Legalize Marijuana

We all agree that Mary Jane should be legalized... right?

Duh.

The sheer amount of money spent to prosecute marijuana-related crime should be enough for any reasonable person to concede that it's just not worth it.

absolutely.

It wouldn't change what I think of weed and the effects of over-indulgence, but I would prefer that it were legal. I hope someone disagrees though, because it is a topic that runs deeper than just whether you like pot or not and it would be a fun and lively debate.

The fed govt shouldn't be in this business at all. It should be left up to the states as the 10th amendment commands. If a state wants to criminalize it, they have the option.

Just to make Jake happy:

Legalize it and tax it!

But seriously though, our current revenue-generating framework is ridiculous especially considering what the money ends up being spent on.

Weed is super cheep to produce if you don't have to work under the radar... I'd almost be willing to say that this is one of the few instances that price controls in the form of taxation would be a good idea for two reasons:

1. Legally, weed could easily be like $50/ounce. That could be troublesome.

2. I'd rather tax weed (which would still put its price below that which it fetches on the black market) than tax, say, income.

Yes, I would rather a tax on weed and not on income, than the current set up. If such a proposal was plausible, I would likely support it (with the intention of trying to get weed legalized later). The elimination of the income tax alone or the legalization of weed alone would be more likely.

Not taxing either would be better. It would keep the government smaller and allow people to not give the government money to waste every time they want to smoke weed. Taxing things in order to discourage them is how the war on drugs started in the first place.

You may say that $50/oz. would be a bad thing. However, it would eliminate high school kids from making a living on selling it. It would also allow people who choose to smoke weed to have more money for whatever else they wanted. Instead of the money being taken by government, it would be spent how the consumer decides, which forces the market to cater to the individual instead of lobbying to the gov't for that money.

Sure, but on the other hand, undercutting the black market is too easy.

And besides, man, weed that cheap isn't good for the rest of the economy.

B-Ran wrote:And besides, man, weed that cheap isn't good for the rest of the economy.

How?

Cause then everyone will just get minimum-wage jobs and sit around smoking weed all day until they die. Duh.

I guess the chip makers and soda pop companies would get a hefty boost, along with the cable tv companies and video game makers... But, I mean, an economy cannot subsist on those three industries.

B-Ran wrote:Cause then everyone will just get minimum-wage jobs and sit around smoking weed all day until they die. Duh.

I guess the chip makers and soda pop companies would get a hefty boost, along with the cable tv companies and video game makers... But, I mean, an economy cannot subsist on those three industries.

If that is what people would choose to do under those circumstances, that is what they prefer. If you wouldn't want that, you could choose to not smoke weed. Why don't we just tax the potato chip companies, video game makers and the cable comanies also?

Enron wrote:

B-Ran wrote:Cause then everyone will just get minimum-wage jobs and sit around smoking weed all day until they die. Duh.

I guess the chip makers and soda pop companies would get a hefty boost, along with the cable tv companies and video game makers... But, I mean, an economy cannot subsist on those three industries.

If that is what people would choose to do under those circumstances, that is what they prefer. If you wouldn't want that, you could choose to not smoke weed. Why don't we just tax the potato chip companies, video game makers and the cable comanies also?

Because taxing the potato chip companies, video game makers and cable companies aren't what we are talking about. Potato chips, video games and cable don't get you high, which is at least one reason why that analogy doesn't play. We're talking about the ganja here. And the ganja is a fickle mistress.

B-Ran wrote:

Enron wrote:

B-Ran wrote:Cause then everyone will just get minimum-wage jobs and sit around smoking weed all day until they die. Duh.

I guess the chip makers and soda pop companies would get a hefty boost, along with the cable tv companies and video game makers... But, I mean, an economy cannot subsist on those three industries.

If that is what people would choose to do under those circumstances, that is what they prefer. If you wouldn't want that, you could choose to not smoke weed. Why don't we just tax the potato chip companies, video game makers and the cable comanies also?

Because taxing the potato chip companies, video game makers and cable companies aren't what we are talking about. Potato chips, video games and cable don't get you high, which is at least one reason why that analogy doesn't play. We're talking about the ganja here. And the ganja is a fickle mistress.

Yeah, it wasn't an analogy, but just follow through of the idea that government should help people with their lifestyle choices. If weed is bad enough to warrant intervention, then surely a case can be made against potato chips. If not potato chips, then at least Rockstars and Hot Pockets. The point is, I can handle my own decisions and so can you. What I smoke, eat, drink, etc. is my business. You aren't going to make people better people through government intervention in the marketplace, you will just make them more subject to governmental control.

Enron wrote:

B-Ran wrote:

Enron wrote:

B-Ran wrote:Cause then everyone will just get minimum-wage jobs and sit around smoking weed all day until they die. Duh.

I guess the chip makers and soda pop companies would get a hefty boost, along with the cable tv companies and video game makers... But, I mean, an economy cannot subsist on those three industries.

