Instead of justifying current government policies for drug prohibition, the U.S Dept. of Justice instead discredits the neoclassical argument for legalization. They present unsubstantiated facts and figures that show that the amount they spend to fight drugs is a fraction of the damages to society drugs are responsible for. They also claim legalization would only make the problem worse, while giving little in return. At this time, both arguments are primarily based on theory. Since wide-scale drug legalization has never been attempted in modern U.S. society, predictions about the damages and benefits from legalization are largely speculative. On the one hand, current damages from legal and illegal narcotics make for a powerful argument against legalization. On the other, current calculations on the costs and benefits of current policy for drug prohibition can support the case for legalization.
Not everyone in the government agrees with the U.S. Department of Justice. Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico believes in an alternative way to battle drug use in the United States. He has measured the economic ramifications of the current war on drugs and finds that the costs far outweigh the benefits. He also has a moral stance much different than many of his political peers. Gov. Johnson is adamant that he is not pro drug. Instead, he opposes needless spending and the persecution of otherwise law-abiding citizens. In his report Stop Arresting People for Bad Choices, he promotes an institutionalist drug reform, but his is a complete contrast to the current policy. Instead of the government trying to destroy the drug market through prohibitive policies, it should strive for efficiency through a legalized, government-run drug market.
Gov. Johnson is strongly committed to a cost/benefit calculation and wants efficiency in government spending for drug prevention. He describes himself as a "'cost/benefit' analysis person" (Bad Choices). His concern is that the government is spending entirely too much without consideration for results. Former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey said drug use has been cut in half over the past few decades (Bad Choices). Though Gov. Johnson does not believe this is the case, he uses McCaffrey's figure and the amount of money spent per year to predict a future in which this manner of fighting drugs will continue. Gov. Johnson claims that "in the late 1970s we were spending a billion dollars federally on the drug war . . . [and] arresting a few hundred thousand people" (Bad Choices). "Today, the feds are spending $19 billion a year on the drug war . . . [and] we're arresting 1.6 million people" (Bad Choices). For the government to cut the number of drug users in half, they spent an additional $18 billion and arrested approximately a million more people. Gov. Johnson says that if this continues "we're going to be spending the entire gross national product on drug law enforcement!" (Bad Choices).
To make spending more efficient, Gov. Johnson wants the government to change their moral opinion about drug users and take an active part in the drug market. He feels that legalizing drugs would cause more efficiency and decrease drug use. "Legalization means we educate, regulate, tax, and control the estimated $400 billion a year drug industry" (Bad Choices). By doing this, the government can use economic law to regulate the drug industry. In the case of marijuana, if the government grows, supplies, and regulates the sale, they can wrest economic power away from street dealers. Profits will go to the government and can be used for drug education programs. This would cut the cost of arresting street dealers and create revenue for the government. Also, by making regulated drug use legal, the government would cut costs arresting, prosecuting, and holding non-violent drug users. These changes could save the government billions of dollars annually, but the moral and social view of drug use will have to change for the policies to be implemented.
Gov. Johnson’s argument is still in its infancy. He does not produce any hard numbers on the cost and benefits of his proposed managerial program or any details about how to implement such a program. Questions like "what would be the cost of creating new government agencies to regulate drug sales" and "what would the new restrictions on drug use be" are not explored in his report. Having the government go into the drug business is an interesting alternative to a private drug market or drug prohibition. For such a radical consideration to be considered, Gov. Johnson will have to come up with a detailed policy plan and some hard facts on expenditures. Since their argument is economic-based, both Gov. Johnson and the U.S. Dept. of Justice can strengthen their arguments by using more authenticated figures. The burden of proof lies mostly with Gov. Johnson. It is already accepted that drugs are a "bad;" it will take a strong argument and a solid plan to convince the country that legalization is less costly than prohibition.
