OTHER VOICES: IT'S ACTUALLY VERY EASY TO ARGUE AGAINST LEGALIZING MARIJUANA

In response to the June 21 Other Voices titled "Economic case for
legalizing marijuana hard to argue with" by April Marshall: Actually
it is very easy to argue against legalizing marijuana.

The statistics quoted by Ms. Marshall are exceptionally inaccurate and
totally disregard the nature of marijuana as a drug. The states will
not realize any so-called profit and will end up making their citizens
pay more. It is the common fallacy of those advocating marijuana to
compare it with both alcohol and tobacco. This is comparing apples to
oranges and doesn't work. It is true they are both round and, in this
case, they are mood-altering and addictive drugs. Beyond that, all
comparisons break down.

First; Why would anyone pay a tax for something they can grow in their
back yard? Right now, due to the illegality of marijuana, most people
won't risk growing it nearby. Make it legal and everyone can and will
readily grow their own with no skill whatsoever. Who would pay a tax?
If the state wants to legalize marijuana but then say a citizen can't
grow it themselves, you will have a policing problem the likes of
which you can't imagine. Ms. Marshall tries to compare alcohol and
marijuana for drunken driving and she cites the current laws for
Michigan. She and others fail to understand the nature of these two
drugs. Alcohol readily dissolves in water; marijuana does not.
Alcohol's metabolites are readily exhaled in human breath and can be
quickly measured using a portable breath analysis device or
"breathalyzer." This gives a very good reading of the blood alcohol
level (despite defense attorney arguments) and is used universally to
determine legal limit compliance. This can not be used for marijuana.

Levels of cannabis can only be determined by either a blood draw or
urine analysis, both of which require the officer to transport the
suspected user to a controlled facility, obtain a warrant and secure
the specimen and then wait for results before determining whether the
user is "intoxicated." This time-consuming process will take officers
off the streets and tie up medical facilities and generate expenses
not currently incurred.

Related to this, we can see an immediate increase in automobile
insurance premiums for everyone in the state. You don't think the
insurance industry will let you legalize a mood-altering drug that
increases the risk for accidents and injury and not charge for it, did
you?

Now to "medical" marijuana. Did we forget everything we had and have
learned about smoking? We now think it is a good thing for sick people
to fill their lungs with toxic smoke for their health. Did we
collectively lose our minds? Let's worsen their lungs adding asthma,
emphysema, pneumonia, COPD, bronchitis, and lung cancer? Our state is
finally going toward tobacco smoke-free status, and millions of us are
delighted to be smoke-free in the workplace and elsewhere. Now we want
to legalize smoking marijuana? Please note, marijuana in capsule form
is readily available for medical use and has been for years, so the
argument for medical use is bogus.

My biggest concern is for infants, children and young adults who will
be exposed to marijuana smoke in their homes and how this toxic
chemical mix will affect them. They are helpless to defend against
exposure.

Although children do drink their parents' alcohol and are accidentally
poisoned by their parents' drugs, ambient smoke takes drug exposure to
a whole new level in a small developing brain and body. I'm sorry, but
"pot heads" are not too responsible about this, especially when high
so they won't be going outside to light up.

Ms. Marshall talked about international issues, namely in Mexico. I
would point out that Michigan shares a huge international border with
a foreign country -1 Canada. The Detroit-Windsor, Port Huron-Sarnia,
and Sault Ste. Marie are huge international crossing points both for
industry and pleasure. Just because Michigan legalized marijuana does
not mean that Canada or the United States governments would and both
tend to be very strict about use and possession of illegal (for them)
drugs. This will cause a major slowdown in crossing these borders and
closer examination of returning citizens.

The "500" economists that endorse the legalization of marijuana also
seem to know little about addictive drugs. Make no mistake, cannabis
is addictive and additional addictive substances that increase our
health costs like alcohol and tobacco has done will never be
economically viable.

Having said all this against the arguments for legalization being
economically useful, let me clearly state that I believe
"decriminalizing" possession of small amounts does reduce police and
court costs. Beyond that, it is a very bad idea.