The Square’s Case for Marijuana Decriminalization
Kevin Drum’s not much of a pothead (”I’ve never smoked a joint in my life. I’ve only seen one once, and that was 30 years ago. I barely drink, I don’t smoke, and I don’t like coffee.”) but he’s come to the conclusion that we should decriminalize marijuana and wrote a great piece in Mother Jones about it. This isn’t really the key to the argument, but I was interested in this research on marijuana-alcohol substitutability:
He found that raising the drinking age did lead to lower alcohol consumption; the effect was modest but real. But then DiNardo hit on another analysis—comparing cannabis use in states that raised the drinking age early with those that did it later. And he found that indeed, there seemed to be a substitution effect. On average, among high school seniors, a 4.5 percent decrease in drinking produced a 2.4 percent increase in getting high.
I have smoked pot but frankly it’s just not something I enjoy very much. And anecdotally it’s definitely the case that my marijuana consumption plummeted as it got easier for me to buy alcohol. Conversely, my selfish reason for liking marijuana prohibition is that it reduces the extent to which friends want to engage in pot smoking—which I find unpleasant—as a social activity.
The Bulldog coffee shop in Amsterdam (my photo)
That said, back to the real world of public policy I think the only serious debate is over exactly how you want to manage decriminalization. If you really legalize pot and sell it in stores and such, then you can tax it. But the development of large-scale commercial enterprises dedicated to marijuana advertising would have deleterious effects. So maybe it’s better to do something Dutch-style where you’re not wasting law enforcement resources on curtailing the marijuana trade, but the technical illegality keeps things restrained.
52 Responses to “The Square’s Case for Marijuana Decriminalization”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 6th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
So maybe it’s better to do something Dutch-style where you’re not wasting law enforcement resources on curtailing the marijuana trade, but the technical illegality keeps things restrained.
Which works in the United States right until the next candidate wins by claiming to be tougher on crime.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Deleterious effects?!? You mean like people would actually go out and buy the product? Why is that deleterious?
Those that could would grow their own. It is a weed after all and pretty hardy to boot. Is it the advertising that would give it a bad rap? Would there be so much money in it that it’d be the same as beer or car comercials now? Doubtful. Sure, you’d have a couple large scale tobacco like conglomerates, but you’d have way more microbrew type entities putting out a product that is more specialized.
I’d be all too happy to ignore the comercialization if only I could get the Feds to stop acting like it’s the same as heroin.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
The problem I have with Matt’s suggestion of decriminalization over legalization is that it would seem to take the disappearance of drug gangs off the table. If the Mexican and Colombian gangs don’t cede their market share to legitimate companies, don’t they continue existing in some form? And if it’s legal, that would probably actually raise their revenue. Which means that one of the worst aspects of the war on drugs continues unchanged.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
But the development of large-scale commercial enterprises dedicated to marijuana advertising would have deleterious effects
Why assume there has to be a large-scale business marketing marijuana?
I think decriminalization is a terrible outcome, because you still have millions or billions flowing to criminals.
If it were up to me, we’d legalize marijuana but the government would have a monopoly on marijuana sales. Make it available through doctors or thru ABC-type stores. But no private business with a profit motive or need to advertise.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Correction: since it’s weed he’s talking about, that would be more just an issue for the Mexican gangs, not their Colombian counterparts.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
“I have smoked pot but frankly it’s just not something I enjoy very much.”
Same here. But, have you tried acid? It’s much better. Its one of those things you really should try at least once in your life.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Weed is not hard to grow. And there are a lot of underemployed, undereducated folks out there who could do well at it.
Why not sell it as a stimulus program?
July 6th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
HALF of all ARRESTS in this country are marijuana-related.
Legalizing pot would create a lot of revenue for bankrupt states–like California, which already produces $14 billion worth of pot a year. As an added bonus, more pot smoking would lead to more pacifism nation-wide. So perhaps weed is the answer to stopping the next war. I’m sure Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer are against legalization….
