The President's recent remarks about marijuana in The New Yorker has sparked the debate about marijuana's criminal status once again. With 20 states and DC having decriminalized or legalized marijuana, there is a real possibility that this drug may become legally obtainable in all states within my lifetime.
Is this a good or a bad decision?
When people vote to decriminalize or legalize marijuana is to better society, better their personal lives, or to simply enable liberty?
I have heard and read many arguments on both sides of this issue. Not to my surprise, people site conflicting facts and studies and science. So my guess is that once again common sense is one of our better tools in assessing the risks and rewards.
I guess I'll begin by questioning the sole defense of marijuana. Why should marijuana become legal while other drugs remain illegal? If you say "because it is just a plant"... Then what about opium? It's just from a plant. Why is somethings origin a significant argument for its legal status? Cocaine is from the coca plant, so should it be legal as well?
Look, my practice revolves around herbal medicine and one of the first things... actually the first thing we start learning is that just because its a plant, or natural, or organic, or whatever... does not mean it is safe or good or nontoxic. There are formulas and herbs I will not carry because they could really do damage to someone who mistakenly abuses it. That something is a plant is a non sequitur. Remember... hemlock is just a plant, and yet it killed Socrates. There are many plants which are deathly poisonous (i.e. hemlock, oleander, wolfsbane, and the dreaded castor oil plant to name a few.)
Okay, so why have people chosen marijuana as their legalization mascot. My guess: Because it is the puppy dog of drugs in most peoples minds. You know, the one that seems cute and harmless. Everyone has either had one, or know some one who has had one. And really, other than there being some silly stories to tell about that goofy puppy, there is nothing malevolent about it. This is in contrast with cocaine or heroin who are about as loved by the public as the AIDS virus or cancer. We instantly associate death, addiction, loss of health, and character degeneration to these and other "hard" drugs. Even the common euphemistic language for cocaine, meth, and heroin as "hard" drugs means conversely that drugs like marijuana are "soft."
But if you want to be intellectually honest about it, then any argument for the legalization of marijuana from strictly an argument on behalf of liberty should also include the legalization of all drugs... hard or soft. And in fact, many libertarians, to their credit, hold this view. At least they are consistent.
Then you have those who argue that marijuana really is not all that bad. This was basically what President Obama was saying. When I've asked people "what is bad about marijuana?", they typically answer back with a joke like "munchies" or "cotton mouth" or "giggles." That is it. So if you have a friend who is adamant about his cannabis and it's legalization, please ask him "Is there anything bad about marijuana use?"
So lets just assume that marijuana is not so bad. Let's just say that getting high on marijuana is no different that getting drunk... or even better than drunk because of marijauna's uncanny ability to turn a mean guy into a giggling cheetos fiend (the antithesis of the proverbial angry drunk.) Would you agree that the mind is impaired on marijuana? Would you agree that decision making skills are slowed? Would you agree that a sense of propriety is diminished? All of these are pretty bad scenarios.
If you want to compare alcohol to marijuana, then be honest about their intoxicating effects. You can drink a glass of wine over dinner and have virtually no measurable difference let alone degeneration in mental or physical capabilities. However, one joint, or for many one "hit" of marijuana, and the effects are obvious and noticeable, not to mention nearly immediate. Not that I promote the abuse of alcohol, but at least there is a cumulative effect in alcohol consumption lets say from 0% change from one glass over an hour to 100% dysfunctional after 5 glasses in an hour. One hit of marijuana however and many people get a 20+% shift almost immediately. I know that people build up tolerances, but that is true on both accounts. My point is simply make the distinction in regards to the gradation of intoxicating effects of alcohol versus the immediate and severe effects of marijuana.
Second, if you admit that the intoxicating effects of alcohol is bad, and there are negative intoxicating effect from marijuana as well, then why would you want to condone through legalization another societal problem? When else would this logic make sense? Chopping off my finger is bad, so might as well chop off my toe as well... (even if its just the pinky toe.)
