Yes, Legalize Pot, But Why Tax It?
- Image via Wikipedia
I’m amazed and encouraged by the recent uptick in news stories about legalizing pot. Call it pot, marijuana, hemp or what have you, the basic issue is the same. While I agree that we should decriminalize this incredible plant that can be used for numerous industrial, commercial and medicinal uses, I’m discouraged by two points coming from the strongest supporters for legalization. These are:
- Tax it
- Keep ‘harder’ drugs illegal
This is a losing position and I’ll tell you why. On the issue of taxation, wouldn’t it be OK if there was one thing in this world that the government didn’t tax? I mean, do some fat cat politicians in Washington really deserve a slice of every bit of productive activity in this country? The income that a person uses to buy any item in America has already been taxed multiple times - through corporate taxes, payroll taxes, income taxes, medicaid and social security taxes and the list goes on and on. What makes people think that the government needs any more money from us?
Also, assuming that it was legalized and taxed, why wouldn’t people still buy it off the streets at a discount, tax-free? Assuming an 8% minimum tax, which is the sales tax rate in New York, why wouldn’t people who already ‘get it from a friend’ continue to do so? In fact, I think it’s safe to assume that an 8% tax is probably much lower than what the government would actually institute. Tobacco manufacturers could be counted on to lobby government to make sure that marijuana taxes were as high or higher than tobacco taxes to make sure they didn’t loose further business to a cheaper (and more healthy) alternative.
Obama signed a law increasing the Federal excise tax on cigarettes to $1.01 per pack, while each state charges more on top of that. I’m fortunate to live in NY where we have the highest taxes of any state, including the highest per-pack excise tax of $2.75 per pack. Now do you really think the government would be content with an 8% sales tax rate? A higher tax on marijuana would only serve to prolong the negative effects of the Drug War as people try to avoid another tax. Marijuana already has an established underground distribution network so it’s conceivable that underground sales would continue.
More importantly, these supporters have forfeited their moral high ground by arguing that harder drugs should be kept illegal. This position is incompatible with the body of activism done to support legalization of marijuana as well as personal liberty. Either you own your own body and have the right to put into it whatever you please, or you don’t. There is no middle ground on this issue. Every argument against hard drugs has been used against marijuana as well. Until the pro-legalization crowd regains the moral highground they will continue to fight a losing battle on this one. It’s quite possible that pot could be legalized and taxed, but our basic freedoms would still not have been restored and the success highly compromised.
Ask yourself: do you take a principled position when it comes to drugs? Or do you pick and choose what other people should be able to use while keeping your choice of drug legal? If you support the continued legal status of the drug of choice of most Americans, alcohol, then you cannot oppose legalization of other drugs and still have a principled position. Only complete liberty and self-ownership of our bodies will set us free.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6cfcc588-1ea7-49d0-a36c-62ec3e957afe)
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
The argument against the government having "jurisdiction" in this area (recreational and medicinal marijuana use) reminds me of the argument homeschoolers make against the inclusion of homeschooling language in compulsory education law, i.e. once the govie has decided that it is a legitimate right of individuals to smoke pot, it is inevitable that they then control how we get access to that right, on the paternalistic premise that they're just trying to protect us. This will include the regulation of marijuana supply and therefore, its price, but more dangerously, it will include regulation of patients' relationships with their physicians and the health sector broadly.
This of course all goes back to the misguided notion that the Bill of Rights and Constitution somehow "grant" citizens their rights, when in fact you and I and many other advocates of liberty would instead argue that the Bill of Rights was put into place to protect people from the govie intruding on rights that are theirs to begin with.
Once one delves into the real facts about marijuana it becomes more than evident that we've been lied to about the facts. But who cares what its effects are ultimately? Anti-depressants have driven people to commit suicide, and make them mindless zombies…how that "lifestyle" compared to a pot-smoker's "lifestyle." As you said Andrew, either we have the right to do what we wish with our own bodies and our own state of consciousness, or we don't…And can people stop saying that when it's legal everyone will drive while using it? People do that now, don't they…? Since when is it ever okay to endanger other people's lives while behind the wheel. You should post your perspective of DWI. Oops, rant over.
