The GOP moves sharply to the left on pot

Just when you think that you have politics figured out, you learn something new.  Vox has a post showing that support for pot legalization is soaring, from 23% in the 1980s to 64% today—and the rate of increase is actually accelerating.  Much of the recent increase comes from Republicans, where support for pot legalization has soared from 34% to 51% in just the past three years.  That puts the GOP to the left of many (most?) left-wing politicians, even in liberal states like Massachusetts:

How can we explain this?  It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Trump, who opposes legalization and picked a reactionary Alabama drug warrior as his AG.

There are thousands of people in prison for marijuana crimes.  The public understands that these people shouldn’t be there, but the elites still won’t give in.

Some day we’ll look back on this the way we look back on Jim Crow laws, and wonder, “What were the elites thinking?”

PS.  Watch the comment section.  Two or three people will say “Yeah, they shouldn’t be in prison for pot, but they might have committed other crimes, so it’s OK.”

PPS.  Good to see more and more GOP senators speaking out on Trump (Corker, McCain, Flake, etc.)  Almost all GOP senators have total contempt for Trump, it’s just that we only hear from those who aren’t running for re-election.

PPPS.  For the first time in my life I understand the Joe McCarthy era.

PPPPS. When the next terrorist bomb goes off in Europe, I’m going to have to work really hard to avoid thinking that they deserve it.


Tags:

 
 
 

40 Responses to “The GOP moves sharply to the left on pot”

  1. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    25. October 2017 at 09:09


    Watch the comment section. Two or three people will say “Yeah, they shouldn’t be in prison for pot, but they might have committed other crimes, so it’s OK.”

    Let’s see what we can do.

    40,000 inmates of state and federal prison have a current conviction involving marijuana, and about half of them are in for marijuana offenses alone; most of these were involved in distribution. Less than one percent (!) are in for possession alone.

    So I say okay, let those 400 people go (possession alone). But then on the other hand it’s hardly worth the effort, because firstly their prison sentence is usually rather short anyways (possession only) and secondly it’s not like they didn’t know that marihuana is illegal. Maybe they should get an extra sentence for massive stupidity?

    Imprisoning people for possession is one thing, but then actually possessing marihuana even though you know it’s illegal, and even though you know you could end up in prison for it, are two completely different stories in my opinion. There are so many stupid laws in the world, but when I know that I could end up in prison for it, why in the world would I break the stupid law? And then only because of something as stupid as pot, how ridiculous is that.

    It’s also obvious that even 20,000 inmates more or less won’t really impact the incarceration rate of the US in any relevant way. People who say otherwise and insinuate that the US got this incarceration rate because of some pot and some stupid stoners are just lying.

  2. Gravatar of Steven Kopits Steven Kopits
    25. October 2017 at 09:16

    I would just note that Republicans need to be separated from the GOP at present.

    The Republican Party in the House and Senate is not necessarily the same thing as Republican voters.

  3. Gravatar of Randomize Randomize
    25. October 2017 at 09:21

    Christian,

    Please allow me to sum up your arguments.

    1. “They deserve prison for breaking the law even though the law is wicked.”

    2. 20,000 people wrongly incarcerated is okay because that’s only a fraction of the total prison population.

    3. Possession is a different kind of bad than distribution.

    Tyrants everywhere would love these arguments but I don’t for a number of reasons.

    1. There is no right way to enforce a wicked law.

    2. 20,000 people is still 20,000 lives destroyed with a felony and prison sentence. Not to mention that prisoners cost about $50K per year to house and feed and 20K x 50K = 1 billion. What do you think the lost economic opportunity cost of those people not having jobs while in prison and not getting decent jobs once they’re out because of their felony record adds up to?

    3. People can’t consume without distribution so let’s not pretend that one side of a codependent relationship is somehow worse than the other.

  4. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    25. October 2017 at 09:38

    Randomize,

    I don’t agree with your summary. For example:


    wrongly incarcerated

    Those people are not wrongly incarcerated. The US is not a tyranny but the most important liberal democracy in the world and a Rechtsstaat. Those people have been sentenced according to the law. Last time I checked we don’t have “the rule of do whatever you want and don’t care about the law” but something called the “rule of law”.

  5. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    25. October 2017 at 09:38

    Christian, That’s about what I’d expect from you. Let the users go but imprison the sellers? Because they knew it was illegal? Logic was never your strong suit.

