I repeated my New Year’s Day tradition of proposing cannabis law reform in Missouri and America last Wednesday. The post has generated a lot of serious discussion. I have to thank, especially, Dennis Broadbooks and Lisa, Culture Vigilante, for raising valid issues.
Many others commented as well. I will work through your comments as the blizzard rolls through this weekend. But I wanted to pull my reply to Dennis and Lisa and to link directly to their most salient comments.
My response: #
Dennis and Lisa,
Iāll work through your points one by one. Though Iām responding directly to Dennisās Iām combining several points.
1.Ā Social Symbolism of Legalization: Dennis writes, āIf we legalize something as a society thatās previously been banned, it sends a signal to our youth that itās OK. Itās even desireable.ā Perhaps some will. More, I believe, would take the move as tacit acknowledge that Americaās draconian cannabis laws were wrong to begin with.
Further, it seems to me that prohibition takes away the meaning of abstinence. If I donāt smoke dope because itās against the law, Iām merely obeying the law. If I donāt smoke dope because of its purported negative effects on me or society, Iām setting an example. In this sense, the cannabis debate mirrors speed limits. Recently, Illinois raised its maximum speed limit to 70 MPH from 55. Is that an endorsement of fast driving? And how long will that perceived endorsement hold any meaning? My kids donāt remember a time when Missouriās limit was 55, so the change in the speed limit law in Missouri has no endorsement effect on them.
2.Ā The Fiscal Argument. You go on to say, āYouāre attempting to make an fiscal argument for the legalization of pot & I say thereās just as valid a case economically against it.ā Here, Iāll ask to see your numbers. The totalĀ cost of prohibition in Missouri is about $150 million a yearĀ according to Harvard and Cato Institute researcher Jeffrey Miron. You seem to imply that legalization of cannabis in Missouri would cost more than $150 million in increased medical and other costs. ButĀ even opponents of cannabis law reform admitĀ that studies indicate that cannabis use is less physically harmful legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. It is unlikely that the combined costs of cannabis regulation and medical treatment would eclipse the $150 million in savings from ending prohibition.
3.Ā Abortion vs. Cannabis. Iām not sure how Roe v. Wade relates to this case, but I will add something. Cannabis prohibition seeks to deny individuals the privilege of growing and smoking cannabis. Itās government vs. the individual. But the abortion debate is another matter, morally speaking. In that case, abortion opponents ask government to intervene in the murder of a human being. The two issues couldnāt be more different.
4.Ā On the Divisiveness of Prohibition. Lisa writes, āI think this is a very divisive issue that should be set aside until we get on a more constitutional track. Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians are busy enough trying to fight progressivism without brining the right to get high into the debate.ā Thatās a good question. I debated this for a long time, considering Iāve been writing a semi-regular column since 1993. I chose to make it an issue on January 1, 2013 for a very simple reason: I believe proponents of constitutionally limited government lose credibility among persuadable potential voters (especially younger people) when we oppose cannabis law reform. We lose more credibility when we choose to simply ignore the issue and hope it goes away.
Considering the history of cannabis prohibition, I could argue that it is a glaring symbol of progressivism, shoved onto America by FDRās regulators looking for fix after the Volstead Act and Amendment 18 went away.
The fact is, others are making this an issue. Democrats are winning elections by hijacking what should be a center-right position to draw otherwise disinterested voters to polls. By championing cannabis law reform, just as we champion other regulatory reforms, we have the chance to at least neutralize the Democratsā tactic.
I think Reason.com is more likely to draw young voters into the fight for individual liberty against a progressive statist attack on freedom. By boldly announcing our willingness to right this wrong, we become more consistent and, thereby, more convincing and attractive.
In short, if (lower-case ‘L’) libertarians were to get this issue out of the way, we’d find much easier sledding on the other issues.
UPDATE: Thanks to Gateway City for the link from UrbanSTL. I encourage readers to check the comments on that post.