It is awkward for me to argue that adults have the right to smoke marijuana. Whenever I make this argument, I suspect that people think that my arguments constitute a thin and self-serving façade for my own personal desire to smoke marijuana.
I have never smoked marijuana, though, and have never desired to do so, even though I worked as a rock musician in the 70’s. I don’t know why I have never desired to use marijuana or any other street drug. Maybe it’s because I fear the loss of “control”—life is already a bit out of control, it seems. Perhaps I have been cowed by the existence of criminal laws prohibiting possession of even possession of small amounts. Nor do I smoke or drink. I try to find my personal high through things like talking with friends, exercising and by exploring ideas.
When discussing the potential legalization of drugs, personal prejudice and flimsy anecdotes have a way of driving the conversation. That’s why I wanted to say a few things about my own attitudes toward marijuana before preceding.
This topic of the illegality of marijuana arose at a gathering of acquaintances yesterday. For those opposed to legalizing marijuana I suspect that their main argument was that marijuana use is morally wrong. In “mixed company” (involving people for and against criminalization of marijuana), this moralistic argument is left unarticulated, however, because it is a rare day when a simple claim that something is “immoral” convinces anyone of anything. In such gatherings, then, “health” arguments often serve as proxies for this unspoken bigger battle. For instance, in my experience, conservatives embellish the health risks of marijuana to justify their moral concerns in the same way that they embellish the health risks of abortion (the claim is that “abortion increases the risk of cancer”) to justify their moral concerns in that area.
What’s ironic is that so many people who oppose the legalization of marijuana based on “health” arguments would NEVER refer to the much more serious health concerns pertaining to tobacco and alcohol to argue for criminalization of tobacco or alcohol. So it’s not really about heath issues, right? In fact, many of the people who want to keep marijuana criminalized personally use, if not abuse, tobacco and alcohol (including using alcohol to an excess) as do many of their friends and family members. We wouldn’t want to make criminals out of my good friend Bob or my Aunt Mary, would we?
Conservatives hammer the “health” issues in an attempt to drive a clear wedge between marijuana and those legal mind-altering drugs. They argue that marijuana is dramatically different than legal drugs and that this difference justifies turning marijuana users into criminals. I find it interesting that conservatives use this same tactic to concoct a wedge between human animals and all of the other animals in an effort to find a special place for humans, in an effort to lambaste scientific findings based on biological evolution.
I do want to engage in one more digression . . . . It is astounding to me that conservative churches raise huge alarms regarding the use of illegal drugs but often say nothing about legal mind-altering drugs. Consider this quote by Tim Wu:
Over the last two decades, the pharmaceutical industry has developed a full set of substitutes for just about every illegal narcotic we have.
It would seem, then that obedience to authority is a big factor in why many conservatives oppose drugs. Obedience is one of the well-documented pillars of conservative morality. Haidt’s approach dovetails with George Lakoff’s conclusions that the government metaphorically serves as a “strict father” to conservatives. This invites a chicken and egg issue. Is marijuana “bad” because the government says that it’s bad, or is it just “bad” and the government just recognizes this “truth?” The bottom line is that the government is certainly on board that marijuana is “bad,” and Wu/Haidt/Lakoff have given us reason to suspect that conservatives latch onto that government position to justify their own moral views. I suspect that this is exactly what is happening with regard to marijuana. The anti-marijuana folks are holding themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Now, back to my gathering of acquaintances. During our conversation, I heard from a proud conservative that marijuana should remain illegal because it is a gateway drug. However, tobacco has been well documented as a far superior gateway drug. I didn’t hear any of the anti-marijuana folks say anything about criminalizing that famous gateway drug, tobacco, so I was not convinced that this gateway “reason” to keep marijuana criminalized was genuine.
At the gathering, I also heard an argument that was new to me. I heard that people shouldn’t smoke because smoking marijuana “causes cancer.” I wasn’t aware that there was ever any solid evidence to support this claim. After hearing this claim yesterday, I did a bit of research. The evidence is overwhelming that there is no link between smoking pot and lung cancer (and see here). Nor does there appear to be any link between pot smoking and oral cancer.
Prior to yesterday’s discussion, I believed that the physical dangers of smoking marijuana were minimal, except for the danger of a police officer kicking down your door, at which point you would be called a criminal and then hauled away from your family and job, potentially for years. My belief was correct. There is almost no danger to the occasional use of marijuana. BTW, if you’re trying to find solid information on this topic, you’ll need to wade through dozens of sites that are merely advocacy groups that base their claims on anecdotes and personal prejudice. Here are a few sites that appeared to be relatively grounded in real data (and here and here).
