WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE DOOBIE: PART TWO

Marijuana is supposed to make you relax, but the last few weeks it's
been stressing me out. The reason for the duress is my attempt to
understand whether smoking the doobie should be legalized.

My quest began when I saw the writing on the wall, literally, in a
men's room on the fifth floor of Davis Library where someone
scribbled "legalize it" on the tile. In light of that
gastro-inspirational moment, I wrote last week's column on the health
implications of marijuana. Although I concluded that marijuana is no
worse for your health than alcohol or tobacco, the broader
legalization question remained open.

Marijuana wasn't always illegal; in the early 20th century
recreational use of the herb caught on, but getting high was
looked-down upon. Widespread misunderstanding about marijuana's
effects stimulated anti-pot sentiment. A 1934 New York Times article
described marijuana as a "poisonous weed which maddens the senses and
emaciates the body of the user."

Caught up by public hostility and poor journalism, the government
enacted the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which heavily restricted and
taxed cannabis. When the Supreme Court declared that act
unconstitutional in 1969, Congress passed a new law that classified
marijuana as a schedule I drug and essentially outlawed it.

Oddly enough, since marijuana use was first restricted, public
opinion has done an about-face on the issue. Now a large majority of
American citizens support marijuana use for medical purposes, and the
herb is considered more benign than it was 70 years ago.

Despite the swing in public opinion, the federal government has
refused to grant states authority over marijuana, whether for medical
or recreational use. Washington's obstinacy is surprising because
legalizing marijuana has two very obvious benefits - taxation and
regulation, two of Uncle Sam's favorite words.

At least one economist has attempted to estimate the fiscal benefits
of legalization. He estimated the federal and state governments would
collectively save $7.7 billion a year in enforcement expenses, and if
marijuana were taxed at rates similar to alcohol and tobacco, the
government would rake in about $6.2 billion in tax revenues as well,
creating a total net benefit of $13.9 billion. Not a bad chunk of change.

But legalization involves more than just money. One argument against
legalization is the notion that marijuana is a "gateway drug," which
will lead to use of heavier narcotics. An important but dubious
proposition, the gateway concept has proved impossible to verify due
to the cumbersome entanglements of cause and effect.

Other doobie doubters worry that legalization would boost the number
of potheads, thereby causing a shortage of brownie mix.

While researchers have had mixed conclusions on whether legalization
would increase marijuana users, anecdotal evidence suggests that use
wouldn't increase by much if at all.

When England relaxed enforcement of marijuana laws in 2004, use
actually declined significantly, even among youth. Similarly, the
Netherlands' nonenforcement marijuana policy has worked fine for years.

In the end, determining exactly what would happen if marijuana were
legalized is unfeasible. But the known evidence reveals that pot
isn't much worse for your health than alcohol or tobacco, that the
U.S. government would get a substantial financial boost from taxes
and law enforcement savings and that other nations' relaxation of
marijuana laws hasn't resulted in any massive unraveling of their
social fabrics.

Considering all that, it's time for the United States to ease up on
the cannabis crackdown.