Editor’s note: This commentary is by John Klar, who is an attorney, farmer and writer from Brookfield, and a candidate in the 2020 Republican primary for governor.
There is no question that consuming cannabis for its intoxicating effects is harmful to the human brain — especially the developing brain of the young. The problem with prohibition is that government has never been very successful in efforts to control human yearnings for intoxication. A conservative virtue (to learn from past mistakes and not repeat them) suggests that softening government “police powers” might better reduce drug use among our youth — especially in the midst of a fentanyl-related crisis of overdose deaths.
The Volstead Act went into effect in 1920, ushering America’s surreal battle between the federal government and various nefarious gangsters over the lucrative business of distributing “intoxicants.” The well-intentioned Protestant desire to eradicate alcohol abuse instead opened an unintentioned gateway — to the criminal underworld, where liquor was linked to prostitution, gambling, and other illicit unregulated drugs.
The country “came to its senses” in 1933: Historians continue to differ on whether the Prohibition effort was a success or a failure. The “conservative case” made by the CATO Institute is that:
“National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33) — the ‘noble experiment’– was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure.”
This principle applies equally (conservatively) well to transactions between Cheech & Chong or Bill & Ted. It is also borne out by common sense. As one Ph.D. argued in Psychology Today:
“As marijuana becomes legal in essentially all states for medical use and is accepted in more and more states recreationally, it is entirely possible that this whole Gateway theory will simply no longer be relevant. Getting cannabis will no longer involve illegal action, meaning most marijuana users will not have broken the law. I believe this single change will prove to be incredibly important for use of ‘harder’ drugs. No doubt, the next substance in line will now become the “gateway” as its use will be the entryway into the black market of drugs.”
If this logic is true, then perhaps the doctors and pharmacists who opposed the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 were wise conservatives — making the stuff illegal is what leads to association with other drugs, not its chemical properties. Government veers into the Orwellian realm when one group of citizens seeks to employ the law’s bureaucratic tendrils to manipulate another subgroup — such aims are likely to be thwarted when government intrudes between a citizen and his/her intoxicants.
Those who favor cannabis prohibition will not likely grant that it could be prohibition itself which opens the gate to more drug use and crime. But the issue is moot, for practical reasons: Cannabis is a weed, and grows very efficiently in most any climate. It grows well in frigid Vermont (even at the Statehouse!). America has been unable to eradicate processed imported drugs like heroin and methamphetamine from maximum security prisons: fentanyl-laced heroin is rampant, inexpensive, and stronger, cheaper methamphetamine is on its way from Mexico. A conservative use of police resources is to focus them on the opioids rather than a ubiquitous domestic herb that cannot be effectively controlled.
But in Vermont, as in many states, the Legislature has focused on cannabis as another cash cow, with proposals to tax commercial sales at 16-18%, and higher. Such high sales taxes are unrealistic, and will drive the entire market underground. The “progressive” Legislature seeks to swap a civil prohibition for a criminal one, echoing that Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which imposed a $100 per ounce tax on the stuff. Pretending to broaden Vermonters’ liberties, the Legislature in fact seeks to milk taxpayer wallets while flooding the state with illegal cannabis — leaving the gateway open for young people to connect with dealers of extremely potent drugs such as heroin, LSD, or methamphetamine.
Polls used to justify legalization reflected that Vermonters approved of legalizing commercial sales at tax rates comparable to alcohol — which is 6%. The bait-and-switch occurred once the Vermont Legislature employed that poll to obtain a license to tax. Alas, cannabis prices are plummeting, and those tax revenue fantasies will melt like August snow.
The “conservative” approach is to tax cannabis at 6% (as implicitly promised), ramp up penalties for provision to minors (as with alcohol), institute drug testing for impaired drivers, and focus on prevention programs such as LEADS. Such adaptation offers the best hope of actually reducing the drug’s popularity and use among the young, while closing the door to contact with dealers of harder drugs.
Cannabis is damaging to the human mind. In Vermont, it is now legal to inflict such damage, and the Legislature is widely expected to legalize commercial sales in 2020. But high taxes and widespread availability ensure a market more flooded with potent black market weed than before cannabis was legalized. Only low taxes coupled with harsh enforcement can correct that imbalance. In time, statistics may reveal just how damaging pot is (especially vaping), and there might be a return to prohibition — in the interim, sensible policy must be embraced in view of socio-political reality.
Meanwhile, Vermont’s progressive Legislature continues to lay plans for a big tax windfall on imagined “future income streams” from cannabis sales — these legislators suffer cravings (the revenue munchies) for ever more levies. Completely disconnected from reality, they have embarked on a greedy Reefer Madness all their own — an amplified appetite for taxation.
