The debate about legalizing mood-altering drugs has been ongoing for years.  It’s ironic this should surface given the stringent laws against smoking tobacco practically everywhere.  However, if we look at what prohibition has given us, we can see huge criminal enterprises feeding on the drug trade and the near-collapse of Mexico.

If restrictions on currently illegal drugs are lifted, age limits will have to be enforced, and harsh penalties should follow their use while operating machinery or vehicles or at work.  If you can’t stay sober on the roads or at work, you go, not on disability, but out the door, until you can go straight.  Crimes committed under the influence are crimes; no excuses accepted.

In the ‘60s and ‘70s, lots of people believed that chronic marijuana use had no ill effects.  Now we know that’s not true, and the same applies to cocaine.  If the proposal is to make adults responsible for the ruination of their own lives and lives of others, no excuses, then perhaps it might work better than the situation we’ve got now.  Stoke up, but no welfare, no job, no benefits, no disability pay, no parental rights.

Chronic marijuana use may be a problem.  And its solution should be in the hands of doctors, the market, and self-help groups.  Not the prison-industrial complex.  Unless people really enjoy paying taxes for such things. 

Imprisoning people for marijuana is a justification for a bloated state.  Taxing for marijuana might actually pay for prisons themselves.

Unfortunately, both criminals and cops benefit from its illegality.

Reply to #3.

So, John, it would be a good thing to have a lot of “zoned out,” “tuned out,” and non-productive/under-productive “loadies” wandering around , many of whom startied ‘doping’ during their early elementary school years?  And don’t reply with the ‘alcohol argument’ of the Sixties.  Its not an “oranges and oranges” comparison.

And who will pick up the health and welfare costs for these non-productive/under-productive “loadies?”

AnglicanFirst, the only way this would work would be if NOBODY picks up the health and welfare costs for users.  NOBODY.

“California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, said his bill could generate big bucks for a cash-starved state while freeing law enforcement agencies to focus on worse crimes”. Wasn’t the lottery seen as another revenue generator for funding schools? And gambling and let’s decriminalize prostitution.  Once this becomes a part of the government revenue stream, isn’t there a conflict of interest? Government was a little late getting on the tobacco companies because of the revenue cigarette taxes produced. Do these revenues offset the costs to society?

Sounds like the government wants to muscle in on the mob’s territory.

Prostitution will be next. State sanctioned sin for money seems ok for this looney tune legislator so tell me again what would differentiate the state from the criminal enterprises?
Intercessor
Native son of a native son of California

I agree with John on this.  I don’t see any justification for outlawing marijuana use for adults.  It’s brought nothing but trouble, IMO.

Agreed, Jeffersonian, with my previous limitations (see above).  However, it’s rather foolish for California to be making a change of this type with the idea that it will change the state’s revenue picture significantly and long-term.  They would need to look at their entire spending and taxation structure to do that.

#3, well, they should be tolerated and we should pay for them.  Because we clearly do that with people who are drunk, lazy and zoned out at work anyway.

An employer can set rules about workplace behavior.  I believe being drug and alcohol free at work would remain legitimate.  They should get help, and not be thrown in jail.  Unless you have a fondness for paying those sorts of taxes.  It’s cheaper to pay for someone’s health care, than for someone’s prison sentence.

#6 - and that is precisely the point.  Better the state than the mob.  There are plenty of countries, like the congo, with no state, and lots of mobs. 

And personally, I think regulating prostitution would also be reasonable.  Better to regulate and tax sin (offering a disincentive),  than pay four or five times to criminalize it.

I don’t think we should be paying for people who are drunk, lazy, and zoned out at work.

My husband points out one reason why marijuana was made illegal in the first place.  They can’t tax it!  It’s a weed and it grows wild all over the place.  Once our Iowa neighbor decided to cut down and burn the brush in a ravine on his property.  The whole neighborhood smelled like a late-sixties dorm on Saturday night.  Good luck, California.  You’ll be paying for Revenuers to descend on every vacant lot and mountain hideaway.

