Gov. Schwarzenegger recently suggested that California and our country should maybe take a look at legalizing marijuana and I think he’s right, we should. I’d like to lay out a thought out argument for decriminalizing drugs and legalizing marijuana. This is something that I have gone back and forth about for a long time, but I think the time is here. Let me add as a caveat that I do not smoke (tobacco or marijuana), drink or do drugs and haven’t done so in 15 years, but that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize coherent arguments for legalizing or at least decriminalizing it.
First and foremost the financial reasons. According to some accounts marijuana accounts for about 2 out of ever 5 arrests, 34,000 state prisoners per year and nearly 800,000 Americans annually have been arrested on marijuana charges. The Department of Justice alone (this does not include any state prisons) spends more then $1 billion annually to imprison offenders. The state of California alone spends nearly $4 billion to incarcerate violators of anti-marijuana laws. This does not include the costs we spend on law enforcement, prosecution and parole of offenders. I have not been able to find any figures, but it is likely these costs would also be several billion dollars a year in savings were we to decriminalize marijuana. Furthermore, it is estimated that marijuana sales exceed $105 billion in gross sales annually, even with a modest 7.5% tax that would mean about $10 billion in tax revenues, if we implemented a tax regime similar to what we have with tobacco it could mean somewhere in the $40 billion dollar tax range, not a sum to sneeze at, especially for local and state governments.
The typical response to this is that we’ll spend more money in rehabilitation and social costs such as higher crime rates, etc. to support pot habits. I just don’t think this is true, and in any event I don’t think we’ll spend more then we are already spending to combat these side-effects of using drugs. Lets take countries like Holland and Portugal (which has decriminalized all drugs) as an example, you just don’t see a greater wide-spread use in those countries then you do here, its just done with less shame and jail time. They have not experienced increased financial costs since they have decriminalized marijuana. At least if the government had tax revenues from marijuana sales they could actually pay for effective drug rehab programs.
It is also argued that marijuana is a “gateway” drug that leads to use of harder drugs like cocaine or heroin. I’m not sure that is true or not, I won’t go into my sordid history or past, but lets just say that I never met anyone for whom this was actually true. My father used to scare me with that very line, I didn’t buy it because my life experience told me differently. I’m sure there are some cases where this may have been the case, but for the average person I don’t know why marijuana would necessarily lead to more drug use then alcohol. When you treat someone as a criminal they might just act like one. Instead, bring it out in the open, have some regulation and control of it and it is arguable that marijuana use could actually decrease.
Furthermore, as a conservatives, do we really want the government interfering with the way we live our lives? Whether it is smoking cigarettes, practicing devil worship or marrying someone of the same sex, this is just not something the government should have any say in. We should be free to make our own choices, for good or evil. As long that choice does not harm another person, we should all be allowed to make these choices, that is what a free society means.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Yes but WE have the power to change the constitution. So ultimately we do have the power (in theory).
Rhayader…i am not arguing pot vs. a person liberties. But simply pointing out that ultimately the government servers the people. And the people collectively and ultimately have the right to determine what power they wish to grant to the government.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:24 am
And the people collectively and ultimately have the right to determine what power they wish to grant to the government.
Again: this isn’t true if “the power they wish to grant to the government” is an unconstitutional one. If the majority wished to grant the government the power to censor the press, or to form a state religion, it would not matter one bit unless congress were to pass a constitutional amendment. The will of the people is important, yes, but it absolutely must fit into the framework of the Constitution.
I don’t think drug prohibition passes this test. Unlike alcohol prohibition, modern-day drug prohibition never was supported by a constitutional amendment.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:38 am
The terminator is a moron, he has been the the worst governor in CA History. Legalize pot, I think not, I like free enterprise and why pay taxes on that too? Support your local grower.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:43 am
If the majority wished to grant the government the power to censor the press, or to form a state religion, it would not matter one bit unless congress were to pass a constitutional amendment.
You are making my point for me! Glad to see we are in complete agreement. Since the people elect congress, ultimately we grant the power to the government.
–
And then there is the ratification process, which even further enhance my argument.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:48 am
OK Dolcezza; the day that a constitutional amendment is ratified outlawing all drug use, I’ll stop saying that prohibition is unconstitutional. I’ll still disagree with it, but I won’t be able to challenge it on legal grounds.
For the foreseeable future though, it remains an illegal, immoral, counterproductive, harmful, prejudicial, ineffective, propagandist bunch of crap.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Rhayader:
There did not need to be a Constitutional amendment for prohibition of alcohol. They only did that to establish a sense of unity. I don’t know for sure, but maybe the Commerce Clause didn’t carry the kind of power it does today.
