Fortunately, when ‘Puter is wrong, we know he is right and merely employing satire. For ‘Puter cannot actually conclude that legalization of drugs like marijuana will solve more problems than it creates.

Drugs are not equivalent to tobacco and alcohol, regardless of how badly proponents need this analogy to work. Just because the latter two are legalized and taxed does not mean that drugs are inherently equal in application and marketing. Both tobacco and alcohol are strictly regulated, with stringent manufacturing guidelines to improve public safety. Cigarettes, while incredibly dangerous, are still safer today than they were 20 years ago; alcohol has specific distillation methods that are centuries old. In other words, lessons have been learned. If we legalize even one drug, such as marijuana, these safety-assured manufacturing processes are not yet in place and ready to go. A flood of low-quality, intensely toxic products will reach the initial market before controls can be determined. While we can shrug and say “That’s just too bad for the users,” the reality is that drugs endanger innocent lives. For example, we know how much alcohol tends to render a driver unsafe (.08% BAC), and we know that cigarettes have no effect on a car driver except probably mild skittishness. But how much THC can a driver ingest before he is a clear threat to other drivers? None of this is known, and this creates a false Hobson’s choice: we can’t learn until we legalize; we can’t legalize until we learn. But there is no dilemma here: simply continue to keep recreational drugs illegal and the problem is avoided wholesale.

Legalizing drugs in order to reduce violent crime is liberal fantasy. Although estimates say that one out of two crimes is committed because of currently illegal drugs, it is a specious argument to conclude that legalizing drugs will reduce crime by 50%. There are two reasons for this. One is simply practical: under nearly all drug legalization schemes, the most dangerous drugs would remain illegal (such as crack or meth). Guess which users contribute to the most violent crimes? That’s right: those guys. On the other hand, marijuana users, and to a great extent cocaine users, tend not to be involved in violent crimes. The only crimes that would be reduced would be non-violent possession. Remember: selling legalized drugs would require a license, as such is required for alcohol and tobacco. So the kid on the corner arrested for selling a bag of weed? Still going to jail. The second reason violent crimes will remain high is that certain drugs promote violent behavior. Your tweaker will not become passive because someone else’s booger sugar is now legal. There is a third argument that with greater access to drugs, crimes could actually increase as people lose control. The Czar believes this is a bit of a stretch, because those violence-inducing drugs would likely not be legalized ever. But he agrees with the common sense realization that violent crimes related to drugs will not decrease in any way. Especially to the victims.

Taxing legalized drugs does not guarantee revenue. Just as there is a brisk trade in illegal cigarettes and alcohol, there will be illegal trade in otherwise legal drugs. Millions of dollars are spent by law enforcement trying to suppress drug use. If we legalize one, two, many, or most drugs, millions of dollars will be spent ensuring taxation is collected on the legalized ones while continuing to suppress the remainder. You save no money by legalizing them.

But there is an argument that by legalizing drugs, you lower drug prices. While this screws up the taxation model (you collect less tax if prices dip), the economics here make no sense. Drug prices are high today because supply is smaller than demand. Supply is small because the drugs are illegal. Legalize drugs, and supply increases…but so does demand. Demand for drugs will always stay ahead of supply, as it is with cigarettes and alcohol, so prices remain inflated. But if supply is high, and prices are high, doesn’t that produce the needed tax revenue, assuming taxes are treated as a sales tax? Yes, but this poses two problems: one for marijuana—which unlike tobacco or alchohol—is super-simple to grow at home and one for cocaine—which is effectively impossible to make at home and therefore a black market condition will follow (which is exactly what occurred in the US back in the day when cocaine was legal). Both problems result in the same solution: revenuers need to crack down on either illegal manufacture or the illegal distribution of legal drugs. Marijuana, however, might be legal to grow at home (as it is legal to make certain types of alcohol at home) provided the product is not sold or distributed. Of course, the government makes no money off this, so again we conclude that taxation of these drugs winds up in only a trickle of revenue for the government.

There finally exists the argument of moral surrender. Yeah, we spend a lot of money trying to control drugs. Yeah, they still get through. Yeah, lots of money exchanged hands for drugs that could go to better causes. So we should just give up? It’s too hard?

The idea of a “use on premises” option for harder drugs is without precedent. Like many a liberal solution, it is quick to compensate for the concern but lacks details about how it can be safely and fairly implemented. Sounds good, but how do you do it? Even Amsterdam, which GorT points out has suffered from its short-sighted liberalism, retained enough dude-sense to draw a line here. As for government-licensed facilities, the ‘Puter satirically acknowledges that the government will be inserted into users’s private lives, and gets to spend millions deciding on what regulations to implement, what products can or cannot be sold, what flavors or varieties can be marketed, and all the things they currently do with alcohol and cigarettes.

Perhaps it is the growth of government control in exchange for letting folks do whatever they want to themselves that makes conservatives fear legalization of drugs, and not hypocrisy.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.