Does Legalized Marijuana Mean Legalized Heroin and Crack?
Bruce Mirken, Marijuana Policy ProjectAt the Marijuana Policy Project, we hear it all the time: "Well, if you legalize marijuana, doesn't that mean you'd have to legalize everything? Where does it end?"
It's a common question with a simple answer: It ends with whatever laws that we as a democratic society think make the most sense -- no more, and no less.
Marijuana, after all, has been in human use as a medicine and social relaxant for at least 5,000 years, and illegal in most parts of the world for less than 100. At no time did marijuana laws have much of an effect on laws regarding other substances.
When you think about it, that makes perfect sense. Alcohol is a drug, after all (and a much more dangerous and addictive drug than marijuana, by the way), yet its legality certainly hasn't meant we have to allow legal access to marijuana or anything else.
As our name implies, the Marijuana Policy Project deals only with marijuana. We claim no expertise about other drugs, and take no position on what the laws should be regarding alcohol, cocaine, heroin, etc.
But we do take the commonsense position that laws should be based on facts. If the idea of drug laws is to prevent the harm that drugs do, those laws should be based on an accurate understanding of those harmful effects, so that we don't inadvertently pass laws that do more harm than the drug itself.
We've clearly done that with marijuana, whose risks are so modest that Dr. Leslie Iversen, Oxford University pharmacology professor and member of the British government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, wrote recently, "Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for 'recreational' purposes, cannabis could be rated to be a relatively safe drug."
Compared to the limited harm caused by marijuana, the harm caused by marijuana prohibition is immense: Over three-quarters of a million lives are turned upside down each year by arrests for simple possession -- families torn apart, educations disrupted, careers ruined, simply for choosing to relax at the end of the day with a drug that's safer than beer.
And the harm isn't limited to marijuana users. By pretending we can make marijuana go away, we've forfeited any ability to regulate its production, marketing, and sale. We've handed a monopoly on a very large market (marijuana is, after all, America's largest cash crop) to unregulated criminals -- people who commit violence, trash the environment, and have no compunctions about selling to kids.
The risk/benefit ratio for marijuana and marijuana prohibition is clear: Prohibition causes far more harm than marijuana. Is that the case for cocaine or heroin? I don't know. What I do know is that they are separate questions, and America is quite capable of answering them one at a time.













Does Legalized Marijuana Mean Legalized Heroin and Crack?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Slippery slope
There have been several problems assoicated with, if not caused by, the prohibition of marijuana . The largest problem being that an overwhelming majority of those arrested for marijuana-possession related crimes are those at the bottom of the chain. They only use; they don't sell. So, that is a large cost to society with many of these people being incarcerated due to 3-strikes-laws, racial profiling, or being at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Net result is a large cost to society, and a prison mentality which all but guarantees high recidivism rates. Most of these people would better serve society by remaining in the work force.
On the other hand, use of heroin, crack, and meth lead to major problems related to abuse and addiction. Such people are less likely to have a positive benefit by remaining in the work force, and have a much higher likelihood of having the same plethora of problems as do alcoholics. Also, a higher percentage of these hard drug users will be selling the product as well. Trafficking or dealing hard drugs has a higher likelihood of having an adverse affect on society than is the case with marketing marijuana.
For those, as well as market-related concerns, one has a much better foundation from which to propose an and to prohibition of marijuana. On the other hand, no such position can be used as a basis for which to propose an end to prohibition of heroin, etc.
Plainly and simply then, those who are trying to use the slippery slope argument as a basis for continuing the prohibition of msrijuana have no ground to stand on.
- CosmicChuck
May 15, 2009 6:03PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not quite
Reality fits together a little different than you suppose.
In the real world there are human beings with hereditary qualities determined by gene expression. All is determined by genes, and the capricious switching of genes. This means that there is a population of fit humans, and since their parents also gravitated towards fit, these fit ones tended to get better food , education , care and shelter in their respective youths.
