The Ben Franklin Report: Tax Revenue

California state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Democrat, introduced a bill in that state's legislature proposing the legalization and taxing of recreational use of marijuana. Ammiano's arguments immediately touched on all the major points that the pro-legalization crowd has been making in between bong hits for decades now. To me the most significant argument is the fiscal one.

Legalization of a nonviolent activity lowers the number of criminals, reduces police costs of pursuing recreational pot smokers, reduces numbers of criminals in prison, reduces prison costs, eliminates need for violence in pot buying transaction and so reduces violent crime, brings marijuana production into the light of day where it can be regulated which produces tax revenue and regulation, regulation of production and use and quality has health benefits, which further reduce costs to society, and creates jobs.



Sure its not a new argument and it is the one that most young potheads are likely to jump on first because it seems like it would be so appealing to the forever cash-strapped government. "Lets just let them tax pot and then they will rush to make it legal, man." The major proponents of such thinking being in a chemically induced type-B personalities, rarely get any traction in mainstream politics. In trying economic times such as these I would expect a well reasoned argument that points out, not only the increased tax revenue ($1 billion in California alone) but also the potential cost savings in other programs, would get a better reception.

However, these arguments have failed before and its not because they are poorly reasoned, despite my poking fun at potheads. There are the usual histrionics that are thrown about by the anti-drug lunatics about the impending collapse of society, and "Oh God, won't somebody please think of the children!?!!?!" Despite the truth that legalized recreational drugs do lead to negative health consequences, and beer and tobacco companies do target children with advertising, those are threats that have proven to be small and that we as a society have obviously chosen to live with. It is also popular to point out that history(the repeal of prohibition, Amsterdam) has shown us that when certain recreational drugs are legalized it eliminates the demand in the informal market for the goods, which directs the attention of professional criminals to other activities. Then the reduction of interaction between normal Joe Sixpack (Johnny Jointsmoker?) people and hardened criminals and the police reduces violent crime. All of this is still to leave out the potential beneficial impact on our foreign relations.

I suspect that the main reason this type of legislation fails time and time again is that it has to be voted on by politicians. Politicians who can count votes. It doesn't matter how many potheads and marijuana activists get together because their voice will still be marginalized in the minds of the elected officials. It's hard to be taken seriously when the thing you are advocating for is illegal and all you want it for is recreation. (Hence the medical marijuana movement) The other reason elected officials will never vote for legalization of recreational marijuana is that they don't want to have their name associated with the downfall of society if all the histrionics of the sour-faced Republican old lady's turns out to be true.

I am Libertarian, and there are two ways to look at the recreational marijuana issue from that perspective as long as you believe that marijuana smoking is no different than tobacco or alcohol use. There is the Ron Paul view that whatever you do with your body is none of my business as long as it doesn't affect me. Then there is the long term Ted Nugent view that says this does affect me because on the aggregate there will be societal health costs from the negative health impacts of drug use.

I suppose I fall into a third category that doesn't care. Sure there are health costs, but like I said above, there are social costs involved, but most social costs of marijuana are created by its illegality, the real social costs stemming from health and high driving when likened to tobacco and alcohol are clearly so minimal that our society has decided (and I agree) that the benefits of legalization outweigh the costs.

So why don't I smoke? There are various reasons but mostly its a political statement. In my experience pot smokers can tend to get over enthusiastic about their recreational drug of choice and become zealous advocates of its use, and distrust those that do not. Sure, this could easily be because it makes one paranoid, but just being in the room makes you just as arrested when the cops show up. My true friends respect me even if they don't respect my decision and offers to partake are made out of common politeness arising from commensality. (After all, what can be a more ritualistic "breaking of bread" than a shared consumption of something that not only involves shared risk but that gives a spiritual sense of significance?) Still, my reflexive aversion to perceived peer pressure, my history of refusal that has lasted so long it has become part of my identity, combined with what I fear is addictive behavior continue to keep me away even though I think legalization of recreational use of marijuana would be a good thing for the country.

I will leave you with this video a friend posted to Facebook.

Go Ahead, Move to Canda!: Did Someone Say "NEW ONGOING SERIES"?

