You present the most cogent argument ever for the legalization of marijuana, whose illicitness is being used as a classical diversion tactic in the war on drugs.
I despise what crystal meth and all those other horrible poisons are doing to our youth, and hope that the distraction of illegal pot will be removed in the name of ridding our society of these scourges.
CCM | 12.02.04 - 4:10 am | #

Back in the late 80's/early 90's, I began to wonder why I was a Republican. After some deal of introspection, I realized I was more comfortable as a libertarian. One of the more difficult dilemmas I had to resolve was regarding our drug laws. I realize that libertarian thought is somewhat idyllic, but I agree that legalizing marijuana would greatly help society. I would envision the tobacco companies quickly stepping in to be the legal suppliers of marijuana.

I hadn't considered your thought that law enforcement efficiency was as an argument for legalization. The "law enforcement" angle against legalization (besides the Slippery Slope "It'll lead to 'hard' drugs" argument) is that there is a substantial part of law enforcement which derives their jobs from locking people up for drug violations. Everyone from police to lawyers to judges to prison employees to parole officers…all, in some measure, derive their job security from knowing that they'll have a constant flow of druggies to deal with. Besides the Law Enforcement efficiency angle you've laid out here, as well as the morality angle ('Booze and tobacco are OK, but pot'll kill you') you'll have to convince a lot of 'straight' people who might find their jobs less secure.
azlibertarian | 12.02.04 - 8:39 am | #

Pretty much agree with you. The slippery slope argument becomes valid because MJ is part of a subculture connected to other, harder drugs. Cutting weed out of that culture and putting in the 'mainstream' would help shift the brink of the slope somewhat, seems to me. Plus, the effects of marijuana use are nowhere near as severe as for other things.
T. Leo Rugit | Homepage | 12.02.04 - 8:57 am | #

Give up the fight, it's too hard. It's only pot. Everybody smokes a little weed, it's ok.

Anything else too hard for ya? How about shop lifting? Nobody gets hurt. They don't use guns and it's just small stuff they steal anyway..
Tommorow let's stop telling the truth, it's a pain in the ass and if it was ok to lie, it would sure make life easier...

How proud are you gonna be of the "Teams" when the members start slacking off?

Stop whinning, stand up and lead the way or get in line with the other slackers and whine about how hard it is to do the right thing. So why bother?

We ain't in high school any more bud, and real life and the shit that go's with it is about makeing the right choices, not the easy ones.

Ben on both sides of the issue. Smoked, like the little fiend I was in HIGH school.
Policed in North Texas for years, and fought the good fight.
Raised a child and helped him work thru his choices on dope.
Watched friends smoke so much shit they turned into paranoid fools that couldn't remember their address, by the time they were 35.

Let me know how this works for ya when your teen agers get in HIGH school and they start working thru the crap kids have to work thru.
Kevin | 12.02.04 - 9:11 am | #

Looks like I should have studied more and taken typing instead of smoking in HIGH school....
Kevin | 12.02.04 - 9:14 am | #

You make a good case for legalization. One question I have is this: once government gets through regulating and taxing pot - and you know they will - the price will go up considerably, like it has with tobacco products. Won't your local head go to his illegal - as in unregulated/untaxed - dealer to get his dope? We'll just call the new pot merchants "bootleggers" instead of "dealers". The enforcement focus on pot will shift, but it won't be eliminated completely.
John-NY | Homepage | 12.02.04 - 9:15 am | #

Cocaine and Meth aren't actually narcotics, but your point is taken nonetheless.

