reefer madness?

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/on-the-legalization-or-not-of-marijuana/more-1953

Here's the problem with this anti-pot argument. Basing the analogy of speeding creates a leading argument. The assumption is that speeding causes accidents. But statistically, not speeding, or at least driving too slow, is just as, if not more, dangerous. The fact that driving requires a certain amount of attention and responsibility creates an immediate counter-argument. Marijuana and alcohol require a certain level of responsible use, just as that undertaken driving a car. Driving around or performing demanding tasks entails increased risks that are potentially hazardous to others. Thus my conception is not that bland use and possession should be punished. But that irresponsible use should be, just as irresponsible or hazardous behavior is punished in other forums. People who drive around and then cause accidents under such influences should be harshly and severely punished, because their actions had both the accident and a premeditated choice that risked the accident (although it could be said that some elderly people and teens should be in the same boat here). People who amend their habits to provide a reasonable level of caution and safety are to be ignored. Someone who is in a car and intoxicated is not a cause of concern unless they are operating it or directly interfering with the operator. Speeding, while it often pertains a certain level of risk and 'dangerous fun', is often a most prudent way to operate a car. Recklessly speeding, such as weaving erratically at high speed on a crowded freeway, is not. Why the assumption is that any level of activity in this manner is dangerous and hazardous to society as a whole is made is beyond my ability to explain. Suffices to say, the assumption is false. There are a good number of activities that if taken to extremes, such as eating fast food or other junk, smoking, bungee jumping, might be overtly hazardous to individuals and even those around them. But if people are encouraged to exploit these dangers with a moderate view, then we might have the ability to remove those hazards altogether.

The idea that legal restrictions will increase it's use are likewise foolish. Studies have shown that speed rates on the highways are virtually identical before and after speed limits were changed; people drive in a manner which seems best. Pot or alcohol consumption is made generally in a responsible manner by many adults, and their influence on the upcoming generations should be lauded. While it is possible that marijuana use would spike upwards with immediate legalization, its immediate costs in social damage and stigma that it provides would be removed as well. There's plenty of psychological evidence that suggests that part of the appeal of smoking for teens is that it is a forbidden fruit. The appeal for pot is no different, except that it is a forbidden fruit for adults as well. I suspect that while experimental use may increase for people of all ages, this use can be regulated and contained more easily if exposure is more adult and intelligent in it's manner, with a higher premium maintained on treatment for addictive use, rather than it's current manner of arrest, interdiction and detainment. The long arm of the law has done little, if anything at all, to slow the advance into society as a regular or at least recreational product. Perhaps if we changed tactics we might have more success at restricting and removing it's pestilent influences and manifestations in our society and more tolerance for a moderate recreational or medicinal usage.


Incidentally. I don't personally smoke pot or drink, and see no reason to engage in these practices. But I also don't see the point in draconian tactics futilely trying to eliminate a product that poses minimal risks to the user and, if used responsibly, no risks to society at large. With proper and more intelligently designed anti-drug campaigns, funded by the regulated taxes gathered by legal use, production, and distribution and a legal means of purchase, use, and distribution that is properly controlled or monitored, we're in no greater danger and significantly reduce the strain on police to deal with more pressing concerns. This idea does not imply for example that higher grade narcotics should be made legal (it's a possibility too though I admit I have some reservations), rather that the tactics of treatment and prevention/education are simply far more cost-effective than the current means of incarceration and detainment and a far more effective deterrent than imprisonment and fines. Nor does it imply that if a majority wills it, it is right. It is certainly not healthy to simply permit our society at large to consume potentially dangerous products without some constraints.