Steve Francis: Debunking call to legalize marijuana

Comment by: Paul Freeman Posted: July 20, 2009, 4:22 pm

It seems every article I read discounts the real revenue brought in by AB 390- tourism. Gambling and prostitution are legal in Las Vegas, and their entire tourism industry is heavily dependent on these two vices, and we haven’t brought about the end of the free world letting these things become legal. I need to address arguments I’m tired of hearing educated people embarrass themselves by making.

1. “Marijuana legalization is a bad idea because people shouldn’t do drugs.”
Caffeine is a drug, alcohol is a drug, and nicotine is a drug. These things are legal, but this argument seems to indicate that these also should be outlawed.

2. “Marijuana causes violence and crime.”
Because it’s illegal, and unregulated, people choose violent solutions when business goes bad. You can’t sue someone or take them to a credit agency because they didn’t give you the drugs you paid for. Remove it from the black market and you end these kind of problems by giving the consumers and distributors legal venue for restitution.

3.”People will dodge the taxes so legalizing it won’t make any money.”
People dodge taxes on cigarettes by driving to the next state to get them, and that’s hardly an option here. People are lazy. Booze and cigarettes are expensive but only a motivated minority brew their own beer and grow their own tobacco. Increased cost from the per-weight tax is offset by the overall price reduction as open-air price competition drives the price down. $50 for a $400 oz. is not much. I think the potential tax revenues are badly understated, not overstated.

4. “Legalization would be a public health disaster.”
This overlooks the most important fact, that people smoke this substance because that’s the most cost-effective way. If it were cheaper and merchandise aimed at it’s use easier to acquire, you would see an increase in eating and vaporizing it, both of which sidestep the lung associated problems. Beyond that the only ill effects are the same as those from many legal prescription drugs.

5. “Marijuana is a gateway drug and using it leads to using harder drugs like heroin and cocaine.”
This argument is actually one from the original scare campaign by Harry Anslinger almost a century ago. It has repeatedly been shown that tobacco and alcohol use are more reliable indicators than marijuana use. But let’s not forget the most important effect observed: In order to obtain marijuana you have to enter the world of illicit drug dealing, where anything goes. Dealers profit more from coke, methamphetamines and opiates because they are substantially more addictive. By forcing people to go underground to get pot, you force them to deal with people who want them to use something more profitable. Ironically, prohibition itself becomes the gateway.

6. “People will smoke and drive, and we will need to find a way to test for recent marijuana consumption and intoxication to enforce DUI laws.”
I am good friends with a couple police officers, one retired and one active. They both scoff at this question because both tests already exist and are already used. When you get pulled over, you may notice the officer does not immediately test your breath for the presence of alcohol. First they make you prove you are impaired, by performing several simple tests to established that you are intoxicated. They do things this way because it’s important to establish that the driver was intoxicated and that intoxication impaired their ability to safely operate the vehicle. You can go to jail after only having one beer, if that one beer impaired you. Many of the same impairment tests already employed can be used to detect an operator impaired by marijuana, including testing for horizontal nystagmus (jerky movements of the eyes,) backward alphabet recitation and several others. If the driver fails, you can perform a saliva test to determine if they smoked in the last 4-6 hours.

7. “Large outdoor grow operations cause a significant environmental impact.”
In a country that freely manufactures petroleum products, barely recycles and still drinks bottled water, I am almost surprised to see this argument. The fact is that most of the pollution occurs now as a result of illegal operations in California’s state parks. Legalize this operation and you give people who are growing an incentive to protect the environment- staying out of jail. Like any other business, agricultural or otherwise, this behavior is controlled by the EPA through fines and penalties or jail time.

8. “Marijuana can be laced with other substances like crack, methamphetamines, PCP, and even embalming fluid.”
Once again, this happens because marijuana is running with a bad crowd. Because law enforcement treats it as the same or similar, it winds up being sold by the same kind of people (people who have no qualms about contaminating a largely non-addictive product with one that is more addictive.) Legalized, you can prevent this- competition would motivate businesses to sell a product free of contaminants. Many marijuana users are purists, too- products contaminated with pesticides and additives are unlikely to do well, especially with the majority of California having an infatuation with organic products.

9. “People will make stupid mistakes while under the influence of marijuana.” Really? I’ve seen this one posted often enough to warrant replying to it, even though I find it laughable that anyone would make it. Listen up, all of you people who get drunk and stoned and do stupid things you regret: [b]you are still responsible for the things you do because you made the decision to impair yourself.[/b] I am beyond sick of hearing people sidestep responsibility for the things they regret doing. If you know that you have poor decision making ability when you drink or smoke, don’t put yourself in a position where you might have to think. If you know you tend to drive after having a six pack, hide the keys or don’t buy the beer. Don’t tell people alcohol should be illegal because you have no self-control.

10. “Legalize marijuana and what’s next? Crack? Prostitution? Murder?”
Now the argument has taken a truly desperate turn. This is what’s known as the slippery slope argument. It evades the question at hand and sets up “straw men” (points that are impossible to argue against but are not related to the argument.) Not very many Americans want to legalize crack. But the debate is not about crack, the debate is about marijuana. Do you really think they’re both the same? Nobody breaks into a car to get the two bucks in change so they can get a hit of weed. The only withdrawal is psychological, not physical. People get psychologically addicted to World of Warcraft, eating, and shopping for heaven’s sake.

I’m sure I’ll think of more later, but this kind of flawed argumentation really bothers me. I think there are some very good reasons to legalize and some reasons might not want to. But people please- think about whether your argument is valid before you trumpet it from the mountaintops. Think before you speak!

I challenge any and all comers to refute me, especially politicians. I seek the truth, even if it means I’m wrong. But I also expect you to be true to yourself. You don’t win a debate by yelling your invalid argument louder than your opponent. You do it by being right.

Comment by: J.C. Posted: July 21, 2009, 2:52 am

Like most anti marijuana proponents Mr. Francis fails to address the Elephant in the room. We tried Prohibition in the past and it leads to high levels of organized crime, high levels of violence, high levels of addiction, high levels of taxation, and a host of other social evils that far outweighed the negative aspects of legal alcohol.

I’m most certain that Mr. Francis would also like to reinstate prohibition on alcohol, thankfully more informed individuals prevailed. It is only a matter of time before marijuana is legalized and taxed.

Comment by: Guest Posted: July 21, 2009, 9:51 am

And if it is legalized, what would happen with the drug issues at the border? Seems to me that it would reduce that some.

Comment by: Clark_Culver Posted: November 16, 2009, 7:12 pm

“Our state shouldn’t consider changes in drug policy when we are unable to treat the drug addicts we already have.”

Really, Steve? If we used our resources to treat drug addicts instead of using our resources to hunt them down and jail them, then we would be able to give all people with an addiction the treatment that they need. In Portugal, people are not afraid to seek treatment. And, will wonders never cease, drug addiction has gone down since they decriminalized.

Here, if you admit that you have a problem, you may be arrested, fined, fired, ostracized, etc. Why would anyone come forward, here?

You haven’t really thought this through, have you Steve? Been drinking too much of the government koolaid?