DARK SIDE OF THE DOOB

Users Share Responsibility For Pot-Related Violence

I will be the first to admit that I am a goody-two-shoes. Before last year
I seldom drank, and I have never had any experience with narcotics, so that
might make me as credible as a lump of Jell-O -- especially given my topic
for today, the almighty MJ.

Why I do not use drugs is not the issue at the moment. What brings the
doobie to the table today is a new advertising campaign launched by the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, headed up by the White House. The
ads are part of a new angle on the drug war to tie marijuana to drug
violence and terror.

One of the most recent ads, "Stacey," features nursery music and a young
girl narrating. "This is Stacey. This is the dimebag that Stacey bought.
This is the dealer who sold the dimebag that Stacey bought. This is the
supplier that smuggled the pot to the dealer who sold the dimebag that
Stacey bought. And this is Carla, who was hit by a stray bullet from
Stacey's supplier and paralyzed for life." Followed by the superimposed
text, "Drug money supports terrible things. If you buy drugs, you might too."

When I first saw it, I thought it was a bit propagandistic and
condescending, as many public service announcements tend to be. And then I
thought, "Duh, drug money supports drug violence." But going a step
further, I had to tie all the marijuana users I knew to violence, and that
gave me pause.

Even if pot use is not significantly detrimental to most people's health,
at least no more detrimental than alcohol or tobacco, one cannot overlook
the fact that the drug trade is a business, and a violent one at that. Yet
many pot users seem ready to ignore this aspect of the drug. "It's my
body," they declare. However, to think that the effects of an action are
entirely confined to one person -- especially an action so volatile as drug
use -- is naive and a cop out.

What strikes me as odd is that the people who seem to ignore the side of
the marijuana trade that involves violence are the same people who oppose
the use of animals by companies like Proctor & Gamble to test their products.

Think about it this way: Let's say tomorrow the government declares
chocolate illegal, but Nestle decides to start smuggling Crunch bars into
the country. In the process of evading the authorities, Nestle ends up
killing policemen, other smugglers and even innocent bystanders. Would we
still buy chocolate? Is it really that good?

And part of the reason that the drug trade survives is because pot really
is that good, at least according to the people who smoke it. But if you are
against violence and unnecessary killing, then you cannot condone
supporting an industry that considers them business as usual.

Some pot users point to the illegalization of the drug as the source of all
the violence. NYU NORML's latest ad campaign for legalization shows a
couple of bootleggers holding guns and reads, "PROHIBITION: It didn't work
then and it doesn't work now." They are right: it does not work now. The
government is failing miserably to prevent the use of a drug whose negative
effects are comparable to legal cigarettes and alcohol. Were marijuana
legal, then it is quite likely that violence related to the drug trade
would drop off. In the interest of preventing violence, marijuana should be
legalized and put under government regulation.

But it takes two to tango: To run a business, you need producers and you
need consumers. People who smoke marijuana cannot shirk their responsibility.

While we wait for the lawmakers to get their act together, pot users cannot
say those lawmakers bear all the blame. If we can boycott industries that
promote violence and death, we should and we must.

So the next time you roll a joint and reach for your lighter, consider what
went into bringing your pot to you -- who was hurt, who was killed -- and
ask yourself, "Is it really that good?"