Nothing is worse than these over weight prude politicians trying to ban marajuana, and when that fails they need to tax it. lets put a high tax on all your trans and saturated fats you selfish control freaks. their big reasoning is that alcohol is bad enough, why add another drug to the amercian people. well its simple, they are two totally different things! what are these jesus hugging morons thinking?! I cant handle thinking our countries leaders are basing our lives on their christian moralities. why are their beliefs right and any other is wrong? Now back to the alcohol and weed comparison, its like saying, "we already have pizza at this party why would we have music too?" I personally rarely drink, cause basically it sucks and i feel sick when i do it. I do love to smoke weed cause I do not get sick, i do not make dumb life altering decisions when I am high, and I can still be active when I smoke. Of course when smoking we should drive or be at work and such, but when at home or in good company why not? why is me being high at home such a national threat? what a joke….american people are getting smarter and we need new leaders that are real people who have not be brought up through the brainwashing political system that currently exists.
I agree pot should be legalized, but only because of the exact reason you mention: we're losing the tax on it to the thugs that sell and provide it, while paying massive sums of money to attempt to repress those individuals who are making massive profits on it.
Personally, I'm surprised by your point of view on this issue. I think its a fairly safe assumption that drug users do impose many negative externalities onto society. The theory behind taxation in this manner is that we can pass some of these expenses onto the actual users themselves in a maybe not perfect, but pretty good fashion. Otherwise who is there to protect my rights? Who is there to pay for rehab and treatment for those that need it? In an ideal world, individuals would bear costs for themselves. Taxing pot is one way of approximating this ideal.
Ayn Rand herself sates about drug use:
"Is there any doubt that drug addiction is an escape from an unbearable inner state, from a reality one cannot deal with, from an atrophying mind one can never fully destroy? If Apollonian reason were unnatural to man, and Dionysian "intuition" brought him closer to nature and truth, the apostles of irrationality would not have to resort to drugs. Happy, self-confident men do not seek to get "stoned."
Drug addiction is the attempt to obliterate one's consciousness, the quest for a deliberately induced insanity. As such, it is so obscene an evil that any doubt about the moral character of its practitioners is itself an obscenity."
-Apollo and Dionysus
Interesting quotations there Ryan. I would have to say that I agree with (as I assume you do) Rand's statement that drug addiction is an escape. Perhaps I would go as far as agreeing that it is an escape from an unbearable inner state. But let's for a second consider one of the crucial forms an "unbearable inner state" may take. There are many people that suffer from depression and other mental illnesses who might benefit from the occasional marijuana or LSD use. Of course the exact effects of drugs on the brain have not been substantiated (in part do to the government's fear of the results) but why can't we just let people decide for themselves if the drug is making them feel better? Why can't we let people make their own trade offs? I assure you there are millions of depressed individuals who would gladly suffer some loss of consciousness or memory to be alleviated for a moment of the pain and stress of constantly internalizing the world's problems. Somehow America's favorite drug, American Idol, doesn't cut it for these folks. And anyway Ayn Rand didn't need pot because she got high from looking at her own reflection in the mirror.
Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, Francis Crick (who was also allegedly under the influence of LSD when he first discovered DNA) makes the following comments on drug use during than interview posted here: http://www.intuition.org/txt/crick2.htm
MISHLOVE: Do you have a sense of the process by which hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, or psychedelic drugs, actually affect the brain? What is going on there?
CRICK: Well, I don't have a detailed knowledge, no, I don't, and I'm not sure that anybody else really knows. They have a rough idea.
MISHLOVE: We know that obviously there's a chemical influence.
