Legalization Advocates Never Answer The Hard Questions
Let us imagine that even knowing what we do about marijuana’s harmfulness, and the experience of other countries that have legalized the drug, we still opted for marijuana legalization. A spike in marijuana-related violence on the street, for example, could prompt some well-meaning officials to reluctantly choose repealing punitive laws.
What would that scenario look like?
Describing the results of legalizing drugs is almost impossible for a few reasons. First, with the exception of the Netherlands and some marijuana clubs in the United States, drugs have not been available on the legal market for almost a century. Though cocaine, heroin, and other drugs were once available in the United States, they offer little by means of comparison when we fast forward one-hundred years to today. Also, proponents of legalization have never really presented what their regime would look like. But let’s briefly look at what it might look like under a few imaginable circumstances.
Treat it like alcohol and tobacco
Alcohol and tobacco are a favorite reference point for those who wish to legalize drugs. Since those two killers are legal -- indeed alcohol contributes to more violent crime than crack-cocaine -- why not just legalize other dangerous substances (or at least one more) and regulate their sale? Why the difference between alcohol and tobacco on one hand, and, marijuana on the other, especially when we know that alcohol use has a much greater association to violence than marijuana use?
Even a cursory glance at the status of our two legal drugs shows us that to add a third drug to this list would exacerbate an already difficult public-health problem. Tobacco kills half a million people every year. Alcohol is worse – not only is it responsible for negative health effects of the drinker, but of people around them. If we are to look at these two legal drugs as indicators of behavior associated with legal drug use, we see a pattern: legal drugs are by definition easy to obtain; commercialization glamorizes their use and furthers their social acceptance, their price is low, and high profits make promotion worthwhile for sellers. Subsequently – inevitably – more users occur, more addicts, and the increased use results in more social and health damage, increased deaths, and greater economic burden. When sellers rely on addiction for profit, there is not a strong case that drugs -- even just marijuana -- should be sold alongside alcohol and tobacco.
The alcohol/tobacco versus marijuana argument also falls apart since alcohol and tobacco have very different cultures surrounding them than marijuana does. For one, most people who use alcohol do so responsibly -- it is a minority of drinkers that cost society greatly. Secondly, unlike marijuana, tobacco can claim no such role in potentially hurting the lives of non-smokers (with the exception of second-hand smoke, especially to children) -- in fact, marijuana is the second most implicated drug in driving accidents, next to alcohol. Tobacco can claim no such infamous role in destroying the life of non-smokers. Furthermore, unlike tobacco, marijuana is implicated widely in the loss of productivity at work, long-term reproductive system damage; and, like tobacco, long term respiratory and cancer risk. As Kleiman has stated, “Until success is achieved in imposing reasonable controls on the currently licit killers, alcohol and nicotine, the case for adding a third or fourth recreational drug . . . will remain hopelessly speculative” (Kleiman 1993).
Tax the hell out of it
An alternative to commercially selling marijuana through private industry is having the government regulate and distribute the drug. Many legalization advocates (including Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell) urge the government to “tax the hell out of” drugs like marijuana in order to pay for the assumed increase use and addiction costs. That way, new users will be deterred from starting because the price would be out of reach. The most vulnerable (i.e. the poor) would benefit from high costs, too.
Ironically, however, this scenario actually exacerbates some of the worst qualities of prohibition. High cost drugs would ensure that an already well-established black market would remain largely in tact. If I can buy cocaine for $10 an ounce from my dealer or go to my government-sponsored “drug store” for ten times that much, I would opt for the former scenario. Especially if drugs were still illegal for kids (no one has seriously proposed legalizing marijuana for children), a black market would still have reasons to linger. This is precisely what occurred in Canada when they imposed steep taxes on cigarettes (Gunby 1994).
In the U.S., illegal drugs actually cost $160 billion a year in lost social costs. That number would no doubt increase under legalization, and then have to be distributed to the new number of total drug users. Experience with taxing alcohol and tobacco show us that any attempt to pay for lost costs through taxes would be futile. Indeed the social costs of legalization outweigh any possible tax that could be levied against the drug. In 1999, state and federal governments gained about $11 billion from alcohol taxes -- but direct health care costs amounted to four times that much, notwithstanding the costs to the criminal justice system, federal entitlement programs, and loss of productivity (U.S. Census Bureau 1999 and 2000; CASA 1996). Tobacco was worse -- the $13 billion in federal and state tobacco tax revenue in 1999 was one sixth of the $75 billion in direct health care costs attributable to tobacco (U.S. Census Bureau 1999 and 2000; CASA 1996).
