Yes on Question 2
Massachusetts' ballot questions continue their libertarian streak with a question to turn possession of less than an ounce of weed into the legal equivalent of a parking ticket. Personally I would like to see marihuana legalization go a good deal further--decriminalizing petty possession is a good start, but wouldn't it make more sense to bring the whole supply chain into the light? After all, if the goal is to prevent the kiddies from getting their hands on it, it's a lot more effective to police a limited number of agents eager to maintain their licensed franchises. But it's a start.
As with many other libertarian issues, the best arguments against it are often the people supporting it. Whether Green or Libertarian, one must commit to a substantial degree of crank-ism in order to step outside the velvet coffins of the two-party system, and perhaps the only compelling argument for our two-party system is the greater than 87% efficacy of its crank-exclusion mechanisms. People who are really into pot are uniformly lacking in industry, personal hygiene, and respect for authority; they are almost wholly to blame for the continuing sale of patchouli, clove cigarettes, birkenstock sandals, tie-dye, and "jam bands," to name just a few. Big Tobacco and the liquor industry gave us Frank and the Brat Pack, while pot gave us the hippies--let's not even get into bicycles.
And yet there are times when the assorted fruits and nuts happen to be standing on the right side, even if purely by accident. Pot is no more potently intoxicating than alcohol, and in economic terms I cannot see any great advantage to its prohibition. In ethical terms, the effects of a conviction for possession are probably more damaging to life potential than the use of the drug, and are almost surely to fall harder on those with the least going for them.
These arguments are more challenging with drugs such as cocaine, ecstasy, or heroin, whose potency and addictive mechanisms render them a greater threat to users and society at large. In the frictionless vacuum of a libertarian paradise, perhaps people could be required to post a bond to pay for their treatment and then be permitted to indulge such appetites, but in the meantime an ersatz version of this already exists whereby upper middle-class first-time offenders generally receive much lighter sentences. This is of course framed as an injustice, but in practical terms it makes sense--the wealthier and more socially intact one is, the less of a burden he will likely place on the state to supervise.
But whatever you do, don't try lighting up a joint in a bar or coffeeshop--certainly we are not far away from that being punishable by death.
Massachusetts' ballot questions continue their libertarian streak with a question to turn possession of less than an ounce of weed into the legal equivalent of a parking ticket. Personally I would like to see marihuana legalization go a good deal further--decriminalizing petty possession is a good start, but wouldn't it make more sense to bring the whole supply chain into the light? After all, if the goal is to prevent the kiddies from getting their hands on it, it's a lot more effective to police a limited number of agents eager to maintain their licensed franchises. But it's a start.
As with many other libertarian issues, the best arguments against it are often the people supporting it. Whether Green or Libertarian, one must commit to a substantial degree of crank-ism in order to step outside the velvet coffins of the two-party system, and perhaps the only compelling argument for our two-party system is the greater than 87% efficacy of its crank-exclusion mechanisms. People who are really into pot are uniformly lacking in industry, personal hygiene, and respect for authority; they are almost wholly to blame for the continuing sale of patchouli, clove cigarettes, birkenstock sandals, tie-dye, and "jam bands," to name just a few. Big Tobacco and the liquor industry gave us Frank and the Brat Pack, while pot gave us the hippies--let's not even get into bicycles.
And yet there are times when the assorted fruits and nuts happen to be standing on the right side, even if purely by accident. Pot is no more potently intoxicating than alcohol, and in economic terms I cannot see any great advantage to its prohibition. In ethical terms, the effects of a conviction for possession are probably more damaging to life potential than the use of the drug, and are almost surely to fall harder on those with the least going for them.
These arguments are more challenging with drugs such as cocaine, ecstasy, or heroin, whose potency and addictive mechanisms render them a greater threat to users and society at large. In the frictionless vacuum of a libertarian paradise, perhaps people could be required to post a bond to pay for their treatment and then be permitted to indulge such appetites, but in the meantime an ersatz version of this already exists whereby upper middle-class first-time offenders generally receive much lighter sentences. This is of course framed as an injustice, but in practical terms it makes sense--the wealthier and more socially intact one is, the less of a burden he will likely place on the state to supervise.
But whatever you do, don't try lighting up a joint in a bar or coffeeshop--certainly we are not far away from that being punishable by death.
posted by The Snob at
10:34 AM
1 Comments:
Patchouli, ughhhhh.
I don't know.... I definitely agree that the best argument against legalization is observing the condition of the primary proponents. I also see the wisdom in drawing the illegal drug line at pot rather than alcohol.
The aforementioned "crank-ism", your term -- it can't possibly be just incidental, can it? The kids I knew who were "really into pot" had been fairly normal before partaking, even if they were into heavy party drinking. Marijuana use practically transformed their personalities in the ways in which you describe,in every way including hygiene, ambition, social graces, etc. So your claim that "pot is no more potently intoxicating than alcohol" sounds a little bit like "collectivism is no less fair than capitalism", i.e., true only in theory and not as we find things in the real world.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home