Log In | Register
Pot—Legalize it Already
Why would someone generally labeled a Conservative advocate the legalization of marijuana? Although there are more such creatures than one may be led to believe, it does sometimes put my credentials in question and even serves to make me less popular in some circles. I, on the other hand, believe that I am being perfectly consistent and am supporting what is, essentially, the conservative position.
Although I find it somewhat incredible that the subject is even still being debated, I realize that there are a number of ways to look at the subject, and I’ll attempt to briefly examine each one. Perhaps a look at the history behind criminalization would be the best place to start. From a constitutional point of view, it would seem to me that proponents of criminalization have no leg to stand on. One has only to look at the history of Prohibition to realize that, in terms of alcohol, there was never any question as to the need for a Constitutional Amendment if lawmakers wished to make the ban on alcohol nationwide. Why then, did lawmakers decide to make an exception regarding marijuana? Actually, they didn’t. In 1937 the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed in an effort to curb marijuana use through the taxing power of the Federal Government.
It was almost exclusively due to the ambitions of Harry J. Anslinger, who saw an opportunity and took it, becoming the first “Drug Czar” of the United States. The sordid history of the campaign that resulted in what we have now includes racism, xenophobia, greed, crony capitalism, and big business pragmatism in legislating the competition out of existence. Something that might surprise some of the readers is that the AMA (American Medical Association) spoke against the bill suggesting that, among other things, there was no scientific basis supporting the claims being made against it. Further, when one of the Congressmen asked what the AMA’s position was, he was told, incredibly, that the AMA supported it. In sum, the criminalization of marijuana was founded and passed on lie after lie, and yet, almost 75 years later, it still stands.(more info here)
Of course, not every reader will care that much about the illegality of the process used to make marijuana illegal and those same readers might even suggest that the ends justify the means. As a conservative, I rarely attempt to use that argument, but, having said that, let me continue. I would suggest that many of the same lies that were told to facilitate the passage of the 1937 law continue to be told, and believed, today. I am not necessarily condoning the use of marijuana, or any other drug, but I do think that decisions of this magnitude should be made on a factual basis. The problem is, of course, that even hinting that one might support legalization based on the facts of the matter can lead to being considered a “dope fiend”, drug user, or family destroyer. Those who support the continued criminalization of marijuana have done a good job of demonizing those who don’t, and, in so doing, have made it more difficult to be pro-legalization. Who among us, myself included, wants to be viewed as a degenerate member of society over an issue that doesn’t necessarily have any personal impact? This hesitancy to speak out is particularly true for a Conservative, as many have attempted to make it a Liberal versus a Conservative issue and thus a Conservative is neither welcomed with open arms by the Left, nor supported by his brethren on the Right.
This leads to my point that a major objection to less stringent laws seems to be the purported effect marijuana has, not only on the individual, but on those around them. I would suggest that this is part and parcel of the misleading campaign I referenced above. This is the area where much anecdotal evidence seems to be presented, and accepted, whether it concerns someone the individual knows, or stories that have become virtual urban legends. For example, we have the claim that marijuana use produces violence (It doesn’t), or if you didn’t like the previous link, how about the following quote (bolding mine):
“Among alcohol-dependent individuals, violence was best explained by substance use before the offense; among marijuana-dependent individuals, by a juvenile history of conduct disorder; and among individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorder, by excessive perceptions of threat and a history of conduct disorder.”
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/10/979
In other words, both according to the state and psychiatry marijuana does not produce violent behavior.
We also have the suggestion that marijuana use can lead to a wasted life filled with irresponsible actions and negative consequences. I’m not here to sing praises in favor of its benefits, but I do have some anecdotal evidence of my own. Consider that many of our leading politicians have admitted to using marijuana at one time or another during their life time. Now I’m not going to argue over whether they have wasted their lives or negatively impacted ours, but the point remains that they certainly were successful in pursuing their dreams. In contrast, I would suggest that the true negative consequences of their marijuana use would have been if, like so many others, they had been snared by the legal system and blocked from pursuing their dream. Likewise, I knew quite a few partakers of the evil weed during my college years and most, if not all, went on to lead productive lives after graduating. This is not to say that some didn’t go too far, but in those cases I would suggest that marijuana use was a part of the whole, and, again, in many of those cases, the negative consequences were a result of getting caught, rather than from the use of marijuana itself.
For some, the previous paragraph will not be enough to overcome the deep seated feeling that marijuana use is the culprit and results in all manner of negative consequences. What about the brother-in-law, for example, that sits around all day smoking pot with his buddies while his wife, your sister, works her fingers to the bone making ends meet? I would suggest two things that relate to similar situations. In the first place, have you called the police and had him arrested for using marijuana, and only for smoking pot? If not, you are agreeing with me. What possible good would come from such an action? If you see other remedies for those close to you, shouldn’t the same be true for others? In the second place, if this mythical brother-in-law is still smoking pot all day, to the exclusion of anything else, I would suggest that there might be more deep-seated problems which need to be addressed, again, not something the legal system is really set up to do. Thirdly, if your brother-in-law is smoking pot now, than it would seem that the fact that pot is illegal really isn’t relevant to his behavior and thus legalization would not affect the situation one way or the other. Fourth, if this doesn’t describe your brother-in-law, and he is actually a productive member of society, while also being a pot smoker, than of what possible benefit is the criminalization of his behavior?
The next area of disagreement concerns the fairness of marijuana being illegal, while alcoholic beverages are not only legal, but advertised as well. I can agree with the argument that the fact that one harmful substance is legal shouldn’t necessarily suggest that the other should be legal as well, but I look at it in a different way. I would hope that few readers would argue that the side effects of two different cancer drugs should not be taken into account. If one drug had less harmful side effects, I would certainly pick the one over the other.
In conclusion, I would suggest that there are two basic groups who oppose legalization. The one group is represented by those who have a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal. This group would include those who presently supply marijuana as well as those who are the warriors in the “War on Drugs”. The dirty little secret is that, just like a defense contractor who claims to be against conflict, but makes money in times of war, there is much money to be made by those involved with the “War on Drugs”, on both sides. The second group, in my opinion, has been used by the first to provide a certain moral quality to the Drug War. These are people who honestly feel that the legalization of marijuana would have all kinds of negative consequences. As I have attempted to show, we already are experiencing any negative consequences which might be the result of using marijuana with the additional negative consequences of its illegality. The point is, that just as with Prohibition, one doesn’t have to be a drinker, or condone the use of alcohol, to realize that Prohibition was a failed experiment.
My next effort will further examine the subject from a cultural and religious point of view. Thank you for reading and I hope that this effort is not just “preaching to the choir”.
Comment collapsed by the community
