Before I get into my arguments about why Canada should legalize marijuana, I want to be clear: drugs are bad for you. Even marijuana. The long term adverse effects of marijuana use are only now becoming clear and they’re nasty –the list ranges from schizophrenia to respiratory issues, and it expands every year. You only need to have one friend who got heavy into smoking weed during university to see how it destroys initiative and makes otherwise ambitious, hardworking people into lazier, less interesting versions of themselves.
I am not a drug user. I have a strong moral conviction, however, that the Canadian federal government should legalize marijuana possession and tax its trafficking. I discussed the matter last week with Young and Thrifty in the comments on my ironic stock picks post. It is obscene that hundreds of thousands of otherwise decent Canadians have been needlessly given a criminal record for carrying around a few grams of pot.
The current Conservative government seems unlikely to enact such a law. In fact, they introduced a more regressive anti-pot law in 2009. I debated with MP Dean Del Mastro (who I’ve generally supported) about the issue of decriminalization. He said something like “drugs are dangerous so they should be illegal”. My response was very Nelson-like; along the lines of ”Well why don’t you ban alcohol? That kills more people than all the illegal drugs combined.”
The reason alcohol is not banned is because Canada and the US tried prohibition (at different times) and failed miserably, just like the current prohibition on marijuana has failed miserably. During prohibition there was still demand for liquor; this demand was just pushed into being filled in back-alleys and illegal speakeasies where criminals could prey upon users. Whenever a big bust happened, prices went up — incentivizing entry of liquor into that particular market. (Yep, authorities used to do huge photo ops with the seized illicit substances laid out for cameras. Not that they do it anymore.) Prohibition made the risky venture of bootlegging into a more worthwhile, attractive enterprise; criminalization in effect subsidized cartels. The same is true today of marijuana.
In fact, as Derek of Free-at-33 attests, criminalization creates an even more evil phenomenon: drug pushers. These folks work actively to create new demand, often through illegal and violent means. High prices, created by criminalization, encourages this sort of aggressive marketing. Every new junkie is a gold mine. Going back to our prohibition example: the subsidy for cartels that results from criminalization is so massive that, even after prohibition ended, liquor kingpins made massive donations to temperance unions to help pass local- and state-level prohibition laws.
The disputes of drug dealers and criminal organizations can’t be settled at law, so they’re decided with blood. Wouldn’t it be better to see huge marijuana marketers suing each other in court than brutal shootings in the streets? Further, at the consumer level, the high prices created by prohibition also lead to desperation among junkies (admittedly I’m not talking about marijuana anymore). It’s not rare to hear about desperate addicts committing atrocious crimes just to get to their next high. It may seem unbelievable but the much lower prices of legally-delivered drugs would surely prevent a lot of violence.
Jailing drug traffickers is probably one of the most fundamentally socialist policy decisions that a government could make. Jails — even according to most Libertarians — should be funded by the government (although private companies could do a better job of operating them). So when somebody gets sent to jail for a crime, there’d better be a damn good reason that tax payers will be forced to foot the bill. If the crime is merely drug consumption, where the crime only hurt the user, why in the world should I be forced to pay for the user’s interment?
Pot should be legalized and taxed. Not because we’re missing out on billions in potential revenue, although we are. We should tax it because taxes (Pigovian taxes, specifically) are better than regulations. Rather than banning a behaviour (which creates the aforementioned market space for cartel entry) such taxes affect incentives. If the behaviour is bad, e.g. smoking, you add a tax to it. If the behaviour is good then you subsidize it. Pigovian taxes, when optimally applied, force a person to internalize the costs of his or her own actions. Like road tolls with congestion rates.
A move to legalize marijuana would be an ideal armistice to stop a key front in the drug war. Such a law would beat wasting billions on armed, government-backed tyrants who violate our liberties to protect… um… who do they really protect? Let’s think about that. Drug users and dealers get thrown in jail. The average citizen is only at risk when violence spills onto the streets or when a junkie mugs a person to buy drugs — situations that, as we established, are needless. Criminal organizations, that come into existence and profitability by virtue of prohibition, seem to be the only stakeholder protected by all of this ‘security’ spending.
Yet we continue to pay for a war on drugs that subsidizes cartels, locks up low-level criminals for the most expensive possible holidays, and ignores a massive source of potential revenue. The Canadian Conservative Party dons the garb of “fiscal conservatism” while spending like socialists. And if you don’t believe me, listen to Thomas Sowell.
Hard to get worked up about this. Anyone who actually smokes marijuana seems to be able to do so without retribution these days. And I would question concerns about the distribution network – I don’t know first hand but I do know there’s a lot of what looks to be personal use/local only stuff sitting in pots here and there. If you’re outside enough, as I am, you’re bound to run into a plant or two that someone’s tucked into a corner of a bush.
I know some of my neighbours’ smoke pot. And I also know some of my neighbour’s teenagers smoke pot. It’s everywhere. And nobody seems too concerned about getting busted. I routinely run into people through my work that smoke marijuana, but I don’t recall anyone ever getting busted for it.
