Posted on 02/11/2003 6:49:57 AM PST by MrLeRoy
WASHINGTON--A friend recently remarked to me, "Alcohol is the original date-rape drug." That's very sadly true. And it's why I found it hypocritical that the national drug czar's new ad equating marijuana use with teen pregnancy should debut during the Super Bowl, in which beer and sex were the dominant advertising themes.
Teen drinking is the bigger problem, both in sheer numbers as well as health risks, yet the federal agency overseeing drug-control policy ignores it. An antiteen drinking commercial would have been a powerful counterpoint during that game; the antipot ad came off as a clumsy attempt to maintain beer's market share.
These ads are emblematic of the government's overall war on marijuana. Since marijuana was first federally outlawed in 1937, prohibition has had the perverse effect of making marijuana more popular, particularly among youth and the counterculture. Our government insists on staying the course even though there is no evidence that criminalizing marijuana has ever reduced its use, let alone its trafficking. Meanwhile, the focus on marijuana diverts attention away from more serious problems.
Historian Barbara Tuchman once defined folly in government as the perverse persistence in bad policy in spite of evidence of its failure and the existence of a reasonable alternative.
Marijuana prohibition is a clear example of this. Reports by governmental commissions in several countries point out its failure and call for drastic changes, from decriminalization (for example, the Shafer Commission in 1972) to legalization (a Canadian Senate committee report in 2002). So many of our political leaders have tried marijuana that it becomes news if a politician ever denies any "youthful indiscretions." And yet, still prohibition persists. Why?
Some argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug so it must be banned. Yet we've decided that the dangers of alcohol and tobacco present an acceptable risk, so let's compare:
Alcohol overdoses kill more than 15,000 people each year in the United States, and alcohol-related deaths push the toll up to more than 100,000 annually; marijuana, according to the scientific evidence, has not racked up a single overdose death in centuries of use.
Alcohol use is involved in 40 percent of the violent crimes committed in the United States annually; marijuana is associated with meditative, peaceful behavior, while violence in the marijuana trade is the result of prohibition, not the drug.
Tobacco use is credited with more than 400,000 deaths annually, according to the Surgeon General; in spite of decades of trying, the federal government has still not found anyone dying from marijuana use.
Clearly, marijuana prohibition is not justified by health concerns.
Prohibitionists say we don't need to legalize yet another drug because the ones we have do too much damage. That argument misses the point in many ways.
First, marijuana is widely used, legal or not. At least 21 million people used it last year, according to the federal Household Survey. (The real number is much higher, possibly 40 million; government surveys of illegal behavior are not noted for their accuracy and are widely believed to underreport the true totals.)
More important, marijuana is not simply another substance, it's a less dangerous--not safe, but less dangerous--alternative to drugs we already make available. And, if regulated as we do with alcohol, there would be guarantees of marijuana purity as well as regulation of potency, something the illegal market does not provide.
Prohibitionists counter: Ending marijuana prohibition "sends the wrong message" that legalizing drugs supposedly connotes societal approval of drug abuse. Oh, really? Then we need to bring back alcohol prohibition because, by that logic, legal alcohol sends the message that alcoholism and alcohol abuse are OK. Obviously, that's not true. And we're not going back to alcohol prohibition. We need to turn in a different direction.
It makes no sense to continue threatening people with arrest over their simple use of marijuana. A regulated system takes control of the marijuana market away from the criminals. This means age limits, just as we have for alcohol--drug dealers never ask for ID.
As for the "gateway" theory? Research shows that alcohol and tobacco are more likely suspects than marijuana. A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that early alcohol and tobacco use were strong indicators of later drug use. That study's authors contended that the link between marijuana and other illegal drugs may be due solely to marijuana's illegality, nothing more.
A regulated marijuana market--similar to alcohol but a little more restricted (no Super Bowl marijuana promotions, for example)--is workable. And selling U.S.-grown marijuana through state-run outlets similar to Virginia's ABC stores could bring in millions in tax revenue to states and the federal government.
So why does prohibition persist? As Tuchman put it in her book "The March of Folly": "Wooden-headedness, the source of self-deception, is a factor that plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts."
Seventy years ago, we ended the tragic mistake that was alcohol prohibition. The time has now come to end the folly of marijuana prohibition.
What's that got to do with whether decent people read these threads?
I'm sure it is ... AND you get to save all that money not having to go out on dates. Beware of Carpel tunnel syndrome though ... you know .. repetitive motion.
Yep, she chuckled. Although she does think I shouldn't tormet you folks so much.
Why won't society provide them with its benefits and not impose reciprocal obligations on them? Doesn't society realize that they are above the rest of us? Where's their free lunch?!
“Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to introduce and vote in favor of legislation making possession of marijuana a civil violation, like a traffic ticket instead of a criminal offense, and requiring the police to hold a person under 18 who is cited for possession until the person is released to a parent or legal guardian or brought before a judge?”
According to Associated Press figures released shortly after the election, 61.53% of the voters from those 19 House districts voted yes on the referendum question, while 38.44% voted no. According to the official election results published in the Return of Votes for Massachusetts State Election 2002, out of 227,377 total votes cast, 48.99% (111,387) of the voters responding voted yes, 31.71% (72,092) voted no, and 19.31% (43,898) left their ballots blank. Filtering out the blank ballots, 60.71% of the voters responding yes or no voted yes while 39.29% voted no—figures in line with the AP’s results (61.53%-38.44%). Taken together, these results show that in these 19 House districts, voters believed that marijuana possession should be regarded as a civil violation instead of a criminal violation by a 3-to-2 margin.
Out of curiousity, do you know how much they actually spent in Nevada? I didn't think there was any vice that you couldn't get made legal in Nevada.
Now I think I can understand why, they're stoned.
Otherwise, the parasites, predators and scavengers of American Gubmint Socialism will be wallowing in the taxation money trough.
I can't agree; they're already wallowing in the WOD money trough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.