Liberty Is Not A "Luxury Belief". It Is A Birthright For All

The term "luxury beliefs" has gained quite a lot of traction since it was coined in 2019, and especially since 2022, by Rob Henderson.  Per Wikipedia:

A luxury belief is an idea or opinion that confers status on members of the upper class at little cost, while inflicting costs on persons in lower classes.  The term is often applied to privileged individuals who are seen as disconnected from the lived experiences of impoverished and marginalized people. Such individuals supposedly hold political and social beliefs that signal their elite status, yet which are alleged to have negative impacts on those with the least influence. Exactly what counts as a luxury belief is not always consistent and may vary from person to person, and the term in general is considered to be controversial.

Make no mistake, it is typically only (social) conservatives that have been using the term in recent years to describe their opponents' views on various hot-button issues (bail reform, criminal justice, policing, MMT, immigration, net zero, environmentalism, marriage and family, sexual freedom, reproductive rights, drug legalization and decriminalization, etc.).  Occasionally the left and center-left have used the term (much more accurately, we would argue) to describe conservative beliefs like "supply-side economics", "trickle-down theory", austerity, artificial scarcity, weak or nonexistent social safety nets, and stuff like that, but the use of the term on the left in that context is relatively rare.

On the right, and even somewhat on the "third way" neoliberal left since President Clinton, there seems to be this specious idea that too much personal liberty is somehow apocalyptically worse than too little, particularly for the poor, downtrodden, and vulnerable members of society, and especially for racialized minorities (who says conservatives don't "play the race card" when it's convenient?).  We argue that this is a patronizing and paternalistic attitude towards people that the talking heads (consciously or unconsciously) feel smugly superior to, and it essentially robs such people of agency.  And to be blunt about it, as the saying goes, "crap always rolls downhill".  That is, granted, ANY policy can have unintended consequences per Murphy's Law, and as a well-known corollary, those negative consequences tend to accrue disproportionately to those who lack the means to insulate themselves from such consequences, particularly those at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy.  For example, in that regard, we can call the War on (people who use a few particular) Drugs just as much if not more of a "luxury belief" as full drug legalization would be in practice, as the adverse consequences (which are not entirely unintended!) fall disproportionately on poor people and/or racialized minorities. 

As Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) famously said, "you can get over an addiction, but you will never get over a conviction".  And that clearly applies tenfold to the poor as it does to the rich.

The real problem is systemic, as must any real solution be.  But liberty per se is not the problem.  While the utterly patronizing and paternalistic protectionism and "tyranny of the weaker brother" is the real luxury belief here, as are the economic ones like "trickle-down theory", austerity, and neoliberalism. ("Catch and release" and "defund the police" are the only ones that Henderson mentions that even come close in that regard.)

The TSAP supports liberty and justice for all, in contrast to liberty for "just us", NOT all.  To quote Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies (sic) attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it".  Truer words have never been spoken indeed.

(Mic drop)

California Dreaming Has Finally Become A Reality

Well, it's official now.  Cannabis is now fully legal for recreational use California, with the first legal recreational sales having begun on January 1, 2018.  The Golden State now joins seven other states and DC where recreational weed is currently legal to one degree or another, though medical use (now legal in a whoppoing 29 states now) has in fact been legal in California since 1996.

While Trump and especially Jeff Sessions are unlikely to take very kindly to this development, the fact remains that the proverbial dam has now finally broken, and the anti-legalization forces are becoming increasingly impotent despite the occasional rear-guard crackdown here and there.  Prohibition is quickly unraveling as we speak.  Legalization at the federal level has really become inevitable at this point--it's no longer a matter of if, but when.

Are there some flaws with California's system of legalization and regulation?  Yes, it's not perfect, but if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.   For example, no matter how much we as both TSAP and Twenty-One Debunked loathe the 21 age limit, we nonetheless grudgingly supported it since we knew it would not have had a prayer of a chance at passing during the crucial years of 2012-2016.   Once the dust settles, though, and national legalization really is a foregone conclusion, we will increasingly take all states to task for not lowering the age limit for cannabis to 18, just as we currently take all states to task for not lowering the drinking age to 18 and recently some states and localities for raising the tobacco smoking age to 21.

