On the controversial topic of marijuana, American opinions are rapidly changing, or at least the winds have slightly shifted. Twenty U.S. states have approved the use of marijuana to mollify the side-effects of certain medical treatments such as chemotherapy, and recently two others -– Washington and Colorado -- have gone the extra mile with the bold move of legalizing limited amounts of the weed for so-called “recreational” use.
On the “pro” side of the issue, the reasons for promoting the “decriminalization” and/or legalization route are mainly solid, with one exception. This specious reasoning comes from a declaration of surrender (rather than victory) over the decades-long “War on Drugs” during which large portions of population ignored, if not flouted, laws against possession of pot. Those who hold this particular opinion like to mention the historical failure of “The Great Experiment” – prohibition – which had the unforeseen effect of inspiring folks who’d never before let a drop of liquor touch their lips to drink as if there were no tomorrow. The age-old conciliation “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” is at the heart of this argument; “Everybody disobeys the law anyway, so we might as well make it legal.”(That’s similar to something I read earlier today – though on a less significant issue – about eliminating the apostrophe, since nobody uses it correctly.) If this is your only point for legalizing marijuana, your agenda probably won’t be – as pundits like to say –“going forward.” It reminds me of the famous quotation from Murder in the Cathedral: “The last temptation is the greatest treason. /To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”
A better argument may originate from a philosophical or ideological standpoint. Proponents from both the personal freedom advocates on the Left and the libertarian group on the Right firmly dispute a government’s authority to dictate what an individual can do to his or her physical body. The inherent right to privacy -- not specifically spelled out though clearly implied – in the U.S. Constitution can also enhance this argument.
From a practical point of view, there are still more points that seem to indicate some change in our nation’s attitude toward marijuana. The down-to-earth financial windfalls of increased tax revenue from marijuana sales is enticing. Regulations and oversight can improve quality control and perhaps keep the black market and gangster element currently associated with the sale of pot under control, and maybe put a damper on the strongholds of violence associated with drug cartels.
At this point in our history, decriminalization seems to be a crucial transitional step. The primary reason for decriminalizing marijuana for possession and low-level dealing is the shameful disproportion of arrests, prosecution, and incarceration among races. Few people may know and even fewer will admit it, but blatant racism is the primary reason we have anti-drug laws in the first place. Prejudice against ethnic minorities is the unsavory root of anti-marijuana legislation; indeed, the first federal drug laws were proposed as a way to control migrant workers from south of the border.
Although statistics indicate similar incidents of use of pot among whites and minorities, members of the former group are rarely arrested and prosecuted, whereas the latter – specifically, young Black and Hispanic Americans- become inextricably tangled within the legal justice system, often to the point at which their lives are essentially ruined. Draconian measures such as the notorious “Rockefeller Drug Laws” and “three strikes and you’re out” are just a few of the past abuses of the national attack on drug-related crimes.
Systematic racism aside, much of the outcry against legalizing pot comes from the ranks of the justice system itself. The more anti-drug laws are on the books, the more law enforcement officers are hired and/or allowed to work overtime. Drug enforcement plays a large part in the livelihoods of prosecutors, and while some high-powered defense attorneys may build lucrative careers from high-powered defendants accused of drug crimes, a large number of the accused facing the court are most likely to be poor and members of a minority, hence becoming victims of chance, the fates attached to the commitment and expertise of their attorneys, who often are over-worked public defenders.
Another factor in the mix is the rapid rise of privately-owned and operated prisons, which amass considerable revenue by running the correctional system for certain states. These profit-making facilities are in the business of filling cells with inmates and sending the bill to the state. But unlike hotel chains which recruit “guests” through advertising and travel agents, the private prisons lobby for strict drug laws and especially assiduous enforcement to keep the money rolling in.
Arguments for keeping the status quo regarding marijuana are less numerous. The obvious objection is health-related. Since the using method of using marijuana involves smoking the weed and ingesting the chemicals into the lungs, one might well assume that some of the same dangers associated with tobacco use might also arise with the use of pot.
The fact is that researchers really don’t know much about the long-term use of marijuana, as opposed to that of tobacco, the harmful effects of which untold numbers of laboratory rats have sacrificed their lives. The scary statistics about tobacco smoke roll out constantly: smoking ranks in the top ten causes of death in the United States, that one in five Americans die from smoking, smoking-related illnesses have been responsible for the loss of 100 million lives in the 20th century, along with the panoply of ailments associated with the use of tobacco: lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and “COPD,” birth defects, ad nauseam.
What is interesting is the topsy-turvy respective attitudes toward marijuana and tobacco. The stronger the drive toward legalizing marijuana, the harder the push against cigarette smoking. In the old days, marijuana users were “vipers,” whereas cigarette smokers were respectable citizens such as doctors(!), university professors, and advertising executives, like TV’s Mad Men. Now communities have been banning smoking in restaurants and bars, in the workplaces, even in some fresh air environments, like parks. Smokers themselves often are viewed with disdain, if not outright vilified. Such is our changing world: weed okay, Old Golds evil.
I’m more favor of legalizing marijuana than not, though I’m fairly sure I’m not at all personally interested in using the stuff myself. What bothers me is that there could be deleterious effects of marijuana that haven’t been entirely disclosed and are yet to be discovered.
And finally, despite the length of this thread, I do believe that our country should address scores of more important issues, such as (but not limited to) world hunger, climate change, education, sensible gun legislation, immigration reform, privacy vs. national security, and last but certainly not least income inequality.
But unlike those problems, decriminalizing marijuana seems “doable.”
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../mustomj1.html
