Does Violence in Mexico Put Us Under a Moral Obligation Not to Smoke Weed?
The Economist says we ought to "set aside our bongs" in order to help decrease Mexican violence.
But this is probably incorrect.
Rather, the U.S. is obligated to legalize the stuff. The state has absolutely no right to make such a thing illegal in the first place. The prohibition itself is immoral, an irrational infringement by government into the private sphere.
But, hey, buy American if you can.
The Economist says we ought to "set aside our bongs" in order to help decrease Mexican violence.
But this is probably incorrect.
Rather, the U.S. is obligated to legalize the stuff. The state has absolutely no right to make such a thing illegal in the first place. The prohibition itself is immoral, an irrational infringement by government into the private sphere.
But, hey, buy American if you can.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:15 PM
2 Comments:
The sole "success" the government has ever had in the drug war was to domesticate the pot-growing industry, but I guess that was only temporary.
Correction: the Ecomonist says that, given that the president and the drug czar are not open to decriminalizing marijuana, pot smokers should not buy pot that comes from Mexico because that pot is supporting a particularly vicious market. Does this suggestion sound unreasonable? The Economist had been a long-time advocate of decriminalizing/legalizing pot. Their last issue on the topic, which came out about six months ago, makes a very strong case that doing so would be a strong economic boost for the US. Writers for the Ecomonist usually take strong positions on this issue.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home