July 6th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
If it were up to me, we’d legalize marijuana but the government would have a monopoly on marijuana sales.
Cool, let’s have the government turn everybody into potheads, should be much easier to govern then. Oh brave new world…
July 6th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Not if you just banned the commercial advertising of pot, or alternatively, sold it in government-run monopolies similar to the way many states handle hard alcohol (e.g. New Hampshire). Then you’d get all the benefits of increased tax revenues, and you’d completely drive the illegal market for drugs out of existence. In a decriminalized regime, marijuana dealers still face the same fundamental problem they face today – the government won’t protect their possession of their product, and so if they are robbed, they have no recourse, which creates second order incentives to be heavily armed or involved with gang violence.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
But the development of large-scale commercial enterprises dedicated to marijuana advertising would have deleterious effects.
I’m old enough to remember cigarette ads everwhere you turned. TV, movies, radio, sports events etc etc. How much do you see anymore on a daily basis? Why would legalized marijuana advertising be any more omnipresent than for cigs?
July 6th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
But Oberon, making the government the sole distributor carries with it the same problems. It leaves the quality of the product up to the political whims of those in power, and it sets up the potential for limiting access. Both would have the effect of funneling money back to the black market.
Yglesias is right to say we should model it more like the Dutch than like our own tobacco or alcohol industries. I would like to see full legalization, but with restrictions placed on sellers and growers. For example, set a maximum plant limit for growers (maybe 100-300 plants). For resellers limits on advertising ability, no sales to those under 18 or 21. Maybe only allow sales from licensed stores (i.e., not available in gas stations and grocery stores). Like the Dutch, there could also be limits on store inventory and the amount one customer can buy.
Basically, the idea would be to allow those many thousands of growers who are already in operation to conduct their business legally, while limiting the growth of the industry down the road. No single grower would really be able to have anything more than a regional presence.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Oberon: I think decriminalization is a terrible outcome, because you still have millions or billions flowing to criminals.
For like a month, you would see millions flowing to the CURRENT crop of criminals, which has the distribution channels already in place. Shortly after that, however, Philip Morris et al. would become the criminals in question. It would be so much easier for a tobacco company to go into the joint business than it would be for a pot cartel to develop a sophisticated corporate presence, there just doesn’t seem like much of a worry that Big Pot would be run by today’s “wrongdoers.”
July 6th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
What do drug users talk about? Using drugs.
2nd biggest bores on the planet.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
2nd biggest bores on the planet.
And the biggest? Oh, please enlighten us, Mr. Cool…
July 6th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
# Jeffrey Davis Says:
July 6th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
What do drug users talk about? Using drugs.
2nd biggest bores on the planet.
actually, what i think is boring is when a person makes an uninformed sweeping generalization. considering that 10% of the US population smokes weed regularly, and around 40% have at some point in their life…thats a lot of boring people out there. and were not even talking about people who smoke cigarettes (a drug!) drink alcohol (a drug!) drink coffee (a drug!) or all the others who are taking prescription pills (adderall, xanax, valium, and the list goes on forever)
in fact, people who use drugs are some of the most interesting people i know, tend to be very open minded, and suspiciously lacking in prejudices. perhaps expanding your worldview and opening your mind to new experiences might be a good thing though. Nah, probably not. After all, im just a boring drug user that only talks about drugs.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
cigarettes (a drug!) drink alcohol (a drug!) drink coffee (a drug!) or all the others who are taking prescription pills
The next time you throw in coffee and cigarettes with alcohol and pot, you might want to envision the following scenario scenario: you’re sitting in an airplane and pilot A has had a few coffees and cigarettes, while pilot B has had a couple of martinis and a joint – who would rather fly with?
July 6th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
“HALF of all ARRESTS in this country are marijuana-related.”
Half of all drug arrests are marijuana-related, marijuana arrests make up about 6% of total arrests.
