Even if we take into account that the person who did the report is for marijuana legalization, his conclusion that pot is now the nation's biggest cash crop is probably true, and I notice that the government official quoted doesn't dispute it. What is challenged by the government is this:
A 2005 analysis by Harvard visiting professor Jeffrey Miron estimates that if the United States legalized marijuana, the country would save $7.7 billion in law enforcement costs and could generated as much as $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like alcohol or tobacco.
The same argument could obviously be made about any human behavior, and the government buys it in some cases (gambling) and mostly doesn't in others (prostitution, for example). I'm not entering into that particular rhetorical thicket, but I bring it all up as an excuse to make a couple of points about the law from a libertarian perspective.
1. Outputs are more important than inputs. It shouldn't be of great concern to anybody what I ingest or read or watch on TV. What matters is how I behave, no matter what caused it or whatever I might be under the influence of. The criminal justice system sometimes heeds this distinction, not caring, for example, if I drink myself silly every night. It only gets involved if I drive under the influence or get drunk and start beating up people or stripping at noon on Main Street. On drugs other than alcohol, it makes the presumption that the harmful effects on society are so probable that my freedom to act should be curtailed. This assumption, it seems fair to say, is more true for something like crack than it is for something like marijuana.
2. Anything that is a form of theft -- one taking something from someone else that which one is not entitled to -- is a legitimate target of the law; any law that does not address a form of theft should be treated with skepticism. Murder is theft of a life. Rape is theft of free will. Fraud is theft of trust. Things I do in private or with another consenting adult steal nothing from anyone, whether it's smoking pot or visiting a prostitute or getting my hair cut by unlicensed barber.
Those two rules don't cover everything, and it is possible to think of contradictions and exceptions. But just using them as guiding principles could get rid of about 90 percent of the laws we now have, which most libertarians would say is about right. The law would be more certain, more enforceable and more understandable.
It would also better fulfill its primary function, that of "legislating morality," that thing so many people back in the 1960s said couldn't or shouldn't be done. I use "morality" in its older, broader sense of "how we treat others." It is the purpose of the law both to let us know what we may not do and what we may reasonably expect from others in a civilized society. I don't think it does either very well these days.
Comments
VERY well stated, Leo....
And very true (IMHO).
B.G.
Awesome point Leo. It seems that the left wants to use their legislative and judicial power to regulate commerce and restrict use of private property and the right wants to regulate morality, both to the point in which it restricts personal liberty. The most dangerous to our liberty is not direct legislative action, but judicial decree or uncontrolled administrative law. As of last January the EPA restricted the individual
Dear Mr. Olinger,
Your contention that the EPA is now issuing pharaonic pronouncements about building motorcycles sent me to a search engine. From the American Motorcyclist Association website:
"The AMA Government Relations team met with federal Environmental Protection Agency officials in February to discuss motorcycle-emissions regulations.
AMA Vice President for Government Relations Edward Moreland, AMA Washington Legislative Assistant Peter Nonis and AMA Legislative Affairs Specialist Imre Szauter met with EPA technical officials at the agency
Oops, sorry. The Typepad form picked up one of my thousands of online aliases. The previous comment was actually posted by me, Nancy Nall.
Leo,
This post is awesome. You obviously "get it."
Jon,
Your points are excellent.
Nancy,
The fact that you took the time to expose the minutae of EPA regs, simply to poke a stick at Mr. Olinger is remarkable. The fact you can rationalize and applaud this convoluted governmental agency's bizarre actions in this situation is hilarious. Why exactly do we dump millions and billions of dollars into EPA policy-making every year if they intend to build-in massive loopholes that contradict their initial laws? I mean, seriously, if citizens don't have to follow the law, and private companies don't have to follow the law, then what's the point of the law's existence in the first place? Seems rather masturbatory to me. And for God's sake, how would the EPA monitor how much these "outlaw" motorcycles that are permitted to be manufactured "above the law" are driven? Your fact-finding really just sheds light on the inherent stupidity of bureaucracy. Thanks for that, you made my day!