In the establishment's perpetual search for power, they have used many a tact in suppressing dissent, and suring up their base. Though it is possible to imprison or murder the dissenters, that takes time, money, lives, effort, etc. There are also risks. The imprisoned or assassinated victims can become martyrs, and blowback occurs. (Though you can never forget about intentionally cause blowback to increase the disorder and chaos in an area to create grounds for heavy force.) Well, one of my favorite ways to get rid of dissent is to offer the dissenters a way out.

I was recently watching the movie "The Unbearable Likeness of Being," with the badass Daniel Day Lewis and the juicy Juliette Binoche. In it they play a brain surgeon and budding photographer living in Prague in 1968. A gold star for the first kid who said, "Isn't that during the Prague Spring?" This is where the Communist, sorry, evil Ruskies came marching in and took control with an Iron Fist. Demonstrations, riots, and general public dissent ensued. Juliette Binoche even took a couple pictures of excessive Russian military practices. Of course it didn't take long for the "secret police" to find her and her pictures, and start making her life difficult. What to do, what to do? Stay around and fight the oppression? Stand your ground and fight for you and your fellow man's rights? Naw, fuck that, they left. They packed up and left. There was then an important scene. Instead of there being a difficult process of escape it was simply a matter of heading to a Russian sanctioned border checkpoint and waving to the soldiers as they headed to Switzerland.

Now the first thought that popped into my head was, why the hell are the Russians letting all of these, though dissenting, talented, valuable human resources leave? If they are so evil, why give them a chance to live in the happy free Switzerland, where the trains only run on time because they made the watches. Well then it dawned on me, and really put domestic events into perspective for me. They let them leave because they are trouble. They were making their occupation easier by getting rid of the people who give a shit.

Let's look to America at this time. A quick Wikipedia check will show you that...(I am actually doing some minor research for a blog, woo is me) 100,000 American men went abroad to avoid service in Vietnam, with 50,000 - 90,000 going to Canada. Initially, Canada didn't want a bunch of American immigrating into their country (we should be able to empathize with concerns about southern border immigration.) However, Canada eventually welcomed them, probably after the US told them we will allow them back in at a later date. Oh, and sure enough we did.

So, America was waging not only an unjust war abroad, but at the same time, the establishment was being fought with over many issues, namely civil rights. Forcing people into service, or anything for that matter, who really don't want to do it can incite rebellion. What better way to quell any serious threat to the establishment than to "allow" 100,00 pissed off young men (all fit for service) to leave. And then someone had the great idea to invite these people back, because not only are they a valuable human resource, but they are sure to be pretty tame now that the man "showed them kindness."

Every member of the counter culture or urban radical out there has heard someone say "I'll move to Canada when shit really hits the fan." As if Canada is some sort of magical safe fallback option for when America really becomes fascist. Hell, I bet there are a ton of ex-pats who have left already, to Canada or Europe, because they think America already is an oppressive state. It is to these yellow-bellied, selfish, all talk no walk, used to be but no longer am dissenters that I dedicate this NEW ONGOING SERIES:

Mark Emery, the Prince of Pot, is founder of the BC Marijuana Party and successful marijuana seed distributor. In 2005, he was arrested by Canadian law enforcement, under pressure from the Yanks, along with two others for selling these seeds. It is almost an never enforced law in Canada (to Canada's credit) though there are some laws on the books. The U.S. wanted him extradited to our country to face our stricter anti-drug legal system. A recent plea deal in the case means that Emery, but not his two compatriots, will serve 5-10 years in prison. Though Canada did not blindly hand him over to the U.S., they did allow a foreign agency to interpret their own laws, dictate the resources and actions of their police, sway the Canadian judicial system, and spend Canadian tax payer dollars all to enforce a victimless crime for political reasons. Emery may still do some of his prison time in the U.S., but that is yet to be determined.

Canada, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I liked you, I really did. But you're no better than u.s. You give in to the bully. You question your own values. You are willing to hurt an innocent human for what? And to you people out there wanting to move to Canada, where will you move when Canada and the U.S. have the same laws and law enforcement under the banner of the North American Union; when you could spent this whole time fighting the establishment instead of spending all that damn time packing and unpacking your fucking dishes you got from Pier One.