Marijuana legalization: good. Marijuana fines: bad. Marijuana smoking: groovy.

Yeah, yeah, Bush took a dump with his mouth in front of the UN yesterday. Center for American Progress does a far better job with the stool sample than I ever could.

Instead, I want to talk about the wacky tobacky.

There's all sorts of ways you can predict how fining marijuana possessors (as opposed to distributors) would impact society. On the outset, marijuana possession fines reduces the stigma to nothing more than getting a speeding ticket. And everyone exceeds the speed limit now and then. So it must be a great idea, right?

Wrong. It's a bad idea.

If the majority of marijuana possession cases get thrown out anyway, then all the accused has suffered is time wasted. On the other hand, when slapped with a fine, now the accused is out $250.

Secondly, when more African Americans live in poverty than Whites, and when African Americans get busted for marijuana possession disproportionately to Whites, that means that more poor Blacks than fortunate Whites would be slapped with hefty fines. That's a Venn diagram that I don't like. (See ACLU.)

I'd also like to point out a loaf of bullshit flung in the article linked above:

Fraternal Order of Police president Mark Donahue acknowledged too many cases involving small quantities of marijuana are "pitched at the initial hearing." But FOP members stand to lose thousands of dollars in court overtime if the city starts ticketing marijuana users instead of jailing them, he said.

Except, in the sidebar:

Most of the cases are dismissed because an officer does not appear in court to testify about the arrest or a lab technician fails to show up to verify that the seized grassy substance was, in fact, marijuana, sources say.

So, Officer Donahue, if the cops aren't even showing up to the arraignments, what overtime pay are you talking about?

If Chicago needs more money -- Hell, if any government needs more money -- how about turning a blind eye? Save money by not busting folks possessing under an ounce. And as for that $5 million in fines you would hope to raise under that system -- what if everyone contests their tickets? If the cop doesn't show up as s/he hasn't before, then I guess there's no fine anyway.

The only solution to all of this is to legalize marijuana and tax the bejeesus out of it. It stops the discrimination, it raises money for public works, and -- a pleasing idea for all the stoners out there -- it'll make pot cheaper than it is now. Supply would meet and exceed demand. I also believe that pot usage, upon legalization, would initially spike but would then subside slightly. Pot's legality would make it less exciting, and thus less prone to abuse, and thus fewer burn-outs.

I would propose a compromise, however: make the fines no larger than the cost of the pot. You get caught with a dime bag? You owe the city $10. You get caught with a quarter? That's $60 (so I've heard). That way, the city raises the fine money they need, the fines are affordable, and it will encourage stoners to only take as much pot as they need when they go out, which has the added bonus of forcing stoners to evaluate how much they need.

Ah, logic. Wouldn't it be great if our government was based on it?

TANGENT: Though I'm all for marijuana legalization, I want to call attention to one lie that is often perpetuated by Pro-Pot-ists: Yes, you can abuse pot, and yes, you can become addicted. Once your brain becomes accustomed to having its dopamine receptors flooded, anything less is perceived as a downer. Thus, depression is a physical withdrawal symptom of pot. And, logically, it stands that if it has a physical withdrawal symptom associated with it, it must be addictive. It may not be as addictive as nicotine or alcohol or internet sex, but don't lie and say pot is not addictive. There are far better -- i.e., true -- arguments you should use.