When broke, tax the toke?
The pragmatic economic argument for taxing legal marijuana
When broke, tax the toke?
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
My Sunday print column, expanded and updated:
The voters of trend-setting California may well decide this November to legalize marijuana – there’s a serious ballot referendum, and 56 percent of Californians say they support the idea – and no doubt this would be great news for the munchie industry, the bootleggers of Grateful Dead music, and the millions of respectable tax-paying tokers who have long yearned for an era of reefer gladness.
Seriously, this is a story about how desperate times require desperate measures. Legalization advocates, including many ex-cops and ex-prosecutors, have long contended that it’s nuts to keep criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens while wasting $8 billion a year in law-enforcement costs. That argument has never worked. But the new argument, cleverly synched to the recession mindset, may well herald a new chapter in the history of pot prohibition.
It’s simple, really: State governments awash in red ink can solve some of their revenue woes by legalizing marijuana for adults and slapping it with a sin tax.
So much of the marijuana debate used to be about morality; now it’s mostly about economics and practicality – which is why New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are also floating measures to legalize and tax; why similar voter referenda are in the works in Washington state and Oregon; why 14 states - including, most recently, New Jersey - have legalized medical marijuana, and why even Pennsylvania, hardly known as a haven for innovation, is currently weighing the sanction of medical pot, complete with six percent sales tax. (Meanwhile, the city of Philadelphia, with an OK from the state Supreme Court, is reportedly preparing to decriminalize the possession of weed for personal use, as early as next month, in order to sweep 3,000 annual criminal cases out of the clogged city courts. Under the new rules, city cops could still bust a casual toker, but the toker would only pay a fine.)
California, however, is the likeliest lab for a legal toke tax, given its dire financial straits and the fact that marijuana is the state’s top cash crop, racking up an estimated $14 billion in annual sales – twice as much as the number-two agricultural commodity, milk and cream. The fiscal wizards at the State Board of Equalization say that pot could put $1.4 billion a year into the depleted California coffers, which helps explain why 56 percent of Californianians like the legalization option, and find it preferable to the ongoing layoffs of teachers and other public servants.
Indeed, marijuana is reportedly the top cash crop in a dozen states, and one of the top five in 39 states – valued annually at anywhere from $36 billion to $100 billion. That’s a lot of money left on the table for the black market – what the economists refer to as "deadweight losses." In fact, five years ago, a Harvard economist concluded in a report that legal weed nationwide would yield at least $6 billion in revenue if it was sin-taxed at rates comparable to alcohol and tobacco.
Actually, I doubt that most stoners see themselves as sinners – what’s immoral about seeing Avatar three times, or rooting for The Dude in The Big Lewbowski, or strip-mining a tray of brownies, or punctuating the conversation with lines like, "I’m sorry, what was I just talking about?" – but most would probably be willing to pay a sin tax in exchange for the opportunity to imbibe, hassle-free, with no fear that they might join the 765,000 Americans who were reportedly busted last year for possession.
Pot-smokers have long been bugged by the stigma. When I covered a marijuana reform convention in Washington way back in 1977, a delegate from Illinois named Paul Kuhn spoke for many when he complained to me, "You can get rip-roaring, toilet-hugging, puking drunk in public, and that’s OK. But if you pass a joint in public to a friend, you’re a pusher."
But even the reformers of ’77 shied away from legalization; they said it was "naïve" to believe that Americans would ever buy the idea. Today’s generation is shrewder; the word legalization doesn’t even appear in the California ballot proposal. The well-organized proponents, including a retired superior court judge who got fed up with handling pot cases, are calling it the "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act," and the first TV ad features an ex-cop talking about how a legal sin tax would replenish city and county budgets, and free up law-enforcement expenses for real crime.
There is serious strategist muscle on the legalization side - notably Chris Lehane, a former Clinton/Gore communications aide, and several other veterans of statewide California campaigns - and the ballot proposal itself is carefully crafted for the swing voter. It would legalize pot only for those over 21, and it would retain the current ban against driving stoned. It would also permit each individual county to decide whether it wants to regulate and tax weed - or to opt out entirely (just as we already have many "dry" towns that ban booze sales.)
