MARIJUANA REFORM UNLIKELY TO BE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY

There are few things quite as humorous as watching a group of college
students pleading before city councils and legislators for marijuana
reform. Their hazy lamentations usually fall on the deaf ears of public
administrators who like their careers too much to get behind a youth's
right to space out and devour pizza.

Though there are some compelling arguments for the legalization of
marijuana, it will not occur any time in the near future for a variety
of reasons.

The first reason is because no tenured lawmaker or politician that
wants to be re-elected will spend their limited political capital on
legalizing marijuana.

No matter the coherence of the argument for legalization, this kind of
reform is going to result in damages and social problems.

Marijuana prohibition limits the negative effects that the substance
has on the productivity and safety of our society.

The free sale and use of marijuana will have cascading effects on
health, the economy, transportation legislation and crime that can
only be imagined at this point.

No politician or activist with the necessary political leverage will
want to be associated with the unknown negative effects legalization
would cause.

Likewise, they would lose a significant portion of their
constituencies if it were assumed that they use illegal substances or
encourage others to do so.

Second, marijuana will not be legalized quickly because of public
policy's inability to accurately predict and control its unforeseen
social and legal implications. Rapid changes in public policy can
cause more short- and long-term damages than slow, incremental change.

The argument that it will not have dramatic effects on public
institutions or services is naive.

While many segments of society may feel that marijuana benefits their
lives, marijuana's macro effects on society are not positive at all.
Although there are many exceptions, frequent marijuana use has been
correlated with psychosis, depression and anxiety. On a large scale,
these impairments affect every part of our society. While regular
alcohol use is similarly linked to negative social indicators, public
policy has an established infrastructure to limit and control them.
Any significant development in marijuana reform will be slow and
incremental, as public policy, social services and legislation must be
abreast of it to provide adequate safety nets.

Third, there is an ethical argument in defense of marijuana
prohibition. The former two reasons are more practical, yet suggest an
American ethical consensus.

For a variety of reasons, individuals that associate themselves openly
with marijuana face a considerable amount of stigma and
discrimination. This is because, regardless of intellectual arguments,
American society in general has ethical objections to the use of marijuana.

This is greatly reinforced by the state's prohibition of marijuana and
the threat of punishment. Many people choose not to use it simply
because of the social judgment that accompanies it, despite its
availability and the limited legal recourse for light use. Asking the
public to support the expanded distribution of a substance popularly
believed to be unethical is a barrier to reform.

Lastly, marijuana is a difficult for individuals to responsibly
consume. One can have one or two alcoholic drinks and control its
negative effects. Marijuana is not a substance conducive to
moderation. Having one hit is not the same as having one drink.

All of these elements contribute to the difficulty supporters of
marijuana legalization experience. While it may possibly be legalized
one day, there are many barriers to further development. Ultimately,
the legalization of a psychoactive drug is not and should not be one
of the priorities of a public official who has genuine concern for the
welfare of their community.