… argument is one of the more ridiculous ones that I’ve heard.
Keith Humphreys, PhD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Stanford University School of Medicine, discussed the potential consequences of legalizing marijuana.
Here’s the kicker:
Q: What about the argument that taxing marijuana will provide fiscally strapped cities and states with much-needed revenue?
Humphreys: I am not sympathetic with that argument, either on the values front or on just straight economics. If as a society we’ve decided that if it makes revenue we’re for it, why are we wasting time with cannabis? We should be legalizing child pornography and human trafficking. There’s lots of awful things that raise money, and that doesn’t make them right. The idea that we can make a buck here, and therefore it’s the right thing to do for kids in California â€¦ I think that’s morally bankrupt.
I really get tired of these jerks/liars who act like the whole tax revenue argument has been made in a vacuum. Nobody who supports legalization has ever said that tax revenue is the only reason to legalize, and it’s disingenuous to say the least to make that implication. And to compare it to child pornography and human trafficking? Now that’s morally bankrupt. It’s also intellectually dishonest, and seeing a professor make such a statement offends the educator in me.
But then again, he’s being paid to be… disingenuous. According to his bio at Stanford:
He is currently on leave from Stanford while he serves as Senior Policy Advisor at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Update: It appears now that his bio is out of date. He apparently has returned to Stanford. So that eliminates that excuse.