I'd be okay with letting people grow and use their own marijuana, but I doubt it'd have much impact on arrests.
Laws on public intox, DUI, and selling to and possession by minors will still be in effect so there will still be lots of dopers in jail just for things other than possession. Potheads mostly get arrested for possession when stopped and the cops smell weed coming from their car - well, driving high'll still be illegal.
BTW public intox and DUI laws would need to be updated to define how much THC makes you under the influence. We've defined it for alcohol and we'd need to for pot too if posession is going to be legal.
Alcohol is legal, but people still get arrested for alcohol related offenses. It also probably fuels a majority of domestic violence and domestic disturbance calls. I notice the crime notices in a local paper seem to involve a lot of stuff that happens on weekend nights around bars on FM1960 near here. I'll bet a big percentage of local law enforcements efforts go to dealing with drunks even with alcohol being legal.
I'm not okay with legalizing more dangerous drugs and that shootout in that article almost certainly wasn't over weed. Even if their drug were legalized those dealers would be illegal bootleggers most likely.
Legalizing meth and crack etc would mean the use would be higher and more people would become addicted and use till they fell apart. Even if legalized, home cooked crack and meth would probably violate FDA regulations. Its all cooked up by criminals now using all kinds of toxic chemicals and with the products being adulterated or cut with all kinds of crap. This bootleg meth and crack would doubtless still be illegal. Legal makers with professionally controlled and publicly inspected and certified manufacturing facilities would move into the market as the legal suppliers and they'd have an incentive to advertise and get as many hooked as possible.
We already have enough destructive stuff in our society, why do something that will make more? Also, I doubt the savings on law enforcement would be as great as people think. I don't think most crackheads or methheads are going to be productive working members of society even if their addictions become legal. Would you hire one? So they're still gonna be stealing.
I find this pretty persuasive:
Legalizing drugs in order to reduce violent crime is liberal fantasy. Although estimates say that one out of two crimes is committed because of currently illegal drugs, it is a specious argument to conclude that legalizing drugs will reduce crime by 50%. There are two reasons for this. One is simply practical: under nearly all drug legalization schemes, the most dangerous drugs would remain illegal (such as crack or meth). Guess which users contribute to the most violent crimes? That’s right: those guys. On the other hand, marijuana users, and to a great extent cocaine users, tend not to be involved in violent crimes. The only crimes that would be reduced would be non-violent possession. Remember: selling legalized drugs would require a license, as such is required for alcohol and tobacco. So the kid on the corner arrested for selling a bag of weed? Still going to jail. The second reason violent crimes will remain high is that certain drugs promote violent behavior. Your tweaker will not become passive because someone else’s booger sugar is now legal. There is a third argument that with greater access to drugs, crimes could actually increase as people lose control. The Czar believes this is a bit of a stretch, because those violence-inducing drugs would likely not be legalized ever. But he agrees with the common sense realization that violent crimes related to drugs will not decrease in any way. Especially to the victims.
Taxing legalized drugs does not guarantee revenue. Just as there is a brisk trade in illegal cigarettes and alcohol, there will be illegal trade in otherwise legal drugs. Millions of dollars are spent by law enforcement trying to suppress drug use. If we legalize one, two, many, or most drugs, millions of dollars will be spent ensuring taxation is collected on the legalized ones while continuing to suppress the remainder. You save no money by legalizing them.
But there is an argument that by legalizing drugs, you lower drug prices. While this screws up the taxation model (you collect less tax if prices dip), the economics here make no sense. Drug prices are high today because supply is smaller than demand. Supply is small because the drugs are illegal. Legalize drugs, and supply increases...but so does demand. Demand for drugs will always stay ahead of supply, as it is with cigarettes and alcohol, so prices remain inflated. But if supply is high, and prices are high, doesn’t that produce the needed tax revenue, assuming taxes are treated as a sales tax? Yes, but this poses two problems: one for marijuana—which unlike tobacco or alchohol—is super-simple to grow at home and one for cocaine—which is effectively impossible to make at home and therefore a black market condition will follow (which is exactly what occurred in the US back in the day when cocaine was legal). Both problems result in the same solution: revenuers need to crack down on either illegal manufacture or the illegal distribution of legal drugs. Marijuana, however, might be legal to grow at home (as it is legal to make certain types of alcohol at home) provided the product is not sold or distributed. Of course, the government makes no money off this, so again we conclude that taxation of these drugs winds up in only a trickle of revenue for the government.
........
gormogons.com
One argument in favor of legalizing homegrown marijuana I find hopeful is it might cause people to substitute weed for harder drugs and maybe even alcohol. And potheads might cause fewer domestic violence calls, bar fights, etc.
JMO |
