The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition

Harvard University ^ | June 2005 | Jeffrey A. Miron

[Know your rights]

Oh, and in regard to your windy claims about what the "major figures" in human rights thought:

"[R]ightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819

[Bogey]

Good afternoon sir,


...All legal products should live under the same rule of law.

Anti Smokers, set them.

The rest have to live them.

[SampleMan]

Do you consider traffic laws in rural areas to be a tyranny inflicted upon you, as up to the point where you kill someone, you aren't bothering another sole? This business of when, how, and to what degree others are affected or can have reasonable expectation of being affected is key.

"Every man has two countries: his own and France", Thomas Jefferson

Taking quotes out of time and context and applying them today can be a tricky business. But I applaud you for finally getting around to defending your position with substance. From my readings of "Thomas Jefferson A Life", Willard Sterne Randall, and the readings which Jefferson himself held dear, I would say that when referring to rights, he was speaking of "political rights". I say this because he often began a discussion or letter using the term "political rights", but would use brevity as it went on and shorten it to just "rights". That said, Jefferson was focused on moving the pendulum on liberty, and may have agreed with you on MJ use being a liberty, but I think he also would have felt obligated to prove that it was not a public nuisance.

Although Jefferson was perhaps the most esoteric and far reaching thinker on liberty, of the founding fathers, he was also quite capable of pragmatic limitations and implementations, e.g. slavery.

The burden for those advocating legalization of all substances remains the demonstration that it won't create an unacceptable burden on or nuisance to the public.

Whether we can agree on what is an uninfringeable right or not, I agree the free practice should not be infringed upon unless it is a nuisance or abridgment to others.

Right now, American society thinks that illegal drug use is a nuisance that infringes on their lives. That is your argument.

[astoundedlib]

"Good afternoon sir,


...All legal products should live under the same rule of law.

Anti Smokers, set them.

The rest have to live them."

Good morning sir,
i surely agree with you, as i am now a non-smoker...Nothings worst than breathing something you don't want to breath...

But unfortunately the one who actually set the real laws, is the black market...They have the money, the power and the dope... If something on the legal market is not satisfying the customers, they'll be more than happy to help them out with better price!

So that's why, i am advocating a certain process of legalization and regulation by the government...Where the substance that is MJ should be consumed in particular places like Coffeeshops(and the only place you could buy it) or in the comfort of the living room. Therefor nobody has to suffer from second hand smoke on the public scene...I would also see a "coffeeshop" for tobacco smokers, where employees are smokers...

Best regards.

[astoundedlib]

"Right now, American society thinks that illegal drug use is a nuisance that infringes on their lives. That is your argument."

Good morning sir,
you are right on that point, which makes me wonder: why do they think that? Obviously, they hear stories on the media; they live bad experiences with drug abuses; for religious, well we know what the churches has to say on the matter; kids do not respect authorities anymore because of drug use...and the list goes on...

In the majority of these cases, "drug use" judgment is based on emotional patterns or in the most particular case of MJ, propaganda did a lot of harm on the rational knowledge of the dope... By that i mean: people would literally care less if pot smokers all died!!!

So there is a lack of balance somewhere with such "extreme" comments...That's why i do not advocate the legalization of all drugs anymore, it's too extreme, it doesn't leave any gray area...

So to pick up on your last comment, yes the problem right now would be to redraw the line and make people understand that drug use is not a plague but only normal to human being...Especially against MJ, where lying about it is pretty common, even in the scientific domain.

Best regards.

[SampleMan]

As you know, my primary point has been to argue against the principle that MJ cannot be regulated because it is a right, because it would open Pandora's box on all manner of conduct that does great harm to society with no balancing merit. In that I think we agree.

I think any particular drug should be looked at separately. The case for legalizing MJ as a regulated over the counter drug has some reasonable arguments. I think I have a bit of ignorance on both sides of that argument, and need to read more on it.

[SampleMan]

You quote not a single word of my post, and then lie about its contents.

I was referring to all of your posts, where you show a pattern of not wanting to get pinned down. When faced with a "yes or no" you prefer to cry "straw man". I don't lie about your posts, I simply seem to understand your argument better than you.

I win the debate ... and when supporters of freedom have won enough of them, as we will, your status quo will change.

