Baker Institute Viewpoints is a regular blog series that presents an array of views on a single issue. In this installment, five Baker Institute fellows and two guest experts will consider whether the United States should legalize marijuana. Each weekday from Sept. 17- Sept. 25, one of the seven writers — whose backgrounds include a biography of evangelist Billy Graham and a 30-year career in the Drug Enforcement Administration — will give his or her take on the issue.
Today, guest writer Sylvia Longmire, an author and expert on Mexico’s drug wars, argues that in a contest with alcohol and tobacco, marijuana wins.
- Read Monday’s post, “Marijuana: A case for legalization,” by William Martin, director of the Baker Institute Drug Policy Program.
Trying to reach a firm and well-founded conclusion on whether or not marijuana should be legalized is incredibly difficult for some people. For many drug reform advocates, the issue is very emotionally charged. Smoking marijuana is part of a lifestyle, or a simple way to relax. Moreover, the U.S. government shouldn’t be telling people what they can and can’t put into their bodies, many believe. It’s also emotional for drug prohibitionists who cling to conservative morals and American values of wholesomeness, following the letter of the law, and a lack of need to rely on mind-altering substances for pleasure or relief. They can’t imagine their children throwing back shots of tequila or smoking cigarettes, let alone taking hits from a bong.
Even for academics and analysts who rely on scientific facts and trial-based evidence, forming a firm opinion can be hard because there aren’t enough well-funded and thorough human studies on the effects of marijuana on our bodies. By the very fact that marijuana is illegal, and thus unregulated, one can’t rely on even a considerable amount of anecdotal evidence because every marijuana cigarette is unique in its chemical content, and the effect of marijuana on every individual is also unique.
These are two tracks of examining the debate over marijuana legalization: deciding to legalize (or not) based on the perceived evolution of American values and social mores, or making the decision based on what scientific evidence does exist, in conjunction with an evidence-based comparison to two other human vices that are legal — tobacco and alcohol.
Pretend for a moment you’re watching a news report on television about a new illicit narcotic the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has discovered. Authorities are warning that it’s highly addictive and contains over 600 chemical additives, including urea (yes, the same chemical in your urine), propylene glycol (used to de-ice aircraft wings and as a type of antifreeze), chocolate, licorice, and other flavorants to make it more appealing to new users. While it doesn’t pose an immediate risk of death by overdose, continued use could prove deadly later on, as it causes different forms of cancer and chronic illness.
A few months later, you’re watching another news report about a liquid drug that’s turning up more frequently at parties and other social gatherings. U.S. authorities are concerned because the drug can cause cancer, liver problems and brain disease, and it’s more addictive than ecstasy or cocaine. Increases in violent behavior by users are common, as are increases in criminal activity as a result of its use. The drug is being added to other flavored liquids to make it more appealing to new users, and over a dozen teenagers die every week from either overdosing on it, or from driving after ingesting it.
Some months after that, police officials are expressing frustration because they can’t get abuse of a third new drug under control. Like the second drug mentioned above, they’re finding it more and more at parties and other social gatherings, where people use it to relax or enjoy artistic pursuits more richly. While no overdose deaths have occurred, officials are worried that Americans from all walks of life — doctors, teachers, scientists, etc. — are trying this new drug. If it weren’t bad enough that healthy people are trying it, cancer patients and thousands of other people with chronic illnesses are using it illegally. However, they’re reporting that it’s alleviating negative symptoms associated with treatment or their particular disease. It’s less addictive than cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines, but some experts believe its use could lead people to try more dangerous and addictive drugs.
The first scenario was derived from a story in The Wall Street Journal describing the myriad of chemicals and other substances added to the average cigarette. The second scenario came from a creative piece on AlterNet.org that explored whether or not alcohol would be legal if it were introduced today. Based on the few studies that have been conducted on casual and long-term heavy marijuana smokers, alcohol and tobacco are more physically addictive and cause more harm to the human body than marijuana. The third “hypothetical drug” above doesn’t sound so bad compared to the first two anymore.
However, legalizing and regulating marijuana in a similar fashion to alcohol and tobacco wouldn’t be a cakewalk, as demonstrated by authors Jon Caulkins, Angela Hawken, Beau Kilmer and Mark Kleiman in their Q&A-format book, Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know. First, the U.S. government would have to figure out how to extricate itself from the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs , which essentially says that all 180+ signatory nations (including the United States) will maintain anti-drug policies. Next, there’s a good chance that legalized marijuana will go the way of Big Tobacco — industrialized, politicized, and marketed to promote sales to the heaviest users (and biggest profit producers). Many drug reform advocates point to the much-needed tax revenues from which debt-laden states could benefit. However, both the alcohol and tobacco industries have heavy-hitting attorneys and lobby groups at their beck and call who have managed to keep taxes on both commodities to a minimum. It would also be very difficult — at least at the present time — to test drivers or workers for very recent marijuana use.
There are too many additional arguments on both sides of the issue to list them all here, and it would behoove the reader to do additional research if intent on forming a solid opinion one way or another. But based on the potential (or lack thereof) of harm to the human body, for people to become dependent, and for people to become violent against each other, marijuana wins in a competition against already-legal alcohol and tobacco. As such, it would be logical, if politically or morally undesirable, for the U.S. government to provide numerous avenues for formal marijuana studies with the ultimate goal of creating an effective legal and regulatory framework for marijuana use in the United States.
Sylvia Longmire is a former Air Force officer and special agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, where she specialized in counterintelligence, counterespionage and force protection analysis. She is also a former senior intelligence analyst for the California State Terrorism Threat Assessment Center, providing daily situational awareness to senior state government officials on southwest border violence and significant events related to the drug war in Mexico. Longmire is regularly interviewed by national, international, and local media outlets, including Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, BBC News, CBC, and Al Jazeera-English for her knowledge and expertise on border violence issues. Her first book, Cartel: The Coming Invasion of Mexico’s Drug Wars, was published in September 2011, and she has written for numerous peer-reviewed journals and online publications. Longmire is currently a consultant and freelance writer.