  6. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    25. October 2017 at 09:40

    Randomize, Christian presumably believes that blacks imprisoned for violating Jim Crow laws deserved what they got. Ditto for gays imprisoned for sodomy.

  7. Gravatar of Randomize Randomize
    25. October 2017 at 10:02

    Christian,

    Your argument that their actions were illegal because they were wrong and wrong because they were illegal doesn’t hold ethical or logical water.

    Like I said before, there’s no right way to enforce a wicked law.

  8. Gravatar of Randomize Randomize
    25. October 2017 at 10:04

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

  9. Gravatar of TravisV TravisV
    25. October 2017 at 10:08

    Prof. Sumner, I’ve got a feeling you have significant disagreement with this new piece by Matt Yglesias.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/24/16489224/tax-reform-inequality

    “The real stakes in the tax reform debate”

  10. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    25. October 2017 at 10:22

    Wow, have I been banned? Or posts suppressed?

    I thought Sumner didn’t do that? I haven’t posted anything offensive or vulgar or off topic.

  11. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    25. October 2017 at 10:23

    ok, that’s weird. that last post showed up immediately without a quarantine period. My earlier post, completely on-topic and polite never showed up and when I reposted I got a duplicate post error but it still never showed up hours later. Maybe because it had a URL link in it?

  12. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    25. October 2017 at 10:26

    Massimo, Not banned, but you have shown yourself to exhibit the same sort of paranoia as your hero Trump suffers from.

  13. Gravatar of Mark Mark
    25. October 2017 at 11:23

    Christian,

    “Maybe they should get an extra sentence for massive stupidity?”
    Being stupid isn’t illegal, nor should at be.

    Frankly, your comment here is one of those ones that makes me think, “is he serious?”

    You violate the law on a regular basis, I assure you; you’re just fortunate enough to violate laws that police don’t enforce, like jay-walking, so this hardcore ‘rule of law’ attitude is preposterous. Did people who sheltered Jews from the Gestapo deserve to be punished? I mean, the law is the law…

    Anyway, onto a more substantive note. Commission of drug crimes probably does correlate with other crimes, and I think it’s important to acknowledge just because some libertarians have unrealistic expectations regarding how much drug reform would reduce the incarceration rate; but that’s irrelevant to the justification for it: if drinking diet Pepsi correlates with criminal behavior, that doesn’t mean we should outlaw diet Pepsi. It’s absurd to criminalize innocuous behavior that happens to correlate with criminal behavior.

    And I think the reticence of ‘elites’ to change on this issue may have something to do the fact that many people’s jobs depend on drug laws. Law enforcement and corrections unions are quite powerful; I mean, how does a state like California end up with a self-identified ‘law and order’ Democrat as its governor? And I think many in law enforcement see pot legalization as leading to a slippery slope toward decriminalization and sentencing reform for other drugs and maybe things like prostitution as well. Many would be out of work, or (a more cynical interpretation) are concerned that they would actually have to focus more on combating violent crime, which is hard and sometimes even dangerous, rather than the more comfortable job of corralling local potheads.

    This is one slippery slope we can hope is actually real.

  14. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    25. October 2017 at 12:35

    I admit that I wouldn’t shed a tear if all returning ISIS fighters were left to rot on Devil’s Island for the rest of their lives. That said, your comment on the subject spurred me to do some reading up on the subject because I figured someone must have a reason for letting the fighters come back. I found this article on the Brooking Institute site interesting, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/homeward-bounddont-hype-the-threat-of-returning-jihadists/. I’ve extracted a couple of pertinent quotes:

    ” jihadist veterans of Iraq failed to perpetrate successful terrorist acts in the West. A few cases bore indirect evidence of a link to the conflict…”

    “Recruits often set out in pursuit of “the T-shirt and the pictures” but come back terrified and even traumatized by what they have seen and experienced, according to the European intelligence official we interviewed…”

    “The few individuals who remain bent on violence after returning from Syria and Iraq will often be easy targets for counterterrorism officials. For one, their heavy reliance on social media will become a double-edged sword. By openly publicizing and bragging about their activities online, these people identify themselves to security services and at times supply valuable intelligence data: their group affiliation, intentions, and associates. Officials can also glean useful information by studying their lists of friends and followers. As the European official explained to us, some potential terrorists remain “totally invisible” to authorities until they set out for Syria or Iraq and expose themselves online…”

  15. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    25. October 2017 at 13:18

    Sumner is wrong that there are large numbers of people incarcerated for simple marijuana use or even small scale distribution. That is a libertarian fantasy. As Arnold Kling mentioned in a recent post, the serious advocates about reducing incarceration rates are clear that you have to focus on reducing incarceration for dangerous violent criminals, which is a far less popular talking point, but they are not afraid to say so. I’m not fully on board with that.

