The following is a recent article I wrote for collegjolt.com (here) about the legalization of marijuana in response to an Associated Press write-up on Yahoo!
Pot. Legalization. If you are over the age of 17 and you have not heard of the debate over marijuana legalization, then you must be walking, talking, and engaging in politically stimulating discourse in your sleep. If you need help staying awake, please refer to my last article here on sleep deprivation and methods to stay conscious.
The subject of legalizing weed in the United States is a hot one. Unsurprisingly, many in the youth population are adamantly campaigning for the substance to be legal. Unsurprisingly, many in the adult population are doing the same. At very least, the sides are even; for all practical purposes, the opponents of legalization are obviously in the majority, as outlined pretty clearly by our existing laws. And these laws have created obstacles for many people. And to be honest, it is quite self-evident that it is in fact a “many people.” Just about any student in high school knows how surprisingly easy it can be to locate and obtain the drug. Every student in college knows how prevalent it is, even for those that do all they can in their power to avoid it. After most kids had left my dorm for a fall intermission break, I came back to find that my very neighbor had turned the building into, what smelled like, a well-harvested Sinaloan plantation.
So there it is – the elephant in the room is accepted. By no means, however, is the normality of getting high a reason for Dumbo to be legally stoned. The debate is much more multifaceted than that; it is a maze of economic, social, foreign policy, and humanitarian extrapolations, concerns, and maladies. Which is why when I read something as preposterously insulting as a recent Associated Press article on Yahoo covering the subject, I cringe in my seat and hope that our politicians have the discernment to think differently from Californian journalists and law-makers.
The article is quite long and anecdotal, so I will try to cover only the most hilarious and absurd parts. In essence, the piece centers on the idea that, in the wake of the economic crisis that is California, now is the time to legalize the green and start to cash in on the revenue. The idea here is that because the pot industry has been allowed to expand to its current size, the government should now accept it as a legal substance and begin to monitor and regulate its distribution, taxing wherever and whenever possible.
Stop.
The biggest problems with the stance taken by this article and the policy makers who advocate said stance appear within the first few paragraphs. Rather than nit-pick details or nuances, the problem here is primarily conceptual; a sort of conflict of interests. If there is one time that the pot debate needs to take the backburner, it is in the middle of a major economic crisis. President Obama even hinted at this idea when he was first elected to office; when faced with the question of legalization, he answered ‘no,’ but in a manner that conveyed “I have an economy and a war to work out first.” In desperate times, people take desperate measures. So, although there could possibly be an income source for the state of California through pot, it should certainly not be a conclusion leapt to as a hasty last resort to save a crumbling state.
A quote directly from the article:
“Local governments are malnourished and in need of revenue badly,” said Aaron Smith, state policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates legalization. “There’s this multibillion-dollar industry that’s the elephant in the room that they’re not able to tap into.”
First issue: who wants to “tap into” an elephant? (see visual at right). Second issue: the very first sentence almost incidentally highlights the very problem of making this decision right now. The state is badly in need of money. Would it really be wise to take one side of a conflict at a very premature place and enact a history-making policy that could potentially be extremely detrimental to Americans, just to make a quick buck? The head of the legalization advocates said it himself: now they are doing everything they can to capitalize on the situation – stepping on a head when it’s drowning.
I promised hilarity; that wasn’t it. The funny part is that, even if this did occur, the state of California would then proceed to overload their people with MORE taxes. California’s taxes are already sky-high and at the same pace as New York’s. While obviously taxing the green would be the entire point, the irony here is rich.
A few paragraphs into the article, the author makes an excellent observation: “marijuana has transformed California.” So far so good. Continuing on, the discussion begins to revolve around the fact that the hash has become commonplace, is sold commonly in all kinds of dietary and thrift stores, and that anybody can get a prescription for medical marijuana as easy as they can a colonoscopy. Except that one of the procedures is a lot more popular, requires less paperwork, and does not involve a colonoscopy.
Now before I proceed any further, it is good to “rehash” what can already be known. There are a few dominant groups at play here on the pro-side of the debate. There are the potheads, who want to get baked, and do it without worries. Then there are the doctors and users, who desire the drug’s calming ability to soothe their pain, ability to think, etc. Lastly, there are those who realize the danger of both marijuana abuse and the trafficking involved, and desire a policy that will cause both to eventually dissipate. A long time naysayer of any kind of legalization, I now stand on the fence, though still tilted to the naysaying side, but with an open mind to the last kind of aforementioned activists.
