This article marshals the problems facing society in terms of coming to grips with the ongoing drug abuse prevalent throughout society. That must also include alcohol and tobacco. That marijuana has been positioned as the flash point between the various camps has created the focus of this article.
For the record, I personally abhor the idea of any drug that might affect my mind and judgment and wish that they would all go away. I personally have about one drink a month and I am sure it is because I do not wish to get into debates over why I am a teetotaler.
However, we are at were we are at.
I personally think that the debate is misdirected into a counterproductive confrontational style that has only served the interests of the parasitic bureaucracies and the criminal class.
First, I think all drug use should be simply reclassified as a medical issue first. But then society needs to demand mandatory treatment of those afflicted in order to restore their contribution to society. A few will resist treatment, but the repetition of the process will surely wear them down.
This is actually important. Wartime conscription is an example of mandatory reshaping of people’s lives that stood up well in its benefits to post war development. Applying those lessons could swiftly sort out the present problems that we have with users. And it is something that a society must demand of its citizens. Just as we must pay our taxes, it is also unreasonable for us to conduct our lives in such a way as to be both a burden on the state and our families and to be unable to advance ourselves so that we might contribute.
Knowledge that a negative drug test will fast track you to a conscripted training and work battalion would surely make drug experimentation very unattractive to any youth who does not have serious home problems to begin with.
The law has no place attempting to micro control people’s behavior, but it clearly has a place in establishing expectations and seeing them met. In practice, we should expect a twenty year old to meet the physical fitness levels easily achieved in basic training. The future benefits are manifold in terms of health and future productivity. And such training never needed to be military, nor should it.
Thus a person who has succumbed to drug abuse must be brought back to productive status as a benefit to himself and society. Once that becomes the guiding principle, the remainder of the drug problem will evaporate for lack of support to a residual nub.
Legalize marijuana? Not so fast.
Backers serve up a timely batch of arguments, but their latest reasons are half-baked.
By the Monitor's Editorial Board
The American movement to legalize marijuana for regular use is on a roll. Or at least its backers say it is.
They point to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said in early May that it's now time to debate legalizing marijuana – though he's personally against it. Indeed, a legislative push is on in his state (and several others, such as Massachusetts and Nevada) to treat this "soft" drug like alcohol – to tax and regulate its sale, and set an age restriction on buyers.
Several recent polls show stepped-up public support for legalization. This means not only lifting restrictions on use ("decriminalization"), but also on supply – production and sales. The Obama administration, meanwhile, says the US Drug Enforcement Agency will no longer raid dispensaries of medical marijuana – which is illegal under federal law – in states where it is legal.
The push toward full legalization is a well-organized, Internet-savvy campaign, generously funded by a few billionaires, including George Soros. It's built on a decades-long, step-by-step effort in the states. Thirteen states have so far decriminalized marijuana use (generally, the punishment covers small amounts and involves a fine). And 13 states now allow for medical marijuana.
Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), recently told a Monitor reporter that three reasons account for the fresh momentum toward legalization: 1) the weak economy, which is forcing states to look for new revenue; 2) public concern over the violent drug war in Mexico; and 3) more experience with marijuana itself.
If there is to be a debate, let's look at these reasons, starting with experience with marijuana.
A harmless drug? Supporters of legalization often claim that no one has died of a pot overdose, and that it has beneficial effects in alleviating suffering from certain diseases.
True, marijuana cannot directly kill its user in the way that alcohol or a drug like heroin can. And activists claim that it may ease symptoms for certain patients – though it has not been endorsed by the major medical associations representing those patients, and the Food and Drug Administration disputes its value.
Rosalie Pacula, codirector of the Rand Drug Policy Research Center, poses this question: "If pot is relatively harmless, why are we seeing more than 100,000 hospitalizations a year" for marijuana use?
Emergency-room admissions where marijuana is the primary substance involved increased by 164 percent from 1995 to 2002 – faster than for other drugs, according to the Drug Abuse Warning Network.
Research results over the past decade link frequent marijuana use to several serious mental health problems, with youth particularly at risk. And the British Lung Foundation finds that smoking three to four joints is the equivalent of 20 tobacco cigarettes.
While marijuana is not addictive in the way that a drug like crack-cocaine is, heavy use can lead to dependence – defined by the same criteria as for other drugs. About half of those who use pot daily become dependent for some period of time, writes Kevin Sabet, in the 2006 book, "Pot Politics" – and 1 in 10 people in the US who have ever used marijuana become dependent at some time (about the same rate as alcohol). Dr. Sabet was a drug policy adviser in the past two presidential administrations.
He adds that physicians in Britain and the Netherlands – both countries that have experience with relaxed marijuana laws – are seeing withdrawal symptoms among heavy marijuana users that are similar to those of cocaine and heroin addicts. This has been confirmed in the lab with monkeys.
