A Newfound Flexibility

It's been said that everyone has a price. For politicians and policymakers, the price of a major fiscal crisis is a willingness to abandon principles, join hands with arch rivals, and readily redefine what is and isn't acceptable behavior, as the New York Times' Freakonomics blog suggests in "Isn’t It Funny How Governments Loosen Their Morals When Cash Is Short?":

From Dan Okrent’s recent Q&A

In short: governments who hate vice suddenly hate it much less when cash flow is slow. And we are seeing that again today.

• Congress may overturn a four-year-old ban on Internet gambling in order to tax it. (One potential conflict: most states rely on proceeds from their own lotteries, which carry a comically huge vig of at least 30%.)
• In California (and elsewhere), marijuana is becoming increasingly available, and is being taxed accordingly.
• Hard-hit local governments are loosening alcohol restrictions in airports to raise tax revenue.

Comments

[Mark Wolfinger]

"With the state in dire straits in finances and the country looking for ways to pay down debt, looking at illegal drugs is the absolute wrong thing to do"

Right idea, wrong approach.

The obvious step is to make using and selling these drugs legal. The money to be saved is uncountable. It would reduce police, FBI, border guards etc overtime and payrolls. It would kill the Taliban - as we remove their source of income. It would end drug wars and gangs fighting over territory. It would make life in America - and I hope the rest of the world - so much better for 99% of the population.

The downside - more people would have the freedom to choose narcotics - just as they currently choose cigarettes and alcohol. What's wrong with that? We could establish treatment centers for those interested.

[Mike G]

When state lotteries first appeared, my wife christened them "a tax on stupidity." If you think about it, that's less tax smart people have to pay.

[Elf]

@Mark,

If 99% of us needed that stuff - I don't know what kind of a world it would be, but it would probably be worse than the world I've seen. And I've seen bad..

"We could establish treatment centers for those interested."

Well so much for your savings....

[sharonsj]

NPR had a segment about the drug cartels in Mexico. The final discussion was about legalizing drugs--that would stop the drug cartels in their tracks and also stop the cross-border violence! We should legalize all drugs, especially marijuana, and regulate and tax them. First savings would be the billions we spend on the ridiculous "war on drugs." Then all the sick people who need marijuana would get help, and a tons of new businesses would be created.

The only reason not to legalize drugs is that those getting rich on the money flow would be really upset, and then politicians and law enforcement wouldn't be getting their kickbacks and bribe money.

[francismarion]

Is government going to give an O.K. to parents using heroin while their kids are in the house? The effects of this drug on individuals is monsterous and to assent to its use around children is beyond the pale.

Wake up, kiddies, Mama needs to go to town and get her fix. Suzie, you stay home and take care of Daddie and I'll bring you back some candy.

Don't get me started on Pot. I know as much as anyone alive about it and it is just as bad. Death by inches.

Maybe if we just started horseraces by injecting the horses with massive amounts of cocaine to get a really fast race, I might go along with that one.

Trying to stop drug trade?
Shoot first and ask questions later. It's easier to apologize than get permission.

Need more money for the budget? Cut across the board and let'em scream.

No magic mushrooms, no magic bullets.

[Mark Wolfinger]

Francismarion:

Typical approach of someone who has nothing to say in a discussion: Shoot first.

No, the government is not going to give an ok to parents to do anything, other than use their best judgment.

There is no reason to believe anyone not using now would begin just becasue it becomes inexpensive and readily available.

You probably serve drinks around your kids and think nothing of it. Alcohol causes tragedies, but we make no attempt to limit it's sale to adults.

We condone the use of tobacco by allowing it to be grown and sold. On the larger scale, how is that any different from pot? Tobacco kills slowly, forcing the non-smokers to foot the financial bill for the older smokers.

Decriminalization of drugs is the answer. But the right wing will never allow it and the left wing is too cowardly to act.

[Blurtman]

@francismarion,

You paint a dire picture of a possible future, but what you portray is a scenario that runs around in your (twisted?) mind. Could you research the situation in the Netherlands and report back?

I suppoose then you must be actively picketing the fast food franchises, and the sugar and carb industries, too? Could you tell us how that is going?

