decriminalizing pot are grounded in logical arguments, and it seems like you just dismiss them offhand, often without any evidence. In fact, most of the arguments you use are strawmen themselves, or are (admittedly, you say so yourself) your own opinion or something unknowable.
For example, you say that "the costs of regulation will likely equal or surpass in cost any new intake" - what? Do you have numbers to back that up? Because offhand, I'd say that the cost-savings from the justice system alone would be enough. We spend $40 billion annually enforcing drug laws right now, getting zero tax revenue - how would decriminalization (reducing justice system costs) and regulation (raising bureaucratic costs, but bringing in tax revenue) raise that by any significant amount?
To me, the most compelling argument against drug prohibition is the fact that we tried it once already with alcohol; it was a miserable failure, so we changed it back. Thomas Sowell often states that often, arguments are made between those who see problems categorically requiring "solutions" and those who see problems as things to be incrementally managed, requiring "trade-offs". I like this op-ed from the Economist, characterizing drug legalization as the "least bad" policy. This dovetails nicely with conservative thoughts on capitalism, often considered the "least bad" economic system.
http://www.economist.com/node/13237193
Painting legalization advocates as pot-smoking losers is a Rush tactic, and one of the things that makes me lose respect for him. I favor legalization, and I don't care to smoke pot. WF Buckley was one of the staunchest advocates for legalization, and I'd hardly characterize him as a shiftless loser.
Dude, I assure you that my opinions are my own. My basic point is to question the validity of righteous statements related to legalization, hence the title. There is no way to know that as well.
It is not accurate to compare the prohibition of alcohol to marijuana. If it was, legalization would have already happened just considering the short history of the 18th amendment.
And, it is reasonable to assume costs to legalization. Regulations will have be created and maintained. ATF or some other agency will be charged with enforcement. Wider availability will lead to higher usage rates and the negative consequences of that usage (which is real) but never talked about will materialize and will have real costs. What they are cannot be known.
I believe that too many legalization advocates simply brush aside real concerns and make unknowable generalizations that purport to make the idea of it to be all benefit without any consequences. This rosy eyed view is not realistic. I'm not and did not identify all advocates as potheads, I just noted that in my opinion, those most honest about their intentions are potheads.
Much of my opinion was formed from my childhood, growing up in a community that was ravaged by drugs, specifically marijuana. Families torn apart, lives destroyed and it had nothing to do with it being illegal. Lax enforcement made it readily available and the listlessness that it's use leads to made those in its grips desperate for it but never strive to do anything other than use.
Post a Comment