The not so fit ones tend to have suffered less auspicious starting conditions in life. As a result these socalled "lower classes" tend to be people with defects. Me saying this is not passing judgement on those people - in fact by any standard I am one of them - with several distinct chronic maladies I am scarcely able to function in society , let alone hold a job. I get disability pay for a list of woes.
IN the real world people will find massive excuses to not give a damn, invoke the sacred sacrament of "personal responsibility" (a fake crutch validating their success) and shrug.
Thats where those who "failed" have to find practical solutions - one of these is selfmedication. Google "gin carts" and "industrial revolution".
http://futurismic.com/2008/04/29/clay-shirky-on-the-cognitive-surplus /
So what do people do? They blame the victim.
I'l continue below in another reply.
- Khannea Suntzu
May 20, 2009 4:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Undecided
As the author aptly demonstrated, slippery slope arguments are completely irrelevant here (in generat they're considered a logical fallacy anyway).
- JKM121
May 20, 2009 8:01PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Probably
That will probably be the next logical step for those who are involved in the business. Because business is business. Once it becomes legal it's use will be promoted and that's business. It'll probably take a whole generation of a desensitize people to take that next step. But it surely can happen.
- Salero21
May 16, 2009 11:17AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
People who are involved in what business, exactly?
Are you saying that the people who make, utilize and smoke marijuana are the same people who make, utilize and consume cocain, heroin, etc?
- quantummechanik
May 19, 2009 1:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
D A
.
Hum, you got to be smoking it!
.
- Salero21
October 21, 2009 10:05PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Drug legality
Drugs should be legal . The whole consumption of narcotic substances is based on essential needs - and most people need these substances to selfmedicate. Societies have been treating narcotics as a moral choice - a sin.
However, this is not free will territory, as much as contracting a disease is not a matter of free will. In the distant past people did think that pestilence was in fact a moral punishment for sin.
Selfmedication is something completely incomprehensible to people. The idea that a person feels so miserable he or she should rather stick a needle with a chemical inside than get a decent job, spouse, 2.4 kids, 2 hobbies and watch "desperate housewives" on TV. I took my first xtacy in 1987 (haven't since the mid 90s) and when I did I thought "oh. this is how a human being can feel when it's all right".
That realization never left me. It is the realization that things can be right, as opposed to not so, and what precisely the difference constitutes. If I felt every waking moment as under the effect of E, I could hold a job, work long hours *perfectly happy", fitness in late hours, and everything besides. And do it perfectly happy.
Now back to the free market - we have a more or less global abolition of narcotic substances, and that will collapse very soon. Ask me in privately why, but trust me on this - due to developments we'll see, any attempt at abolition is destined to fail. Conservatives will grit their teeth, to no avail.
So what would happen if there were abundant, easy to manufacture narcotic substances, far lower prices, no government terror militias dragging people off to be forcibly sodomized in jail - would people still dose up on crack and meth?
No.
No self-respecting junk, and even the ones that dont, will shoot up meth. They will ALL switch to deliciously balanced and personalized cocaine derivates blended with antidepressants, a few heartrythm meds, a sprinkle of beta blocker....
The drugs produced in a society that wont be able to enforce narcotics laws will be of higher qwuality, a lot less lethal, a lot cheaper and a lot more discrete. Will people still get addicted? yes. Will people's daughters and sons still OD, strung out puking in their parents bed? yes. Will people still get aids from swapping dirty needles? YES.
BUT A LOT LESS SO.
You will all see the light when, twenty years from now, heroin can be bought in a government store down the street at the price of coffee, and your colleague twitches and sais "shit, I think I am going down during the break and shoot me some"
You will say "WHAT, are you a heroin addict??"
She'll say, "yah sure, didnt you know? Seratonin gene deficiency. Been on the H since my teens . Normally I shoot every morning, like insulin, but I was kinda rushed this morning"
That's why you always bear her at squash.