The legalization of marijuana certainly has some promising aspects. With the private enterprises of weed competing and being distributed through bulks, the cost of growing and selling the substance would drop significantly, and ideally, eliminate the high-cost practice of black market and illicit drug dealing that is currently rampant. Concurrently, the government’s health department would do everything within its power to actively educate, warn, and steer away potential users of the drug. The money saved from battling violent and nasty underground hash dealers could be used for advertising and teaching in the exact fashion that has assisted the country in turning around tobacco abuse.
In exploring the options surrounding this sticky situation, it is vital that participants do not succumb to the wayward and delusional visions of the extreme Bob Marley t-shirt toting pot activists that manipulate every argument for their own goal to abuse substances without reprimands. As one continues to read the article, it devolves from a discussion into what seems like a celebration.
The author goes on in great lengths to illuminate all of the fun, fascinating, creative facets of marijuana culture: the
cool edible pot products (including gelato, olive oil, and soft drinks), using bat guano as fertilizer (guano = feces), the comfy community feeling created by working at a weed farm, the fact that chunks of money often reek of the plant, and a THC expo where models prance around covered up by only giant pot leaves. Sounds to me like a good idea for a third Ace Ventura.
Also, the miracle leaf has incredible healing powers: “He believes passionately in marijuana’s purported ability to treat the symptoms of diseases ranging from cancer to Alzheimer’s.” I have enough faith in the historical genius of our Nation’s doctors and physicians to believe that if toking up was as good of a method as chemotherapy, then they would have spilled the beans by now. Alzheimer’s has the infinitesimal possibility of having more relevance, as it is a mental condition, and most people are aware of the mental affects caused by weed. But let’s investigate this situation further and see how logical it seems. “Hi grandma, it’s me, Billy. You don’t remember me? That’s a shame, have a doobie. What’s that? You don’t remember how? Sure, I’ll do one, too.”
I remain skeptical. But, wait – the author does in fact point out the mal-effects of heavy marijuana usage:
“The plant’s prominence does not come without costs, say some critics. Marijuana plantations in remote forests cause severe environmental damage. Indoor grow houses in some towns put rentals beyond the reach of students and young families. Rural counties with declining economies cannot attract new businesses because the available work force is caught up in the pot industry. Authorities link the drug to violent crime in otherwise quiet small towns.”
Really? Environmental problems? It is amazing what kind of sidetracking people will do to create the façade of weed being a harmless, fun pastime. Saying the worst part about serious weed usage is environmental problems, is like saying the worst part about the Salem witch burnings was that it took up too much gasoline, and it scared off newlywed couples from wanting to settle in the quaint little family town. What’s next? The worst part about human trafficking being the gaseous fumes emitted by trucks big enough to transport those obnoxious abductees?
What’s better though is the advocates mentioned in the article take care to point out that legalization would create many fields in which revenue would be created – like advertising, tourism, and smoking paraphernalia. Advertising? One of the primary points of legitimate arguments to legalize pot, as mentioned before, is the fact that the government would then do all it can to launch an effective campaign against the use of the drug. Apparently the advocates mentioned here are on an entirely separate page – a page that wants to celebrate and popularize a drug culture rather than minimize it.
Seeing people’s motives when discussing this subject can be very easy with a keen eye. Unfortunately, it is often the case that these so called ‘green-rush’ advocates are in fact no more than marijuana users manipulating and twisting every situation into a scheme to freely use the drug. The problem with this is that it inhibits and slows down much-needed progress to be made in developing a solution to a pandemic.
So whether it is the author selectively choosing interviewees, or the entire state of California being a clown show, it is articles like these that insult me as a reader and a progressive looking for a resolution to a very serious issue that is endangering many regions of our great country, both mentally and physically. I’m not entirely sure what was going on in the author’s mind while writing the article, but it seems he was a little caught up with the weed olive oil and sugar pot fairies prancing around in their cannabis bikinis.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he were testing out a little of the sticky green himself to make sure his assessments were “accurate.” I could easily see him reciting some Afroman lyrics to his editor: “I was gonna write an article…but then I got highh…” Lah dee dee da daa…
“…for all practical purposes, the opponents of legalization are obviously in the majority, as outlined pretty clearly by our existing laws.”
I would be careful with this kind of reasoning. I don’t doubt that if you took a survey, a majority of Americans would be against pot legalization. But just because existing laws make pot illegal does not mean that these laws are supported by a majority of Americans.
