Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason Writers Around Town: Nick Gillespie in The New York Times on Legalizing Drugs, Gambling, and Prostitution
Never let a good crisis go to waste, says Obama administration Rahm Emanuel. Exactly. So why not legalize and then tax and regulate drugs, prostitution, and all forms of gambling, asks Nick Gillespie in The New York Times. A snippet:
As the history of alcohol prohibition underscores, there are...many non-economic reasons to favor legalization of vices: Prohibition rarely achieves its desired goals and instead increases violence (when was the last time a tobacco kingpin was killed in a deal gone wrong?) and destructive behavior (it's hard enough to get help if you're a substance abuser and that much harder if you're a criminal too). And by policing vice, law enforcement is too often distracted at best or corrupted at worst, as familiar headlines about cops pocketing bribes and seized drugs attest. There's a lot to be said for treating consenting adults like, well, adults.
But there is an economic argument as well, one that Franklin Roosevelt understood when he promised to end Prohibition during the 1932 presidential campaign. "Our tax burden would not be so heavy nor the forms that it takes so objectionable," thundered Roosevelt, "if some reasonable proportion of the unaccountable millions now paid to those whose business had been reared upon this stupendous blunder could be made available for the expense of government."
Gillespie files the Geithner-approved Turbo Tax version of revenue estimates here.
John Tagliaferro|5.17.09 @ 8:50AM|#
That is a bit of phrasing by FDR that I can go along with. However, the implementation left a lot to be desired. Over regulation, over taxation, etc.
RichF|5.17.09 @ 9:25AM|#
If ever the was a reason I could get behind to NOT legalize vices, it would be that it would provide more money to government.
Fred|5.17.09 @ 9:37AM|#
Great piece Nick. Thanks for introducing a taste of rationality and Reason to the main stream media.
Lester Hunt|5.17.09 @ 9:42AM|#
Of all the important libertarian political causes on the map right now, I think the one that is most likely to succeed at the moment is legalizing pot. That I think is a good reason to pursue it with passion.
John Tagliaferro|5.17.09 @ 9:50AM|#
Of all the important libertarian political causes on the map
right now, I think the one that is most likely to succeed at the
moment is legalizing pot.
I think raising taxes will get there first.
hmm|5.17.09 @ 10:03AM|#
No one in DC is going to change the law. The only hope is that
someone has the balls to introduce an Amendment and gets it to the
state convention point. State legislatures and politicians are
never going to give up the drug the money. Irony at its best.
Politicians addicted to money to fight the drug war.
Rule one of government budgeting. Spend it all, regardless of if it
is needed or not.
Rule two of government budgeting. Scream it wasn't enough and a
crisis lies on the horizon requiring more money.
Every city or state I can think of follows this paradigm and has
for a long time. No one is going to give up the drug money
willingly. You should see how excited the lil coppers get when they
hear they are getting an APC or a new batch of Bushmasters. Don't
deny the poor lil' fellers their excitement. Breaking down doors
just isn't the same w/o an AR15 and an APC.
hmm|5.17.09 @ 10:06AM|#
It would be interesting to see states get together and force
this issue from a state level or coalition of states. A crisis is a
terrible thing to waste. Especially for states.
Nothing is going to change with respect to the drug war as long as
it is left up to the politicians. There is too much money involved
at every level.
¢|5.17.09 @ 10:09AM|#
If there's one thing the world needs now, it's libertarian enthusiasm for taxes and regulation.
Cal Lipigian|5.17.09 @ 11:02AM|#
There is a lot to like about what FDR said on the campaign trail in 1932. But--and I hope you are sitting down--it turns out that when he became President, he did not govern in the same manner he said he would.
Suki|5.17.09 @ 11:21AM|#
John T,
Way to go @ 9:50! LOL
And check yer email too. You had to be feeling déjà vu when you
were posting yesterday (on our blog).
Now for the topic at hand, I am still trying to get my brain around
what was wrong with FDR? Was it taxes or something? (help from all
invited)
I see some praise here for his working to end prohibition, but even
John T has a complaint about that.