[Youngworker]

The reason not to legalize is to prevent every city in the USA from becoming filthy Amsterdam like.

[roger]

History says, forbid and you make it worst,
remember prohibition? my kids where never forbidden
to drink alcohol or smoke, my eldest is 59.youngest
48 on the middle one 52, we have 3 granddaughters
raised the same way , nobody in this family smokes,we drink
wine in moderation,living by the example
is the best way. by the way no religion involved we
are all good atheist.

[Sam, forex trading course coach]

True everyone has their price. Oldest known fact since the beginning of time...

[Laurent Idlas]

The point is they don't want to make it legal as it would not make so much money...legal drugs and no wars?
no no no what about the huge money made by the milatary industrial complex what about the big money the corrupt politicians make? Are you out of your mind? Theses guys Obabush and all they don't want a world of loving kindness of brotherhood of justice etc, well a world we may call a socialist society but the point is not so much to know whether they want it BUT DO YOU WANT IT?

[Tim]

Francismarion:

I served in the NYPD Narcotics Division. I considered heroin one of the drugs that might be appropriate for some form of legalization. Drugs like PCP, meth and cocaine produce very aberrant behavior and would be much tougher to legalize. A dust head (PCP) going wild is a sight to behold.

[Blurtman]

Here is a link that compares drug polcies and drug use in the Netherlands versus the USA.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/67

[Marion Shaw]

There is nothing new under the sun, including a
widespread opium trade in the 19th Century in
Imperial China. The British had the largest slice of
the pie and thousands of Chinese were hooked on opium
for pennies on the dollar. For all practical purposes
it was legal and unimpeded for decades. The well
documented, indisputed havoc it reaped on an already
oppressed and suffering Chinese population cannot be underestimated. It was not a question of let them eat
cake; it was a question of let them smoke themselves
unto indifference, apathy and death. It seems to me
that the legal drug trade (ie: pharmaseuticals) has
already created a dangerous dependency in America;
created a princely class of investors; and pushed financial solvency further away from the average person than ever before. What possible good would come
from further legalizing mind, mood and behavior altering drug addictions?

[Blurtman]

@ Marion Shaw,

I can't see the connection that you are making between use of legal psychoactive drugs, and a princely investor class and worsening standard of living. And you seem to throw around the addcition word a bit lightly.

I remember reading one of the first books on Prozac called Listening to Prozac. The author made the argument that the drug when properly used made people more effective in their lives, and in their jobs.

Do individuals have the righ to regulate their neurohormones or not? Can the government jail people for ingesting the fruit of a plant?

[francismarion]

'Can the government jail people for ingesting the fruit of a plant?'

What a provocative question! Surely you were thinking of the expulsion from the Garden of Eden when you wrote that. My head reels with the irony.

Societies are based on requirements and prohibitions. Usually they are handled by public opinion. But when they break down as the case seems to be in our society, government must step in.

You would stop a blind man from falling into a ditch, wouldn't you?

Depending on how you answer that question you must decide if you would legalize drugs.

How about a synthetic drug that causes insanity or death in 10% of users but gives a really good rush?
How about slow strangulation to produce hallucinations? Guaranteed fatal in only 2% of cases.
How about a drug that is free and causes the user to turn into a mindless zombie in ten years?

"I brought my kids up right. Just a little wine." Fine. But some kid brought some of their dad's stash from home and your kid's best friend just did some of it and has offered you kid a ride home. Happy trails.

Society is not some big sloppy snot-rag we can pass around or decline as our fastidiousness prescribes. We are all part of the same device.

The well-meaning dupes are just as guilty as the money hungry politicians as the abusers as the stupid. NO.

[francismarion]

@Mark Wolffinger: 'There is no reason to believe anyone not using it now would begin just because it is inexpensive and readily available?'

Who repealed the laws of supply and demand?

@Blurtman: Weak try. The issue is whether we should legalize illicit drugs. Marion Shaw's point stands.

@Tim: Blessing one class of illicit drugs will only increase the clamor for others.