Witty article,
However I must say this. There are plenty of legitimate research documents (Even at Cornell) arguing that Marijuana is in fact less harmful than most drugs legal today. Tobacco is the #1 killer in the United States and its very much legal. Like most other legal drugs (alcohol being the example currently in my head) I think if used sparingly is harmless. However in response to California’s potential legalization, I agree that it does seem a bit odd that weed could be a potential crutch. If marijuana were to be legalized, officials should think long and hard about the side effects and long term effects that it could have on society and the economy. Fast money isn’t necessarily stable.
Good stuff man,
Adam Goudarzi
Right – what ultimately counts are the opinions of those able to reform laws. This in itself does not indicate that the majority of Americans are on the illegal side. Perhaps I took some liberty. I will say, however, that although movies and media make it seem as if the commonly held stance is pro-legalization, the said survey would indeed show a majority for unlegalized pot. I find this to be similar to the gay marriage situation; turns out, after all the hubbub, that the majority of Californians did not agree with gay marriage.
the author of this article clearly did not spend very much time researching marijuana. he writes:
“if there is one time that the pot debate needs to take the backburner, it is in the middle of a major economic crisis.”
the reasoning here escapes me. many experts believe (see eric schlosser’s book: reefer madness) that marijuana is the number one cash crop in the united states. why would regulation of the nation’s largest grossing crop (corn is the number one LEGAL cash crop) be irrelevant in the midst of an economic crisis? many people do not realize that while the marijuana debate is a social issue, it also has very real and important economic consequences as literally billions of dollars are at stake.
the author goes on to say:
“I have enough faith in the historical genius of our Nation’s doctors and physicians to believe that if toking up was as good of a method as chemotherapy, then they would have spilled the beans by now.”
the author is again confused. no sane person would claim that smoking marijuana is as effective as chemotherapy in treating cancer. furthermore, no one is claiming that marijuana HEALS cancer, as the author seems to believe. he quotes the yahoo.com article as claiming marijuana has the “ability to TREAT THE SYMPTOMS of diseases ranging from cancer to Alzheimer’s.” the article is claiming that marijuana can be used, for instance, to relieve the nausea that cancer patients experience as a result of chemotherapy and allow weak patients to eat more easily. the article does not claim that marijuana is some sort of miracle drug that heals everything from cancer to alzheimer’s.
the truth is that the united states government spends billions of tax-payer dollars trying to eradicate a plant that is considered by many researchers (see last Sunday’s Sunday Styles section in the new york times) to be far less harmful than cigarettes or even alcohol. state governments like the one in California have two choices: they can do what they are doing now and allow exorbitant amounts of money to fall into the hands of criminals and violent gangs (seems silly to me), or they can end prohibition, tax the plant, and use the money that would have gone to criminals to fund public projects (or in california’s case, use the money to try to get out of debt). marijuana has been used medicinally and recreationally for thousands of years and it is not going anywhere. the sooner people recognize this truth, the sooner people will realize the answer to the marijuana issue is not prohibition, but regulation and education. like the prohibition of alcohol, the prohibition of marijuana has failed. marijuana is more prevalent than ever in the united states and europe and it is fueling violence among gangs (especially on the mexican-us border) similar to the way in which the trafficking of alcohol came under mafia control and fueled violence in the 1920’s.
Hi Joseph, thanks for the comment.
This write-up was not exactly a thesis paper on marijuana but more of an analysis/rebuttal to the original story in question. Pot is a drug; a drug that, while there is contention that it could serve limited medicinal and pain-soothing purposes, is proven time and again to have many maleffects including mind-alteration. The only denial of this fact nearly always comes from the drug’s abusers and frequent users, so I won’t debate this aspect.
Therefore the issue of legalizing is, as you say, both social and economic, but also an issue of safety and health. To take a stance on the issue at the premature state which it is in would be detrimental. Sacrificing the further research and development needed to possibly create a functioning system for legalized weed (in order to gain solely monetarily) would be irresponsible, and set a very bad precedent.
For example, there are certainly health, social, and economic aspects to prostitution. Take a woman who has never been willing to put her health in jeopardy and her personal convictions in question by participating in prostitution. If, one day, the going gets rough and the woman is short on money, would it be right for her to suddenly rescind on her stance just to make a quick buck by turning tricks? I would hope not. Life and history-changing decisions such as these two should not be made hastily under harsh conditions.