“2nd biggest bores on the planet.
And the biggest? Oh, please enlighten us, Mr. Cool…”
Blog commenters?
July 6th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I am a bartender that doesn’t drink, and there is simply no competition for THE most boring group of people on the planet.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Satya is exactly right. It should be legalized, taxed and sold by state stores, similar to how Pennsylvania sells alcohol (it’s annoying, but you can get some great deals on wine!!).
Speaking from personal experience, alcohol is no substitute for pot but there is definitely a give-and-take relationship between use of the two substances. It’s just that one of them comes with no calories, no hangover and no risk of “overdose” (no one has ever died of “marijuana poisoning”). It’s crazy that we even have to have this debate.
On a related note… c’mon Matt, I thought we were kindred spirits!!
July 6th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
In my state, and possibly in yours, legislators want to cut costs and raise taxes. Of course, one way they could do that would be to take the advice of every major commission that has ever studied the matter, and legalize and tax pot.
And frankly, I’ve had it. If they’re not willing to legalize and tax pot, I’m not willing to pay more taxes or watch school budgets get cut. If legislators are so fundamentally frivolous they can’t legalize pot, they deserve to be hit with tax-cutting initiatives.
For 40 years I’ve been at the precinct meeting for the presidential year. In every one of those meetings a resolution was passed that legalizing pot should be a plank in the platform. In every one of those years party bosses have made sure those resolutions didn’t make it past the county convention.
If this form of government really can’t be made to work, it’s time to let it fail.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
The next time you throw in coffee and cigarettes with alcohol and pot, you might want to envision the following scenario scenario: you’re sitting in an airplane and pilot A has had a few coffees and cigarettes, while pilot B has had a couple of martinis and a joint – who would rather fly with?
whoa there. that wasn’t the argument at all. the argument was that people who use drugs are boring. a drug is a chemical that changes the way your body functions. you wouldnt lump adderall with coffee or tobacco either, and yet it would probably make the pilot even better because he would be extremely focused.
no i wouldn’t want a drunk pilot, in the same way that i wouldnt want a drunk cab driver. However, i would MUCH rather have a pilot who just smoked a J than a pilot who had just drank a 6 pack. weed tends to make you more cautious and careful, booze more belligerant and ridiculous. yet alcohol is legal, not weed. im not advocating for drugs in the cockpit, im advocating for them in my back yard.
the bottom line is, the point you are making is tangential at best to the original argument. again, i say those who apply broad generalizations to millions of people at once are the boring ones.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
These are like, just my opinions, man:
- How likely is it that Kevin Drum, a lifelong Californian who went to school during the peak of American youth marijuana use, has only seen a joint once in his life? Maybe he left out all the bongs and pipes he’s seen to increase the dramatic effect?
- This need Matt (or for that matter Mark Kleiman) has for settling on the one perfect model for cannabis distribution is strange. Is this not the perfect venue for experimentation by the states?
- It’s not clear why there can’t be 100% legal with marketing restrictions. Why does the marketing restriction require technical illegality? We’re already starting from the point in jurisprudence where everyone accepts the constitutionality of banning a plant… why wouldn’t banning certain types of communication about the plant be acceptable?
- Why can’t Matt Y/Kevin D/the left-liberal blogosphere make an argument based on simple freedom when it comes to drugs?
- I’ve heard it said many times that cops would rather deal with a crowd of potheads than a crowd of drunks. If I didn’t have amotivational syndrome I’d go out, get some video of cops saying just that, stitch them together, and post it to youtube.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
But the development of large-scale commercial enterprises dedicated to marijuana advertising would have deleterious effects.
No argument here. But the question should be whether doing decriminalization in this manner causes more or fewer “deleterious effects” than other methods. AKA cost-benefit analysis.
So maybe it’s better to do something Dutch-style where you’re not wasting law enforcement resources on curtailing the marijuana trade, but the technical illegality keeps things restrained.
