Legalize It

I was researching my disease in preparation for my doctor's appointment tomorrow (in case there had been any treatment innovations in the last year that I should ask about) and I was joking that I should get a nicotine patch, since that reportedly helps. Z suggested I research medical marijuana. All I could find was one sketchy case study, which, my scientific training tells me, is not an adequate sample size. A little more Googling turned up a website where people rate treatments and write their comments. It turns out many people self-reported that smoking pot helped relieve the symptoms of colitis when nothing else worked.

In reading the posts, I was struck by how often the people complained about marijuana being illegal, given that the side-effects of it were less severe than the side-effects of the prescription drugs they were on. One women described herself as a law-abiding Christian and was quite conflicted about using pot, but alas, it was the only thing that effectively ameliorated her painful, debilitating symptoms. I'm sure the cancer websites abound with stories of people who smoked pot to get over the nausea of chemotherapy and stimulate their appetite.

The question is: why is pot still illegal?

I'm sure there are many conspiracy theories. I'm only familiar with the one from the 4/20 episode of Family Guy; something about hemp being competition for the the paper industry, so a paper tycoon had it banned.

My favorite stupid conspiracy theory comes from one of my former students: The government can't figure out how to tax pot, since anyone can grow it, so they don't want to legalize it since they can't make money off of it. I gave my student a brief lesson in economics as follows: There are lots of things that people can grow, but they don't, because the big farms (which the government is quite capable of taxing) would be able to produce superior plants for cheaper. Think of any garden: we could all grow our food for free, but we don't because it's too much work and it's easier to get it at the grocery store. The same would be true for hemp.

I'd like to present my own theory:
The biggest advocates for legalized marijuana are too stoned to organize properly.

I've really had very little contact with the pot-smoking portion of the world except through books, movies, and my students' not-so-discrete worship of the drug culture surrounding pot. So I really don't know much, and most of my opinions about pot's effects on one's ability to get anything done are primarily based on the song from Afroman "Because I got High".

I think the biggest argument in support of pot is that there are so many things that are far worse that are legal. Plus, there aren't really moral principles at stake, because so many people take drugs to alter their moods anyway, such as antidepressants, medicine for anxiety and ADD medication. A lot of these drugs are even given to kids to help them do well in school. So we're clearly sending mixed messages, that only some drugs are ok to alter your mood but not others.

I understand the counter point, that marijuana is a gateway drug and there's a slippery slope from it to other drugs, but then wouldn't that be true for all drugs? Having trouble focusing on your homework? Here, take this drug. Do you feel depressed? Take this other drug. Do you want to mellow out? Take a hit on this bong. There isn't a real difference.

Plus, everyone is already addicted to caffeine. Many people literally cannot start their day without a cup of coffee. I don't actually think this is a problem, but if we want to make broad judgements that any substance addiction is bad, that any chemical which alters the mind is bad, then caffeine should be included.

I would write more about alcohol, and how it is actually probably more damaging than pot, but I think that argument is already out there, and we all know prohibition didn't work. Which leads to another issue: just think how much money, time, and effort is being wasted on pot. If it were legalized, there would be revenues instead of expenditures.

I don't really think I've said anything new here. Maybe the only difference is that I'm making this argument as someone who has never smoked pot. Does that make a difference? Somehow I think it does. It's like straight people supporting gay marriage. They have nothing to personally gain by it, so it legitimizes the issue by showing that a rational, impartial person also supports it. Is this the way it should be? Probably not. But if it helps at all, I'm just going to throw it out there: I'm straight and I support gay marriage; I've never smoked pot and I support legalization of marijuana.

UPDATE (16 June): Today's paper had an article on the front page, with the headline Momentum builds for broad debate on legalizing pot