He didn't donate
Click the Pic
Sign up to donate monthly
A sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/03/2012 10:57:07 AM PST by gabriellah
In 2011, Gallup reported that 62% of 18-29 year olds and 50% of the general public supports the legalization of marijuana; 69% of liberals and even 34% of conservatives also support such measures. Obviously the pro-pot movement has taken root in the American populace and especially in the minds of Millennials (even managing to infiltrate the minds of the most conservative among us).
Myth #1: Legalization Would bring in Enormous Tax Revenues
The Heritage Foundation’s Charles Stimson published an extensive legal memorandum urging for the failure of the RCTC Act of 2010, which would have legalized pot in California. This memorandum debunks the myth that legalization would eliminate the black market for marijuana and would bring in enormous revenue, therefore stimulating the economy.
Dr. Rosalie Pacula, a drug policy expert at the RAND Corporation for over 15 years, testified that under the California law: “There would be tremendous profit motive for the existing black market providers to stay in the market. The only way California could effectively eliminate the black market for marijuana is to take away the substantial profits in the market and allow the price of marijuana to fall to an amount close to the cost of production. Doing so, however, will mean substantially smaller tax revenue”(Stimson 9).
In other words, simple economics expose the assumption that drug dealers would voluntarily enter the legal market, when the cost of production is virtually zero. In fact, it was calculated that “an individual will be able to produce 24,000 to 240,000 joints legally each year” (Stimson 9). This is more than any individual could possibly consume, and it is encouraging individuals to sell pot on the side, subverting taxation. Why would anyone buy marijuana legally when they would have to pay a higher price for it? It would be a much higher price considering California proposed a $50/ounce tax on top of the list price. Why would drug dealers leave the black market when they don’t have to?
Fiscal conservatives should not be lured into such intellectual inconsistency. We are not going to solve the budget crises and pay off our $15 trillion debt with whatever change is left from a feeble government attempt to tax the un-taxable.
Myth #2: Marijuana is a Victimless Drug
Marijuana has a history of being linked to crime in the United States and throughout the world. “60% of arrestees test positive for marijuana use in the United States, England, and Australia” (Stimson 6). And while many pro-legalization advocates argue that most of these marijuana users are people arrested for non-violent crimes, they fail to note that marijuana usage is strongly correlated with cocaine and other more serious drugs, as well as murder, assault, money laundering, and smuggling (Stimson 5-6). Surely, legalization advocates do not believe that all marijuana users are little angels?
In fact, in Amsterdam, one of Europe’s most violent cities, pot is legal and a prevalent aspect of society (Stimson 6). Heritage reports that “Officials are in the process of closing marijuana dispensaries, or ‘coffee shops,’ because of the crime associated with their operation” (Stimson 6).
California’s partial legalization via usage of “medical marijuana” is beginning to show the same effects. LAPD reports that areas surrounding cannabis clubs have seen a 200% increase in robberies and a 130.8% increase in aggravated assault (Stimson 6). A drug that increases crime doesn’t exactly qualify as “victimless.”
In addition to this, local communities where neighborhoods and residential housing are dominant will be adversely affected. Residents who live in areas with extensive marijuana usage have repeatedly complained about the incredible smell put off by the plants. Even worse than the smell though, is the growing crime rate in residential areas which is induced by theft of marijuana from yards where it is grown (Stimson 6).
It may be ideologically convenient for some to oversimplify the issue as a violation against individual liberty, but when all the facts are presented, it is obvious that the only liberty being violated is the blatant disregard for property rights, law, and order.
Myth #3: Marijuana = Alcohol
Legalization advocates link marijuana and alcohol as equally mild intoxicants, suggesting that they deserve equal treatment under the law. However, as the above research suggests, marijuana is more dangerous to the health and safety of society.
For better or for worse, alcohol as been part of human history for millennia. Typically, individuals responsibly self-monitor their consumption thereof. Alcohol has also been regulated by cultural norms rather than by government. Society, culture, and religion have proven to be the best regulators of alcoholic consumption. The same cannot be said of marijuana – as seen in the information presented earlier.
