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.
They can, but I'm going to point out that it isn't likely to happen with people working actively to get the threads moved here so no one will see them.
That depends on your perspective on "change". Since 1973, 12 state legislatures -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon -- have enacted versions of marijuana decriminalization. In each of these states, marijuana users no longer face jail time (nor in most cases, arrest or criminal records) for the possession or use of small amounts of marijuana.
My beef with the WOD related to marijuana is primarily that the feds should butt out of a states rights issue (10th amendment.) I am strongly constitutionalist - thus I support getting rid of leftist activist judges, for example. I see this as a constitutional issue, not that different than the 2nd amendment.
My secondary beef with the WOD related to pot is the cost. It is pretty damn expensive to put the officers on the street, hold trials (clogging the judicial system), putting people in prison (clogging the damn prisons), and losing the taxes and economic services of those imprisoned from the economy. Bottom line is that it it costs a bunch (about $7.5 Billion per year) to handle all of this. I would prefer the resources to be allocated elsewhere - like tighting up the southern border big time.
And no, I don't smoke. Smoking is bad for you and rots the lungs. That said, I don't care if someone else wants to rot their own lungs. And if they die at 65 from lung cancer instead of draining medical services for years and then dying at 90, well then I guess it save us tax money there also (cuts down on medicare/medicaid and social security.)
My beef with pot comes with those who produce to sell, those who distribute for profit, those who would abuse any real medical benefit it has for "other" purposes or try to hide behind "medical" use laws.
Beyond pot I have even less tolerance. When it comes to the manufacture and distribution of hard drugs I have no sympathy at all and would prefer to see the penalties far harsher then they currently are.
I do what I can.
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.