Frankly, California and other cash-strapped states dn't have a whole lot of sin tax options. Cigarettes and booze are already taxed to the max, and (as Philadelphia is currently discovering) any attempts to slap special levies on sugared water are fiercely resisted by soda companies that fear any curbs on their freedom to rot kids’ teeth. By contrast, stoners crave the respectability of being taxed; the fiercest tax opponents are probably the Mexican drug cartels, which would lose market share just as the mob lost out on liquor when Prohibition ended in ’33.
Granted, nobody quite knows whether or how the California pot plan would fly in practice. Pot use would still be illegal under federal law – the current director of the National Drug Control Policy has said that "legalization is not in the president’s vocabulary" – and the U.S. Constitution decrees that federal law trumps state law. On the other hand, the Obama team has stated that it has no interest in hassling the medical-marijuana states, even though their laws conflict with the federal ban.
The big question, really, is how such a sin tax would be structured. Would all sellers be licensed? Would it be a point-of-sale excise tax, on top of the sales tax?
It’s worth pondering, because some state is bound to take the plunge at some point, even if California’s voters ultimately balk in November – which certainly could happen because, favorable pot polls notwithstanding, conservatives riled up by health reform seem most energized to turn out in disproportionate numbers this year. And reefer foes, who have yet to organize or raise money, will undoubtedly contend that legalization would make it easier for kids to get the drug. (James Gray, a retired superior court judge in Orange County and a legalization proponent, says in response that, under the status quo, kids have a far easier time getting weed than alcohol, precisely because the latter is regulated. As he told Time magazine last year, referring to pot's illegality, "we couldn't make this drug any more available if we tried.")
The bottom line is that public support for legalizing the crop has been building incrementally for a very long time. Gallup found only 12 percent of Americans in favor back in 1969, but 31 percent said yes in 2000, 36 percent said yes in 2005, and 44 percent said yes in 2009. The economic crisis has put wind behind the sentiment, and it seems inevitable that there will come a day – if not in November, then perhaps in the next major recession – when a presidential candidate will find it perfectly politic to speechify about the audacity of dope.
Now this is an issue liberals can get fired up about...if they can remember which day is Election Day!— Yersinia Pestis- Finally, good news to read on a Monday morning.— sadim
- I'm changing my "Hold" recommendation on Frito-Lay to a "Strong Buy."— Billy Ray Winthorpe
Comment removed.- or strip-mining a tray of brownies...now THAT's funny!— Grazman
I guess they have to get revenue from pot heads in some way. I mean, stoners aren't what you would call candidates for long-term employment.— jmc- billysundaysrtb, not everyone in Big Pharma wears a suit.— JimR
- Clearing the courts & law enforcement for far more important cases. Win. Tax it and regulate it just like alcohol (as someone has got to pay for all this growth in the size & scope of the federal govt:) Win. Take away the black market for the drug and its illegal cartels. Win.— NEPhilly
- Why go half-way? Let's legalize and tax all drugs and prostitution. Doing so would bring in big bucks and wouldn't cost me a cent.— Delaware Jim
- I think it's highly offensive to refer generically to everyone who smokes cannabis as a "stoner." Do you refer to everyone who consumes alcohol as a "booze hound?" Do you think everyone who smokes is like Tommy Chong? If so, do you think everyone who has a glass of wine with dinner is like Otis Campbell (yes, I'm old)? Granted, some who drink are alcoholics and some who smoke are stoners, but they are a small, small minority. People of all ages from all walks of life smoke cannabis. Most are successful, ambitious, and actually have jobs. If you believe polls, probably half the people you know have smoked at least once. Are they all stoners too? So, please, let's stop perpetuating offensive stereotypes.— Tony Aroma
- Funny how that liberals, who allege that they "care" about the poor and estranged, are all for legallizing vices to make money, which also disproportionally affect the poor and estranged and keep them down: See gambling (Fast Eddie Rendell) and now pot.— CD75
- I don't think legalizing pot will be the gold mine everybody thinks. There is already a huge off the books market, obviously, and how much of that will go mainstream? 10%, maybe? The growers and sellers are used to scoffing the law, what makes you think they'll go legit?— SteveMG
- CD75: Legalizing pot would not keep the poor and estranged down. They have booze to do that for them. Something I think you probably have a lot of experience with, considering your incessant insipid comments.— AHiredGun
