Speaking of drugs, the current level of support (or at least openness) to marijuana legalization among mainstream pundits is pretty unprecedented.

Barack Obama circa 1980… [Read more →]

after the jump… [Read more →]

You know, there are actual policy consequences for the kind of “haha, the stoners came out!” attitude that President Obama, and the media, demonstrated towards the question about ending the prohibition of marijuana at the “digital town hall” event.

I was just watching MSNBC and they had some newsdouche on to talk about the event. Being members of the media, the host and the newsdouche mostly complained about how Obama was “leapfrogging” the media with the format. But the guy being interviewed took the time to snigger and laugh at the question about the reform of our marijuana laws, in much the same way Obama did. It’s not surprising. That’s the attitude of “serious” people everywhere, that advocating changing our destructive, futile, expensive and cruel marijuana laws has to demonstrate that the person so advocating is some burned-out, disaffected stoner who just wants to smoke up and tune out. You get that from the mainstream media and most of our national politicians all the time, the absolute refusal to take reforming our marijuana laws seriously. And that’s unfair, and corrosive to democracy, and has severe negative consequences for our policy.

First of all, even if everyone who supported the decriminalization of marijuana did so out of a simple desire to be able to smoke without fear of arrest, that would be a perfectly legitimate and principled stand. This is still a country where we are supposed to be allowed to live our lives in the manner that we want, provided that we don’t harm others or infringe on their own rights to self-determine. In democracy, you vote in part for politicians who support your interests, and you make political arguments for those policy positions that benefit your own self-interest. Hopefully, if everyone does that, the will of the people as a whole is done. So it’s not like there’s something disqualifying about people who just want to smoke marijuana and be left in peace by the government. And, of course, the use of the stoner meme plays on some deeply flawed assumptions and stereotypes, that everyone who smokes marijuana falls into the same (low class, trashy) groups. That’s one of the basic impediments to finding a little sanity in our drug laws, I’m afraid: the notion that anyone who uses marijuana is an unserious, unappealing person, and that anyone who advocates decriminalizing marijuana is similarly tainted.

And, of course, the basic libertarian impulse to leave people alone– still one of our greatest national features– is only a part of the reason to support reforming our marijuana laws. The other reasons are caught up in the utter failure of criminalization to prevent Americans from using marijuana, the massive financial costs of arresting and prosecuting marijuana offenders, the waste of valuable police resources on enforcing marijuana laws, the numbers of nonviolent marijuana offenders sitting in our jails and costing us public money, the increase in police corruption and misconduct that is an inevitable part of drug criminalization, and the occasional tragedy where an arrest on a marijuana possession results in the injury or death of the accused, a police officer, or both. The costs to this country from the continued criminalization of marijuana are truly massive, and the payoff is negligible. Completely independent of any acknowledgment of a right to use marijuana is the simple cost/benefit analysis which suggest that our current system is madness.

All of this rests on what is now a banal fact: that polling consistently shows broad majorities of Americans who favor serious reform of our marijuana laws. The American people are a slow moving beast, but they aren’t completely resistant to evidence and logic, and the great costs that the prohibition of marijuana inflicts on our society hasn’t gone unnoticed. So why, if reforming marijuana laws is broadly popular, is the issue still largerly relegated to the backburner politically? Why is neither party willing to make decriminalizing marijuana a major part of their policy platform? Because even smart, pragmatic politicians like Barack Obama can’t help but make jokes about a sensible question about a worthy initiative– worthy enough, at least, of discussion. We can’t get either party on board with ending a cruel and wasteful set of drug policies because supposedly neutral reporters can’t help but get a laugh out of positions that are sensible, adult, and supported by millions of Americans.

Our attitude towards issues have consequences. Every laugh and giggle at the expense of those who want our country to reexamine a disastrous set of policies makes it less likely that we will embark on a series of changes that would leave our country pragmatically improved and more free.

