"Legalize it, and then tax the h*ll out of it!"

By -
This was the opinion of a (possibly pot smoking) fraternity guy with whom I was discussing the world's problems. He probably read my reaction and quickly added, "I'm not even saying we need to tax it, but it would be better than it is now."

So my question: Why is this such a knee jerk response? After all, taxing the heck out of something is only mildly better than putting people in jail for selling it, and for the exact same reasons. Can you imagine Vietnam hippies saying, "End the draft, and then make the 18-year-olds work in soup kitchens for 3 years!" ?

Okay, well, you're right, probably many of them would have agreed with that sentiment. Umm, I had a point with this blog post but now it eludes me...

Comments

  1. Margaret2:42 PM

    Maybe your point was that by legalizing and taxing pot, we give the govt more money with which to make other activities illegal? I think a closer example would have been ending the draft and making 18 year old work as bureaucrats.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fred Mangels9:40 AM

    There was a commentary on lewrockwell.com a year or two, or three ago that made a libertarian (if you will) case for NOT legalizing pot.

    It was featured in some Canadian newspaper, if memory serves me correct, and co- written by two Canadian journalists.

    They made some excellent points and I've been trying to find that piece ever since. Anyone else remember that one?

    If you do and know where I can find it, please post the url here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Margaret11:18 PM

    I don't remember it. Maybe it had to do with medicalizing as opposed to decriminalizing?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:14 AM

    Is it this one?

    http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=csa

    Balko linked to it this morning.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kevin Carson2:20 PM

    If pot were legal and heavily taxed, there'd be a black market in untaxed pot--just as there is for cigarettes now.

    Of course, it would considerably scale back the drug war insofar as they'd no longer be going after personal possession or snooping to see if you were growing it on your own property.

    But even then, I'm afraid they'd still come up with some kind of "sick chicken" ruling to restrict growing it outside the regulatory system.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous9:24 PM

    i like them very much Rose zuly
    rose zulie
    rose online zuly
    rose online zulie
    Arua ROSE zuly

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more