MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION IS NOT A BRIGHT IDEA

Back in the late 1970s, it seemed as if the legalization of marijuana
were a forgone conclusion. College students whispered rumors, whether
based in fact or urban legend, that Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and
other major tobacco companies were obtaining trademarks for branding
marijuana cigarettes.

In fact, it almost got to the point that anybody who spoke out against
marijuana use would be laughed at. My college roommate grew it in our
window and celebrated taking his last final of the semester by smoking
a joint while walking across the University of Alabama quadrangle. I
even smoked it with friends in the top row of Bryant-Denny Stadium
during Alabama's homecoming game against Virginia Tech in 1978.

And then a funny thing happened. America just said no and attitudes
changed. Police got serious about enforcement, and it became socially
acceptable to discuss the undesirable effects of smoking marijuana
again. I guess Philip Morris shelved its plans for Weedboro.

Now, it seems as if the tide of public opinion is shifting again.
Conservatives traditionally opposed legalizing pot while liberals
leaned more toward making it legal. The argument was generally
libertine versus moralist.

Today there's another voice. Libertarians have long advocated
legalizing drugs for reasons of freedom and economics but their
message seems to be resonating with more people these days.

America's drug laws sprang from the social problems caused by
unregulated drug sales. Powerful narcotics like cocaine and heroin
were sold over the counter during the 19th century and addiction
became a nationwide problem. Enforcement usually involved society's
fringe elements or dregs until the 1960s counter-culture movement made
pot and LSD its mascots.

The most recent shift in attitudes seems to me as much a product of
weariness with the war on drugs. Federal state and local agencies pour
billions into enforcement and the problem seems to grow every year.
The taxpayers bear the burden for a growing prison population and the
attitudes of the people convicted never seem to change. It seems like
an exercise in futility.

When I view the problem's scope and enforcement's impact, I hear the
libertarian argument more clearly. They say legalize drugs, quit
spending money on enforcement and incarceration and pocket the
difference. Let anyone who wants to use drugs and turn their brains
into Waffle House grits feel free to do so.

They also argue that once drugs become legal they will be cheaper and
that will eliminate the need for addicts to steal to get the money to
feed their habit. That would reduce property crimes.

I have nothing to gain from the legalization of drugs. I have no
desire to venture beyond the bounds of 12-ounce cans of American-style
lager and the occasional gin and tonic, margarita or bloody mary.

I smoked pot six to eight times in my college days and never liked it.
It always left me with an unpleasantly disconnected feeling that I
compared to being dipped in candle wax. So I can't in any way
empathize with people who want to smoke legal marijuana.

It's when I think like a father that drugs bother me. For anybody with
any sort of moral grounding, 'it's against the law' is a powerful
argument. And I want any ammunition I can get to argue against my son
and daughter using drugs.

I've watched one person I know pass many a sleepless night worrying
about a son with a methamphetamine problem, and I never want to
experience what he's gone through. Using crack, meth and other drugs
has led people to sell their children and murder their parents. That's
about as anti-social as you can get.

They say it's not addictive but I've watched it consume people's
lives. They smoke pot, they hang out with people who smoke pot and
they talk to each other about smoking pot. And that's about all
they're good for. It saps all ambition for anything but their next
hit.

I haven't spent the last 18 years raising children to watch either pot
smoking lethargy or life-destroying addiction ruin their potential or
their lives.

Before we change our approach to drugs we should consider whether we
are judging it by the appropriate standards. Are we making eradication
the goal when it should really be containment?

There are two approaches to enforcement that we know will work. First
are the draconian measures, including the death penalty, that some
countries use to virtually eliminate drug problems. Americans won't go
there and even if a majority of them would, the constitution probably
won't allow it.

The other approach is to legalize all drugs. Enforcement is then no
longer an issue. Short of that, liberalizing drug laws will do little
to alleviate enforcement or incarceration costs.

The current sentiment seems to be in favor of legalizing marijuana and
nothing else. That would make pot smokers happy but that's about it.

Police do enforce marijuana laws and some of the jail space is devoted
to marijuana users and dealers. Theoretically, if marijuana makes up
40 percent of drug arrests and incarcerations, law enforcement and
corrections should be able to cut their drug enforcement budgets and
personnel by 40 percent once marijuana is legalized.

But police departments, sheriff's offices and federal agencies are all
part of the government. Anything governmental becomes bureaucratic,
and bureaucrats never give money back to the taxpayers. Law
enforcement will simply emphasize the need to refocus its efforts on
the remaining illegal drugs, spend the same amount of money or more
and lock up just as many people.

The money and effort spent on enforcement is the only argument for
legalizing drugs that offers any public benefit. Short of legalizing
all drugs, I see no savings for the public.

The question then becomes, are we prepared for the social problems
that could result from uncontrolled drug use. We have experimented
with that and we know what the answer was. My instinct is that we
would arrive at the same or that answer once more.