|
 |
|
While on the phone with Barron County Administrator Duane Hebert and Finance Director Jeff French, I learned that states with natural resources-oil producers, for example-have balanced budgets. Making use of one's resources can be beneficial indeed.
|
Friday morning, I read that California State Assembly Democrat Tom Ammiano wants to legalize pot to perk up the state's exceptionally abysmal budget deficit. In fact, regulating and taxing marijuana could bring in an estimated $1.3 billion in revenue-not to mention the $1 billion saved by not arresting, prosecuting and caging criminals!
Except they wouldn't be criminals anymore-and pot growers (it's California's largest cash crop-who knew?!) would be farmers. You know, I've never heard about the state's $14 billion in marijuana sales until now. Certainly, I've never heard a politician brag about it. 'Course, it was never considered an asset before, was it? The state legalized medical marijuana use in 1996-someone must be growing it. Not to mention the backyard gardeners who sneak the odd weed into their potato rows.
Barron County, too, is looking for ways to capitalize on its resources and, barring unforeseen gold mines or oil wells, it hasn't got much right now. French, Hebert and I chatted about sand mines and joked about not selling our souls for money, but the problem is this: every time someone sells the farm or moves away to get a better job, it affects the economy of their hometown. We fail to notice it immediately, but business becomes less profitable for those who stay-over time they, too, amble off to greener pastures.
Many would protest a sand mine-but bolting the doors to every new venture has its curses. If the inconveniences of every business (noise, traffic, utility use, to name a few) were weighed against its benefits, few would survive the scrutiny. We'd be living in ghost towns. It's something to think about while we have a choice.
California's dilemma is the moral equivalent of dumpster diving not because pot should or shouldn't be legalized, but because they're digging up the corpse in the basement to harvest its gold teeth. The usual arguments for legalization-less dangerous than alcohol, not addictive, less expensive to prosecute, more profitable for the government, less alluring if not prohibited-will be met with the usual arguments against it-mind-altering, psychologically addictive, gateway drug, freeway to endemic poverty and moral degradation. In short, the only change is that California's budget is "in the toilet," as Ammiano put it, so even the cons look bonny.
On the plus side, legalization of marijuana would present another sin tax for legislators to pounce on after the (tobacco) smokers all quit and alcohol has been demonized out of so-called decent society. Tragically, no governing body has ever successfully regulated self-control, and not every household advocates the policy. For those who think it's the government's duty to protect citizens from themselves, good luck.
|
|
©The Chetek Alert 2009
|
|
|