Maybe. But I’d want some serious analysis done. It seems to me a case can be made that it’s easier to regulate and tax a limited number of national or regional MJ distributors and retailers (grower co-ops? full-fledged for profit corporations?) than it is to do the same with 200,000 small-time growers. We might want, for instance, to insure that MJ is not excessively potent. And again, it’s not as if it would be impossible to impose marketing regulations on Big Pot just as in the case with Big Tobacco. In general, it tends to be harder to regulate that which is illegal.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Can we please talk less about the practical benefits of changing marijuana policy and more about the importance of halting the imprisonment of peaceful civilians?!?!
July 6th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
This need Matt (or for that matter Mark Kleiman) has for settling on the one perfect model for cannabis distribution is strange. Is this not the perfect venue for experimentation by the states?
There’s no point in states decriminalizing pot or anything else if federal agents will continue to treat it like a crime.
It’s not clear why there can’t be 100% legal with marketing restrictions. Why does the marketing restriction require technical illegality? We’re already starting from the point in jurisprudence where everyone accepts the constitutionality of banning a plant… why wouldn’t banning certain types of communication about the plant be acceptable?
The relevant precedent is not the constitutionality of banning a plant, it’s the constitutionality of banning cigarette ads, like someone mentioned upthread. That took quite a bit of legislation and IANAL, but I think it was the result of civil litigation rather than regulations or laws. If I’m right, it couldn’t happen with marijuana because there won’t be anyone to sue until the industry merges into an oligarchy.
Why can’t Matt Y/Kevin D/the left-liberal blogosphere make an argument based on simple freedom when it comes to drugs?
Because it’s preaching to the choir? I make no statement about the beliefs of Matt Y/Kevin D/specific individuals in the left-liberal blogosphere, but people most who care about simple freedom already support legalization of marijuana or something like it. Legalization supporters need to convince the people who don’t care about simple freedom, which makes up a very big chunk of the country. Some of those who don’t care are actively hostile to simple freedom and some are merely indifferent, but by definition they all are more swayed by economic arguments and the success stories of other countries (albeit maybe not much swayed by those either) than by concerns about freedom.
(That being said, I don’t think I agree with Yglesias here: “But the development of large-scale commercial enterprises dedicated to marijuana advertising would have deleterious effects.” More deleterious than what, than the status quo? Than their tobacco equivalents? Than the existing hodgepodge of unregulated growers and dealers? Why? And you don’t really mean that the advertising would be the problem, do you?)
July 6th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
He was talking about decriminalization, where it’s illegal to produce or sell in large quantities, but legal to own and sell in small quantities. (This is essentially the Dutch model.) That eliminates a lot of street peddlers, but under that scenario, you still have illegal cartels actually producing the stuff, which is why it seems a bad idea to me.
On the other hand, full legalization, which you seem to be thinking of, would allow RJR & PM to produce and sell the stuff, which would pretty much eliminate marijuana from the underworld.
Personally, I’d like to see full legalization with some marketing restrictions and FDA supervision. I’m not entirely sure why people fear the spectre of Big Commerce in this area and not in any other, nor why people don’t seem to think any regulations could limit these “deleterious effects”.
I wouldn’t necessarily oppose a government monopoly, but it seems inefficient and unnecessary. Seems like you could get better results with regulation and taxation of private industries rather than having the government create its own production-distribution infrastructure.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I’m a little late to this, but being a regular user of marijuana, I wanted to weigh in.
Matt really disappoints me by arguing that marijuana should remain “technically” illegal. If you truly believe that, you should go to prison. After all, you admit to trying marijuana. It’s okay for someone else to be punished for using marijuana but not you personally/rich people/white people/people in college/”good people” etc.?? Does Barack Obama believe that he should have been arrested and kicked out of Harvard for using pot? If not, then his opposition to legalization is just as hypocritical as Vitter’s views on prostitution law (perhaps even MORE hypocritical, as Vitter didn’t openly admit to using prostitutes until he was actually caught). It makes me sick.