As commenter Adam Goudarzi said above, “fast money isn’t necessarily stable.” My article was not intended to be a treatise on the pros and cons of weed but rather a commentary on the ludacris nature of the article and its interviewees. As far as your claim to the billions of dollars being at stake: you will see the district attorney quoted in the article saying that the big-time illegal growers will not be touched by taxing after legalization.
Or maybe they will. We’re not sure. That is the whole point. It is possible that money could be brought in through legalization. But there is thorough research, investigation, and planning to be done long before a decision is reached. And certainly not in a time crunch.
“Mind-alteration”? That’s the point!
All kidding aside Renick, having had this debate with you before, I can say without doubt that your opinions on this topic are unquestionably and excessively clouded by your own personal experiences. I appreciate your effort in discussing marijuana prohibition again, but you have yet to take an acceptably objective stance on the issue. I simply cannot take you seriously when you spend even a word of an article semi-sarcastically deriding these “potheads” who want to twist every shred of logic into an argument for legalization. There are certainly a few fringe nuts out there that demonstrate some of the behavior you describe; but then, there are a few fringe nuts who believe that the government doesn’t have the right to tax them, and you don’t see mention of them in legitimate discussion of federal fiscal policy. I know, you’ll tell me you’re just kidding, but it’s clear to me and I hope your other readers that by mentioning this sort of behavior and not calling it what it is (uncommon and unusual), you clearly demonstrate your bias on this issue, and contribute to the mass ignorance that is the real reason marijuana is still illegal.
I apologize for going all ad hominem on you; to move back more toward policy-oriented matters, I can certainly see how the raising of this debate by California legislators during our economic crisis seems like washing the deck while the boat’s taking on water. However, it’s not as though the lawmakers in question are quietly taking advantage of this situation to further some malevolent agenda; this debate has been ongoing for several years, and now that there is a possibility that a change in policy could have some direct, positive effects (helping to plug the hole in the boat), it’s showing up in our legislatures and news outlets. I have to disagree with Goudarzi regarding the fleeting nature of marijuana revenue for the state of California; it’s safe to say that marijuana is one crop that isn’t going to just fall off the map, as Harry Anslinger hoped when he pushed for its prohibition in the 1930s. Indeed, the very fact that we’re still having this debate is testament against that.
No kidding aside, Ferenk, my personal experience as both an alternative high school instructor for five years and as a professor for six years was that my most consistently confused, lost, and poorly performing students were “potheads”. Their behavior was most disturbing because they all seemed to not have any reflexive capacity, in that they were completely incapable of even realizing they had a problem. These attitudes ranged from thinking their lives were fine, (even though they were still in an alternative school at twenty) falling asleep in class for hours while drooling on desks, then suddenly awaking with the munchies, to performing oral sex (outside of school) and other crimes so they could buy weed. Most of time their outside reading consisted of hemp times and high times, and they all were extremely low motivated. What troubled me most was that many of these students had high IQs, excellent family situations, and much promise. However, their recreational use became habitual and destructive and left them incapable of caring about anything but getting high. Of course I am aware that these are not scientific studies and are mainly anecdotal – however, you would be hard pressed to find a majority of psychologists, counselors, health care providers or interventionists that believe marijauna usage improves cognitive performance or helps people cope with life. We need more people facing life’s problems soberly and coherently instead of “checking out”. Checking out would be okay, if it were for an hour or two, but too often it becomes checking out for years, and that becomes destructive to the individual and society.
Even though Osheezie’s article only addressed the importance of being cautious when legalizing drugs as a form of public policy to reduce debt, I couldn’t let slide the overused canard that marijuana is a benign product.
Even if it were decriminalized, (it is – see Mendocino CO.) or legalized for taxation, California would still be in a financial mess. Any decent accountant, or person knowledgeable of California’s financial mess should note that their problem, like most government problems, is one of too much spending, and fiscal/budgetary irresponsibility.
Last time I checked, alcohol has been a taxable product since 1933 and most states have not properly managed those revenues; over 33% of car related fatalities are alcohol related and millions of lives have been shattered.
Sin taxes have never solved our financial problems, and they never will.
I appreciate the response, Cberty. I don’t doubt that marijuana has caused, can cause, and will continue to cause and lead to problems in the lives of otherwise productive individuals; however, I have two responses to this. First, I don’t feel that this fact bears greatly on the legalization debate, because I personally don’t believe that use of the drug would increase much at all with legalization (though I acknowledge the great disagreement over this). Secondly, it’s clear that those who are going to use and abuse marijuana have access to it already; legalization would offer the opportunity to allocate funds to treatment and prevention programs for those for whom the drug has become an issue, instead of sending this money to law enforcement, which clearly has not been able to appreciably curb use.
