Monday, September 26, 2022

How Cannabis Legalization Should Have Gone, And Still Can If We Want To

The TSAP and Twenty-One Debunked have both long supported full cannabis legalization for everyone over 18, period.  And we took what we could get thus far towards that goal, even with all the compromises that had to be made along the way (especially that utterly abominable 21 age limit unique to the USA and Quebec). And no, legalization is still NOT a disaster.  

But the status quo leaves much to be desired, and surely we can aim higher.  How has it disappointed?  Let us count the ways:

  • First of all, the age limit is still 21, not 18 like it should be by now (and really should have always been).
  • Limits on self-cultivation are far too tight, if it is even allowed at all.
  • Taxes, licensing fees, and licensing restrictions were far too high and onerous from the get-go to quash the still-existing and thriving black market.
  • The transition period from legalization of possession and use to legalization of commercial sales was at utterly glacial pace, and still is in some states.  Not only has that been a drag, but it even gave the black market time to get a head start once the state telegraphed its intentions at least a year or two in advance.
  • Only specific types of dedicated stores (dispensaries) can sell it legally.  Unlike alcohol or tobacco in most states.
  • Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol, and even Big Pharma, all once sworn enemies of cannabis and cannabis legalization, are now getting a piece of the action by heavily investing in a rapidly growing cannabis industry that is making artificially high profits from being propped up by onerous regulations that keep smaller competitors out.
  • And last but not least, legalization at the federal level is still pending, fully TEN YEARS after the first states began to legalize recreational cannabis at the state level.
Let's do a thought experiment:  Imagine if all of these rules and regulations were to suddenly apply to tomatoes.  What would happen to the market?  What would develop as a result?  Can you say, "Big Tomato"?  And a massive tomato black market in the shadow of it all as well.  Now, that sounds pretty silly indeed.  Tomatoes are not psychoactive drugs, after all.  But now apply this paradigm to alcohol, tobacco, or even coffee or tea.  Doesn't sound quite so farfetched now, does it?

On the other side, some rules have been roundly criticized for being too lax, most notably the potency limits (or more accurately, the lack thereof) for commercial sales compared to countries like Canada and Uruguay.  And as long as potency limits are reasonable and phased down gradually, it is quite unlikely that they will foment black market sales significantly more than the status quo does.  Ditto for taxing cannabis based on potency (X cents per milligram of THC), which only a few states do now.

The federal legalization efforts keep stalling as well, due in part to well-meaning legislators trying to shoehorn so much social justice stuff into it, and in part due to other legislators that still oppose cannabis.  While the social justice stuff is good, it may be an overreach compared to getting through a bill that simply removes cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act, period.  Or better yet, one like Bruce Cain's MERP Model that also explicitly allows unlimited, untaxed, and unregulated self-cultivation of cannabis for anyone over 18, while not precluding legal taxed and regulated commercial sales alongside it.  The black market and the emerging Big Pot oligopolies would thus both be destroyed in one fell swoop, plus all of the other benefits of full legalization.  That's the power of ABUNDANCE, baby!

So what are we waiting for?  Time to finish the job already!

UPDATE:  A new study finds that there is a very strong inverse correlation between the number of legal dispensaries per capita, and the size of the black market.  Local bans on dispensaries, largely due to NIMBY politics, and most notably found in large swathes of California, seem to be perpetuating the black market, basically.  In other news, study finds that water is wet and the sun rises in the east.  

And this NIMBY-ism is completely unfounded, as honest research finds that legal dispensaries actually increase property values and decrease crime in their neighborhoods.  Let that sink in for a moment.

77 comments:

  1. Never understood why you have to be 21 to purchase recreational cannabis when in a handful of states you only have to be 18 for a medical marijuana card (upon seeing a doctor) that gives you access to the same dispensaries. I get that they want to align it with the current ages for drinking and tobacco purchases but it's so arbitrary. Legal adults should have the right to make their own informed consumer choices and you should be able to grow what you want in the privacy of your own home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I think the phrase "drugs and alcohol" is a big reason why the legal drinking is not 18 but should be 18. It seems that in the U.S., people have a tendency to lump alcoholic beverages in with hard drugs. When I mean hard drugs, I mean similiar to cocaine. It would be would be rational to detach alcoholic beverages from drugs since alcoholic beverages are foremost beverages. Caffeine is also classified as a drug but it would be foolish to classify caffeine alongside hard drugs in the phase "drugs and alcohol".

