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.
Illegal alcohol gave us Joe Kennedy, John Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Patches Kennedy....
You’ve dug yourself a hole so deep in this thread, it’s too hard for you to get out. Everything you’ve stated has been rebutted. Your arguments are the same used for gun control.
Sincerely,
“98% of arrestees test positive for bread use in the United States, England, and Australia” (Mr.Unique)
Ban bread!
Not without a ton of gubmint interference, you can’t.
Not without a ton of gubmint interference, you can’t.
“What we do effects others.”
OK, but I believe we call that “life”. Life isn’t perfect, it isn’t always fair, nor does it guarantee nothing bad will ever happen.
Trying to legislate a good time for all is legislating a bad time for everyone.
Not without a ton of gubmint interference, you can’t.
Period.
Or should I post it, in big block letters?
Do you have any evidence that there is more government interference in growing your own tobacco than somebody growing their own tomatoes? Are are we suppose to accept it as fact, just because you say so?
The 'War on Drugs', of which interdiction of MJ is the lead, is the main reason for the militarization of our police forces.
Can't have them give up their toys can we?
Let’s make cigarettes illegal and we can all smoke legal Marijuana.
Makes a lot of sense doesn’t it? /s/
I work with the Children of all abusers. Alcohol, Drugs, Prescription, and street. Try and explain to them its okay for all the users and abusers to control their intake and not affect others.
Should we protect the children of alcohol abusers by banning alcohol?
The Children say YES
Thanks for the update, Mrs. Clinton.
We shall overcome
We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day
CHORUS:
Oh, deep in my heart
I do believe
We shall overcome some day
We’ll walk hand in hand
We’ll walk hand in hand
We’ll walk hand in hand some day
CHORUS
We shall all be free
We shall all be free
We shall all be free some day
CHORUS
We are not afraid
We are not afraid
We are not afraid some day
CHORUS
We are not alone
We are not alone
We are not alone some day
CHORUS
The whole wide world around
The whole wide world around
The whole wide world around some day
CHORUS
We shall overcome
We shall overcome
We shall overcome some day
;^)
Gun control, huh?
You equate marijuana to guns?
Tell me, do you advocate owning a weapon? Being a responsible gun owner? I’m guessing you do.
I’m also guessing that - if legal - you would use pot also. And have no problems with your children smoking pot.
Amazing....how you can’t understand that I can grow tobacco, and make wine, and brew beer..without any “gubmint interference”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you?
I didn’t think so.
I am perfectly capable of reading your inane, insulting posts in their entirety. The government does not interfere AT ALL if you produce these things for personal consumption. You are the one who should learn to read. Maybe you should try posting your next reply ten times.
that is absurd.
smoking has zero control of dosage since the plant and quality control would vary.
pills are inspected for quantity control. Liability laws are there for those who fail to maintain proper quality control.
The fact is there are pot heads who will always refuse to look at science in favor of a delusion.
Do you know anyone who grows their own tomotoes? I bet you do.
Now. Tell me ANYONE who grows his own tobacco.
Yes, I've worked in many ER's "as I said". Have worked for years in a NICU, and ICU's, etc, and continue to so...
Of course I have an argument...and I'm not being dishonest. If you don't think...some pot smoker hasn't done something stupid and died after smoking dope...then I don't know what to tell you.
You're a bit knew here...so I'm going to leave it at that. Won't even call you names. Ha!!
FWIW
Really? Can you grow your own tobacco? Can you distill your own booze?
Not without a ton of gubmint interference, you can’t.
Apart from limits on amount, what "gubmint interference" is there on home-brewing?
And the same thing would happen if ever pot was legalized. If you think Big Brother would let you grow a few plants in your back yard without taxing them, then you are missing the point.
Home brewed alcohol is not taxed (as far as I know).
The main point of legalizing dope is to tax it and increase the size of government.
Again... just like with tobacco and booze.
So it would be better to ban tobacco and booze than to let government tax them? You really think that's the small-government position?
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.