Taxing drugs could feasibly increase street crime as well. As addicts frenzied for their next fix need to find more money to buy expensive drugs easily, they can be expected to engage in criminality. Taxing drugs would do no one good.
Make it cheap -- cut out the black market
One way to doom the black market for drugs is to beat the market down: Make drugs so cheap that the black market will eventually whither away in the face of legal competition. That way, turf wars between drug gangs and crime surrounding people’s desire to get money for drugs would be eliminated.
This is a good economic model -- if we weren’t concerned about the effects of drugs themselves. Certainly, drugs are dangerous because they rob people of making rational decisions. Cheap drugs would put a joint of marijuana well within the reach of a child’s daily allowance. Additionally, it would dissuade users from stopping (thus giving them a greater chance to become addicted) because of the cheap price. The American tobacco experience shows us that the price of drugs greatly influences a person’s decision to use.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Yep, you heard me CLOSE prisons because of reduced crime rate and lack of prisoners.
I can not believe that you are still trying use Anslinger's argument on violence created by marijuana use . Any one who knows anything about marijuana will tell you it reduces violent tendencies. Your standing as an expert is called into question trying to pass this kind of misinformation to the public.
You argue that marijuana use leads to increases in violent crimes and a loss of productivity among users, yet you never cite any studies to back up those old, hackneyed claims. To cite one scientific study on productivity, this report from Mendelson, J.H. et al, "The Effects of Marijuana Use on Human Operant Behavior: Individual Data," pp 643-53 in M.C. Braude and S. Szara (eds), The Pharmacology of Marijuana, Vol 2, New York: Raven Press (1976) found little evidence of lost productivity.
But I can hardly criticize Dr. Sabet for failing to cite statistics, because he is left with few tools for rational argument as the US government has been afraid to allow rigorous scientific testing of marijuana and its effects on people. Let's have more science , and a real debate.
" Cheap drugs would put a joint of marijuana well within the reach of a child’s daily allowance.
Congratulations sir! You've contributed another classic piece of inane insane reefer madness propaganda ridiculousness!
" Though cocaine , heroin, and other drugs were once available in the United States, they offer little by means of comparison when we fast forward one-hundred years to today."
Ah, yes, of course. Just as the advocates of liberty/ legalization never answer the hard questions, because they write so many books and articles and blogs answering the hard questions which you of course ignore, the recorded history of drug use also doesn't answer the hard questions, because you ignore the answers the recorded history provides us.
Once upon a time in America people including children could and did use cocaine, heroin, opium, cannabis , tobacco , and alcohol freely and without government intervention. And what does this history tell us if we don't ignore it? It tells us that there is no record of our society having major problems with cocaine, heroin, opium, cannabis, or tobacco, and that there was a major problem with alcohol. When Americans had the choice of using and or abusing drugs - ALCOHOL was the one that cause the overwhelming majority of problems.
It remains that way to this day.
". Also, proponents of legalization have never really presented what their regime would look like."
That's because liberty is NOT a regime. To paraphrase George Orwell - imagine a boot stamping on a human face (that's Dr. Keven Sabet and the prohibitionist government)...and imagine the boot being lifted from that human face (that's legalization/liberty).
That's the "regime" so many desire - to no longer be stepped on, to no longer be robbed of our lives, liberty, and property.
I'm not a legalization advocate, of course... I'm a sociologist. My positions are, though infested with my own biases (inevitably), largely based on my best understanding of the available data. I have read the medical literature, and have done ethnographic research of my own, including more than one research project about the use of cannabis in sacred contexts (an essay on alchemy which I'll send to anybody who's interested, and research on religious freedoms as pertains to a group called Church of the Universe).
My positions are generally nuanced and not completely on one side or the other; I think that a lot of the pot-advocates go way too far in minimizing the risks and treating it like a magical cure-all, but I think that it's true that pot is beneficial more often than it's harmful, and that if used responsibly, it can an excellent substance to have around, and certainly much better in a multitude of ways than alcohol .
So even though I'm a scientist and believe in nuance, I think the status quo is completely full of shit, and would welcome the opportunity to call them on it publically, and to present my own, more balanced and rational, perspectives on things.
Marijuana's causing wrecks? If that's the case Cymbalta's also causing wrecks. The so called "high" goes away, but you wouldn't know that since you know squat about the medicine . Responsible smokers experience a high because they space out their smoking . They are less likely to drive, being responsible and all. The ones whom smoke all the time like it's going out of style or something, they aren't getting high. Again, point to the rush of media surrounding all these mythical wrecks you apparently have knowledge of. I can guarantee you, opiate painkillers cause more wrecks than marijuana , as they also cause more deaths. I'll stop reading there. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
"Secondly, unlike marijuana , tobacco can claim no such role in potentially hurting the lives of non-smokers" Oh really so the more than 3,000 people who die from second hand smoke every year are what? Not real, invisible?
