420: who here supports the prohibition of marijuana? And why?

Great Debates
161

I feel obligated to weigh in on this one even though (obviously) I am for legalization. On each side here is a summary of common arguments as I understand them:

Those for legalization might argue primarily that the benefits of legalization outweigh the benefits of keeping it illegal. Primarily is the prison situation. Forget exact numbers for the moment and lets assume a very large percentage of the people in America’s prisons are populated with sellers and users of pot. Its an enormous drain on resources and has ruined countless lives.

Those that are in favor of keeping the status quo often cite that pot is a gateway drug which leads to use of harder drugs. In addition the damage that people who get high and wind up killing people in auto accidents and other situations will almost certainly go up after legalization.

Once these statements are made most arguments degrade into citing statistics and arguing the semantics which are, at best, half-baked guesswork (pun intended).

I try and stay out of that. I acknowledge that legalizing pot will cause its fair share of real, horrible problems. Kids will be more likely to try it. People will kill others in auto accidents. There will be people addicted to it who can’t stop. In short, it will be abused. However, in the case of marijuana, I still feel that a person’s right to get high should prevail. Its the same thinking that allows alcohol to be legal now and that is IMHO a far more dangerous drug.

162

My question is does anyone have a number for the amount of people in jail for marijuana alone? When I was clerking at the DOJ, all our cases were for cocaine, and in particular, crack cocaine. Marijuana was hardly on our radar unless it was a ridiculously huge shipment. Then again, I worked for the Criminal Division and we always handled major crimes, but I also met new attorneys who worked smaller cases and they said that marijuana, alone, was low on their list. I’ve read our own internal numbers when I was clerking, but we lumped all drug offenses into one category and we didn’t distinguish, for example, a murder for drugs, a murder for marijuana, or a murder where marijuana or drugs were found. If it was a murder, a ADA would be assigned. If further investigation led to drugs, it was shifted to nother ADA. This is an oversimplification, but useful for illustrative purposes.

163

Understood, which is why I didn’t want to get into the numbers game. I do think it is fair to say that there is a large percentage of prisoners who’s lives have been ruined because they smoke or sell pot. Just try getting a good job which requires a background check once you’ve been nailed for pot, its hard. Once you go down that road its awfully hard to make things right again, the deck is stacked against you.

164

Has it occurred to you that maybe you knew a lot of pot smokers who you didn’t know smoked pot?

I smoked a lot of weed from the time I was nineteen until twenty-nine (still do on occasion, when I can get my hands on some) and I can’t tell you the number of people who have been completely stunned when, after months or even years of knowing them, I admitted that I indulged on a more-than-occasional basis. One time, after observing several of my coworkers toking up out back after work on a daily basis, wondering if they were ever going to offer me a hit, I finally broke down and hassled one of these guys a bit about how it isn’t polite to smoke in front of people if you’re not going to share, and his jaw about hit the ground. “You get high? Really? I’ve been afraid you were going to turn us in, you seem like such a straight arrow.”

A lot, possibly even most, of pot smokers refrain from letting other people know they get high until they are reasonably certain that the other party won’t at worst turn them in or at best think they are some sort of drug-addled scumbag for preferring a relatively harmless plant over a highly toxic liquor as their method of unwinding after a hard day’s work. So the, er, less discreet types, while in the minority of pot smokers, are also a lot more visible.

Just a thought.

165

No, but I recall reading that busting marijuana dealers can be a good revenue source for local cops, given asset forfeiture rules.

And I can cite figures on “Convictions resulting from arrests by the Drug Enforcement Administration”, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2003, page 444
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/

… …Share of drug convictions related to Cannabis
1992…22.3%
1997…25%
2003…17.4%

Felony convictions in State courts, 2000 , p 449 :

All… 100%

Violent Offenses… 18.7%
Property Offenses … 28.3%
Weapons Offenses … 3.1%
Other Offense… 15.3%
Drug offenses… 34.6%
Possession… 12.6%
Trafficing …22%
. . . Breakdown: Trafficing: Marijuana: 2.7%, (25,300 all together)

Too bad there was no breakdown on “Possession”.

Admittedly, some of those jailed for marijuana trafficing would probably be involved is an alternative illicit activity if marijuana was legal.

166

Sorry to jump so late into a thread, but I think you’re missing a key point here. We’re discussing whether pot should be legal. Pot is something which is, at some level, harmful, and which many people find benefits from. How do we decide if it should be legal or not? (Aside from just voting? I mean, how do we philosophically or rationally or legalistically decide?)

