MARIJUANA SMOKERS SHOULDN'T BE LABELED AS CRIMINALS

Last Tuesday was the Great Debate, and I spoke for the Libertarians at
Virginia Tech on the issue of marijuana laws. I am in favor of the
complete legalization of marijuana, since I believe that anything less
is just an absurdity. My main point is this: according to the
government-funded Monitoring the Future study, one third of college
students (almost 6 million people) have smoked marijuana in the last
year. So if the marijuana prohibitionists are to be believed, all of
these students are criminals. Though the anti-legalization Republicans
don't say so, that implies that they think that one in three Virginia
Tech students is a criminal.

The College Republicans think that they can somehow justify that. They
speak of marijuana as if it is some sort of plague on our society that
needs to be stamped out. That is not reasonable. One can reasonably
argue about whether marijuana is relatively harmless or whether it is
as harmful as alcohol and tobacco, but it is completely unreasonable
to argue that marijuana is any more harmful than that. I don't see
alcohol and tobacco as plagues on our society, and since marijuana
can't possibly be worse than either of those, it is not a plague either.

Republicans might argue that marijuana is about as bad as alcohol and
tobacco, but out of the three, only marijuana should be illegal, since
we don't need more legal drugs. That position is inconsistent and
hypocritical. What kind of government throws people in jail for one
substance while it keeps equally harmful substances perfectly legal?

The only two consistent stances the Republicans can take are A) that
alcohol and tobacco are plagues that should be stamped out too (I can
imagine how popular that will make them) or B) that marijuana really
is more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, which justifies making it
illegal while keeping tobacco and alcohol legal.

It was unclear which stance the Republicans took in the debate. I
really don't think they traced out the logical conclusions of their
beliefs very well. But I'll assume that they aren't taking stance A,
since I don't think they want to become the most unpopular
organization on campus. That leaves stance B, which is unreasonable,
or neither stance, which is inconsistent.

Stance B, however, is just so far beyond reason that no one who knows
anything about marijuana could advocate it. It is just very obvious
that aside from possible long-term consequences, marijuana is not a
profoundly harmful drug.

For instance, it is virtually impossible to overdose on it. Marijuana
intoxication is also quite different from alcohol intoxication. Unlike
alcohol, marijuana doesn't cause anyone to become violent or
aggressive. It does not greatly impair people's ability to drive,
according to a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. It is not especially addictive either: according to a
study by the Institute of Medicine, withdrawal symptoms for marijuana
are mild and short-lived, if they occur at all. In addition, the
report found that marijuana is significantly less addictive than
either alcohol or cigarettes.

There is a possibility that smoking marijuana a lot could damage your
health in the long run. However, I don't think that the scientific
evidence supports that claim. In the Sep. 20, 2003 issue of the
British Medical Journal,

Dr. Stephen Sidney wrote, "Although the use of (marijuana) is not
harmless, the current knowledge base does not support the assertion
that it has any notable adverse public health impact in relation to
mortality." A study by Dr. Daniel Ford, a researcher at Johns Hopkins
Medical School, found that marijuana use is not associated with head,
neck, or lung cancer.

There are studies that claim to show that marijuana is more harmful
than I believe it is. I don't buy into those studies, but one could
make a somewhat reasonable argument based on them. But to my
knowledge, no respectable scientific studies show that marijuana is
significantly more harmful than tobacco or alcohol. Claiming that
would be unreasonable. Thus, stance B is unreasonable.

So Republicans have a choice: do they want to be ridiculous (stance
A), unreasonable (stance B), or inconsistent (neither)? I have a
feeling that they won't like any of those choices. There is however,
another choice: join the Libertarians in advocating the complete
legalization of marijuana. That stance has become increasingly popular
among Americans, since it is so obviously right. According to a 2005
Gallup poll, 36% of Americans agree that marijuana should be
legalized, and according to a recent CNN poll, 72% of Americans want
some degree of decriminalization.

Republicans have backed themselves into a corner by advocating prohibition.
They can't avoid the fact that millions of Americans smoke marijuana, and by
criminalizing marijuana, they are criminalizing all of those people. Though
Republicans argue that low level marijuana users are not severely punished,
the fact is that it is wrong to want to punish millions of nonviolent
Americans, period. They can't justify their position without being
ridiculous, unreasonable, or inconsistent. Republicans: just give up, the
tide is turning against you, and that is because you're wrong about
marijuana. Nothing less than full legalization is acceptable (I'm talking to
you too, Democrats). We don't need to prevent marijuana users from smoking,
we don't need to rehabilitate them, and we definitely don't need to throw
them in prison.