Canada, for example, already plans to set it at 18 federally, while at the provincial level it will be 18 or 19 depending on the province, as is the case with alcohol.  Uruguay chose 18 as well.   And the Netherlands has set it at 18 since 1996.  No good reason why it should be any higher than 18 in what should be the land of the free as well.

In the meantime, we shall nonetheless rejoice at one of the very few bright spots in America's increasingly dark night of the soul that began on November 9, 2016 and began in earnest on January 20, 2017.

Will California Dreaming Finally Become A Reality in 2016?

In 2010, it seemed very likely that California would legalize recreational cannabis use via ballot initiative.  Unfortunately, the initiative failed.  But this year, it looks like they have a much better chance, given how it will be a presidential election and how California would not be the first state to do so this time around.  The California Medical Association even endorses one such initiative. And as goes California, so goes the nation.

Of course, even bigger news is that several New England states are also looking this year to join Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, and DC as states in which cannabis is fully legal.   Ditto for Michigan and Nevada as well.  There is even currently a bill in Congress called the "Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act", which would decriminalize cannabis at the federal level by removing it from scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act and leave it up to the states to regulate as they see fit.  Thus, it's only a matter of time before the ganja is fully legal nationwide.

And thus far, the best available evidence suggests that legalization has been a resounding success overall in the states where it has already been implemented.  Not only did tax revenue exceed expectations, but practically none of the predicted "parade of horrors" that the fearmongering opponents predicted would occur actually materialized.  And several recent studies have debunked many if not all of the prohibitionists' favorite talking points and scaremongering studies on the supposed dangers of cannabis.  Looks like Brian C. Bennett was right after all--it's nowhere near as scary as they want us to think.

While cannabis, like any other psychoactive substance, is not 100% safe for everybody and can indeed be harmful when abused, the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence of the past 150+ years suggests that by just about any rational and objective measure it is safer than alcohol, tobacco, most prescription drugs, Tylenol, and even some foods, and is generally less addictive than coffee.  And while there is some evidence that regular use of weed, like alcohol, may present unique risks to people under 18 (and especially under 15), there is no hard scientific evidence that it is any more dangerous for an 18 year old than for a 21 year old or a 30 year old for that matter.  And the best evidence suggests that, as we learned the hard way with alcohol in the 1920s, prohibition clearly does more harm than good.  Thus, there is really no good reason to keep cannabis illegal or treat it any more stringently than alcohol or tobacco in a free society.

We should note that the TSAP is not a "pro-drugs" party. Rather, we are pro-liberty and anti-tyranny. We do not actually endorse the use of any substances, including alcohol and tobacco, but believe that legal adults are sovereign in body and mind and that prohibition of these substances clearly does more harm than good on balance.  Remember, the term "controlled substance" is actually a misnomer since it is virtually impossible to adequately control that which is prohibited.

To all those who live in California (or any other state with legalization or medicalization initiatives on the ballot), especially those under 30:  Get out there and rock the vote this November!

AND NOW FOR A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:

Kids, talk to your parents.  Show them the following.

This is your country:

This is DrugWar:

This is your country on DrugWar:

Any questions?

Stoned in Seattle

Today is truly a historic occasion.  In Washington State, the initiative that legalized cannabis goes into effect, marking the first time any US state fully legalized the herb since it was federally banned in 1937.  In Seattle, there was plenty of celebration of this occasion, with hundreds of people toking up under the Space Needle.  Colorado also legalized it as well, and that goes into effect on January 5, 2013  December 10, 2012 (see update below).  In both states, the first legal retail outlets for weed are scheduled to be set up in early 2014 as the new laws are phased in.  Looks like Cypress Hill finally got his wish in two states, even if California was not one of them.

Of course, cannabis is still illegal under federal law, and it is still not clear exactly what the Feds will do.  While they say they will still enforce the current law, the situation is very similar to how NY ended alcohol Prohibition in 1923, ten years before national Prohibition was repealed.   Basically, the only ones enforcing it there were the feds, and they did not have nearly enough manpower or resources to do it alone (and they still don't).  That spelled the beginning of the end for Prohibition, and we hope that is true this time around for cannabis as well.  We will be closely watching this story as the next few months progress.

