- Image via Wikipedia
I teach Ethics Fall and Spring semester and I always get a minimum of two students who want to write on legalizing pot. At this point, I have a ready-made spiel: “whether pot should be legal or not is a legal issue. You need to change your topic so it is a moral issue.” Not surprisingly, I usually end up with papers arguing that pot should be legalized, with the word “moral” typed in here and there, often seemingly at random.
While I dread reading yet another paper on legalizing pot, I do find the moral issue rather interesting and hope that someday I will see an original an innovative paper on the subject. But, for now, I’ll just write a bit about it myself.
One stock argument for legalizing pot is that doing so makes financial sense. To be specific, legal pot could be regulated and taxed like other legal drugs, thus generating income for the state. Also, legalization of pot would also significantly cut down on the costs of enforcing existing laws regarding its use and sale. While correctly estimating the savings and profits of legalization is a rather challenging endeavor the Cato Institute recently claimed that legalizing pot would save us $8.7 billion. If this is true, then it would make good sense to legalize it. While that is small money in the context of Washington’s spending, it is still a significant amount that could be used, for example, to provide scholarships or put a tiny dent in the massive deficit. As such, there would seem to be a utilitarian case for why we should legalize pot.
Another stock argument is that legalizing pot will reduced crime. Obviously it would by its very nature. Since pot would be legal, activities that were once criminal would no longer be so, thus there would be less crime. Of course, it is also argued that other crimes that are related to pot, such as drug violence, would be reduced. It has also been claimed that legalized pot would weaken the various drug organizations, such as those doing so much damage in Mexico.
This has some appeal. After all, pot seems to be a major money maker for many drug organizations and legalizing pot would either remove them from this economy or push them towards going legitimate. Of course, it might also merely lead them to change their product line. As others have pointed out, the criminal organizations that flourished under prohibition did not wither away when alcohol was legal again. Instead, they simply expanded their other criminal ventures. I think it is safe to assume that the drug organizations that deal in pot will be resourceful enough to branch out to providing other drugs or engaging in other profitable crimes. This is not to say that legalizing pot would have no impact, it probably would. After all, while the drug organizations will be able to continue to sell drugs that are still illegal, the legalization of pot would most likely not expand the market for these other drugs. As such, the drugs folks would have to expand their drug sales by cutting into the sales of their rivals, most likely leading to violent conflict. Another option is for the drug folks to expand into other areas of crime, thus leading to an increase in other crimes. However, the overall result would be a reduction in crime and this might well be worth legalizing pot.
Many pot-smokers have small grow-ups which provide themselves and friends with pot because you only need a few plants to provide for yourself, unlike medicine and crops which require a big industry. So, presumably there would be very much competition unless the state wants only licensed growers to be allowed to grow, unless they allow growth for personal use that need not be controlled. Like in the case of milk, you can’t sell milk unless pasteurized by a licensed industry, but you and your family can the milk you (i should say your cows) produce on your own farm.
Stefan Molyneux, Canadian philosopher, argues that the reason for legalizing drugs is the non-aggression principle, you can watch him on youtube.
Once I was told that the paranoia of the U.S. government toward pot started in the 1950s, when it was believed that marijuana smoking would make the U.S. population passive in the face of communism. I don’t know for a fact this is true, but it has always sounded plausible to me.
Actually, it was Harry Anslinger’s work in the 30s that made it illegal. He was trying to get funding from Congress for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and saw marijuana as an easy target, since the popular view was that the drug was used by “other” people, namely blacks and Hispanics.
I’ve had the same experience with my students who want to write about legalizing marijuana. In twelve years, no paper on the subject has been any good. I wonder if that’s because their desire for legalization comes out of unenlightened self interest.
Still, I favor legalization. The reasons for keeping marijuana illegal apply just as well to alcohol and tobacco, and the nanny government really has no right to tell me in what ways I’m allowed to poison myself.
Could be a reason. The History channel had a series on drugs and the main reason seemed to be that marijuana was associated with Mexicans. A plausible case was made linking various drug laws to anti-immigrant movements. Probably not the only causal factor, but seems like a contributing one at least.
As well as fighting against injustice, lies, misinformation and propaganda, we must remember to be positive too. Cannabis is a wonderful thing!:
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/cannabis-is-a-wonderful-thing/
Yayyyyyyyy~!
Yeah, I agree.
I go further and say that the Mexican DTO’s would suffer greatly if they were to ever lose their biggest and oldest cash crop, which provides them the venture capital they need to diversify (e.g., narcotics, human, and weapons trafficking).