Matt wants a world where his drug of choice (alcohol) is 1) available everywhere, 2) sold in stores, 3) legal for everyone over 21, and MOST IMPORTANTLY 4) part of our social fabric, where there are whole businesses (bars) dedicated to gathering people together in a fun environment to sell this drug.
This for a substance that everyone agrees is far more dangerous than alcohol. But pot smokers should grow their own weed and be “technical” criminals.
The selfishness is a little overwhelming.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I think a commerce-clause approach would be best. Allow the states to experiment with legalization/decriminalization and keep federal rules against interstate distribution.
Also, it would be very easy to pass laws against mj advertising. Caps on production could also be put into place by states. A 200 plant limit on producers would be generous enough to keep growers within the law but restrictive enough to prevent large conglomerates from developing.
Matt’s fear of big corporate growers and their supposedly inevitable marketing machines is really a red herring. There’s no reason to believe that legalization would not entail restrictions that would prevent this.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Allow possession of one growing, and one curing, marijuana plant per household. This would be a lot of pot. So what. Focus on amounts/weight misses the point. The oversupply would kill the illegal trade. Why grow hundreds of plants, or smuggle tons of pot, if everyone has a homegrown pound laying around? And believe me, pot smokers would be glad to grow their own. Pot would be like tomatoes, people would be throwing it away and giving it away, but would always have enough for themselves. No need for regulation, taxes, police scrutiny, mega-pot companies, etc. Parents, it’s your job to keep it away from your kids, as with alcohol and prescription drugs.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Forget that!
July 6th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Just putting this out there- proposals to let users grow their own but not to allow larger commercial ventures assume that all pot is the same. Not so. There are many different varieties with different cannabinoid contents and different flavors, which matter just as much to connoisseurs of pot as varietals matter to fans of wine. There is also a lot of room for harm reduction in consuming edible forms of cannabis… which if it’s a grow-your-own-only paradigm means more smoking, because not everybody has enough time to grow and process and cook. Much easier just to keep it in the raw form and smoke it.
Last point- Growing a pot plant is easy. Growing good weed is not.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Gotta say, week after week we’ve watched Matt call for more bars in DC- “Break the restaurant oligarchy!”
But when it comes to letting people grow and smoke in their own homes, we can’t be too careful or move too slowly. Oh, sure, this thing has been poked and prodded for over a century, and the answer- LEGALIZE- never changes. But who knows, maybe next year someone will find a downside.
But wait- we’ve already GOT our downside, but it comes from prohibition. The Mexican government is sending in troops to try to regain control of their northern states- do you want to wait until we have to send in troops to try to regain control of our western states? The Mexican mafia has numerous huge grow-ops in our national forests.
This gets to another post Matt did earlier today. Our legislators were all elected legal and such-like, but the people never consented to pot prohibition. The policy has lost the mandate of heaven (which it never actually had), and people figure that if their desire to smoke a joint, or their unwillingness to call the cops about someone smoking, leads to anarchy, well, so be it.
And Matt’s fears are overblown. Pot doesn’t need to be cured or processed after growing, and it doesn’t need to be smoked. Most people will find their needs are easily met by buying $10 worth from a friend once in a while, and most growers will be people with 10-20 plants who love the smell of the stuff in bloom.
The problem is prohibition. The solution is legalization.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
What Oberon says, the state-owned liquor store model is the way to go. On the other hand, if the US Postal Service held the monopoly, I doubt they’d have to raise stamp prices ever again.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
So, either Kevin Drum lives in a monastery, or he boards at the Palin household. Hmm, except even in the latter, he would no doubt have seen a joint.
There’s a certain level of inexperience with the rough and tumble of life that those who aren’t monks, but comment on politics, should have.