In addition to its lack of historical precedent in America’s historical experience, marijuana also has much more severe health effects than alcohol. 1) marijuana is far more likely than alcohol to be cause addiction, 2) it is usually consumed to the point of intoxication, 3) it has no known intrinsically healthful properties (it can only relieve pain –and artificially at that), 4) it has toxins that can result in birth defects, pain, respiratory damage, brain damage, and stroke, 5) it increases heart rate by 20% to 100% elevating the risk of heart attack (Stimson 4).
In relation to history, economics, and health, marijuana is nothing like alcohol.
Conclusion: Conservatives should not be afraid to combat the growing sentiment that supports the legalization of marijuana. Economics, historical precedent, and conservative principles are all on our side. It is up to unashamed, unapologetic young conservatives to articulate that message and continue to stand for ordered liberty.
Both drugs and alcohol have always been accessible to Americans. Drugs are accessible now to anyone who wants them, and at an affordable price. The drug war has utterly failed to control availability.
What you are apparently missing is the fact that the vast majority in this country has always chosen alcohol as its drug of choice. That was true even during the 20s when pot was legal and alcohol was prohibited. Your explanation simply doesn't stand up.
________________________________________________________
Also, how do you justify supporting the ongoing violation of the Tenth Amendment that national prohibition requires?
It's about self interest. People argue in favor of that which they do. Mary Jane is a very seductive mistress. And lot of guys are here making passionate defenses of her. They get very irate if you slight her. You can clearly see this is personal, not at all academic.
I smoked the stuff for a very long time. I know the allure. She was my muse. I was only able to give it up forever when I started being honest with myself about what it was doing to my mind and my spirit and when I decided that my wife and family deserved a better me. I understood that God was not neutral in the choices I was making and I stopped.
I don't really have an opinion on legalization. I guess I'd be in favor of some kind of effective decriminalization that allowed industrious users to grow their own (it's not hard, I've done it myself several times). I have a hard time rationalizing the government telling anyone what they can grow. But seeing the stuff normalized to the point of being advertised and sold alongside cigarettes at the store would be an utter disaster for America. I don't know how many more disatsers this country can take at this point.
C’mon, you know the effect creeps up on you. Back in the 90’s, at the end of a very long shoot, one of the cast members had a bag of Alaskan that I’d never tried. Beautiful flower, sweetest thing I’d ever smelled. I took one hit. The bowl went around the set, minutes passed and it came back to me. I felt a very minor buzz, so he re-packed it and I took a second hit. Why not, I had an hour of work before wrapping out. About five minutes later, I felt like I’d just eaten a sheet of acid.
Long story short, when I had to drive home from Downtown to the Hollywood Hills — a 20 minute drive normally — I got so incredibly lost that I took the four-hour route by way of Santa Barbara. And I was still wrecked when I finally got home.
Who should make those decisions, fedgov or the states?
The feds can decide what crosses the borders. That’s their job. The states can decide if they’d like to decriminalize personal growing. If my state put the question before me, I’d vote for that. That’s my line.
So the gist of your argument is that the mob is still heavily involved with the production and distribution of alcohol? Or maybe they just moved on to something else then? Your argument lacks both logic and substance..the Mob of today is a nothing but a shadow of what they were back “in the day” let alone the complete lack of criminal involvement in the manufacture and distribution of spirits. You need to find a new argument...that dog don’t hunt.
Nonsense....
That's your choice - shouldn't your fellow adults be free to make their own choices?
Don’t worry... in the coming dystopia, you’ll have all the soma your heart desires.
All I desire is government limited to its proper function of defending individual rights.
>> “If I’m in pain, I’ll take hydrocodone or oxycodone...” <<
.
That’s what cost Limbaugh his hearing, and he was warned.
Abusing them may have cost Rush his hearing. Taking them as prescribed for severe pain certainly didn’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.