People don't turn into monsters when they use drugs. Most people become monstrous when they are OFF the drugs, because that's the only world they know - Monstrous.
- Khannea Suntzu
May 20, 2009 5:12PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Excellent posts!
The only place I think you're wrong is regarding the "morning shootup of heroin". By far the public image of the bundle "heroin+needle" needs to be stripped of the effects of prohibition.
Most people shoot up due to economic pressures. Heroin is most effective that way with smoking as the second choice (orally it's not so effective due to the liver getting first pass metabolism rights). Besides, given the economic pressures on the market for stronger drugs (smaller, easier to smuggle) it seems heroin is SO much more easy to come by than laudanum, opium, codeine and morphine.
Back in the days where all the stuff was legal - even up to the fifties where various amphetamines were legal - most people preferred the weaker stuff. Just like people prefer beer and wine to whisky, absinthé and the 100 percent stuff. As Jacob Sullum points out in his book "Saying Yes: in defense of drug use " even a drug like the much hated methamphetamine was actually available in pill form back then, and it just did not have the same "effects" as we are told the same drug has today.
Such seeming paradoxes should not be glossed over. Rather the whole debate would benefit from another model than the usual. A model that can actually explain and predict these things better than the current drug war model.
- JesperKristensen
May 21, 2009 2:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A non-issue
Probably not, but if it does, so what? We need to make those substances legal again anyway. Prohibition never works and is the cause of almost all "drug related" crime and social problems.
- KentMcManigal May 18, 2009 6:39PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Government should provide free crack cocaine
Many people want to reduce the penalty for crack cocaine, on the grounds that it is unfair to send users to prison for so many years when the sentences are so much more lenient for powdered cocaine. But if they didn't use crack cocaine, they wouldn't get sent to prison for it.
What is the purpose of drug laws , anyway? Is it so that people will not use these drugs, or is it because we want users to spend a substantial amount of time (but not too much time) in prison?
If laws cannot prevent people from using crack cocaine, then maybe the government ought to give addicts free crack cocaine so they don't have to commit crimes for it, so they won't be creating a business for criminals, so that they won't have to recruit other users to fund their own habits, and so that if they cannot limit their own use they'll just go ahead and die already.
- fsilber
May 20, 2009 3:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Prohibition is still wrong
Or, just end the morally bankrupt " War on (some) Drugs " to pull the rug out from under the criminal gangs that need prohibition in order to thrive.
- KentMcManigal May 20, 2009 4:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Government should provide free alcohol
Am I the only one who thinks my headline sounds stark raving mad? Yet we hear that very sentence repeated over and over when it comes to the illegal drugs.
Basically, providing "free crack" (or heroin) only makes sense when we're thinking inside the Drug War Paradigm. Only when we refuse to consider alternatives or can't even conceive of any other reality than having a "drug war" do we end up with this illogic.
In a legal market there wouldn't be any legitimate need for government to provide drugs for free.
However, in legal markets there would be a lot of need for different regulation. Clearly something like heroin needs to be regulated differently - and stricter - than cannabis .
What all out legalization would enable is this: we would be able to lay out a "defensive perimeter" of legal drugs that are regulated much like alcohol and tobacco. It would work because most people (of the minority that would use at all) prefer the milder drugs. You would see LESS people go nuts with heroin, crack or meth, because they can now afford and access opium extracts, codeine pills, powder cocaine and straight amphetamines.
Mind you, these are NOT drugs without risk, but it is much preferable to have people injecting heroin.
Basically, people are smarter than the nanny state people think. I'm by far convinced that part of the attraction of marijuana is the fact that it's remarkably safe compared to other drugs.
- JesperKristensen
May 21, 2009 2:42PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
government alcohol
The trouble is that if we let the private market supply crack cocaine, providers will have an incentive to promote its use, and a freedom-of-speech claim to do so, and money to lobby the government not to be too discouraging about crack cocaine use. If the government provides free crack cocaine, none of this applies.
