As a Libertarian, I am for more personal freedom and less government oversight – including the freedom to use drugs, even though I personally do not. Also as a result of my Libertarian leanings, I expect drug users to take responsibility for their actions – even those actions committed while under the influence of drugs they willingly consume.
However, I am against any law that adds a tax to a “freedom” (why should a freedom be taxed?!?), particularly when the tax is used to fulfill political objectives. In this case the house bill’s tax component (a 5% sales tax) provides for a grant fund (pronounced “taxpayer-funded, government-controlled political slush fund) to pay for activities not directly related to the regulation of pot retailers or wholesalers. Taxes collected from industry, when necessary, should cover only the costs of regulating that industry and nothing more.
I am also against any law that includes perverse forms of affirmative action or other racial quotas. In this case the house bill noted above requires that the Bureau of Labor Statistics collect demographic data on cannabis business owners and their employees to ensure that people of color/economically disadvantaged people are participating in the industry. I consider such participation requirements as prejudice as those excluding participation, and I cannot support any law that includes such requirements.
Finally, I am concerned that government sponsorship or support of drugs such as marijuana will result in their becoming the “soma” (ref. Brave New World, Aldous Huxley, (c) 1932) of our age. By granting a “right” the government actually controls – particularly one that leads to physical or mental addiction – politicians can retain control over the votes of users. Perhaps that is the true purpose of such laws.
House passes historic bill to end federal marijuana prohibition
As a Libertarian, I am for more personal freedom and less government oversight – including the freedom to use drugs, even though I personally do not. Also as a result of my Libertarian leanings, I expect drug users to take responsibility for their actions – even those actions committed while under the influence of drugs they willingly consume.
However, I am against any law that adds a tax to a “freedom” (why should a freedom be taxed?!?), particularly when the tax is used to fulfill political objectives. In this case the house bill’s tax component (a 5% sales tax) provides for a grant fund (pronounced “taxpayer-funded, government-controlled political slush fund) to pay for activities not directly related to the regulation of pot retailers or wholesalers. Taxes collected from industry, when necessary, should cover only the costs of regulating that industry and nothing more.
I am also against any law that includes perverse forms of affirmative action or other racial quotas. In this case the house bill noted above requires that the Bureau of Labor Statistics collect demographic data on cannabis business owners and their employees to ensure that people of color/economically disadvantaged people are participating in the industry. I consider such participation requirements as prejudice as those excluding participation, and I cannot support any law that includes such requirements.
Finally, I am concerned that government sponsorship or support of drugs such as marijuana will result in their becoming the “soma” (ref. Brave New World, Aldous Huxley, (c) 1932) of our age. By granting a “right” the government actually controls – particularly one that leads to physical or mental addiction – politicians can retain control over the votes of users. Perhaps that is the true purpose of such laws.