(NY Times) With Marijuana having become Legal in some States, Localities Begin to Just Say No

“This is not about the adult being able to smoke a joint,” said Mr. Sabet of Smart Approaches to Marijuana. “It’s about widespread access, it’s about changing the landscape of a neighborhood, it’s about widespread promotion and advertising, and it’s about youth access.”

Supporters of legalization say that because voters statewide approved a system guaranteeing adults access to legal marijuana, they will push state regulators and lawmakers to meet that mandate, possibly by pushing for penalties against local governments that enact bans.

But Dave Ettl, a Yakima City Council member who voted for the ban, said he was willing to risk penalties, saying he considered the promised tax revenues from marijuana sales tainted.

“There’s some money that’s not worth getting,” he said.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, * International News & Commentary, America/U.S.A., Children, City Government, Consumer/consumer spending, Drugs/Drug Addiction, Economy, Ethics / Moral Theology, Health & Medicine, Law & Legal Issues, Marriage & Family, Politics in General, State Government, Theology

5 comments on “(NY Times) With Marijuana having become Legal in some States, Localities Begin to Just Say No

  1. Br. Michael says:

    “There’s some money that’s not worth getting,” he said.

    And that’s how I think about other dirty money from lotteries and other taxes collected on vice.

  2. Ad Orientem says:

    As one who supports decriminalization because prohibition has been repeatedly proven to be unworkable and counterproductive, I think reasonable local restrictions are just fine. There all kinds of bans in place for smoking cigarettes and drinking in public. There is no reason at all similar ones should not apply to left handed luckys.

    There is a difference between decriminalizing something and endorsing its use whenever and wherever someone wants. Likewise just as smoking has declined sharply in no small measure due to social ostracism, that remains the best way to deal with marijuana. Similarly employers are free to prohibit employees from using it, and may dismiss those who fail drug tests, irregardless of its legality.

    Decriminalization is just that, and ONLY that. It means we won’t throw you in jail if we catch with a joint or if you are smoking in the privacy of your home. Nothing more is implied.

  3. Ad Orientem says:

    Typos… ugh.

  4. Br. Michael says:

    Ad Orientem, I understand your argument, but I disagree. Decriminilization is the first step to open celebration. Look at homosexuality. Decriminilization is endorsement.

  5. Ad Orientem says:

    Br. Michael
    Statistics suggest otherwise. In those countries that have substantially decriminalized drugs, coupled with an aggressive program treating drug addiction as a public health issue, we have seen precipitous declines in the overall rates of drug use, addiction, deaths from overdose, and violent crime. See Switzerland and Portugal for examples.

    Prohibition is and has always been a colossal failure. The ‘war on drugs’ has caused far more harm than good.