And yes this is a societal problem. If you want to legalize marijuana and reduce its societal impact then you must also drastically reduce or eliminate the welfare system. It takes either a very naive view of reality or one in which the Sun is purple to believe that there is no correlation between the welfare state and drug and alcohol problems. If you want to add more drugs like marijuana, then reduce the ability to be an otherwise able human being getting drunk and high as well as being a drain on society, instead of being a sober productive working member of society.
Also, if you want to legalize marijuana and reduce its negative societal impact then you must also vote for severe and mandatory incarceration for first offense convictions of driving under the influence. Again, what color is your sky if you believe that legalizing marijuana will have no effect in increasing the risk of people driving under its influence.
Now if your argument is based on the idea that it is immoral to incarcerate someone who does no harm to another individual (ala Milton Friedman), then you should be consistent and be for the legalization of prostitution as well as any and all other drugs. Once again, intellectually honest libertarians hold such views. If no one is harmed then it should not be illegal. This should extend to all such behavior between consenting people. Otherwise, you are picking your mascot based on your opinion that yours is the morally right one, but the others are still immoral... although no one else is harmed in those cases either.
Common sense suggests that legalizing something which is already in demand and used readily will likely lead to its increase of use. Perhaps not indefinitely, but so what? How long is long enough? One year, 10 years, 50 years? The tides of peoples desires ebb and flow, and the only thing I can predict with some surety is that legalizing marijuana will be a direct cause of its increase in consumption for a period of time.
Now, does this mean we therefore cannot have any change here? Not necessarily.
Truth is that, in my opinion, were the hypothetical situation this:
Marijuana is legal today, and has been legal for generations. Then I would not be in favor of prohibition. As we know from history prohibition does not work.
But the argument today is not about banning a currently legal substance, rather it is about legalizing a banned substance.
I maybe wrong, but I don't think marijuana is as ingrained in our culture as alcohol is. My argument is based on a few insights:
1) It would at least appear that it is an uncommon behavior for adults over 40 to regularly use marijuana. However, most regularly use alcohol. Marijuana is unfortunately a drug that is preferred by youth, and then either they decide by inspiration or desperation to stop consuming marijuana... and yet they continue to consume alcohol. My guess is that with age comes experience. And experience carries with it bad judgement. Over time enough experience with bad judgement leads to good judgement. And good judgement leads to wise behavior. Apparently the wiser decision is to not use marijuana for most people over 40. Oh and yes, I can hear you asking "Well what about Willy Nelson?" Or "I have an uncle who has been toking up daily and he is one of the smartest and most responsible people I know." Okay, fine yes there individuals who continue to use marijuana into their theoretically more mature adult years. But really? I am making a generalization. In general, do you think the vast majority of 40+ year old adults are using marijuana with any kind of regularity, especially in comparison with alcohol? My point is to distinguish the entrenched use of alcohol versus marijuana in our American society. By the way, I wished people did not drink so much alcohol either. But there is no closing the door on that pandora's box. It seems perfectly logical to me that were we to allow legalization of marijuana, in time it may perhaps become as ingrained in our culture for nearly all people as alcohol is currently. Again, a pandora's box that is best left closed.
2) While most adults seem to be programmed for alcohol over marijuana, even the youth seem to be programmed the same way. Unless, something has changed for American youth, my experience was that teenagers were far more likely to consume alcohol as opposed to marijuana. Right or wrong, they felt that alcohol was "okay" but marijuana was not. Perhaps its "just say no" propaganda, or perhaps it is because they have seen the adults do it (i.e. their parents) and so they figure alcohol can't be that bad. Which reinforces my first point and leads me to my third.