According to FBI testimony before the US Congress, May 5, 2010:
FBI Testimony before the US Congress, May 5, 2010
“Mexico is the number one foreign supplier of marijuana abused in the United States. In fact, according to a 2008 inter-agency report, marijuana is the top revenue generator for Mexican DTOs—a cash crop that finances corruption and the carnage of violence year after year. The profits derived from marijuana trafficking—an industry with minimal overhead costs, controlled entirely by the traffickers—are used not only to finance other drug enterprises by Mexico’s poly-drug cartels, but also to pay recurring “business” expenses, purchase weapons, and bribe corrupt officials.”
http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/mexicos-culture-of-death/
Perhaps these DTO thugs will simply go into (or continue in?) politics?
Out of curiousity, what kind of thesis would address this issue from a moral standpoint? Perhaps addressing the immorality of keeping people in pain when marijuana could relieve that pain? Or the hypocrisy of having cigarettes and alcohol be legal while pot is not?
“Another stock argument is that legalizing pot will reduced crime”
True. And legalizing murder will also reduce crime. No law to break, no crime to commit. Never the less, someone’s unjustly dead. Legalizing drugs will not prohibit criminal drug enterprise, it will only enable the enterprise to more easily hide itself within legitimate constructs–just as the Mafia did.
Most country’s who’ve sported liberal laws concerning pot are changing direction. The Netherlands for example are on the road to banning pot tea shops because sex crimes increased significantly in the areas with the shops. Pot tends to drag in the rif-raf, whether it’s legal or not. As the son of a lifetime pot smoker and a former cop, I can attest truly, that pot for whatever reason, attracts people I don’t want to hang around with very often. And as for you people who pop on here gloating about how great pot is, even if that’s true, shouldn’t you obey your country’s laws? Sure, some laws are not just, but there is a system under which we live contractually, and that system provides avenues to change. But you want to cheat and then brag about it. Is pot something you can’t live without? Is it like food or water? If the government outlawed eating, everyone would need to break the law in order to live. But you break the law for personal pleasure. Grow up.
Mike of course would tell me that being a law-despising slacker is not a “necessary aspect” of smoking dope.
True. And neither is being a drug-addicted wallet snatcher and necessary aspect of being a stripper. But marry a stripper and see what you get.
What a foul, evil-minded, hysterical tirade.You have a sick, sick mind and a big chiip on your shoulder.
Your dreadful allegation about “sex crimes” is drivel and reveals the unpleasant truth about you. The proposed clampdown on Amsterdam coffee shops is political posturing by the right winger Geert Wiilders. It has nothing to do with what you suggest. What sort of perverted jerk publishes nonsese like that?
“drug addicted wallet snatcher”, “stripper” – what sort of mind creates this sort of propaganda? It’s not jail you need. It’s a hospital for the criminally insane.
Hey Pete–you’re a dope smoker so you’re argument doesn’t hold much weight. I could use a bag of Doritos to lead a herd of dopers over a cliff, but I would want to waste the Doritos.
Funny just about every felon I arrested was a dope smoker, too. Guess being unconcientious about one thing can lead to be unconcientious in other things, too.
“The proposed clampdown on Amsterdam coffee shops is political posturing by the right winger Geert Wiilders. It has nothing to do with what you suggest.”
Really? Wilders is the police chief in Amsterdam now?
Why don’t you argue about what you should do as a citizen, not what you ought to be able to do? Quit whining about beer and cigarettes being legal and stick to beer and cigarettes. They’re a better high anyway. Should I teach my kids to smoke pot? How about teaching them to get laws changed the right way instead of becoming lawless and then jumping on a liberal blog where you think everyone ought to agree with you to brag about breaking the law.
The Prof. says below he thinks smoking pot is irrational. Are you irrational, Pete? I really wouldn’t care if they legalized pot. It just says a lot to me about people who get really upset about not having legal pot.
And thanks for the thumbs down; I wear it as a badge of honor. Give me another, please.
My pleasure but hey Magus – you’re a reactionary, uncaring, unquestioning cop who thinks Doritos are irresistible so your (not you’re) argument holds no weight at all!
Nah. I’ve seen the truth with my own eyes and I question a lot. One thing I don’t questiuon is pot’s ability steal people’s intellectual capacity and motivation to achieve.
More Doritos please.
Here – cram ’em in, it’ll stop the garbage coming out.
“What a foul, evil-minded, hysterical tirade.You have a sick, sick mind and a big chiip on your shoulder.
