I can’t but heartily agree with Andrew Sullivan on this whole “pictures of Michael Phelps smoking pot” bruhaha. Sullivan notes,
What I love about the harrumphing is its total incoherence. The argument, so far as I can tell, is: a) marijuana destroys people, renders them incapable of productive and worthwhile lives; b) yes, the new president and the greatest Olympic swimmer of all time have smoked pot; c) but that means we have to punish them all the more!
Because they disprove the lies required to sustain the Prohibition. The more the myths of the anti-cannabis brigade are exposed, the more they have to be enforced.
I mean, I’m not in possession of any statistics on this, but does anyone seriously still consider marijuana to be a troubling gateway drug? It strikes me that those for whom this is true have a much more deeply entrenched addiction problem that could manifest just as easily with alcohol.
Maybe my head shaking has something to do with location. I was born and raised in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, broadly considered the pot capital of North America (if not the world), so the whole drama of people smoking pot has long since worn off on me. Hell, I’ll admit to having walked by a police officer smoking a joint and not really gotten all that worried about what the consequences were going to be.
Which is to say that, yes, I have smoked pot. In fact, I had my “pothead” phase. But I don’t smoke anymore. Why? It’s not because I think it’s evil and it’s not because I realized one day that if I kept it up I was going to ruin my life.
I stopped smoking pot because it just got boring.
That’s right, my estimation is that pot is an a completely and utterly boring drug that functions as an overblown muscle relaxant ad isn’t worth including in your “war on drugs” nor harassing some poor twenty-three year old superstar who engaged in completely predictable behaviour.
Yeah, yeah, I know, Michael Phelps is a role model who kids across America and the world look up to and role models shouldn’t do drugs and other illegal things. Well, brace yourself, odds are your kid is going to smoke pot at some point. And odds are they’ll get a minimal effect from it but keeping doing it to some degree or another because her/his friends are all doing it. And then, at some point, he/she will mostly give it up and cultivate a life for themselves that you will tear up and be proud of. Slightly less likely may be that they continue to smoke pot on an occasional basis, but still cultivate that life you’re busy buying tissues for.
Honestly, there are a lot of troubling issues that permeate our world and we waste time and energy when we get all worked up about something that in the grand scheme of things doesn’t really matter. So go plant a tree, or volunteer at a soup kitchen or as a big brother or sister, or join your local community association and organize more community activities, pay more attention to your kid’s schooling or their life in general, write you elected official about the war in Iraq/Afghanistan/other place you have troops stationed, do whatever floats your boat.
But for god’s sake (dangerous term to use around these parts of late), do something on an issue that maters and actually stands to effect your life.
Update: I forgot to mention that while I am most certainly in favour of decriminalizing marijuana, I remain somewhat undecided on full blown legalization. The reason for my indecision stems from one of the most interesting anti-legalization arguments I have ever run across that was delivered to me by an avid pot smoker. Her argument was that if marijuana was legalized it would inevitably lead to government involvement in regulation, sale, and taxation.
My post smoing friend said with all due indignation, “Idon’t want the government having anything to do with the pot I smoke. I’m one hundred percent convinced that my smoking of pot is beter off without the government having anything to do with it ad all I’m really looking for is to ensure government doesn’t have anything to say about it, either.”
Given some of the gripes that people like John Schwenkler have noted about government over-involvement in good old fashioned capitalism of a variety of forms, I find this line of argument compelling enouh to make me think twice about marijuana legalization.
Will Truman 
Jesse Ewiak 
Tom Van Dyke 
Will H. 
Rufus F. 
Mike Schilling 
M.A. 
Aaron
{ 21 comments }
Bloody right you are Scott. I lived in Vancouver for two years, by the way, and later honeymooned there. My uncle lives there still. So I have been to Blunt Brothers and down to Wreck Beach (where I was warned not to purchase any of the stuff from the beach vendors with their coolers full of beer and their pockest full of pot) though at the time I wasn’t smoking. I’m not anymore either for basically the same reason as you.
What a farce this prohibition is. I wonder if we should start a new series, though, on marijuana legalization instead of continuing the Narco-Insurgency?
Sullivan writes:
Now that’s a good question. May I posit: “Never.” I hope I’m wrong…
Decriminalization is fine, but the problem of illegal and potentially violent means of production and distribution outweighs (in my mind) any potential interference on the part of the Government; and I think the tax revenue from legal pot sales could be put to great use. And seriously, once legal people could still quite easily grow their own if they wanted to get around Uncle Sam (or whoever you guys call Uncle up there in the Great North)…
Good points, E.D. There is, of course, the concern that in the short term it is entirely predictable that government regulation would be such that growing persoanlly would be heavily regulated due to the potential tax revenue that you site. But I don’t necessarily have a good answer to your point about violent eans of production.
It’s a thorny issue, but seems obvious that the current situation is both unrealistic and unsustainable.
I kind of dig Yglesias’s idea of legalizing consumption and small scale production as a way to avoid the growth of a marijuana industry. I think the idea should appeal to the League’s localist tendencies.
Definitely, Will. Keep it local, and keep the tax proceeds local too. Put it toward the schools…
PS – Can I suggest a League-wide symposium/new series on this Tanenhaus article?
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=9dfd540a-3d44-4684-a333-415ef34efa5b&p=1
I think the tension between first principles and dispositional conservatism is worth exploring in greater detail.