Heck even with life insurance if you’re engaging in criminal activity you’re going to have a tough time getting life insurance – unless it’s smoking marijuana. Then the companies only charge you smoking rates:
http://www.moneyville.ca/blog/post/1269115–pot-smokers-pay-double-for-life-insurance
Good argument, Joe. Although I’ve never heard of anyone getting mugged by a weed junkie (maybe for their Doritos?). I think junkie status is reserved for heroin and crack users.
lol yes, of course not. As I said, I wasn’t really talking about marijuana anymore; I kind of tipped my hand as to my beliefs (i.e. that all drugs should be decriminalized and that government-imposed prohibition creates more misery than it prevents). But pot is a very low-hanging fruit insofar as a majority of Canadians already think it should be decriminalized. Actually, even a majority of Americans now believe it should be decriminalized albeit by a smaller margin.
Nice post Joe! As you know, I don’t smoke pot either, but I do agree it should be legalized for all the same reasons you pointed out above. Though it does have a negative effect of lifestyle for sure (an apparently health… hadn’t heard that before but it makes sense!) it’s no more dangerous than alcohol. In fact, it’s less dangerous considering that withdrawal for an alcoholic (much like a heroin addict) can be lethal.
If you are interested in this subject I’d recommend the book Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market by Eric Schlosser. It is focussed on the US, but I found it a really interesting read. Some of the case studies regarding marijuana-related crimes will blow your mind.
Amen! I’ve never been able to find someone who can explain why cigarettes and alcohol should be legal but marijuana should be illegal. Is anyone up to the challenge here?
AFAIK, no country has outright decriminalized all drugs. While it’s hard to say with a straight face, deep down I think I believe this would result in a better overall society than a war on drugs society for some of the reasons you mention above. But I don’t see it happening, ever (“Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children!”)
What will be amusing to see is once marijuana becomes legalized, which I think it will, is that right wingers who were so against it becoming legal will now be up in arms about provincial government pot monopolies, and want it sold in corner stores…which…the cross marketing possibilities are fascinating…
It is a ridiculously paternalistic (and thus hypocritical) position for any true “Conservative” to hold that the government should be outright banning a recreational substance and needlessly criminalizing a bunch of people while ignoring a much more efficient mechanism for protecting people.
If Father Government really wants to have a role beyond regulation, then Ontario should sell it exclusively through the LCBO. Money in the BANK.
You allude to my spouse’s biggest beef with drugs – they fund criminal activity. Cutting out some major revenue sources for gangs and groups like the angels would be another large plus, in my opinion.
My reservation is regarding testing and the ability to determine if someone is currently high or was high in the past. No high driving!
It is absolutely possible to enforce a “drugged driving” law and Canada has one on the books http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?Language=e&ls=C2&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2&source=library_prb#part3 — in fact it gives police more powers to be able to ascertain whether a person is high behind the wheel. So worry not, Anne!
The laws exist, yes. However, as far as I am aware, there are still no drug tests which can determine whether or not someone is currently under the influence of marijuana. It is absolutely possible to test whether or not someone has taken it and has it in their system, but not whether or not they are currently high. It’s one part of the Suncor union drug testing policy court challenge that will be heard by the Supreme Court.
I didn’t know that, fascinating. Notably, of course, drug tests have been known to give false positives (e.g. poppy seed bagels could result in a positive test for opiates — I saw that on MythBusters) and mouth wash can make you blow a positive for being over the limit.
Yep. One of the outcomes of Prohibition in the USA was that it enriched criminal organizations far beyond their wildest dreams. IMO, it’s not an accident that the American Mafia organized into its modern form during the 20s and 30s; they had so much money that they decided to figure out ways to divide it up. Criminal organizations were so wealthy that they were cooperating!!!
For sure. If your product is illegal, what’s to stop you from engaging in otherwise illegal activities like collusion? In a Black Market, it’s likely far easier for dominant players to act like a collective monopolist (hence “cartel” lol).
I’d be for it, except for the second and third hand smoke. Cigarettes are bad enough for that, people constantly smoke in areas where is illegal, I don’t want pot smoke added to that!
In life, your right to swing your arm ends where your neighbour’s nose begins. I think that with second hand smoke (no idea what third hand smoke is), such reasonable limits (e.g. not within a specific distance of a doorway, not on the property of public institutions, etc.) should not only apply but should be enforced. The law versus enforcement of the law debate is something brought up earlier. I don’t think it bespeaks a poor law, but lazy / lax regulation. If we eliminated the unjust, paternalistic, pandering laws, e.g. prohibition, we could focus on the more reasonable laws geared at actual harm prevention.
I’m guessing third hand smoke refers to babies in utero, but I could be wrong. Either way, I agree on second hand smoke (awful), and that includes pot. I wish the no smoking rules in public places were being enforced more rigorously.