It's time to legalize recreational marijuana: Editorial endorsement

The Oregonian ^ | August 23, 2014 | The Oregonian Editorial Board

[ConservingFreedom]

Oregon has had a wink-wink, nudge-nudge relationship with recreational marijuana use since 1998, when legalization for medical purposes created a wide, open system that distributes pot cards to just about anyone with a vague medical claim and the signature of a compliant physician. We're not suggesting that marijuana has no palliative value to those with genuine medical problems. But let's be honest: Recreational marijuana is all but legal in Oregon now and has been for years. Measure 91, which deserves Oregonians' support, would eliminate the charade and give adults freer access to an intoxicant that should not have been prohibited in the first place.

Opponents of the measure are right about a couple of things. Allowing retail sales of recreational marijuana inevitably will make it easier for kids to get their hands on the stuff, as will Measure 91's provision allowing Oregonians to grow their own. It's also true that outright legalization will increase the number of people driving under the influence, which is particularly problematic given the absence of a simple and reliable test for intoxication. There is no bong Breathalyzer.

As real as these consequences are, Oregonians should support outright legalization. No responsible adult wants kids using pot, but legalization would simply add another product to an "adults-only" category that includes tobacco and alcohol. There is no movement to ban alcohol in order to keep it away from kids, so why use that justification to prevent the legalization of marijuana, which in many ways is no worse? The potential increase in intoxicated driving is, again, a reason for concern, and the measure directs the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to recommend appropriate changes to the vehicle code by 2017.

Let's not pretend, however, that Oregon isn't dealing with both of these problems already thanks to the state's (wink, wink) medical marijuana program, which the Legislature itself has made more user-friendly by legalizing dispensaries. And let's not forget what's happening right now in Washington, where adults – including Oregonians – may buy pot at retail outlets. A completely legal high is only a short drive away for anyone in the Portland metro area.

Measure 91 would move Oregon from a hazy condition of almost-legalization to one of rational access guided by straightforward regulations and subject to sensible taxation. In other words, it would force Oregon's 16-year-old marijuana experiment out of adolescence and into legal adulthood. The measure appropriately leaves the task of regulating the new industry to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which knows a thing or two about the distribution and sale of intoxicants. The OLCC would adopt the necessary rules by 2016.

The tax burden imposed by Measure 91 would be more modest than that adopted in Washington. Taxes would be levied at the point of sale by producers and would range from $5 per immature plant to $35 per ounce for flowers. These rates might strike some as too low, but taxing legal pot too heavily would merely give people an incentive to keep buying on the black market. In any case, the measure directs the OLCC to review tax rates regularly and recommend appropriate changes to the Legislature.

Legalizing recreational marijuana probably sounds like a revolutionary concept to a lot of Oregonians, including many of those who can't wait to fill in the "yes" bubble on their ballots in a couple of months. Given everything that's happened on the ganja front since 1998, though, it's really not as big a step as it might seem. As of July 1, almost 65,000 Oregonians had medical marijuana cards, and many of those 65,000 have friends with whom – just a guess! – they share the fruits of the system. So widely accepted has this form of shadow legalization become that the Legislature OK'd dispensaries in 2013 even though voters defeated related ballot measures in 2002 and 2010. And then, there's the big pot shop across the river, aka Washington.

Measure 91, far from revolutionary, would simply allow Oregon adults to obtain something they may obtain now, but without having to stroll through a "medical" loophole or drive over a bridge to a neighboring state. The measure would be worth supporting for reasons of honesty and convenience alone, but it also would raise millions of dollars per year for schools and other purposes. For that reason, it deserves support even from those who aren't normally high on taxes.

[DiogenesLamp]

The nanny state sure has done a good job of controlling drugs up to this point, haven’t they?

Yes they have, and thanks for noticing. Normally drug addiction expands according to a logistical growth pattern, meaning it gets exponentially worse year after year until it reaches a plateau where the losses are equal to the new additions.

Thankfully our War on Drugs has kept the normal and natural growth of drug addiction from increasing. It has been held down to two percent of the population for nearly a hundred years.

No matter how you slice it, that has been an incredible success.

Now there are some incredibly ignorant and stupid people who think that because there is a small amount of ongoing drug usage occurring in our country, that this means the entire effort is a complete failure. These people are simple minded and foolish and should not be listened to.

They have just never had the necessary education or thinking ability to grasp what would happen if we hadn't had a drug war. Like a cow, they are of the simple minded "The Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" mindset. They want legalized drugs because they have no grasp of what the society would be like if they got what they wanted.

[rottndog]

...small amount of ongoing drug usage occurring in our country...

No...no cognitive dissonance there...

[DiogenesLamp]

Either way, it certainly is not within the Constitutional boundaries of the overreaching federal government.

