MARIJUANA IS SAFER

So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?

A new book explains how we're steering people away from cannabis and
toward the use of a very harmful and deadly substance: alcohol.

The following is an excerpt from the just-released book, Marijuana is
Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? by Steve Fox, Paul
Armentano, and Mason Tvert (Chelsea Green, 2009).

Dateline: February 1, 2009. It's Super Bowl Sunday and throughout the
nation millions of Americans have stocked their shelves and
refrigerators with alcohol for the big game. In living rooms across
the country, guests will enjoy the libations and gawk at the humorous
beer commercials sprinkled liberally throughout the telecast. Like
the Fourth of July and fireworks, the Super Bowl and booze are an
American tradition. There is no societal stigma associated with this
excessive drinking. It is all part of the celebration. Like the old
saying goes: "We don't have a drinking problem. We drink. We get
drunk. No problem."

But as the day's festivities build to a climax, the nation is thrown
into turmoil. Internet headlines announce that Olympic swimming hero
Michael Phelps, who months earlier had electrified audiences
throughout the world by winning eight gold medals in Beijing, had
been captured in full digital glory taking a bong hit at a private
party. The horrors! How could he do such a thing?

Almost immediately online articles appear, replete with quotes of
disillusionment from anyone with even a tangential connection to the
world's most decorated Olympian. Hours later, Phelps issues a public
statement. He apologizes for his "regrettable" behavior and "bad
judgment," and promises "it will not happen again." Was Phelps's
apology issued because he was reportedly also drunk and "obnoxious"
at the same party? Of course not. Being drunk in public is not the
sort of behavior that triggers public outrage and social
condemnation.Taking a hit or two of marijuana, on the other hand,
most certainly is.

In the days that followed, our society piled on the way it often does
when someone famous is caught smoking grass. Predictably, there was
mockery and derision. For example, one Huffington Post blogger posted
a column with the headline, "Phelps Congratulates Cardinals on Super
Bowl Win."1 (The Arizona Cardinals lost the game on a last-minute
touchdown, caught, ironically enough, by another recently outed
marijuana smoker, Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Santonio Holmes.)
The body of the essay included such "witticisms" as Phelps claiming
to have missed the end of the game because of a "wicked attack of the
munchies." Naturally, the writer did not mock Phelps's drunken behavior.

Several of Phelps's corporate sponsors, while not immediately jumping
off the financial gravy train, expressed their own sense of dismay.
Michael Humphrey, chief executive of the PureSport beverage company,
issued the following statement: "We applaud the fact that he (Michael
Phelps) has taken full and immediate responsibility for his mistake
and apologized to us, his fans and the public and we support him
during this difficult time." Similarly, a U.S. congressman from
Phelps's home state of Maryland, Elijah Cummings, appeared on
television to express his deep concern and disappointment in this
otherwise "great kid."

By week's end, America's corporate establishment brought the hammer
down upon Phelps. First, the Kellogg's Company dropped the Olympic
gold medalist as a spokesperson, explaining that his behavior was
"not consistent with the image of Kellogg." Soon thereafter, USA
Swimming, the sport's national governing body, suspended Phelps from
competition for three months -- even though he had not violated any
existing drug-testing policy. (Marijuana is not a prohibited
substance during the off-season.) "[W]e decided to send a strong
message to Michael," the organization said, "because he disappointed
so many people, particularly the hundreds of thousands of USA
Swimming member kids who look up to him as a role model and a hero."

Far from being outraged (at least publicly) about the decision,
Phelps was contrite and repentant. According to USA Swimming, Phelps
"voluntarily accepted this reprimand" and was "committed to earn[ing]
back [their] trust."

As if all of this wasn't enough, Leon Lott, the sheriff in Richland
County, South Carolina, where the bong hit heard round the world had
occurred, launched a criminal investigation of the matter worthy of a
hunt for a suspected terrorist. Several weeks following the incident,
twelve armed deputies, with guns drawn, burst into the home where the
party had taken place and arrested two residents. Cops also seized
four laptops, a desktop computer, and an electronic storage device.
They found less than six grams of marijuana in the home -- which is
about what they would find in any off-campus apartment in the United
States -- but they were hardly concerned about illegal contraband.
Rather, the lawyers for the defendants said that the cops only wanted
to know whether the two individuals had witnessed Phelps using
marijuana. Richland County law enforcement officials later arrested
six more individuals, all in an effort to weed out the nation's most
famous weed aficionado. Finally, after several weeks of this
taxpayer-funded silliness, Sheriff Lott eventually announced that he
had failed to find sufficient evidence to press criminal charges
against Michael Phelps, or for that matter, anyone else.

Let's review, shall we? The most successful Olympian in history
attends a college party, pounds a few beers, and allegedly behaves
like a drunken ass. At some point during the evening, he inhales a
bit of marijuana. When all of this becomes public, he is run through
the social, corporate, and legal wringer--but only for his suspected
pot use. So what lesson has our champion swimmer learned? That's
simple. Next time he goes out in public, he should just stick to
being drunk and obnoxious.

Michael Phelps's story is hardly unique. Rather, it highlights the
myriad ways that society intentionally steers citizens away from
cannabis and toward the use of a more harmful substance, alcohol.

Sure, all Americans know that marijuana is illegal, and most are
aware that the government purposely spreads misleading information
about the drug's allegedly adverse effects. But how many of you have
stopped to think about the ways that other entities are directly or
indirectly involved in maintaining cannabis prohibition? After all,
the government could not uphold the status quo all by itself. It
requires the assistance of private and public employers, athletic
associations, and the mainstream media. Each of these groups, by
acting according to (assumed) societal norms, their leaders' own
personal biases, or perhaps, as we discuss later, their own financial
interests, take actions that reinforce the government's criminalizing
of cannabis.

While these coercive actions and public policies have certainly not
eliminated the drug from our society, there is little doubt that
collectively they have produced an artificially low level of
marijuana use among U.S. adults.