CRICK: Well, typically, different ones act in different ways. But a common thing is to see colors more vividly, for example, and often to see things move in a way when they're not actually moving, and things of that sort. So they boost up in some way the activities of what you might call the color parts of the brain and the moving parts of the brain and so on. But the government isn't very keen on giving money for research on that sort of thing.
MISHLOVE: Not at all. Well, I suppose many neuroscientists would feel that the study of the chemical interactions at the synapses of the brain is a very fruitful area for research.
CRICK: Absolutely, but most of it's done in the context of mental illness or conditions like depression and things of that sort.
Just some food for thought.
Libertyvee- you've raised some additional questions about drug use and legalization. My response is this: First, lumping LSD and pot together and arguing for both based on the supposed merits of just the one does not make for a good argument. Pot and LSD are two different drugs, making a case for Amphetamines based on a comparison with Caffeine doesn't work either. When considering legalization, each drug should be considered individually, because each drug has it's own unique effects that potentially are or are not useful to society. Another point that I disagree with Andrew on: harder drugs should be kept illegal. Specifically: crack cocaine and methamphetamines, are there really any good uses for these drugs?
I also wanted to add to some of the points I made in my earlier post, especially regarding taxation. Andrew, I think your idea that people would continue to buy pot from their dealers is very improbable. Assuming pot were actually legalized, I would imagine it would fall under laws similar to Alcohol and Tobacco, which levy taxation but also allow for individuals to grow or make their own up to a certain limit. I think there is a very good comparison here: some people would grow their own, but most would probably still buy it and pay taxes on it, because as the industry commercializes it will still probably be cheaper to buy it and pay taxes than to go to the trouble of making your own. If pot were grown freely, on a commercial scale it would be very cheap and taxes could potentially be very cheap or negligible, just like most people view the 5 cent deposit on soda bottles.
Lastly, if any of you don't already know, you may be interested to learn more about Ayn Rand's own drug use:
"It was during this period of nonstop work on The Fountainhead that Ayn went to see a doctor. She had heard there was a harmless pill one could take to increase one's energy and lessen one's appetite. The doctor, telling her there would be no negative consequences, prescribed a low dosage of a small green tablet which doctors had begun prescribing rather routinely. Its trade name was Dexamyl. Ayn took two of these pills each day for more than thirty years. They appeared to work: she felt that her physical energy had increased, although it was never high, and her weight stayed under reasonable control. In fact, medical opinion today suggests that they soon ceased to be a source of physical energy; their effect shortly became that of a placebo.
Dexamyl consists of two chemicals: an amphetamine and a barbiturate. It was not until the sixties that researchers investigated the effects of large doses of these chemicals. They found that extremely high doses were harmful, sometimes even resulting in paranoid symptoms; but to this day, there is only the most fragmentary and contradictory scientific evidence to suggest that low doses such as Ayn took could be harmful. As one pharmacological specialist has said: "Perhaps they hurt her, and perhaps they didn't."
In the early seventies, when for the first time she became seriously ill, her doctor took her medical history, and, quite innocently, she told him about the Dexamyl. Disapproving, he ordered her to cease taking them at once. She never took another.
I include this discussion only because I have learned that a number of people, aware that she took this medication, have drawn ominous conclusions about Ayn's mental health; there is no scientific basis for their conclusions." -Barbara Branden
Having been for a time on amphetamines in the form of attention deficit medication, prescribed by my doctor, I can tell you personally there was a time in my life I could really relate to Rand's writings. Amphetamines are like most other drugs: mind altering and definitely not harmless.
So I've backed away from my hypothesis that gray market sales might continue. Note that it was never my point. I didn't realize how high street prices are for pot because I'm not a pot user. I'm going to write a follow-up article that expands my main arguments. I with I hadn't put that in because it caused many people (on the other site it was posted at) to avoid addressing the main arguments.