Just wondering why FDR usually gets a bad rap on this blog.
|5.17.09 @ 11:31AM|#
I've had a feeling that Reason has been heading down the wrong path for a while but couldn't quite put my finger on specific misgivings - but this article advocating more taxation certainly qualifies.
|5.17.09 @ 11:46AM|#
If there's one thing the world needs now, it's libertarian enthusiasm for taxes and regulation.
If ever the was a reason I could get behind to NOT legalize vices, it would be that it would provide more money to government.
Jesus H. McChrist! I normally don't go off on anti-government
rhetoric but this is just plain fucking stupid! As bad as
government is at spending money wisely, as inefficient and
incompetent as government is at regulation, you seem to prefer that
the pot dollars go to violent Latin American cartels, the
prostitution dollars go to working girl beating Eastern European
pimps, and the gambling dollars go to the traditional mafia?
Maintaining the proscriptions against these activities also leads
to the government taking money from citizens to support futile law
enforcement efforts to stamp them out, with all the attendent civil
rights violations and official corruption.
If you're too goddam stupid to have noticed, when you buy
anything in America, it's fucking taxed. "Ooo, Ooo, I'll
only support this if drugs, gambling and prostitution are given a
pass on the taxes that the likes of Exxon, Kellogs, Levi Strauss
and Coldwell Banker all pay".
That's not just an immature stance, it's a moronic one.
|5.17.09 @ 11:53AM|#
Almost forgot -
Kudos to Mr. Gillespie on his NYT op-ed. I expect the responses
will be a mixed bag of enthusiastic agreement, grudging acceptence
of points made, and hostile accusations of attempting to destroy
the Judeo-Christian morality that America was built on.
Suki|5.17.09 @ 12:15PM|#
I got so used to Nick ranting that this article took me by
surprise a lil.
Now I can't get this silly tune out of
my head
Cause you're hot then you're cold
You're yes then you're no
You're in and you're out
You're up and you're down
hmm|5.17.09 @ 12:19PM|#
I'd have to agree. As much as deciding between the lesser of two evils coaxes a little bit of previously eaten food and stomach acid into my mouth. I would have to agree that legalizing and taxing is infinitely more appealing than the current situation. The whole commerce clause basis for taxation is a crock of shit, but it is a lesser crock of shit than outlawing a fucking plant and spending billions on arming police to the point local municipalities having de facto military groups running around busting people with a few joints. I'll take a taxed win and tax justification over the status quo.
MNG|5.17.09 @ 12:26PM|#
J sub D
Well said at 11:46. Having something taxed is always a pain in the
ass, but having it legal and taxed is better than having it
illegal. The "tax" of being arrested is worse, we should not let
the perfect be the enemy of the good.
MNG|5.17.09 @ 12:28PM|#
I'd rather my alcohol be legal and untaxed, but if I have to choose between legal and taxed or illegal and untaxed I would choose the latter, and I imagine even Rightards like High Every Body would feel the same about his vices, i.e. pot and prostitutes (male of course).
BakedPenguin|5.17.09 @ 12:46PM|#
MNG, to a lesser extent, the same is true of moving to a "medical" model on drugs. While some dangers of a "therapeutic" state are very real, they pale in comparison to throwing substance takers in cages with murderers, rapists and other sundry psycho / sociopaths.
A Principled Libertarian |5.17.09 @ 1:58PM|#
As bad as government is at spending money wisely
As bad as government is at spending money wisely, what's worse is
that they're spending what's not rightfully theirs.
A Principled Stoner|5.17.09 @ 1:59PM|#
And at least when my money's I'm wasted, it was
rightfully mine.
|5.17.09 @ 2:02PM|#
If ever the was a reason I could get behind to NOT legalize
vices, it would be that it would provide more money to
government.
As J sub D and MNG mentioned, that is still a lot better than the
status quo.
Also, preventing the government from getting that money probably
won't mean less spending. It will more likely mean larger deficits,
higher income taxes, or some combination of the two.
I think the best way to keep government spending in check would be
a constitutional amendment limiting congresses spending power. For
example, the amendment could say something like: "The federal
government's spending may not exceed its revenues by more than
50%", or something like that. The limits would have to be lax
enough so contemporary politicians could pass it without fear that
it would interfere with there plans. But as time goes on deficits
have seemed to grow, so a future batch of politicians might be
limited by such an amendment.