While somewhat off-topic will someone please explain to me why I can get a conceal carry permit for a firearm but can't even own a switchblade? Perhaps every X years ALL laws should have to be repassed...
Who's rationalizing? Who's applauding? For that matter, who's "taking time?" It took me about 4.5 minutes to Google "build your own motorcycle EPA regulations," find that Mr. Olinger was full of crap and draft a little comment about it. If his statement had been made by someone like you, Andrew, I"d have kept my mouth shut, but Mr. O is a policy maker. He sits on an elected school board and presumably pays attention, so even he should understand that "the government" isn't some Godzilla that stomps through his life with "uncontrolled and unchecked power," but a bunch of folks more or less like him who are trying to do the best job they can with the materials at hand.
Conservatives are always accusing liberals of being afraid to face reality -- that the world will always be at war, that criminals can never be rehabilitated, etc. My only point is that he has his own blind spots, and a belief that a federal agency has "uncontrolled and unchecked power to regulate the individual" is one of them. Alas, he's wrong.
You all can go back to playing with your guns and knives. Stick it to the Man!
I thought the subject was about legalizing marijuana. Did I miss something? Personally, I think if drinking alcohol which is a drug is legal, why not marijuana? And why the smoking ban which doesn't impair driving but no drinking bans? Smoking tobacco is just as legal as drinking alcohol. I don't smoke by the way. And I don't want people blowing smoke in my face in public. But apparently the people who can regulate smoking don't smoke themselves but probably drink. I say legalize marijuana, a low level drug to only be smoked in your home. Cripes, they won't even let people smoke it if it helps their medical illness. We have a bunch of anal retentive people in control that's all I can say.
Well said Leo. I think you summed it up rather nicely...
John Olinger:
I would have to agree with most of what you said, one exception would be:
You say that "the left wants to restrict the use of private property."
I think you need to take a long and hard look at the Republican Party. Both the Dems and Reps are restricting the use of private property in Fort Wayne. Consider that the County Commissioners (ALL REPUBLICAN) are the ones that recently expanded the smoking ban. Consider that the City Council (Controlled by Republicans) are going to expand the smoking ban in Fort Wayne. Consider that our Republican City Council has used eminent domain to seize private land to build the Grand Wayne Center and other wasteful projects...
Both Dems and Reps are restricting the use of private proeprty and I would argue that the Reps are currently doing it more then the Dems...
Mike Sylvester
Nancy,
You are so rabidly eager to make a personal attack on a conservative you both miss my point and misstate the EPA regulation. Stating that the EPA has expanded the individual's right is intellectually dishonest. Not only am I limited to ONE kit bike in a lifetime, (This is the important part...there are not compliant kit bikes.. wow...lets think about it...lets build a nice quiet Chopper)
But my ability to sell it is limited. If I loose it in a crash, a divorce, or a bankruptcy I can not EVER build another one.
The point really isn
Mike,
Your right, I hold both parties accountable for the problem. There are ways around eminent domain. The school board planed and executed the entire North Side High School renovation and acquired about 50 houses without the use of eminent domain.
This thread started as another of those hot flashes about the morally bankrupt potential cost savings of marijuana legalization, but it quickly decomposed into partisan rants about matters as diverse as eminent domain, motorcycle emissions, paranoidism regarding fundamental American gun rights, and supposedly negative advances in the expansion of the local ban on nicotine-toxified air.
One wonders what about this thread was the butane lighter for the flurry of partisan alarmism.
It likely would be revealing to know more about why this thread in particular proved to be so distressing to some segments of political activist groups.
What is the underlying commonality among all these topics, one wonders, that stirs up such broad-based and by most measures overwrought liberal ire?
Hmmm.
Overwrought liberal ire?
For a school board member, Mr. Olinger either 1) has a demonstrably severe deficit in reading comprehension or 2) is incredibly gullible when it comes to apocryphal wingnut conspiracies floating around on the Web.
