Pot and Paradigm Shifts

I wish to comment on a debate that seems to even have conservatives split down the middle. That is, the legalization of marijuana. Let me say straight up that I do not believe it should be legalized. I recognize, however, that this is a heated issue because on one hand you have children involved and a dangerous substance that can destroy lives and on the other hand you have principles of freedom that tell you we should all be allowed to do what we want. Where do you draw the line? At what point do you sacrifice certain freedoms in order to preserve even greater ones?

There are a lot arguments that need to be considered in this debate. One, you can argue that the health effects from marijuana are no worse the alcohol and cigarettes, and you would have a lot of medical evidence to support that. Two, you could argue the economics of the issue, saying that there is a lot of tax revenue to be gained and money to be saved by loosening the war on drugs. Three, you could argue the social aspects of the issue, that kids already have access to it anyways and the stuff they get their hands on is dirty compared to a legally manufactured kind. Finally, you could care less about any of these arguments but believe that everyone should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want, even if it is pot. All of these arguments make valid points, and I do not wish to argue economics or health. I would rather talk about our society and our children.

You have a vast spectrum to consider here. On one end you have extremism in the form of Obama trying to tell us we shouldn't even drink (a.k.a. taxing) sugar soda and on the other you have morphine available in every candy isle. I think ALL of us agree that we would not support either extreme. So, in an admittedly illogical attempt to find some sort of middle ground we have decided that we should have the right to consume certain substances but not others. We have even had to go through some trial and error (prohibition) in order to find a medium that seems to work. In truth, the line we have drawn doesn't make a lot of sense. Since marijuana is illegal, you could make an excellent argument that nicotine and alcohol should be as well. Conversely, since alcohol and nicotine are legal you could make an excellent argument that marijuana should be as well. It seems like a conundrum, and in reality it is. (cont.)

My point of all of this is that since we have drawn a line, that for decades has gone unchanged, to move that line in either direction at this point would require no less than a paradigm shift for our entire society. It would cause us to re-evaluate every other substance we have deemed illegal and one thing we have learned over time is that if you give an extremist an inch, they will take a mile. You would have to restructure our entire education programs that discourage kids from doing drugs. And soon, you will see the extremists want to shift the line a little more (and since it had already been done once, it will be even easier next time). And then again, and again. And then all of a sudden we are experiencing the absolute disaster that European countries have already experienced having traveled down this road. And that is not the America I want my children growing up in. So I say, let's leave the line where it is.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

Taxes and the Taxed

Confusing title, I know. So here is the basic point I want to make (that liberals seem unable to comprehend): there is a huge difference between who gets taxed and who actually pays for the tax.

For example, a tax levied on a company never actual gets paid by the company (what?! you say). Who pays it? The consumers and the employees. You see, a company exists to make a profit. That means revenue must be greater than expenses. Taxes are considered an expense. If you increase taxes on the company, they are forced to either decrease expenses elsewhere or increase revenue. What is the easiest way to accomplish this? Either by raising the prices of the goods or services they provide or cutting back on payroll (either by layoffs, compensation reduction, or reduced benefits). So who ends up getting hurt? The very people that were told they shouldn't have to pay taxes to begin with. The very people that liberals claim to represent.

While this is the most concrete example, there are others. Suppose you want to increase taxes on luxury items. Your thinking goes like this: the rich, who buy most luxury items, can afford to pay a little more for something they don't even necessarily need. The problem is that in reality when you tax a luxury item and thus force it to become more expensive, demand goes down for that item no matter how rich the consumer is. So the rich person will find an alternative luxury item or way to spend their money. And who ends up paying the price for the tax and suffering because of it? The industries and the (non-rich) workers that make the luxury goods, the one that are supposed to benefit from this whole plan to begin with.

The pattern that begins to emerge is that no matter what, or who, you tax it is always the people on the bottom who end up paying for it. Do you see the paradox here? The very tax system that is supposed to help the little guy is the same system that keeps him little and therefore makes him dependent. And that is exactly what liberalism needs to survive. It is a catch 22. It is a sham and we need to wake up and break the cycle.

What do you think?

Quote of the day

Excerpt from "An open letter to our nation's leadership":

...Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

Janet Contreras

Read the whole letter here.

If you agree, sign the petition here.