You argument is cogent and true. Why neither party is even close to it is very frustrating, and shows a real disconnect with the truth. I bet there's a large legalization vote out there just waiting to be tapped, too.
Ridolph | 12.02.04 - 10:36 am | #

Going down the slippery slope here, how many innocent people does alcohol kill every year from driving under the influence, you can't make it illegal again, remember prohibition? Once you make it legal, you can't go back, everyone will do it and thousands of people will die on the roads and work related incidents and we all know that marijuana leads to harder drugs. Don't give in and do what you know is right, let's just close the damn borders.
Daryl | Homepage | 12.02.04 - 10:51 am | #

I would oppose legilization, but if it became legal, I would expect:

regulation on the potency of marijuana for wide distribution (i.e. certian lines with a level of potency would be illegal - even for personal use) - I never thought about this before but tobacco companies must have federal limits on how potent their tobbacco can be in cigarettes

licences granted to be able to sell the drug just like alcohol

establishment of an age limit (21 sounds acceptable

and the right of businesses and schools to ban being "high on the job" as well as being drunk on the job.

a law against "drugged driving" (is there a "blood weed" limit?) with police enforcement powers including the power to ask for a urine sample to test and to detain for drug testing/suspend the driving licence if the suspect refuses to be tested.

I fear that the damage that legalization of marijuana will cause to society as alcohol does is so many hidden ways.
Matthew Fountain | 12.02.04 - 11:38 am | #

cogently argued from an enforcement standpoint however, just because it is difficult to enforce does not mean we should quit trying to enforce ... i also wrote a blog piece re this subject on my blog "The Z Files" (www.zelgeekspot.blogspot.com) with an opposite view ...

isnt discussion of topics and sharing of ideas and viewpoints a wonderful thing ....thanks for the inspiration again.
L S Hicks | Homepage | 12.02.04 - 12:35 pm | #

Legalize and sold by gov't...that'll fill a small gap of financial gain...but don't limit like europe does...let them by all thye freakin want a reap the rewards
Mike | 12.02.04 - 12:52 pm | #

I'm beginning to think you're right on this issue, also, Froggy, although I haven't decided yet. On a related note, though, I do think there is an under-recognized confluence between medical marijuana, federalism, and the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. This link explains why.
Patrick O'Hannigan | 12.02.04 - 1:13 pm | #

I am not opposed to legalization of pot, but I also think legalizing will bring problems and issues forward that we didn't want or desire.

One of which is how to control its distribution and use among minors.
Just Me | 12.02.04 - 1:24 pm | #

Matt:

Excellent piece. I understand and agree where you're going with this argument. But I still believe there is a "gateway drug" aspect to weed that does not exist with alcohol. This means that if weed is legalized and distributed , let's say, by big tobacco, it will still be an easily produced favorite of homegrowers. Does that mean that Treasury will need to enforce laws that target homegrowers similar to moonshiners? My point is that marijuana will always continue to be a gateway drug for weakminded and vulnerable kids with addictive personalities. If it is legalized then the penalties for the hard drugs, users & sellers, should be made very harsh indeed. Death penalties for sellers.
John Lindsay | 12.02.04 - 1:38 pm | #

I can not believe that we are talking about pot when the ACLU idiots are trying to change this country to the point that you will not be able to mention God in public. I wish we could do something to make the ACLU go away like they want to do with Christians. I can not believe that it took one person to take prayer out of schools. Well enough about me. Please go on.
mercadorudy | 12.02.04 - 2:40 pm | #

By the way pot is not a gateway drug,cigaretts are.
mercadorudy | 12.02.04 - 2:42 pm | #

Here's my take:

I don't believe that legislating problems makes them go away.

I think we should make it illegal for attorneys to run for senate!

Most laws that are enacted seem to only serve as revenue generators for the government through the fines and penalties that are included with them.

As to legalizing Pot, I agree with Bill Buckley and my man Froggy.

All the talk last week about medicinal marijuana was a joke. I don't think that marijuana carries the side effects that 99% of pharmacueticals list as a precaution.

Name one Pharmaceutical commercial you've seen on tv that doesn't have a disclaimer at the end about related side effects. One of my favorites is LAMISIL for toenail fungus. You have to take it for at least one year and you'll have clean toenails along with potential high blood pressure, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, headaches and sexual dysfunction! (A small price to pay for toenails, right?)

