So I’m going to put myself out there on this since I do not follow the BMG party line about let’s let everyone smoke pot just cuz they want to, darn it! However, my comments in threads on this topic are largely reactive and probably sound defensive at times, so I figure I would at least try to make a positive case for my ideal marijuana situation:
- First and foremost, the federal government should reschedule marijuana in such a way as to legitimately allow the states some flexibility. Right now states that legalize or even decriminalize are essentially telling their residents that it is OK to violate federal law, which brings to mind nullification. My own views on the merits notwithstanding, I am OK with states being laboratories of democracy on this issue. Rescheduling will also allow for legitimate research to be done to further our understanding of the risks and benefits.
- We need to truly decriminalize so that possession of small amounts for personal use really is more like a speeding ticket, but also as much as possible restrict public use the way we tend to do with cigarettes these days. However, marijuana should not be subject to school zone enhancements the same way as other substances. Using in the privacy of your home would not be enough to pursue a case.
- Larger amounts could be permitted for medicinal use as proscribed by a doctor, and private parties could even be issued medically necessary permits to grow some of their own in limited amounts. For those not growing their own I see no reason why there have to be separate dispensaries rather than be available at regular pharmacies. Such laws would be enforced in a manner similar to those forbidding the unauthorized distribution of other prescription medication.
- Enforcement methods should not involve heavy duty raids. If you are caught smoking in public a simple ticket will suffice. If there is suspicion of unauthorized plants, just serve a warrant by local police. Of course, race should be of no account when it comes to severity of enforcement.
- Addiction to marijuana (and yes, that is a thing) should be treated as a health rather than legal matter.
I think of my views as basically “everything but” full fledged legalization. I have seen way too much information that causes concern for both public and private health and do not see a compelling reason to introduce a new substance to the legal market. If you choose to comment please keep on topic. I completely reject the premise that my views on this have to somehow relate to tobacco, alcohol, candy, or gambling, which are all unique in their way and should be taken case by case. If you’d like to propose banning any of those, kindly write your own diary.
That would allow for all of these changes in addition to a well regulated market with substantial local control and oversight. The only difference is under this system the activity is still untaxed and the supply is still largely in the hands of black market suppliers.
One quibble and a substantial change is your proposal that would allow refuser pharmacies like Walgreens to carry medicinal marijuana, which is actually far more laxed and unregulated than either the current status quo or Question 4. So on the issue of medical marijuana you are actually more liberal than even the current proposal you say you are against. It would also remove local control which the current proposal allows. My wife happens to view what you suggest as a better alternative for public health than either the very limited medical marijuana allowance our state and hers have adopted, or full scale legalization. I’m glad to see you try and meet us halfway.
…of supporting recreational usage and continue to oppose question 4 since that is its main thrust.
I wouldn’t worry about marijuana affecting your decision making, Christopher. You can’t fall from the floor.
and then tell us we cannot point out the failures in your argument. BS.
Anyone who posts an opinion on BMG is subject to support or disagreement. The person who posts does not get to say that certain kinds of criticism is unfair. That is not reality based commentary. If you cannot handle disagreement then maybe a public post on a major public policy issue is something you should have skipped. BTW you have repeatedly praised Bill Clinton’s “war on drugs”. Which is it?
I’m just pre-emptively rebutting the argument to save time. I don’t believe I have repeatedly praised Clinton’s war on drugs. It’s not a policy area I have a strong memory of and while it is possible my views in the 90s were different on this issue as with others that does not sound like a position I would take.
You have repeatedly written that Bill Clinton was right for the times and have not repudiated any piece of it. Many of his horrible anti-drug laws remain in effect, although a little piece of the anti-black and anti-crack law has been repealed. If you want to change your opinion now it would be very welcome. Go for it.
If you were in middle and high school during Clinton’s administration as I think you have intimated (I think you once wrote that you are around 40), and never saw a person’s future wrecked for relatively small drug infractions, that might explain your position.
