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.
If the pain is constant, you’re going to need more than a bowl “now and then”. You’re going to need it constantly.
Also, marijuana causes anxiety and paranoia. The last thing a seriously ill patient needs is an ineffective pain killer that gives him a heightened sense of dread and his own mortality that wipes out any mild euphoric effect the drug might have had otherwise.
If I’m in pain, I’ll take hydrocodone or oxycodone over weed every single time. It’s not even a contest.
Yes, I do support an end to taxes on liquor, tobacco etc. The government is making value judgements as to what is ‘right and wrong” and has exploded into PC, food police and how much money one should pay for doing well in our society. The boys that started the Whiskey Rebellion in 1789 were right. The Federal Government began taxing whiskey to pay off the national debt back then and it’s snowballed since then. Look at the Federal income tax. It was never approved by the states but we still have it due to Federal fiat.
If it takes 30 mg of oxy x3 a day to manage pain, it’s going to take more than a bowl now or then to get the same effect.
I’ll take the pain medicine.
So is pissing on the Tenth Amendment. Are you willing to do that just so you can have your drug war?
You would think that a Conservative would know better.
Buckley was no conservative? Then what the heck was he?
Should it be the Governments decision?
“pot makes people slow down and drive more carefully”
I agree with your larger point about pills and booze, but this myth that slower and more deliberate driving is safer must be laid to rest. I direct you to the driving record of the elderly.
A Libertarian.
“Alcohol is number one in its involvement in fatal auto accidents (not to mention hundreds of thousands maimed/blinded as a result of such accidents), near number one in its contribution to spousal abuse and child abuse, - why? Because of its accessability!”
Which accessabity you apparently attribute to its legality. Wrong. As every elementary student is taught, alchohol consumption went up under prohibition.
“Hard to believe anyone would make the case that inhaling any kind of smoke into their lungs isn’t damaging”
No one need make that case, but they can make the case that it is less damaging than legal substances. Oh, and that how damaging it is to my lungs is none of the government’s business.
I didn't say anything about the government.
“If the pain is constant, you’re going to need more than a bowl ‘now and then’. You’re going to need it constantly”
Same with the pills.
“Also, marijuana causes anxiety and paranoia. The last thing a seriously ill patient needs is an ineffective pain killer that gives him a heightened sense of dread and his own mortality that wipes out any mild euphoric effect the drug might have had otherwise.”
You sound a little paranoid and overanxious yourself. Firstly, they’ve gotten pretty expert at growing the stuff, and you can get your mellow high. Secondly, anxiety is not equivalent to dread and morbidity. Thirdly, who says potential anxiety will wipe out euphoria? I think you just made that up. Fourthly, whence this modifier “mild”? You never indicated the bad effects were mild, how come the good ones have to be?
Finally, and most importantly, all drugs have side effects. What makes you think mj’s paranoia is worse than the legions of complications from opiates?
“A Libertarian.”
Know what they used to call those? “Conservatives.”
“I didn’t say anything about the government.”
Well, okay, but since this is a political thread on a political forum with an ongoing conversation about whether or not something should be legal. Though you may have posted just for our FYI, don’t put it beyond others to clarify whether or not your appraisal means it ought be illegal.
Pot advocates always go ad hominem. Without exception, without fail. I have a rule. I stop reading after the first personal attack. Life being too short and all. I'm sure you can find someone else to swap screeds with.
Key words: “used to”.
Now a libertarian is a kook. Like the poster child of all libertarians:
Ron Paul.
So obviously the laws are a deterrent, right.
To be honest I don’t believe most pot smokers care if it is ever made legal. It is kind of like hoping one day congress will start adhering to the constitution, sure it would be nice, but it is highly unlikely to happen.
Considering how easy it is to come by, and the low likelihood of ever being harassed for growing or using it within your own home, it just doesn’t seem like an issue worth pursuing.
As others have mentioned the various aspects of the drug war are now multi billion dollar industry, from SWAT training and equipment to urine screening, ineffective prevention programs and I’m certain things we have missed. Probably to big to fail at this point, the bill of rights, common sense and the facts be damned.
I have the advantage of having connections to perform PFT testing on myself, and I have, both just after I quit smoking in the late 90’s, and recently, after more or less regular smoking for 5 years, and my lung capacity increased from 5.5l to 6.2l, and no signs of restrictive disease are present. So, I’ll keep my fingers crossed XXxXX
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.