There are Ways To Make Current Policy Better

Just because legalization would increase the use and thus the harmful effects of marijuana, it doesn’t mean that prohibition policies could not benefit from improvement (Reuter 1997). This chapter was written with the attention of assessing the current marijuana problem and arguing against liberalizing American federal anti-marijuana policy. Still, I feel obligated to briefly mention some areas of current marijuana policies that need improvement. Making our restrictive policies work better, though, is easier said than done. Even so, some suggestions are worth mentioning.

First and foremost, the lack of research into law enforcement techniques and criminal justice measures continue to hamper the effectiveness of marijuana control policies (Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education 2001). A more concerted effort to collect accurate information about the price and purity of marijuana would help, especially the relationship between price elasticity and demand for certain, heavy marijuana using populations (Reuter 1997). A simple way to begin to understand this important relationship would be for the Attorney General to release federally-locked drug price data to the public (currently, only federally-funded researchers can access DEA drug price data).

There should also be more resources dedicated to finding out how other, specific aspects of social policy relate to drug policy and problems (i.e. housing policies, welfare policies, education policies, the list goes on). In what aspects of society can we target those most at risk for marijuana use? How can drug courts and regimes of coerced abstinence work to reduce and stop marijuana prevalence, especially among the young (Kleiman 1997).

Education should be a chief component of any anti-marijuana effort. I do not just mean educating young people (that is obvious), but also the medical and community health clinic community which is shockingly ignorant of the true dangers of occasional and heavy use of marijuana. Surveys indicate that physicians lack the skill and knowledge to deal with drug use (Barthwell 2004). As Dr. Andrea Barthwell, former deputy director for demand reduction at the White House Office of National Drug Policy wrote in 2004:

“Often we write, ‘Patient is a 39-year-old white female alcoholic. . .’ as if the diagnosis were a relevant descriptor, with the same value as religion or occupation. Descriptors help us understand more about a patient, but they confer no responsibility on the part of the physician to communicate life-saving advice. If the condition were diabetes, physicians would be responsible for drawing a blood level and managing the disease. Unfortunately, most of the time today the same standards do not apply when it comes to substance abuse” (Barthwell 2004).

To counter this, governments should include grants for screening, brief interventions, referral and treatment (SBIRT) training aimed at primary care givers and community clinic workers.

SBIRT services include:

• Screening--Initial drug (including alcohol) screens by general primary care physicians or counselors to identify at-risk persons and overall prevalence in area/district

• Brief Advice--one-time intervention for short consultation and literature

• Brief Intervention/ Brief Treatment--one to twelve sessions of substance use intervention

• Referral to Treatment--for dependent users to receive specialized services, case management, and follow-up support in the community

Another way to identify people early in their drug use careers for the purpose of getting them help is to utilize drug testing in the school and workplace. Testing should respect a person’s privacy and act as a filter for a brief intervention or treatment referral, whichever makes most sense.

Increased parental involvement in a child’s life, and policies designed to encourage it, is a cornerstone of effective marijuana policy. An example of a promising program is the Parent Anti-Drug Corps, which trains parents to be effective anti-drug leaders in their community. A parent effort in the 1980’s contributed to massive declines in marijuana use in that decade.

Restricting anything by law – especially something that some people find pleasurable –surely does not guarantee success all of the time. But legalizing a harmful substance like marijuana would exacerbate our problems by signaling that the drug is relatively harmless and can be used with little danger. Compounding this with the problems accrued by our two legal substances, alcohol and tobacco, and the relatively minor costs attributed to a restrictive marijuana policy, the case for relaxing laws related to marijuana remains weak, dangerous, and unconvincing. A more hopeful, reasonable solution to lowering rates of marijuana use and reducing the total harm that widespread marijuana use inevitably brings is found in a balanced strategy of research, prevention, education, treatment, and law enforcement.