Seward|5.17.09 @ 2:05PM|#
J sub D,
It is also probably easier to get the tax on something reduced than
it is to end a prohibited act and/or substance.
BakedPenguin,
Whether they pale in comparison would depend on what that
therapeutic state looked like. I could hypothesize a therapeutic
state that would look far, far worse than what exists today.
|5.17.09 @ 2:06PM|#
Correction:
My secont to last sentence should read:
"The limits would have to be lax enough so contemporary politicians
could pass it without fear that it would interfere with
their plans."
Some Guy|5.17.09 @ 2:30PM|#
I think the best way to keep government spending in check
would be a constitutional amendment limiting congresses spending
power. For example, the amendment could say something like: "The
federal government's spending may not exceed its revenues by more
than 50%", or something like that. The limits would have to be lax
enough so contemporary politicians could pass it without fear that
it would interfere with there plans. But as time goes on deficits
have seemed to grow, so a future batch of politicians might be
limited by such an amendment.
I have liked the idea of requiring a supermajority to have an
unbalanced budget. But when I think about it, that could lead to
even more horrifically pork-filled budgets than we get by only
needing 50%+1. Just look at how much more terrible the second vote
on TARP was than the first.
|5.17.09 @ 2:57PM|#
You're nuts if you don't think the bloodsuckers will put a 100% sin tax on legal pot. Not that Exxon and Kelloggs aren't facing the same threat.
|5.17.09 @ 3:04PM|#
Not wanting government to collect more revenue isn't stupid. The more money thay have the more they want to do, occasionally at the expense of our rights and freedoms. Solve the debt problem by reducing spending, not by giving new revenue streams to the devil.
|5.17.09 @ 3:09PM|#
That said, legalization with sin taxes and all is way better than the idiotic crusade the moralists have managed to foist upon us.
|5.17.09 @ 3:11PM|#
There is a lot to like about what FDR said on the campaign trail in 1932. But--and I hope you are sitting down--it turns out that when he became President, he did not govern in the same manner he said he would.
Well, sure. FDR campaigned on balancing the budget and cutting
government spending, for example. But surely he can be given some
credit for the end of Prohibition.
MNG|5.17.09 @ 3:23PM|#
Baked
Well said. Many on this site act like a regime based on treatment
and one based on law enforcement are equal evils. That's insane
imo. The best regime would be one that lets alone, but surely it is
better to go to rehab than federal prison for 10 years...
what else is new?|5.17.09 @ 4:01PM|#
Shorter version of Gillespie: I'll take having my vices legitimized any way I can get it, smaller government be damned.
|5.17.09 @ 4:14PM|#
ah, the beauty of taxing those "sins" that are readily available on the alternative market. The vice folks won't be chasing garage poker games, backyard gardens and girls needing a drink. Too easy to circumvent the tax man. Bring it on, guv'mint
|5.17.09 @ 4:16PM|#
Here's an idea: since there are huge hidden costs/taxes
built into the current regime of prohibition, why don't we just
recognize that?
We can then advocate for a less destructive and more explicit form
of taxation. Once the taxes are obvious, we can argue about the
level.
|5.17.09 @ 4:16PM|#
I agree that if drugs are to be legalised, taxation is going to have to be levvied, simply for the reason that firstly then can cause social problems and secondly it gives the industry a foot in the door. I don't agree in their regulation beyond a very minimal level, but I don't see any way of them ever being legal and unregulated. I'd like to think they could be regulated at first and then deregulated later, but it's a hell of a lot easier to build quangos than to destroy them.
|5.17.09 @ 4:36PM|#
Legalization and taxing would put an end to asset forfeiture. The people getting that money aren't going to like seeing it taken away.
|5.17.09 @ 4:40PM|#
Recently, I heard some idiot talk host (pardon the redundancy) pooh-poohing the notion of decriminalization, citing England's experiment with giving out heroin. I'm not really up to speed on this particular story; details, anyone?
Seward|5.17.09 @ 4:41PM|#
MNG,
Again, it depends on what that regime looks like. The history of
rehabilitation efforts should make one someone somewhat skeptical
of such.