Ryan, you either own your own body or you don't. I would like to argue that your body is yours and yours alone. I don't own it, I can't stop you from putting things into it that I don't like. I can't force you to eat well, study hard, exercise or get enough sleep. Yet the government has claimed that it DOES own your body and that it has the right to make you go to school, eat or not eat certain things, control what you put in your body, etc. Aren't you insulted by this? This is why no distinction at all should be made between any drugs. There is no such thing as 'society', there are only individuals. A crackhead can't do anything to 'society', they can only hurt an individual. As such, individuals should be held responsible for what they do, whether intoxicated or not - high or not - tripping or not. I firmly believe that if people were held responsible for their actions we wouldn't need special laws for every possible situation. If someone you loved was killed by another driver tomorrow, would you care if that other person had been drunk, high, eating a cheeseburger, texting on a phone, tired or just momentarily distracted? No you wouldn't. Your loved one would be dead. We don't need to prevent certain substances from reaching people's hands (we're failing at that anyway) just to protect 'society'. I'd rather have individuals protected.
I'm saddened to hear about Ayn Rand's drug use. I had not known about it before. But doesn't that illustrate exactly what's wrong with our society anyway? I mean she trusted a doctor's opinion and took a drug that was 'legal' and 'safe', yet look where it could have lead her! Rand took the appropriate action to protect herself as the government and 'society' were unable to do for her.
I think you should take the time to study the concept of 'negative rights' versus 'positive rights'. The former is also known as natural rights while the later is something that Statists like to promise to everyone. The only things that should be considered rights are those things that you would be morally justified to use force to protect.
My 'ideal' society does not look like weighted taxes to compensate for how 'society' feels I am impacting 'them'. My ideal society allows people to be free to live their lives any way they wish so long as they don't harm others.
I disagree with you here too. Society is very much a tangible thing, and the individual's role within it is very important. A loose description I would give for society is: a group of individuals who can agree on basic guidelines for a conduct of living. Thats it. If you don't agree to those rules, theres nothing preventing you from either influencing others to amend those rules or for you to move to a society that has more in common with your line of thinking. Now I know there are some One World Government conspiracy theorists probably listening in, so I'll say this: maybe the solution to you feeling out of touch with your local society is as simple as moving from say California to Texas. The idea of only one set of standards across the whole world is ridiculous, there will always be local/regional (even if minor) differences. Still too many laws for you? Move to one of the many lawless regions of the world such as the drug trade areas of Mexico or the Afghani/Pakastani boarder region. I'm sure that somewhere in the world right now there is a place for Anarchists.
Even in Galt's Gulch, the mythical land of like minded objectivists, the characters were in mutual agreement about things they could or could not do. So the concept that society has some sort of right to impose restrictions on individuals is nothing remotely new. If you don't agree to a society's rules, it does not mean you're a bad person, simply that you're unwanted in that society.
Heres an example: Personally, I'm not such a fan of crack heads. My friend Scott from high school used to do odd jobs in the city with crack heads and based upon the experiences he related to me about working with crack heads, I'm fairly sure I would never want to employ a crack head. Assuming the crack head could be self sufficient we would be fine, although we know that really its hard to do just about anything when you have a serious addiction. Hence, the crack head is a liability to me. He may try to cut corners by robbing me, stealing my stuff or wreaking my stuff while hes intoxicated and have no way to pay me back. Thus, its in my interest as well as in the interests of other like minded individuals (who really are most of the people in this society: people who value productive work) to restrict the crack head from harming us. We make it illegal to sell crack, or use it and enforce penalties on those who do within the confines of our jurisdiction. The crack head can abide by our rules, be punished for breaking our rules, lobby to convince us that crack is great or perhaps move to a country of like minded individuals who share his values (perhaps Portugal which has legalized ALL drugs). The ball is in his court. Only if he chooses to harm me do I view him as a bad person. He is free to determine how he wants me to perceive him, based on the course of action he takes.
Neither am I a pot user. Via the highly reliable source known as urban dictionary:
'Dime Bag' is a general term for $10 worth of weed.