Trying to say that marijuana is more dangerous is quite possibly one of the most idiotic things i've ever heard. Hydrogen Cyanide is found in tobacco products, is the chemical they use in prison executions. Now tell me what harmful chemicals are found in marijuana. Also roll this around in your head, 1,200 people die everyday from tobacco related products, now tell me how many people die from marijuana in a year? I'm sure that the number will come no where close to how many people die in a day from tobacco
Prohibitionists are an odd bunch of moral propagandists and profiteers.
"DR" Sorbet - Please provide Legitimate references for every fact that you stated in your little 'article'. Every 'fact' that you stated has been disproved or does not exist. Until you prove everything you wrote, your status as a "Verified Expert" is completely suspect, as well as the legitimacy of this web site.
Post Note: Dr Sorbet has just regurgitated the Government's lies about Marijuana and it's consumption. Not ONE thing that shill posted has been proven by the medical community. The ONLY reason Marijuana is not 'legal' is that the US gov't can't find a way to monopolize the growth, distribution, and TAXING of it yet.
Please explain the following statement:
"The alcohol/tobacco versus marijuana argument also falls apart since alcohol and tobacco have very different cultures surrounding them than marijuana does. For one, most people who use alcohol do so responsibly -- it is a minority of drinkers that cost society greatly."
At what point did responsible use of alcohol begin? During prohibition or after prohibition?
“Treat it like alcohol and tobacco.”
An interesting choice in words, one so obviously alluding to the tolerance America has in regard to alcohol and tobacco. Using the doctor’s own information, it can be easily concluded that marijuana is less dangerous than either tobacco or alcohol. Shouldn’t alcohol and tobacco then be treated like marijuana?
Granted, Dr. Sabet does mention the impossibility of prohibition elsewhere, claiming the integration of alcohol (and tobacco to a lesser degree) into American life. This is an unfair comparison. Marijuana has been used for a long time and is, judging from polls, still popular with a large percentage of the population, especially when takings its illegality and the misleading propaganda so eagerly broadcast into account.
So, why should marijuana be held to a different standard than two substances that children are readily exposed to from a young age?
If one analyzes the anti-cannabis arguments one can see they spring entirely from fear. And unfortunately, fear doesn't care about reason. But where does that fear come from? As far as I can see it is fear of the unwashed masses puffing away and enjoying themselves; less inclined, as a result, to be manipulated by commercial interests. How frightening, all those folks, just taking some time off from the daily grind, relaxing, maybe merely sitting and looking at the clouds in the sky. How horrible! Looking at the sky instead than being glued to the boob tube.
The funniest comment I ever saw about the danger of cannabis, was its high content of BS Bks: That's Bull S**t Blockers, by the way. I'm convinced, my friends, Tthis the real reason for prohibition: ingesting cannabis lets you see through the crap.
"High cost drugs would ensure that an already well-established black market would remain largely in tact"
Right now higher grades of marijuana are worth their weight in gold, and only because of it being illegal. the higher cost easily relates to the dealers risk of being arrested or assassinated. In a reality of legalization I couldn't see an ounce of regular quality marijuana going for more than $45 before tax. and the higher grades at $90 dollars before tax.
so there you have it answering all the hard questions.
"alcohol contributes to more violent crime than crack-cocaine" Are you out of your mind? You just must have not visited any of the the U.S.'s innercity neighborhoods.
"For one, most people who use alcohol do so responsibly -- it is a minority of drinkers that cost society greatly." I would refute this argument by saying, there are a higher number of marijuana users per capita than alcohol drinkers in terms of societal cost. How much harm would marijuana smokers do if governed by the same laws as alcohol costs society? think about it!
"unlike marijuana, tobacco can claim no such role in potentially hurting the lives of non-smokers" So just how does marijuana hurt the lives of non-smokers if governed by the same laws as tobacco?think about it!
"in fact, marijuana is the second most implicated drug in driving accidents, next to alcohol."
In how many of those accidents was marijuana absolutely known to be intoxicating the driver? Not just being a metabolite in the drivers system?
This is really simple. There is nothing wrong with responsible alcohol and marijuana use in a recreational setting. In a free society, the fact that some people take things too far is not a convincing argument that the government should turn into a nanny state. The American diet kills more people each year than marijuana. Should the government make McDonalds illegal next?
