An Argument against the Legalization
of Marijuana
As a controlled substance, marijuana
has been a topic of discussion for decades. As with a number of controversial contemporary
social issues, opinions on the topic seem to gravitate to either of the poles on
the ideological continuum, resulting in something approaching the opposite of what
statisticians refer to as a “normal distribution” or where the majority of
responses cluster around the mean.
Having reflected on this topic for
the better part of 40 years—having once even participated in a discussion of
the topic when arbitrarily assigned to the “pro side” of a public debate of
this issue in the late 1970s—arguments for legalizing marijuana are both numerous
and, frankly, compelling. True, there are persuasive points of view in support
of retaining marijuana’s status as a controlled substance and therefore “illegal,”
but it appears that with the passage of legislation in Washington and Colorado
legalizing “recreational use” and others states recognizing the legitimacy of “medical
use,” the tide of public opinion is shifting on this controversial subject.
Although in my career as a professional
counselor specializing in the prevention and treatment of substance use
disorders I have come to view the problems associated with alcohol and tobacco
as being far more costly and injurious than those associated with marijuana, I
do not support efforts to legalize “weed.” Again, the arguments in favor of
legalization are compelling and we all know the financial case made by estimating
tax revenues likely generated by the sale of marijuana, but my opposition is steeped
in clinical concern rather than political, economic, or sociological ideology.
If legalized, then not only will marijuana
become legal to purchase, its commercial sale becomes legitimate as well. With
this legitimacy comes commercial competition by manufacturers—presumably big
tobacco—to secure a share of the newly created public market. As we all
experience on a regular basis, efforts to attract customers general include significant advertising.
Whether this advertising resembles
the thrill and allure of television, cable, billboards, and periodical ads for
beer, wine, spirits, and cigarettes or those related to sponsoring sporting events with
race cars emblazoned with various brewer and distiller corporate logos—now there
is an incongruous image if ever there was one—the ads for marijuana will likely
employ many of the same gimmicks and strategies as have so successfully
marketed nicotine, ethanol, and, increasingly of late, prescription medications,
a.k.a, “drugs.”
Research suggests that jurisdictions
that decriminalize marijuana
possession and use—production and distribution remaining illicit acts—do NOT see
an increase in use in the general population. Yet when legalized, use increases,
but not because of the change in legal status of the drug as much as because of
the advertising involved in its legal distribution and the inherent messages in
those advertisements related to the benefits, implied or stated, of use.
The consumption of marijuana
is almost certainly less of a problem in our culture than that related to either alcohol or tobacco use, let alone both. Irrespective of the relative risks associated with marijuana
use, however, it remains a psychoactive substance. As such, when consumed to
excess, it is not without its risks. Nevertheless, the issue surrounding legal status
of marijuana, for me, is less one of individual rights than of personal and societal
well being. As such, the decriminalization of possession and use make more
sense than the legalizing of the substance, especially when considering the way
that this drug will likely be presented to the public by those intent on making a
profit through its legal distribution.
What do you think?
Dr. Robert
CNN has done an excellent article on Roger Roffman, author of Washington state's law legalizing marijuana. It's at
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2012/11/08/opinion/roffman-pot-legalization
Dr. Roffman is a professor emeritus of the U of W in Seattle and a respected clinical researcher. His approach using a public health model is well worth reading. This is an excerpt from that interview with him.
We've turned a significant corner with the approval of Initiative 502, which purposefully offers a true public health alternative to the criminal prohibition of pot.
For the first time in a very long time, the well-intended but failed criminal penalties to protect public health and safety will be set aside. Adults who choose to use marijuana and obtain it through legal outlets will no longer be faced with the threat of criminal sanctions. People of color will no longer face the egregious inequities in how marijuana criminal penalties are imposed. Parents, as they help prepare their children for the choices they face concerning marijuana, will no longer be hobbled by misinformation about the drug and the absence of effective supports to encourage abstinence.
"The great experiment" of alcohol prohibition became the national law in 1920. Its intentions were good, but it failed in a number of vitally important ways. In 1923, the state of New York repealed its alcohol prohibition law. Ten other states soon followed, and in 1933 national Prohibition ended.
I believe Washington state has just played that pivotal role with regard to marijuana. Moreover, by borrowing from public health model principles known to be effective, the state has offered the most compelling replacement to prohibition considered to date.
What is a public health model? In brief, it's an approach that acknowledges use of marijuana can present harms to the user and to public safety, and includes provisions to prevent or ameliorate those harms.
A public health model includes six key elements. Washington state's new law incorporates each of them.
The first is accountable oversight by an agency of government. The Washington state legalization model assigns responsibility to a state agency for writing regulations concerning how the growing, producing and selling of marijuana will occur. Among those regulations are tight limitations on advertising and the prevention of access to marijuana by minors. Then, that agency will have the authority to issue licenses to growers, producers and sellers and to enforce adherence to the rules.
The second element is a well-funded multifaceted marijuana education program that is based on science rather than ideology. Far too few Americans are sufficiently informed about marijuana's effects on health and behavior, both the positive and the negative. A key to good decision-making is possessing accurate information.
The third element is well-funded prevention programs widely available to all the state's geographical and demographic communities. We've learned a great deal about what knowledge, skills and community supports actually work in helping young people navigate a world in which drugs such as marijuana are readily available. Sadly, far too little funding has been devoted to putting such programs to work in our communities.
A fourth element is making treatment of marijuana dependence readily available. The new law dedicates funding to establish a statewide Marijuana Help Line. It also earmarks funding to state, county and local governments for the provision of services for those in need of help.
Evaluation of the new law's impact is the fifth element. An independent state agency will receive funding to conduct periodic assessments of how the new system affects behaviors, attitudes and knowledge. Using the findings of these evaluative studies, the state agency overseeing the pricing and taxing of marijuana can adjust those costs to maximize undercutting of the black market and deterrence of youth access to marijuana.