For the record, the TSAP supports full legalization of cannabis in all 50 states as well as federally.  By that we mean it should be taxed and regulated in a manner similar to alcohol and tobacco, with an age limit of 18, and no one should be arrested or jailed for simple possession of small amounts.  Growing one's own weed (within reason) should be treated like growing one's own tobacco or brewing one's own beer, and passing around a joint should be treated like passing around a tobacco cigarette or a bottle of beer.  Driving under the influence of cannabis should be treated the same as driving under the influence of alcohol, though the penalties should reflect the fact that the latter is far more dangerous than the former.  And we hope this will all become reality sooner rather than later.

UPDATE:  On December 10, Colorado Governor John Hinckenlooper signed an executive order that made the initiative currently official.  Thus, cannabis possession is now legal in both states for all people over the age of 21, while sale remains at least technically illegal for now pending the creation of a regulatory framework for such sales.

California Proposition 19: FAIL

Unfortunately, it seems that "California Dreaming" did NOT become a reality in 2010 like we had hoped.  Proposition 19, the ballot initiative that would have legalized, taxed, and regulated cannabis in California lost 46% to 54%.   Close, but no cigar (or doobie).

However, this is still closer than any comparable initiative has ever come in history, and the debate it ignited will certainly NOT die anytime soon.  The pro-legalization side is now gearing up for 2012, when similar initiatives have a better chance of passing.

The 2010 election was a major disappointment in general.  In nearly all states, the Repugnicans won (while the TSAP does not like either major party, we generally feel that, as a rule, the Democrats are the lesser of two evils).  California was one of the few exceptions to this trend.  But at least some of the leftovers were thrown out, and many of the losing Democrat incumbents were spineless jellyfish anyway.

So why did Prop 19 fail?  It was doing great in the polls up until early October, and it seemed like a sure thing, with 52% in favor.  But then the Governator took some of the wind out of its sails by signing into law Senate Bill 1449, effective January 1, which decriminalized (not legalized) possession of less than an ounce of ganja to a mere violation, making it a $100 fine with no court appearance or criminal record.  It was formerly a misdemeanor, though the fine was the same.  Next, the federal Drug Czar and the Attorney General were threatening to vigorously enforce the federal laws against cannabis if it passes, potentially upending the "truce" over medical cannabis since early 2009.  Finally, the "No" side geared up and used ridiculous scare tactics in their ads, which unfortunately worked due to voter ignorance as well as vague language in certain parts of the initiative's text.  And the two big sugar daddies for the "Yes" campaign (billionaires George Soros and Peter B. Lewis) did not donate anything until a week or two before election day, essentially too late.

One can only hope that things will go differently in 2012, when the demographics will be more favorable.  But just don't number it Prop 19 again--it appears to be bad luck, just like it was in 1972.  And any unnecessary or vague language in the initiative that appears to be the least bit overreaching should be nixed at once, as it appears to be "one toke over the line," so to speak.

The TSAP is not a "pro-drugs" party. Rather, we are pro-liberty and anti-tyranny. We do not endorse the use of any substances, including alcohol and tobacco, but believe that legal adults are sovereign in body and mind and that prohibition of these substances clearly does more harm than good. Remember, the term "controlled substance" is actually a misnomer since it is virtually impossible to adequately control that which is prohibited.


UPDATE:  After much vote tallying for the past ten days, it turned out that Arizona's Proposition 203 narrowly passed as of November 14.  This makes Arizona the latest state to legalize medical cannabis.

Will California Dreaming Become a Reality?

Looks like California has put an initiative to legalize, tax, and regulate cannabis on the ballot for November 2010.  It now has a number:  Proposition 19 (the same number as the last time a legalization initiative was put on the ballot, in 1972). The initiative, though somewhat flawed, has a decent chance of passing. A whopping 56% of Californians support legalization, as do 53% of Americans overall, the highest in US history, though more recent polls have shown varying results.  And the state needs something to help plug their monstrous budget deficit--they are technically bankrupt.  Will "California Dreaming" finally become a reality?  We predict it will pass in 2010 since (unlike in 1972) they finally have a critical mass of supporters.  If any state can do it, California can.  But it will be a very close vote, with younger voters (especially under 25) being crucial to its passage.

