The New York Times editorial board made a huge stink earlier in the year coming out in support of “follow[ing] the growing movement in the states and repeal[ing] the ban on marijuana for both medical and recreational use.”
They devoted day after day of coverage to the subject, talking about health-related issues, incarceration rates, the effects of legalizing it on the marketplace, public opinion: just about everything you can think of.
The groan-worthy name for the whole editorial series “High Time” slightly undermines the seriousness of the whole enterprise. They’re obviously having fun doing something so “out there,” even for somewhere as stuffy as the Times. (And this, more than 50 years after Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail! Maybe in the next fifty years, they’ll catch up to Matt Taibbi, but, hey, let’s not get too silly.)
All of that aside, the articles are mostly sober and correct on the big stuff.
While I won’t parrot it word for word, the general idea is basically that the 20th century alcohol prohibition and current marijuana laws have the same social and economic effects, and that legalizing it will have similar upsides and downsides as ending prohibition did.
I don’t have any moral stance against the drug except that it stinks up whatever it touches something awful. If the state government ever gets around to legalizing sometime in the next fifty years, make sure to email your congressman: dopers must shower after use.
Otherwise, I can’t see too much wrong with the whole deal, except for two potentially troubling issues.
The first is how it affects drivers. While “drugged driving” is sort of a strange phrase (getting drugged as opposed to getting drunk,) that is what is going to kill the most people when states finally get around to making weed widely available.
Especially with young people. There are going to be a lot of kids, who, overconfident and ecstatic that they can do it out in the open, who will jump in Mom or Pop’s car and speed right into a tree.
If the rest of the country starts to take Colorado’s lead and decriminalizes the practice, this is the area where the nation-wide media campaigns should focus.
Deaths like this are preventable to some extent, and the best way to save lives in the future is impressing on people now that getting high and driving a two-ton mass of metal, plastic and gasoline isn’t the safest way you could be spending your time.
Addiction is the second big misgiving I have about the legalization movement. Even though the Times acknowledges that weed’s addictive capacity is “present” but “low,” it makes sure to emphasize its effect on minors.
I’ve been through the South Carolina school system from elementary school to college and many people I knew who started smoking weed in the eighth grade haven’t stopped since. While some have been able to moderate and even wean themselves off the drug entirely, others have become dependent. And by dependent, I mean they can’t go two hours without getting either the shakes or the sweats.
But the choice between addiction and freedom from addiction is the same whether or not kids have access to one more new drug.
Cigarettes and alcohol, perfectly legal drugs for those of age, are already more or less available to minors. Weed is so prevalent in schools and public spaces, that the choice minors face today is less: “How can I get it?” than “should I use it?”
When it finally becomes legal, that will continue to be the choice kids must face.