Like much of the economics profession, the nation’s think tanks do not feel the need to debate the legalization of marijuana or other illicit drugs extensively. The reports that have been written are short and barely scratch the surface of what could be done about illicit drugs. They do not go into sufficient detail on what the country could gain or lose by legalizing drugs. Perhaps this is because the U.S.s drug policy shows no signs of change. Many conservative political leaders promote tougher drug laws and barely acknowledge the legalization debate. Because of this, think tanks may feel that their time is better spent on topics that can have a productive end. Two think tanks, however, have touched on the subject: the Hudson Institute and the Cato Institute. Though their arguments do not cover the wide array of possible subtopics or go into much depth, these opinions represent the start of drug legalization being acknowledged by the nation’s top minds.
The Hudson Institute was founded in 1961 with the mission “to think about the future in unconventional ways,” and is funded “mostly through grants and donations from U.S. and international companies and individual supporters” (Hudson). Edmond McGarrell, director of the Institute’s Crime Control Policy Center wrote the report Dangerous Drug Proposals. He feels that the costs of legalization far outweigh the current costs of prohibition, stating, “There is evidence both that drug laws work and that legalization would constitute a declaration of unconditional surrender by public-policy analysts who seek to minimize use of harmful drugs” (DDP 1). The basis of his argument is that, since 1975, drug use has decreased significantly in the U.S. What he does not include is the escalating cost of the drug war. He looks only at the destination of a drug-free America, not the road to get there.
Mr. McGarrell also argues against legalization in a neoclassical or institutionalist manner. He mentions pro-legalizers argue that “legalization will allow governments to regulate, tax, and control drugs” (DDP 1). He rebuts this argument by saying that more people use tobacco and alcohol than illicit drugs, and that more people use marijuana, “a substance that has an active lobby for legalization and where possession has largely been de facto decriminalized by many big-city police departments,” than harder drugs like cocaine and/or heroine; “[t]hus the trends indicate that real legalization of these drugs is likely to generate rates of cocaine and heroine use closer to today’s teen use of alcohol and tobacco” (DDP 2). His reasoning is very linear and logical, but it is much too simple for this complex subject. His stance is based on a perfectly neoclassical market, where illicit drugs can be bought, sold, and consumed like typical market goods. But what of proposals for marijuana bars where the product is sold only to adults and must be consumed on the premises? Scenarios such as this are ignored. There is no comparison of the current cost of drug use and the drug war to the possible benefits from legalization. Nor does Mr. McGarrell give significant proof that it is the legal nature of alcohol that is responsible for the higher use of it compared to illicit drugs. Though his argument is tight and logical, it must go into much more depth on the topic in order to encapsulate the complexity of the issue.
The Hudson Institute's stance may be influenced by where their funding comes from. Though they do not explicitly say the government regularly funds them, they do not say they are opposed to taking government money either. There is the possibility that, in order to attract funds from the government and/or its members, the Hudson Institute sides with them on this issue. Drug prohibition, and its expansion, is a topic the government has been firm on for decades. Opposing the government on this issue could be costly to the institute. This is not to say that the desire for government fund is the only reason the Hudson Institute in anti legalization. The say that most of their money comes from private donations. But because they do receive some of their funding from the government, the possibility is present.
The Cato Institute was founded in 1977 and is a non-profit public policy research center (Cato). Unlike the Hudson Institute, Cato clearly states it will not take any government funds: “In order to maintain an independent posture, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding or endowments. Contributions are received from foundations, corporations, and individuals” (Cato). David Boaz is the executive Vice President of Cato and “is the leading authority on domestic issues like education choice, drug legalization, the growth of government, and the rise of libertarianism” (Cato). In his report Drug Legalization, Criminalization, and Harm Reduction, Mr. Boaz says that the drug war is ineffective and that drug laws should be left up to state and local governments.