I agree with Froggy in the sense that I think our laws in general need to be either simplified or eliminated, allowing our law enforcement to focus on real issues.
Jose | 12.02.04 - 2:53 pm | #

Take away the money and people stop shipping the stuff in.

The current processors of coke and heroin have sky high expenses compared to what a modern processor would have. If its done as modern agriculture, it would financially destroy the drug barons.

Why not legalize every drug? And then control it? What would be the issues? Could you use the threat of legalization to destabilize the drug lords? Selective legalization?

If this is a war, why not go after the minds of the drug lords and their emotional sanity? Why not concentrate resources?
puredata | 12.02.04 - 3:21 pm | #

I favor the treatment of all recreational substances the same as alcohol: be an adult, don't be driving or flying or operating heavy machinery, and don't be a public nuisance about it. If it's harmful, well, so are a lot of things in life. You make your choices and you take the consequences. Funny how many "conservatives" don't believe in personal responsibility once the shadow of the illicit substance bogey-man is raised.
Ciggy | Homepage | 12.02.04 - 3:29 pm | #

Puredata, there are no more "drug lords" anymore. There are coca growers, and there are the guerilla armies that protect them, for a cut of the revenue. Ironically, Communists in Latin America fund their "revoluciones" on the proceeds of a very very Capitalist enterprise.
Ciggy | Homepage | 12.02.04 - 3:31 pm | #

I'm with Mr. Froggy on this one. The media circus over medicinal pot makes me sick. You wanna smoke pot, go ahead. No one can really stop you. Meanwhile, we have good men like Mr. Froggy, on our border wasting their time.
Babs | 12.02.04 - 3:46 pm | #

Roger that Froggy. I'm a former law enforcement officer now law school student and when I was in the field I threw away more weed then I ever used to charge people. It was not worth the time wasted on reports when there were many more important suspects to go get.
Sabot | 12.02.04 - 3:52 pm | #

Agreed. It is less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes according to Harvard long term pharmacological studies. WAY less harmful.

Add in the law enforcement logic,of course it should be de-criminalized. Or,we could just jail about 35% of this nation for smoking pot,including many officers.
Palladin | 12.02.04 - 5:00 pm | #

I'm trying hard to see it from your logical viewpoint; my gut reaction is emotional. Everyone I ever knew who did pot regularly was an unproductive slug when they did it. I'm also the daughter of an alcoholic and I have big, big problems with substance abuse. I could rationally argue for your points but my heart would never be in it...this is one of the reasons I can never be a libertarian.
Peg C. | 12.02.04 - 5:42 pm | #

"You make a good case for legalization. One question I have is this: once government gets through regulating and taxing pot - and you know they will - the price will go up considerably, like it has with tobacco products."

When I was in college 15 years ago, and ounce of marijuana was $100+ in Michigan, I am sure it was cheaper in the southern states nearer to Mexico. One pack of smokes contains several ounces of tobacco, If legalized and taxed even if it was taxed at an on holy rate so it was $50 for a "Pack" of marijuana it would still be far cheaper than it was when I was in school.

I am pro-legalization for many of the same reasons Froggy mentioned. I neither drink or smoke NOW nor have I in 13 years. I read somewhere that the largest cash crop in Georgia was Pot, and I don't doubt it due to the markup on said crop. When you have such a high markup on a crop than can be easily grown in the Untied States their is little hope of ever eliminating it. The reasons marijuana is outlawed in the states has a lot more to do with the cotton industry then the fact that smoking it will get you high. Hemp would be a very valuable product in out economy for a multitude of things not the least of which is paper. (Constitution is written on hemp paper) The usable bio-mass from the hemp plant is phenomenal.