…mostly on his economic policy. It may well be true that his drug policy was suited to the politics of the times. I really don’t think you will find a comment of mine defending specifically his drug policy on the merits. Like I say, my memory in that department is not strong. For the record his first term lined up pretty well with high school and his second term with undergraduate. However, I was paying a lot more attention then most of my peers.
as it is a rejection. I view a “rebuttal” to have more substance than your position on other government-regulated substances. That said, your view, wrong as it might be, has elsewhere been thoroughly explored, and it seems fair enough to wish to avoid a re-run.
Rejection is the more accurate word here.
I am generally in agreement. From all I’ve seen, marijuana is less dangerous than, say, alcohol. There isn’t a clear case I can see for keeping it illegal. However, this is a specific referendum question that seems a poor way to do it. The excise tax is ridiculously low, and it seems silly to decry the Legislature’s inaction on this then expect an immediate about face the second the vote passes. There remains the problem of the state claiming to legalize something that the feds maintain is illegal, with little planning for a transition or managing that sudden legalization.
I have concerns about Question 4, and won’t pretend it’s the best designed policy for implementation. That would’ve been the Jehlen/Rogers Act that died in committee and that the “open to legalizing the right way” Sen. Lewis did nothing to advance in his committee. Enacting this law it will let legislators know the people aren’t as anti-drug as they think they are, and it will create the space to tinker with the proposal and make it better.
That is what happened in Colorado. A great example is the Republican Congressman who opposed legalization and then co-sponsored a resolution giving his state the power to circumvent federal drug laws and better regulate a burgeoning industry that has netted hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and created hundreds of new jobs and businesses. Barney Frank on WBUR made some great points not just about personal freedom and common sense governance, but also the fact that politicians are privately aware the war on drugs is broken but they need permission from the people to fix it. That’s what a Yes vote does. It changes the political culture around these questions.
With all the profit going straight to the cartels and nothing coming back to the Commonwealth. We can always raise the tax later, and even if we don’t, we’ll still be making more money off of legalized marijuana than we spend prosecuting it today.
And it’s been zero for centuries. Why not do it right instead of do it right now?
.
that is mostly interested in entrenching its own elected officials. Therefore the only way to put electoral pressure on a candidate is during the primary, when voters are disinterested and the primary qualification is whether the candidate has been “loyal” which means elevating party over policy at all times. Therefore electoral officials would always rather dodge, because the only way they risk their annuity is to do something.
Ballot questions have always been a relief valve for crappy, corrupt state legislatures. So it is in Massachusetts.
…who have run on the issue of legalizing marijuana, or at least reforming its status?
So you want it “decriminalize”, but how do people obtain non-medical marijuana? By engaging own a criminal act of purchasing it in the black market.
And your “perfect” world scenario amounts to navel gazing. Anti-pot forces have had ample opportunity to craft a plan similar to what you proposed, but they did not. Because they did not, the pro-commercialization forces crafted their own plan. Now the anti-pot forces are “shocked” at what is being proposed.
This is realistically the only shot to stop making the use (purchase) of pot for recreational use a crime. The moment must be seized and vote yes of 4.
At least for now I’ll take status quo and prefer to chip away from the other direction if that is the alternative. I realize there’s a gap in this logic to procure it, but I guess I’m inclined to say yes, you still take your chances with the law in obtaining it, but once you have what’s done is done. Of course, the opportunity you refer to only works if people WANTED any change. If the anti-pot forces were truly anti-pot all the way then in their mind there is no reason to propose anything else.
Decriminalization is kind of like civil unions. Those who said “marriage is too far” but supported civil unions were trying to accommodate people whose relationships were different from theirs while still holding onto a vague Judeo-Christian conception of marriage enshrined in civil law. I’m aware homosexuality isn’t a choice, while using marijuana recreationally is, but it’s still a similar analogy. “Too far” was also the mantra of the civil unions only crowd.
