(Note - I’ve been procrastinating writing a piece on this subject - this post and comments at Hot Air helped get it going and solidify the arguments. Most of this post is an edited/expanded/linked re-print of the comment I left at HA.)

Q: But whyyyyyy do you want to smoke pot?

A: Because I want to. That’s the only answer you need, or deserve, to that question.

This illustrates a major philosophical difference - Those asking that question, or ‘me too’ing a demand for a lengthy, reasoned, air-tight justification for allowing the indulgence in a diversionary vice are of a mindset that puts them on the same sheet of music with Henry Waxman and Carrie Nations - that of sanctimoniuos puritanical do-gooder ‘just trying to do what’s best for everyone’, as individual liberty and the ability of individuals to make their own choices and accept the consequences thereof are overlooked as suddenly less important than the ability to tell others what to do ‘for their own good’, with a few general public welfare noises thrown in for good measure. On the other hand, the ’stupid stoners’, aside from advocating something they really like to do, and wish to be left alone to do, are holding a position that would be much more recognizable (and probably more politically palatable) to the original framers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Now, a few disclosures - I wholly support the complete decriminalization of the production, transportation, sale, possession, and use of Cannabis Sativa by consenting adults. Yes, I myself have indulged in the recreational use of this substance, and I have greatly enjoyed the experiences. From both data I’ve reviewed, and through personal experience and observation, it is my assessment that even with daily use, Cannabis itself apparently causes fewer long or short term health consequences than a substantial number of other ‘legal’ substances. For example, I’d much rather get into a car (or plane, or train, or any other mechanical contraption) with an operator I’d just shared a joint with, than someone with a cold that had self-medicated with over the counter cough/cold medicine. And I’d certainly rather ride in something with someone actually smoking a joint than mindlessly yapping into their cellphone as they pretend to control a ton of metal in the midst of other humans. To those that would call this a false choice, true - the optimal situation would be a completely sober (and undistracted) operator. Still, if you wish to open the equivalency box here, and predict blood on the highways, be prepared for the data to come up a bit short when it comes time to use it to back up your assertions. Because there are studies out there, using reasonable methodology, that appear to indicate that the effects of marijuana on the species homo sapiens appear to only minimally reduce their ability to competently operate a vehicle, even during periods of moderately intense cannabis intoxication. But of course, that’s just some egghead study, what do some PhDs working for NTSB know? So let’s consider this - The statistics tell us that there are millions of americans who have tried pot, and of those, a significant percentage liked it enough to continue smoking it, either on an occasional or regular basis. Now, of those that have chosen to do so on a regular basis, a certain percentage of them report that they imbibe daily - and probably for a large number of these folks, the time indicated on whatever clock is available probably isn’t really a factor. So, it could be 9am, 2pm, 4:20pm, etc, etc - the point being, you’ve probably been out and about, regularly, driving around in a situation where 4 or 5 cars out of a hundred, in a moderately sized American city, is potentially being operated by someone under the influence of dope!! OMFG!!!!!!!!! So, basically - you’ve been driving around for years with a bunch of potheads - and, oh, aside from the anecdotal recounting from the gentleman in Florida who had a bad car wreck and the other driver happened to be stoned, I’d have no problems whatsoever with seeing the results of a pure causality assessment seeking to identify the actual accident rates involved - but I seriously doubt that a ‘pure’ study such as this exists, as it’s hard to imagine a methodology that would reliably exclude other contributory factors. Here’s how the NTSB EggHeads wrote that up -

The latest and largest of the postmortem surveys (Terhune et al, 1992) came closest to discriminating among the separate and combined effects of THC and alcohol on crash risk. It involved a sample of 1,882 fatally.injured drivers from seven widely separated American States during 1990.91. Drug.free drivers comprised 42.1% of the sample, and those showing the presence of alcohol, 51.5%. THC was found in only 4.3% and among them, three.quarters tested positive for alcohol as well.

[…] only 19 fatally injured drivers were found with only THC in their blood, too few for estimating the RR. (relative crash risk -ed)

Still, as a society, it is in the greater public interest to discourage the operation of vehicles while under the influence of any performance degrading substance. If it was a matter of degree, however, I’d be more likely to cite and fine the driver that’d chugged some Dayquil and hit the road than a stoner with a mild buzz on, if it was a choice I had the necessity and ability to make.