Your dreadful allegation about “sex crimes” is drivel and reveals the unpleasant truth about you. The proposed clampdown on Amsterdam coffee shops is political posturing by the right winger Geert Wiilders. It has nothing to do with what you suggest. What sort of perverted jerk publishes nonsese like that?
“drug addicted wallet snatcher”, “stripper” – what sort of mind creates this sort of propaganda? It’s not jail you need. It’s a hospital for the criminally insane.”
I’ve heard smoking pot can possibly cause anger management issues Pete.
Well if Magus71’s words don’t make you angry you’re either brain dead or a drug dealer.
Righteous anger is essential to life.
Why would rational comments make me angry? Insults are sure showing the rage problem though. This is what I have often found from self avowed peace loving, pot smoking Hippies. They are the angriest people I have ever come across.
I can assure you I am neither brain dead nor a drug dealer. Throwing angry straw men at me isn’t helping you convince me.
You think Magus71’s comments are rational?
You are entitled to your opinion. Evidently we disagree and you give me no reason to have any interest in changing your mind.
While I don’t agree with Magus71 on some points he stated here, his words don’t make me angry either. I am neither a drug dealer nor brain dead. What I find more disturbing is that someone would imply that Magus71’s opinions would in any way qualify him as criminally insane. I certainly hope you are joking, but I do not consider it a laughing matter to suggest that those with differing opinions should be locked up in asylums. Rather Orwellian attitude there.
There seems to be a clear distinction between murder and smoking pot. Murder is, by its very nature, harmful and this provides the grounds for it being wrong. However, smoking pot (while unhealthy) is not itself a harm to others. If some fool decides to sit in his basement and puff away his days, it does me no harm. Now, if he decides to drive his car, then it becomes our business.
As I see it, pot itself is no more (or less) of a harm than alcohol. Both impair people and have a causal role in undesirable behavior (such as those leading to traffic fatalities). Neither is, to borrow your point, essential to life. However, if we are going to tolerate alcohol, then the same arguments used for this also apply to pot.
While I think that smoking pot is irrational and that drinking excessively is stupid, this means that people should not do either. However, it does not entail that either should be illegal. Obviously, if people elect to engage in behavior that puts others at risk while under the influence, then that should be dealt with by the law.
I’m not much for the nanny state or paternalism. So, if someone wants to toke it all day, so be it. They just need to stay off the roads (and away from work) and they cannot expect the state to support them. Likewise, if someone wants to hit the bottle all day, so be it. They just need to stay away from where they can do harm, or suffer the consequences.
Mike–if beer were illegal I wouldn’t drink it. I guess we just make all this up as we go along. Whatever I feel like doing, I do it.
Isn’t it you who’s always arguing for more rules?
“There seems to be a clear distinction between murder and smoking pot. Murder is, by its very nature, harmful and this provides the grounds for it being wrong.”
Thanks for clarifying, but I get it. My statement was made in reference to the argument it would “reduce crime”. Not even provable, and some could say it would increase crime by increase people’s exposure to an addictive sustance which they have to commit crimes in order to get money to obtain. Check out how many medical pot shps in California have been violently robbed.
I’m split on rules. I am drawn to Thoreau’s view, but the longer I have been dealing with people, the more I am inclined to be for rules.
Rules are fine. Dead ends are a problem.
Prohibition is a fundamentally flawed and thorughly discredited idea.
The only solution to the drugs issue is fact and evidence-based regulation.
I would propose a five point drugs strategy aimed at reducing harms as follows:
1. An end to oppression of drug users
2. Removal from the criminal law of any offence for possession and/or social supply
3. Fact and evidence-based policy, information and regulation
4. Re-direction of law enforcement resources against real criminals
5. Treat problematic drug use as a health issue
I just gave myself a thumbs down. I hope there’s a cash prize for most thumbs downs. Kernunos: Hit me.
There are so few people with enough balls to stand up to liberals. I find it painful that the central argument here seems not to be that we ought to obey our country’s laws, but that we ought to be able to seek pleasure despite the law.
The pursuit of happiness is not the same as the pursuit of pleasure. The pursuit of pleasure is usually what liberals end up with because they have nothing higher to pursue.
Drugs are illegal in the Army. I can’t drink a beer while I’m here in Afghanistan. Do I agree that I’ll somehow be an out of control soldier if I drink a single pint of Bass? No, but I understand the rule. I understand that the rule makes the entire body of soldiers more effective, so I obey the rule. I don’t ask my family to mail me booze, even though I do drink. Pot smoking does not make this nation better. And please don’t resort to the “But beer is legal” argument. Arguing that something bad ought to be legal because some other bad thing is legal is dumb.