Does this logic apply for alcohol ? Well, after Prohibition many states allowed liquor to be sold only at government-operated ABC stores. And maybe if we'd applied this approach fully and forbidden advertising of alcoholic beverages, we might retain some of the advantages of prohibition. For cultural reasons, we decided not only to let people to obtain alcohol legally, but we also decided to re-normalize the use of alcohol in society -- with competing brands promoting the taste of their products.
I don't think we _need_ to normalize the social use of crack cocaine and heroin -- we just need to minimize the economic cost of addicts doing what they insist on doing.
- fsilber
May 21, 2009 3:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
They already are.
Plant derived alkaloids such as morphine, novacaine and many other drugs similar to Heroin and Cocaine are already in wide use. If Bristol-Meyers sold a legal but mild form of cocaine, how would that end the world? For me, I pray to God to have chocolate chip cookies criminalized because I find them to be highly addictive, and of no redeeming nutritional value.
Let Freedom Ring.
- Stark Raving Sane
May 19, 2009 3:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mala Prohibita
Marijuana prohibition has been a total failure and is perhaps this country's greatest mistake. Not only has it created criminals out of nearly a third of the country's populace, it costs our society billions of dollars every year, creates a strain on our prison system, and has little or no effect on marijuana use in the US. In some cases, prosecuting marijuana use has turned non-violent, middle class kids into violent and unpredictable, career criminals. Once a person has a criminal conviction on their record, they are far less likely to find a good job and become a useful member of society. Other countries with more liberal drug laws have much lower rates of drug addiction among their people. I invite you to my web-page devoted to raising awareness on the assault on our civil liberties: http://freethegods.blogspot.com /
- scottdavene
May 20, 2009 11:48AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A regulated market for all drugs is safer!
Great work Bruce!
Scientists have discovered that one of Bob Dylan's most famous
lines, "everybody must get stoned," tells it like it is. They have found that our brains manufacture proteins (canabinoids) that act like marijuana (THC) at specific receptors in the brain itself.
The debate over medical marijuana , hemp or cannabis is really a scandalous controversy over whether this very effective, safe and easy-to-grow herb should be allowed to compete with expensive and dangerous pharmaceuticals .
A regulated market for all drugs is safer for the individual and society .
We have freedom of religion , all faiths are welcome here, but we have separation of church and state to keep the government out of moral issues. That is how our founders set things up based on Jesus' teachings.
Laws against moral issues, like suicide, drug abuse and sex acts are mostly useless or worse counter productive as far as prevention. They are against our founders and Jesus' teachings of freedom of choice, of free will. Moral issues belong to the individual's beliefs or church philosophy.
The government is best left out of our personal moral dilemmas. They are needed to protect us from fraud and violence. At present they are too busy trying to be our moral police instead of our safety police.
Murderers and other violent predators roam free, while we police nonviolent adult social, medicinal and religious drug use . Limited resources can be better-spent catching pedophiles, rapists and killers. More time could go toward stopping DUI and those selling drugs to minors.
- Colleen McCool
May 20, 2009 12:28PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The trouble with the drug war
1. It doesn't work. It doesn't work for marijuana and it doesn't work for heroin or crack cocaine.
2. It never will.
3. Prohibition is the drug policy of choice of drug cartels, because it's the doundation for their business. If the drug cartels are for the prohibition of drugs shouldn't the responsible people oppose prohibition? Let's legalize, control and regulate "illicit substances" not to solve the drug problem but to address the gangs, guns , crime , health issues, deficits, trade imbalance, funding of terrorism and a dozen other crises worsened by ouu US policy of drug prohibition.
4. And the drug problem -- lets send in the doctors , not the police. Let's use reality-based educational programs and public service announcements to dissuade drug use as we did with cigarette consumption. (That means no more D.A.R.E. in the classroom and no more "anti-drug" ads by the Partnership For A Drug-Free (laugh) America.)
- James E
May 20, 2009 1:29PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.