Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Up in Smoke

Making advocacy for the legalization of marijuana into an issue of crisis economics rather than an issue of personal autonomy is a terrible idea. Yes, proponents of the former argument say, it's true that it's harmless, etc., etc., but the real reason to make it legal is that it is a hugely popular commodity that could be exorbitantly taxed, providing a substantial new revenue stream for Federal and state governments, which, presumably, could be turned around and spit out in the form of more "stimulus." Do we extrapolate from such arguments that all sin should be both legal and taxable? If someday we legalized sex work, would we charge a consumption tax? Would madams have to make monthly remittances of sales tax to their state IRS?

Legalizing drugs is no way to end the recession. It may be a better way to deal with it, man, but let's not overdo our enthusiasms.

Posted by IOZ at 9:00 AM | email »
Labels: ,

26 comments:

la Rana said...

So, uh: "Making advocacy for the legalization of marijuana into an issue of crisis economics rather than an issue of personal autonomy is a terrible idea"...for reasons other than the successful legalization of Marijuana.

Legalizing drugs may be no way to end the recession, but I'll take legalizing drugs, thanks. Get yer ideals outa my dime bag, yo.

10:48 AM
Anonymous said...

Sin taxable? Why not, moral actions are taxable, although taxation is legalized theft.

10:50 AM
Mr.Fundamental said...

what la Rana said, yo.

sell yer Autonomy Potions somewhere else. I live here in reality.

10:52 AM
dhex said...

it is truly sad that the first thought many people seem to have is "but we can make the government more money! wheeeee!" especially coming from lib-ish, not in our name types. (not quite sure where they think the funds for those deeds which were not in their name came from, but whatevs)

on the other hand, anything that kicks a hole in the side of the war on some drugs is a good thing.

11:28 AM
Anonymous said...

real flaw with the economic argument = keeping the drugs illegal is a pretty good revenue stream as it is.

11:34 AM
Cüneyt said...

I think it's more of the enthusiasm of calling the government out on its ignorance, or the desire to find a win-win. Of course, the government isn't merely interested in taxation. It, like all of us, wants power, and that's why the Drug War is still waged. There are hidden incentives to explain its apparently irrational stance.

In any case, I'm with the pragmatic pot smokers again. I acknowledge IOZ's point, and I'd certainly like the state to recognize (what I think to be) our rights as existing in and of themselves. But frankly, if you're expecting others to do the right thing and for the right reasons, you can go along and expect it. I don't go in for moralistic governance, and nobody in this world is going to support my interests for my reasons unless they share them, and even then. Liberty is a concept descended from tribal pacts. There's always a quid pro quo. Need I go on? Of course not.

11:38 AM
Anonymous said...

I'm glad to see that La Rana is quite impartial to the means as long as he gets to relax on Tuesday nights and you can too!! Personally, I won the DARE bear in 5th grade so I don't give a shit either way. But if the only goal is said Tuesdays gov't intrusion-free this seems to be quite the incorrect tact politically. Where are you going to find the middle of the road Dems and your Orrin Hatches who need to hold the line a bit on the stimulus talk to get reelected when their opponent gets to run "Stalin's Reefer Madness" in 30 second bits all over their districts. We've got a recession b/c we spent a bunch of money on shit that doesn't have value b/c we tricked ourselves into believing that it did just to feel good about our shitty lives and some other people with MBAs made some stuff up out of thin air and it all came crashing down...so our solution is there's an industry right under our noses and if we just get that money we can all be rich again?? Doesn't add up.
Like I said, I don't know about the glorious effects of getting high, but until you show me the engineer who gets stoned and invents the flying car that runs on solar power and cruises on wind propulsion I'll go on believing that when they wake up all they have is a fucking empty pipe and maybe, if you're lucky, some neat jazz.

- COT

12:54 PM
mds said...

Do we extrapolate from such arguments that all sin should be both legal and taxable?

Yup.

If someday we legalized sex work, would we charge a consumption tax?

Yup.

Actually, I'm slightly surprised that Monty Python's Tax on "Thingy" sketch hasn't been brought up yet.