America currently arrests over 800,000 people for pot each year, the majority of which are for possession, a victimless crime.  And it costs a ludicrous amount of money to do so.  The number of people arrested for destroying the Gulf of Mexico via the oil spill?  A big fat ZERO.

Recently, the California chapter of the NAACP has signed on as a supporter of Prop 19.  This is primarily because blacks are arrested at twice (or triple or even quadruple in some areas) the rate of whites for cannabis offenses, despite being less likely to toke up.  Clearly, blacks (and Latinos) are being targeted by the Drug Warriors, while whites who get busted are little more than collateral damage.  And let's not forget the racist history of how cannabis prohibition came to pass, with the first such laws aimed at Mexicans and later at blacks.

Opponents of the bill include the usual suspects:  MADD, police organizations, several church groups, and anti-drug organizations.  The feds can be considered in opposition as well.  There is probably not much that will convince the staunchest opponents to see the light.  However, not all cops are against legalization--there is even an organization called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) who sees what a failure drug prohibition has been and the harm it has caused.  They know that prohibition has brought only death, destruction, violence, corruption, and more dangerous drugs, and that it needs to end as soon as possible.
 
We at the TSAP endorse the initiative as a starting point, but notes that it is far from perfect.  For example, the age limit is 21 rather than 18, and several provisions appear to conflict somewhat with the Compassionate Use Act's protections of medical cannabis patients.  We believe that all legal adults (18 and over) have the right to do what they want to their own bodies as long as it does not harm others.  But those "wrinkles" can be ironed out later.  The sooner we legalize, the better.  And we hope other states will join California as well (already Oregon and Washington are considering it).  If enough states do so, that will eventually force the feds to reconsider and perhaps legalize at the federal level.  Plus, legalization would deal a major death blow to the drug cartels that terrorize Mexico and increasingly the United States as well.

As we stated before, we predict success, albeit by a narrow margin.  That is, as long as there is no "October Surprise" to scare the voters into voting no.  We cannot dismiss this possibility out of hand, as the anti-cannabis lobby (as well as the DEA and ONDCP) has been known to use junk science to scare people in the past.  Alaska and Nevada know this all too well.

The June Suprise, if one wishes to call it that, unsurprisingly was a bogus study that purported to show that traffic fatalities would skyrocket if cannabis was legalized, based loosely on data from 2004-2008, when California expanded its medical cannabis program that was first enacted in 1996.  However, this is easily debunked when you consider that, whether you use 1995, 1996, 2003, or 2004 as the base year, California's overall traffic fatalities per VMT actually declined, and at a faster rate than the nation as a whole.  Ditto for self-reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs as a whole from 2002-2009.  So much for being a menace to society. 

Oh, but what about the children?  As for teen use of cannabis, student surveys show that such use also declined since 1996 in California, again at a faster rate than the nation as a whole despite legalizing medical use (even for patients who are under 21).  Ditto for most other states that also legalized it.  So much for sending the wrong message.

The TSAP is not a "pro-drugs" party. Rather, we are pro-liberty and anti-tyranny. We do not endorse the use of any substances, including alcohol and tobacco, but believe that legal adults are sovereign in body and mind and that prohibition of these substances clearly does more harm than good. Remember, the term "controlled substance" is actually a misnomer since it is virtually impossible to adequately control that which is prohibited.

To all those who live in California (or any other state with legalization or medicalization initiatives on the ballot), especially those under 30:  Get out there and rock the vote this November!

AND NOW FOR A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:

Kids, talk to your parents.  Show them the following.

This is your country:

This is DrugWar:

This is your country on DrugWar:

Any questions?

How to Destroy the Mexican Cartels in Five Easy Steps

Mexico's drug war shows no signs of stopping. And yes, this war is not merely a metaphor but an actual armed conflict. Belligerents include several Mexican cartels as well as the Mexican government, with the United States playing a supportive role to the government. In 2008, over 6000 people died, including numerous civilians, and some of the violence even spilled over to the American side of the border (most notably Phoenix). Ironically, the majority of the cartels' funding comes from drug sales in the United States, to the tune of $23 billion dollars, despite (or rather because of) prohibition of these substances. And the cartels have made significant inroads into most of America as well.