Regarding the “grow your own policy” Mark Kleiman proposes, I have to say this is a very misguided approach.  While I love the notion of small, localized marijuana farmers, growing organic pot and sharing with their friends, the fact is not everyone will want to take the time or effort to grow the plants, and those that do take the time and effort won’t always be inclined to just give it away.  These people should have every right, even if only a symbolic right, to purchase marijuana without the stigma of illegality attached.  If something is basically harmless, or harmless enough to be legal to grow, well then it should be legal to sell and to purchase as well.  It should be introduced to the market, where small growers and big industries can compete.  If anything will lend itself to local, niche markets its marijuana, so I imagine a good deal of the pot sold in America, should prohibition end, will come from small growers.

Mark is simply wrong to say that excessive use alone would drive sales, like in the alcohol, tobacco or gambling industries.  For one thing, those industries would still exist if people used fewer of these products, but not to the same scale.  Smaller companies would still provide alcohol even if people began drinking only a tenth of what they drink now.   The market will fill the void, which is why we have Coors and local breweries.  The one does not eliminate the other.

Denying the capitalist element, or restricting it to home-grown only, has more than purely symbolic repurcussions, however.  For one thing, legalized marijuana should provide some tax revenue which can be used to fund police departments or other local efforts to combat real criminals and real social problems.  One of the strongest cases to be made against prohibition is that it creates a black market, and with the black market comes not only a loss in tax revenue, but also a rise in violent crime and arrest rates.  The grey market created by pseudo-legalization would be better, but not good enough.

Andrew writes, of Mark’s proposal:

I love this idea – because it is rooted in individual freedom, private property and the obvious point that making a plant you can grow in your garden illegal is a monstrosity.

While I agree with all these points in principle, I don’t think full legalization would change the matter whatsoever.  One could still grow their own.  But the individual freedom and private property of those who chose instead to buy their own would also be protected.  If it’s as legal to grow pot as it is to grow tomatoes, then it should be as legal to buy pot as it is to buy tomatoes.  I don’t like the billboard big-business capitalism anymore than the next guy.  I prefer to get my vegetables at the farmer’s market.  If I had room to grow my own carrots, I probably would.  But I like to have the choice.  My apartment is certainly too small to accommodate cornstalks, however nice it would be to grow my own corn.

Full legalization is the only route here.  Anything short of that would still be a monstrosity, if only one of lesser scale.

I can’t but heartily agree with Andrew Sullivan on this whole “pictures of Michael Phelps smoking pot” bruhaha. Sullivan notes,

What I love about the harrumphing is its total incoherence. The argument, so far as I can tell, is: a) marijuana destroys people, renders them incapable of productive and worthwhile lives; b) yes, the new president and the greatest Olympic swimmer of all time have smoked pot; c) but that means we have to punish them all the more!

Because they disprove the lies required to sustain the Prohibition. The more the myths of the anti-cannabis brigade are exposed, the more they have to be enforced.

I mean, I’m not in possession of any statistics on this, but does anyone seriously still consider marijuana to be a troubling gateway drug? It strikes me that those for whom this is true have a much more deeply entrenched addiction problem that could manifest just as easily with alcohol.

Maybe my head shaking has something to do with location. I was born and raised in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, broadly considered the pot capital of North America (if not the world), so the whole drama of people smoking pot has long since worn off on me. Hell, I’ll admit to having walked by a police officer smoking a joint and not really gotten all that worried about what the consequences were going to be.

Which is to say that, yes, I have smoked pot. In fact, I had my “pothead” phase. But I don’t smoke anymore. Why? It’s not because I think it’s evil and it’s not because I realized one day that if I kept it up I was going to ruin my life.

I stopped smoking pot because it just got boring.

That’s right, my estimation is that pot is an a completely and utterly boring drug that functions as an overblown muscle relaxant ad isn’t worth including in your “war on drugs” nor harassing some poor twenty-three year old superstar who engaged in completely predictable behaviour.

Yeah, yeah, I know, Michael Phelps is a role model who kids across America and the world look up to and role models shouldn’t do drugs and other illegal things. Well, brace yourself, odds are your kid is going to smoke pot at some point. And odds are they’ll get a minimal effect from it but keeping doing it to some degree or another because her/his friends are all doing it. And then, at some point, he/she will mostly give it up and cultivate a life for themselves that you will tear up and be proud of. Slightly less likely may be that they continue to smoke pot on an occasional basis, but still cultivate that life you’re busy buying tissues for.