Meanwhile, Connecticut branches of the LUV Boutique have posted billboards urging us to stop by and assemble our own stimulus packages. So, you know, hooray for the free market.

12:58 PM
Crackpot Realist said...

How DARE you have an ideology, IOZ. Your convictions invalidate our apathy! Accept the lesser evil of The Pwog! You WILL be assimilated!

1:29 PM
Leonard said...

If you do something right for the wrong reason, that's still better than doing something wrong. Or continuing something wrong. Using professed intention as the measure of morality in politics is just plain stupid. Everyone is well intended, and yet here we are.

And yes, it is better than sin be legal and taxed, than illegal and not taxed. Whores in Nevada have their taxes withheld if they are employees, just like you do.

1:35 PM
la Rana said...

COT, I'm pretty sure you just attacked a nonexistent proposal, then offered the criticism that all I can hope to achieve is precisely what I want.
Touche.

2:20 PM
TGGP said...

Alcohol prohibition was ended to raise tax revenue. Drugs are less popular though (people seriously drank huge amounts in the past relative to now).

2:43 PM
Anonymous said...

You're just mad that no one's talking about legalizing your precious cocaine.

3:22 PM
Anonymous said...

aw come on, let's all lighten up here. The argument just an attempt to piggyback on to the issue du jour.

If this were 2003, it would be all, like, legalizing pot would totally destroy Terrorism and Saddam Hussein etc. etc.

3:32 PM
wavydavy said...

What mds said.

And it may or may not have anything concrete to aid to stimulus packages, but who cares? If that gets the legalization argument out in the open, and eventually to actual passage, good.

As someone once said, crisis is an opportunity to make changes.

3:37 PM
Anonymous said...

There are impurities in cocaine. You should smoke crack.

5:06 PM
fledermaus said...

Please, they sold the wall street bailout and the Iraq War to Congress on the grounds that it would make money for the US. Clearly the way to get shit passed is tell the gullible congress critters that it will make money for everyone.

6:31 PM
Anonymous said...

One would think that merely decriminalizing the shit would save incarceration and judicial process money out the wazoo. Or did someone already mention that?

6:59 PM
Cüneyt said...

Definitely true, Anon, but bringing that up reminds the local law enforcement that they might lose their tanks and SWAT teams. Aw.

7:41 PM
Montag said...

there'll be time for personal autonomy when we've disassembled the state and torn down all coercive institutions.

i want my weed now.

fuck it, let's go bowling.

8:31 PM
Anonymous said...

so can we put you down as in the "Nay to legalization" camp then ?

8:59 PM
Brian said...

Yep, Cuynet. My sleepy but sometimes violent San Franciso exurb owns, to paraprhrase Jefferson Airplane, "its very own tank." Along with a full scale mobile home converted into a "mobile command center." :)

11:13 AM
Aaron said...

I have always wondered whether Seagrams wasn't the elephant in the room of the legalization debate. Is pot vs. alcohol a zero sum game? Has someone done studies? Frankly, our drug policy doesn't make sense without a bit of plutocrat hardball going behind the scenes. Totally a priori argument, obviously.

11:49 AM
Dunc said...

Is pot vs. alcohol a zero sum game?

Not in my house. And since when did policy have to make sense?

11:53 AM
Aaron said...

Okay sure, but it's all about marginal returns. Would you pound three more Budweisers each night in your garage if you weren't busy getting baked at the same time?

11:58 AM
Dunc said...

No, probably not. But then I've been at both long enough to have reached a comfortable level moderation... I drink and I smoke, but I don't generally get drunk or particularly heavily stoned. (Although Saturday nights can be a different matter, especially if there's a fine bottle of cask-strength single malt whisky to hand.)

I'd rather drink my own piss than drink Budweiser (or at least, what you Americans call Budweiser, which bears no resemblance to the real thing). I'm British, I'm Scottish, and a I brew almost all my own beer. I typically have 10 to 15 gallons (that's UK gallons) on hand at any one time... (Not to mention my collection of fine cognacs and single malt whiskies, and my 48-bottle wine rack) And I don't have a garage.

I'll grant that I'm possibly not representative of the population at large. ;)

5:24 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)