Answer #3: ‘No Comment’
“If you do drug policy and you’re asked whether you use drugs, you’ve got two choices. You can say, “Yes, I’m a lawbreaker. Please come arrest me and ignore everything I say because I’m a bad person.’ Or, “No, actually I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about.” Since neither of those is an advantageous admission, I don’t answer the question.”
–Mark Kleiman, professor of Public Policy at UCLA, quoted in “Buzzkill”; The New Yorker (Nov. 18, 2013)
It’s been (more than) 20 years since my one and only run for elective office (for the Minnesota legislature), and no one asked me back then “if I inhaled.”
But, the question always seemed like a “gotcha,” for the reason Kleiman identifies.
No matter what you think of laxer drug laws like the ones now in place in Colorado and Washington, they’re likely to eventually reach Minnesota.
That’s because the one-two punch of increased tax revenues and reduced police and incarceration expenses is likely to prove irresistible to cash-strapped local governments.
Or, at least the promise of the latter: grumps like Kleiman are warning that, at least in the short run, local governments need to beef up law enforcement to support a legal cannabis market.
Precedent: Casinos & Lotteries
Morally, I see it as little different from casinos or state-run lotteries — two other businesses that now fill lots of government coffers nationwide.
And I see NO reason for the federal government’s draconian stance on rigorous, scientific testing of cannabis’ medicinal properties — a policy which serves to keep the “pros vs. cons” debate shrouded in ignorance.
The old definition of “chutzpah” used to be killing your parents, then throwing yourself on the mercy of the court because you’re an orphan.
The new one is keeping cannabis categorized as a super-dangerous “Schedule I” drug — effectively making it off-limits to serious scientific inquiry — then arguing there’s no good data regarding its effects.
For a provocative take on legalization, read the excellent New Yorker piece.