Anonymous|5.17.09 @ 5:01PM|#
On the subject of taxing vices: my gut reaction is nausea to
government benefiting from taxing vice -- a perverse incentive,
indeed.
On further reflection, "legal and taxed" is the better
route. Not because "at least it's legal" and we can argue against
the tax; that never works. But because in a black-market situation,
I'd rather deal with pharmacists than gangs.
In summary: if you're determined to keep the feds out of your
business, and you're going to be consuming something with an
under-the-table transaction, then you might as well favor a legal
status such that it's as available as possible, even if
unattainable by you legitimately.
IceTrey|5.17.09 @ 5:02PM|#
The libertarian way is for all of that stuff to be legal and NOT taxed or regulated.
Elemenope|5.17.09 @ 5:11PM|#
Recently, I heard some idiot talk host (pardon the
redundancy) pooh-poohing the notion of decriminalization, citing
England's experiment with giving out heroin. I'm not really up to
speed on this particular story; details, anyone?
60
Minutes did a segment back in '92 on the Liverpool protocol. I
never did hear how it turned out, and haven't had much luck finding
more.
|5.17.09 @ 5:39PM|#
I think (correct me if I'm wrong) what was said is that the tax money that was used to enforce prohibition was being wasted. It served a better use elsewhere. I'm not sure FDR was saying it is a good idea to legalize something in order to tax it. I think he was saying that tax money that had been raised elsewhere was being wasted criminalizing alcohol sales.
MaterialMonkee|5.17.09 @ 5:56PM|#
"Recently, I heard some idiot talk host (pardon the redundancy)
pooh-poohing the notion of decriminalization, citing England's
experiment with giving out heroin. I'm not really up to speed on
this particular story; details, anyone?"
Yeah there's has been a slightly more progressive attitude to this
in the UK.
A similar policy to the one described in that article was employed
in a few schools up and down the country
The policy was called the Drumlake policy after the politician who
came up with it
Here's a link to a short youtube clip of a BBC documentary that was
done about a school involved
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTPYbBUNq5Y
|5.17.09 @ 6:43PM|#
I have liked the idea of requiring a supermajority to have
an unbalanced budget. But when I think about it, that could lead to
even more horrifically pork-filled budgets than we get by only
needing 50%+1. Just look at how much more terrible the second vote
on TARP was than the first.
Well, an amendment like the one I proposed wouldn't have to allow
even a supermajority to exceed the limit. Or it could put
restrictions on pork going to states or districts whose senators or
representatives vote to exceed the spending limit (assuming we can
properly define "pork" for legal purposes).
Of course politicians might try to comply by raising taxes rather
than cutting spending, but that tends to be harder to justify to
the electorate at the time.
Karen|5.17.09 @ 6:54PM|#
There is one enormous problem with legalizing drugs that no one
talks about. We have a huge black market in drugs in America, and
most of the "businessmen" settle their disagreements with a bullet.
I live in New Orleans, where drugs and violence were a huge problem
before Katrina and are off the charts now. Foreignpolicy.com
recently pegged our murder rate as the second highest in the WORLD
(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4480). Our
U.S. attorney states that virtually all of New Orleans' violence is
drug-related, and I assure you, though we may be the worst, the
rest of America's cities are not far behind.
Now, what do you think is going to happen when you go to each of
America's major cities and take a thousand, two thousand young men
who are heavily armed and have been raised in a culture of violence
and suddenly take away their livelihood? If the baggies of
marijuana are now next to the Jack Daniel's at the local liquor
store, how are these young men going to put dinner on the table? I
think anyone who reads that question knows exactly what would
happen. The local police forces are not making a dent in crime as
things stand, and when the drug dealers of America's cities become
marauding gangs of robbers coming after you and me, the police
won't be there, either. America's cities can turn into Mexico's
border towns over night, rife with kidnappings, robberies, and
shootouts. I'm afraid this question needs a little "reason.com"
applied to it before it makes its debut, because thinking of
legalizing drugs as a nifty source of easy tax revenue is naive in
the extreme. Drugs are not the problem; the distribution network
that has developed to market them is.
