I am amused by the new-found argument by NORML and assorted activists on legalizing marijuana.  Legalize it, tax it, regulate it, and it’ll pour in enough money to save a few of California’s programs — the specific argument made by the ad not allowed on some stations in that stumbling state.

It’s actually a reprise of arguments made in the early 1930s by the likes of Alfred Smith, du Pont, and various “wet” politicians.  Of course, in the case of Smith, repealing Prohibition was roughly the totality of solving America’s economic crisis.  A good idea, surely, the repealing of Prohibition, but it’s hard to view it as much of a pancrea to an imperiled economy.  At least the marijuana activists aren’t promising the world, but it does seem to be a rather random hook for the issue of marijuana legalization to be placed over — a rationalization, not an argument.  The regulation of alcohol and tobacco hasn’t saved California from bankruptcy, why would a third drug?

Nationally, the man Obama, who “inhaled, that was the point” — scooted away with a giggle the question on the youtube questioning, — though, I guess, strictly speaking his answer is correct — and appointed a Drug Czar who whatever his policy acumen retains the title “Drug Czar”.  Supposedly the “war” references are being clamped down, which would mark a departure from the vice-president’s political battles of the 1980s.

This entry was posted on Monday, July 20th, 2009 at 1:19 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.