Drug use as well as marriage, the gay thing, and a million other issues are STATES issues, not federal government issues.

Defending the nation from deadly chemical attack is definitely within the rightful mandate of the federal government. Likewise defending it against biological attack.

Drug use and drug laws are up to the people of each state to decide what they in their locality want to do. That is what we (used) to call “federalism” - decentralized government as defined by the 9th and 10th Amendments - our blessed and free Constitutional Republic that we are letting Satan and his minions snatch away from us.

Nonsense. The Federal government is necessary to deal with foreign threats. You may not be aware of this, but much of the drug traffic comes from FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

How is a state going to deal with Columbia or Afghanistan?

[Christie at the beach]

You are the same person with the same tag line. It would be easy to find because it is a response that you made to me a few days ago. You are not a conservative person to push drugs on our society. Where does the legalization stop at? ( must be quite confusing to live in a setting to where your goal is to legalize marijuana as the fabric of the country that holds us all together is being pulled apart)

[DiogenesLamp]

Catch-22 ... our largely futile attempt to prevent drug addled people IS nanny statism.

No it isn't. It is just Libertarian propaganda to say so. Drugs are an existential threat. We know this because we saw drugs destroy China.

Preventing the Destruction of the population is one of the FOREMOST purposes of government. What other reason do they have for existing?

[PeteB570]

I know more than one conservative who’s smoked pot recreationally for years. They pay their taxes and support themselves.

[ConservingFreedom]

Thankfully our War on Drugs has kept the normal and natural growth of drug addiction from increasing. It has been held down to two percent of the population for nearly a hundred years.

Two percent may simply be modern America's plateau (carrying capacity).

[DiogenesLamp]

Sadly, some self-proclaimed "conservatives" are ready to surrender the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Or more likely, some drug addled Libertarians will just make up bullshit of which to accuse conservatives, so that they can pursue their childish and hedonistic lifestyle without worry.

The tokers just don't think their ideas will cause massive social harm, and even if it does, they just want to be allowed to puff their weed. (or shoot up their dope.)

[right way right]

Problem is it's not being made legal, it's instead being made into a source of tax revenue.
Smoke it. It's for the children and the public good.

[ConservingFreedom]

much of the drug traffic comes from FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

And much does not; that part is none of the feds' business.

[DiogenesLamp]

George Soros is behind this. Stoned people are easily manipulated.

I have read that he has been funding a bunch of these propaganda spreading Libertarian groups to push for drug legalization. I can just see how a pharmaceutical company could make billions by manufacturing instant drug slave narcotics.

I have lately come to suspect that this deceptively named "Conserving Freedom" is part of this George Soros funded campaign. He keeps showing up here at Free Republic and posting "LEGALIZE WEED" articles.

If he comments on any other topic, I haven't noticed it.

[ConservingFreedom]

Problem is it's not being made legal, it's instead being made into a source of tax revenue.

Everything that's taxed is not really legal? How much does that leave?

[ConservingFreedom]

It would be easy to find because it is a response that you made to me a few days ago.

Go for it.

You are not a conservative person to push drugs on our society. Where does the legalization stop at?

Wherever we're left with a War on Drugs we can win - which is manifestly not the case now.

[MinuteGal]

I quit reading the above barf after the incredible first sentence, third paragraph.

I was already in la-la land from reading another thread on polygamy......this article took me right from la-la land into surroundings reminiscent of the famous surreal insane asylum in "Bedlam" with Boris Karloff.

We're going faster into hell-in-a-handbasket than we can keep up with.....with madmen everywhere laughing at us all the way.

I fervently hope the hedonistic, satanic, irresponsible editors of the above Oregon bird cage liner are among the first of the corrupters to be in highway head-ons with addled pot heads slamming into their little wind-up Nissans.

Leni

[musicman]

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help To Keep FR In The Fight !!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[DiogenesLamp]

"Legalizing" new forms of 'marriage' is a positive act by government - legalizing pot means simply leaving smokers and sellers alone.

That's a lot like leaving child molesters alone. No, I don't think we will do that. You people spread a disease that kills people, and you need to be thrown in jail.

[DiogenesLamp]

As long as I’m not forced to hire users or pay for their welfare, fine.

Too late. Most of the pot heads I know are already on Welfare.

[ConservingFreedom]

If he comments on any other topic, I haven't noticed it.

8/28/2014, 10:59:05 AM - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3198030/posts?page=7#7 ... to cite just one.

[DiogenesLamp]

We do that already - and for boozers too.

"WAAAAAAAAAH!!!! They get Alcohol! I want my WEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDD!!!!!"

[DiogenesLamp]

"You posted a cartoon graphic, so you must be right. You win the debate! Good job!"

Summed you up pretty good, didn't it?