Well, the most reasonable way, I’d say, is to figure out what our standard is. If we had a law saying “the at-some-level-harmful-substance administration will rate all at-some-level-harmful-substances, and assign each one a harmfulness rating of 0 to 10, and all substances higher than 2.3 will be illegal”, then hey, that would be our standard, we’d use it, life would be easy. But we have no such standard. All we can really do, then, is look at other at-some-level-harmful-substances, figure out which ones are illegal and which ones not, and see if we can discern a pattern.
Processed Sugar - legal
Nuclear weapons - illegal
Caffeine - legal
Crack Cocaine - illegal
Tobacco - legal
LSD - illegal
Alcohol - legal
Celine Dion albums - illegal (no, wait)

Given that there is obviously a general correlation here of more dangerous things being more likely to be illegal, it seems that that’s our general policy, as a nation. And given that pot seems to be unanimously agreed to be less dangerous than tobacco and alcohol, this logic indicates that it should be legal.

Now, I agree that I haven’t PROVED anything. But I’m quite sure there is no mathematical PROOF that pot should be legal. And if, as you claim, you really have no horse in this fight, well, in the absence of someone coming up with some fantastically powerful argument that blows my little chart here out of the water, I think this is a quite reasonable and rational way to adopt a position.
Now, you might claim “well, pot is already illegal, thus it should remain illegal unless a MASSIVELY strong argument comes along to make it legal”. But why is that? Do we (as debating citizens, not as lawyers) just assume that every law is correct just because it exists, and requires massive evidence to overturn, particularly about issues as clearly subjective as pot legalization? I mean, what cut and dried argument could you EVER have about an issue of that sort?

(One other argument, by the way: the closest analogy to legalizing pot in the history of the US would have to be ending prohibition, in which a substance that was illegal but very very very widely used was made legal. And that’s, in general, regarded as a blindingly obviously correct move.)

167

Amen. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that 99% of people here would have no idea I smoke regularly even if you knew me. I look respectable enough, maintain a good job, am reasonably intelligent…I can fool almost anyone.

168

I’m pretty sure 99% of the people here have some inkling that you smoke dope, Bongmaster. :smiley:

169

[results of good Googling skills snipped]

As I thought, except for 1997, the arrests for marijuana usage has been going down. When I was clerking, the number for arrests as well as convictions has been on decline (sorry no cite – my post is my cite :wink: ) On the state level, at least in D.C., the typical sentance for possession (small amounts, even “trafficking small amounts”) was some time at County (the most I’ve heard was 30 days). From what I’ve seen first hand, County is summer camp compared to the Penn.

The point I was originally trying to make is that there is this meme that marijuana users are going to jail for a “seemingly” harmless activity. Users include senior citizen glaucoma patients. Personally, I don’t think that that is true. The people going to jail and doing hard time, having their families, records, and work wrecked are the real hardcore pushers and dealers.

170

But those “hardcore” dealers are going to jail simply for supplying a plant to users, who are engaged in a harmless activity.

171

Not bad MaxtheVool, ignoring of course the following fantastically powerful argument. :slight_smile:

Once you make a substance legal and it becomes socially acceptable, you can’t go back and make it illegal. Prohibition in the 1920s showed that.

Marijuana legalization would be irreversible, in practice. Policy regarding pot should be judged on an absolute standard, rather than a relative one.

Corollary: It would be great if we could flip a switch and make alcohol illegal. Its harms currently exceed its benefits. But we can’t, as shown by prohibition in the 1920s. This is a tragic circumstance, one that we shouldn’t replicate in the marijuana realm.

I exaggerate. But the logical point remains: irreversibility detonates Max’s argument. Nonetheless IMHO, his health ordering provides us with a helpful sense of perspective.

Seperately, we might also question whether we would want, say, 500 mind-altering drugs to be freely available, even if individually they were less harmful than alcohol.

172

Things being legal doesn’t necessarily make them socially acceptable. Things being illegal doesn’t necessarily make them socially unacceptable.

Speeding is illegal, but socially acceptable.
Scat porn is legal, but socially unacceptable.
Pot is illegal, but, in many parts of the country, socially acceptable
Cigarette smoking is legal, but, in some parts of the country, socially unacceptable

If your argument is that tobacco, alcohol and pot should ALL be illegal, well, that’s a logically consistent argument, but one which few would agree with.

Let me ask you this. I, and most pot-legalization proponents, claim that the pros and cons of legalization come down something like this:
PRO:
-Free up clogged legal system
-Tax revenue, tax revenue, tax revenue
-Would be harder for minors to get, not easier, as it would be sold by legal vendors with responsibility and accountability
-Less dangerous, as purity can be legally enforced
-Being freer is just better than being less free
-The current state of affairs, in which pot is technically illegal but basically totally acceptable in some situations, and the laws are frequently not enforced at all, but there are plenty of people in jail for pot violations, and it varies greatly state by state, is stupid
-Most of the reasons that pot was outlawed in the first place were (and are) hysterical propaganda
-The hemp plant has all sorts of other good uses

CON:
-There might be an increase in pot use (although maybe not, looking at Amsterdam)
-Pot use is kind of bad
-Legalization gives the societal imprimateur of acceptance, which is Just Plain Bad

Do you disagree with any of these points? Do you have any to add? And do you still think the CONs outweight the PROs?

