"Caulkins said one of the main reasons for outlawing the drug is to make it riskier to produce and sell, driving up prices and curbing use. A price collapse after legalization in some states could undermine marijuana laws nationally." OK, Mr. Caulkins, professor at Carnegie Mellon, aren't there ways to create the laws so this doesn't happen? Legalize marijuana and stipulate that there will be price restrictions or something?
Further down in the article: "One option would be to impose strict limits on how much of the drug retailers could sell to each customer." Bam. There you go. Actually, I know dispensaries in Colorado are not allowed to sell more than 2 ounces per day to a certain customer. Unfortunately that does mean that the customer can go to another dispensary and buy 2 more ounces that day, because there is nothing linking the dispensaries together to see if they have bought anything at other dispensaries. (Maybe someone should make a database that all dispensaries have access to...)
The article goes on to say, "Caulkins said Colorado’s proposition would allow residents to obtain a grower’s license fairly easily, making the state a good home for exporters of marijuana.
'They would be able to provide marijuana to New York state markets at one quarter of the current price,' he said, predicting similar price declines in other states."
If we were to compare pot to alcohol...Technically, you are not allowed to buy alcohol and take it to another state, according to this BBC article - I imagine you have to be some sort of "exporter" in order to distribute your brand nationally or something. I know the laws about alcohol are determined by each state, not by the federal government. (Another reason I wonder why the United States is called "United" if the states just do whatever they want.) And maybe it depends on which state you're in, maybe some states allow you to take alcohol out, and some don't.
I digress.
If they make the federal laws from the beginning that you are not allowed to "export" marijuana from state to state, then that solves that problem. I don't see why that wouldn't be an option. When Congress passes a law, they can write whatever they want in it, so why doesn't that get added?
Then you get the question about regulation. The Republicans are all about small government (yet they want to control what you put in your body and what you do with your body...hmmm...), and the Democrats don't seem to mind a little regulation. Alcohol is regulated, as I explained above. You can't take alcohol from Delaware into Pennsylvania? You can't drink unless you're 21? Bars have to close by a certain time at night? You can't sell liquor on Sunday in some states? Etc. etc. That's regulation. So, regulate marijuana. Doesn't seem that hard to me. Eliminate the middle man (and eliminate the "gateway drug" theory, which really only happens when people get pot from a dealer who then introduces them to harder drugs - you don't get that in a dispensary; I should know, I used to work in one), regulate how it's distributed and who can purchase it, and that's that.
In case you can't tell, I'm in favour of legalization. I think it's ridiculous that it is not regulated for adult use. And I think it will be legalized, and soon. Probably in my lifetime. Because things are changing so rapidly. More and more states are adopting medical marijuana laws. More and more people are coming out saying they are in favour of it. Alcohol was made legal again first by prescribing it medicinally. Now we know that alcohol is damaging to our system, and we wouldn't prescribe it medically. Yet we don't have much evidence saying marijuana is damaging (except that smoking it is not a good idea). So if it's safe for your body, why not have it legal? Education is a must, of course. Kids need to learn to use it responsibly, just like with alcohol.
I see no problem with it at all, and many people would back me up.
The government is supposed to represent the people, and let the people decide what they want. Over half of Americans polled are in favour of legalizing marijuana. Doesn't that say something? Shouldn't the government be listening to what the people want?
Oh wait. I forgot. They don't care. The people don't want poverty, but we still have it. The people don't want minimum wage to be so low, but it still is. Etc. etc.
I guess all we can do is hope, and talk, engage in dialogue about these things, write our Congressmen (and women!), and vote. That's probably the most important thing: VOTE.
Jack Draco | 01 August, 2012 20:01
Firstly, about the database that dispensaries can access: there's a lot of resistance to this from the end user, as there is fear that it would be used to target users and that it would be made accessible to potential employers.
Secondly, as far as taking alcohol across state lines: that would be under Federal jurisdiction because it's interstate commerce. As long as marijuana possession remains a federal offense it would be illegal to transport it across state lines even if every state in the transfer has it legalized.
Thirdly, as far as Republicans being for small government: They're not actually for small government, they're for a small federal government and a highly-restrictive proto-fascist State-level government. This is why the Libertarian Party won't give Ron Paul support anymore even though he openly preaches their doctrine and claims to be Libertarian. They recognize from his voting history and speech record that he's perfectly fine with government being in every aspect of everybody's lives as long as it's State level and not federal level government.