I doubt we will see the laws reversed on marijuana there is too much baggage associated with them. I think if they were it might go a long way to keeping people from starting other drugs and could very well make it harder for young kids to get their hands on. The side effect of legalization should be a ton of additional monies for border security. I think legalization would be a net win, even though I would never touch the stuff.
Mike | 12.02.04 - 9:19 pm | #

Froggy:

As counter-intuitive as it might sound, legalizing pot in the US would actually lower its use. Where I’m from, pot is semi-legal (as legal as we can make it without getting our asses handed to us by American politicians for being a “narcocracy”), but the actual incidence of use is lower than in the US.

Having said that, someone I know personally started smoking pot when she was 17. She…
- is now 24 years old
- has barely finished high school after repeating two years
- has spent the last 3 years mostly in her bedroom being paranoid
- has been diagnosed as schizophrenic
- is on disability
- will be taking heavy-duty psychiatric meds for the rest of her life

Apparently a combination of speed, XTC, cocaine, pot and mushrooms consumed at a festival made something in her head snap, and she hasn’t been the same since.

The moral of this story: legalizing pot may seem like a good idea at the time, but (1) it doesn’t necessarily stop the slide into harder drugs, and (2) it sure would be nice to throw the book at the a$$holes who started selling her pot when she was still underage. In fact, I know her brother would like to kill them and burn down their hash bars.
Expat Dutch | Homepage | 12.02.04 - 9:31 pm | #

Note to readers. This is Froggy's personal opinion which is backed up by my own sense of things. I don't expect this to ever happen, but I think it could work. Important to this process would be very harsh penalties for illegal distribution to include mandatory minimums greater than 60 months. This is especially true with respect to distribution to minors. Mandatory minimums should begin at 120 months. I think that would be a fair trade and a strong deterrent for legalizing MJ. While minors would still come into actual possession of MJ, they already do with very little consequences. This way penalties for illegal possession by minors could be reasonably increased without objection. Minors would be more likely NOT to smoke weed, IMO because they would know that if they wait until 21, they could do so without penalty. Most kids that wait that long would not be a susceptible to becoming a stoner. Some would, but many already are and nobody can change that.
Froggy | Homepage | 12.02.04 - 10:18 pm | #

My head says you are right, Froggy, but my heart is still conflicted. I have been where Peg is and I know from first-hand experience that pot acts as a gateway drug. Hey, if you're willing to smoke dope when it's illegal (but winked at for the most part), why not try something else? And if it's legal, then the psychological aspect takes over. People willing to consume substances to escape or modify reality are always looking for something better. First pot, then acid, then meth, then coke, then 'shrooms, whatever it takes. I think that the libertarian view is probably the most realistic one, but damn, I hate to open the door. Alcohol is synonymous with humanity, and tobacco has a long history as well. Do we really want to add to that list? Where does it stop? Will it stop? I really can't decide.
Chris | 12.02.04 - 10:35 pm | #

Heck, if you legalized it, there wouldn't be any incentive for it to cross the borders. You could grow better stuff using advanced techniques like they do up in BC. Apparently that's the best stuff in the world now.
Kevin | Homepage | 12.03.04 - 12:10 am | #

You would probably have to come up with some kind of THC level restrictions. BC Bud is exponentially more potent than your everyday Mexican/Californian weed. Maybe they would have the equivalent of Bacardi 151, Wild Turkey, Vodka, wine, and beer. Who knows how tailored it could become. If there was incentive to conduct this kind of research, which legalization would provide, the tobacco companies might be able to genetically alter it in any number of ways.
Froggy | Homepage | 12.03.04 - 12:54 am | #

I have posted here before and I will again, but I will hide my name for this post. Annonimity!

I have been attending NA meetings for almost 5 years. Before that I spent 25 years as an impaired, but functioning Pot addict. I was a Wake and Bake guy, stoned from the minute I woke until I went to bed.

Whether a drug is legal only affects it's availability and it's potency. I used to buy illegal drugs from High School kids because their stuff was cheaper and better than buying it from adults.

