if pot was legalized and well regulated, it would ...SNIP... provide a new tax revenue stream.
It really disgusts me when people say this. What they really mean, of course, is that it needs to be
specially regulated and taxed.
Allowing it to be sold in stores guarantees a normal sales tax (right there the worst part about legalization: our governments do
not need more "revenue streams" to prolong the pain), and assuming a minimalist position of not selling it to minors (as with tobacco or alcohol) is, quite literally, infinitely more regulation than exists presently, as ought to be more than adequate in light of how utterly harmless marijuana is without
any regulation to speak of.
I've learned there are two types of folks who support marijuana legalization: there is the first camp, who oppose prohibition because it exists contrary to right, because we have a literal human rights crisis with regard to the number of individuals incarcerated for non-crime offenses, and because the war on drugs "needed" to enforce prohibition has all kinds of nasty side-effects. Then you have the second camp, who support legalization because they have fantasies of a regulatory apparatus and more tax revenue.
If it weren't for the aforementioned human rights crisis, I would not tolerate, much less pursue, legalization at the cost of the conditions imposed by the second camp.
Incidentally, I've observed that progressives always fall into the second camp. This, I think, reveals to a great degree how feigned and artificial their façade of "compassion" is – it ought to be enough to end the ongoing aggressive deprivation of rights to hundreds of thousands of folks (not to mention that the majority of them are underprivileged and minorities). But, no, the progressive's "compassion" is nowhere to be found unless it's tied to taxes and regulatory apparatus; it never exits solely for the sake of the downtrodden. This is the height of selfishness.
Whereas
libertarians, who
do advocate legalization based solely on the sake of the downtrodden, are portrayed as selfish and indifferent to the plight of the poor and minorities. (We're lucky if they don't accuse us of being marijuana
users simply for taking a principled stand.)
Now, these progressives can make all the BS claims they like. I've heard them all, the most common being: "tax and regulate" is merely the most convenient avenue in the current political climate. This is baloney. The easiest, most direct path (in states which have such) is through the referendum process, which results usually in a distinct lack of specific regulation, leaving that for subsequent legislative efforts. So, I submit that, when folks advocate "tax and regulate", rather than black-check legalization for its own sake, their true concern is the secondary process – the opportunity for legislative action on an area of life previously prohibited outright – rather than the democratic referendums which simply abolish prohibition in accordance with the manifest will of the American people.
People who think like that truly disgust me.
Legalize it. Do
not tax it beyond sales tax. Do
not regulate it beyond tobacco or alcohol (actually, regulate it less than alcohol – it's still a felony to distill liquor without paying the appropriate, very expensive, tax).
One day, before I die, I want to walk around, OC, in a farmers' market where fresh marijuana is for sale. Then I will know that I live in the freest place that has existed, at the very least, in my lifetime. It is my belief that if the regulationists get their way, this will be an impossibility.
(This post is on-topic because I was OC in my fantasy.
)