Mr. Boaz uses a letter from Janet Crist of the White House Office of National Drug Policy about a cocaine bust to show the inefficiencies of current drug policies. The letter reports on "the arrest of virtually the entire Cali drug cartel leadership, the disruption of the Andean air bridge, and the hemispheric drug interdiction effort that has captured about a third of the cocaine produced in South America each year . . .However, there has been no direct effect on either the price or the availability of cocaine on our street" (DLCHR 2). This shows that even huge drug busts do little to affect the drug market. Mr. Boaz uses this example to demonstrate that, despite large funding and long efforts, much of the government work with regards to the drug market has been in vain. At best, the government has been able to hold drug use, distribution, and price in check.
Using the alcohol prohibition of the 1920's as a guide, Mr. Boaz suggests a resolution. Since "[alcohol] prohibition [sic] had failed to stop drinking and had increased prison populations and violent crime" and the end of Prohibition saw a dynamic decrease in these areas, Mr. Boaz recommends that the government turn drug laws over to state governments like it did with alcohol laws (DLCHR 1). He points out that this does not necessarily mean automatic, unrestricted legalization. "[I]n accordance with our federal system many states continued to outlaw or severely restrict the sale of liquor" (DLCHR 1). Using history as a guide may be the most logical solution. The alcohol prohibition of the 1920's is the most similar event to the marijuana prohibition of today. Analyzing that era could show what would happen if marijuana was legalized. There is one notable acceptation: alcohol was popular and legal before it was outlawed, unlike marijuana. Alcohol prohibition is a close replica of marijuana prohibition, but it cannot be considered an exact duplicate. One factor Mr. Boaz does miss is whether alcohol consumption increased with the repeal of Prohibition. And if it did, did the benefits from decreased crime and incarceration outweigh the increased harm associated with increased consumption? By answering this question, Mr. Boaz can greatly strengthen his argument for the federal government to hand the reins over to state governments.
This paper did not promote the legalization of drugs or the implementation of a free drug market. The paper called for a reduction of the federal government's power. Mr. Boaz is not so much pro-legalization as he is anti-big-government. He feels the federal government has overstepped its boundaries. By putting the laws in the hands of state governments, the nation may get drug laws that greater reflect the will of the people.
The nation's think tanks did not add much input to the drug/marijuana legalization debate. The Hudson Institute only examined one possible market in its denunciation of legalization, and the Cato Institute did not suggest any markets for drug legalization. Without more in-depth analysis, it is difficult to form an educated opinion on this issue. Although the public typically can rely on think tanks for unbiased information on controversial topics, in this case the public must rely on other sources that may be less impartial. This leaves the public at a disadvantage and gives them few resources for untainted debate.
One place to find a detailed argument for marijuana legalization is the Marijuana Reform Party (MRP), a special interest group. They claim to represent some of the proponents for the legalization of recreational use marijuana. The MRP “was established to provide a vehicle for political action for those New Yorkers who want to see an end to the criminal prohibition of marijuana” (MRP). They believe that it is people’s constitutional right to do what they will in their own home as long as it does not harm anyone else; and they believe marijuana-smoking fits into this category. The MRP is stuck with the burden of proof because it is commonplace that drugs are not good for society. Because the MRP is fighting to change decades of legislation, their argument is much more detailed than that of prohibitionists, whose opinion is law, and other legalizers, who merely gripe about current policy but do not actively attempt to change it.
The MRP does argue on the same moral plane as prohibitionists in some instances. They say that “the best way to protect the health and well-being of both our community and our children from marijuana-related harm is to control the growth, distribution and use of marijuana through a rational system of regulation and taxation, thereby separating the market for marijuana from the market for ‘hard’ drugs like crack, cocaine, amphetamines and heroin” (MRP). This argument uses the same goals as many prohibitionists. They both want to reduce the use of “hard” drugs; the MRP and prohibitionists just disagree on what a hard drug is. Also, the MRP and prohibitionists both want to keep drugs, all drugs, out of the hands of children. By agreeing with these parts of prohibition, the MRP attempts to show that they too are concerned with the well being of the nation and the nation’s children.