Back in the day, a Quarter Ounce (7 Grams) only cost $10. An eighth cost $5, thus the terms, nickel bag and dime bag.
Some cicles still refer to a Quarter Ounce as a 'Dime Bag'.
"Man, We need a dime bag!"
So I'm using anecdotal evidence to suggest that it would be cheap. As far as I know it grows just about everywhere, perhaps the reason its referred to as a "weed"?
Another point I'd like to stress to you is the idea that without laws it is very improbable to try to hold individuals responsible for all their actions. For instance: Your smoking of tobacco causes negative externalities for me, a non-smoker within your vicinity. Specifically, you're imposing toxic chemicals in the air I breathe and we both know that even second hand smoke causes cancer. So what could I do? I could sue you and every other smoker I encounter because you are making measurable detriments to my health. I would go to court for every smoker I encountered, and you could go to court for every non smoker you encountered who wanted to sue you for threatening their health. We'd both end up spending waaay to much time in court, holding each other perfectly accountable for each other's actions. Instead we compromise, I benefit by having completely smoke free public interiors and you can still smoke in your own house, own car or outside without having to worry about me suing you, because we've agreed you can harm yourself to your heart's content or smoke near me provided adequate ventilation. This is a great compromise because now there are only simple rules to follow and we don't have to spend all day suing each other for minor infractions just so we can hold each other accountable.
"Now in what manner does a human being discover the concept of “value”? By what means does he first become aware of the issue of “good or evil” in its simplest form? By means of the physical sensations of pleasure or pain. Just as sensations are the first step of the development of a human consciousness in the realm of cognition, so they are its first step in the realm of evaluation."
- “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness
Doctors, just like any human beings learn from experience in order to determine values. Is this good or is this bad? Arguably, Amphetamines have had positive outcomes for literally millions of kids with ADHD, personally they had an unpleasant effect on me. Rand would have respected doctors more for the fact that they've since then done further studies on the drug, actually looking at real life evidence as opposed to being "witch doctors" who proposed treatment while disregarding the outcome of patients.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your answer. When it came to your physical safety you did not think that you had a significant incentive to keep yourself safe from harm. You were eager to give that responsibility away to others like storekeepers, police and military. I can't force you to realize that your body is yours and yours alone. I can only encourage you to think rationally about that.
Holding every action accountable is not at all necessary. The smoker has rights too, and if you went to a bar that everyone else was smoking at a should not support your case if you attempted to sue everyone. You saw the danger and accepted it upon yourself. Instead, you think that it would be morally acceptable to grab the guns of government and point them at the smoking minority. If your friends smoked and you didn't want them to I'm sure you wouldn't pull a gun on them, but 'society' we point the gun at smokers every day.
Smoking is healthier than fascism. http://riseuprochester.org/2009/05/01/anti-smokin...
I also find it strange that you continuously quote from Ayn Rand, who was one of the greatest champions for individualism, yet you seem to support a utilitarian/collectivist distopia! What gives? o.0
I don't want to move to Pakistan or Mexico. This country was created on anarchistic principles. The Bill of Rights was specifically enacted to preserve individual liberty and natural rights by limiting the government's power. I'd probably be satisfied to live in a society with no central government at all but at the very LEAST, can we please adhere to the law of the land as espoused by our Founding Fathers? Can our government please stop breaking its own laws?
Ryan, assuming we don't lump LSD and pot together, do you have a response to my argument?
Libertyvee, I think most scholars would find it very hard to agree that this country was founded on anarchistic principles.
Second, I think I answered your question perfectly: Why can't we allow individuals to make decisions for themselves regarding their drug use? Simply, some drugs are too harmful to be allowed in any capacity, see my crack cocaine example. Personally, I haven't had enough (or really any) experiences with LSD users, so I haven't presented my opinions here. I'll reserve judgment for when I can make a more informed opinion on the matter. To succinctly reiterate my opinion on pot, its this: Pot should be legalized and taxed. The taxation should at minimum be enough to cover expenses associated with marijuana rehab programs, or any other obvious externalities pot users place on society. Thats it.
