STONERS NEED A BETTER ARGUMENT

I once spoke to an RCMP officer who works with teenagers, and she
rolled her eyes and described the stupid arguments that she hears about pot.

"Hey dude," they say, with that classic glassy stoner gaze, "it's a
herb, it grows in the ground, how can it be bad for you?"

I laughed in sympathy. It is without a doubt the stupidest argument
ever given by giggling pro-pot advocates. If anything that grows in
the ground is good for you, why aren't stoners also scarfing down
deadly nightshade or fistfuls of poisonous mushrooms? For that
matter, why not swallow horse chestnuts?

This is not to say that I disagree with the idea of pot being
legalized. The stoners just need better arguments, so the RCMP don't
get so bored listening.

Arguments for the legalization of pot can be divided up into three
broad categories: medical, utilitarian and ethical.

Start with medical. Learn about how the human body processes
marijuana, along with other drugs. It's fairly well known (among
stoners) that the active ingredient of pot,
delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has a very low toxicity. Unlike
alcohol or nicotine, which are legal for adults, it is virtually
impossible to consume so much THC that you will simply drop dead.

That said, there are other health effects, both long and short term,
from increased heart rate to paranoia. Links to mental illness and
several cancers appear strong.

To argue properly, you'll have to look at studies of pot's effects on
moderate and heavy users, and contrast those with the effects on
users of other legal and illegal substances (tobacco, cocaine, Double
Whoppers, etc.). Research canabinoids, and bone up on your basic biochemistry.

Next we have the utilitarian leg of the issue. Is it worth it to use
the police, the courts and the jails to prevent people from smoking pot?

How many people use it, and how much does it cost the medical system?
How many more people use it in places where it is partly
decriminalized, such as the Netherlands? How would you re-prioritize
the money saved if we dropped the war on pot?

Of course, you'll have to suggest ways of dealing with stoned drivers
more effectively (your medical research will have shown you that
psychomotor skills are impacted by pot) and ways to regulate its sale
and production. Get out your lawbooks and look at tobacco, alcohol
and prescription drug regulations for inspiration.

The final arguments are ethical. These boil down to the notion,
present in a number of philosophies, that individuals have the right
to make their own decisions about what they put in their bodies.

I recommend reading On Liberty, by the 19thcentury philosopher John
Stuart Mill. It remains one of the most concise arguments for
personal freedom ever put to paper. But there are many others, from
Henry David Thoreau's essay Civil Disobedience to Isaiah Berlin's Two
Concepts of Liberty.

Once you've studied, you'll have to craft your arguments about the
rights of the individual and the individual's responsibilities to
society. How far can a government legitimately trespass into an
individual's life?

Combining all three of these strands of argument will involve more
than simply quipping about pot being an herb. You may want to write
an essay, or create a flip chart or PowerPoint presentation to go
alongside your speech the next time you argue with a Mountie.

Unfortunately, to do all of this properly, you'll have to be sober.

Matthew Claxton is a reporter with the Langley Advance, a sister paper
of The Record.