TheAgitator.com
Some Good News
Monday, June 28th, 2004Joel Miller, editor of World Net Daily’s book section, has just published a book on the failure of the drug war (he also has a nice obesity piece here).
The cover of National Review this week is on drug prohibition, and features a giant marijuana leaf.
The conservative punditocracy has nearly arrived. How long until the first marijuana decriminalization bill gets an honest debate on the floor of Congress?
I say less than three years.
Conservatives in Congress are still fighting against medical marijuana and for increased DEA funding. I think its going to be a lot longer than three years before a decriminalization bill gets an honest debate.
Let’s all hope for the day when decriminalization of marijuana, a just cause, finds itself in the top ten of our most serious problems.
Bad Trip
This is what Joel Miller calls the war on drugs in his new book: Bad Trip: How the War Against Drugs is Destroying America. It is also available at ShopNet Daily. End the drug war now! Via Radley Balko….
The Supremes just announced today that they’ll hear Raich v. Ashcroft, a medical-marijuana case, this fall. Besides the medical marijuana issue, the case will effectively decide whether states, not the feds, have the right to govern intra-state commerce. (In the case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided states do have that right. The Supremes could reverse that decision, negating state laws, or let it stand, giving every state the right to do so.)
I don’t see National Review cover as being a useful barometer of congressional R opinion on the subject — NR (or more specifically, WFBuckley), has been advocated marijuana legalization since I (and, I suppose, Christopher Buckley) was in high school.
Good point, Rocketman. Perhaps the same logic should be applied to gay marriage, and let the Consitution remain as it currently stands.
It depends on who controls the relevant subcommittees, and I’m not optimistic. The problem is that while many conservative/Republican pundits are actual small-government conservatives, Republican politicians almost never are. Can you really see them giving up billions of dollars in funding for local police forces, education, and interdiction funding that are essentially just more pork for their home states? I certainly can’t, at least not without a huge shift in the American public’s view of the role of government.
I see no major shift for quite some time. There is way too much money to be made (read: “Asset Forfiture”) for the government and law enforcement agencies.
The tax revenues from legally sold marijuana, not to mention the tax revenues from new employess and capital gains on countless new businesses using hemp for everything from paper to cardboard to thread to oils etc… far outweighs what the government can make on forfitures. Eventually intelligence has to win out here. It grows in any climate, indoors or outdoors and is usable in its natural, unprocessed form.
Marijuana is simply a battle that cannot be won, but could be regulated and a HUGE cash cow to boot.
It is paper manufacturers that have to watch out. Better stronger paper, cheaper than from trees and the supply completely renewing itself every four months! No wonder it was a paper manufacturer that got it made illegal in the first place.
Re: Michael Tinkler’s post:
As I recall, WFB Jr.’s advocacy of decriminalization was always contingent on a mandatory (yes, MANDATORY) death sentence for anyone convicted of providing to minors. Kind of an important omission there.
Also, do people still play the “legalization” versus “decriminalization” wordgame anymore? Just curious in light of a recent thread on “suicide bombers” versus “homicide bombers” …
Been is right. The government is still fighting medicinal marijuana. That popsition is light years away from decriminalization. While it makes loads of sense, legal, economic and otherwise, decriminalization will never, ever happen in our lifetime.
I just find the image of lefty High Times readers, wearing their Vote Nader stickers, inadvertantly picking up National Review really amusing.
But yes, NR has a long history of drug war opposition. Jonah Goldberg likes to point out he’s in a minority there because he only supports marijuana decriminalization, rather than opposing the War on (Some) Drugs more generally. Still, that’s not to say this kind of thing will have no effect on conservative congresscritters. I think NR’s stance on this is important, and could well help push things a little further in the right direction.
They thought decriminalization was going to happen 30 years ago. The question seems to be stuck in this black hole of unreason. I’m 33 years old and I’m not sure I’d bet a lot of money on it happening in my lifetime. (I plan on making it to 80-90).
They won’t bother with any debate if Bush is re-elected.
Scared Stiff.
ABSOLUTELY, the same logic should be applied to gay marriage. Though I’m definitely not above using the issue for political gain.
There are people out there that will crawl naked over broken glass in a blinding snow storm to vote against any candidate they view as less than totally opposed to gay marriage.(why?,I’ll never understand–but believe it!)
Bush’s promotion of a constitutional amendment puts him to the right of Kerry on this issue.
This position motivates people to vote who otherwise wouldn’t, and insures that the evangelicals who sat out last time over that silly DUI story, won’t this time.
Further,Bush need spend no other time,money, or political capital on voters concerned about this issue–he “owns” them.
Whereas people on the other side are either already inclined to vote for Kerry anyway or are not really that concerned about the issue. BRILLIANT!
