The New York Times comes out for cannabis legalization.
David Frum is still against it.
Neither deals seriously with the balance of advantage and disadvantage; the Times simply blows off the question of substance use disorder and pretends that passing a law forbidding sales to minors takes care of the problem of increased use by minors, while Frum never mentions the damage done by the $40-billion-per-year illicit market created by cannabis prohibition and proposes nothing that would shrink that market.
And neither the Times editorial board nor David Frum seems interested in the question of how to legalize, as opposed to whether to legalize. The Times doesn’t notice that commercialization is only one approach to legal availability, and arguably not the best; Frum simply dismisses a temperate approach to legalization as politically unworkable, without explaining how to make his kinder, gentler prohibition a political winner.
Alas, I sometimes suspect they’re both right. As a matter of practical politics, our only choices may be a badly-implemented prohibition or a badly-implemented legalization. Â (If so, I’m inclined to try the Devil I don’t know.) Â So far, my attempts to put political and organizational muscle behind the idea of smart legalization have merely illustrated the wisdom of Ralph Yarborough’s maxim, “They ain’t nuthin’ in the middle of the road but yaller lines and dead armadillas.” Â I don’t find life as political roadkill especially uncomfortable, but it does get frustrating. It’s not just that continued prohibition and commercial legalization are both bad ideas; it’s that the arguments for those two bad ideas leave no media space, or mindspace, for discussion of the good ideas that might lie between them.
Footnote Ann Althouse does a good demolition job on the Times editorial, though to the best of my knowledge there’s no evidence of intoxication or health damage from second-hand cannabis smoke or vapor.
I don’t find life as political roadkill especially uncomfortable, but it does get frustrating.
I find this to be true on a lot of subjects. Equally frustrating is that there are a lot of people who end up in the middle-of-the-road as a matter of temperment without any better understanding of the nuances of policy debates than those on the edges.
Could we even do national-level legalization without breaking a treaty on controlled substances? It seems like any policy is basically going to be decriminalization, which you can do carefully or not so carefully.
America breaks treaties all the time, and since this was one of our treaties, time to end it.
I don't fear commercialization. Somebody's going to sell it, might as well put regulations in place. What other approach besides commercialization? Even prescription drugs are commercialized these days. Any other approach, like just giving away, just won't work. And there's no reason why legalization has to go bad because of political considerations. We already have the ground rules for intoxicatiing substances: no sales or advertising to minors, private use, etc. And they've worked pretty well so far. People aren't falling over drunk every other minute.
Price of admission for sure with this paragraph:
So far, my attempts to put political and organizational muscle behind the idea of smart legalization have merely illustrated the wisdom of Ralph Yarborough’s maxim, “They ain’t nuthin’ in the middle of the road but yaller lines and dead armadillas.” I don’t find life as political roadkill especially uncomfortable, but it does get frustrating. It’s not just that continued prohibition and commercial legalization are both bad ideas; it’s that the arguments for those two bad ideas leave no media space, or mindspace, for discussion of the good ideas that might lie between them.
That's applicable to broad swatches of human debate throughout history. But calling himself "roadkill" gets it dead wrong. I see Prof. Kleiman bashing together hard-cased nuts with both hands, trying to liberate whatever sweetmeats might remain shriveled inside.
I only write to encourage him in this endeavor.
In addition to “yaller lines and dead armadillas”, the middle of the road can include cat's eyes. They last a long time. And save lives. I see Mark as an intrepid cat's-eyes installer, trying to keep out of the way of the 18-wheelers and drag racers speeding recklessly along, often on the wrong side.
"It’s not just that continued prohibition and commercial legalization are both bad ideas; the arguments for those two bad ideas leave no media space, or mindspace, for discussion of the good ideas that might lie between them."
And which good ideas are those? Are there any? Clearly it's bad policy to incarcerate so many people, removing them from the workforce. If you legalize it to ANY extent, some commercialization is involved.
Personally, I'm hopeful we will skip the Budweiser/Coors/Miller Big Cannabis model and jump directly into a craft beer approach: cannabis cultivated by local growers, consumed locally. Home growing perfectly legal. License required to sell commercially, but OK to give away, like you would extra zucchini from your garden. Maybe if we START that way, we can keep Altria and Reynolds out of the picture.
The main point of legalization, though few seem to care, is that it will re-define other drugs as harmful.
I truly believe that misplaced fear about MJ has destroyed kids' fear of other "intoxicants." Our laws still allow taverns to have parking lots for their customers!!! Kids have brains and can deduce that if one premise is flawed, they might all be flawed.
The second point I have is that recreational users are being unfairly taxed IN ADDITION TO not being allowed to grow it.
The Lawyer / Legislator CASTE could easily and FAIRLY be described as anti-ethical on all counts.
I was conscripted into the drug war under false pretenses and have suffered immeasurably because of it. I hate cocaine and heroin and meth and all the rest. A few aspirins a year is all I need.
IT HAS TO STOP.
Woah. We've attracted an ALL CAPS poster.