So people, argue all you want for pot on demand. If my arguments didn’t have a tinge of truth to them, Peter wouldn’t be so upset. This is what libs fight for: The acceptance of the very basest aspects of human nature. I’m not without fault. But I don’t try to endoctrinate trhe rest of the world into copying my failure. Instead, I try to move beyond my failures and learn from them. I don’t lie to myself that my failures are actually my strengths. Peter, however, has convinced himself that pot is good for him. In order to make the rest of the world feel as bad as Peter does about himself, he attacks people like me who think that societal standards should pull people up to their greatest heights, not endorse flapping around in slimy cess pools.
This isn’t about me following an ideology. William F. Buckely, one of my favorite people, thought the War on Drugs should end. I respected Buckley greatly, and I disagree with him on this issue. I’ve seen in the military that institutional laws, some of them at least, can force people to be better than they thought they could be. If the law gets changed, by all means, spoke away, my red-eyed friends. Until then though, take up something better for you, like exercise or hiking.
“you’re a reactionary, uncaring, unquestioning cop who thinks Doritos are irresistible so your (not you’re) argument holds no weight at all!”~Peter Reynolds
No cash prizes; but maybe a dirty goat for the person with the most thumb downs.
Well, if you have a dirty goat where I am, you just may be a village elder.
Are you in Detroit?
Detroit? Hmmm…that’s an interesting guess. Another would be Wales.
Santa Fe is also a possibility. To try to keep the old timers from paying ridiculously high property taxes, a law was passed that said if you were engaged in “animal husbandry” you could pay at a much lower rate. Lots of people went out and bought goats.
The nut of this issue is where does the individual stand in relation to the state. Do the fundamental rules of a society originate their flow up from the individual to the state or down to the individual from the state. The individual, to some extent, chooses to join the state, thus the state should not “lord over” the individual. Of course it is unrealistic to think that one has much choice because one must accept a huge number of conflicting rules, some good, some bad when making such a “choice”.
I agree with you that one SHOULD obey such laws, but as more and more laws accumulate, they become more and more absurd. A current line of thought is that you break about half a dozen laws before you get to work in the morning. As more and more laws accumulate, they have less and less effect. If we wish to have the important laws respected, we need to do away with such nanny-state nonsense that tells someone they can’t take a naturally occurring substance out of the ground and ingest it into their bodies. I fear we may soon legislate ourselves into anarchy.
When choosing to purchase pot, one should consider the harm one is doing to society by financially supporting some very evil people. Of course, without the prohibition, there would not be much of a problem. Netherlands’ problems not withstanding. Whole other culture with whole other set of issues. Though, granted, something to observe and learn from.
Understand that in the army (and many thanks, BTW) the rules are different, as you well know. A soldier is for the most part, property of the state and during his time of service he must conform or the unit will not function and the mission cannot be accomplished. Absent conscription, this is a choice.
I agree that this is an issue of individualism vs the state.
I differ slightly on your take about having chosen the army and so having chosen the rules that come with it. I could also say the same thing about American citizenship. People can renouce their citizinship, but they just seem to want their cake and eat it, too. In essense, despite having been born in America or to American parents, we do choose to remain American. It’s probably easier to cease to be an American than it is for me to cease to be a soldier. Someone can simply renounce their citizenship at the nearest embassy and move on the Oswald-like dreams of socialist utopia in N. Korea…
But I completely agree with you as to there being far too many rules. The norm for conservatives is to argue against over-regulation of business. But let’s consider the nature of that argument, compared to the arguments for legalized pot and other things, such as abortion:
1) The basic argument for minimal regulation of business stems from the argument that it, in fact, produces the most jobs, the most productivity and in turn a happier populace. Liberals and anti-industrialists argue that businesses will naturally do anything they can to make more money and so will end up hurting people in the process–more than they help. So, in reality, it is an economic argument and at it’s foundation is the question of what will hurt us and what won’t.
2) The arguments for pot and abortion are mostly grounded only in the argument for personal freedom from the state. But over and over, I hear people who believe in freedom of choice say that they don’t think abortion is a good option, they only want the person to be able to choose to do it. Same thing for pot. Unless you have glaucoma or 4th stage cancer, it has very little medical value, and otherwise it seems to be terrible for people. it’s linked to mental illness, cancer, and a small host of other things that make it very difficult to argue it’s “good” for anyone (the same is not true for moderate alcohol consuption, by the way; many studies show it is in fact, good for people).
3) So, one set of arguments for a law asks if the law is actually good or bad for people. The other set of laws is basically about allowing people to do what they want, despite it being bad. And to me, the former is more noble than the latter.