    But I still support legalizing marijuana because I suspect that prohibition simply causes more harm than good.

    Well thank you for not banning me, btw. I definitely did post, and repost and got a duplicate post error, and that post still never showed up. So I’m not completely paranoid. Whatever I just re-summarized here, without links.

  16. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    25. October 2017 at 13:20

    @Scott

    Let the users go but imprison the sellers?

    Many (if not most) laws of liberal democracies punish dealers of illegal drugs more than users. I have no problem with that.


    Christian presumably believes that blacks imprisoned for violating Jim Crow laws deserved what they got. Ditto for gays imprisoned for sodomy.

    You are comparing basic rights with smoking pot. I don’t think smoking pot is a basic right.

    @Randomize

    Your argument that their actions were illegal because they were wrong and wrong because they were illegal doesn’t hold ethical or logical water.

    This reminds me a bit of the lovely tautologies Scott is using when he talks about NGDP and money. But to get back to your point: No, my argument is that they knew their actions are illegal but they did it anyhow, so there’s no reason to act surprised when you get punished.

    (To be fair: Most drug dealers and heavy drug users don’t act surprised at all, it’s usually very white very rich ivory tower people with no connections drugs, crimes, and reality that act surprised.)


    Tyranny_of_the_majority

    That’s pretty much the opposite of rule of law. You don’t even read and/or understand your own links.

    @Mark

    You violate the law on a regular basis, I assure you;

    I surely don’t do anything (intentionally) that could bring me into prison. Not to mention that it is completely absurd to risk a prison sentence for something as unimportant as pot. I’m sorry but that’s just stupid. There’s no other word for it.


    Did people who sheltered Jews from the Gestapo deserve to be punished? I mean, the law is the law…

    This comparison with the Nazi regime is absurd. It’s astonishing that you don’t seem to see the difference between a liberal democracy with rule of law and a tyranny like the Nazi regime. Really astonishing. The Nazi regime was the opposite of rule of law.

  17. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    25. October 2017 at 13:57

    Carl, Devil’s Island is too good for them. Rory Stewart knows far more about this issue than you or I:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/british-isis-fighters-syria-must-be-killed-rory-stewart-a8014431.html

  18. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    25. October 2017 at 14:02

    Massimo, You said:

    “Sumner is wrong that there are large numbers of people incarcerated for simple marijuana use or even small scale distribution.”

    Where did I say that? Maybe I should ban you.

    You said:

    “As Arnold Kling mentioned in a recent post, the serious advocates about reducing incarceration rates are clear that you have to focus on reducing incarceration for dangerous violent criminals:

    He’s wrong (assuming you didn’t misquote him–which seems a stretch given how you misquote me.)

  19. Gravatar of Major-Freedom Major-Freedom
    25. October 2017 at 14:16

    >Some day we’ll look back on this the way we look back on Jim Crow laws, and wonder, “What were the elites thinking?”

    This question is already answerable. We have history. We have theory.

    “Elites” are regular people who other people have created in their minds that their preferences are superior to everyone else’s preferences.

    Ah, if only subjectivist economics reaches this blog.

  20. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    25. October 2017 at 14:38

    Travis, Thanks, I’ll do a post over at Econlog.

  21. Gravatar of Mark Mark
    25. October 2017 at 14:44

    “You are comparing basic rights with smoking pot. I don’t think smoking pot is a basic right.”

    You don’t appear to understand what a ‘right’ is. Perhaps you think that because an activity is mundane, that one does not have a ‘basic human right’ to do it without being punished by the authorities. Why is putting people in prison for smoking pot not a violation of their rights? What is fundamentally different between that and putting someone in prison for trying to attend a white public school, or expressing a certain viewpoint?