Now, for the economics - the money tricks. First, the organized crimes aspect of the issue - well, it should be a given that the current state of affairs is completely and wholly a situation of our own creation, from our often irrational and paranoia/fear fueled nanny statist tendencies. As this HA commenter points out, that if they were an organized crime guy, they wouldn’t be able to come up with a better money making idea than to keep drugs illegal. Excellent point, that. A government prohibition, in the face of strong, ongoing demand, is the mechanism and environment by which organized crime is able to thrive. True, the legalization of pot would not likely bring an end to organized crime - but it would certainly cut down on the overhead noise level, and allow the better use of limited law enforcement resources and personnel to place much more emphasis on those things we know to be truly dangerous. For instance - would you rather have your tax dollars sent to fund the ridiculously ineffective local cash cow known as the D.A.R.E program, which is doing such a wonderful job stemming demand by nipping it in the bud, or would you rather that money be used for scanners and detectors at our ports and border crossings, ones that can detect voids filled with cocaine or heroine, or. . . ida know. . .nasty things terrorists might like to use on use that aren’t actually, you know, drugs. Me, I’d rather see the local yokels now detailed out to do D.A.R.E. crap assigned to something useful, like at least make a showing around the local watering holes at quitting time as a deterrent to the drunks, or make one more pass by the shopping mall and through the neighborhood to make sure there’s no break-ins.

And while we’re talking tax money - it isn’t all good news on the legalization side on that front. The primary reason is that most of the numbers being tossed around are based on the artificially inflated prices that MJ sells for currently - which are completely disconnected from actual production costs. No one out there really thinks it costs $800/oz (even allowing a 10-15% profit margin) to produce even high quality MJ, do they? If you do, well, I don’t hold out a lot of hope for your appearance with Drew Carey on the Price is Right.

But what is a realistic number? It will probably be significant, but not of the magnitude some of the politicians and advocates are claiming. On the other hand, it won’t be zero, either. If MJ were to be legalized, and controlled a la tobacco and alcohol, there would arise large corporate producers, who would develop and distribute a marketable product, and yes, there would probably be a re-distribution of the facings in the cigarette display at the corner convenience store. But, where MJ would differ from tobacco, and not so much from alcohol, is that it is something that individuals can produce for themselves, were they inclined to do so. Would everyone do it? Probably not, for the same reasons people who are perfectly capable of baking their own bread buy prepared loaves from the supermarket. Convenience. Still, a situation resembling what some folks do now, home brewing beer, isn’t out of the question.

The point is, that to generate the amount of money these folks are talking, there’d have to be a supporting demand for the commercially distributed products, matched with a tax levy that is sufficient to garner the level of funds, without artificially depressing the market (or causing it to re-morph into a cottage industry, not unlike a lot of what goes on today). It’s a slippery eel - if the politicos squeeze it too hard, it’ll just go back to being clandestine. And if Cannabis is legalized, it’s going to come under the same negative PR blitz that tobacco has gotten, which will probably do more to suppress use rates than any of the moralistic arguments (which have been working so well, so far. Great job!) Such that it does not seem far fetched to imagine usage/purchase figures that will probably be on par or less than tobacco, and certainly less than alcohol are today. The final picture will have to be determined by the marketplace - but leaving an economic question with this many unknown variables in the ham-fisted paws of most politicians, it’s probably more likely that those magical numbers won’t be realized.

But before we leave the balance sheet - the cost savings, or more accurately, the ability to redirect more efficiently the resources freed up from playing an elaborate hide and seek gotcha game with a significant portion of the American public - would be enormous. And get out yer pitchforks, folks, but I’m completely behind the President when he says he’s for ending programs that just plain don’t work (although this probably isn’t what he was talking about, and probably nothing more than a platitude he tossed out, that he really isn’t going to take concrete action on).