Sadly, it is easier for a teenage kid to get a hit of Acid than it is for him to get a beer. The acid, he gets from his buddy at school. The beer he has to beg someone to buy it for him at a liquor store.

The kids today have access to drugs I have never heard of. The availability of these drugs to kids, is directly proportional to their legality.

As for addiction, I believe if a person has an addictive personality they will find a drug or behavior to misuse and abuse. A drug doesn't create an addict, the addict creates the demand for the drug.

Besides, alcohol is a legal drug and it is one of the most destructive drugs. I used to say I was glad I was not an alcoholic, while I was looking for a place to hide and get stoned. Irony?
Narcotics Annonymous | 12.03.04 - 2:27 pm | #

I also believe that MJ should be legalized. I grew mine for several years, for personal consumption. I am a professional that was involved in an accident that resulted in multiple injuries over 27 years ago, in college. MJ was the only medication that would allow me to function without the side effects of pain killers. I quit 6 years ago, because of a nasty divorce. I had to make sure I got the kids. Now I work for a Gov't company that makes unannounced urine tests, so I never went back. I can say that the drug changes your perceptions about right and wrong. The fear of getting caught is a great motivator for not having too many friends. All in all, I feel I'm better off now with no MJ, even though I don't care for the Vicodine. At least it's legal. I can honestly say from a professional standpoint, it never affected my judgement at work. However, it was not good to base your marriage on this stuff.
Anon | 12.03.04 - 5:52 pm | #

Chris,

I fear you misunderstood me. I have never had an addiction; because my mother was an alcoholic and I went the other way, I am a bit of a control freak and I cannot tolerate being around drunks and stoners. I didn't mean to imply I have a history of abuse. I understand addiction but I also just can't be in the vicinity of it.

I would say the vast majority of children of alcoholics (I can't speak for other abusers) either become alcoholics themselves (or marry them), or go totally the other way. I'm not a teetotaler but I'm close. I also may be the only former lefty alive who never did an illicit drug and that includes pot. I gave up many friends who turned on me because I wouldn't do it. (There's few things nastier than a user who's with someone who won't use.)

Matt and others who have experienced the War on Drugs from the LE side have a perspective on this that the rest of us lack, and I respect his opinions based on his experience. My judgment on this subject is very emotional and I freely admit it. I am also wary of the law of unintended consequences. You usually can't predict the longterm result of a societal policy change. Look at the longterm effects of the Pill and the sexual revolution. All but the most depraved of us would have to admit it's been, at the very least, an extremely double-edged sword.

Of course, I could be wrong. But I suspect a lot of people feel the way I do. This is an extremely controversial subject.
Peg C. | 12.03.04 - 8:55 pm | #

Talk about timely; I just found this. I know many drugs have very negative sexual side effects (Viagra, Cialis, etc. excepted). I know kids don't pay attention to warnings of fried brains, but you'd think they'd care about permanent sexual dysfunction. Maybe that needs to be stressed a whole lot more.
Peg C. | 12.03.04 - 9:11 pm | #

Matt, there are plenty of libertarian-leaning conservatives out there (myself and Newt Gingrich included) who support our president but don't agree with our government's marijuana policy. We might not be the minority, but we are growing.
Impossible Scissors | Homepage | 12.03.04 - 9:31 pm | #

The libertarian approach to drugs makes no sense, in view of all of our other laws governing far less important things. Social security contributions are mandatory so that people who reach retirement age (and don't save) will have something to live on. And yet we won't keep something illegal even though it can lead to people destroying their lives at an early age? We banned thalidomide and we are in the process of banning Vioxx. And yet libertarians want us to ease up marijuana, which has ruined millions of lives? My position is that the ban on illegal drugs is something that must remain in place for sake of many of our loved ones. I understand that libertarians think that the weaker members of society deserve what they get, if easy access to drugs gets them addicted. I simply don't share their indifference to the human consequences of drug addiction.
Zhang Fei | Homepage | 12.04.04 - 1:48 am | #

In terms of hazard to human health -- deaths caused, lives impaired -- probably the most pervasive agents are tobacco and sugar, both legal and both with powerful lobbies before Congress. But if you study health statistics throughout the world as the discovery of sugar made its way into Europe, and compare health statistics in the US to our sugar consumption per capita, you will discover the real troublemakers. Diabetes, cancer, obesity, etc.
American Daughter | Homepage | 12.04.04 - 9:09 am | #

American Daughter, so you are saying make ice cream illegal?