The truth is, the “Commerce Clause” allows Congress to REGULATE interstate commerce. The selling of marijuana is most certainly an interstate enterprise. So how is it unconstituitonal to outlaw the sale of marijuana? Further, state governments would be under no resrictions like the Federal. They have general powers to regulate the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the people according to the Supreme Court.
Some have argued that those growing just enough for themselves are not taking part in interstate commerce. This argument has not held up because people growing often wind up selling it.
Your Constitutional argument is very weak my friend.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Yea, but this bullsh*t that pot is victimless needs to be taken out the conversation right away, its just not true.
As long as people get stoned and run someone over or crash a plane, or spend money on pot instead of kids needs, or whatever it will not be victimless. If its given to developing minds its not victimless.
Weve had this debate before and alot of you could save you fingertips by going back to the debate we had on this topic about a month ago.
Where it was rendered down to us not legalizing pot just nilly willy because we need the money and instead taking an honest look at the effects it will have on society and all the ramifications/collateral damage that will come with legalization.
Will it be worth the revenues or will we suffer greater costs than what we bring in ?
This who give a sh*t will ask these questions and those who just want get hi will not.
Pot goes with a lot of things so lets stop this idealistic bullsh*t that its an innocent drug even by itself and never hurt anyone.
It goes great with heroin, coke, speed and booze, so stop the crap, all of you !!!!
Stop insulting good peoples intelligence.
I know for a fact that most people dont intentionally set out to by coke, speed, heroin, or booze until they get a little stoned and then lose better judgement and say to themselves “hey ! a couple beers or some meth for a pick me up would go great with this”!
I’ve been there, done that, so lets cut the crap, please.
This is not going to be some smooth transition where the next week weve all of a sudden got little bistros on the corner selling different grades along with you favorite Starbucks where you twist one up go on line and have a Scone, trust me !
There will be more stoned people on the roads, in our workplaces, schools, hospitals, and whatever tragic scenarios an honest person can dream up.
Take your whiney little a$$es and your selfish desires to get stoned and think this thru well with the rights of others in mind before you all so carelessly go forward with it.
Rhayader will tell anyone that I’m all for legalization, but it has to be done right and not so damn carelessly on the fly just because all of a sudden we need money.
As I said before, the unexpected costs could far outweigh the benefits if were not careful.
Thank you Justin.
One of my main arguments is that many growing their own would end up selling it trying to undercut retail prices.
I know I would if I stood to operate on a much higher profit margin.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Well said Micky. The cold hard truth is that Weed use is destructive. I will guarantee that if you ask anyone who uses Meth, Coke, or Heroine if they used Marijuana first, 99.99% will say yes. Who goes straight to those things. That said, not all who smoke weed go further.
There are good points all around, but I think it comes down to the fact that we need to fight against drug use in this country. Legalizing it helps legitamize it. Sure, it is going to be used no matter what. But I think keeping it illegal helps send a message that it isn’t okay.
On the other hand, I will say that simple possesion of small amounts should strictly be a misdemeanor.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
My friends, including Stanford, will be surprised to hear that I believe marijuana should be legalized. I believe it should be strictly enforced, and if anyone is caught providing it to a minor unless it is inside the minor’s home with parents or guardians, that person should go to jail. I believe the same should true of alcohol. Anytime there is auto accident “under the influence” with drugs or alcohol – the sentencing should be stiff.
I want it away from the minor on the street. Adults can make their own decisions, and pay for them if they abuse it.
I think it is criminal now that pot cannot be used as a drug for cancer treatment (and perhaps other treatments).
Bryan, how do you propose the sale of marijuana be handled?
May 14th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Maggie,
I think there are a couple of options depending on what we decide to do. The first is to just decriminalize it. It still wouldn’t be allowed to be sold in a gas station, but there would be no criminal penalties for growing your own.
The second option, which I favor, is to legalize it and regulate it like we do any other product. You could have the FDA inspect and ensure that it meets certain standards etc. This is something sorely lacking from current marijuana sales, you never know what you are going to get (unless you grow it yourself) so I think it is arguable that it will be safer.
If we adopt the later option, I think we could approach it like they do in Holland. Basically, as I understand it, in Holland you can only buy it in certain cafe settings which are themselves regulated.