Abandonment of principles for money or expediency doesn't sound good on the face of it and is a sure-fire prescription for further societal dissolution.

[plundered]

[OTE67] On the Edge with Max Keiser and Danny Schechter

http://tinyurl.com/2ahejby

[Blurtman]

@franismarion,

"@Blurtman: Weak try. The issue is whether we should legalize illicit drugs. Marion Shaw's point stands."

OK, I guess you are this website moderator. Doh! We define what is legal and illicit. You are arguing with yourself and losing. Marijuana was first legal in the USA. Are you therefore arguing that it should not have been made illegal?

1/3 of Americans are obese, not just overweight, but obese. These folks are driving up health care costs and entitlement spending for the rest of the country. Also inconveniencing everyone else with their largesse, for example, taking up more than their allotted space on an airplane.

Let's arrest obese people and put fast food restaurants out of business, and these peddlers of dangerous food in jail.

What, you eat fast food and your weight is normal, and you lab tests are OK? You eat fast food and are a responsible member of society? You like fast food and don't feel you should go to jail just because ou eat it? Sorry, but it is for the best of the country that you serve time for eating that burger.

[Marion Shaw]

Well, Blurtman, two wrongs do not make a right; neither
do three or four. Obeisity is a killer that came
along with the breakdown of absentee parenting.
Drug and alcohol abuse has always been along. But if
we get too controlling, as our nanny government, highly
populated by nonmarried or childless professionals I
might add, we will be locking up people for sexual deviancy, a term no longer allowed; locking them up
for not eating the right foods from the right stores or
from the right fields, locking them up for driving cars
with pollutants; locking them up for looking crossed
eyed at the television set. There will be no end to
it; thank God for the Bill of rights, as fragile as they are these days. However, hard core drug addictions
are no laughing matter and the state does have an interest in protecting its citizens from drug and
sex traffickers. If that interest dissipates into weigh
and life style control, there won't be much left for
the individual to do but be on the lookout for his
soylent green (a reference to an old sci fy movie with
Charles Heston_). I don't think any of want that do we?

[francismarion]

Sorry I hurt your feeling, Blurtman. With a name like that I didn't have you figured for the sensitive type. Anyhoo, the legalization of a substance that has been deemed as harmful deserves the most profound consideration as we must weigh its effects on not only the once in a while casual, cautious user but also the most vulnerable among us, about whom I believe my earlier remarks are sufficient.

The stuff is poison, we have enough stupifacients already, the weak must be protected from themselves and others and its just plain bad for society.

I know some will cry out for more freedoms. O.K.: Everyone who agrees to notify the parents of the victims of their 'freedom' (aka addiction) and clean up the mess, raise your hands.

Any takers?

As for burgers and fries, you fly-I buy.

And by the way, to respond to your supposition, I am not the moderator. I am the arbiter. I am the Swamp Fox.

[Blurtman]

@Marionshaw,

OK, some things that are bad for you and for society are OK, but others that you disapprove of, but are not necessarily bad are not OK. You are entitled to your illogical opinion, but marijunana is being legalized in California.

@francimarion,

You are entitled to your biases, but there is no data backing them up, not that that is an issue with you. Marijunana is becoming legal. Get over it.

[Marion Shaw]

OK. Blurtman. This is America. Marijuna will go legal
and California will go bankrupt on its present
course, according to the news reports. As an eyewitness
of the emerging drug culture, starting in Cambridge,
Mass. in 1968 and ending in one of the most heavily
vested marijunana cultures in the country today,
its off to la la land. I cannot help but wonder if
bankruptcy and chronic drug use (albeit generous alcohol,etc) do not go hand in hand? On an individual level, there is no doubt. On a national level, I guess that remains to be seen.

[francismarion]

Excellent point, Marion Shaw! I must repeat it. Drug legalization will not keep California out of bankruptcy. The numbers don't add up.

What it will do is further erode the standard of living in an already crumbling society. How fitting, though tragic, that California is poised to add the gratuitous burden of greater recreational drug use on top of a sinking culture.

But at least they will have their rights! No one can tell them what to do! No one will be the boss of them! They'll show us!

Alas, it appears they shall.