Mr. Gillespie, I'd love to hear your response to this point.
|5.17.09 @ 7:01PM|#
Karen-
There will be plenty of vacanies in the penitentiaries for those
who are convicted of armed robberies after the release of all mj
offenders.
|5.17.09 @ 7:03PM|#
Karen-
Is it better to continue to incarcerate all of those folks
convicted of mj possession out of fear of what you specualte may
happen?
|5.17.09 @ 7:06PM|#
Karen-
If you are referring to the cops in the second paragraph of your
post, your question makes more sense.
Eric H|5.17.09 @ 7:19PM|#
Karen,
Right, that's why murder and crime rates skyrocketed after the end
of prohibition. Oh, wait....
Mari Dupont|5.17.09 @ 7:35PM|#
I doubt any commenter posting today lives in Los Angeles.
For all intensive purposes, marijuana is legal here; you can't
throw a rock without hitting a dispensary, even in the most
affluent parts of town.
Today I walked into the Farmacy in Westwood Village, which shares a
parking lot with Whole Foods and selected from 14 different
strains. AND I got my parking validated!
All without being shot at by Mexican gangs! Heaven.
It's also too good to last. I know taxes are coming, and if they're
too high or barriers to entry for dispensaries are too onerous,
then the black market will stick around.
But until they do, I'll enjoy my brief, barely-regulated,
barely-taxed libertarian high...
|5.17.09 @ 7:35PM|#
If ever the was a reason I could get behind to NOT legalize vices, it would be that it would provide more money to government.
You cannot take your libertarianism in bits and pieces.
Libertarians are for legalizing vice AND slashing
taxes!
I don't want there to be taxes on pot, because I don't want their
to be taxes on anything! Any government revenue beyond what is
needed to fund its legitimate functions is too much. My liberal
friends can't understand that. To them, the only reason to legalize
is to enhance government revenues. They would rather keep it
illegal than to legalize without taxation. Hell, my liberal friends
are all in favor of taxing pot at a HIGHER rate than other
goods!
|5.17.09 @ 7:45PM|#
Now, what do you think is going to happen when you go to
each of America's major cities and take a thousand, two thousand
young men who are heavily armed and have been raised in a culture
of violence and suddenly take away their livelihood?
Young black men, right Karen? OH NOES THE MELANZANES WILL
GET US IF WE LEGALIZE DRUGS
That is the weakest drug war argument yet. Well done.
|5.17.09 @ 7:52PM|#
Karen:
History offers the best guide to a post-drug prohibition America.
The national homicide rate doubled under alcohol Prohibition, and
gradually declined by half again when Prohibition was ended. The
alcohol cartels (in today's lingo) simply went out of business and
normalcy returned. There is no incentive for drug users to commit
crimes to buy drugs that are cheap and readily obtained, however in
a system of regulation and taxation I doubt that they would be
either cheap or easily obtained. More than likely they would be
under the control of physicians who would be loathe to prescribe
them for fear of losing their licenses, and the drug war would
assume a slightly different format.
|5.17.09 @ 8:01PM|#
A system of regulated and taxed drugs might be better than prohibition, just as socialized American healthcare might be better than Cuban healthcare; but is the influence of libertarians best spent arguing for the next worst option? Should not libertarians be making the cases for maximum freedom and minimum government while the statists plot to plunder consumers and taxpayers? When politicians find new sources of revenue (i.e., new taxes), do they lessen the existing burdens or simply spend more money?
Mister Potato Head|5.17.09 @ 8:11PM|#
I doubt any commenter posting today lives in Los
Angeles.
Please! I'm a common tater!
/comic relief
For more comic relief, clique
hier.
Don't tip to forget your waiter.
|5.17.09 @ 8:20PM|#
I haven't read how the experiments in the United Kingdom panned
out, but Glenn Greenwald over at salon.com says decriminalization
worked fine in Portugal:
"Evaluating the policy strictly from an empirical perspective,
decriminalization has been an unquestionable success, leading to
improvements in virtually every relevant category and enabling
Portugal to manage drug-related problems (and drug usage rates) far
better than most Western nations that continue to treat adult drug
consumption as a criminal offense."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/14/portugal/
SIV|5.17.09 @ 8:49PM|#
I've had a feeling that Reason has been heading down the
wrong path for a while but couldn't quite put my finger on specific
misgivings - but this article advocating more taxation certainly
qualifies.
