Wonders never cease. Gerald Uelmen, professor of law and former dean at Santa Clara University School of Law, is someone I have disagreed with, sometimes vehemently, many times over many years and don't recall ever agreeing with.
But there is a first time for everything. Professor Uelmen has this review in California Lawyer of a book titled Big Weed by Christian Hageseth, and I find myself nodding in agreement with just about every word.
When states legalized alcohol after the 21st Amendment, many of them monopolized retail sales in state-run stores. When states legalized the numbers racket, they monopolized the "manufacturer" level although using private retailers.
Why not make the legal marijuana business a government monopoly? I don't see a single good reason not to.
But there is a first time for everything. Professor Uelmen has this review in California Lawyer of a book titled Big Weed by Christian Hageseth, and I find myself nodding in agreement with just about every word.
Marijuana is not a harmless substance.... Just like the alcohol and tobacco industries, the marijuana industry will be built on the backs of its most frequent users, and turning casual users into frequent users will be the marketing strategy that drives the industry, just as with alcohol and tobacco. Hageseth makes no effort to assess the potential harmful consequences of promoting marijuana use to the consuming public, which will fuel the billions of dollars in sales that he foresees.In my view, this promotion by a legal marijuana industry is a far greater threat than legalization as such. We are pretty close to de facto legalization in California already.
When states legalized alcohol after the 21st Amendment, many of them monopolized retail sales in state-run stores. When states legalized the numbers racket, they monopolized the "manufacturer" level although using private retailers.
Why not make the legal marijuana business a government monopoly? I don't see a single good reason not to.
Proponents tout the money that governments can make by legalizing weed and taxing the profits. Why not monopolize it and keep all the profits?
A legal marijuana industry would have a First Amendment right to advertise. In the course of promoting particular brands, they would inevitably promote marijuana generally. We know this from our experience with tobacco, particularly. Remember the Marlboro Man implying to men that smoking is macho? Remember those Virginia Slims ads telling women that smoking was a sign of liberation?
We don't want to repeal the First Amendment, of course, but we can remove the financial incentive. If marijuana were sold by generic variety from government stores, no one would have an incentive to advertise.
For most industries, the argument against government-run enterprises is that they are inefficient. Private enterprise can deliver more and higher quality product for lower cost, and in most economic analyses that is rightly assumed to be a good thing. In this case, though, higher consumption, higher potency, and lower cost are all bad things. The foundation of the argument for free enterprise is absent.
Last time I mentioned this I was asked in the comments if I would favor government monopolies for alcohol and guns. My answers are that (1) the question is moot because government takeover of an already entrenched industry is politically and financially unfeasible, and (2) those industries are different in that legitimate uses of the products provide an argument for the higher quality that private industry can produce that is missing with weed, which is essentially just to get high.
Many people may disagree with (2), but I'm not going to get dragged into a debate on it. Point (1) is dispositive by itself.
This is all my personal opinion, as CJLF has not taken a position on these issues.
A legal marijuana industry would have a First Amendment right to advertise. In the course of promoting particular brands, they would inevitably promote marijuana generally. We know this from our experience with tobacco, particularly. Remember the Marlboro Man implying to men that smoking is macho? Remember those Virginia Slims ads telling women that smoking was a sign of liberation?
We don't want to repeal the First Amendment, of course, but we can remove the financial incentive. If marijuana were sold by generic variety from government stores, no one would have an incentive to advertise.
For most industries, the argument against government-run enterprises is that they are inefficient. Private enterprise can deliver more and higher quality product for lower cost, and in most economic analyses that is rightly assumed to be a good thing. In this case, though, higher consumption, higher potency, and lower cost are all bad things. The foundation of the argument for free enterprise is absent.
Last time I mentioned this I was asked in the comments if I would favor government monopolies for alcohol and guns. My answers are that (1) the question is moot because government takeover of an already entrenched industry is politically and financially unfeasible, and (2) those industries are different in that legitimate uses of the products provide an argument for the higher quality that private industry can produce that is missing with weed, which is essentially just to get high.
Many people may disagree with (2), but I'm not going to get dragged into a debate on it. Point (1) is dispositive by itself.
This is all my personal opinion, as CJLF has not taken a position on these issues.
Leave a comment