This November, California voters may or may not pass Prop 19 which would legalize marijuana. No, seriously. As a libertarian, this is an amazing step in the direction of liberty. As a functioning human being with a basic grasp on the english language and some abstract concepts, mostly those relating to bankruptcy, this is an amazing idea. Infuriating is the realization that both (because let’s be real, it’s gonna be Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown) gubernatorial candidates are opposed to it. So are Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, California’s “benevolent” senators (sorry, I’m a little bitter about a letter I sent them once. The responses were essentially, ‘we’re the senators, we know what’s best for you, leave us alone and pay your taxes.’ Unforgivable.)
Essentially, everyone who represents the state of California is opposed to something that 40-60% of Californians support. Granted, if it’s 40% then that’s not the majority, but shouldn’t 4 out of 10 representatives support it? Oh, and of course, all of the (government) anti-drug associations are opposed to Prop 19, which is understandable because they’ll lose their jobs. I would feel bad for them, if their lively-hoods didn’t depend on their ability to punish people who haven’t really committed any crimes or if they weren’t standing in the way of generating billions in state revenue while cutting prison costs epically. Point being, democracy is kinda broken.
What really bothers me about this law is that it legalizes marijuana for people 21 and over. 18, 19, or 20? You can vote, die for your country, smoke tobacco, buy a gun, buy paint (which will get you high and kill you. If you use it to get high it’ll probably kill you.), drive a car, fly a plane, leave the country, be tried as an adult for any number of crimes, become a mayor or assemblyperson or state senator or state governor (I think), skydive, distribute prescription drugs (pharmacists and nurses), tend bar, get married, have a baby, and participate in potentially deadly experiments (medical or otherwise). But hey, just because you can do those things doesn’t mean you can handle alcohol or pot? I’m not saying an 18 year old is as mature as a 21 year old, but there are some who are more mature. There are completely immature 21 year olds, 30 year olds, whatever.
I’m not writing this because I’m a bitter 20 year old who wants to be drunk and high all of the time, soon enough I’ll be 21 and have those freedoms. What I’m saying is that most people hate that you have to be 21 to do those things until they hit 21 and stop caring. Think about it this way: there are people out there, your fellow citizens who pay taxes and have a vote that matters just as much as yours, who don’t have the same basic rights as you. You can be a heterosexual and support gay rights, but if that’s the case you’re kind of a jackass for being 21 or older and not supporting 18-20 year olds’ rights (I’m not saying 18-20 year olds are as oppressed as homosexuals, but that is a kind of oppression).
I’m 20 and I’ve been in a country where I am allowed to drink for about a month and I’m not dead, a drug addict, an alcoholic, or any other “societal ill.” I’ve got the solution. All of the 18-20 year olds ought to get together with supportive 21+ year olds and try to pass a law that requires politicians to pay twice the normal amount for booze. Or make them have to buy their booze at odd hours, like between 3:33 am and 5:55am. Or just make it illegal for 45 year olds to drink. It’s every bit as arbitrary, it’s based on age, and it would get people thinking. 18-20 year olds are immature? How rational is someone who’s hit their mid-life crisis? Maybe they shouldn’t be allowed to drink either.
By the way, just because something is illegal, it doesn’t mean people don’t do it. It just forces them to use a black market. Teenagers drink and do drugs. Guess what? Drug dealers don’t card. Older siblings don’t care if their siblings drink. Arresting a 19 year old for alcohol possession is a waste of resources.
A funny side note to any one who likes censorship. Apparently adults (who watch the vast majority of television), are too sensitive to hear profanities on television. They can watch horrifying shows like CSI and see fake corpses. Or they could watch the news and see real images of corpses. The most traumatic thing I’ve ever seen on television was an anti-drug ad. They show a normal kid and then what they look like all methed out. It’s horrible. I already knew that and now I have this extra terrifying image burned into my mind that I’ll never be able to forget. Normally, something that graphic wouldn’t be allowed but hey, the state’s anti-drug people get to live above the FCC’s rules. I hate the FCC but just look at how the state is picking and choosing who’s allowed to traumatize the populace.
