Prompted by “Report: California Should Keep Pot Taxes Low”: http://www.hightimes.com/read/report-california-should-keep-pot-taxes-low
While my morning java works its magic, I read through the prompting piece and got hit with the following:
“High prices, which you can induce by putting a minimum price on or setting high taxes, are good for deterring use, especially by kids, but if they are too high the illicit market can still continue,” Humphreys said. “So that’s a balancing act and that’s why one of the other things we emphasize is the importance of some flexibility in the process.”
Obviously, rich kids have no problem affording the kind of ‘price fixing for children protection’ that the market will bear.
Equally obviously, poor people (including responsible adults) in general have a serious problem affording that kind of price fixing, so raises a solid fairness issue (the kind of inequality that certain traditional political leftists aggressively promoting a complexly judicial assault towards “regulating” civility for equality hypocritically fail to acknowledge). Government price fixing advocates would love to solve this issue by more price fixing (so income fixing), but I somewhat digress with an understanding that price fixing is obviously problematic due to the serious temptation towards favoritism against public safety (i.e. no evidence proves we can trust the government to form equality for us all, instead of again enriching themselves with the power to coerce such “equality”).
Optimal stress management in poor communities is needed for societal safety.
Alcohol and tobacco are terrible stress management tools, but are frequently abused as such at terrible risk and highly questionable effectiveness.
Tobacco brings about serious health problems and is also expensive (to protect the children), so increases unhealthy stress by combining a very powerfully addictive substance with severely limited resources. It’s like the government “solving” the health insurance absence by judicially forcing people to buy insurance or pay a fine — another way of outrageously disrespectfully blaming millions of poor people for making poor purchasing decisions (e.g. buying tobacco and alcohol instead of health insurance). Moreover and by the way, price fixing to form a government-sanctioned monopoly is what the healthcare industry has been turned into (that’s why products and services cost well beyond reason) — such wildly out-of-control favoritism backed by law against righteous competition doesn’t protect the children.
To disrespect the economy is naturally to destroy the economy (e.g. by reckless and favoritism-driven price fixing “to protect the children”), and since that demonstrably overwhelmingly complex flow of value is essential for humanity’s work flow (and overall stress management), such destruction is hideous (doesn’t protect anyone), but I somewhat digress again.
Alcohol is hideously destabilizing and also dominantly negatively affects health. Often ruining wise inhibition, alcohol leads to serious violence and other recklessly formed problems (e.g. premature pregnancy).
As the cannabis dependency rate is very low, and such dependency is “generally mild” (both according to the Institute of Medicine), and cannabis effects can easily and predictably (and controllably) be stable and non-inhibition affecting (with an oceanic set of options for maximum flexibility, so a high stress managing accuracy), the result is a seriously powerful stress management tool for poor through rich communities — with positive rippling results improving overall public safety (obviously including protecting the children).
If you want to keep the rich (through poor) kids away from abusing a plant, then show them that lame parents really think that plant is cool (noting they should, because that plant is cool — when used right).
Instead, such lame adults send the wrong message to children by prohibition (it’s so cool, “sadomoralistic” tight-ass “lamos” ban it). Kids who can’t afford the taxes can afford the black market reach (as they do with alcohol and tobacco — even if it’s just approaching questionable strangers to go into the store and consequently supply their demand — which does happen).
It’s all about stupidity (seriously, all of it).
That stupidity comes from abusive conduct on either side (or within) the “thin blue line” (in police-speak), so the idea of growing government to dictate our lives by supposedly trying to coerce stupidity out of existence is ironically stupid.
Stupidity doesn’t honor that line (as history continuously shows us all), but it must honor objectivity, which is required for fairness — so justice — so just law (e.g. not price fixing via the tried-and-miserably-failed ‘you can trust the government, despite glaring conflicts of interest’ meme ignoring outrageous abuses throughout history to demonstrate high levels of mass stupidity).
You want a logical way out of this nightmare? Liberty Shield provides a solid option for any reasonable person along the political spectrum.
Law has its place, but its abuse is so wildly rampant these days, to ignore that abuse is supremely stupid (logically speaking).