After the elections my guess is you won’t hear anything about any silly amendment. (sorry this is off topic, but I can never resist making this point about this particular issue)
I never buy the “decriminalization” game. It won’t have any effect, and may hurt the current drug problem. Legalization is the only way to eliminate the black markets for it, get rid of underground grow ops, and (as Amsterdam as proven) reduce overall use.
The problem with decriminalization as a stepping stone to legalization is that it may actually cause more problems than it solves (i.e., growers and the like will have an easier pass, etc.). Then, you know what’ll happen:
“Look! Decriminalization hurt us more than it helped! What will legalization do? We must completely recriminalize it!”
On the other hand, it will reduce sentences and arrests made for someone smoking pot, so that’s about the only positive. But, that will, in turn, motivate the grow ops and cartels to produce more because people become more open to its use. Then, we’re back to the idiot Congress.
It’s lose-lose unless it is fully legalized and distribution channels are set in place.
I had an argument with a friend about legalization over the phone the other day based upon the recent statistic that school kids are now smoking more marijuana than cigarettes. Why? Because cigarettes have been regulated, punishments for selling to kids has increased, and ad campaigns have worked. Meanwhile, marijuana is unregulated, untethered, and the law punishes the wrong people for its use.
Her ultimate response never changed, no matter how many facts, figures, and truths I told her. She simply said, “I don’t agree with people using it, it should be illegal.”
When I informed her that legalizing and regulating it would, in effect, cause the use to go DOWN, not up, she still said it should be illegal. She believed the use would go down, but she STILL said it should be illegal, just on the grounds of what it is. These are the types of people we are dealing with in Congress and in the government when it comes to pot. No matter how much you show them, no matter what you say or prove, they just go, “So what?”
It’s the most frustrating thing I’ve ever encountered, and it makes me sick.
John
narphonax.com/blog
I understand that legalization would eliminate the black market for drugs, but a question has been lingering in my head for quite a while :
After the drug-related criminals (not the users, for the most part) are out of business, where do they go? I suspect they won’t become productive members of the working community, particularly since they’ve already demonstrated a tendency to turn to crime as a source of income.
An improbable job interview:
Interviewer: “So, describe your past experience.”
Candidate: “Well, sir, I was a drug dealer for the last 5 years and successfully controlled an entire 16 block region. Our profitability was unmatched by any of our competitors.”
I: “Very nice. Now, tell me why you want to work for the XYZ Corporation?”
C: “After drugs were legalized, I found myself competing with a number of large drug manufacturers, and couldn’t withstand their marketing and price structure. I realize now that it is time to become a productive member of the lawful working community.”
Truthfully, I’m not arguing against legalization, but rather just curious what type of crime will potentially see an increase therafter.
fair question Roger
I am of the mind that only marijuana should be legalized.
With the exception of the big boys at the top of the chain, many “drug dealers” already have other jobs, and if they don’t, they wouldn’t even if they did not sell pot.
If they need a job, they may be able to get employed in the same industry, legally.
If not, then they can fill one of the jobs vacated by the people moving into the newly legalized industry.
If they don’t want to do that, then they can start dealing one of the harder drugs that will still be illegal.
However, as a society we will have eliminated the cost, in dollars and man hours of investigating, arresting, trying, and incarcerating all marijuana crime. Add to that all the additional revenue now generated by the legal business and the freed manpower of law enforcement and courts to pursue the dealers of the remaining illegal drugs. We will be infinately more capable of catching, convicting and incarcerating these dealers in an efficient manner, greatly reducing the appeal of dealing in heroine, cocaine, crystal meth etc…
Legalization would not create one industry, but dozens. Textiles and paper. Oils and paints. There are many uses for this resource. Which is exactly why it is illegal now. Not for anybody’s protection.
Roger, I think it inevitable that a change in the law will have a destabilising effect. This is one of the key reasons why any legalisation program has to be measured, well supported and gradual.
The first thing the illegal drug industry might try following legalisation is deliberately orchestrate an artificial spike in violent crime to make legalisation look like a big step on the road to perdition. If they can destroy public confidence in the measure early on, and prohibition is reinstituted, then it will be far, far harder to ever repeal it again (’we tried that before, and look what happened then…..’). Interestingly, it’s a mirror of the motive of the Iraqi insurgents - orchestrate a spike in violence following the change to Iraqi self-rule and try to make the setup look unworkable to increase their own power.
The only way to combat this is for the public to be confident enough in a policy to give it time to work and to help it work, which is why a grassroots education on the value of liberalising drug laws is vital before any change in the law (and I think this is happening. Far fewer people I talk to these days really believe in the goals of the war on drugs).
