Granted, we shouldn't need a referendum to decide about cannabis. Ideally, we'd have political representatives, guided by doctors, to sort this thing out, while we get on with our own stuff. But plainly under the Minister of Bow Ties, that's not happening. And a referendum will be good for the economy, so let's go.
Here are the choices. If yes, the profits from marijuana get taken from criminal hands, and the government receives tax. The quality, purity and potency is regulated by the Ministry of Cannabis and Ganja. Health information (including warnings) are provided. Cannabis adopts the connoisseur cachet of wine, single malt or cigars.
Prestige labels position themselves at the premium end. We'd see commercials. Bond-like, a tuxedo-rocking silver fox pulls out a platinum fountain pen. After signing a credit card bill, he flips its cap to reveal it's also an e-cigarette. Our hero stipulates his fetish for a certain tendril of a certain leaf, and activating the blue light, he inhales with thoughtful appreciation - before defeating an adversary with an attack of laughter.
In another sector of the market, there'd be the organic. There'd be the Cuban. There'd probably be the manuka. There'd probably be the slimming marijuana which skews female. Other brands would be lower decile: they'd use words like "mate", and their ads would focus on the lithe females who work in the marijuana factory.
And like lamb or milk powder, we'd export the best stuff. (Indeed, in combination with lamb and milk powder: the value-add.)
In a cannabis referendum, that would be the "yes" option.
If "no", we'd have the situation we do now. Criminals would profit from marijuana. Distracted from crimes that have actual victims, police would instead monitor citizens deemed to be having the wrong type of fun. Prisons would prosper, and private companies that deliver prison services would suck life from each of our spines, like the Matrix.
Think of all the accidents of history that need fixing.
Alcohol can symbolise celebration, success, prestige, mateship. Marijuana? That's a drug.
Why? Because timing. Timing is everything.
It's the butterfly effect. One badly written phrase in the US Constitution and 200 years later, America has fewer rules about owning an assault rifle than they do about driving a car. Why? Because, um, look - Mexicans!
Take religion. If a religion existed before we were born, we give it more respect than a more recent religion. We mock Scientology, but we take much more care mocking Islam. Brian Tamaki gets away with running what in my opinion is a scam, untaxed, with promises he'll never have to back up, which he hasn't even had to invent - because his business falls within a box we deem sacred and untouchable. But if L Ron Hubbard had existed 1000 years ago, and Christ had come later, by now we'd have just finished a long weekend called Xenu Friday, and supermarkets would be getting rid of Tom Cruise buns.
Tax them all. JK Rowling's product is fiction too, and she pays tax. So why should religion be exempt? It doesn't restrict freedom of religion. Choose whatever religion floats your ark. They'll all be taxed equally.
It might be blasphemy, but yes, let's tax Apple and Google too. And good, honest drugs should pull their weight too. Let the referendums begin.
Debate on this article is now closed.