Staying the course will lead to a temporary Pyrrhic victory at best. Let's face it, the War on (some) Drugs is already lost, and is America's first major defeat.  A war we lost before it even began.  And over two thirds of Americans believe it has been a failure, while less than 10% believe it has been a success.  Like alcohol prohibition, only writ very, very large. Crime, corruption, racism, violence, and death are the fruits of our labor. And a new way forward, one that involves thinking outside the box, is long overdue. Here is what we propose to be the ONLY lasting and feasible solution:

1) Legalize cannabis for all adults over 18, period. Tax and regulate it like we currently do with tobacco and alcohol, with licenses required to sell it. Like tobacco, allow adults to grow their own cannabis for personal use as well.

2) Withdraw from all international treaties that prohibit cannabis.

3) Increase drug treatment and education, funded by the excise taxes.

4) Get tougher on violent crime, gun-running, and racketeering. This will be easier since more resources would be freed up.

5) Create a system of tight regulation for the eventual legalization and controlled distribution of many other currently illegal drugs, except perhaps for the most dangerous ones like methamphetamine, crack, or PCP.

Admittedly, the last one on the list would be the toughest on to do politically, and will be unlikely to happen in the near future regardless of who is in power. But even if the other steps were taken, especially legalizing cannabis, the cartels would be severely hurt economically since the "backbone" of their trade would collapse. It is estimated that as much as 60-70% of their profits come from the cannabis trade with the US. And it is well known that any business who suddenly loses 60% of their profits goes under. Since the cartels are strictly wholesalers (and, of course, producers) of drugs, only full legalization of the entire supply chain would work to upend their trade. In their weakened state resulting from cannabis legalization, the Mexican government would likely finish them off.

As for hard drugs, which represent much of the remainder of the cartels' profits but are highly unlikely to be legalized in either country, demand is best reduced through education and treatment, the latter estimated to be a whopping seven times more cost-effective than interdiction.

For cannabis at least, prohibition clearly fails to even make economic sense.  The social costs per user of cannabis use pale in comparison to those associated with alcohol and tobacco, as well as the cost per user of enforcing the laws against cannabis.  The potential tax revenue gained plus the huge reduction in enforcement costs would more than offset any hypothesized negative effects of legalization. 

Several economists concur with this viewpoint.  Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard professor of economics who for 15 years has studied the prohibition of both alcohol and drugs throughout history, makes some very good arguments in favor of legalization.  One of his studies found that legalization and taxation of cannabis nationwide would potentially yield $10-14 billion per year in increased revenue and reduced enforcement expenditure.  And this is a rather conservative estimate!

The TSAP is not a "pro-drugs" party. Rather, we are pro-liberty and anti-tyranny. We do not endorse the use of any substances, including alcohol and tobacco, but believe that legal adults are sovereign in body and mind and that prohibition of these substances clearly does more harm than good.  Remember, the term "controlled substance" is actually a misnomer since it is virtually impossible to adequately control that which is prohibited.

In addition, a common misconception about the violence in Mexico is that it is caused by looser American gun laws relative to Mexican laws. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the weapons used (full automatics, rockets, grenade launchers, etc.) are currently illegal in the US.  I repeat, they are currently illegal on BOTH sides of the border.  And if the corrupt Mexican government really wanted to protect their citizens, they would help them protect themselves by legalizing civilian gun ownership (and concealed carry).  Like all thugs and tyrants, the cartels just LOVE unarmed citizens.  The "experts" (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.) all agree:  Gun control works!

UPDATE

Looks like California has put an initiative to legalize, tax, and regulate cannabis on the ballot for 2010.  The initiative, though somewhat flawed, has a decent chance of passing. A whopping 56% of Californians support legalization, as do 53% of Americans overall, the highest in US history.  And the state needs something to help plug their monstrous budget deficit--they are technically bankrupt.  Will "California Dreaming" finally become a reality?  We predict it will pass in 2010 since they finally have a critical mass of supporters.  If any state can do it, California can.

The TSAP endorses the initiative as a starting point, but notes that it is far from perfect.  For example, the age limit is 21 rather than 18, and several provisions appear to conflict with the Compassionate Use Act's protections of medical cannabis patients.  But those "wrinkles" can be ironed out later.  The sooner we legalize, the better.  And we hope other states will join California as well (already Oregon is considering it).