One can be a very productive member of society and suffer with diabetes and heart disease. Try being a drug addict and being productive. (Some of my favorite musicians notwithstanding.)

I do love your website.
Peg C. | 12.04.04 - 11:52 am | #

I've never bought the "gateway" drug theory. Marijuan might be the first *illegal* drug a minor does, but almost invariably it's tobacco that they try first. And as noted above, there are an increasing number of studies that show that marijuana is less harmful than tobacco and alcohol.
Josh | 12.04.04 - 12:30 pm | #

One more reason to legalize marijuana is that the stuff is very easy to grow all over the US and enforcement is impossible.

Use police resources to stop real crimes.
Old Whig | Homepage | 12.04.04 - 5:10 pm | #

Peg:

You're right, it's hard to be a useful member of society whilst addicted to drugs, just as it's hard to do so whilst being an alcoholic.

On the other hand, I know several people who are stable, well-paid productive upstanding citizens, but smoke weed pretty much every weekend. It seems to be no different to me having a few beers of an evening.

Yes, there are a number of layabouts that do little else but smoke weed all day, but I', not sure you can blame the weed. I rather suspect that they'd be useless layabouts anyway.

Legalise it, slap health warnings on it (Don't take if you're susceptible to psychoses, and I seem to rememebr that THC is a carcinogen) and tax it. Concentrate on finding the really nasty stuff (eg. crack).
Sam | 12.05.04 - 12:50 am | #

"Hemp would be a very valuable product in out economy for a multitude of things not the least of which is paper. (Constitution is written on hemp paper) The usable bio-mass from the hemp plant is phenomenal."

These statements are true, but the idea that hemp would replace wood in paper-making is entirely unrealistic. I spent nearly 10 years as an engineer in a paper mill, and I have seen this claim from hemp-proponents many times. While it is true that hemp used to be a primary fiber source in paper, that was before paper became the mass-produced cheap commodity that is today. In the days of "hemp paper", paper was condidered a near-luxury item that only the well-off could afford. Today, one modern paper machine can produce over 1000 tons of copier paper in one day, and it has thus become a cheap commodity.

But the industrial technologies that have made this commoditization possible cannot be changed to non-wood sources without enourmous costs and difficulties. The paper-making machinery of today has been designed and refined to work with fibers from wood; fibers from a different source have very different physical characterists and simply will not work well (if at all) in existing equipment. On the pulp side of the process, the existing pulping techniques and equipment would be almost useless with a non-wood source like hemp.

Can it be done? Certainly. However, a single new paper machine costs in excess of $300 million. Building a new pulp and paper mill (assuming that you could even get the permits today) costs in excess of $1.5 billion. And these capital costs would get you an infinitesimal market share with a higher unit cost (your new hemp-specialized equipment is too unique to be common, so everything from spare parts to technical help is more expensive). All of these steps are necessary to make the hemp-paper commercially viable. All of the hemp-paper I have seen has been hand-made in small quantities. While the hemp does make a nice sheet, it is a very different proposition when scaling up to commercial production levels.

Sorry for the length of this post, but I have seen that "hemp-replaces-wood-in-paper" fallacy too many times to let it go this time. Hemp is an excellent fiber source with lots of uses, but don't look for reams of hemp-paper anytime soon. The costs and logistical problems of such a switch are simply too great.
Anonymous | 12.06.04 - 3:38 pm | #