The second thing, as you’ve identified, is that a bunch of those currently employed in the huge black market for drugs would find themselves under or unemployed. They might well try to move into other forms of crime, but as we all know adding more labour into a market of an equivalent size leads to lower wages all round. If we squeezed the market far enough, the gripe ‘crime just doesn’t pay’ might well start to mean something and, as a little-discussed fringe benefit, it might be cheaper for Joe Normal to hire a hitman to kill his estranged wife (which, as a further fringe-benefit, might put more lawyers on the street).
Essentially the reason so many people make so much money from the drugs black market is because they’re providing a very popular service. If they tried to move to other areas of crime, they’d find that the public aren’t nearly so chummy with their friendly neighbourhood racketeer/kidnapper as their friendly neighbourhood pot dealer.
So, yes, there would be some negative effects, even given the most benign projections post-legalisation, but they’d dissipate quickly if the policy change were robust, and the positive effects would grow over time.
Chris -
Sounds reasonable to me. For whatever reason, I haven’t been able to think this one through very clearly.
Your plan sounds like a step in the right direction.
There is only 1 way to eliminate the illiegal drug trade: complete and total legalization. That removes the vast profit and the consequent incentive to pursue this activity. Interdiction can never work. So long as someone can take a few thousand dollars and turn them into a hundred grand in less than a week, there will always be willing hands to fill the vacancy created by each and every arrest. Eliminate the profit and you eliminate industry. How’s that for the free market at work?
Bernard -
Interesting analysis; I certainly can’t say that I disagree with you.
It’s always nice to hear someone else’s perspective. I appreciate the response.
roger, I thought of something:
The U.S. had almost 700,000 arrests last year for pot-related charges (the vast majority for simple possession). After legalization, pretty much all of those would disappear. So, if there is a spike in crime, the cops would certainly have much more time and manpower to pursue the matter.
John
narphonax.com/blog
I say less than 4 years if Kerry is elected, more than 4 years if Bush brain is.
Take your time to check out some information about casino casino http://www.favorite-casino.com/casino.html http://www.favorite-casino.com/casino.html free slots free slots http://www.favorite-casino.com/free-slots.html http://www.favorite-casino.com/free-slots.html .
In your free time, take a look at the pages dedicated to cash money cash money http://www.always-credit.com/cash-money.html http://www.always-credit.com/cash-money.html car loan calculator car loan calculator http://www.always-credit.com/car-loan-calculator.html http://www.always-credit.com/car-loan-calculator.html loan calculators loan calculators http://www.always-credit.com/loan-calculators.html http://www.always-credit.com/loan-calculators.html payday loans payday loans http://www.always-credit.com/payday-loans.html http://www.always-credit.com/payday-loans.html business loans business loans http://www.always-credit.com/business-loans.html http://www.always-credit.com/business-loans.html consumer credit counseling consumer credit counseling http://www.always-credit.com/consumer-credit-counseling.html http://www.always-credit.com/consumer-credit-counseling.html mortgage interest rates mortgage interest rates http://www.always-credit.com/mortgage-interest-rates.html http://www.always-credit.com/mortgage-interest-rates.html free porn no credit card free porn no credit card http://www.always-credit.com/free-porn-no-credit-card.html http://www.always-credit.com/free-porn-no-credit-card.html refinance home mortgage refinance home mortgage http://www.always-credit.com/refinance-home-mortgage.html http://www.always-credit.com/refinance-home-mortgage.html debt consolidation loans debt consolidation loans http://www.always-credit.com/debt-consolidation-loans.html http://www.always-credit.com/debt-consolidation-loans.html .
Take your time to take a look at some helpful info in the field of gambling gambling http://www.westvalleyhigh.us/gambling.html http://www.westvalleyhigh.us/gambling.html .
You are invited to visit the pages on online casino online casino http://www.online-casino.blest-casino.com/ http://www.online-casino.blest-casino.com/ online casino online casino http://online-casino.blest-casino.com/ http://online-casino.blest-casino.com/ online casinos online casinos http://online-casinos.blest-casino.com/ http://online-casinos.blest-casino.com/ .
lesben best “Why do I have to get all dolled up?”
naughty lesbos free Suddenly somehow I knew what gave the picture its magic.
lesbian licking pantie top Beth was enjoying Carly immensely.
teen lesbian orgasm les I’ll be back here in exactly forty-five minutes.
free lesbian porn movies Pulled her dress all the way up, and parted her pussy lips from underneath her thigh.
free naked lesbian gallery I kissed my way down her front, and moved myself forward until I could reach her panties.
lesbian porn star pic best “No, they’re on vacation in Mazatlan until Thursday.”
wonder woman lesbian Then it sunk in, that was supposed to happen, that’s what kissing is all about!
lesbian ass licking xxx One leg slid between her legs, the other knelt outside her right thigh, as Melissa leaned down and licked at Janelle’s neck.
buy xenical Xen-770009122-345566
valium online ViaValT8898111-01-01-22