How long before someone makes the argument that the government has to deal drugs in order to afford the medicine Americans need? The libertarian rejoinder that we can and should decriminalize pot without nationalizing health care shows more intellectual promise than popular support. And too many libertarians, I think, fantasize in the closet about a world in which big government and big business partner to deliver everyone safe recreational drugs at a price every American can afford.
Monday, October 26, 2009, 9:27 AM
James Poulos
October 26th, 2009 | 2:37 pm
Here, see a postmodernist’s truest passion, cleverness? Or, answering the rhetorical question: probably a pretty long time, despite the delicious irony that would result.
But taking up the premise, would you prefer (1) a state providing no drugs, and criminalizing some; or (2) a state providing some drugs, and criminalizing others? We pretty clearly have #2 right now, and depend on “medical necessity” to make the categorical distinctions legitimate.
I ask because I’m curious to know the ‘pomoco line,’ if there is one, on various issues, including that of government and drugs (both needed and wanted).
October 27th, 2009 | 12:26 am
Doesn’t custom make some drugs criminal and others medicinal? So marijuana serves some medicinal purposes for relieving the pain of illness or encouraging an appetite for those who do not feel like eating in their illness or at least adding a degree of euphoria for those who are ill. Pot also provides these things for the well, and the overwhelming majority of those who smoke pot have no identifiable illness, pain or lack of appetite. They smoke pot because they like it. They find life boring and painful and weed makes them feel good (and makes them feel creative). Those who seek after pot to alleviate a disease that is identifiable by an expert so they can get their bag of weed will have to be added to the plan to provide health care at a reasonable cost. Cat’t the sick already get their fix as it is? The healthy have no problem getting dope?
It would be an irony if taxation upon legalized weed helped to pay for socialized medicine. First of all, it would have to be an incredibly steep price to pay in order to make up for the costs of medicine. Taxing pot will not pay for socialized medicine will not make up the costs regardless of how many potheads would avail themselves of the sanctioned weed. It sounds like a stop-gap measure that will only pay of special interests like corn based ethanol (except in this case it would be pot growers and distributors). Secondly–as mentioned–medicinal marijuana will only encourage more people to add themselves to the roll of the dole of legally sanctioned illnesses. Won’t socialized medicine have to pay for my general anxiety which requires me to smoke it in the first place. This would be tantamount to taxing a publicly subsidized drug. This makes no sense.
I always thought that pot smoking was for bohemians. Those who could not or chose not to fit into society smoked pot, and like the Herodotean Scythians, laughed all night long. My experience is that pot only makes you more paranoid which I suppose could be another psychotic disease covered by public health care–only this time with cocaine. Cocaine makes you even more paranoid, so this should sanction legalized heroin at public expense. Heroin makes all life not worth living–so we may as well cut out the middle man (in this case marijuana) and subsidize drugs for the purpose of suicide.
I suppose you’ll answer, only weirdos see pot as a “gateway” drug. This is not convincing, as every pot head I know smokes tobacco and drinks alcohol.
So even if it is arbitrary, why not leave pot for the bohemians. besides it makes it more fun, and doesn’t lead to the “logical” conclusion.
If pot pays for heath care, then Soylent Green is just a step away. I know this is excessive, but excessive rhetoric is sometimes necessary.
October 30th, 2009 | 4:16 am
Thought you might enjoy this song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_exvKnrK6g
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact