One day I will be a beautiful white woman.

 

 

SMOKE WEED WHEN IT IS PERMITTED BY THE CONSTABULARY

damn shame . . .

     Eric Baileys feb.24th, 2009 Los Angeles times article "A call to tax marijuana" takes the right side of the argument for all of the wrong reasons ( I dont actually read the LA times but I wrote this for school, you dig?). Bailey supports a ballot measure put forward by california assemblyman Tom Ammiano (it totally got shut down by the feds but what else is new? - ed.) that would create a new regulatory structure to tax and control marijuana similar to the regulations already in place for beer, wine and liquor. This new taxation opportunity could help solve californias budget problems with claimed revenue to the state upwards of one billion dollars a year. (not that anyone believes these specious numbers but still - ed.)

     Though I agree with legalization in some form for marijuana alleviating the states debt should not be the motivating factor. In fact I think this line of thought is a little crass. Easy-outs for worried debtors are hardly neutral territory for policy making. If marijuana is so harmless that it can be legalized as part of a taxation scheme then we ought to legalize it whether or not it creates tax revenue. We should first consider what harm legalizing marijuana could cause and then weigh this against the harm that the prohibition on marijuana causes. I dont even think the question should be framed the way it typically is. It should not be "why should we legalize marijuana?" but instead "why should marijuana be illegal?". If the voters of california decide that legalization is less harmful to society than prohibition discussion of taxation can come after that. The potential revenue should not be a driving factor. Reducing the issue strictly to the level of dollars saved is a reduction into absurdity. The role of government is not simply to save the government money at any cost (never-mind what the libertarians say - ed.). The role is instead to mitigate harm to society at large and to promote its welfare.

     Predictably enough although legalization supporters in Bailys article frame things as strictly an economic issue the opposition does not. They instead consider the public harm legalization might cause. This is then a case in which both sides speak right past one another. Addressing the way drug cartels might respond to legalization Calyina Fay, executive director of Save Our Society From Drugs says "They're (drug cartels) going to heavily target our children". Statements by other legalization opponents follow similar themes. I dont put any credibility in these warnings. They read like abstract game theory explanations with assumptions predicated on assumptions. Politicking and the subsequent lawmaking is typically reduced to this. The premise of these arguments is always that human beings are rational actors with easily predictable behavior. They assume that we are fully informed about all of the possible variables in the environment that might influence peoples behavior. Reality flies in the face of these artificial scenarios and yet they gain traction in part because they seem plausible enough as they are presented. I wonder though, how could Fay possibly know how drug cartels will react to legalization? Or drug users for that matter? Or how this cascade of events might effect children? How would anyone know, being that this sort of experiment has never before been attempted? The cost of legalization is entirely unknown. No one is served by sweeping conjecture and impassioned pleas about "what if" scenarios. I understand that there is always uncertainty in lawmaking but if there is not even an attempt at rational analysis of applicable statistics and facts we are left with nothing but fear mongering and paranoia.

     Although I support legalization, neither tax revenue not naive appeals to emotion are the cause. Instead it is because, to steal a phrase from Thomas Jefferson, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". Not only does legalization not pick my pocket, it seems to me that prohibition does. Further, legalization does not harm me in any direct way. It seems to me that the prohibition on marijuana causes much more harm to users and the society at large than marijuana itself does. Prohibition as it stands does almost nothing to limit access to the drug but multiplies its damages. This being the case I am led to take up the side that seems most pragmatic . I support legalization not because it is good but because this is the best way to mitigate harm to society at large.