Bassie: So what did you just vote for?
Me: President.
Bassie: What else?
Me: The ballot measure to abolish income tax.
Bassie: Which you voted ‘no’ to.
Me: Yes.
Bassie: What else?
Me: There was a proposition about…about the penalty for a certain crime…(I stumble as I try to figure out how to explain it)
Bassie: Just tell me exactly what it said.
Me: Um, okay, it was about carrying a certain drug called marijuana, and the penalty for carrying a small amount, and whether it should be considered a really bad crime or a not so bad crime. Like, if the person’s caught with this small amount, should they get a punishment that would make them not be able to vote or get credit to buy a house…
Bassie: Oh, no, they shouldn’t get that punishment.
Me: Really, though, we first have to talk about why the government cares if a person chooses to take a drug; isn’t that his choice to make? I mean, who is the person is hurting when he takes the drug, besides himself?
Bassie: But there’s people who sell the drug; they’re hurting other people.
Me: And they would be carrying more than this amount.
Bassie: So they should definitely get punished. But maybe, if there were a bigger punishment for having any amount, it would stop people from taking it, too.
Me: I think that’s why the law is the way it currently is.
Bassie: Yeah, they should keep it like that.
Sorry, Bassie, the liberal elitists of Massachusetts have spoken.
5 Comments
And as a proud member of that liberal elite, I must say that I was very ambivalent about this question. After all, we shouldn’t be condoning the use of drugs (then we are hurting those who take them, and there should be a law against that!), but we also shouldn’t be taking away people’s ability to get a good job just because they’ve gotten caught getting high.
It’s all so complicated. I think I’ll go smoke some dope.
I’m calling it now: Basya K., first female President of the United States.
and let’s not forget, I’m currently 100% on the First (insert minority here) President as well as Chief of Staff. To be fair though, the Chief of Staff was only a few months ago… but still
[Ed. last name removed to hide from the google]
The legal status of an action has nothing to do with whether or not we condone it. [Pissing on your best friend's doll collection, with permission of course, is an example that comes to mind.] We’re here guilty of participating in (and catering to) an odd species of status quo bias.
There is, of course, much to consider when designing optimal drug regulation… but proposed restrictions must be (IMHO) motivated by protecting against departures from rationality (e.g. addition, adolescence) or classic externalities.
matt, isn’t that exactly bassie’s line of reasoning?
I believe Bassie has stimulated the exact sequence of logical thinking we must pursue although I agree with Lee that it’s a bit confusing to come up with a definitive conclusion (maybe I’ll just go eat a double dip icecream cone! Not healthy for me but legal, yes!) But Bassie’s logic and concerns inspired me to look back into the history of prohibition. Various leaders correctly observed that “the “wicked traffic” (their words) was continuing despite the best efforts of the temperance movement to eliminate the granting of licenses.” There seems to have been a measure of resignation in their comments that voting to restrict licenses would not “make any difference in the practical operation of things, but would merely absolve the town fathers’ consciences.” The article I checked concluded, “the legal sanction tactic was having little success in stemming the flow of intoxicating beverages in Springfield through licensing restrictions. And the second leg of the legal sanction effort — enforcement — was also in trouble.” Complicated stuff, Bassie. I appreciate and respect your input.
Post a Comment