Similarly, there is a sense that marijuana use is immoral and unhealthy but prosecuting people for it is passé. Why should taxing them also be passé? Why should allowing them to open businesses you aren’t forced to frequent which will be tightly regulated passé? It’s not encouraging use, stastically usage has not gone up substantially. It’s just that now pot smokers have to pay their fair share to society.
To sabutais point the tax is too low, I would rebut it by saying the tax right now is zero with all the money going to the cartels and none going to the commonwealth. To Christopher’s point he doesn’t want to encourage recreational use, it’s gonna happen no matter what he thinks so we might as well pay for programs and ensure the product is safe. I still haven’t heard a good rebuttal to that argument.
Sin taxes are used by the state to punish those whose behavior doesn’t comply with what Big Brother considers is “best for you”. Cigarette taxes are extremely high. As the 80 something in Amherst showed it is pretty easy to grow your own, and why shouldn’t she. If the substance is OK and you can make/grow it yourself why should the state get any tax. Otherwise then the state is like the neighborhood drug dealer who gives you your first “taste” for free, then when you’re hooked makes a fortune off you.
Growing your own is easy, brewing your own wine/beer is possible. If I then want to barter with my neighbors “Cut me a cord of wood, I’ll give you a couple ounces of homegrown” why should the state get in the middle. They aren’t able to tax (yet anyway) the vegetables I grow for myself, why my pot?
This is the argument moralizing prohibitionist make in the negative, or anarcho libertarians make in the affirmative. A well regulated and well taxed for profit marijuana industry is the most efficient way to ensure adults who seek recreational marijuana can do so while also contributing back to the Commonwealth. They enjoy freedom from prosecution and access to a safe product via a growing industry that creates jobs in exchange for revenue that will benefit the commonwealth rather than the cartels.
You can have the industry and collect all the taxes you want. I just don’t think it’s fair for the state to say the substance is OK to use but you MUST buy it from us. If I grow my own vegetables I’m not subject to FDA inspection (yet), if I catch and gut my own fish I’m not subject to board of health inspection, brew my own beer, etc. A state monopoly is unfair for things I’m able to do/make on my own.
So it’s either all illegal or all legal.
We do that with other things today.
For example, it’s illegal to sell or to give minors cigarettes (in some states, parents are exempt). However, in (nearly?) all states, the use of cigarettes by minors is perfectly legal.
This is an interesting observation that I agree with (even though I uprated the original comment).
Here’s an interesting aspect, for those who dismiss my constitutional argument about the right to enjoy marijuana. The reason for at least some of those differences is based in the first amendment.
For example, most of our obscenity laws prohibit or regulate the production, sale, and distribution of the material. They do not, except for very narrow categories like child pornography and “snuff” pornography, prohibit the possession (and therefore use) of material that is otherwise obscene.
As a republic, America has a deeply entrenched premise that each of us is allowed to do what we want unless our elected government rules otherwise. I note that while the use of cigarettes by minors is perfectly legal, the use of alcohol by that same individual is not.
I continue to feel that this comes down to the question of whether or not the government has demonstrated a compelling interest in making various regulations. Whether we agree or disagree, the government has concluded that the impact on society of a minor using cigarettes is different from the impact on society of that same minor using alcohol. Like cigarettes, stores may not sell or distribute magazines like “Penthouse” to minors — those minors do not, however, commit any crime when they possess or enjoy such magazines.
Government has so far utterly failed to show a compelling interest why marijuana should be illegal. That is why I will vote “Yes” on question 4, why I think the federal government should strike down the federal laws making marijuana illegal, and why I think the Supreme Court will ultimately rule that those federal laws are an unconstitutional intrusion into individual privacy.
I also fully appreciate that reasonable people may have different opinions about this, especially because so little actual science about marijuana exists.
but I’m now leaning to thinking it should be legal.
Your use of the word “compelling” is key. Both sides have presented rationales, but in the absence of compelling, I think the scales should tip towards personal liberty rather than the idea that the government knows best.
Only the sale of their products to certain groups.
In the case of marijuana the actual supplier themselves face charges, even if their is no evidence they’ve actually sold anything.