Marijuana should, and can be, legalized

In an earlier post, I tried to problematize the general issue of drug legalization by introducing the case of prison overcrowding as an example of an undesirable social cost arising out of excessive judicial intervention. In this post and for subsequent discussions, I look specifically at marijuana(otherwise known euphemistically as weed, pot, or grass), and I will argue that – all things considered – a cogent case can be made for its legalization.

Of all drugs, why marijuana? The reason is simple, but compelling. Marijuana is the drug most commonly abused in the country. According to the US Department of Justice, not only is the abuse of marijuana higher in the United States than for any other drug, it is also the most easily grown and hence most commonly accessible. More significantly, the high demand for marijuana coupled by the relative ease by which it is grown has made it the drug of choice for illegal cartels run from Mexico to China, who are drawn by the high profits to be made from supplying the United States with weed. Marijuana legalization is therefore not only a domestic problem of morality, but an international one encompassing cross-state interests.

Given the above problems, my stance to advance drug legalization as a solution to combat these problems may seem unusual, and at worst, even untenable. Wouldn’t doing so encourage marijuana consumption and exacerbate current trends of marijuana abuse?

While this may at first glance seem to be the case, to understand otherwise requires an understanding of the complexities of the issue. We are essentially dealing with two sub-areas in this debate – one, how to address attendant problems arising out of excessive drug legalization by specifically considering if the reverse course of legalization would be useful to this end; and two, if the assumed value judgment of “drug-as vice” that has underpinned the government’s anti-drug campaign over the past 40 years has the same scientific thrust as its moral one.

With regards to the former, the social costs of excessive legalization have included border smuggling from Mexico and Canada, as well as prison-overcrowding as a result of jailing an improportionate number of “petty” marijuana offenders. These have resulted in the government having to counterintuitively set aside more state funds to tackle international criminal groups, and to upkeep larger numbers of prisoners. Through legalization with the appropriate duties taxation (as with liquor and cigarettes), the government would thence be able to focus its energy appropriately on drug cartels, vis-a-vis the relatively harmless individual drug-user who smokes a joint on occasion. In addition, allowing for the legal growing of marijuana within the United States (under select controls of course) could eliminate the existence of illegal border smuggling. The issue of illegality thence becomes an issue of the law, arbitrated by the mechanism of governmental regulation.

With regards to the latter, it is my contention that the “drug-as-vice” value judgment is couched more on moral grounds, than on scientific ones. No doubt, marijuana does pose harmful health effects, but these are comparable to those of cigarettes and liquor. To permit cigarettes and liquor but not marijuana on the basis of “health-risks” would therefore be tantamount to illogical discrimination. Unless one is prepared to accept the adbsurdist reductio that in the same vein, cigarettes and liquor should be equally outlawed on the basis of their potential health risks, there ought to be no reason on scientific grounds to treat the legalization of marijuana any differently from the treatment of alcohol and tobacco.

Even if we overlook the argument above, many scientific studies have cited marijuana as being one of the safest (health-wise) recreational drugs available. This explains why 36 states of the nation actually permit marijuana to be used on therapeutic grounds. The fact that it is actually permitted by healthcare authorities – the ultimate judges (pardon the legal pun) of what constitutes “good” or “bad” drugs – for use as a treatment drug is at the minimum a concession that whatever harmful effects of marijuana are insufficient to warrant a complete rejection of its medicinal properties. If scientific evidence therefore cannot seem to convincingly suggest that marijuana is as “bad” as what it is morally made out to be, there perhaps needs to be a rethink of the “drug-as-vice” value judgment, at least in the case of marijuana.

The analysis thus far has, of course, assumed a simplistic cause-effect framework. My intention for doing so is not to compromise rigour, but to at least present a fertile basis for further discussion and debate by listing down the markers for my stance. To this end, I invite responses that can help refine, or even reconstruct my assertions in a different light. In the meantime, however, it is for the reasons outlined above that lead me to provisionally argue that there can be a persuasive case made for the legalization of marijuana.