Lucky for him I'm not a voter in the FWCS district. Lucky for me I'm not a parent of students there.
Alex,
It seems that liberals can
Steve, the butane lighter is usually any conservative comment or something pertaining to common sense that sets off a whole host of liberal ire.
That and the fact when reading and posting it's usually the very last comment in the thread you have in front of you so you tend to aim at the ridiculous comments most fresh...causes the original post to dilute just a fuzz.....
John: Keep up the good work!
Mike: I'm beginning to think you're right, the Allen County Republicans are fast becoming as irresponsible as the Allen County Democrats...Glad I don't live there anymore.
Wow.
I don't think I've ever been called an "irrelevant conspiracy theorist" by anyone before. You really put me in my place, Nancy. Who are you again? No matter. The fact that you parade in here and flamboyantly advertise your ignorance to the gradual erosion of our freedoms is very telling. The fact that you literally made Mr. Olinger's point for him is quite amusing, especially considering your obvious contempt for the man, so your vain attempt at a sack-slashing is every bit as mystifying as it is hilarious.
Arguments with built-in fallacy: The hallmark of the Blog-o-sphere's finest trolls!
well, I will take one swing at the dead horse, here.
Do we agree that emission laws make sense, on mass-produced engines? If we don't agree on that, then I suppose the discussion is over....
but if we agree on the need for emissions standards - then can we further agree that they should be broadly enforced? If a major manufacturer invests all the money it takes to comply, then indeed smaller specialty manufacturers should too, eh?
This mulligan, wherein everyone gets one exemption to build a kit bike that hasn't been certified as in compliance seems fair enough (although I suppose people who will never use their exemption should be allowed to SELL it to someone who needs another...presumeably the demand isn't very great for these exemptions)
Anyway, I think all y'all internet warriors are just sore that you got whumped by a GIRL!
Brian, what are you rambling about? And how exactly did the so-called "GIRL" whump anyone? All she did was put her pudgy little fingers to work on Google and the proceeded to do battle with a windmill.
Mr. Olinger's point was simply that the EPA is a prime example of moronic, unchecked governmental overreach. The fact that they throw John Q. Public a bone with respect to the kit motorcycles is irrelevant, specifically because the existence of the EPA in the capacity in which it exists is blatantly unconstitutional. Nancy's "yeah, but look how nice they are to let you build a bike" argument is just dumb. But I've read her blog on occasion, and I've noticed that you are one of her regular fluffers so I guess we shouldn't expect much else from you, Mr. Stouder. But then, Nancy's a hack so I guess it stands to reason that her shills would be hacks too. And I don't say that out of spite, I say that because she literally cannot engage in any discourse above the level of "country music" chat and some other ridiculous trivial glad-handing. Whenever she tries, it inevitably ends in her making some snarky, bitchy comment like
"How comforted parents of school-age children must be, knowing you're overseeing their learning."
or
"You all can go back to playing with your guns and knives. Stick it to the Man!"
...and then retreats to the safety of her own tepid little dotcom to add even more barely-readable marginalia to her archives...usually feeling pretty proud of herself and acting awfully smug. I just don't think that adds anything to the ongoing discourse (and I'm even more convinced of it now, after reading her little tidbit above about all of her aliases). Get a life.
"specifically because the existence of the EPA in the capacity in which it exists is blatantly unconstitutional."
Really? A serious question for you - if EPA is 'blatantly unconstitutional', what agency of congress is not?
This sounds like the front-end of a Libertarian fantasy-world, wherein human beings are all really saints, if only we alternately get out of their way, and properly incentivize them....and if THAT is what the real point is, I'll cut to the chase and say "I do not subscribe to that point of view"
Well then Mr. Stouder, I guess you can just interpret (or choose not to interpret) that constitution of ours any way you please.
You'll have lots of company, since most people think they know best what everyone else should be doing and how it should be done.
Well, at least people don't get sucked into arguing with windmills at Nancy's site.