Today's marijuana is also much more potent than in the hippie days of yesteryear. But that doesn't change what's always been known about even casual use of this drug: It distorts perception, reduces motor skills, and affects alertness. When combined with alcohol (not unusual), or even alone, it worsens the risk of traffic accidents.
Would legalization take the violence out of the Mexican drug war?
NORML likes to point out that marijuana accounts for the majority of illicit drug traffic from Mexico. End the illicit trafficking, and you end the violence. But that volume gives a false impression of marijuana's role in crime and violence, says Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon and a drug-policy adviser in the US and Australia.
It's the dollars that count, and the big earners – cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin – play a much larger role in crime and violence. In recent years, Mexico has become a major cocaine route to the US. That's what's fanning the violence, according to Dr. Caulkins, so legalizing marijuana is unlikely to quiet Mexico's drug war.
Neither are America's prisons stuffed with users who happened to get caught with a few joints (if that were the case, a huge percentage of America's college students – an easy target – would be behind bars). Yes, there are upward of 700,000 arrests on marijuana charges each year, but that includes repeat arrests, and most of those apprehended don't go to jail. Those who do are usually large-scale offenders.
Only 0.7 percent of inmates in state and federal prisons are in for marijuana possession (0.3 percent counting first-time offenders only, according to a 2002 US Justice Department survey). In federal prisons, the median amount of marijuana for those convicted of possession is 115 pounds – 156,000 marijuana cigarettes.
Can marijuana rescue state coffers?
The California legalization bill proposes a $50/ounce tax on marijuana. The aim is to keep pot as close to the black-market price as possible while still generating an estimated $1.3 billion in income for this deficit-challenged state.
But the black market can easily undercut a $50 tax and shrink that expected revenue stream. Just look at the huge trade in illegal cigarettes in Canada to see how taxing can spur a black market (about 30 percent of tobacco bought in Canada is illegal).
A government could attempt to eliminate the black market altogether by making marijuana incredibly cheap (Dr. Pacula at the RAND Organization says today's black market price is about four times what it would be if pot were completely legalized). But then use would skyrocket and teens (though barred) could buy it with their lunch money.
Indeed, legalizing marijuana is bound to increase use simply because of availability. Legalization advocates say "not so" and point to the Netherlands and its legal marijuana "coffee shops." Indeed, after the Dutch de facto legalized the drug in 1976, use stayed about the same for adults and youth. But it took off after 1984, growing by 300 percent over the next decade or so. Experts attribute this to commercialization (sound like alcohol?), and also society's view of the drug as normal – which took a while to set in.
Now the Dutch are finding that normalization has its costs – increased dependence, more dealers of harder drugs, and a flood of rowdy "drug tourists" from other countries. The Dutch "example" should be renamed the Dutch "warning."
As America has learned with alcohol, taxes don't begin to cover the costs to society of destroyed families, lost productivity, and ruined lives – and regulators still have not succeeded in keeping alcohol from underage drinkers.
No one has figured out what the exact social costs of legalizing marijuana would be. But ephemeral taxes won't cover them – nor should society want to encourage easier access to a drug that can lead to dependency, has health risks, and reduces alertness, to name just a few of its negative outcomes.
Why legalize a third substance that produces ill effects, when the US has such a poor record in dealing with the two big "licits" – alcohol and tobacco?
Parents need to resist peer pressure, too.
Legalization backers say the country is at a tipping point, ready to make the final big leap. They hope that a new generation of politicians that has had experience with marijuana will be friendly to their cause.
But this new generation is also made up of parents. Do parents really want marijuana to become a normal part of society – and an expectation for their children?
Maybe parents thought they left peer pressure behind when they graduated from high school. But the push to legalize marijuana is like the peer pressure of the schoolyard. The arguments are perhaps timely, but they don't stand up, and parents must now stand up to them.
They must let lawmakers know that legalization is not OK, and they must carry this message to their children, too. Disapproval, along with information on risk, are the most important factors in discouraging marijuana and cocaine use among high school seniors, according to the University of Michigan's "Monitoring the Future" project on substance abuse.
Parents must make clear that marijuana is not a harmless drug – even if they personally may have emerged unscathed.
And they need to teach the life lesson that marijuana does not really solve personal challenges, be they stress, relationships, or discouragement.
In the same way, a search for joy and satisfaction in a drug is misplaced.
The far greater and lasting attraction is in a life rooted in moral and spiritual values – not in a haze, a daze, or a munchie-craze.
Today's youth are tomorrow's world problem solvers – and the ones most likely to be affected if marijuana is legalized. Future generations need to be clear thinkers. For their sakes, those who oppose legalizing marijuana must become vocal, well-funded, and mainstream – before it's too late.