This was a really interesting blog on the NY Times website: <a href=”http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/…“ target=”_blank”>http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/…
People in various fields commented on their views regarding the legalization of weed and I thought it was interesting that personal opinion and experience dominates people's stance on illegal drug use. For example, historian and author of "The Case for Legalizing Drugs," Richard Miller, writes:
" At the risk of being long-winded, I wanted to let you know why I’m not citing any studies here. Reformers know about studies, and opponents disregard them, so I see no benefit in mentioning any. If my previous documented writings fail to establish me as someone whose word is credible, reproducing two or three of my footnotes would hardly be sufficient either.
On these and other points, in my books on drug use I cite scientific studies aplenty. There is no debate, merely theater. Discussing drug policy is like discussing gun control or abortion: facts are irrelevant. "
When it comes down to it, people will not look at real scholars' findings on what benefits legalizing drugs could bring to society. The stance that making them illegal protects "the rest of us" from those pesky crack heads in "the city" (as if there weren't any people anywhere else doped up on X, Oxy-Contin etc. ) is based on prejudice, fear, etc.
The idea behind making something illegal is that it's an incentive for people NOT to do it…but clearly that isn't the case. Is the Mexican drug problem based on Mexico's lack of law, or the U.S.'s policies?
I don't know, just rambling here…
*
Alicia believes that the CIA had an agent named Tim Osman who happened to be Osama bin Laden. She bases this solely on the bizarre statements of a nutcase meth-cooker. Alicia is a conspiracy nut. Her opinions don't count.
Does it bother you that I'm using Ayn Rand quotes to support my ideas? Let me explain why I'm doing so. First, I happen to be very familiar with her literature, having read both the monstrously long Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged as well as works from the Virtues of Selfishness. Second, I know that you yourself hold her Objectivist philosophy in high regard. The purpose of an intellectual argument is to attempt to make the other person see your point of view. I hope that using Rand as a basis in my arguments helps you understand my point of view.
As I've explained previously, my opinion regarding Rand is one of respect, but not absolute devotion. Rand's philosophy is a unique, interesting and helpful way of looking at the world. It is not an end all, be all set of guide lines for evaluating all of life's challenges. It is merely one tool in the tool box of the entire body of human knowledge.
Ryan, you seem reasonable. Don't pay attention to these cultists. They think that there's a secret power out there that fully controls the government and will soon kill 80% of us. They look in the sky and see contrails and instantly think "chemtrails" and think that the puffy clouds are one of the many tools (along with vaccines and whatever Alex Jones tells them) that the New World Order is using to poison us.
Stay away from these nuts; you could be much more productive elsewhere.
Maybe anarchistic was the wrong term to use. Libertarian would have sufficed. I haven't actually counted the number of Bill of Rights scholars out there and how many of them would argue that the doc's principles of limited government are libertarian, but I assure you that not only are there hundreds, if not thousands, of scholars who would make this case, but there are entire schools of thought and think tanks that maintain this position, including the Cato Institute and the Mises Insitute of Austrian Economics, just to name a few.
Anyway wasn't it Ben Franklin that stated, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" The Fathers knew that the institution of government operates on a slippery slope. The more it interferes in people's lives, i.e. the bigger it gets, the more it needs to further interfere to accomplish its goals. The expansion of the Commerce Clause is a great example. And so eventually it might reach a point as it has now, where the govie is satisfied with seizing somewhere between 30% of your income to your entire life, if needed for the "good of society" of course. Men like Paine, Jefferson and Franklin wanted nothing to do with this tyrannical evil.