Another question: If some crafty scientist invented a sobriety field, which could be cheaply and easily broadcast over a large area, and, inside that field, the inebriating effects of alcohol just wouldn’t happen, and he proposed building a big ass sobriety field around the entire US, which would inarguably save tens of thousands of lives per year, would you support this (assuming that it not only prevented severe drunkenness, but even mild tipsiness, etc.)? What about a similar thing for smoking?

173

What is that absolute standard, by the way? And does it just apply to substances? Pot smoking is fun but potentially hazardous, primarily to onesself. What about other activities that are fun but potentially hazardous, primarily to onesself? Do we potentially outlaw them? Or is there a different standard for things that are already illegal becoming legal vs. things that are legal becoming illegal?

174

Let me repeat neutron star’s argument from page 1:

Nearly half of Americans try marijuana before graduating high school. There are movies, magazines, books, and songs dedicated to it. Hell, there’s a whole genre of music called “stoner rock.” Numerous star athletes have been either arrested or tested positive for marijuana. Our last presidential election was a race between two former pot smokers. Is that not ingrained enough for you?

175

Mr 2001
And let me repeat my argument made earlier: there is a substantial gap between usage of licit and illicit drugs. Canabis consumption does not approach alcohol consumption.

Let me amplify: Admittedly Cocaine and Heroin usage are a lot closer to each other than they are to Pot. Still, pot is abused[sup]1[/sup] a lot less than alcohol.

[sup]1[/sup]Abused=used recreationally, as opposed for medical reasons. Snicker.

176

Max:
---- Things being legal doesn’t necessarily make them socially acceptable.

You’re missing the main argument. Empirical claim (conjecture, actually): when pot becomes legal, usage will go up over time. If I cared about this topic (which, admittedly, I don’t) I would read a study of alcohol usage patterns, 1920-1939.

------ If your argument is that tobacco, alcohol and pot should ALL be illegal, well, that’s a logically consistent argument, but one which few would agree with.

No. Again, the point is regarding irreversibility. Once we legalize pot, in practice we can’t make it illegal again. My real opinon on this is that we should therefore move incrementally.

-------- What is that absolute standard, by the way? And does it just apply to substances?

I had in mind a cost/benefit analysis, keeping out mostly irrelevant considerations like, “Is plutonium/alcohol/Valium legal?” More generally, I’d probably use the “Harm reduction” framework. Something like this. Appropos nothing, even that barely meets political plausibility tests.

Max’s other questions can be summarized as follows:

  1. Do I agree with his tabulation of costs and benefits? (Not entirely).
  2. Am I really such a kill-joy? (No, some of the above has been posted with tongue in cheek. In other cases, I’ve critiqued my own argument/ pre-empted others. Hey, it’s all about fighting ignorance, right?)

Now, I can elaborate. But I’m hesistant to do so: it seems like a waste of electrons given my lack of expertise on this subject.

177

Here you go: “Beyond the results presented here, additional results in Dills and Miron (2001)—which account for the effects of state prohibitions, pre-1920 federal anti-alcohol policies, alcoholic beverage taxes, income and other factors—demonstrate consistently that Prohibition had a small, statistically insignificant, and possibly even a positive effect on cirrhosis. Given the evidence that cirrhosis is a reasonable proxy for alcohol consumption, this implies Prohibition had little impact on the path of alcohol consumption.”

Per capita alcohol consumption didn’t reach its pre-Prohibition peak until about 45 years after Prohibition ended.

Also, for evidence of one of the “pros” of legalization, compare the homicide rate charts to the periods when alcohol and drug prohibition were enforced.

178
  1. I would predict that initiating a policy of prohibition would have a small downward effect on consumption rates, following the principle of irreversibility.

Mr. 2001’s link shows no effect. More recent work by Myron and Dills (2004) indicate that Prohibition reduced cirrhosis by 10-20%; they consider this to be small. Quoted in PDF WARNING: http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/miron/papers/drunk_revised_for_el.pdf . Note that M2001 quoted a 2001 article by Myron himself.

  1. Following the end of Prohibition, I’d expect sales of alcohol to rise over subsequent years and decades. Mr. 2001’s link suggest that it did.

I’m not trying to be smug: I’m actually confused. The sharp increase in alcohol consumption in the 15 years following the end of Prohibition requires explanation. I would think that Prohibition would discourage new potential users more than existing users. This might explain the pattern in the data.

It’s also my understanding that Prohibition was only intensively enforced for the first couple of years, but this conflicts with data reported in my pdf file.

179

There’s only a sharp increase in the official numbers (the first graph). If we assume that the official numbers don’t include black market alcohol sales, and use the cirrhosis numbers as a proxy for alcohol consumption, there’s only a gradual increase in the years after Prohibition. Considering what else was going on around that time (the end of the Great Depression; World War II), Prohibition may not have been the major factor.

180

First, did you follow the links I provided in #147?

Second, from one of those linked resources, this paper, Alcohol Prohibition and Drug Prohibition is instructive.