They put crap like that up everyday.
Reason is a "libertarian"-flavored policy advocacy
organization.
robc|5.17.09 @ 8:55PM|#
but surely it is better to go to rehab than federal prison
for 10 years...
Not sure on this...
Is it better to go to rehab until cured
or
Federal prison for a limited period of time?
At least the latter had a definite ending. Especialy if you are in
rehab/prison for something that isnt a disease.
|5.17.09 @ 9:53PM|#
is the influence of libertarians best spent arguing for the
next worst option?
At least you didn't capitalize the "L".
If by "next worst" you mean "imperfect improvement" I'm going to
say yes.
Towed Lion|5.17.09 @ 10:02PM|#
For all intensive purposes, marijuana is legal here
Why do you think they call it dope?
|5.17.09 @ 10:04PM|#
Now for the topic at hand, I am still trying to get my brain
around what was wrong with FDR? Was it taxes or something? (help
from all invited)
I think it would be more evident if you asked libertarians what
commendable things FDR did, or even what he did that wasn't a
complete clusterfuck. Then assume everything else he did wasn't
commendable, or was a clusterfuck, and see if your question has
been answered.
robc|5.17.09 @ 10:07PM|#
prolefeed,
1. End of alcohol prohibition
2. Won WW2 (well, he was dead before the surrenders, but the tide
had turned)
Okay, Im done, Im sure there is some other minor thing that he did
that was good.
Suki-troll|5.17.09 @ 10:19PM|#
Just wondering why FDR usually gets a bad rap on this
blog.
You guys are just too fucking easy!
Conveniently overlooked....|5.17.09 @ 10:32PM|#
Right, that's why murder and crime rates skyrocketed after
the end of prohibition. Oh, wait....
Um, and who do you think all those dope peddlers are? Maybe the
people who would have been bootleggers in an earlier era? You don't
think maybe people who have demonstrated a willingness to break the
law to earn a living will just find new illegal activities engage
in?
Did Al Capone open a liquor store after prohibition was
repealed?
pedantic savant|5.17.09 @ 10:58PM|#
Did Al Capone open a liquor store after prohibition was
repealed?
No, because he was arrested for tax evasion in 1931, 2 years before
prohibition was repealed.
He was physically ill when he was released from prison and barely
capable of taking a shit on his own.
Some Guy|5.17.09 @ 11:01PM|#
Of course politicians might try to comply by raising taxes
rather than cutting spending, but that tends to be harder to
justify to the electorate at the time.
But the fact that they'd have to actually raise taxes to spend more
would be a huge check on spending. Imagine that, the government
living within its means?
Should not libertarians be making the cases for maximum freedom
and minimum government while the statists plot to plunder consumers
and taxpayers?
Depends if they want to win. The only two remotely realistic
options are hevily taxed and legal, or the status quo (which is
absurdly more expensive to taxpayers than any sin tax could
possibly be.)
When politicians find new sources of revenue (i.e., new taxes),
do they lessen the existing burdens or simply spend more
money?
Spending and revenue are completely unrelated at this point. It's
only a question of how much we're putting our grandkids in debt to
China.
John Tagliaferro|5.17.09 @ 11:03PM|#
Suki-troll | May 17, 2009, 10:19pm | #
Just wondering why FDR usually gets a bad rap on this blog.
You guys are just too fucking easy!
Ass, my friend was asking a serious question. Thanks for helping
out.
hmm|5.17.09 @ 11:06PM|#
The what happens after is an interesting thought experiment. One negative that came from the 21st Amendment is the lock government currently has on alcohol and specifically its distribution. Up until recently you couldn't even brew your own beer or wine. Of course through all this alcohol is legal, which was better when it was illegal.
John Tagliaferro|5.17.09 @ 11:10PM|#
Um, and who do you think all those dope peddlers are? Maybe
the people who would have been bootleggers in an earlier era? You
don't think maybe people who have demonstrated a willingness to
break the law to earn a living will just find new illegal
activities engage in?
Did Al Capone open a liquor store after prohibition was
repealed?
