SO MANY CRIMINALS?

It's Time For A Frank, Calm Discussion About Decriminalizing Marijuana

January 11, 2009

On Election Day, voters in Massachusetts took what they think will be
a step forward for their state: They decriminalized possession of
small amounts of marijuana.

Before you brush that off with, "Well, that's Massachusetts for you,"
consider that this is a state with not only a liberal bent but a
strong Puritan streak. This is a place where you can't buy wine in a
grocery store or pick up beer in a 7-Eleven.

By two to one, voters decided that possessing less than an ounce of
marijuana will net a civil fine of $100 and no criminal record (and,
for young offenders, a required drug-education program and community
service). The laws on growing and trafficking in marijuana are
unchanged. But unless the state legislature overturns the ballot
initiative, the penalty for possession will be, for adults, bigger
than a parking ticket, smaller than a misdemeanor.

And when the bill takes effect, what will happen? The Bay State will
not fall into the clutches of evil and sin, any more than the
Netherlands' enlightened drug policy has caused the prosperous,
upright Dutch to sink into the sea.

But thousands of hours of police time will be freed up, the
equivalent of adding a lot of bodies to police forces. Court dockets
will be stripped of thousands of cases, clearing the way for cases
involving real crimes. Thousands of people won't find their futures
compromised by criminal records. And defiance of the law won't be
bred by putting otherwise law-abiding citizens in a bind, where an
activity they don't believe is wrong lands them on the wrong side of
the criminal code.

Maybe it's time for Virginia to consider reaping some of those
benefits. It's at least worth opening the discussion and talking
about drugs and the law, what works and what doesn't, what people
want and what they don't.

Along those lines, this has to be factored in: When it comes to
marijuana, there is a gap between what the law says and what people
do, or at least try. In a recent national survey, most adults under
the age of 55 said they'd used illegal drugs at some point in their
lives. And that's not a relic of long-gone psychedelic days: Drug use
was as common among twenty-somethings as forty-somethings. The trend
shows no signs of stopping: One in six 18- to 25-year-olds said
they'd used marijuana in the last month.

And while it's apparent that the war on drugs consumes massive
resources and sustains the livelihoods of criminals without stopping
either supply or demand, we justify it because some substances are so
dangerous.

When it comes to distinguishing what behavior is legal from what is
not, the line isn't always as bright as we'd like. In the beginning
of the 20th century, Coca-Cola was spiked and tonics laced with opium
were sold over the counter -- and America was consumed by a
juggernaut of industry, not a stupor of inebriation. The nation tried
prohibiting alcohol; that produced widespread defiance, crime and
bullet-riddled bodies. Today, the pharmaceutical industry reaps big
profits from some powerful addictive substances; others are banned.

It's time to discuss how a rational drug policy should make rational
distinctions among drugs. And recognize that marijuana is not the
same as crack.

It's time to discuss whether a society that allows people to choose
some mood-altering substances -- not just the obvious and
ever-present alcohol but very common (with a cooperative physician)
prescription drugs -- should be a society that lets them decide for
themselves about the mood-altering substance of marijuana.

It's time to talk about the fiscal price we pay for criminalizing
marijuana. In 2007, police in Virginia arrested 35,196 people for
drug offenses. The majority, 19,606, were for marijuana. That's a lot
of law enforcement resources.

It might be time to go a step further than even Tax-achusetts, and
think about the implications of the current policy of ceding the
marijuana supply chain to violent hoodlums. What if we regulated --
and taxed -- it instead? If those surveys about marijuana use are
valid, that could turn out to be a lucrative source of tax revenue.
Again, like alcohol.

Would decriminalizing marijuana lead to wider use? More addiction?
The psychological and physiological dimensions of drug use make it
hard to say. Alcohol is a problem for some people, but most manage it
well and in moderation. Narcotic painkillers are a boon to most
people, and push a few down a dark hole. For some people, some drugs
are addictive, and some drugs are more likely to be destructive. This
isn't to suggest decriminalizing the more dangerous ones, such as
heroin, crystal meth or cocaine in any form.

But if the risk of addiction was a good enough reason to outlaw a
substance, we'd ban alcohol, tobacco and some prescription drugs. Nor
is the risk of other forms of physical harm, or we'd yank those
substances off the shelves, along with junk food.

Millions of Americans have used marijuana, and it's obvious that they
haven't been turned into addicts. What they have been turned into is
law-breakers. It's time to talk -- rationally, openly, calmly --
about not making a crime out of an adult's decision to use one
mood-altering substance rather than another.

Drug arrests in 2007

Gloucester County: 436

Hampton: 1,840

Isle of Wight County: 78

James City County: 270

Mathews County: 28

Middlesex County: 66

Newport News: 2,054

Poquoson: 54

Williamsburg: 124

York County: 306