      Delete
    3. In my humble opinion, the US has too much of a prohibition approach and less focus on education. Not allowing citizens to make educated choices is not freedom. I think it's draconian to arrest citizens as old as 20 for drinking a beer in a bar and trying to give them a record when that person is otherwise law-abiding. At worst, in Canada, someone under 18 (or 19 depending on the province) can receive a fine and be asked to pour out the liquor. At best, you're asked to pour out the liquor, and law enforcement will make sure you have a safe ride home (and maybe notify your parents), but they're not spending a night in jail or will get their license suspended (unless they were driving under the influence). It's insane for me to hear that some states will revoke/suspend the license of someone under 21 if they were found to be at a party where alcohol is served, but they were not drinking.

      Delete
    4. Yup. Let's also not forget that in underage drinking stings (at bars or convenience stores) they always use 18, 19, or 20-year-old decoys. Never anyone in the 14-17 age group. The fines and or/punishment for underage drinking are more severe if you're between 18 and 21 in many states than if you were 17 or younger.

      Delete
    5. I know, right? Whether for alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis, setting the age limit at 21 is clinically insane.

      Delete
    6. Very much agreed. Freedom and responsibility go together.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Whenever people argue for restricting rights beyond the legal age of adulthood, they bring up brain development and that policing people under 25 is for their own "good." What good is it for artificially extending adolescence? It is perplexing that in a supposed advanced society, we still have perpetual "children."

      "He's only 21. His brain isn't fully developed. Why would you let him get married? He's a child."

      "She's only 23. Her brain isn't fully developed. Why would you let her teach at an elementary school? She's a child."

      "He's only 22. His brain isn't fully developed. Why should he be eligible to vote? He's still a child."

      "She's only 21. Her brain isn't fully developed. Why should she be able to have a driver's license? She's still a child."

      "He's only 24. His brain isn't fully developed. Why would you allow him to consent to sex? He's still a child. That's pedophilia."

      "He's only 21. His brain isn't fully developed. Why would you allow him to buy alcohol or cigarettes? He's a child."

      "He's only 22. Why would you let him sign up for the Navy? Those are child soldiers. He's still a child."


      "He's only 21. Why would you let him work 40+ hours a week? That's child labor. He's still a child."

      "She's only 23. Why would you sell her a handgun? Her brain isn't fully developed. Selling handguns to children is dangerous."

      "He's only 21. Why would you let him buy a rifle? His brain isn't fully developed. Selling rifles to children are dangerous."

      "He's only 23. Why would you let him buy a house? His brain isn't fully developed. Children should not live alone."


      Because if we're going down the rabbit hole of everyone under 25 being children, then 21-24-year-old adults are next.

      Delete
    9. It's silly, but it isn't far fetched. Type in "Under 25" or "Under 21" on Twitter and read the threads lol.

      Delete
    10. Yes, I am aware, and the young adults tweeting about wanting their rights revoked make me laugh a bit as if they weren't just under 18 a few short years ago and were technically the property of their parents or the state. It's weird, honestly. Not long ago, turning 18 was a rite of passage, an age you could not wait to reach. I guess they want to make 25 the new 18, and thanks to today's economy, that is becoming the new reality for many 18-24-year-olds who genuinely want to launch.

      Delete
    11. Yes, some states raised the age to purchase semiautomatic rifles (like the AR-15) to 21 years old, citing "impulsivity" and brain development and that most mass school shooters were younger than 21. I feel like that's just a band-aid on a much larger problem. (Background check loopholes, mental illness, radical political/racial rhetoric, school security issues, etc.)

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    14. @Randy, so surely you're in agreement that we should increase the legal voting age to 25? Because if you're going to deny a citizen their constitutional right to own a firearm until 25 then logically voting would be the same right?

      NO, both should be 18, because we are adults once we reach 18.

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    17. 18 is not culturally insignificant. It's the age young adults graduate high school which marks the end of compulsory education. College is optional. Many of my friends jumped straight into work-life or it was a mix of work and college but some have no choice but to jump straight into adulthood. 18 is the age you can voluntarily serve in the military for both sexes but men must register for selective service (in the case of the draft is re-instated). You have the right to vote and you can already drive. Randy, 18-20 year olds aren't children. If they can vote, drive, work, and fight in wars they are grown individuals.

      You shouldn't have to be 21 to buy a semi-automatic rifle or a handgun for that matter. Although the Supreme Court has yet to decide the question of age and the 2A, rulings in the 4th and 9th circuits (James vs Bonta) are opening up the debate and most judges have affirmed that the right to bear arms are granted no later than age 18 because that is the age of majority right now. It doesn't matter that it was 21 historically.

      Delete
    18. Randy, stop trolling. Seriously. This is your final warning. I will delete all of your comments if you persist.

