.

Legalize Marijuana—but Both Sides Are Full of It

Travis offers the real issues behind marijuana legalization.

To be honest, I’ve never much cared about the whole "legalize marijuana” argument. 

Sure, on some vague level I’m in favor of decriminalization, since it seems like prosecuting potheads is a misallocation of police resources. And I’ve never known anyone under the influence of cannabis to be dangerous—or particularly sharp, for that matter.

But when I read that Huntington Beach’s congressional representative Dana Rohrabacher recently spoke out in support of it caused me to think a little more deeply about the issue.

I still can’t say that I care all that much. Mostly I think there are quite a few other injustices that should rank higher on a national priority list. Of course, it’s possible my general indifference to legalization may be because California is a particularly lax state when it comes to marijuana enforcement.

The people I know who use the drug responsibly are, for the most part, able to do so without fear of severe consequence. Still, since  Rohrabacher brought it up, let’s talk about it.

I think the thing that has always struck me about the debate is the relative naïveté of both sides. Though regular users of the drug will often claim that there’s no evidence that cannabis has long-term consequences, there is a large body of scientific research that has shown strong correlations between long term use and the degradation of memory, and even IQ with continued use.

Usually, apologists will object that those studies are inconclusive or that there are other contradictory studies, which is fine, but if continued cannabis usage does not affect the body in adverse ways, it would be the first substance ever discovered to work without side effects—an unlikely possibility.

I’ve always thought, however, that this argument is precisely beside the point. We regularly use drugs and technologies that involve negative consequences: alcohol, fast food, automobiles, . Indeed, our willful ignorance of this reality follows a straight line to the various arguments for cannabis criminalization.

Namely, that there is no way to take these drugs responsibly. 

We, of course, know that this isn’t true. Drugs can be taken responsibly. It happens all the time. But our deeply ingrained fears of impurity and sin lead many of us to these erroneous conclusions. 

This is where the gateway-drug argument comes in—which there is almost no evidence to support. The gateway-drug argument is essentially a re-creation of the drama of original sin: eat this fruit and you’re damned forever—that is, unless you can be redeemed by some kind of savior (e.g., a daytime talk show host, or one of the many “anonymous” sponsors haunting multipurpose rooms all over America.)

The truth is that long-term marijuana use is harmful for most people, and it has retarding effects on our cognitive capacities in the short term. But, it’s also a lot of fun for the people that use it, serves genuine medical purposes and opens up alternative mental states that are a welcome respite from the accelerating industrialization of human behavior.

Marijuana is like every other substance or tool: The advantages gained come with a price. However, the people that use the drug and pay the price should be the ones to decide if the exchange is worth it. I regularly decide that an ultimately unhealthy choice is worth the short-term boost every time I drink too much, fail to exercise or order a Double-Double-Animal-Style-hold-the-pickles from In-N-Out.

I applaud Congressman Rohrabacher’s stand, even though in a country of sinners playing at saints, he’s fighting a losing battle.

Dan Jarrett September 16, 2011 at 04:56 PM
Legalize and tax 80% agree, it's the illegalality that is the only reason it could be considered a gateway drug, it means the people who sell it might also sell harder drugs, like crack.obviously. legalizing it would also encourgae further research into its positive benefits and alternative methods of delivery, since all smoke is harmful to your lungs even barbecued meat has carcnigenic effects. The real reason it is not legal is because the police state does not want to give up any power for search, ceisure, arrest and prosecution, its all about power.
Dan Avery September 16, 2011 at 09:22 PM
80% tax? What the people who would buy legal grass are in the top 1% of the folks who control 40% of the wealth and 25% of the income?
Dan Jarrett September 17, 2011 at 02:59 PM
read it a bit more carefully , 80% agree, not 80% tax
Dan Avery September 17, 2011 at 08:04 PM
no offense, Dan, but "Legalize and tax 80% agree" is unclear without punctuation and can be read carefully several ways correctly. If you want the phrase to say 80% agree, then you should write it like this: Legalize and tax -- 80% agree or Legalize and tax...80% agree however, don't use a comma because that would cause a comma splice: Legalize and tax, 80% agree so, you could avoid the comma splice with a semicolon since both clauses are separate and complete sentences: Legalize and tax; 80% agree. If you'd like I could correct the punctuation in the rest of the sentence for you.
Dan Jarrett September 18, 2011 at 04:07 PM
True it was sloppy writing, be my guest.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »