ˆ
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 through 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.
Leading off for Viewpoints is William Martin, who directs the Baker Institute Drug Policy Program:
More than 100 million people in this country have tried marijuana at some point. More than 28 million will do so this year. It will not make them dangerous or more interesting. It should not make them criminals.
Marijuana’s critics cite proven negative effects of heavy use: loss of concentration and short-term memory, poor educational performance, decreased drive and ambition (the “amotivational syndrome”), impaired motor skills, damage to the lungs and circulatory system, increased anxiety and paranoia, and, in extreme cases, psychosis. Defenders acknowledge these problems but note that the overwhelming majority of users are not heavy users. Most people who smoke marijuana do so as most drinkers drink alcohol — on an infrequent or quite moderate basis.
The greatest harms associated with cannabis are not the effects of the drug but of our drug policies, which vary widely from state to state. In Alaska, possession of up to four ounces of the drug (more than enough for a hundred joints) in one’s residence is legal, as is possession of fewer than 25 plants. In Texas, possession of less than two ounces is a Class B misdemeanor, which can mean as many as 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine. In practice, it usually draws probation, but it’s not “just a ticket.” A kid can be tossed out of school or lose a college loan or scholarship. A parent can lose custody of a child or be barred from subsidized housing. And conviction for a drug offense, even a misdemeanor, can make it extremely difficult to land a job — forever.
From a political standpoint, an easy first step in the effort to reform marijuana laws would be to remove or reduce penalties associated with small amounts of the drug, an approach commonly referred to as “decriminalization” or “depenalization.” This is already in effect or under serious consideration in much of Western Europe, Australia and Canada, and is the de facto policy in a number of states and cities in this country, even when prohibition and penalties remain on the books. In 2004, Seattle voters passed Initiative 75, directing the police to make enforcement of marijuana offenses “the city’s lowest law enforcement priority.” An assessment after four years found no increase in marijuana use among youth and young adults, no increase in crime, no adverse impact on public health. Other cities have adopted this approach and it is the informal policy elsewhere, particularly for white non-poor people.
In Texas, we could lower possession of small amounts of cannabis from Class B to Class C misdemeanor status — essentially the level of a traffic violation. This would avoid much of the inconvenience and expense for both offender and state and eliminate the stigma of a criminal conviction, but, like lowest-priority measures, it would still leave the profits in the pockets of criminals.
A better way would be to legalize marijuana outright, to remove any taint of lawbreaking and reduce the chances of capricious or discriminatory enforcement. What would that mean? It would surely include the right to grow one’s own, though most people, especially urban dwellers, would prefer to let someone else handle that side of things. Any system of legalization would involve quality control, regulation of sales and taxation. It would also retain penalities for illegal behavior related to the use of the drug, such as DUI, and it would continue to prohibit use by minors, for whom the drug holds far greater potential for harm.
Nevada in 2006 and California in 2010 came close to legalizing marijuana, with more than 45 percent of the vote in both cases. Voters in both Colorado and Washington State have a chance to legalize marijuana in the November elections. Current polls show a 47-38 percent lead for legalization in Colorado and a 57-34 percent positive margin for Washington’s Initiative 502. Even if both measures pass, federal prohibition of marijuana will remain in effect. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has cracked down on some medical marijuana growers and dispensaries in California and elsewhere, despite state laws permitting these operations, not to mention President Obama’s early pledge not to use federal forces for such actions. Challenging large and important states on policies favored by a growing majority may call for reassessment of such actions.
Texas is not likely to consider legalization in the foreseeable future, but it could and should. The largest and most powerful Mexican drug trafficking organizations use Texas as both a major market and vital conduit for shipping drugs into the United States, forming alliances with local gangs that handle sales in their territory and move the drugs outward to other regions. Legalizing marijuana would not only dry up the Texas market for illegal pot; it would also greatly reduce contact with customers who might be enticed into buying cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. In the process, it would strip the cartels of billions of dollars they now use to extend their power and would disrupt the chain of delivery from the Texas/Mexican border northward. It would not break them — they would still have other drugs, other markets and other operations — but it would weaken them. They obviously regard the profits from marijuana trade as large enough to justify murder. As long as prohibition remains in force, they will struggle to control one of the world’s most profitable enterprises, and the carnage will continue.
If Texas, famous for its independent spirit and conservative mien, were to legalize marijuana, the world would take note, and great and beneficial change would sweep across the country.
William Martin directs the Drug Policy Program at Rice University’s Baker Institute. Portions of this essay are adapted from his October 2009 Texas Monthly article, “Texas High Ways,” available on the Baker Institute website at http://bakerinstitute.org/publications/texas-high-ways.