You might have a possible point with tobacco taxes and the cops
looking the other way when organizations or individuals illegally
market untaxed tobacco in locals of high tax rates (think VA
cigarettes sold in NYC). Same with alcohol and other
products.
The real point is the government makes the black market. If you do
not want a black market, don't tax or regulate a product
differently than anything else.
There are all sorts of perfectly legal products that also have a
black market, like prescription drugs, due to government imposed
restrictions on distribution.
Want pot legal and retain the black market? Legalize it and tax the
hell out of it.
King Solomon|5.17.09 @ 11:15PM|#
Of course through all this alcohol is legal, which was better when it was illegal.
</a|5.18.09 @ 12:06AM|#
Suki-troll | May 17, 2009, 11:26pm | #
I do excellent trolling!
No, MNG, your suck is full of teeth, drag and lack of
suction.
Go back and work on your Raymond Burr drag impersonator daddy.
zoltan|5.18.09 @ 1:34AM|#
Would I rather have police kicking in doors and shooting
innocent people or would I rather have the government regulate and
tax something (like they do with everything else already)? I like
to think purely, but to say the world should unfold that way is
nonsensical and illusory.
And guys, let's not get all your panties in a twist cause of yet
another troll. You'd think this was your first time at the
rodeo.
TallDave|5.18.09 @ 3:10AM|#
Absolutely brilliant Nick. I take back every bad thought I ever had about you.
|5.18.09 @ 9:39AM|#
I weep for the libertarian movement, that so many seriously argue that it is better for people to be jailed for smoking pot than they pay a tax on it.
|5.18.09 @ 9:41AM|#
I am still trying to get my brain around what was wrong with
FDR?
The destruction of the idea that the national government is one of
limited enumerated powers?
|5.18.09 @ 11:38AM|#
A system of regulated and taxed drugs might be better than
prohibition, just as socialized American healthcare might be better
than Cuban healthcare; but is the influence of libertarians best
spent arguing for the next worst option?
If we can help achieve a situation better than what we have today,
then our energies are well spent.
The choice we have at this point isn't between legal, untaxed and
unregulated pot and legal, taxed and regulated pot. Its between
illegal pot and legal, taxed and regulated pot. Insisting on the
impossible is a good way to make sure that the unconscionable
remains the status quo.
Until libertarians learn that progress is made incrementally in
this world, and stop stamping their feet and taking their marbles
home if they don't get everything they want this instant, then they
will continue to be irrelevant.
JD|5.18.09 @ 12:29PM|#
I'm afraid this question needs a little "reason.com" applied to it...
I think that's Drink!-worthy, no?
DJP|5.18.09 @ 1:05PM|#
Practical point for us libertarians:
It is interesting to put out the ideas of legalizing all drugs,
prostitution, and gambling. Over time, these ideas can gain more
and more support hopefully if logic beats out emotion.
However, at this point in time, great progress on marijuana
prohibition is actually possible for the first time ever. It would
be wise if we could pragmatically focus on helping the cause of
showing the absurdities of marijuana prohibition, before we focus
on legalized crack cocaine being sold at 7-11 (which doesn't have
much popular support).
There is a large population of people across the political spectrum
who believe that our marijuana laws are crazy, but who also think
that legal heroin would destroy our country.
And oh god, I just got an impulse to quote Obama's stolen
quotation, but it works here: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy
of the good."
|5.18.09 @ 1:44PM|#
I welcome the day when the house of representatives debates tax writeoffs for the Maryland whores. "Mr. Speaker, the unfair competition of cheap foreign hookers imperils our tubby bleach blonde bimbos - we must level the p(laying) field."
Happy Endings?|5.18.09 @ 5:06PM|#
Prostitution is already legal in Rhode Island, but they are
trying to change that this year.
It is the only state where it is legal state wide.
Check out my documentary on legal prostitution in the Asian massage
parlors in RI.
http://www.happyendingsdoc.com
John Tagliaferro|5.18.09 @ 10:13PM|#
Prostitution is already legal in Rhode Island, but they are
trying to change that this year.
It is the only state where it is legal state wide.
That state is neither that wide nor that long.
John Tagliaferro|5.18.09 @ 10:16PM|#
Zoltan,
like they do with everything else already
That is what some of us are trying to get rid of.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245