We just haven’t seen real legalization yet
By Thoreau
On Friday I was talking to somebody about drug legalization, and he said that medical marijuana will provide a test of my hypothesis that legalization hurts criminal organization and helps alleviate some of the worst aspects of the drug trade. His rationale was that since lots of people who aren’t AIDS or cancer patients are nonetheless finding ways to get weed for ostensibly “medical” reasons, this will amount to de facto legalization of recreational use.
I’m not sure I agree. At the risk of sounding like the people who said “Oh, we just haven’t seen Real Communism”, a lot of the medicinal weed market is still in a legal gray area. Prescriptions for dubious “treatment” purposes, sellers making profits in violation of the law, suppliers who may be operating in black markets as well as legal markets, and a number of other factors all make this a gray market rather than an open, lawful market. Indeed, a recent profile on marijuana growers in northern California suggests that there’s still a lot of shadiness around medical cultivation.
I’m well aware that even the legalized tobacco industry is not all rainbows and puppies, and I’m well aware that some people’s vision of legalization involves local organic growers rather than the agribusiness of Big Tobacco, but the current medical cultivation industry is far from either model. It’s far from any model of full legalization, and that point needs to be made lest people think problems in the experiment in medicinal cultivation can serve as sufficient evidence against full legalization.
At the risk of sounding like the worst sort of libertarian, I’d be willing to settle for a legalization model that involved Big Agribusiness. For all of the problems with Big Business, Big Alcohol was sufficient to get Al Capone out of the liquor trade. It was unfortunate that it took several decades to open the market up to local microbrews and whatnot, but at least the initial steps got the gangsters out of it. And for all of the flaws of Big Business, something Big and Centralized and ostensibly inspected* would probably assure a nervous public more than a situation where “OMG, anyone could be growing the stuff and you’d never know who!” I suspect that that’s the sort of fear a lot of people will have, and if assuaging that fear gets the gangsters out of it, so be it.
*I’m well aware that Big Business is not terribly well regulated, but the public clings to the illusion that if it’s all centralized and in one place then it must be under some sort of control.
Comment by dhex —
November 2, 2009 @ 11:03 am
it seems somewhat obvious that having an illegal supply line for a semi-legal business isn’t going to help the issues surrounding the illegal supply line.
Comment by RFWoodstock —
November 2, 2009 @ 11:12 am
Valid medicinal value, it’s a victimless crime, the War on Drugs WAY too costly, too many arrests for simple possession, tax it and use the money to pay for health insurance and to reduce the deficit…Need I say more?
Woodstock Universe supports legalization of Marijuana.
Add vote in our poll about legalization at http://www.woodstockuniverse.com.
Current poll results…96% for legalization, 4% against.
Listen to RADIO WOODSTOCK 69 which features only music from the original Woodstock era (1967-1971) and RADIO WOODSTOCK with music from the original Woodstock era to today’s artists who reflect the spirit of Woodstock. Watch Woodstock TV.
Peace, love, music, one world,
RFWoodstock
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 2, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
Wow, that’s downright…relevant spam.
Anyone else vaguely worried that the job of posting those sorts of things is going to get more mainstream and accepted as time goes by?
Comment by All Your Summer Songs —
November 2, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Hey. What’s this business of dubious medical reasons for smoking weed? Even Snoop Dogg tokes to combat his colitis.
(Really, there’s no other explanation for how he remains so thin, while smoking so much (with the resulting munchies).)
(FACT: Snoop Dogg is 7% Andy Capp’s Cheddar Fries.)
Comment by Joe S. —
November 2, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
I don’t mind Big Bidness selling dope. My problem is with Big Bidness marketing dope. But fortunately, there is a simple way around this one: no trademark. Any trademark used on marijuana enters the public domain immediately. No trademark: no advertising. Why bother to advertise that Holy Stoner dope makes you slim and sexy if some other bozo can slap the Holy Stoner label on their stuff?
This will take you back to a 19th century market in dope: reliant on personal trust. (Okay, you can regulate adulterants and poisons.) Might not be a bad idea for other products beside dope.
Comment by dhex —
November 3, 2009 @ 12:09 am
I don’t mind Big Bidness selling dope. My problem is with Big Bidness marketing dope.
why?
besides, the easy end around that kind of rule is “marijuana by marlboro”.
Comment by mpowell —
November 4, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
6: I think you are not understanding. You’d never see “marijuana by marlboro” because that would put the marlboro name in the public domain. All in all, that’s a pretty solid idea, but probably also pretty unrealistic. I’d be willing to just go whole hog on the idea and turn it all over to Agribusiness like Thoreau and I’m not even a libertarian.
Comment by dhex —
November 6, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
“You’d never see “marijuana by marlboro” because that would put the marlboro name in the public domain.”
not unless all ad and marketing copy that mentions any noun in common usage commits automatic trademark degradation. which, at least as far as i know, it doesn’t.