It’s Not About the Economy, Pothead. (Or, a Rant.)
As a strong supporter of the legalization of marijuana, I sympathize entirely with Freddie’s frustration with Obama’s craptastic take on the subject from Wednesday night’s “town hall” meeting. That said, I’ve got to get something off my chest.
There is, I am comfortable saying, a whole host of good arguments in favor of legalizing pot. The argument that we should legalize pot because we can then aid the economy and make money for the government by taxing it is, however, decidedly NOT a member of that host. Want to know why Obama LOLed at your question last night, pro-legalization America? Maybe it’s because the idea that a tiny boost in GDP and the associated tax revenue comprise a sufficient reason to legalize a substance that millions of Americans stupidly think is dangerous is a laughable idea. Is it true that pot is nowhere near as dangerous or addictive as those tut-tutting parents, pols, and educators so sternly and solemnly say that it is? That the drug war is costly, dangerous, and patently unjust? That legalizing an already widely-used substance and so bringing its use out of the shadows is the best way to develop the social mores necessary to use it responsibly? That it’s generally best, all else being equal, not to ban those activities that don’t cause serious social harm? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. But then why, if there are so many arguments as good as these in favor of legalization, is the one that Obama’s web-based pesterers have repeatedly chosen to present him with an argument about tax revenue? Is it because they think that avoiding the moral questions altogether and instead dressing up their argument with dollar signs and fancy economic analysis would make their case look – what? – more serious? Less frivolous? Less about freedom and self-indulgence than the Very Serious Matter of the Health of America’s Economy? And if so, why in the world would they think that anyone would buy it? You’d almost think that the folks who came up with this strategy were on drugs or something …
Does anyone agree with me? Does everyone? Or is there something I’m missing here?
UPDATE: Reader Gherald L. has a very nice post laying out the economic case for legalization as it ought to be stated.
Filed under: civil liberties, government/law, libertarianism
I think there’s actually an empirical argument in their favor. According to Reason (http://www.reason.com/news/show/121674.html) prohibition only ended after the federal government realized that taxing booze was a lucrative source of revenue.
That may be, but given the status that marijuana holds in the national consciousness it’s hard for me to imagine history repeating itself so easily. Plus, the gov’t has come up with lots of nifty new ways to tax us in the meantime, haven’t they?
You’re probably right.
Well I usually am, which means that at least there’s an empirical argument in your favor …
I don’t know – after some of the stuff that the President signed into law as “economic stimulus,” is there anything that isn’t rationally and transparently connected to growing the economy?
In any event, yeah, it was probably a bit silly to push for that to be included in the press conference. But still – any publicity is good publicity, I suppose.
[...] John Schwenkler: “STFU w/ the royalist case for marijuana legalization, you’re makin us look [...]
Someone should’ve asked him if he thinks society would’ve been safer had he got caught & locked up when he was in his drug period, and if not why that doesn’t apply to anyone else.
As Psychopolitik argues, maybe taxing it like Marlboros and beer won’t do much because it’s so easy to grow your own. But as easy as it may be not everyone wants to bother growing their own, so I think the revenue will still be meaningful at the local level.
From an economic standpoint I think it’s more important to look at the real costs and wastes inherent to prohibition, and how while re-legalization may not increase GDP much, it will have an effect of eliminating a multi-billion dollar illicit economy with very serious costs.
I’d like to know what people here think of the “pay for itself” image at the the bottom of “The many reasons to end Prohibition”. (found it on Digg)
Also I got a commentator at “Obama on Marijuana” who says he’s Ryan Palmer, a guy who asked one of the top-rated pot economy questions that the president crappily answered.
Nice point, Mark. Maybe if they put it forward as union-grown organic marijuana for public schoolchildren, it could make it onto the Dem agenda.
Yes, THAT’s the sort of question that needs to be asked.