For me, making marijuana available to medical patients is an even more compelling moral issue that far outweighs the risks of abuse. Here’s an organization that convincingly advocates for the availability of marijuana for pain relief by prescription. And check out this video featuring Drew Carey regarding the need/benefits of medical marijuana.
Is smoking marijuana a good thing? I’m not inclined to say yes anymore than I’m inclined to say that watching commercial television is a good thing. I certainly don’t like the image of people in responsible positions slacking off smoking lots of dope. For instance, I would be outraged if a surgeon was high while she operated on a patient. On the other hand I’m well away that many people have the urge to self-medicate using marijuana and that doing so brings them some peace of mind in our hectic and crazy world. To me, using marijuana is the moral equivalent of having a stiff alcoholic drink. It is also the equivalent of calling your doctor to get a prescription for anti-depressants or anti-anxiety drugs. Again, I don’t hear conservatives arguing that we ought to criminalize mind-altering prescription drugs.
I don’t want my children to get hooked on marijuana. I’m trying to teach them to make good choices regarding marijuana as well as good choices regarding dozens of other things (for instance, I don’t want them to become bigots or materialists or self-centered). If I raise them well, they will learn to make good decisions in all of these areas.
Criminalizing marijuana sends two messages. It says that marijuana is bad, which seems to be a strongly articulated position that is lacking in evidence. It also sends another darker message: it says that we can’t trust people to make good decisions. It’s an especially strange message to send, given the easily availability of marijuana, despite the expensive “War on Drugs” that is being waged by our government.
The main reason that I would decriminalize marijuana use by adults is that our non-ending “War on Drugs” is an utter disaster. What this “war” is doing to decent citizens is immoral and disgraceful. The drain on the economy is horrific. We arrest one American every 38 seconds on marijuana charges. It is utterly shameful what we are doing as a nation:
The FBI reported Saturday that the number of arrests for violations of the marijuana laws hit an all-time high of 755,186 in 2003. Despite a decade of marijuana law reforms and protestations by police chiefs across the land that marijuana is not a priority, that figure is nearly double the number of people arrested for pot in 1993. The number of people arrested on marijuana charges last year also exceeds the number arrested for violent crimes by more than 150,000.
With only a couple of hiccups, the number of people arrested on marijuana charges has trended steadily upward in the past decade, no matter which party controls the levers of government. The previous peak of 735,500 was recorded in 2000, with 724,000 arrested in 2001 and 697,000 in 2002.
To illustrate the scope of the problem, the number of those arrested for marijuana is more than the entire population of the state of South Dakota (pop. 754,844).
Here’s another informative link describing the disaster many people call “The War on Drugs”
With this information now at your fingertips, you can now do your own cost-benefit analysis. Think about it. Send this link to other people who might be interested in discussing this important issue.
—
Epilogue
Reason‘s Jacob Sullum, reviewing a recent report by the World Health Organization, indicates that it is naive to conclude that criminalization will reduce drug use.
[I]t’s striking that the lifetime marijuana use rate in the U.S. (42.4 percent) is more than twice as high as the rate in the Netherlands (19.8 percent), despite the latter country’s famously (or notoriously, depending on your perspective) tolerant cannabis policies. The difference for lifetime cocaine use is even bigger: The U.S. rate (16.2 percent) is eight times the Dutch rate (1.9 percent). Do these results mean that draconian drug laws promote drug use, while a relatively laid-back approach discourages it? Not necessarily; that would be a hell of a “forbidden fruit” effect. But one thing that’s clear is the point made by the WHO researchers: Drug use “is not simply related to drug policy.” If tinkering with drug policy (within the context of prohibition) has an impact, it is hard to discern, and it’s small compared to the influence of culture and economics.
Imagine if we based the illegality of a drug on a standardized set of criteria. Standards like, for example, the addictive properties of the drug, the ease at which a person can overdose, the long-term physical effects, and so forth. Marijuana would beat out alcohol and tobacco on all counts. Tobacco leads to far more instances of addiction, alcohol can very easily be imbibed in dangerous, overdose-like excess, and both alcohol and tobacco have far more deleterious long-term effects. So why do we keep these harmful substances legal while shunning a relatively harmless one? Path dependence, perhaps?
Erika: You nailed it. Yes, a consistently applied set of objective standards would result in most joint smokers being left alone, while most alcohol and tobacco abusers would be hauled away and thrown in the slammer.