    If we’re talking about negative rights here, then putting someone in a cage because they consumed something of which you disapprove, then it most certainly is a violation of their basic human rights.

    And I hate to break it to you, but Nazi Germany did have laws. Why is breaking those laws ok, but breaking American laws is eo ipso bad? Because our laws are more just than theirs? In which case, you would be acknowledging that the duty to follow a law relates to the injustice of said law.

  22. Gravatar of Joe C Joe C
    25. October 2017 at 16:24

    @Mark

    “What is fundamentally different between that and putting someone in prison for trying to attend a white public school, or expressing a certain viewpoint?”

    The difference is, in denying blacks the ability to attend white schools, you’re treating two groups of people differently and not allowing people the same opportunity as others. Pot smoking, at least how the laws are written, apply to everyone. Now, we know in practice that the laws are not applied evenly, with larger numbers of blacks in prison for the same crime, and that should definitely be addressed. Legalizing pot would be just one way to address that particular inequality.

  23. Gravatar of Massimo Heitor Massimo Heitor
    25. October 2017 at 18:26

    Here’s Kling’s post that I tried to link earlier: …does-america-over-incarcerate/

    He does reference others in an agreeable manner saying that “in order to reduce incarceration you have to do less imprisonment of violent offenders”.

  24. Gravatar of Todd Kreider Todd Kreider
    25. October 2017 at 20:05

    Yeah, they shouldn’t be in prison for pot, but they might have committed other crimes, so it’s OK.

  25. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    25. October 2017 at 20:11

    Legalize distribution. Criminalize use.

  26. Gravatar of Mark Mark
    25. October 2017 at 22:22

    “The difference is, in denying blacks the ability to attend white schools, you’re treating two groups of people differently and not allowing people the same opportunity as others.”

    That’s not the reason why denying blacks the opportunity to attend white school was wrong, imo. It was wrong because if a school wants admit a student, and the student (or his parents) want (him) to attend, the state doesn’t have the right to prevent this voluntary interaction on threat of punishment.

    An unjust law applied equally is no more just than an unjust law applied unequally. It’s absurd to say that the only prerequisite to a law being just is that it be applied to everyone equally.

  27. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    25. October 2017 at 23:00

    Personally, I think liquor distributors should be stripped and publicly horsewhipped. More than 180,000 Americans have been murdered by drunk drivers since 9/11. They make ISIS look like a bunch of pansies.

    Speaking of pansies, that is how Trump stacks up against Xi Jinping.

    Q “What is the significance of having Xi’s name written into the constitution?

    A:”Xi Jinping thought” has become orthodox ideology.That means that he has acquired a status as high as Mao Zedong. That means whatever Xi Jinping says is going to be true, so he has the right to interpret what is true and what isn’t true. So this is quite a significant development in the position that he has inside the party. If you recall what happened 35 years ago, they actually abolished party chairmanship because when Chairman Mao dominated the scene and monopolized power, he made a lot of mistakes. So in 1982, Deng Xiaoping, the leader at that time, introduced a new system, that is, collective leadership — division of labor amongst the top leaders. That’s been the case for the past 35 years. But now, Xi Jinping is going to reverse that trend. He wants to concentrate power on one person– that is, himself.”

    Can Trump have his name written into the US Constitution, and his words and thoughts treated as literal truths? Stay tuned!

  28. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    26. October 2017 at 07:46

    dtoh, That would be a bad policy, but less bad than current policy.

  29. Gravatar of Joe C Joe C
    26. October 2017 at 08:09

    @Mark

    “It’s absurd to say that the only prerequisite to a law being just is that it be applied to everyone equally.”

    Your extrapolating from my comment. I never said that. Of course there are other considerations for what makes a law “just” – but it being applied evenly is certainly one condition. In fact, horizontal equity in tax policy is based on this principle as well.

    Cheers

  30. Gravatar of Bob Bob
    26. October 2017 at 08:10

    Scott,
    It does not surprise me that republican support is growing for legalization. In the 80s and 90s when drugs were an inner city problem the republican answer was law enforcement. Now that drugs have become a small town and rural republican solution is treatment and legalization. I think there is a racist element to this but I also think part of it is just that the problem is closer to home as red states tend to be more rural.
    Regardless, pot should be legal for ethical, practical and moral reasons. I’m glad they are coming around.