      Delete
    19. Oh, and by the way, the brain continues developing well into the thirties and forties, and perhaps even beyond that. Thus, there is nothing magical about 25 either. It is just another arbitrary number.

      Keep on raising age limits, and you will surely get the infantilized society that you are asking for. We are already down the rabbit hole quite far, but it is not too late to make a hard U-turn. That window is closing very fast though.

      Delete
    20. Well-said, Anthony, Grant, Matt, and Edwin. Keep up the great work, folks!

      Delete
  2. I think a big reason why Cannabis legalization is moving so slow in Congress is because of the word, drug. In the public imagination, drugs connotates hard drugs. There is a fear of hard drugs. Unfortunately, this means that Cannabis legalization is slowed down by this connotation. In the U.S., people have have a tendency to lump all kinds of drugs together, whether that be caffeine or cocaine into the same category. In reality, differences should be made so that the right laws can be put into place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. It is a category error to lump them all together under the same umbrella.

      Delete
  3. What Randy Kovar says is all nonsnese. The truth is that the brain is developed at 16-17 years of age. People who cite sources which say that the brain is developed at 25 are citing misinterprted science. Therefore, any law or rule which has a minimum age higher than 18 has no useful purpose for the society or for the individual. A young adult who is 18 years old should be allowed to make her or his own decisions. This type of ageism reminds of Scientific Racism of the early 20th century.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well-said, Edwin! Indeed, his argument is nothing more than warmed-over, recycled biological determinism, which should have died out along with phrenology and miasma theory. But it is apparently a zombie idea that just won't die, completely immune to facts.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    3. Randy, you seem to forget that life experience comes with letting people actually live their lives. By the way, there are many countries that let people who are at least 18 hold federal office. (UK, Canada, Australia, to name a few).

      I'm over 21 but not yet 25 but I don't need the government intruding on my life choices anymore just because they may think I'm still too "rash" or "impulsive" for my own good. Your perspective that everyone under 25 is too stupid to make adult decisions shows you either don't interact with anyone over the age of 20 much or maybe you're stunted in your own maturity. I have no idea, but you need to let people live and make their own mistakes. It's a free country, at least it's suppose to be. Stop trying to nanny legal adults, it isn't necessary nor is it wanted. This is my last response to you, so all the best!

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. So being under 25 = is automatically a mentally deranged murderer with an insatiable desire to gun down children. Got it, LOL! Get a grip, dude, and touch grass, seriously.

      Delete
    6. Seriously, Randy, STOP TROLLING! Your straw man, cherry picking, non sequitur, guilt by association, hasty generalization, and other fallacies are not working at all. This is your final warning before I delete ALL of your comments yesterday.

      Delete
    7. Amen to that, Grant and Matt! Very well said overall. Randy the troll doesn't want to admit that he lost the argument, lol.

      Delete
    8. I don't even know where to begin but clearly he is opinionated on the string of young men and mass shootings. It should be known that in many of these cases the FBI or even local law enforcement were aware of suspicious activity but either didn't act because of not enough evidence and because we don't want to live in a "pre-crime" society we place a lot of emphasis on evidence. Unfortunately, while law enforcement is a part of the picture you can't only rely on them if everyone else is not doing their part. Many times these shooters have made disturbing statements whether in person or online and no one alerts staff at school or law enforcement. They have had mental health episodes and it's not always flagged in the NICS check.

      Again, it's not so much an age issue, as it is mental health. This is not to say that poor mental health is an excuse to go on a shooting rampage. However, the one thing that is true especially among many young men, is that they are struggling but do not get help. Young men are overrepresented in the suicide category. We can also debate about tightening our current gun laws (implementing universal background checks, magazine limits, safe storage) but instead of bashing and criminalizing men under 25 as dangerous psychopaths I would appreciate if Randy would advocate for mental health care for late adolescents and those in their early 20s.

      Raising the age to buy guns to 21 or 25 will solve nothing if you don't address the issues raised above. (poor mental health care, loopholes in our current gun laws, family dysfunction & abuse, adequate school safety measures). Trying to pre-crime men under 25 is discriminatory and won't help address the root causes. Besides, there are many mass shooters who are also over 25 further clarifying that it's not just age.

      Delete
    9. The one thing that keeps me grounded is always having a support system among family and friends. We all need that no matter how old we are, but it's even more essential as you navigate your first few years as an adult. Having someone to call me every now and then to say "Hey are you okay, how's school and your internship treating you"
      "Do you need anything" or "Don't be afraid to call for anything" is great. That's what many (not all) of these shooters lacked. No strong bonds which causes them to disassociate from others which is never a formula for anything healthy. It breeds the lone wolf types. Social isolation is not good for anyone, but the ramifications are exacerbated among teens and young adults during the years where part of "figuring out" who they are is by peer interaction and COVID-19 only made things worse.

