TU Global: Marijuana rebuttal
In my last column, I discussed the new regulatory structures put in place in Colorado and Washington, the two states that last year legalized the use of marijuana for recreational purposes.
Now maybe I wasn’t clear enough, but judging from one or two of the comments, I got the sense that I didn’t make it evident enough the reason for which I chose to write about this topic. (Wink wink, marijuana legalization is something rather important to me, wink).
But even so, it seemed as though one of those who commented didn’t understand that idea and assumed that I was praising the new taxes levied on the marijuana industry.
In response to their comment on government corruption and their rhetorical question of, “Have we not been taxed enough, from millions falsely arrested to trillions of dollars spent to scores of thousands killed in illegal wars,” yes I understand that the idea of taxation for purposes that seem all too often unjust can be a bit unnerving.
But for a Schedule I drug that, as I later commented, “…has had a pretty combative relationship with the law over the past century,” it, realistically speaking, is probably not going to be for a long time that we see lax policies regarding consumption and taxation of legalized marijuana.
I mean how can we even complain about how much it will cost in the first place? It’s a miracle that the two states were able to vote that legislation in, let alone receive the go-ahead from attorney general Eric Holder that he won’t try to challenge these new statutes.
Yes, taxes are stinky and we all don’t like them but that’s life.
I understand that because I’m a young college student writing about marijuana legalization and because I’m not advocating for having those who want to tax the people arrested and tortured then it’s easy to assume that I’m a liberal. But I’m not. I have little to no views when it comes to taxation.
This idea of being able to concretely classify people’s political views into set categories with no room for change is such an absolutely close-minded way of thinking.
Using these terms as insults or just in general, with their extremely negative connotation—regardless of whether or not they’re used with great intentions—will get us nowhere.
Referring to people outside of the government sphere by these binary political terms only supports the idea that we all subscribe to either one mode of thought or the other. And that’s not the case at all in America today. There’s a big, confusing spectrum that all of us fall onto at some point.
Yet, I will admit I am (and ideally everyone else working in the media and journalism field is too) a special case in that for years I have had no inclination to one side or the other whatsoever. In the words of someone who appeared on the David Letterman Show whose name I cannot remember or seem to find on Google, “I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. I’m a journalist.”