Legalize Marijuana: California's Cannabis Choice in 2010

by David Kretzmann

One of the popular misconceptions is that marijuana is a “gateway” drug.
Kids get hooked on pot, get involved with the wrong crowd, and soon
they are on an unavoidable spiral in the world of dangerous substances. I
do not want to make light of drug use and smoking, but some common
reasoning is necessary to understand why legalization is smart policy.
Jack E. Henningfield, a PhD for the National Institute on Drug Abuse
(NIDA) for sixteen years, researched many different substances and found
that not only is marijuana less addictive than caffeine, but nicotine’s
addictive levels are close to that of heroin and cocaine. As far as
actual scientific research
has shown, marijuana ranks among the safest and least addictive
substances.

What is the primary group opposing the legalization of marijuana? Not surprisingly (and slightly humorously), it is the people who make the
most profit from a criminalized product: the people who sell it on the
black market.

“Pot growers are nervous because a measure that could make California the first state to legalize marijuana for
recreational use is set to appear on the ballot in November.”
– The
Union; March 26, 2010

Passing a law criminalizing a certain product is not going to get rid of that product; basic economic common sense assures us of this simple
fact. Let’s say the government suddenly criminalized oranges: they’re
acidic, maybe a little too rich in nutrients, and people might
overindulge themselves with the sweet fruit. Would people suddenly stop
eating oranges? Maybe in a child’s fantasy they would, but in reality
the incentive and decision to buy, sell, and eat oranges comes not from
government but from individual people. From an economic standpoint,
marijuana is no different from oranges, toasters, or houses.

Criminalizing a product certainly will push up the price of that item, hardly removing the incentive of people to enter that market. With
marijuana, those who can successfully grow pot and avoid the
authorities often make hundreds of dollars per ounce sold. Is it any
surprise, then, that these growers are some of the primary protesters to
free trade and legalization of marijuana? Just as large corporations
favor subsidies and regulations hindering the competitive ability of
smaller businesses, pot growers are reaping the benefits of a forcefully
decreased supply (and therefore higher price) of marijuana.

The simple fact is that the high crime rates surrounding marijuana arise not due to effects from the plant but because of its
artificially astronomical price thanks to government criminalization. I
have witnessed this impact firsthand in my surrounding area in the
Sierra Nevada foothills in California. Violence comes from
criminalization, not from marijuana.

“Why don’t they pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as well as
prohibition did, in five years Americans would be the smartest race of
people on Earth.” — Will Rogers

Prohibition in the 1920s is perhaps the greatest case against government criminalization of a product. As is well documented and known
by now, Prohibition created a booming market for smugglers,
bootleggers, and gangsters who took on the job of supplying alcohol to
people who desired it. In the late 1920s, Al Capone was making $60
million per year in the alcohol business. Before Prohibition, alcohol
was a nonviolent, peaceful, criminal-free market based on voluntary
exchange. Prohibition depressed the supply and rocketed the price of
alcohol to the point that suddenly it became a dangerous industry run
largely by violent criminals.

Today, people can purchase alcohol whose quality they can be sure of (rather than the unsafe moonshine many people tried to compromise with
during Prohibition), and alcohol is peacefully transported and consumed
around the country. A free market without government criminalization is
all you need for a nonviolent, peaceful industry. The lessons of
Prohibition are desperately needed today with the government throwing
away billions of dollars with the goal of suppressing the growth and
exchange of a natural plant. All this policy does is mold criminals out
of people who have committed the furthest thing from an aggressive
crime.

One of the most puzzling statements I’ve heard amidst the discussion of the new California measure is from Grass Valley, CA police Capt. Rex
Marks, who said,
“Marijuana will be the subject of theft,” and, “Statistically, we can
expect an increase in criminal activity.” How in the world will
legalizing marijuana make it any more subject to theft than it already
is? Will it be more “subject to theft” than cigarettes or alcohol? The
idea that letting a product freely trade in the marketplace will lead to
more crime is precisely the opposite of what will indeed
happen: people will voluntarily buy, sell, and use marijuana without
threat of government force, the price of marijuana will fall, and it
will be taken out of the hands of organized crime. California spends
well over $150 million per year enforcing laws put in place to deal with
the consequences of intervention in the marijuana market. Continuing
the flawed and failed policy of criminalization, restriction of free
trade, and suppression of innocent individuals is what will guarantee a
criminal black market, increased cases of theft and murder, a complete
waste of police resources, and a continuation of the unwinnable “war on
drugs.”

A common concern among parents is that legalization will lead to increased drug use among teenagers and therefore we will see an increase
in crime and drug abuse. We can draw another comparison with
Prohibition, when in 1926 Judge H. C. Spicer declared
in an Akron, Ohio juvenile court that, “During the past two years there
have been more intoxicated children brought into court than ever
before.” What some began to recognize is Prohibition initiated a period
when teenagers and women were more likely to drink than they had been
prior to Prohibition. Matthew Woll testified
to the U.S. Senate in April 1926, “Millions of homes, in the majority
of which liquor was never seen, have been turned into breweries and
distilleries. The youth of the land is being reared in the atmosphere of
disregard for law and lack of confidence in government.” Has the
criminalization of Cannabis been any different? Perhaps it has not
touched as many individual families as Prohibition did, but the same
factors are at work.

Even if we decided to ignore the facts of Prohibition and assume that people are correct that pot would flood the market and invade the young
adult culture (as if it hasn’t made a major impact already), we must
analyze the principles at stake. Is it really the job of government to
do the job of parents? I can understand parents worried about their
kids’ exposure to drugs and alcohol, but a more invasive and expansive
government will not accomplish the paternal goal of compassion. Trying
to make government socially compassionate is like trying to make a
pillow softer by stuffing it with barbed wire. In the end, the only
people who can parent the kids are the parents. Not the police, not some
government bureaucrats creating laws in a fancy building, not a
Governor or President, only the parents.

“Private morals and personal conduct can not be controlled, much less advanced, by fiat of law. Appeal for a higher
morality and improved conduct must be directed to the mind and
conscience of the people, not to the fear of government.” — Matthew
Woll; April 1926

The legalization of marijuana would be a step forward for California and the country. Passing of the measure would not result in hippies
taking over California and throwing pot at every person they see, it
simply gets the train moving for a society built on the wonders of free
trade and recognizes the follies of government criminalization and
intervention. Legalization of marijuana would bring decreased crime,
increased trade, and maximize what is a struggling institution in the
U.S. today: individual liberty. The basic principle and greatest
challenge of liberty is to allow people to do what they please with
their liberty, whether it be brilliant or boneheaded, so long as they
don’t impact the liberty of another individual. The choice is clear:
legalize or stick a dagger in the heart of liberty. Those who desire a
less intrusive and more respectable government must support the new
California proposal.

http://www.freedomchatter.com/2010/04/legalize-marijuana-california...