- Decriminalize most drugs and disband the DEA. Crime rates will go down as well as law enforcement/jail costs. Drug laws on the books turned a class of people who are otherwise not law breakers into criminals and created a large inneffective war on drugs bureaucracy. These savings will occur without tax revenues on the legalized dope. That's another kettle of fish. As far as the impact on the poor, since when do libertarians and republicans care about them? It's survival of the fittest. In fact, relaxing the drug laws will keep the poor out of jail and make their neighborhoods safer. If drugs are legal the criminal gangs won't be fighting over the. It's a win-win.— Rabe56
- SteveMG - most, if not all consumers, will not go to the black market if they can legally purchase it. How many black market alcohol "dealers" do you know of? The black market for marijuana would dry up relatively quickly.— nitzohan
- Its "high" time Marijuana was legalized. I will vote proudly in favor this November-add in the irony that liberal tax and spend gluttony that led to fiscal insolvency paved the way......too much fun!— tjm333126
I'm high on this idea.— Mr. Smith- it's time...— jmg7738
- I think the conversation is about legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, not for the general public. And why not? Hospitals use drugs far more powerful and potentially dangerous than marijuana all the time. Plus, legalization would hurt the drug cartels more than anything.— p-diddy
- The line in the sand is nature vs. manufacture. I wouldn't wish a heroin, oxycontin, alcohol, sugar, lipitor, or cocaine addiction on anyone. But to enjoy nature's bounty, including herbs, spices, and clean water ... it's god's given.— anotherdrug
- I'm, like, kinda ambivalent on this whole idea, as, like, I have not smoked any weed in like, oh, like about 20 years, well maybe 25, du-huh-du-huh, like I can't remember how long its been. Anyway, if, like, this could like lower crime and raise some dough, then go for it dudes. But seriously, isn't criminalizing marijuana a federal statute? And didn't Polman teach us a few weeks ago that federal law trumps state law?— tom - wilmington, de
- And not one mention of hemp. 25,000 products can be made from hemp,countless amount of jobs created. It was illegal in the Jamestown colony in 1787 NOT to grow hemp. I don't care what the law says. I'll grow my own weed. Like a true patriot!!!— dobenbec
- PEOPLE,CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG? Seriously ,this is fun to watch . I bet it never happens that you can walk into a state store and buy some weed . I do think though ,that the comment about the blackmarket staying strong could be unlikely . Think about it ,instead of buying from some person who tells you when and where ,you walk into a store and pick it up with the doritoes at the same time in one swipe.— Jim v
- Well Alright there, billysundaysrtb! You just got everyone pegged. You must be another one of those " middle of the roaders." There's a lot of that going around. Terrible affliction.
- I see where even the Devil, Karl Rove, is doing a public-service spot to encourage Repubs to fill out census forms so they won’t scr*w themselves. That’s the kind of thing one must do when representing the Party of Fools.— Djoko Pritza
- Was it ever about medicinal purposes? I don't want to get in a big argument over it but spare me the nonsense of " medical" marijuana. I guess eventually it will be legal everywhere. And Big Agriculture will produce it. Liberals will quickly sue and we'll have all the same problems with health issues and lawsuits that we have with big Tobacco. I don't hold much hope that it will be a tax boon. The more government gets the more they waste.
- Tom, you've hit upon the one thing that drives me absolutely crazy when talking to young people -- the use of the word like after every other word. I get to the point where I can't even hear the meaning of their sentences. All I can hear is the word like. UGH.— NigeltheMastiff
- This weed issue is fun for a blog, because it nicely separates libertarians from traditionalist conservatives, showing how different their thinking actually is and the deep fault line in the Republican party.— liberal
- On the last blog here, religion raised its head. I'm not a current member of any religious group, but religious history and theology have always interested me and I often bore people by bringing it into a conversation. One observation--Fervent religious people and fervent anti-religious people have one thing in common: they know little about religion.— liberal
- Liberal- It's really about controlling our debt, deficits, spending, low taxes, and national defense. Making political hay out of trying to legalize pot isn't going to help you in the mid-terms. Good to see California is really focused on the issues- like marijuana dude.
