We have recently been through a period of our history where to even suggest changes to the current drug policy (other than harsher sentencing) has been denounced as almost treasonous. DRUGS became the simple answer for what was wrong with the country, the demon we had to quash. Never mind that many of the problems were the result of the criminalization itself. Never mind that a whole array of pharmacologically distinct substances were lumped into the term DRUGS, or that legal recreational drugs were left out. Never mind that drug users were people, our fellow citizens, and that our prison populations soared to world-record levels as we incarcerated them. Or that this ``war'' became an excuse for the groups saying we should ``give up some of our freedoms.'' Any politician who dared to suggest other approaches risked political ads declaring him ``soft on DRUGS,'' to a population constantly bombarded with messages about the evil of DRUGS.
But this essay is not about DRUGS, it is about one drug, marijuana.
If you have ever witnessed a debate or argument on marijuana legalization or decriminalization you have probably seen how they typically go. The decriminalization supporter will cite a long litany of facts. Marijuana is safer than alcohol and nicotine. Marijuana does not tend to lead to violence. Virtually every scientific commission that has studied marijuana use has recommended at least decriminalization. The opponent will often try to switch the subject to the straw man of, say, crack cocaine. Ad hominem attacks are also common, implications that holding this political opinion is somehow tainting enough that the person presenting it can be immediately dismissed (and this guilt-by-association is extended to everything the person has ever said or done). The opponent will raise drunk driving and children, implying that the supporter wants to sell drugs to children and encourage people to drive stoned. The ``gateway theory'' is presented as a fact, and one that is independent of the current illegal status of marijuana. And so forth.
I will assume that everyone knows the basic facts, and that ad hominem attacks speak for themselves.
The question is not whether you support or do not support marijuana use. I do not advocate the use of marijuana. Most people are better off not using marijuana. The real question is whether marijuana users should be locked in cages. That is the blunt description of what happens, isn't it? If not jail, users can have their lives and careers ruined and their property confiscated. Should our scarce law-enforcement resources be targeted to this non-threat? Should otherwise good, hard-working people have their lives ruined for using a drug that is safer and less destructive to society than the beer we see advertised on TV every day?
Marijuana use now cuts across all classes of society. It is not limited to some ``counter-culture.'' Some people seem to be still fighting a long-ago battle, with marijuana users lumped in with ``the enemy.''
My position is that marijuana use by adults should be decriminalized. Patients should have the option of legal medical marijuana. Laws regarding marijuana should be modeled on alcohol laws.
Don't we have enough problems already? Many people will accept that marijuana is safer than either tobacco or alcohol, and that it is illogical for marijuana to be treated so much more harshly than alcohol is. Their argument often goes on, though, to say that we have enough problems with alcohol and tobacco and do not need to add to our problems by decriminalizing marijuana. This is often a case of ``someone else's drug'' being criminalized. But marijuana is pharmacologically different from alcohol; alcohol is not a substitute. Different people have different body chemistry and prefer different drugs. And many people would prefer to have the safer alternative.
What about the children? No one is advocating marijuana use by children. Just as some young people have always obtained alcohol, though, some will obtain marijuana. The current state of criminalization for adult use has little effect here: In many places the legal, regulated drug alcohol is more difficult for minors to obtain than the currently criminalized drug marijuana. The ``gateway theory'' asserts that marijuana leads to harder drugs. This is basically association mistaken for causation, since other behaviors, like alcohol use, have the same associations (not to mention the non-uniform underlying populations that self-select by engaging in some behavior). If there were a causal basis for the gateway theory, though, it might be that in obtaining marijuana today people often come in contact with criminal black markets also selling hard drugs.
What about health effects? I do not claim that marijuana is completely harmless. Anyone using marijuana should be aware of the risks. On the other hand, the health risks are lower than those for alcohol and nicotine, and lower than those for many nonprescription drugs and even some everyday activities. Sometimes it is claimed that marijuana smoke has as many carcinogens as tobacco smoke. That may or may not be the case, but it ignores the huge difference in the volumes of smoke typically inhaled over, say, a month, by users of the two different drugs. Moreover, mortality statistics do not show a significant correlation between marijuana use and early death -- something which cannot be said for tobacco. In any case, government should not be in business of micromanaging the health choices of adults in a free society.
Another health-related argument is that today's marijuana is much stronger than marijuana was in the '60s. This is backed up by very few facts, but it allows some people to rationalize that marijuana smoking today is different from when they did it. Even the most powerful marijuana today is surely no stronger than the concentrated form of marijuana known as hashish, which has been around for literally thousands of years. And if today's marijuana were stronger, that would in some ways make it safer to use. This is because a smaller volume of smoke would need to be inhaled to obtain the desired effect.
Would it send the wrong sign? In the end the argument often comes down to this: Decriminalizing marijuana would send the wrong sign. One such argument is that decriminalization would signal that usage of the formerly-criminalized drug has gained some official sanction. That alcohol and tobacco are legal and have no such sanction belies that argument. There is a mentality where any admission that the current laws need change is seen as a sign of weakness. I think decriminalization sends a sign of strength. It signals that we are trying to make the laws fair and proportionate. It is the continued criminalization of marijuana which sends the wrong sign. It sends the sign that laws are capricious, unfair, and unrelated to rational concerns. It encourages disrespect for the law. Moreover, when people realize that marijuana is not the demon drug they have been led to believe, they may falsely conclude that harder drugs have been similarly misrepresented.
Arguments for the continuation of marijuana prohibition are basically rationalizations for the current policies by those with a vested interest in maintaining them -- and a refusal to admit any mistakes. As such, it will always be something, and the argument need not even be based on facts. It is entrenched policy driving rationalizations and not reason driving policymaking. Like a yin spawing a yang, there is a temptation to meet fire with fire, to meet exaggerations and misrepresentations in kind. To become a marijuana guru, promote its use by everyone, and make it the center of everything. That just plays into their game. In spite of the years of lies, adult marijuana use is just not that big a deal. Keep it low-key, reasoned, and factual. But be both insistent and persistent.