So should we dismiss the fringe scholars' opinions with a wave of our hand simply because they're not in the majority? Such an action reeks of intellectual corruptness. The libertarian tradition has a very strong academic foundation that I would urge you to look into it before dismissing it on these shaky grounds. There is a great reading list on the Campaign for Liberty website that might help in getting you a bit more acquainted with the fundamentals of the liberty tradition:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/edu/reading-lis...
There are also "mainstream" academics that would be wiling to discuss the concepts above.
Maybe you can make it out to this Columbia University study group that explores, among its other strands, the elements of anarchism in the framework for American government.
http://www.studyplace.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_educ...
As for your drug comment, its very difficult to argue with someone who simply agrees with the majority opinion. You've already decided that drugs in general are too harmful to society to be tolerated, based most likely on what "most" have decided on this topic, even though the evidence is inconclusive in many cases. You initially take the stance that LSD should be outlawed, unless you might have a chance to research it enough and maybe find enough evidence to allow me or anyone else to use it. Well gee thanks for at least considering that I might be right in my decision to do what I please with my body. How considerate of you. But your initial instinct is to deny others their natural right to happiness, if that means the use of mind altering drugs. If you read through many of the primary writings of the Founding Fathers, they believed that people are free to do what they want as long as they don't agress against others. There are already laws in place that will convict a crackhead if he tries to rob or kill you (aggression). We don't need additional laws to prevent him from being a crackhead.
Alicia posted a blog from the New York Times to support her argument, not one by Alex Jones. Whatever her opinions may be on Osama Bin Laden or the sources she might cite to support them are irrelevant in this situation.
Actually I much prefer Rothbard to Rand. My point is that an intellectual argument includes being able to tell the difference between an individualistic train of thought and a collectivist one. You\'re mixing the two like they\'re the same thing.
Libertarian I could agree with. Our founding fathers were interested in pursuing the idea of self rule, not no rule (anarchy). Have I stated anywhere that I believe Libertarianism should be dismissed because I believe it is a fringe political movement? No, like most schools of thought it offers unique explanations of problems and possible solutions for those problems. Further, I would not consider the philosophy of this movement to be "fringe," though I do disagree with numerous aspects of it's approach and implementation.
Back to the drugs, please don't put words in my mouth. I never made any blanket statements that drugs are too harmful to society to be tolerated. I suggest rereading. In my posts I have not made any opinions for or against LSD, only that it deserves study. Again, reread my posts, I simply point out that its failed logic to legalize LSD because you think its just like pot (while ignoring the actual differences) and you think pot should be legal.
"On these and other points, in my books on drug use I cite scientific studies aplenty. There is no debate, merely theater. Discussing drug policy is like discussing gun control or abortion: facts are irrelevant. ""
Precisely, because for all of these issues, it comes down to a matter of values, not logic. You can only make a logical case for your values in this case, not an absolute statement that one option is better than the other. I hope others understand this: the arguments I've presented here are only logical explanations for my own values. Other people are very much entitled to their own values. One of my own values (the one that seems to draw the most criticism here) is that I value living together with people who share as a base line at least some of the same values I have. I think it would be most frustrating to live in the world with others that I couldn't share a certain number of common assumptions with.
Clearly the Mexico drug problem is driven by ineffective US policy.
I believe (as does libertyvee as far as I can tell) that LSD should be legalized not because the drug is the same, but because the PRINCIPLE is the same. The distinction may seem minor to some but it is incredibly important. I attempt to take a principled stand on my views based on evidence, reason and logic. Everything bad that has been said about LSD, crack or any other hard drug has been said about alcohol and marijuana - true or false. The point is prohibition doesn\'t work. It doesn\'t work because it\'s a fundamentally anti-human policy.
For the record, anarchy is not \'no rule\'. It\'s self rule. Every individual is a sovereign individual. I have not turned my sovereignty over to the government. Anarchy is the principle of voluntarism where individuals can enter mutually beneficial relationships and contracts without force or coercion.
