The Office of National Drug Control Policy is not a subtle bunch. Its latest foray into scaring kids to stay away from marijuana is over the top, a modern day Reefer Madness effort designed to suggest that smoking some reefer will be the end of any chance they might have to lead a successful life. The motto is, “Hey, not trying to be your mom, but there aren’t many jobs out there for potheads.”
Clearly, the ONDCP is pushing the envelope. But why, I wonder, are so many pushing back?
There are many people who argue that marijuana should be decriminalized. That the suggestion that smoking marijuana places a young person on the road to heroin addiction is absurd. This is certainly and worthy debate, and one that becomes clearer when you consider that there are jail cells filled with young people who have done nothing different than people we have elected to high office from both parties. Indeed, this has to strike anyone who thinks on occasion as an absurdity.
Think about it this way. If you are a parent, do you tell your teenage child to go try some pot? See if you like it? Find out whether it’s your version of the martini? Want to join Mommy and Daddy in a blunt? Come on. This isn’t cool.
This is why I found Radley Balko’s reaction to the government’s silliness disturbing. In contrast to the advertising campaign that pot smokers are losers, Radley proffers a list of successful people who have smoked pot:
Barack Obama, president-elect. Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the U.S. John Kerry, U.S. Senator and 2004 Democratic nominee for president. John Edwards, multi-millionaire, former U.S. Senator, and 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president. Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, 2008 Republican nominee for vice president. British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly, and Chancellor Alistair Darling. Josh Howard, NBA all-star. New York Governor David Paterson. Former Vice President, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Oscar winner Al Gore. Former Sen. Bill Bradley, who smoked while playing professional basketball. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former New York Governor George Pataki. Billionaire and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
The list, of course, is decidedly underinclusive. It certainly shows the fallacy of the government’s campaign to suggest that all pot smokers turn out to be losers. Of course the campaign was absurd and silly, and obviously there are plenty of people who have smoked pot and turned out to be great successes. So what?
Many others have linked to, and joined with, Radley Balko’s endeavor, including some blawgers who I respect and admire greatly. But I suggest that they have confused two issues. At least, I hope they have. No, marijuana does not inevitably lead to heroin addiction and failure in life. But does that mean that it’s a good idea to suggest that people should smoke pot and be like Barack Obama or Michael Bloomberg?
Smoking pot is something that almost everyone of a certain age has done. Some did it more than others. Some grew out of it. Some did not. Not every person who smoked pot became a billionaire or president. Some became a waste product. Some would have become billionaires anyway. Some would have become waste products anyway.
Automobile accidents happen because drivers are high, just like they do when drivers are drunk. I don’t extol the virtues of getting drunk. I don’t condemn someone because they smoked pot. But it’s not something I promote either.
Let’s not lose our heads on the subject of marijuana. It’s hard to blame the government for using an advertising campaign to promote sobriety. Not smoking marijuana isn’t a bad thing. While the campaign itself may be a worthy topic of debate, even ridicule, its underlying purpose isn’t really controversial at all. The national policy against the use of marijuana is pretty standard stuff.
And this does not implicate the medical marijuana issue, any more than arguing that vic-o-din (deliberately broken up so search engines won’t recognize it), great for relieving severe pain, is the perfect “pick-me-up” pill for anyone driving race cars.
No one on the list of marijuana smokers achieved success because they smoked marijuana. It’s questionable whether anyone on the list smoked pot as they climbed the ladder of success, or was a regular pot smoker beyond their younger years. I haven’t seen anyone on the list become part of an advertising campaign to “Smoke Pot, Be Like Me!”
So let’s not get crazy about this. It’s perfectly reasonable to challenge the criminalization, and certainly the punishment, of marijuana users. It’s fair game to ridicule the ONDCP’s anti-marijuana campaign, described by Radley as “an incredibly lame campaign, [that] reeks of stodgy wonks making a desperate attempt to look hip.”
But it’s similarly foolish to turn the government’s inept effort into an opportunity to suggest that pot smoking is the road to success and wealth. It’s not.
Update: Radley has just added this video, created by John Holowach. I think this strikes a very good balance, and makes its point effectively.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t know that I’d encourage people to use pot, but if it were legal, I wouldn’t discourage it, either. It’s certainly less harmful than alcohol (and studies show that high drivers may actually better drivers than drivers who aren’t). No one has ever died of a marijuana overdose. It has medical benefits. In a society where pot was legal, the worst thing about the stuff would be the fact that most people smoke it, which is about the only thing that makes it unhealthy.
And right now, in a society where the drug is illegal, the most unhealthy thing about marijuana is what will happen to you if you’re caught.