  31. Gravatar of Mark Mark
    26. October 2017 at 12:24

    @Joe C

    Ok, I think you misinterpreted my earlier comment; Jim Crow laws were probably not a good example for me to use, but it was following on Scott’s example. I wasn’t trying to refer to the inequality aspect at all. Just the coercion of it.

  32. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    26. October 2017 at 18:44

    Yeah, they shouldn’t be in prison for pot, but they might have committed other crimes, so it’s OK.

    “For the first time in my life I understand the Joe McCarthy era.”
    -You talkin’ of this?
    https://twitter.com/Policy/status/923554162696228864

    “Good to see more and more GOP senators speaking out on Trump (Corker, McCain, Flake, etc.”

    These people’s criticisms of Trump are as valid as goldbug criticisms of the Fed. All these three Senators are worse than Trump.

  33. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    27. October 2017 at 03:01

    > dtoh, That would be a bad policy, but less bad than current policy.

    Scott, why would it be bad?

  34. Gravatar of morgan s warstler morgan s warstler
    27. October 2017 at 07:00

    Trump supports drudge legalization and would leave it to the states.

    Sessions at DOJ is about immigration, nothing more. He’s already aware he’s not in charge of pot. The word has gone out.

    The thing Im most excited to show you Scott that GovWhiz does is around pot.

    But to your thing about GOP, your best example is Texas. 5+ years ago the state GOP here adopted a long term strategy towards medical marijuana as part of the party PLATFORM, bc the state legislators needed political cover, so that yahoos didn’t turn it into a “my opponent is a dirty hippie” thing.

    This allowed them to study, then legalize for epilepsy, and now other stuff.

    The WHY?

    Cost of prisons. Cost of crime. Anytime anyone mentions something is wasting tax dollars here, almost any oxen can get gored. IMO you can thank Rick Perry for being tuned to this 7, maybe even 10 years.

    My point here is simply to repeat: revolution, like bankruptcies, and financial crisis happen slowly at first then all at once.

    It’s not because they really happen slowly, it’s bc you don’t pay attention to them until the last moment.

  35. Gravatar of morgan s warstler morgan s warstler
    27. October 2017 at 07:09

    Scott, since I guess I didn’t say this clearly.

    IF YOU WERE AWARE of the the GOP stuff state by state, a watched it happen, day by day for last 5+ years… THEN:

    !!You wouldn’t make such ignorant statements about Sessions!!

    It’s so weird how nuanced your understanding is on monetary policy. You can see all 16,777,216 colors (24bit) YOU PILPUL THE SH*T OUT OF US…

    But then you jump into politics and say junk like this: “It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Trump, who opposes legalization and picked a reactionary Alabama drug warrior as his AG.”

    Thats just black and white. My youngest daughter understands politics better than this.

    Let me say this clearly: If Texas GOP disagrees with an AL Senator on almost ANYTHING, he’s not going to get to do what he wants.

    Thats some 12bit spectrum, you should get it.

  36. Gravatar of morgan s warstler morgan s warstler
    27. October 2017 at 07:11

    http://www.newsweek.com/john-kelly-weed-heroin-meth-cocaine-war-drugs-585239

  37. Gravatar of Floccina Floccina
    27. October 2017 at 13:00

    @Christian List why punish sellers more than users?

  38. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    28. October 2017 at 19:46

    @Floccina

    I know that this is a very popular meme. “Users and sellers” sounds really nice. Unfortunately I never see the deeper logic behind it. Can you elaborate in 1-2 sentences what people could possible mean by it? I mean I could tear apart your question right now but I don’t want to attack straw men like Mark permanently does.

  39. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    29. October 2017 at 15:33

    dtoh, Why would it be a bad idea to put people in prison for smoking pot? Um, because it’s cruel.

    Morgan, You said:

    “Trump supports drudge legalization”

    Not only does he favor drudge, he wants to ban drudge’s competitors. Seriously, Trump does not favor legalizing drugs.

  40. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    31. October 2017 at 08:11

    Scott,
    Isn’t putting people in prison cruel for any reason. I think the issue is not whether it’s cruel or not…it’s whether it’s justified.

    And besides, I never said anything about jailing dope smokers. I just to criminalize it. Community service, fines, flogging or rehbab would be more than adequate. Why waste money on prisons?

Leave a Reply