3) Even if marijuana were legal, would you use it in front of your children? Do you think the majority of adults would use marijuana as casually as they drink a glass of wine for dinner, or have a scotch after work? Can you see a time when after a family meal, the adults go and toke up while watching TV with the kids? My guess is no. Why? Again, it is simply not something that mature people want to do. So who does want to do it? The youth. My assumption is that the greatest percentage of marijuana users in the U.S. are between the ages of 16 and 30. I also assume that that has probably been the case since the 60's. Why? Because for most people as they mature they no longer find benefit in using something like marijuana. Marijuana unlike alcohol, cigars, pipes, coffee (all of which contain potentially harmful and/or addictive substances), is not simply enjoyed for taste. Marijuana is used strictly to get you high. This is in contradistinction to alcohol which is often consumed simply to enjoy the flavor, or enhance the flavor of other foods (as in the case of wine pairings.) Alcohol, like cigars , pipes, and coffee, can and should only be consumed for the flavor and not for intoxicating effects. That people do otherwise is obvious. But at least we have a campaign for people to "Drink responsibly." Which means do not get drunk, and if you do get drunk don't drive. How is that going to work with marijuana, "Toke responsibly?" But there is only one outcome for using marijuana and that's getting high. As I stated earlier, there is nothing comparable between the immediate intoxicating effects of marijuana versus alcohol. You just get higher and higher until you are "stoned." And this is yet another reason why I think it has not become ingrained in our society. At least coffee, alcohol, and tobacco have some attributes beyond the potentially mind altering ones. Our society still looks down up public inebriation and mind altering drugs.
And this actually brings me to another point. Marijuana, like alcohol, tobacco, and coffee, is potentially addictive. Whether it is a psychological or physical addiction is irrelevant. Either way, for some people they need to get high. For some people they must use marijuana regularly. For some people, marijuana transitions from being a controlled substance in their life, into a controlling substance they live for. When marijuana becomes a lifestyle and source of identity then you have a problem. It should go with out saying that a life dedicated to getting high, is a life of an addict. And we all know or have known those people.
So again, since we already have a problem in our culture with alcohol and prescription drugs, why would it make since to legalize and make more readily available yet another addictive drug?
Ah yes, and what about legalizing marijuana for medical purposes only? Well, I have had experience with patients who swear by marijuana's efficacy and claim it was the best drug they had used. In my own practice, I have heard the claims regarding its use during cancer treatments or for pain or for psychological conditions. I know that herbs work. I am quite sure that marijuana works for a number of medical conditions. So if marijuana is to become legal for prescription use only, then it should be treated the same as other drugs. It is common knowledge that the "medical" marijuana practice in states like California are a farce. Basically, anyone can get a card and then go to any dispensary and get some marijuana. If you want marijuana to be recognized seriously for its medicinal benefits, then it should be treated as such. That means that the doctors are to held liable for their diagnosis and prescriptions, just as they are for hydrocodone, ritalin, or xanax. Also, pharmacies should be the source and not marijuana shops. Finally, the forms of marijuana consumption for medical use should not be smokable. Marijuana smoke is not healthful and contains many of the same carcinogens as cigarrete smoke. No responsible doctor would prescribe smoking cigarettes for nicotine, so why would one prescribe smoking marijuana for THC? Instead, the THC can be obtained by ingestion (eating or tinctures) or vaporization. Both of which are medically sound methods of consumption versus smoking.
Alright, so with all that said... What is my final opinion on marijuana's legal status? Well this is one of those areas of life where we are stuck between a bad decision and a worse decision.
In my opinion, the best bad decision is to legalize marijuana (and other drugs) but only under the certain conditions:
1) There must be strict mandatory penalties for first offense DUI's, meaning mandatory prison, loss of driving privileges, etc. Should a death occur due to a DUI then the offender should be eligible for the death penalty and the minimum prison sentence is 40 years.
2) All applicants for welfare must pass mandatory drug tests. Failure to pass or comply means no entitlements.
3) All current welfare recipients are required to take recurring random drug tests. Should any drugs which are not prescribed be evident in the test then they lose all welfare entitlements.
Neither driving nor welfare is a right. They are privileges. And if someone decides to abuse those privileges and do so at the cost of others, then they lose said privileges.
I suppose if that can't happen (and I understand it likely will not.)
Then next best bad decision would be to conserve the law as is and therefore keep marijuana illegal, but reduce the penalties for personal possession. As much as I like the idea of decriminalization for the sake of the benign users who go to jail for mere possession... I just do not foresee how that works in the long run for society. I am opposed to reversing the law for no other reason than that I am certain that simple decriminalization or legalization will necessarily increase its use and users... especially in the youth. And ultimately I do not think it will do any good.
What do you think?