- I'm for anything that breaks the death-hold of the drug cartels.— Djoko Pritza
- "Fervent religious people and fervent anti-religious people have one thing in common: they know little about religion." I agree. I'm for moderately religious people and moderately anti-religious people ... I think.— Djoko Pritza
- About time Reagan and the rest of his stupid "war-on-drugs" cadre of ghouls was put to rest.— sully64
- swede--you are really making my point because the libertarian issues you believe in most have little to do with the issues that galvanize the traditional conservatives--abortion, creationism, immigration (they're agin it), sin, ethnic minorities, and social issues in general. As i've often argued with my republican friends, the democrats generally run on a platform that is more libertarian than that of the republicans. But habitual republicans just don't wanna believe it. And republican libertarians are generally in denial about republican violations of libertarian principles (unlimited wiretapping, the national security state, etc.). But I'm no purist either, since I have no enthusiasm for the welfare state (it's a necessary evil, not a positive good), and I'm not a pacifist, although I think we ought to avoid entangling alliances, as George Washington put it--the worst of which is our dependence on oil from loathsome countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela..— liberal
- Liberal- I'm a hybrid. There are things to really worry about like taxes, debt, and spending and then there are issues like Californians wanting to smoke pot. As if anything is stopping them now.
- SteveMG: That's like saying alcohol would still be bootlegger after prohibition. Why would someone buy weed at some guy's house when they could go into a nice respectable store where the weed is certified as safe and has a quality rating from high times magazine? You forget that the market for goods is determined by the consumer, consumers decide what method of sales is most effective, which is why record stores are obsolete in the internet age, etc. Most people who smoke are ordinary, regular people, who smoke after they get home from work or on a day off. All they want is to be treated like people who drink or smoke cigarettes.
- I'd like to know how proponents are going to square the heavily government funded anti-smoking (tobacco) campaigns and the government incentives for tobacco farmers to grow other crops with easing-up on the growing and consumption of marijuana. Inhaling carcinogenic smoke is bad in all forms. It may be inconsistent to have legal (but stigmatized) tobacco and illegal pot, but having legal pot without any stigma and stigmatized tobacco is hardly any better from a public health standpoint.— anonymous
- Liberal: I think you misunderstand Republicans as well as Libertarians. Republicans and Libertarians are both motivated by one issue, taxes. That's the primary part of any Republican running for election's platform. Very few Republicans are motivated by creationism, a few more by abortion, and even less about racial minorities. Most Republicans are either pragmatic, socially moderate, middle managers and small business owners or traditional values oriented lower middle class. The "libertarians" are a small portion of the party, most Republicans fall in between the extremes.
- WOW, just think how well the sin tax on alcohol has been. PA's 'temporary' tax for the Johnstown flood relief - increased several times during its temporary lifetime. Philly will no doubt institute a 'per joint' tax. And all it will do is give the fools in legislatures everywhere more cash to add to the deficits they won't address now.— JimR
- "Most Republicans are either pragmatic, socially moderate, middle managers and small business owners or traditional values oriented lower middle class." Now, who said Repubs don't have a sense of humor? This is pretty funny stuff. Just look at who Repubs elect to Congress and square that with the profile of "most Republicans." Party of Fools.— Djoko Pritza
- Can anyone imagine a party motivated by only one thing (taxes)? Party of Fools.— Djoko Pritza
- tom - wilmington, de says: “djoko … it is downright shameful to criticize one's religious, moral or other beliefs that they hold sacred.” Ok, Tom, which is worse, my criticizing one’s sacred views, or religious authorities molesting and raping kids and having their superiors perpetuate that behavior, just to protect the church's reputation (and contributions)?— Djoko Pritza
Chocolate chip or oatmeal raisin?- Great article, only wish people would wake up and take action!— djkevey
- Djoko Pritza, are you asking us to decide between you and some church authority as to who is the bigger s*&%??? Individual response to religion isn't controlled by what some clown in the ministry is doing. The moral defectives and their managers will be dealt with. Don't trash people who use their religion as a personal compass.— JimR
- "The Obama administration is weighing how the government can encourage workers to turn their savings into guaranteed income streams following a collapse in retiree accounts when the stock market plunged. The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort." From Bloomberg Reports- A recycled story but we are starting to hear chatter about this non-sense again. God forbid we save for our own retirements. Now Government wants to get their grubby paws on our 401ks.