“First, I don’t feel that this fact bears greatly on the legalization debate, because I personally don’t believe that use of the drug would increase much at all with legalization (though I acknowledge the great disagreement over this).”
From a purely analytical standpoint, I don’t see any reason why marijuana usage would go up with legalization. Consider the main reasons why people don’t smoke pot regularly: 1) Fear of criminal punishment, 2) aversion to negative health consequences, 3) social stigma of smoking marijuana, 4) not enjoying smoking marijuana. Although I don’t believe that these are huge roadblocks for determined smokers, the cost and availability of marijuana also factor in.
If pot were to be legalized, potential smokers would no longer face criminal consequences, but all of the other factors (except availability) would still weigh in.
But the real question is whether or not opponents of legalization would favor marijuana legalization if it were shown to have a net societal benefit. That is, if the total costs incurred from marijuana smoking (unproductive citizens, crimes committed “because” of marijuana, criminal activity associated with the distribution of marijuana, and, of course, the regulation of all these things), were proven to go down, would opponents change their minds? I think not. From my personal experience, opponents of legalization have more conviction in the moral repulsion of the government legalizing something as ‘dangerous’ as marijuana (or cocaine, heroin, prostitution, gambling, organ selling, etc.) than the actual aggregate failure of these policies.
Interestingly enough, I know a disproportionate number of conservatives who oppose legalization. At the very core of conservative thought is the idea of personal responsibility and trust in the individual. We trust the market for the efficient allocation of goods. But for some reason, if it were not for the government keeping a close eye on people, we would all be a nation of potheads. What happened to the trust in the individual?
“Interestingly enough, I know a disproportionate number of conservatives who oppose legalization. At the very core of conservative thought is the idea of personal responsibility and trust in the individual. We trust the market for the efficient allocation of goods. But for some reason, if it were not for the government keeping a close eye on people, we would all be a nation of potheads. What happened to the trust in the individual?”
Herein lies the inherent contradiction in the modern conservative movement: the principle of individual freedom above all does not integrate well with Judeo-Christian morality (not that marijuana prohibition has anything to do with religious morality).
I realize that I’ve forgotten to post an extremely relevant link. The following is a short essay written by Harry Anslinger, the man who was the driving force behind marijuana prohibition in the 1930s. It’s clear by the end of the first short paragraph that the writings (and, one can safely assume, the testimony before Congress) of Mr. Anslinger contained extremely exaggerated accounts of the negative effects of marijuana. In light of this, it’s not surprising that the drug was made illegal; one could not have expected Depression-era lawmakers to have any knowledge of the drug’s effects, and cross-referencing Anslinger’s testimony would have been extremely difficult, he being one of the very few men (supposedly) knowledgeable enough on the topic to appear before Congress.
http://www.redhousebooks.com/galleries/assassin.htm
The link below provides a thorough explanation of the process by which the drug was made illegal. It’s difficult to take it completely as fact, although it does cite several literary sources; that said, it is still an interesting and relevant read.
http://marijuana.drugwarrant.com
Ferenk, of course if you define the “modern conservative movement” in terms of these two ideas you can point out some contradictions. But who says the “modern conservative movement” is defined by these two principles? What is the “modern conservative movement,” and, for that matter “the modern liberal movement”? Rhetorical questions. I merely wish to point out that I would normally press you to qualify such a sweeping statement, but I will let it slide for now.
Well of course Dennis I don’t place you in this modern conservative movement. To clarify, I’m referring mostly to the wing of conservatism that stretches from Limbaugh to Palin, with former president Bush somewhere in the middle; in recent years, this has been arguably the most visible wing of the party, at least until coverage died down in May or so. The two aspects of conservatism I referred to above are undeniably pillars of the philosophies of these three individuals. It’s a bit more complicated with figures like Romney and McCain, the later of whom we saw feebly and unsuccessfully attempt to portray himself as a compromise of political moderate and Bush-Palin-Limbaugh conservative in last year’s election. Your point about sweeping generalizations is well taken however.
Oh, and going back to marijuana for a second, can we please stop using the term “pothead”? Its unnecessarily negative connotations, I feel, outweigh its usefulness as a demographic term. We wouldn’t refer to all who enjoy drinking alcohol as alcoholic, would we?