There's no need to demonize the abusers of any of these drugs, of course. We could all see it better if we (as I alluded to in the title) took a few deep breaths before jumping to rash conclusions.
I also agree that path dependence has a lot to do with the way we view the use of the various drugs.
Erich, in your comment you point out another glaring problem that occurs when discussing drug policy: those opposed to the decriminalization of marijuana can't keep themselves from poisoning the well. Drug users are, as you mention, demonized, and all who voice criticism of our drug policy are lambasted as self-interested druggies. I note how even you felt compelled to point out, in your initial post, that you do not use the drugs you discuss. I don't blame you for it- I've felt the same need to clarify my intent when criticizing the criminalization of marijuana.
In actual fact, plenty of people want to see marijuana decriminalized who don't actually use the drug. They may disagree with our current drug policy because of its illogic, or because they'd like to see the prison population cut by a huge number, or because they don't think drug use deserves an expensive and ineffective "war" declared upon it. Most of these people keep their position on the back burner, I think, so they don't come across as unstable drug addicts. This election cycle, Mike Gravel certainly came across as a kook because of his stance on marijuana.
Marijuana LAWS killed two people recently. Here's the story.
California NORML director Dale Gieringer had this to say about the measure. "The legislature was right to approve banning employment discrimination of medical marijuana patients. Marijuana is safer than many prescription drugs that workers are allowed to use, and urine testing has never been FDA tested as either safe or effective in improving workplace safety and productivity."
For the full story on a proposed California medical marijuana law, see here.
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/09/08/earth-and-…
President Calderón's announcement earlier this month must have come as a bit of an unwanted surprise to the Bush Administration. On October 2, Calderón proposed legislation that would decriminalize drug possession, ostensibly for personal use. Not just for marijuana, as one might have expected in a country where pot smoke has not been demonized to the same degree as in the U.S., but for cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, as well.
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/102857/as_th…
Consider the consequences of drug prohibition today: 500,000 people incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails for nonviolent drug-law violations; 1.8 million drug arrests last year; tens of billions of taxpayer dollars expended annually to fund a drug war that 76% of Americans say has failed; millions now marked for life as former drug felons; many thousands dying each year from drug overdoses that have more to do with prohibitionist policies than the drugs themselves, and tens of thousands more needlessly infected with AIDS and Hepatitis C because those same policies undermine and block responsible public-health policies.
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-platform/edi…
Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. His definition fits America’s war on drugs, a multi-billion dollar, four-decade exercise in futility.
The war on drugs has helped turn the United States into the country with the world’s largest prison population. (Noteworthy statistic: The U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population and around 25 percent of the world’s prisoners).
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/12/03/…
Although I'm drug free at this point of my life, I do totally agree with and applaud your attitude toward marijuana.
H.R. 5843, The Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults would eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use.
Detailed Summary
Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults – Prohibits the imposition of any penalty under an Act of Congress for the possession of marijuana for personal use or for the not-for-profit transfer between adults of marijuana for personal use.
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_…
"Sixteen Members of Congress issued a letter yesterday to newly-seated Attorney General Eric Holder urging the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to act "swiftly to amend or withdraw" an order that significantly curtails medical marijuana research in the United States."
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5669
The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/0704…
Consider the massive potential economic benefits, from Daily Kos:
It is more potent, and thus each plant yields far more cash. If you took just the plants that were confiscated in California in 2006, which likely makes up no more than 5%-10% of the home-grown plants and does not include the ready-for-use tagged and bagged product, there is more value there than in the 2006 yield from the entire Californian wine industry. We are talking about billions upon billions of dollars in tax revenue that is missed by the state of California…
Forget about the fact that regulating marijuana will make it much more difficult for children to smoke. There is a reason why you don't have "boot-leggers" inside of schools, while there are plenty of friends with weed. Forget about the fact that marijuana is not anymore addictive than computer use and less harmful than alcohol. Forget about the medicinal and textile uses of marijuana. Forget about how much more efficient it is for harvest than trees in regards to paper production.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/17/93127…
Police officers versus the "drug war":
It's an unusual position to take for a police officer charged with enforcing laws, but [police officer] Jardis insists that prohibiting drugs leaves the dealers in control, creating a dangerous black market that breeds crime and gives kids easy access.
Jardis believes drugs should be regulated by the government just like alcohol. . .