BTW, has anyone ever heard why marijuana was originally outlawed? Apparently William Randall Heart (best known as Citizen Kane) ran most of the paper industry and stood to loose billions in sales to hemp. So (as the conspiracy goes) he was able to manipulate the government into declaring it illegal. I’d never heard that before but just learned about it the other day.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
The bottom line is pot should be legal. Mexico just legalized possession of small amounts of all drugs. Switzerland just legalized heroin. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and their experience has been positive. Now if you are caught with a 10 day supply of your drug or less you face an administrative court, not a criminal court, but in practice they are just not arresting people. A group of 10,000 very serious policemen, prosecutors, attorneys and citizens have formed a group to legalize ALL drugs, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (http://leap.cc ) They see what happened when we legalized alcohol in 1932 as a good example of how drug legalization would work. This foolish war on drugs has lasted 37 years and cost us over a TRILLION dollars and we are not an inch closer to stopping drugs. How many millions of Americans are we going to lock up in prison for decades? Mark Montgomery boboberg@nyc.rr.com
May 15th, 2009 at 4:03 am
@Justin: Boy it was nice of them to go to the trouble of establishing an amendment just to form a “sense of unity”. Seems like sort of a frivolous reason for a Constitutional amendment no? Besides, not all marijuana sales constitute interstate commerce. Most of the marijuana used in California is produced in-state. How is that kind of activity federally prohibited? They are still raiding medical marijuana facilities with absolutely no proof of interstate activity.
Also, the gateway argument is crap. Of course people who end up using heroin used pot first. What is important is the amount of people who, like me, have used marijuana without ever feeling the need to try anything harder. Most pot smokers like pot; we live normal lives and don’t want to spend our days with needles in our arms.
@Micky: But see, hitting someone with a car, or crashing a plane due to intoxication, or neglecting kids because of a drug problem — those are the crimes that have victims, and should be prosecuted aggressively. I’m sorry, but when I go home from work tonight and smoke pot on the couch while I watch a movie, I won’t be victimizing a single person. It’s not the substance that creates the victim, it is the irresponsibility of those who commit crimes while using it, or because of it, or whatever.
And hey, I’m all in favor of careful, regulated relaxation of our drug laws. I don’t need to see bags of weed behind the counter at 7-11 to feel like we’ve moved in the right direction. There’s no problem with minimizing the likelihood that people will be irresponsible.
@Maggie: I think that to put any significant dent in the underground market and its accompanying violence, there has to be some officially legal way to sell and manufacture the substance, as with alcohol. I agree with Micky that these selling establishments should be tightly regulated and approved by the communities in which they reside, but you need to legalize the commerce to have a legitimate system.
@Bryan: Yeah Hearst’s paper interests were a major motivation behind his anti-marijuana campaign. The irony, of course, is that hemp isn’t even a drug at all. The “devil’s harvest” scare tactics were all about the drug, because they thought people would respond more viscerally to that. Apparently it worked.
May 15th, 2009 at 11:19 am
If prohibitionists like the system currently in place then by all means allow the drug gangs to distribute drugs to all and to receive all profits. The only other option is to
LEGALIZE, REGULATE, AND TAX.
Currently children can access drugs because there is no regulation. The government has taken a hands off approach. They only step in to arrest and eradicate which doesn’t seem to be working. The Tucson Sector of the Border Patrol captures nearly 4,500 lbs a DAY. And they readily admit that they only get 5 – 10 %. That’s not what I call winning the drug war.
May 16th, 2009 at 8:24 am
What about the argument that this isn’t your grandfathers marijuana, which had low thc content? Over the years growers have practiced their horticultural magic and created much stronger strains(4-12X) which dominate the market and one could argue are too strong for developing brains(teenagers, even adults). The strength of some of it is beyond a mild recreational agent. While decriminalizatiion will do much good saving people the unnecessary trauma of prison and unemployability with a record, the increased strength of the thc will cause its own set of problems. Its amazing that you find people using it for simple medical marijuana uses are getting several (many) ounce bags at once, even driving around with them and burning through them rather quickly. In California the DMV has been on a mission to match up people’s photo ID medi marijuana cards with their drivers licenses and investigate whether they are fit to drive. It can suspend anyone’s license this way and its up to the driver to appeal with expert testimoney(doctors, etc, and how are you going to get someone to take on that liability since if you have an accident the doctor may become a liable party) that they are fit to drive safely. So while the state can legalize its limited use with one hand it can take away one’s freedom to drive with the other. The Federal Government can simply copy the photo ID and address cards if it wants to get people using it for medi marijuana as well. Most doctors won’t prescribe it for professional reasons, so its a murky set of gaming to get and use no matter how many medi marijuana clinics spring up. Probably so as not to send the wrong message it could be put in the fine category to discourage its public use and provide better control over it because left entirely to their own devices people would over do it. I doubt anyone can make the claim it made them better students in school or better athletes or better in relationships. Alcohol is pretty tightly controlled nowdays outside the home and people have vastly decreased their use of it from 30 years ago. I think the dui laws are a lot of this(they expressly forbid drinking much outside of home if your driving), plus a big change in the way society things about drinking in general where a somewhat moral prohibitive code has quietly taken over the public view on it..