Well, I confess you made me chuckle this time so perhaps that’s progress.
It may interest you to know that I “hike” vigorously every day. I also try to ensure that I supplement my endocannabinoid system network (ECSN) at least once a day too. Both are vital to good health. I try to stay away from Doritos. I don’t want to end up enslaved to them like you.
What a sad chap you are when the pursuit of pleasure rates so low in your life. I feel sorry for you. I am unclear though about your environment. Earlier in the thread you talked about arresting people. Now you talk about being in the army. Are you a military policeman?
In either (or both) case you clearly live a very restricted life so I can understand your deep seated resentment and inability to experience pleasure. Either that or you’re a fantasist and your ECSN is already overloaded.
Peter isn’t upset with you. He feels sorry for you. Neither endoctrination nor even indoctrination is his aim but some individuals with limited experience certainly need education.
Neither my mind nor even yours (yes, really) is a cess pool – well not in its natural state anyway. Of course, if you are lacking anandamide or any of the other vital components of the ECSN then you may well be a little grumpy. I think you are clearly either deficient or overactive in this area. You’re definitely not balanced.
Discipline is an essential part of life and clearly you get plenty of that (and like to dish it out I suspect!). You do need to curb your arrogance though. Unless you’re an expert in remote psychoanalysis, then I think you’re a teensy-weensy bit deluded. Remember, most of us don’t have to obey orders.
Whoa!
1) “In either (or both) case you clearly live a very restricted life so I can understand your deep seated resentment and inability to experience pleasure”
2) “Peter isn’t upset with you. He feels sorry for you”
3) “I think you are clearly either deficient or overactive in this area. You’re definitely not balanced.”
Followed by:
“You do need to curb your arrogance though”? Seriously, dude. Check the mirror.
An just who TF are you to make these pronouncements? Are you an expert in remote psychoanalysis yourself? Perhaps you’re a teensy-weensy bit deluded.
Ooh, and you “hike” vigorously every day. With a 40 pound pack of equipment? At 15,000 feet? With a target on your back?
And BTW, this man puts his life on the line so girlie men like you and I can sleep like little fairy princesses at night. Perhaps you already know that and all this anger you have been spewing is your way of compensating for your own deep-seated resentments.
Another cocky git who needs taking down a peg or two.
“Who TF are you?” as you so elegantly put it.
I’m Peter Reynolds, can’t you read? You can find all about me directly from this. I’m not hiding behind some pathetic acronym or grovelling in anonymity.
You thunder your great, clumsy self into our conversation?
Let the man speak for himself. You’re not welcome.
Go judge someone else and speak wjhen you’re spoken to. I’m in a dialogue. Alll the anger comes from you. Go mess your own head up with it.
Oh…n-n-n-not THAT Peter Reynolds. Well!….proves my point…
You, WTP, are an obnoxious, foul mouthed individual that well demonstartes why sarcasm is called the lowest foprm of wit.
Crawl away in your anonymity under the nearest stone. Make the most of what you’ve got you poor sod.
Yes, just where was this hierarchy of humor determined? The Second Council of Nicaea, was it? Certainly not the First. Too much pagan pandering at the time, you know. At the Second, there must have been considerable French influence, as one would have expected the humor Jerry Lewis to rank lower than sarcasm. Interestingly, the French seem to have a much more positive view irony. And yet what is irony, but God being sarcastic? Present company being a case in point…
@Magus
I thought there were signs of light at the end of your tunnel then this:
“Unless you have glaucoma or 4th stage cancer, it has very little medical value, and otherwise it seems to be terrible for people. it’s linked to mental illness, cancer, and a small host of other things that make it very difficult to argue it’s “good” for anyone (the same is not true for moderate alcohol consuption, by the way; many studies show it is in fact, good for people).”
Are you really that badly informed or are you just making it up?
I wish you the best but please try to get yourself up to date on the facts. If your knowledge is so poor then any debate is futile.
Enlighten me. Tell me the wonders of pot. But argue with the good Doctor too, because he says smoking dope is irrational.
Magus, I detect a humanity in you that I do not see in WTP. His choice of initials as a denominator indicates alll too clearly a lack of courage and integrity. I think your opinions are despicable but you have the honour of a name, at least.
“Pot” is the only natural occurrence of cannabinoids outside the body, yet the endocannabinoid system is now recognised as fundamental to life in mammals, birds, reptiles and fish. It is inherent in life like water, food and oxygen
There’s an extraordinary significance here that anyone who denies is a luddite, a bigot and, either a liar, misinformed or deluded.
Please, please, please, read some of the up to date research.