Thanks, but no, thanks!  This is one Californian who can do without the “extra revenue.”

One advantage of this scheme is that it would outflank the Mexican drug cartels that are currently moving into CA (as well as my own home state of Texas.) Not only would this cut into these cartels’ US activities, which are funded chiefly by marijuana sales, but it would also weaken them at home.

I don’t want to see pot legalized but if this significantly reduced the power of these cartels, the benefits for us, and especially for Mexico might outweigh the drawbacks.

It is sad when taxes are being raised on socaily acceptable drugs (various alcohols, lots of cigarettes and pipe tobaccos, etc.) and they wind up being used for every thing except their intended use.  I think Arnie needs to think hard on this matter!

#11:  when someone is drunk at work, what happens to them?  They get fired.  the state doesn’t get involved.  The issue is that marijuana should be treated no different than alcohol.  Those who have problems can get the help that voluntary, private and other organizations offer. 

#12 - I guess you like paying for prisons?  It would be less expensive to tax marijuana, and the state’s expenses would go down. 

It’s a win win win for everyone except for those moralists who can’t see the expenses. 

it would undermine Mexican violence.  It would mean we need less cops, because illegality is the primary reason for enforcement.  Cops could go after the truly violent.  We’d have fewer prisons and pay less money for those unionized, expensive, prison guards that run the Californian government.

i agree with the sincere, holy reactionaries who believe that mood altering drugs should be banned. Caffeine woke me up this morning. Chocolate made me feel better. Prozac has me feeling less depressed. And wine, well, in addition to being legal and killing more people than marijuana will ever do, makes “my heart glad.”

I think we should continue jailing non-violent people (including critically ill patients) who smoke pot. And remember, it’s not the War and Drugs and Prohibition that bring out the violent elements in the trade. It’s those horrible, evil pot-smokers. God not only made government our brother’s keeper, I’m sure he made it our slave-keeper. Hallelujah!

Katherine wrote: “In the ‘60s and ‘70s, lots of people believed that chronic marijuana use had no ill effects.  Now we know that’s not true, and the same applies to cocaine. “

Amen, sister. Bring out the guns, and let’s go jail us some pot-smokers. It’s for their good, and our safety. In the 60’s and 70’s we believed that soda and burgers had no ill effects, now we know that that is not true. Like the honorable Governor Paterson of New York, let’s ban all these artery clogging , diabetes-inducing goodies. I’m glad you also realize the dangers of alcohol to families. America has turned into a country of drunks since it was legalized. If we’d just come out with more prohibitionist laws in the 20’s, we’d now be living in paradise.

#17, justinmartyr, that’s very amusing, and I assume if you’ve read the thread you know that I’ve said decriminalizing marijuana might be a sensible idea.

#17 Hopper, I don’t favor the nanny state trying to nag us all into good health.  You don’t see any difference between less-than-optimum diet choices and the use of mind-altering drugs in situations where a clear head is required?

#15, John Wilkins, it’s not necessarily true that companies can just fire drunks.  They have to be warned, documented, and in some cases disability clauses come into play.  And this is an example of why people who interact with you online often go away irritated:  “It’s a win win win for everyone except for those moralists who can’t see the expenses.”  Nobody has a good reason for disagreeing with you; anyone who does is a “moralist” (like that’s a bad thing!) or perhaps not too bright.

Love it. A really entertaining thread- and see who is agreeing with whom.

As a libertarian and medical professional I would make these points:

1. MJ and alcohol are very much alike. They destroy different organs but their overall effects are similar- and alcohol is much more physically “addictive.” Treating them differently from a legal perspective is typical governmental nonsense. Spending massive amounts of deficit dollars trying to eradicate one but not the other is folly.

2. Cocaine is a whole different animal from a medical perspective and is ruinously addictive to the young and lethal to the older users. If there is a use for Nanny State anti drug protectionism it’s your drug.

Only in California.