A few weeks back, I did a nifty little walking tour of Greenwich Village led by an NYU history doctoral candidate. The tour itself was a lot of fun (albeit absolutely freezing) and it gave me a different perspective on the city and the neighborhood that I hadn’t considered in all the years I’ve lived nearby. (I should note that we’re not talking about your average tourist trap walking tour here; this one was actually meant for people who wanted to understand the character of the Village).
Anyways, not surprisingly, one of the stops on the tour was the Stonewall Inn, where we were given a fairly involved history of the Stonewall Rebellion. I was going to write a rather involved description of that history and of the central role that liquor licensing played in enforcing discrimination against gays in the post-Prohibition period, but it looks like Wikipedia does a pretty good job here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots#Greenwich_Village
Anyhow, the point is that legalization and regulation made it really easy for the local governments to find ways of singling out certain groups for discrimination.
That said, I’m not sure the comparison is as meaningful any longer with the advent of strong anti-discrimination laws limiting certain types of government action. And I tend to think that issues of violence and collateral fallout from marijuana’s inclusion in the War on Drugs override the potential of these sorts of problems.
I’ll do a read through tonight and get back to you…thanks for the heads-up!
The worry about governmental discrimination is good but completely wrong. As stated above, once in the legal sphere, the business of marijuana will be subject to legislation but also litigation. The downsides are quite minimal.
However, keeping it illegal while there is an acknowledged wide use of the substance, allows the government to arbitrarily prosecute who they choose. The possibility and severity of the ramifications are significantly greater. The amount of money that we spend incarcerating non-violent pot smokers is truly sickening on anyone’s values, not even opening up the social costs and lost productivity of the individuals.
As an aside. It’s a weed. Imagine allowing people to grow dandelions? I don’t know what the realistic profit/taxation windfall would be.
Cascadian, if you consider the kind of revenue via taxation that the government realizes from the sale of, say, alcohol, I think it is at least reasonable to assume that something of a similar ordinance could come online with the legalization of marijuana. While a weed, the relative value of a weed like marijuana as opposed to dandelions is based on its use — namely, people don’t go out of their way to sit around and soke dandelions.
That potential revenue provides ample reason for restrctive regulation by government, I think. But I stil don’t have a good answer to E.D. re: the violence associated with illegal production and sale.
But Will’s poining to Yglesias is an intresting proposition. Though, I’m not sure such a movement couldn’t easily be coopted.
You’re missing how easily they grow. Though I’m sure there are folks somewhere that smoke dandelions (that’s what the Internet is for), it’s not really to the point. Marijuana grows as easily as dandelions. If I could throw up a grape arbor and grow enough Champagne to last me a year, you wouldn’t have much in the way of alcohol revenue.
I’m no expert, but my understanding is that growing plants to yield quality and desirable marijuana is more involved than you’re allowing here.
Even if it were as easy as you’re suggesting, is it so inconceivable to imagine needing a government issued license to grow marijuana, having to outlay significant amounts of cash and jump through all kinds of hoops to get said license, and facing a massive fine for growing withtout one?
I agree that if there were a profit to be made the government could use its powers unfairly. However, herb just isn’t that hard to grow. Show me a link that even suggests this.
Are you suggesting that government herb might be legal but home production would remain illegal?
I’m suggesting that to grow it you would need to meet certain criteria that, if there was a substantial profit to be made (and I think there is) government could make very difficult to meet in the same of public safety as a means of doling out as little of that profit local growers as possible.
It’s not reall that different from the raw milk wars article of John Schwenkler’s that I linked to above. If there’s profit to be made from taxation and other revenues, government doesn’t necessarily want any old person to be able to grow it and not pay taxes. Or worse yet, derive their own revenue wihtout cutting government in.
Yes, the profit needs to be there. A good example to look for numbers on would be Alaska. It wasn’t that long ago that anything produced in ones own home was legal via their constitution. Homegrown was legal. Do you remember Palin admitting to have smoked weed when it was legal? You can grow it in Alaska, you can grow it in Afghanistan. I don’t recall Alaska having problems with either abuse or criminal sales.
I’m a long time proponent for legalization. The government is already involved in penalizing you for its use via the criminal system. It’s a trade off to have them involved in regulating its use, just as with alcohol. And I’d note in passing that home brewing of beer is legal. There’s no reason that home cultivation couldn’t follow the same model. In any event, the regulatory controls wouldn’t be geared towards incarceration which does the greater harm.
As for growing it, it’s true it’s a weed and easy to grow as a plant but the cultivation of a quality product is a labor intensive process and not quite as easy as it sounds. It’s also a long term investment of time. It’s not like you plant the seeds and get useable cannabis in a couple of weeks. Also it takes a significant amount of space. Not everyone would grow their own and the cannabis industry would create many jobs and much needed revenue.
Bottom line – even given the tradeoffs, legalization is far better a model than criminalization.
Libby:
Great to see you over here!
It is so refreshing to find some other educated individuals on the use of marijuana. It can save lives, besides our current economy… want green clothes? paper? medicine without huge profits, and a penal system with available space for the truly violent criminals who are let go early so we can have room? How about early release for all those incarcerated on just cannabis charges? Talk about freeing up space? Not to mention the drug and gang problems revolving around Pot just disappear – Hmmm, what a concept.
Comments on this entry are closed.