- An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
- For those suffering from AIDS, multiple sclerosis and cancer IT IS about medicinal purposes. Medical marijuana is not nonsesne to people who are sick. Should we take a cynical view towards pain ravaged people on the morphine pump? I wonder if that's nonesense too? Or is that ok becaue it's already legal. It should not even be an issue, pot should be legal for any purpose. If pot will help appetite in AIDS or reduces muscle spasms for ms, then great.— Rabe56
- Rabe56- You're too funny. The left used the cloak of medicinal purposes to advance the cause of legalization. There are lots of things that can kill pain. They are called pain killers. I don't really care that much about this topic but lets not kid ourselves here.
- I'm glad the government had it's grubby little hands on my social security when the markets imploded. My investments were relatively conservative and I still got hammered. I'm finally starting to make things up in this great Obama market but it was good to know that the social security piece was stable. To the finanical marketeers, the party line is that social security is bad because it takes away your money, you get a low return, nanny state, blah, blah , blah... but the real reason the finanacal industry doesn't like social security has nothing to do with its concern for the welfare of potential investors... it's because the social security is money that they can't get their grubby little hands on.— Rabe56
- Mike, I'm not kidding or trying to kid anyone. I suspect you are not a doctor and neither am I. But just for your information, pot is not used for pain for most diseases. It's used a a muscle relaxant and appetite stimulant. There may be other drugs available too but if these things work for some people, good.— Rabe56
- smike, I love the socialism experiment in class. It really is pretty simple isn't it and what has made this country great (the reason for American exceptionalism anyone?). The deal with Social Security is a) we can't afford it anymore as it is currently constituted b) SS does get a low return on your retirement investment c) if the federal govt.'s finances implode, everybody's retirement plan goes with it d) the federal govt. is in charge of one more thing about your life & you better hope they do a good job. I'm sorry, but I just don't trust them enough to be in charge of %100 (a small piece, maybe:) of my retirement.— NEPhilly
- Northeaster, I remember that moderate, business-oriented socially middle of the road Republican Party you describe--it was the one that elected Eisenhower and dominated the country during the great decade of the 1950s when I grew up. Unfortunately, it's nowhere in evidence now. Back in those days, the top tax rate was 91%, and the Republican party was not obsessed with taxes. Why now when the top rate has been reduced to 35%? The tax obsession, despite budgetary deficits, makes no sense and is truly dangerous for the country's financial future. It's neither true libertarianism, nor true conservatism, much less a position of moderation.— liberal
- Rabe56- Just send me your paychecks to me and I'll give you an allowance.
- Back in the 1950s when a Republican government carried out the greatest public-works government-owned project in history, there was no outcry of "socialism." People understood what the country needed and responded pragmatically to the need. Why is it now impossible to do the things we need to do--and nobody really disputes the issues (oil, education, reinvestment in alternate energies, etc.) without a lot of yelling about socialism? As a pragmatist, I find it impossible to take the stated republican positions on these issues seriously. It just naturally seems to me that there must be other gut-issues behind the opposition to moving forward, and I'm deeply suspicious of what these issues might be. Some of you guys seem sincere, but I can't understand what motivates you.— liberal
- rabe, this year, for the first time ever, social security will pay out more money than it collects in taxes. Previously it was believed this would not happen until 2016. Yep, at that rate, your money is really safe in social security, isn't it?— tom - wilmington, de
- Criminalization of Pot in particular does nothing but give bad people a lot of money. If you regulate and tax these this "vice" then you remove the monetary incentive of those involved in the illegal cultivation and smuggling of marijuana. It makes sense but as someone else posted earlier, unless some business gets their cut, the "conservatives" will fight this. Oh and does anyone remember that George Washington grew a form of cannabis called hemp on his plantation.
- Obsession with socialism is the most deeply absurd thing i hear from today's right. Socialism is dead. Has been for decades. It fits only an early-industrial economy which has disappeared in all the advanced countries, and doesn't work even in that model. A large government project with big impact on the economy does not constitute socialism. Take for example, the water projects in the West in the early 20th Century. Or the Transcontinental Railroad in the 1860s. Or the Washington, DC Metro. Or the Interstate Highway System. All of these were projects that made untold billions of dollars for the private sector and advanced our economy immeasurably. Since the Reaganite ideologues took over, we've lagged behind in these major, game-changing projects because of nonsensical little-government ideology, and we're now in an economic and global strategic situation where things must be done soon or our standard of living is likely to be reduced. it's time to stop the nonsense and get to work.— liberal
- Liberal- And you weren't paying $ 12500 a year in property taxes either in the 1950's. I live in Woolwich Twp NJ and they just helped themselves to another $ 1500 a year in taxes thanks to budget shortfalls at our schools. We are taxes every which way under the sun. Federal, state, local, sale taxes, tolls, extra fees on utility invoices. Believe me the government collects plenty of money. They just don't know how to manage it which is why it is so non-sensical to give them more.
