David recently mentioned the legalization and taxation of marijuana, an idea I thoroughly support. It really amazes me that we even still waste time debating this, and it amazes me even more that so many people are so vehemently against it.

Here are my reasons for supporting it:

1. I can’t think of a single way it could be considered more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. When was the last time you heard about someone beating their spouse after they got stoned?

2. Revenue! If marijuana were legalized and taxed, the increase of government funds would not be small.

3. Time, money and lives saved by removing it from the illicit market. Our prison systems would also stand to experience a significant reduction in load. Without doing any real research, here are a few numbers to think about:

$7.6 billion - the amount spent in the US anually on marijuana law enforcement.
45% - the percentage of the 1.5 million drug arrests annually for marijuana.
20% - The percentage of state prisoners held for drug charges.
53% - The percentage of federal prisoners held for drug charges.

I can only imagine what the reduction in crime would be, both violent and petty.

I’m thinking that it wouldn’t end up like tobacco, since marijuana is much easier to grow. I forsee something along the lines of beer. Microbrewery equivilents, some type of licensed establishment, would serve the small local markets. There would of course be some large Budweiser types, and the homebrewers homegrowers. Any quantity grown that exceeds personal use would require a license and would be taxed if sold. I think it would work.

Anyway, on to my second topic.

There has been an uproar lately about Hillary’s comments regarding Iran, and her promise to “obliterate” them if they were to attack Israel. At face value that comment makes me really mad. The idea that we, as United States Citizens, feel the need to preemptively destroy things that are not currently direct threats to us is ridiculous. I’m not advocating that we wait until the nuke has been launched to do something either. I’m just saying that in and of itself, Iran attacking Israel does not directly threaten us. It does not give us the right to “obliterate” a country because they have attacked another country and thus proven they have the ability.

Now, that’s my reaction at hearing the sound bite. Here’s the transcript of the actual question and answer:

April 22nd

CHRIS CUOMO: You said if Iran were to strike Israel, there would be ‘massive retaliation.” Scary words. Does ‘massive retaliation” mean you’d go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is that what that’s supposed to suggest?

CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that. Because that, perhaps, will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic.

It sounds a little less insane when read in context, but the basic concept is still the same. I believe that, unless there is proof of a direct threat to U.S. soil, an “obliteration” of a country is not warranted. That’s not to say that there isn’t evidence of a direct threat, and that a nuclear attack on Israel would prove that Iran had the means to carry out a previous threat. I have a feeling this is what Hillary believes, and why she’s saying it. I’m going to assume she has better data on the reality of the Iranian threat than I do. Regardless, it’s not my favorite statement to come from her recently.