I'm not discussing if we should or not. That's an entirely different question altogether, and one that I don't believe that I am qualified enough to speak to. I just don't know enough about pot. I haven't done it myself, and there are few trustworthy sources of information. So I don't know what we stand to gain from such a move, but I am aware of a number of the problems that will have to be faced.
The first is the creation of a legal pot industry. There are some legal sources (under state law, but not legal under Federal law), distribution networks, and dispensaries. The problem is that they just aren't anywhere near as well developed as they have to be in order to face off against the illegal networks. Illegal networks won't just magically become legal and the industry required to function will not just poof into being. There is no Pabst, Schlitz, Bush, Coors, and Yuengling waiting in the wings to restart production. These companies will have to grow into existence. The question I ask is how they can, especially considered that they will be heavily regulated by forces who are unhappy with the existence of any legal pot at all.
Which brings me to the next bit. Illegal pot isn't going away. It will never go away, just as moonshine has never gone away. We STILL have a serious moonshine problem in this some eighty years after the end of prohibition. Alcohol is no long illegal, but it has shifted to a grey market good one that isn't illegal in and of itself but becomes illegal because they don't pay taxes or violate other regulations. We have a problem with moonshine, with cigarette smuggling, and all manner of counterfeit good. Pot would move into this category, and if pot is taxed and regulated then you'd end up with less safe but cheaper alternative that people will take. And that's assuming that he criminal organizations roll over and play dead, all you need is a little racketeering or raids on legitimate dispensaries and you wind up with a fledgling industry on life support and criminals holding it hostage as a shield against law enforcement. This is one area where a legal industry must come to dominate immediately and without scandal to keep it from merely putting a "legitimate businessman" face on organized crime.
Now, let's assume that we have a strong industry that quickly grows into being and smashes their illegal competitors with their capitalistic might, how about that regulation? Business requires a stable legal environment. This has been demonstrated to be true constantly throughout the history of the world, when laws constantly change businesses suffer and fail. Where laws remain consistent they tend to do well. Generalization? Definitely, but an accurate one. Can we have the political will to ensure that neither the proponents of legalized pot don't constantly change enforcement policy to meaninglessness or those who oppose the drug from moral grounds from ratcheting up rules and restrictions that don't hold up in court? After all, that constant back and forth will weaken the industry and creates openings for less than legal alternatives.
But ultimately, we cannot know what rules and regulations are most effective, because most research has been tainted by bias. Neither side is innocent of this. Pot had nothing to do with any car accidents? That's a farce. If peanut butter, raspberries, and milk interact with drugs, then pot HAS TO interact with something. RASPBERRIES. Think about that for just a second. By the same token, all you have to do is watch "Reefer Fever" for ten minutes to get a flavor with what we are dealing with on the other side. Almost a century of misinformation and muddying the issue is what we have to deal with here. I, for one, need that research to be accurate before I can really answer most of these questions. How can anyone craft simple, effective rules if we aren't absolutely certain about what it is and how it works?
Once again, people are smart. We can figure this out, hit these problems hard and make this happen with a minimum of fuss and pain. Now, if only we can figure out if we should. I'm going to sit in my corner and politely oppose legalization at least until I see a plan that addresses these concerns, and even then I don't rightly know if I should back it.
No comments:
Post a Comment