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    11. The ageist troll's determined attitudes against young adults have more to do with his discriminatory attitudes against young adults. He backs his discriminatory attitudes with misinterpreted science. States should lower the minimum age to own guns to 18. The legal drinking, smoking age, Cannabis smoking age should all be 18. Young adults who are 18 years old are old enough and responsible enough to be granted the rights of privileges of adulthood. Anything less than this infantilization. Infantilization is oppression because it limits the opportunities and inclusion of young adults into the wider society. Infantilization is discriminatory and wrongful.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    14. What a shame that you support the Tobacco 21 organization. You support tyranny. Young adults don't need to be micromanged by the government or by awful organizations. Young adults need to have their rights like anyone else,

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    16. Tobacco is not a right. However, a right denied to others because of other reasons is discrimination, plain and simple.

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    20. You're on the wrong side of history. Eroding the rights of people has historically been the losing side.

      Delete
    21. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    23. "Because we've always done it this way!" is a terrible hill to die on Randy, but alright.

      Delete
    24. "Special rights" says Randy the troll. The same term that bigots once used (and sometimes still do) to disparage LGBT rights. It is about EQUAL rights, not "special rights". And I am deleting all of the troll's comments now.

      Delete
    25. Hey Randy, how does it feel be on the wrong side of history? Because I wouldn't know anything about that.

      Delete
    26. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    27. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    28. I for one refuse to feed this or any other troll anymore. These trolls really need to GET A LIFE already!

      Delete
    29. And by the way, anyone who considers 18-20 year olds to be "children" is either completely disingenuous, or seriously needs their head examined!

      Delete
  4. I feel terrible for "underage" adults in the US who have to put up with these attitudes even though they can vote. It says a lot that there is this chronic distrust in young adults' decision-making skills even after graduating high school.

    ReplyDelete
  5. https://www.facebook.com/RandyDemocrats

    ReplyDelete
  6. Replies
    1. And yes anyone under 21 is a child, period. See ya!

      Delete
    2. You are the biggest fat fuck-fuck I've ever seen

      Delete
    3. Don't think you have much room to talk Mr. Rhodes
      https://www.instagram.com/anthony009r/

      Delete
    4. Are you mad because you know you're going to an early death smoking all those cigars. It's ok bud.

      Delete
    5. What do you think of my Waffen SS uniform?

      Delete
    6. I was hoping you would find me.

      Delete
    7. Guys, please don't do this. Randy you lost, go to bed man. No need for outing people. You made your points but you need to stop antagonizing people. I always enjoy civil discussion but your behavior is making that difficult. Stop!

      Delete
    8. Indeed, Grant. Well-said. I am now closing this thread completely. Good night everyone.

      Delete
    9. Good night, and thanks for your thoughts as always!

      Delete
  7. For the record, Twenty-One Debunked does NOT encourage anyone to use alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, or any other substance. We simply believe that all legal adults 18 and older should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies without government interference. We are "pro choice on everything", basically. Or ar the very least, 18-20 year old young adults should have equal rights compared to people over 21. Period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My goodness! Such a radical idea. Won't you please think of the children! Lol. You have a lot of patience.
      America, the rest of the world, and its 18-year-olds are doing fine. I promise they haven't caused the collapse of society as we know it. 18-year-olds drink in bars here are respectful and simply want to enjoy their time with their peers. I didn't know that was a crime.

      Delete
    2. I know, right! Only in the USA and a handful of other countries could such an idea be considered even remotely radical at all. Everywhere else, the pro-21 crowd would be considered the real radicals, while people like us would be considered traditionalists.

      Delete
    3. Education is better than prohibition 95 percent of the time. Educate young drivers on alcohol and drunk driving. There needs to be a crackdown on drunk driving (lower the legal BAC limits). Turning 21 is not the magic age where you suddenly don't have the proclivity to do risky things. The penalties should be the same for all adults. That's a great place to start!

      Delete
  8. I'm dying with laughter over this thread. I love how Randy accuses anyone 25 or below of immaturity but he spends all day antagonizing individuals. Nuts!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know, right? He can't see the irony in his own beliefs, lol. Res ipas loquitur. The thing speaks for itself.

      And he needs to get a life. Yesterday.

      Delete
    2. Looks like the troll finally gave up.

      Delete