I don’t actually smoke pot. Never have. Not out of any moral objection, though. Just never got into it.
But I’ll bet there are quite a few musicians and artists who would object to the claim that pot has never helped anyone achieve success. And quite a few people in that thread have credited it with helping them in their jobs, from software developers to artists to others who say the drug just helps them relax and de-stress.
My intent wasn’t to glamorize marijuana, but to debunk the idea that using it is a one-way ticket to a life of underemployment. I think it’s a mistake to concede to the drug warriors that there’s something inherently wrong or deviant about marijuana. The science says the stuff is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, and it certainly has more medical benefits than either.
So long as the general public believes that only criminals and delinquents smoke pot, it remains easier for the government to enforce prohibition.
I hope you can see why I’ve tried to draw the line (not to mention leave a little wiggle room for those, like musicians, who might take concrete issue with the role of marijuana in their success). I’ve always found the best argument for decriminalization is the irrationality of mere luck in distinguishing between which pot smoker goes to jail versus which one becomes president.
But there remains a fine line between arguing against its criminalization and suggesting that it’s a fun thing to do, so let’s all light up. Some lack the ability, or desire, to acknowledge that line. I believe that the line matters, with alcohol, marijuana and any other substance that alters consciousness, as I have seen harm done, and I don’t like to see harm come to anyone.
You mentioned young people in jail for marijuana possession. That possibility varies from county to county and state to state.
In Iowa possession is an indictable misdemeanor and the accused have to be fingerprinted and photographed with digital copies sent to the Iowa DPS. After this has been done most of them are released on cash bond and they are in jail for about 15 minutes.
There are numerous variations where possession of pot is unrelated to the reason the subject was arrested and booked. For example public intoxication a simple misdemeanor is reason for the arrest but the most serous charge is for the unrelated possession of pot. I think process exaggerates the count for pot possession arrests.
There are very few persons in Iowa prisons where possession of pot is the most serious charge and in almost all of those cases the amount of pot is 10 or more pounds. OTOH the drug screening at admission to prison indicates that a very high percentage of the prisoners used pot but that does not mean they are addicted to pot as some people claim.
We have about 7000 people a year enter our jail and for many of the arrestees pot use is part of their life style. If the anti-pot folks wanted to say if you want to associate with pot smokers get arrested and go to jail. That would be an accurate statement.
If Iowa were to use the alcohol regulation model to regulate the use of legalized marijuana they would need a legal source of marijuana that they could sell wholesale to licensed retailers. Even if they had a high tax to earn income for the state the retail cost would be lower than that of illegal pot. Nobody has seriously proposed such a policy because it would cause a major legal confrontation with the Feds.
We are moving in the right direction to decriminalize drugs. Visit leap.cc, Leap represents, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Federal marijuana laws, as I understand were to protect Randolph Hearst for he own huge forest interest. Paper made from hemp is a high quality product, plus hemp is an annual, will produce paper yearly. Dow Chemical was threaten by hemp also. They were on the cutting edge to produce polypropylene and nylon rope. Again threaten by hemp. So, again corporate interest trumps the interest of the people.
I learned early on in my blawging that it’s impossible to post about something like “young people going to jail” without having someone say that it’s different where they are. If I said that it rarely happened, someone from somewhere would inform me otherwise. If I said the opposite, someone would take me to task. Since people, lawyers and non-lawyers, from all areas of the country, indeed the world, read blogs, it’s impossible to tailor every statement to suit every readers’ comprehension level and local experience. And most readers are absolutely certain that their level of understanding and experience is all that matters.
To resolve this issue, I’ve chosen to ignore it and suffer the consequences.
If you want teenagers to believe you when you tell them about the real dangers of cocaine and heroin use, you shouldn’t exagerate / lie to them about the dangers of marijuana.
Also, not that it needs stating, but what the heck: there is nothing in my assertion that implies that marijuana use is a good idea, or that cocaine and heroin users should be imprisoned for lengthy periods of time for “simple” possession.
One person’s exageration/lie is another person’s truth or slightly hyperbolic example. You need to be careful about setting yourself up as the arbiter of good and evil about things like this, just as the government should be careful about doing it for all of us. But then, what did you expect from the conservative nanny state?
Stephanie Coontz has some interesting stats on this phenomenon. She found that kids who experiment — that is, try it a few times and move on — actually do better in life in the long run. She goes out of her way to note that she is in no way advocating the doobage.
I wouldn’t find that at all surprising. In fact, I’ve argued that it’s inconceivable that any normal person lived through the 60s and 70s without smoking pot. If they say they didn’t, they are either a liar or seriously out of touch.