Also - the whole ‘gateway drug’ concept. Please. It’s a conveniently scary label to hang off such a little leaf, but it’s a willfully twisted and convoluted approach to looking at it. One in which it’s necessary to completely ignore or deny that there are actually people out there with a pre-disposition for rebellious and or experimental inclinations mixed with addictive personality conditions - and that those people are going to seek out new and different substances to experiment with, or become dependent upon, regardless of whatever laws, norms, or customs they live under permit them or not. Call them pure escapists if you will, but they’ll be there, and do what they do, with or without legal MJ, or MJ at all, for that matter. Point is, you won’t deter them, just change the course of their path somewhat. It’s the behaviour, not the modalities of expression, that should be the issue, particularly when the vast, VAST majority of other practitioners of the given modality (smoking pot) do NOT exhibit the unwanted behaviour (e.g. immediately began planning convenience store stickups to finance an 8 ball of black tar heroin, while looking for a shooting gallery where they can urinate on themselves as they overdose.) Ya know, some of the freed up resources mentioned earlier could probably do a lot of good actually identifying and helping THESE sorts of folks - which to me, naive as I may be, seems like a better use of those resources, than trying to catch Roger and Betty who have a little herb garden in their basement for their own personal use.

That brings us back to the libertarian aspect, which simply magnifies the outrage at the waste of money, time and resources - and that is the consideration of the human costs, in blood, that these policies have wrought, by creating circumstance and situations that have cost too many law enforcement professionals and innocent citizens their lives or their freedom. It has been the engine that has served as the justification for an increasingly militarized law enforcement contingent, and many of us find the misuse or abuse of the power of the state, at a level of lethal intensity, to be much more troubling and problematic for this nation than wether or not Johnny smoked a bowl with his buddies after school.

A HA! So, I don’t care if kids smoke dope!!!!! Er, yeah, I do, actually. I’m willing to make allowance that there is the potential for, after 3000 years of use by homo sapiens of all ages, that there is some sort of health related developmental bogey man lurking out there that we stupid humans just haven’t identified yet. Fair enough. But that’s not why I’m in favor of age restricting it. My position is one based on informed consent, and the supposition that children and teenage adolescents are still developing and forming their ability to make informed and carefully considered choices - basically for the same reasons that we don’t allow children under 18 to do quite a number of things. But once a person has reached an age where society says that they’ve been here long enough to consider that they understand how to, and are therefore able to make their own choices. . .

And while this will be dismissed as a pure fantasy, it’s easy for me to envision lower teen/young adult MJ use rates if it is legalized, and treated as a controlled substance along with cigarettes and booze. How? Picture it - MJ is now around (convenince store!), and all the ‘old folks’ that have been closet users for years are now ‘visible’. Not completely satisfied, because of the certainty someone is enjoying themselves somewhere, somehow, the like of Henry Waxman will still be hot on his nanny-statist crusade to save everyone from everything, and so there’s likely to be a government sponsored “don’t be a dope” ad campaign, similar to what’s going on with tobacco. Whereas the circumstance today amplifies the sense of adventure, danger, thrill, and attendant peer pressure of being the rebel - how the hell can you be a rebel doin shit that your grandpa likes to do? Peer pressure comes into play, the numbers drop off. Will some kids still get ahold of weed. Sure will, it ain’t a perfect solution, but it will now be the same set of rules as for alcohol and tobacco - a system that works pretty well, when compared to the ’success’ we’ve experienced with Richard Nixon’s favorite approach to the whole problem.

Oh, one final disclaimer. yeah, I have a personal interest in this. I’d like to be able to sit, in the comfort and privacy of my own home, and make use of an exquisitely designed delivery mechanism, to partake of either the piney, evergreen taste of a fine Sinsemilla, or the musty, ‘basement taste’ of some industrial brown. I’d like to be able to experience the altered state of consciousness that I’m certain this activity will produce, for no other reason than it pleases me. Absolutely self-indulgent and decadent. Please, don’t tell me to just have a drink instead - for I absolutely, positively abhor the taste of alcohol, disdain the loss of motor and reflex control alcohol causes, and completely loathe awaking with nausea and a splitting headache.

But, if you insist upon engaging in what I consider to be such a silly and stupid behaviour, I believe that is your choice to make, and I completely respect and support your ability to make it.

A little reciprocity on this point would be greatly appreciated.