I\'m glad you read to the end and saw that guy\'s point of view. I read those with Alicia yesterday I think. It\'s really true about facts and figures. That\'s the main reason that libertarians are so ineffectual sometimes at convincing others. We try to use facts and figures (which are almost always on the side of liberty and freedom) yet the opposing argument is always…\"well it\'s a social contract\". I do agree that Mexico is in bad shape because of our drug policies.
What you\'re describing here is the fundamental value of libertarian thought. Namely the non-aggression principle, also known as the \"good neighbor policy\". You surround yourself with those people who have similar values and live in peace with them. \'Society\' and government are just the opposite. They are force. There is no voluntarism. You don\'t get to choose much of anything and you don\'t get to exclude anyone. A society that is founded upon coercion and violence cannot have anything good come of it. I applaud you for that statement. If more people in this world could feel the same way we would certainly be much better off, even if we were unable to completely escape the grasp of petty rulers.
If the shortcomings of one philosophy don't add some insight and validity to an opposing philosophy, I don't quite know what to say.
Just as history has shown that a communist utopia is impossible to create, I think you'll find that an objectivist utopia is impossible to create as well. What kind of lives do most people lead? Ones that are somewhere between these two extremes.
If you believe you can create an objectivist utopia, I highly encourage you to try.
It is the Statists that promise utopia for the common man. Freedom from bondage for all people does not rid man of his imperfections, society of its vices or the wicked of their schemes. I don\'t really subscribe to objectivism nor do I expect everyone to feel the way that I do. There are as many ways to look at the world and experience its wonders as there are people. Tyranny takes a thousand forms, although liberty has but one. Liberty is the framework to build a better tomorrow, not a quick fix for all of the problems in the world.
Tobacco costs about $2,500 per acre in average to grow, harvest, dry and cure. They get an average of about 2,000 pounds per acre. When Phillip Morris buys it, they'll generally pay less than $3 a pound in these bulk purchases. I'm not sure exactly how many pounds of finished product marijuana farmers could get here, but I know the government estimates that in Mexico they get a little over a 1,000 pounds per acre. Modern farmers in the US are amazingly efficient and capable of achieving incredible yields. They ought to be able to get a 1,000 pounds of bud per acre on average, easily, and maybe more.
Hemp is grown in Canada for seed. It costs them less than $1,000 per acre to grow this hemp, dry it, and remove the seeds from the buds. It would probably cost more to separate the buds and trim them up for sale, but it shouldn't cost a whole lot more. Even if it costs $5,000 and acre to produce, twice what it costs to produce an acre of tobacco, at a 1,000 pounds per acre that would be a production cost of only $5 a pound. If it costs ten times as much as tobacco to produce then production costs would only be $25 a pound. Pot would be super cheap in a legal environment. There will be all sorts of room for high taxes before it gets anywhere close to as expensive as it is now.
I'm very disheartened. America is on the brink of Socialism/Communism and some 912 folks are, in my opinion, wasting way too much time and print on this topic. It will be absolutely irrelevant if we don't take the country back in 2010. I believe that EVERY effort from 912 and Tea Party Americans should be directed toward their ideas on how to win local, State, and National elections in 2010. You all demonstrate sound and reasonable thinking. I feel your efforts should be redirected, at least for now.
Thanks Bill for bringing more facts to the table. I believe that these issues should be argued on principle and if the principles are solid then the empirical evidence will back up the reasoning. I will work on a follow-up article to include the helpful input from all of those who left a comment. Thanks again.
You're ideal society by your definition is anarchy. Unfortunately, anarchy is hard to sell because it has been given such a negative spin and a lot of people have a hard time accepting each other as they are. When the day comes that we can let go of our greed and our jealousies and realize that this, too, shall pass, we may once again see the lights of freedom from each other. Until then, we shall have to accept freedom as a philosophy.
Leave your response!
This week last year...
Calendar
Interesting Stats
Most Commented
Latest Comments