There are a couple of interesting marijuana stories in the papers. Dan Frosch reports in the WSJ:
Before Colorado became the first state to allow marijuana for recreational purposes, supporters boasted that legalization would generate a sizable tax windfall, while opponents warned that it could have dramatic social consequences.Susan Shapiro had more personal and poignant article in the LA Times last week.
Slightly more than a year into the state's experiment with sanctioning pot sales to adults 21 and older, neither prediction is proving entirely true. Marijuana so far hasn't been the boon or bane that many expected, offering potential lessons to other states considering legalization.
I know the dark side. I'm ambivalent about legalizing marijuana because I was addicted for 27 years.* * *Back then Willie Nelson songs, Cheech and Chong routines and "Fast Times at Ridgemont High's" Jeff Spicoli made getting high seem kooky and harmless. My reality was closer to Walter White's self-destruction from meth on TV's "Breaking Bad" and the delusional nightmares in the film "Requiem for a Dream." Everyone believed you couldn't get addicted to pot.
My personal opinion, not CJLF policy, is that legalization or at least decriminalization of marijuana is politically inevitable. Those of us concerned about the long-term ill effects should stop trying to halt the steamroller and instead try to steer it where it will do the least damage. Instead of "yes or no," the question should be "how," and if we leave decriminalization to initiatives written by pro-pot enthusiasts, we are going to get the worst possible answer to "how."
Shapiro concludes:
If legalization as such does not produce a substantial increase in teen consumption, and the preliminary indication from Colorado is that it does not, widespread commercial promotion surely would.
My personal view is that marijuana should be sold exclusively in government stores, as "hard liquor" is in some states. There should be generic designations only and no brands. Instead of a tax on the profit, the government should keep all the profit from the wholesale and retail levels. (Growing would have to be private, but tightly controlled. I don't think the government can competently farm.) Advocates would still have a First Amendment right to promote pot if they want, but with no private brands the incentive and resources to do so would be vastly lower. The government can and should dedicate a portion of its revenue to advertising the dangers.
Shapiro concludes:
Being a stoner was easy. Quitting was hard but gave me more to live for. Before jumping on the buzzed bandwagon in the new year, throwing a pot dessert party or voting to lift all restrictions across the nation, ask yourself and your kids: Is the high worth the lows? We shouldn't send pot smokers to prison, but they don't belong on pop-culture pedestals either.One of the things that concerns me the most is the rise of a commercial marijuana industry with a financial incentive to promote its products and a First Amendment right to do so. We don't need to speculate about how harmful this can be. We know. We have seen it with tobacco. In the process of promoting their brands, the cigarette makers promoted smoking generally. They told men that smoking made them macho and told women that smoking made them liberated, when in truth it made both sick and dead.
If legalization as such does not produce a substantial increase in teen consumption, and the preliminary indication from Colorado is that it does not, widespread commercial promotion surely would.
My personal view is that marijuana should be sold exclusively in government stores, as "hard liquor" is in some states. There should be generic designations only and no brands. Instead of a tax on the profit, the government should keep all the profit from the wholesale and retail levels. (Growing would have to be private, but tightly controlled. I don't think the government can competently farm.) Advocates would still have a First Amendment right to promote pot if they want, but with no private brands the incentive and resources to do so would be vastly lower. The government can and should dedicate a portion of its revenue to advertising the dangers.
Kent, do you think firearms should "be sold exclusively in government stores, as hard liquor is in some states"? Do you think guns "should [have] generic designations only and no brands" and that governments "should keep all the profit from the wholesale and retail levels"? Do you think government "can and should dedicate a portion of its revenue to advertising the dangers" of misuse of firearms?
I ask these questions because I strongly believe with drugs and guns --- and cars and electricity and lots of other sometimes useful and sometimes harmful products --- that we want public policy to encourage productive use and discourage harmful misuse. I generally trust the free market (with government regulation) more than a government monopoly to strike a good balance. But you seem to trust/advocate for a government monopoly for pot. I wonder if you take the same approach to other dangerous but useful products.
Been really busy. I'll address this in a new post when I have a chance.
Great, looking forward to hearing more on this front from you and other at C&C