What exactly have you won? Did you change one mind? Did some change in the status quo occur? Your definition of victory needs some work. But when you get that big band of drug legalization freedom fighters together let me know. I won't be holding my breath, but I will be backing the prohibition of bestiality, polygamy, incest, and the over the counter use of certain drugs.

In the meantime, how about we try to overturn this campaign finance law together, and you can single me out later?

[Bogey]

But unfortunately the one who actually set the real laws, is the black market...They have the money, the power and the dope... If something on the legal market is not satisfying the customers, they'll be more than happy to help them out with better price!


We agree. But, as I stated earlier, governments going to set the price, if legal. It will be high with the same justification used on tobacco/alcohol.
To " save the children", health care costs, etc.

The same black market that exist now, will exist then.
The DEA will only get bigger. The dealers are now cutting into government money.
The ATF is far larger now, than when cigarettes were under 2 bucks a pack.

In Florida, voters will determine if the anti smoking groups get an extra 55 million a year from the tobacco settlement. They don't want people to smoke, but they have no problem being funded by cigarette sales.

The anti drug people will do the same to legal pot.

No product stays cheap when a majority gets to vote against
a minority.
Which is why there will never be "tobacco or pot" coffee houses. Majority rules.

Fewer people do drugs than smoke. And smokers never win.

[astoundedlib]

Good afternoon sir,
unfortunately, you're right...people would need to realize that banning something is not the key in keeping people away...

i am reading an interesting book these days set in the future and an old dude explains to a couple of kid how the world became at war and etc... the theory was that it all happened because of what they called " the ones who forbids" a bit in reference to the Muslim religion in those countries over sea...

people, the majority, should face reality; drugs are part of this world, and it is not by denying them that you will get rid of it...

I am wondering how Amsterdam keeps their low price though, while keeping criminality rating and drug use rating lower than a lot of other "civilized" countries...

[astoundedlib]

Good afternoon sir,
again you are making good sens there...please do not take these further words for granted, but the only way to learn about something unknown to you is to experiment...but not everything is meant for everybody to be experienced...my point here is not that i want you to take a substance you do not want to take, but when people say pot is "this or that" when they only heard about it on the TV or by DARE, it kills what is supposed to be education...

The sun is bright out there it is my birhtday today, i am back in Quebec and after one year of abstinence, i will go and sit outside, watch mother nature's lil pals run around, feel the wind's presence and light myself a doobie!

A good afternoon to you all!

[Bogey]

I am wondering how Amsterdam keeps their low price though, while keeping criminality rating and drug use rating lower than a lot of other "civilized" countries


Their government doesn't run the drug business, like our government runs everything here.
When government gets involved, it's always a disaster..

[Know your rights]

Do you consider traffic laws in rural areas to be a tyranny inflicted upon you, as up to the point where you kill someone, you aren't bothering another sole?

No, as violating traffic laws endangers the rights of others ... unlike selling or smoking marijuana.

I applaud you for finally getting around to defending your position with substance.

LOL! YOU'RE the one who's made windy claims about what "every major figure in human rights" thought and has STILL not provided an iota of evidence.

The burden for those advocating legalization of all substances remains the demonstration that it won't create an unacceptable burden on or nuisance to the public.

Only if they are a minority who understand that the threshold for restricting rights is far higher than "nuisance." I remain optimistic that this group is or at least can become a majority (despite the dogged opposition of busybodies pretending to be conservatives).

[Know your rights]

you show a pattern of not wanting to get pinned down. When faced with a "yes or no" you prefer to cry "straw man".

You continue to quote not a single word of my posts, and then lie about their contents.

What exactly have you won? Did you change one mind?

Any rational fairminded people who followed our exchange know I made the better arguments (in fact, just about the only actual arguments).

[SampleMan]

Whatever.

[astoundedlib]

"Their government doesn't run the drug business, like our government runs everything here.
When government gets involved, it's always a disaster.. "

Good afternoon sir,
that is too sad...the government says he wants to protect society and stick his nose everywhere but at the same time is interested in making money...So the government is therefor not able to govern properly the country...

i hope more influent people will make pressure at the right spot so the whole thing changes...

Best regards.

[Bogey]

Best regards.

To you as well.