Drum should smoke a joint, and to make up for his purity, perhaps smoke some rocks as well.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
stocks: frito lay, domino’s, 7-11, bacon
July 6th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
The Dutch did not choose decriminalization over legalization, it was the only option at the time.
You see, someone (*cough* the US) made banning pot part of all sorts of international agreements on trade and the UN and Interpol and stuff, and made damn sure everyone signed.
At least that’s what the Dutch politicians tell me every time the issue rears its head (which is not very often lately).
So, my guess is legalizing pot state by state is not an option, even though it would be ironic to see the US kicked out of Interpol or something because of treaties put in place at the behest of the US.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
And the biggest? Oh, please enlighten us, Mr. Cool
People who respond to enormous straight lines with pique.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Wanting something to be illegal because you don’t want to deal with it in social situations. Are you sure you’re not a bible-thumping conservative from a flyover state?
July 6th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Society would produce too many philosophers if we legalized marijuana. In fact, there would be a veritable glut of philosophers and deep thinkers. The populace would go insane.
Besides, if everybody smoked pot who would show up at Michael Jackson’s funeral? There sure as hell wouldn’t be two million pot smokin’ mourners wishing they could be a weeping and a wailing at the gloved-ones grave site.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Matt: “So maybe it’s better to do something Dutch-style where you’re not wasting law enforcement resources on curtailing the marijuana trade, but the technical illegality keeps things restrained.”
In other words, Matt wants you to be arrested on a legal technicality whenever some cop decides he doesn’t like your face, but his only charge is marijuana possession which he otherwise wouldn’t bother to charge you for.
Stupid.
Matt’s real problem, of course, is that he can’t stand the thought that the problems of this society would be revealed if drugs were legalized and millions more people started using them.
In other words, as someone once said, the only reason this country has a problem with drugs is because this country has worse problems that drugs are ameliorating or distracting people from, such as race, class warfare, etc.
Matt wants to keep all that in place because the alternative scares him.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Last joint would be 11 years ago for me…I imagine if somebody shoved one in my face, sure, I’d smoke it, but that’s just not my life nowadays. Anyways, my most enjoyable pot experiences involved smoking it outside in broad daylight in countries where you would be seriously fucked if caught. So that would be the only argument I can think of against decriminalization.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
I don’t smoke pot very much and for good reason, it always makes me shy in public and occasionally produces a touch of paranoia to boot. I spend a significant amount of time in public and would prefer to move confidently, or with the appearance of confidence, when I’m out and about.
A good example: I don’t like to be high as fuck when I am forced by circumstance to talk to a policemen. My brain goes into system failure immediately. That scenario is to be avoided at all costs, for reasons more important than it is an instant buzz kill.
But in safe surroundings I think smoking weed can be very relaxing, especially for the body, and without question it can be used as a learning tool for many things.
For instance, I have spent tens of thousands of hours of my life bent over pool tables pocketing pool balls. Needless to say, even a slow-witted fellow like myself, through osmosis, is bound to absorb a shitload of knowledge. And I have. But, I can honestly say the couple hundred or so hours I’ve spent playing or practicing pool when I was high have led to many of my deepest insights into the game. That’s weed, that’s what it can do for you if used judiciously and with purpose.
I don’t know, like the Greeks said (did they smoke?) “everything in moderation” I guess.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Fundamentally, I believe it is ridiculous to outlaw a plant.
If we are going to outlaw one though, I propose poison oak.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:05 am
It’s been noted, but did Matt really mean to say that weed should be “technically” illegal because otherwise there will be too much advertising? So the choice is either prohibition and jail, or media saturation…interesting.
July 7th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Only users lose drugs.
Decriminalization doesn’t address the biggest problem with illegal drugs – the drug cartels. Just legalize it already.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I prefer pot to alcohol, in terms of both physical and mental effect. Alcohol makes me feel sloppy and hungover, while pot makes me feel more appreciative of ordinary life. A book of poems, a hike, a frisbee game, a BBQ, and housework all go better for me with cannabis. I smoke about 2-3 times a week when I can. That’s the frustrating part… I have to risk getting busted just so I can do a bong hit and work in my garden?