- Ever wonder why super rich people like Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey set up charitable foundations instead of giving more of their money to the government? It's because they know that government is a poor steward of the people's money.
- Tom, as of course you know, social security and other welfare programs only run into difficulties because the economy went sour because our unregulated, free-market banking sector screwed up badly. So I'm sure you're in favor of good regulation to keep this from happening again. Or do you and your fellow republicans actually hope that social security and the economy in general fail for some reason? That's what a lot of republican rhetoric sounds like. How is it good for the country for all of us to get poorer?— liberal
- Rabe56- It's just a matter of time until the government comes to you and tells you that you won't be getting any social security because you made too much in your working life to be receive any benefits. You mark my words. People who saved or the government feels they had high incomes will eventually be excluded from collecting the money that paid into the system.
- lib, a form of socialism I'll call 'Obama-ism' is alive and well in Wash DC. 1) federal govt. now involved in your healthcare 'cradle to grave' (giving grants to poor people just makes them dependent on the feds. forever). 2) federal govt. in charge of the vast majority of Americans retirement plan in a giant ponzi scheme Bernie Madoff would be proud of. 3) federal govt. more and more involved in the education process as well. 4) federal govt. growing and growing at the same time we have trillion dollar plus yearly federal deficits. 5) Cap n trade will put the federal govt. in charge of how you heat your home and how much it costs. I didn't even go into the federal govt. owning pieces of GM and AIG and still subsidizing Fannie/Freddie. Make no mistake about it, Obama-ism is socialistic. He and you believe the federal govt. can run each of these tasks from Wash DC better than the average American can for themselves and I disagree.— NEPhilly
- The war on drugs is idiocy but the illegalization of marijuana is even more crazy. Finding reasonable policy on legalizing/taxing it maybe be a bit tricky but about time we changed this flawed & failing policy.— MG77
- Liberals: Marijuana = cash cow so they can send their kids to school with pot and not worry about paying for the kids' well being nor paying for his education. Abortion = more money for radical church-hating groups like Planned Parenthood and total disregard for Natural Law. Criminals = just clogging the system so they should be let free to commit more sex crimes, burglaries and murders. Illegal Aliens = "cheap labor" even though they account for 30% of the prison population and are bankrupting our hospitals since they have no health insurance. Terrorism = only exists on shows like "24" and bin Laden is just a puppet. Success in Iraq and Afghanistan, freeing the oppressed, is due to "luck" and not our military killing al Qaeda and the Taliban and their evil plans of trying to destroy Western Civilization.— BFlint
- Marijuana was only demonized by the government and the church (various religions). Its no more evil than tobacco. The fact that an illegal trade grew up to support it is the government's fault. Alcohol Prohibition caused similar issues. Church and State have been separate for a long time. Its about time the laws started reflecting that.— psyrus
- swedesboro: I don't smoke pot, and I don't have any desire to. But my father died after a painful fight with cancer, and he actually told me that he wished he could try marijuana to see if it could help with the pain (he was about the furthest from a stereotypical pot-smoker imaginable). There is heaps of anecdotal evidence that suggests marijuana has real medicinal value for certain illnesses. It certainly couldn't have been worse than doping him up on morphine.— p-diddy
- I knew this argument would turn into the same old "hippies vs. squares", red/blue, culture war tripe. Forget all that stuff, and tell me why marijuana should be illegal.— p-diddy
- BFlint: You write that illegal immigrants account for 30% of the prison population. Where you get that statistic from? I don't believe it. 30%?— p-diddy
I AGREE! tax & legalize ALL drugs & prostitution. then use some of the $ to fund rehabs & clinics. NOW, THAT'D BE a FREE SOCIETY. don't knwo if it'd ever happen with all the criminal $$ being made... just capone, etc.— tfcino1
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