Jardis, of Hooksett, is among a growing number of current and former New Hampshire law enforcement officers and others in criminal justice who have joined a Massachusetts-based nonprofit organization called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, or LEAP.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29325058/
A friend of mine also points out, rightly, that as long as it is sold by people who are interested in selling you more expensive, addictive substances, it will be a gateway drug. Take the drug dealers out of the equation, and most people will be OK with smoking pot and leaving it at that.
For those of you keeping score at home, add another major policy shift by the Obama administration to the tally. Breaking with precedent set under former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the Department of Justice will not raid medical marijuana dispensaries allowed under certain state laws.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/02/26…
Supporters of programs to provide legal marijuana to patients with painful medical conditions are celebrating Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement this week that the Drug Enforcement Administration would end its raids on state-approved marijuana dispensaries.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29433708/
From CNN: Time to legalize marijuana (and other street drugs):
The following information is from Nick Gillespie's post, "Why Pot Legalization is the Most Important Issue Before Voters This Election Day:
The $50 billion in direct costs of drug prohibition at all levels of government doesn't begin to capture the costs in social disruption, crime from black markets, foregone tax revenue, and more. The 858,000 marijuana-related arrests made each year — many involving minors, non-violent offenders, and those possessing insignificant amounts — accounts for more than half of all drug-related arrests and takes a huge toll on the criminal justice system and lower-income communities at every level. No one seriously questions that the drug war disproportionately impacts minorities and that most "drug-related" crime is in fact a result of the black market status of drugs. Mexican drug gangs may be violent but there is no reason to believe that Mexican marijuana merchants would be any more violent than Mexican mango merchants.
And make no mistake: The drug war is effectively a war on marijuana, by far the only illegal drug used by more 1 percent of the adult population on a regular basis. In 2009, the government reports that 6.6 percents of Americans used pot in the previous month; cocaine, the next-most popular, was used by only 0.7 percent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-gillespie/why-…
Same article, great wrap-up:
"It may start in California, but the legalization of marijuana will also mean that schoolkids in Oklahoma won't have to pee in a bottle in order to be on quiz bowl teams and online vendors of bongs won't be prosecuted in Western Pennsylvania and medical marijuana patients in Florida will be able to concentrate on their cancer rather than their legal defense. It means covert farmers in Kentucky and Texas and Washington who generate billions of dollars worth of crops will fully enter the economy. It means that federal and state prisons all over the country will have room for violent prisoners. It means that cops will be deprived of their favorite means for shaking down "suspicious" low-income minorities, and it means that all Americans, even those who never use marijuana, will be more free."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-gillespie/why-…
"Detrimental effects of cannabis use vary in a dose-related fashion, and are more pronounced with highly automatic driving functions than with more complex tasks that require conscious control, whereas with alcohol produces an opposite pattern of impairment. Because of both this and an increased awareness that they are impaired, marijuana smokers tend to compensate effectively while driving by utilizing a variety of behavioral strategies. Combining marijuana with alcohol eliminates the ability to use such strategies effectively, however, and results in impairment even at doses which would be insignificant were they of either drug alone."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27229…
Dr. Sanjay Gupta:
I apologize because I didn’t look hard enough, until now. I didn’t look far enough. I didn’t review papers from smaller labs in other countries doing some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the loud chorus of legitimate patients whose symptoms improved on cannabis.
Instead, I lumped them with the high-visibility malingerers, just looking to get high. I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have “no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse.”
They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn’t have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works. Take the case of Charlotte Figi, who I met in Colorado. She started having seizures soon after birth. By age 3, she was having 300 a week, despite being on seven different medications. Medical marijuana has calmed her brain, limiting her seizures to 2 or 3 per month.
We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/08/1229752/-CNN-s-Dr-Sanjay-Gupta-does-an-about-face-on-marijuana?detail=facebook
Erich – I am skeptical of Sanjay Gupta’s motivation behind his sudden about-face about marijuana as medicine. Call me a cynic, but could it be that Gupta has taken careful measure of the prevailing winds of current culture and thrown his support behind medical marijuana simply because he sees it now as a safe (if not wise) stance to take career-wise?
I suspect he’s known all along about the benefits and benign effects of pot, but to declare it years ago may have been politically incorrect career suicide. He seems like a smart guy, but concern about his own image may be the main consideration behind his public proclamations. Smells bandwagonesque to me.
Mike: I think you are spot on. His epiphany is long overdue based on information available for many years. The only thing that is new is that society is starting to question to wisdom of throwing hundreds of thousands of Americans in cuff just for trying to feel good, a feeling that has been legal all along, only if they used the substances peddled by Big Pharma or makers of alcohol. I don’t know why rational arguments are starting to work these days, but they are.