A strictly prohibited market will always result in a completely unregulated market.

As a Harvard grad, former Princeton professor, and the son of a respected rabbi, Ethan Nadelmann might seem like an unlikely advocate for legalizing marijuana. But when you meet him, it all makes a lot of sense.

The governor and the representatives of the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging that previous efforts have not succeeded in eliminating or curtailing marijuana use and abuse; determined to exercise some measure of control over the use of cannabis consistent with respect for individual freedom and responsibility; and declaring our objectives to be the reduction of cannabis abuse, the elimination of marijuana-related crime and the raising of public revenue, do hereby ordain and enact The Cannabis Regulation and Taxation Act.

Hearing to be held tomorrow. Meanwhile, Western Australia introduces tougher cannabis laws, and there is radio silence on the whole issue in Australia.

The Premier Colin Barnett has announced plans to repeal Labor's cannabis laws within a fortnight.

Mr Barnett made the commitment to change the laws at the last election.

He says the new legislation will make it illegal to cultivate cannabis plants, and the legal possession limit will be reduced from 30 grams to 10 grams.

The laws will also make it illegal to sell cannabis smoking implements.

Q: The results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking were released in 2006. Which of the following conclusions did it reach?

a) Marijuana use significantly increased the likelihood of developing lung cancer.

b) Marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer.

c) Marijuana smokers and cigarette smokers were equally likely to develop lung cancer.

d) Marijuana-only smokers were more likely than cigarette-only smokers to develop lung cancer.

The answer, perhaps to your surprise, is b.

Not only was marijuana smoking not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer, but it was not found to be associated with lung-related cancers at all, even among subjects who had smoked up to 22,000 joints in their lifetimes. The study’s lead researcher, Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, offered, "We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer … What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." What the latter part of that quote means is that people who smoked marijuana actually had *lower* incidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug.

TAKE THE QUIZ

From an article in the Washington Post, describing how domestic production is undercutting the Mexican cartels:

The shifting economics of the marijuana trade have broad implications for Mexico's war against the drug cartels, suggesting that market forces, as much as law enforcement, can extract a heavy price from criminal organizations that have used the spectacular profits generated by pot sales to fuel the violence and corruption that plague the Mexican state.

Economics 101.

As the debate about Cannabis legalization gathers steam, the neo-prohibitionists will doubtless ramp up their campaign to keep marijuana illegal. Consistency is not the strength of the prohibition movement. They'll happily keep throwing mud (reefer madness! it makes Mexicans homicidal!) until something sticks.

Although the historical assaults on cannabis no longer carry much weight, the prohibition movement has settled upon a few key points that will likely be the most often repeated anti-pot points you'll hear over the next couple of years. Those key points are:

1. Marijuana is much stronger than it used to be.
2. Marijuana causes mental illness, in particular schizophrenia.
3. The economic costs of legalizing marijuana would outweigh the benefits.

All these points are demonstrably false. However, merely demonstrating that they are false isn't enough. On These Ramparts will attempt to demonstrate four things about each of these points:

• Where does this argument come from?
• Why is it false?
• Why does it resonate with people? (in other words, why is it being used?)
• How can this argument be effectively neutralized?

I sent this email to the NCPIC on October 1st:

Your website provides a great deal of information about the peripheral issues surrounding cannabis legalization, but as such provides no succinct statement about why cannabis should not be legalized. Is it a moral issue for the NCPIC? Economic? Or do you simply assume that the negative effects of legalization are so perfectly self-evident that no justification for keeping cannabis illegal is required?

Furthermore, is the NCPIC forbidden to even explore the possibility of legalization, or does it remain neutral in this regard?

If this answers are already on the NCPIC website, and I have overlooked them, I apologize for wasting your time.

Regards,

JS Mill
On These Ramparts.

No response as of yet.

Initially only Nevada permitted gambling, and then it was just Nevada and New Jersey. "But over a period of time," Stroup says, "the morality part of the issue kind of dissipated, and there were more and more needs for new revenue, and today almost every state in the country allows legalized gambling."

Link