If that is what people would choose to do under those circumstances, that is what they prefer. If you wouldn't want that, you could choose to not smoke weed. Why don't we just tax the potato chip companies, video game makers and the cable comanies also?

Because taxing the potato chip companies, video game makers and cable companies aren't what we are talking about. Potato chips, video games and cable don't get you high, which is at least one reason why that analogy doesn't play. We're talking about the ganja here. And the ganja is a fickle mistress.

Yeah, it wasn't an analogy, but just follow through of the idea that government should help people with their lifestyle choices. If weed is bad enough to warrant intervention, then surely a case can be made against potato chips. If not potato chips, then at least Rockstars and Hot Pockets. The point is, I can handle my own decisions and so can you. What I smoke, eat, drink, etc. is my business. You aren't going to make people better people through government intervention in the marketplace, you will just make them more subject to governmental control.

I think B-Ran is jesting. There are some cases where govt intervention is good. Drugs that actually impair the individuals ability to make good decisions will render the marketplace inadequate. The history of the Opium Wars in China are a good example.

Yeah, I am pulling your leg just a little.

But the question of substances that impair one's ability to be a rational actor ought to be addressed. I mean, I don't think that heroin and crack and meth should be legal, precisely because those drugs are highly addictive and disruptive enough to a person's lifestyle that they tend to render the user incapable of holding down a job. One could make the argument that it is their body and their rights all day long, but I have to live with those people. I think I have the right to live in a society where being a homeless thieving meth addict is as discouraged as possible. Mostly, it's because I value any car stereos that I might have in the future.

I'm sure there's an analogy to living in a society full of stoners in there somewhere... I'm just not in the mood to look for it right now, on account of how high I am.

B-Ran wrote:Yeah, I am pulling your leg just a little.

But the question of substances that impair one's ability to be a rational actor ought to be addressed. I mean, I don't think that heroin and crack and meth should be legal, precisely because those drugs are highly addictive and disruptive enough to a person's lifestyle that they tend to render the user incapable of holding down a job. One could make the argument that it is their body and their rights all day long, but I have to live with those people. I think I have the right to live in a society where being a homeless thieving meth addict is as discouraged as possible. Mostly, it's because I value any car stereos that I might have in the future.

I'm sure there's an analogy to living in a society full of stoners in there somewhere... I'm just not in the mood to look for it right now, on account of how high I am.

I am all for laws against stealing car stereos.

But the question is, are you in favor of laws making drugs like meth, heroin, and cocaine illegal? I'm sure this has a bearing on the greater conversation...

The Brain Train wrote:I think B-Ran is jesting. There are some cases where govt intervention is good. Drugs that actually impair the individuals ability to make good decisions will render the marketplace inadequate. The history of the Opium Wars in China are a good example.

Yes, even though B-Ran might not be all serious, it looks like we do disagree on drug policy. We probably agree on whether or not marijuana should be illegal, but we do not seem to agree on the harder drugs.

Please explain to me how the Opium Wars in China show that the marketplace will be rendered inadequate by making hard drugs legal. For one, recreational use of opiates was illegal in China. For two, the disaster of the wars were caused by government action. I am missing your illustration.

Do I think hard drugs are really bad? Yes. That doesn't mean that I think that the government should try to regulate them.

B-Ran wrote:But the question is, are you in favor of laws making drugs like meth, heroin, and cocaine illegal? I'm sure this has a bearing on the greater conversation...

No, I am not for that.

Here's why I am for hard drugs being illegal: hard drugs, as a rule, rob people of their agency. Essentially, once you are addicted to a drug like heroin or meth, you are a slave to that drug. Your life revolves around it, and everything you do is focused on obtaining more of it. If hard drugs were illegal, then people would be fully able and fully incentivized to sell those drugs to as many people as possible in order to make addicts out of as many people as possible. At least the way that it is right now, there are significant risks to being involved in the drug trade at any level. Were hard drugs legal, the risks would essentially disappear for the drug seller.

See, it's issues like this that make me a pragmatic liberal and not a moral liberal. Though something like legalizing hard drugs conforms to the moral liberal theory of "do whatever you want as long as you aren't killing anybody," it rubs me the wrong way as a pragmatic liberal because I myself will be forced into living in a society with more drug addicts clogging the streets and stealing things. The market is not the final arbiter of everything, from my point of view. There are certain things, like hard drugs, that do not belong on the market because the consequences of them being there far outweigh the costs of keeping them (somewhat) under control. As easy as it is to lump everything into one of two camps (either "market" or "intervention") and then give both of those camps value labels ("good" or "bad" respectively), I'm not sure the world is that simple.

Of course, the above arguments don't quite apply to marijuana, because it isn't addictive in the same way as hard drugs are (ie, nobody ever died from detoxing off the ganja.)

B-Ran wrote:Here's why I am for hard drugs being illegal: hard drugs, as a rule, rob people of their agency. Essentially, once you are addicted to a drug like heroin or meth, you are a slave to that drug. Your life revolves around it, and everything you do is focused on obtaining more of it. If hard drugs were illegal, then people would be fully able and fully incentivized to sell those drugs to as many people as possible in order to make addicts out of as many people as possible. At least the way that it is right now, there are significant risks to being involved in the drug trade at any level. Were hard drugs legal, the risks would essentially disappear for the drug seller.

