A LESS-DANGEROUS INTOXICANT

Alcohol Spawns Violence, Death and Economic Harm; Marijuana Doesn't.

There is a saying in criminal law: Those who sin while drunk will be
punished while sober. The expression reflects the reality that
alcohol commonly underlies criminal conduct. Approximately 40 percent
of fatal traffic crashes involve alcohol, and more than half of all
homicides and incidents of domestic violence are alcohol-related.

Both liberal and conservative values embrace public safety. But,
notwithstanding our nation's brief experiment with Prohibition, both
groups seem content to continue with the status quo regarding
alcohol. Use of the nation's leading legal intoxicant is at once a
chief contributor to crime and social destruction, and is
simultaneously and routinely glorified as essential to a good time.

Alcohol costs the U.S. economy an estimated $134 billion per year in
lost productivity and earnings through alcohol-related illness,
premature death and crime. Scientific literature suggests that in
approximately 10 percent of the population alcohol use leads to alcoholism.

How, then, does alcohol continue to escape the country's often
puritanical view of drugs, and does it make sense to consider
reforming drug laws based on an assessment of their dangerousness?
The answer to the first question is a matter of historical and
sociological debate, the answer to the second is clearly yes.

Certainly, there are drugs more dangerous and addictive than alcohol,
including methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin. By the same measure,
it is appropriate to recognize marijuana as falling on the other side
of the proverbial ledger. Although it may well be advisable to
discourage use of marijuana, its risks and potential for destruction
compare favorably with alcohol.

For example, how many reported instances exist of hooligan sports
fans high on marijuana overturning cars, starting fights, sexually
assaulting dates or beating their wives? None. The reality, if
admittedly not productive, is better depicted in movies such as "True
Romance" or "Foxy Brown," where the pothead is depicted as a
television devotee.

Marijuana use may stifle one's ambition, but it least it does not
wreak havoc on others.

Presently, except for medical users of marijuana, under the state
Health and Safety Code, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana
is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $100. Court fees and
penalties substantially increase the total financial hit, but the
reality remains that casual marijuana users do not face jail time.

Why, then, should it matter whether marijuana remains illegal? First,
until and unless marijuana use is decriminalized, law-abiding
citizens won't risk using it. From the perspective of many people,
this is not a bad thing. The problem with this line of reasoning is
that it ignores the reality that, in the absence of legal marijuana,
some will choose to use the most reasonably available alternative: alcohol.

One explanation for the failure of Prohibition is that life is hard,
and many humans will invariably seek relaxation and temporary refuge
from its demands through the use of an intoxicant. The principal
question becomes which intoxicants does the government sanction. In
turn, the government should properly proscribe those substances with
the greatest potential risk of addiction and harm.

Everyone understands the effects of alcohol on driving, but what
about marijuana? In 1993 the U.S. Department of Transportation funded
a study conducted in the Netherlands using real-life conditions. It
found that, "THC's (the active ingredient in marijuana) adverse
effects on driving performance appear relatively small." According to
the Drug Policy Alliance, similar findings have been replicated in
numerous other studies.

Of course, opponents of decriminalization frequently contend that
marijuana use frequently is a first step to a gradual but inevitable
descent into the use of harder drugs. To the extent marijuana and
hard drugs are viewed as existing in the same league, it is because
of, and not despite, marijuana's criminalized status.

As with past generations, many adolescents will choose to experiment
with marijuana. Unless and until it can be regulated and purchased
legally by adults, the people introducing teens to marijuana will
often be the same ones offering and introducing them to drugs like
methamphetamine. This would change if marijuana were legitimized,
taxed, and available only to persons presently able to purchase alcohol.

Decriminalization would likewise eliminate its appeal to drug
cartels, present an additional source of tax revenue, and represent
one less opportunity for drug dealers to exploit immigrants through
its growth and sales.

Finally, decriminalization of marijuana would allow the police and
prosecutors the ability to focus and devote their limited resources
to crimes that truly affect our safety and quality of life.
Culture-war values aside, do we truly benefit by expressing a legal
preference for alcohol over marijuana?