I don't think you understand the implications of your own position.
1) You started this thread mockingly saying Palin's beliefs were aligned with mine. She didn't advocate legalization at all, she just said that right now we have more important use of government funds than locking people up for a dime bag.
2) You agree with this completely. I would take a more hard-nosed stance and would say that we have more importnat use of government funds than locking people up for having any amount or using marijuana at all. Like GH2001 said, it should be taxed and regulated.
3) By even having the laizzes faire attitude that "It shouldn't be a huge priority right now", you are actually supporting the argument of legalization. By legalizing marijuana, the government is allowed to shift all of it's focus and efforts completely away from the failed drug war.
Chizad, I was at one time adamantly against legalizing pot; I'm still against using it. But, I think that it can be legalized in a way similar to the program that Portugal implemented which lead to the end result of lowering it's use and, in fact, discouraging it's use altogether by youth which is important in my opinion. The results of their program were vividly portrayed on a before/after chart. I think that it was really this chart (that Ogre had posted some time ago) that led to my reading into it and being convinced that it could be done.
I should state though that they did not de-criminalize it; it's still illegal to have more than a certain amount in your personal possession for your personal use; it's illegal to traffic in it (it's only 'legally' obtainable through the government and it's heavily taxed and, obviously, regulated). This latter part of their program differs from the libertarian ideals as I understand them and is probably where we are going to disagree.
A thoughtful program like this could indeed free up the police to deal with more pressing issues of crime on a local scale. In a Federal sense it could free up more resources to 'build the dang fence' and man it.
One point in posting this was perhaps to mock the libertarian position a little (not you personally) but, more importantly, demonstrate that Palin is probably not the Uber Conservative darling that she's been portrayed as by the Republican establishment elites...especially when it comes to this particular social issue. I was genuinely surprised at what she said. I did not know her position on this issue and, like many I'll warrant, assumed she was very hard lined.
Another point in posting this article, and I think that you might agree, is that the Republican candidates (and the Party establishment) are going to have to downplay the hard line positions on social issues at least in the near term. We do have bigger issues. That may mean that by default we need a laissez-faire attitude until the economy improves. It's counter-productive to waste any time on it right now unless The ONE wants to do something to generate some real tax revenue...which would really piss-off some of his supporters.
Maybe The ONE should nationalize the Pot industry.
25 Replies
4191 Views