Using force to throw people in jail for making a personal choice is really what violates people's rights to their own bodies. Someone has to choose to do a drug. If your primary concern is people's agency, then it seems ironic that you want to limit the choices that they can make. Yes, heroin and meth are drugs that are very hardcore. They can be absolutely devastating to someone's life. So can overeating... seriously. So can alcoholism. Our primary disagreement is that you are saying that we should try to use governmental force to stop someone from hurting themselves, even when it is the individual who is making a choice that only hurts his property.

Much of the drug problem could be solved through a better and more accurate enforcement of property rights. If I own property, it is my right to allow or not allow someone on my property. When roads, schools, businesses, and other institutions were privately owned, they could determine who could be on their property and who couldn't. I suspect that there would be few places that would welcome meth-heads and heroine addicts. People who are addicted to hard drugs often lose all that they own. Without many places to have access to, being an addict would become much more difficult. Would there still be addicts? Of course. However, they would be restricted to harming themselves and only themselves. They would not be able to violate another person's property rights, or they would go to jail.

Really, the underlying issue here is that I believe that a person has rights to his own body and his own life.

B-Ran wrote:See, it's issues like this that make me a pragmatic liberal and not a moral liberal. Though something like legalizing hard drugs conforms to the moral liberal theory of "do whatever you want as long as you aren't killing anybody," it rubs me the wrong way as a pragmatic liberal because I myself will be forced into living in a society with more drug addicts clogging the streets and stealing things. The market is not the final arbiter of everything, from my point of view. There are certain things, like hard drugs, that do not belong on the market because the consequences of them being there far outweigh the costs of keeping them (somewhat) under control. As easy as it is to lump everything into one of two camps (either "market" or "intervention") and then give both of those camps value labels ("good" or "bad" respectively), I'm not sure the world is that simple.

You are assuming that there would be more addicts. That is not necessarily a sound assumption. Most people who do drugs are not concerned with the legality of practice. You may assume that the best way to keep people from drugs is to threaten them, but I think differently. I believe that we would have fewer drug addicts in a society that had clear property rights and adequate enforcement of those rights.

Regardless, you are saying that the streets being clogged with drug addicts would justify coercive theft of someone's rights. I disagree. Just listing a possible inconvenience, doesn't make such an action right. Now, you are assuming that there would be druggies stealing things all over the place and all over the streets. The streets that are privately owned would surely not allow such activity. Also, I am not proposing that any of this would work without proper and effective law enforcement. Stealing would be punished.

B-Ran wrote:Of course, the above arguments don't quite apply to marijuana, because it isn't addictive in the same way as hard drugs are (ie, nobody ever died from detoxing off the ganja.)

Yes, but there would be plenty of people who would gladly throw people in jail for being a "druggy" aka pot-smoker. What is the real plea that you can make for legalizing marijuana and keeping alcohol legal, while you are saying arbitrarily that "harder" drugs should be banned? How do you think such a line should be drawn?

You are assuming that there would be more addicts. That is not necessarily a sound assumption. Most people who do drugs are not concerned with the legality of practice. You may assume that the best way to keep people from drugs is to threaten them, but I think differently. I believe that we would have fewer drug addicts in a society that had clear property rights and adequate enforcement of those rights.

How do you figure?

Yes, but there would be plenty of people who would gladly throw people in jail for being a "druggy" aka pot-smoker. What is the real plea that you can make for legalizing marijuana and keeping alcohol legal, while you are saying arbitrarily that "harder" drugs should be banned? How do you think such a line should be drawn?

On a case by case basis. In the case of hard drugs, I feel the society as a whole has a common interest in not allowing them. No man is an island. Individualistic isolation, the idea that having total freedom means you can do whatever you want regardless of anyone else, is at best myopic. We don't live in isolation as a rule. People in a society must live with each-other. Even economically, the choices you make effect the choices I will make in the future, and vice-versa. You understand the market. You understand there is no such thing as a discrete transaction. The same is true of society in general. There are no such things as discrete transactions, because we are all connected in fact and by necessity.

I agree with a lot of things being said here. I come to a different conclusion. The free market only works if the consumer can make educated decisions. If consumers were too stupid to figure out that when you are hungry, you do not purchase a desk, you purchase food, the free market would not work and I would naturally prefer government to direct us to the good that would satisfy our desire. Drug addicts are not capable of making educated decisions, not because they are not smart people but because they have a chemical in their brain that does not allow for rational thinking but substitutes it for destructive thinking. If these decisions effected only them, that would be one thing. But the reality is that it effects us all.

About the Opium Wars in China - Opium was not illegal in China until 1938, long after the national addiction had started. The British later, forced them to legalize it so they could keep pumping opium into China - I guess it was hurting their sales.