To Market, To Market
Writing about the DEA’s selective enforcement efforts against California’s medical marijuana providers, Steven Taylor includes a paranthetical
(Although clearly from the story, some of these folks aren’t just in it for the altruism of it all).
His point is apparently that some of the “larger providers,” the ones DEA is targeting, are trying to make a buck. To which arch-capitalist me responds, So? The basic tenet of not just libertarianism but of economics since Adam Smith is that markets harness self-interest to productive purposes. That’s why grocery stores and drug companies and construction companies want money in exchange for food, shelter and medicine. More importantly, it’s why grocery stores provide more food to the public than I do; why construction companies build more housing than Steven Taylor does, and why drug companies produce more pharmaceuticals than my daughter’s brownie troop: there’s money in it for them. There are people who provide food, shelter and medicine for free. We call that charity, and it’s a worthy supplement to market activity, but that’s what it is, a supplement.
If medical marijuana satisfies a need or desire, it makes sense that some people will do such an effective job satisfying it that others are willing to pay them to do so, and that some people who want to make money will do so by filling that particular function. And the premise of California law is that medical marijuana is a social good, like food, shelter and medicine.
Comment by Jennifer —
January 1, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Steven Taylor’s blog has lots of ads on it. I wonder how much money he makes from them? Clearly, he’s not just in it for the altruism of it all.
Comment by matthew hogan —
January 1, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
The fact this has to be explained to intelligent people more than once is the reason I despair of it all.
Comment by Steven Taylor —
January 1, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Jim: I think you are overly-focusing on one parenthetical and ignoring the rest of what I wrote, especially the last paragraph. Indeed, I have written numerous posts that have questioned, if not denounced, the drug war and especially the focus on marijuana. I think that you are focusing too much of your frustration on the current policies at me.
(For examples of my Drug War posts go here)
Perhaps I should I have been explicit: I am for the legalization of marijuana. I see no point in its continued prohibition.
My reference, which was oblique (I tend to assume that people will read the articles to which I link), was to the fellow who made the rap video in which he was surrounded by hundred dollar bills–his behavior could be said to be at odds with the California law. The purpose of the current legal regime is fairly explicitly not creating a free market. Under the law one is supposed to be only “fairly” compensated (which is quite vague, I grant), but one is not supposed to be in it for profit, per se. (Mr. Scarmazzo does appear to be violating the spirit of the current CA law).
If one read my entire post (and numerous others on this topic) one would get a better sense of my position. The point of my final paragraph is that we ought to be questioning the entire idea that marijuana prohibition creates a substantial public good.
So, Matthew needn’t despair and Jennifer needn’t worry about my capitalist bona fides–although I will be unlikely to be making rap videos based on my profits.
Comment by Jennifer —
January 1, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
Jennifer needn’t worry about my capitalist bona fides
I’m not. I hope you make lots of money off your blog. I hope I make lots of money off my blog. I wish everybody here would visit my blog and click on ads at random; so far I’m not making any money because on my site, which discusses topics like libertarianism and atheism and why reason is better than faith, for some reason all of the ads are for things like “Why God loves you” and “How faith can cure your illness” and “You really need to accept Jesus.”
Your capitalist bona fides are in fine shape. It’s mine that I’m worried about.
Comment by Steven Taylor —
January 1, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
For those who don’t want to go back to the LAT piece, here are the relevant bits.
In regards to current CA law on the subject:
And in regards to Scarmazzo:
Now, that we might all prefer that Mr. S be allowed to conduct his business is one thing, but the point of the article and my post was in the context of the current laws.
And clearly the DEA is not just going after persons like Scarmazzo, however, but rather also persons being less ostentatious, shall we say.
Comment by Fledermaus —
January 1, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
I rejoice that Commrad Taylor has finally seen that light and notices that those who control the means of production oppress the proletariat. I look forward to further posts on how the corporations and business executives are not donating their profits to the state in the spirit of goodwill but rather selfishly using them to further their own living style.
Viva revolution!
Comment by Alex from Inactivist —
January 1, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Those of us who oppose the insane drug war should not be forming circular firing squads.
Trackback by Matthew Hogan —
January 1, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Pithing on the Profit Motives: Markets and Incentives…
The ever-quotable Jim Henley makes a nice pithy explanation on the inherent values of the profit mobive. That the common sense advantages of free market econoomics, and the basics of the incentives they give, need to be restated for intelligent……
Comment by matthew hogan —
January 1, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
Darn those trackbacks for nailing me before the dyslexia removal-edits.
Comment by John Emerson —
January 2, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Someone I know very well is a drug-alcohol counselor. She deals with the very hard cases with felonies, repeated DUIs, lost jobs, etc. She wishes she could recommend marijuana for some of her clients, but to the group she works for marijuana is as bad as anything else.