May 18th, 2009 at 7:33 am
@ Brian:
The ‘this isn’t your grandfather’s marijuana’ argument is designed to make you back away from decriminalization or legalization by pushing as fact that the widespread distribution of increased potency of cannabis is decremental to society. If you go back and read the report and not the news accounts one finds that the vast majority of cannabis consumed is the same lower potency weed that grandpa smoked. Since the drug warriors have clamped down on cannabis distribution, production has moved inside where very potent cannabis is produced. The law if unintended consequences in action.
Now, when you want a beer do you go and get hard liquor? Do you drink hard liquor like beer? See the comparison? I wish the prohibitionists would.
May 18th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Yeah the whole “increased potency” line of reasoning is incredibly flawed.
First of all, potent marijuana has been around since our grandfather’s days. Strains like Panama Red are quite potent and can be traced back several generations. Thai sticks coming out of southeast Asia during the Vietnam War were also good stuff.
Secondly, studies have shown widespread self-titration among smokers as potency increases. In other words, the stronger the stuff is, the less of it people smoke at a time. This is the point that TYC made: people don’t drink vodka like they drink beer, and they don’t smoke OG Kush like they smoke Mexican Merch. Considering that carbon combustion is the only demonstrable negative health effect from smoking, it follows that increased potency which leads to less smoking is actually a good thing.
Finally, even if we accept that claim that potency is increasing significantly, and that users can have bad experiences if they smoke marijuana that is stronger than expected, there is a great solution for potency variations: regulation. Alcohol is sold with a marked potency, so people know what they are getting. The same exact thing could happen with legally sold marijuana.
So yeah, the increasing potency argument just doesn’t hold up.
May 18th, 2009 at 8:55 am
What does hold up is that once its legal more people will smoke it.
There are plenty of law abiding citizens who dont touch it simply because its illegal.
Thens theres the acceptance mode that will come into play as people will see it more acceptable since the law said its okay now.
Maybe thats a good thing, maybe a bad thing as the acceptance level could find its way to kids parents who think that pot is all of a sudden safer just because its legal.
I used to like smoking my leaves and keefe instead of tobacco. I had hefty bags everywhere full of the stuff not knowing what to do with it really. You could fire up one of these mediocre puppies every 1/2 hr. or on the hour and not end up zombified but just keep a pleasant little disposistion all day while selling the colas to the clientel.
Later found a market for it as the the tourist coming to Hawaii would buy it since my leaves were stronger than the Mexican rag weed buds they’d buy on the mainland.
Just thought I’d share
May 18th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Hah, yeah man I would take Hawaiian shake over Mexi brick any day of the week.
And yeah, more people would smoke if it were legalized (although most legitimate studies say it’s more of a marginal increase than an overwhelming one). Pretty much everyone I know has tried pot at least a few times; those who abstain do so for reasons beyond its legal status. I’m not personally acquainted with anyone who is bothered by the legal implications of their decision to smoke (or abstain).
That’s just anecdotal of course, but I have a feeling that nationwide, most people who want to smoke already do.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:23 am
I’m all in favor of decriminilizing of marijuana. I would even support adding government controls in order to “leagalize” it and make a tax buck.
There are purported to be many beneficial uses for the hemp plant, durable hemp fiber being just one. Even your canary is sure to sing its praises when hemp seed is put back in his diet. The pharmaceutical industry sees some medical benefit from the evil weed, if you take it in pill form.
However, “big pharma” does not cotton to the idea that Joe Citizen might put a couple marijuana plants next to his parsley in the backyard garden, then neglect to buy his prescription anti-depressants. Or that Joe might upset the alcohol industry and begin to prefer a fresh-brewed cup of canabis/camomile tea at Miller time. Not going to happen, there are just too many politicians and power-players who see the danger to their investments.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:53 am
Нормальненько все с наполнением, нашел все то на что рассчитывал.Хорошо сделали.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
[...] Schwarzenegger Wants to Look at Legalizing Marijuana; Sounds Good to Me � Right Pundits By marcdotcom Schwarzenegger Wants to Look at Legalizing Marijuana; Sounds Good to Me � Right Pundits [...]