search
top

More Mexico Hearings

In addition to the hearings this past Tuesday, last week there was also a hearing in two house subcomittees on the Mexico issue, which NRA participated in.

I’ll be honest, it seems like an awful lot of trouble just to keep hippies and glaucoma sufferers from smoking weed.

6 Responses to “More Mexico Hearings”

  1. If it was just aging hippies and people with glaucoma, there wouldn’t be much concern about marijuana. (That’s not the only drug crossing the border.) The concern is that a lot of kids are getting involved with marijuana–and there’s a 40% correlation between marijuana use and later psychosis. Now, that doesn’t mean that every pot smoker will go crazy–we’re talking about an increase from about 1% to about 1.4% of the population developing what usually becomes a permanent disability–but it isn’t trivial, especially if you know someone that ends up in the 0.4% increase.

  2. Carl in Chicago says:

    But Clayton, criminalization does not seem to be stemming marijuana use or availability. Clearly, there may be risks of using currently-illegal narcotics. There are risks of using currently-legal alcohol and tobacco as well. But the cost of prohibition of alcohol was enormous, as is the cost of prohibition of narcotics. What’s more, I am not convinced that prohibition is more effective at reducing use than is education. I greatly prefer individual choices made by educated people who are also required to pay for the consequences of their actions (whether that be after-the-fact, or before-the-fact via taxation). Cigarettes cost “society” a great deal in terms of health care costs, etc., but it is far and away made up for by the taxes smokers pay.

    Why not a ten-year experimental legalization of marijuana? It would be a good testing-ground to provide data on the potential future legalization of other narcotics.

    Note that in principle I support the legalization of all currently-banned narcotics. And that is even after having people I know and care about totally ruin their lives (or temporarily so, at the least) on things like methamphetemene. But again … I don’t think it’s my role, or the government’s role, to forcibly save stupid people from themselves. It is my responsiblity to be responsible for myself, and to educate those around me to be responsible.

  3. Sebastian says:

    I wouldn’t favor legalization for kids. There’s the argument legalization for adults would increase availability for kids, but I think it’ll be highly available whether it’s contraband or not.

  4. Carl in Chicago says:

    Sebastian:

    I too don’t favor legalization for kids, as I don’t support alcohol or tobacco being available for kids, either. I hope you didn’t gather otherwise from my earlier post.

    But I stand amazed, as usual, at the way those on either ends of the political spectrum selectivly support or oppose various prohibitory schemes.

  5. malco says:

    I think most reasonable people agree that drugs are unhealthy. But so is the war on drugs. Please read “Down By the River,” by the unbelievably ballsy Charles Bowden–if the disaster of prohibition isn’t already obvious, it will be by the end of the book.
    And not to name anyone directly, but I find it pretty demoralizing that a self-described libertarian can support a drug policy made up of equal parts nanny state and police state.
    Meanwhile, American farmers are unable to grow non-psychoactive industrial hemp because a damned weed is against the law to possess. Jefferson and Washington would disinherit us as fools.

  6. Sevesteen says:

    Legalization to adults only might make it harder for kids to get–If you have a legal market, will there be enough profit in the illegal market to risk jail? I knew where to get pot in junior high. Beer was harder.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » The Mexican Canard - [...] into Mexico from the United States. We gun nuts have been saying that for years. More testimony here. The…
top