Honestly, there are a lot of troubling issues that permeate our world and we waste time and energy when we get all worked up about something that in the grand scheme of things doesn’t really matter. So go plant a tree, or volunteer at a soup kitchen or as a big brother or sister, or join your local community association and organize more community activities, pay more attention to your kid’s schooling or their life in general, write you elected official about the war in Iraq/Afghanistan/other place you have troops stationed, do whatever floats your boat.

But for god’s sake (dangerous term to use around these parts of late), do something on an issue that maters and actually stands to effect your life.

Update: I forgot to mention that while I am most certainly in favour of decriminalizing marijuana, I remain somewhat undecided on full blown legalization. The reason for my indecision stems from one of the most interesting anti-legalization arguments I have ever run across that was delivered to me by an avid pot smoker. Her argument was that if marijuana was legalized it would inevitably lead to government involvement in regulation, sale, and taxation.

My post smoing friend said with all due indignation, “Idon’t want the government having anything to do with the pot I smoke. I’m one hundred percent convinced that my smoking of pot is beter off without the government having anything to do with it ad all I’m really looking for is to ensure government doesn’t have anything to say about it, either.”

Given some of the gripes that people like John Schwenkler have noted about government over-involvement in good old fashioned capitalism of a variety of forms, I find this line of argument compelling enouh to make me think twice about marijuana legalization.

While I’m largely of the same mind as Freddie on the subject of drug legalization, which may indeed be the best way to defeat the cartels and avoid the sort of civil war (a la Anbar Awakening) that Chris warns of, I do have some concerns about the implementation. Freddie’s concern over the militarization of the police, and the use of the military as a police-force, is not even hypothetical anymore, as the National Guard has indeed been called to the borders, and Democrats and Republicans alike have called for increased use of the military to help stop up leaky borders, fight increasingly powerful drug cartels, and so forth.

However, I do wonder two things: First, is a call for the legalization of drugs en masse really politically pragmatic?  Obviously pragmatism is not the only consideration, but is this option even remotely likely to succeed?  And second, is there not a more conservative, cautious approach that could be taken?

I am not completely sold on the idea that legalization of all drugs is even necessary to cut the cartels off at the knees, or to free up sufficient resources to actually make a decent effort at halting much of the drug trade.  Marijuana, for instance, accounts for the vast majority of all drug-related arrests, and the legalization of marijuana only would free up a great deal of money, prison space, as well as add a steady stream of tax revenue on marijuana sales to supplement the effort against harder, more dangerous substances.

A third consideration is whether or not we, as a nation, could condone the legal sale of a drug such as crystal methamphetamine.  If the free market did, indeed, step in to provide meth for purposes of recreational use, could we as a society reconcile the sale of such a destructive substance with our ethical and moral framework?

The argument could be made that similar questions could revolve around the sale of alcohol, also arguably a very dangerous substance–indeed, quite a lot more dangerous than marijuana, and responsible for far more deaths.  Still, alcohol can be used in moderation, and when a clerk at a grocery store sells a six-pack to a shopper, they don’t necessarily worry that that person is going to go out and get wasted and overdose.  Could the same clerk exchange meth or heroin for money and do so with a clean conscience?  This is due in part to our long history as an alcohol-consuming society, and partly due to the fact that alcohol can indeed be used responsibly.  The same simply cannot be said for drugs like heroin or crack or crystal meth.

This is a major stumbling block in the War to End the War on Drugs, and inevitably circles into the region of pragmatism vs. principle.  Even if we knew, conclusively, that legalizing these substances would end the militarization of our police, destroy the cartels, and free a good number of non-violent offenders, could we reconcile that with consequences of societal acceptance of the sale of these substances?

I do believe it’s time to stop treating drug users, no matter the substance, as criminals.  But I have yet to be convinced that legalizing the hardest of our illegal drugs will serve to make this nation any safer, healthier, or prevent people from destroying their lives with poisons that simply have no place in any society.