Since I am limited in what I'm allowed to type, I will simply point out the main flaw in this stilted "argument". The biggest risk of the use of any drug would be disease and death. All other problems of taxes, moral questions, etc. could be considered secondary to the question: will it kill you? We all know without doubt that alcohol and tobacco use kills MILLIONS each year in America. The Author capitulates, and attributes the same dangers to cannabis. The ONLY way for the Author to be taken seriously would be if he recommended that prohibition be introduced to tobacco, and re-introduced to alcohol. Since that conclusion is NOT reached, apparently the Author can live with a little death in the name of personal freedom, as long as the death comes from drugs he deems acceptable, and as long as the freedoms aren't extended to those the Author and his ilk deem unworthy. BTW, cannabis is NON-toxic. This argument is full of holes, lies, and hyperbole. It is completely disingenuous. Shame.
"As addicts frenzied for their next fix need to find more money to buy expensive drugs easily, they can be expected to engage in criminality. Taxing drugs would do no one good."
I was particularly disturbed by this quote. This is just more nonsense aimed to distract readers from any concrete point. There are very few facts throughout this entire article. Dr. Sabet instead chose to take the route of generalized ignorance and group all marijuana users into the media friendly aggressive drug user. Nothing sturs emotions as effictively as "addicts frenzied for their next fix." Why don't we take a look at some of the actual facts, you know, things that actually happened outside of our wonderfully creative imaginations. According to Drugwarfacts.org, in 2006, 829,627 people were arrested for marijuana related crimes. 738,916 of those arrests were for possession alone. So what percentage of these users are harmless? You do the math, Doctor.
If I was working for any anti-marijuana agency right now, I would be starting to sweat a little bit. I would be looking at the polls, and realizing that the public's opinion is in conflict with the office that gives me my job. If I wanted to keep my job, I would be looking for ways to work WITH the people instead of AGAINST them. At the end of the day, public opinion is a strong force that eventually is going to reshape policy.
So I say to anyone who works in the anti-marijuana sector: Open your eyes and look at the writing on the wall. It's right in front of you. Despite what your personal opinion of Marijuana's dangers are, the people believe otherwise, and at the end of the day, if the government pays your salary, the government works FOR THE PEOPLE, so your funding is in danger unless you can find a way to calm the pro-marijuana crowd down enough to keep them from their crusade to put you out of a job.
The author freely added the "new" costs associated with making marijuana legal without subtracting the "old" costs of prohibition.
The real question is, are the health/societal costs of legalizing greater than, less than, or equal to the old costs incurred by law enforcement today.When you add the additional potential tax revenue, it is very probable that legalization makes more economic sense.
Furthermore, societal costs of "lost worker productivity" pale in comparison to job losses due to incarceration, and even probation.
The "additional healthcare costs" are arguable, and responsible users can curb all negative lung disease through vaporization.
"For one, most people who use alcohol do so responsibly..."
Ok, was this phrase actually used by someone claiming to be an "expert"? Anti-prohibitionist always answer the hard question then offer logical counter questions that often get deflected using the social stigma of marijuana as defence for their argument. It is utterly ignorant to suggest that drinkers are in any way more socially responsible for their activities than a marijuana user. Based solely of the lethality of the two substances, it can easily be argued that simply by choosing something that dangerous over something far less dangerous you are socially irresponsible.
When I read, "For one, most people who use alcohol do so responsibly..." that was it. I scrolled right down to the bottom and clicked on "post comment." Glad to see someone beat me to the punch.
Dr. Sabet, are you nuts? What planet have you been living on? Certainly not the same one I have. There are alcoholics, or at the very least heavy drinkers, every you look. Beer and wine is sold by the truckload in nearly every town large and small across the country. My grandfather was an alcohol until the day he died at the "ripe" old age of 60! My uncle just died a homeless alcoholic ( found under a bridge dead) at the "ripe" old age of 57. Alcoholism is a bad problem in this nation and alcoholic beverage companies are shaking in their boots at the thought of marijuana legalization and are some of the biggest lobbyists against legalzation. Why? Because marijuana is a safer alternative (and much, much, much less addictive) to alcohol and they know it. They know their profits will drop by at least 50% the day marijuana becomes legal and I'm sooooooooo looking forward to the day when this nation becomes one of stoners rather than dangerous, belligerent alcoholics. Marijuana doesn't give one that sense of safety you get with alcohol. Alcohol makes you think your ten feet tall and bullet proof. Alcohol makes you think you can drive down the highway at breakneck speed when you're drunk off your butt. Alcohol makes you think your neighbors don't mind if you hoop and hollar at three o'clock in the morning. Marijuana doesn't do that. Marijuana allows one to keep their presence of mind while still enjoying a buzz and THAT, my dear, is why marijuana should be legal. Anyone can take a few studies and facts and twist them around, omiting this, editing that, to make their point seem more viable. This is exactly what you, Dr. Sabet, have done.