The first thing we should do is remove the federal prohibition on marijuana. In the case of Raich v. Gonzalez (2006), Justice O’Connor pointed out the awkward fact that while the Supreme Court struck down federal gun regulation as outside the Contitutional power of Congress, the Court approved federal marijuana prohibition under the Commerce Clause (which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce). The irony is that the prohibition on pot and the free flow of guns across state lines is contributing to terrible violence in Mexico and threating our southern states.
Next, I think states should experiment with different decriminalization programs, just like they do with alcohol. Some states could have government stores, outright legalization, etc. I favor a law whereby pot seeds would be legal for sale, and people could get a permit to grow pot, just like they get a permit for a gun. Sale of pot would be illegal, but growers could give away up to an ounce for free. This would destroy the black market, and people who wanted pot could get it easily.
I get sick of politicians who have smoked pot, who know that prohibition is pointless and wrong, yet they’re afraid to act because they’re afraid of what Mr. and Mrs. Heartland will think. I’m sick of the government curtailing my personal freedom because of someone else’s cramped morality.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:49 am
But the development of large-scale commercial enterprises dedicated to marijuana advertising would have deleterious effects.
You mean like the alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine industries? Marijuana is less addictive than all of those (IIRC, certainly the first two), so you can’t hook one teenager and profit for the rest of his emphysema-shortened life like the tobacco companies can, which weakens the incentive to advertise; but even leaving that aside, unless you think the disadvantages of legality and advertising for those drugs are worse than the War on Some Drugs (not remotely), there’s no reason to engage in Broderian difference-splitting.
Laws not commonly enforced are an open invitation to police corruption, abuse of power and extortion, too. Keeping the law on the books and not enforcing it except on the most powerless or people who piss off the police is a *terrible* idea.
And commercial speech has less First Amendment protection than other kinds of speech (which is why we can have false advertising laws, but can’t revoke Rush Limbaugh’s broadcasting license every time he lies), so it would be no more difficult to directly regulate marijuana advertising than tobacco or alcohol advertising.
P.S. DUI is a red herring, introduced for the purpose of dishonest fearmongering. As the case of alcohol shows, it can be banned independently of possession, sale, and use of the drug itself.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:48 am
I was about to argue that they wouldn’t have to market it aggressively, but they would. Lotteries were legallized to take business away from organized crime and to raise money for good causes. Then, states saw how good a revenue source they were and started hyping them ridiculously. They significantly increased the amount of gambling going on, and not just any gambling. These lotteries have the worst payout of any games and have the greatest impact on those least able to afford the loss.
I’m in favor of legalizing pot, but it shouldn’t be done until advertising for booze, cigarettes and gambling are outlawed. Then, make pot a legal product and ban advertising it. Do the same for prostitution. I see nothing wrong with people engaging in vices that don’t harm others, but I see no reason to tolerate massive campaigns to get people to engage in such vices. That the government hypes its lotteries while banning cigarette and liquor ads from the public airwaves is the height of hypocrasy.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Such laws would actually be much more effective in the case of marijuana. Drunk people lose judgement more severely than high people do. People who, while sober, would never dream of driving after drinking a six pack will happily get behind the wheel after actually drinking it.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
There’s little harmful effect to chronic use except maybe lassitude and sloth. Of course, it needs to be decriminalized. And, as an NBA rooter MY, you must know that it’s the player’s drug of choice.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“have you tried acid? It’s much better. Its one of those things you really should try at least once in your life.”
I would recommend that anyone thinking about trying acid read Alpert, Leary and Metzner’s “The Psychedelic Experience” first. And remember that just because you see god doesn’t mean that trying to fly will not result in a broken neck.