The MRP does present an economic argument for the legalization of marijuana. They insist the government should take an active role and set up a program to regulate the marijuana market. Through regulation and taxation, the government could profit from the use of marijuana, make it harder for children to buy it, take the power away from street dealers, and keep marijuana and “hard” drugs separate by selling marijuana in legalized shops. The government could even go one step further and take a managerial approach to the marijuana market by producing and marketing the drug themselves. The MRP suggest running marijuana cafes, as in Holland, that would regulate the sale and use of marijuana. They believe the government should take an active role promoting this highly profitable and established market instead of trying to stifle it.
The MRP is speaking to both the American public and the government, and their suggestion can be categorized as an institutionalist plan. Instead of a free market, where supply and demand is the major control system, the MRP proposes a system where the market is carefully controlled by a broad-based government policy. The government would control the supply and price side of the market. People would only be allowed a certain amount per day, regardless of demand. Where and when the product can be used will also be regimented. This will probably not be as profitable as a free, neoclassical market, but money is not the main concern. An institutionalist market would hopefully maximize the profit to harm ratio of the marijuana market, therefore, maximizing the overall well being of the country. The government would get to profit from the sales and the community would experience a decrease or disappearance of the black market and the crime associated with it. Also, people would not have to endanger themselves by dealing with criminals or coming in contact with "harder" drugs to get marijuana.
Their proposal uses traditional economics and a moral stance for personal freedoms to lobby for legalization. Instead of solely discussing profit maximization and resource allocation like neoclassical economists previously examined, the MRP focuses on social utility maximization. This has been the strongest argument thus far because of this combination. They use an economic market system to maximize the utility, or happiness, of the public. Unlike the neoclassical economists, the MRP is showing that there is more to this issue than the monetary costs and benefits legalization can produce. The MRP is attempting to show that an increase in personal freedoms leads to an increase in utility. This is a variable that the economists, the government, and the think tanks have left out. Though it can be inferred that increased productivity can lead to increased utility, the happiness of the public has not been directly considered until now. By using economic reasoning along with their moral debate for personal freedom, the MRP has a better chance persuading the people whom value hard numbers and the people whom value more humanitarian variables.
Not all special interest groups, of course, favor legalization. One on the other end of the spectrum is the Family Research Council (FRC), a conservative Christian group. They are opposed to the MRP and other legalizers' platforms. Robert Maginnis is an outspoken member of the FRC. He claims that drugs create large costs to society and legalizing them, including marijuana, will only increase the problem. Like many other prohibitionists, Maginnis does not promote the current drug policy as much as refute the legalizers' arguments for the decriminalization of drugs.
Maginnis’ argument is focused on decreasing the number of drug users regardless of costs. He states “30 percent of all adolescent auto accidents are associated with marijuana, 13 percent of all suicides among adolescents and 20 percent of all adolescent homicides” (CNN). He will not assert that marijuana is a direct cause, or does he give references for claims such as this. His argument is based solely on showing that doing drugs costs lives. This makes it unnecessary to use cost estimates since most people are hesitant to put a price tag on a human life.
Maginnis will not discuss other issues, like economic dimensions of drug prohibition. His only concern is “use.” And “if you go ahead and throw the barn door open on a lot of these drugs that are far more addictive than some of the ones we are talking about that are legal, we are going to find ourselves in a great deal of trouble” (CNN). This trouble is increased drug use. He is not concerned about increased spending on prohibition or possible benefits from drug legalization. His only concern is with the amount of people that use drugs. His argument is simple and one-dimensional. Because he is arguing for a policy that is already implemented and widely endorsed, he does not need to argue the details. He can argue the moral end of the debate and ignore other factors.
The special interest groups that promote legalization deal with the topic much better than the ones that advocate prohibition. The legalizers in this sector use economics and/or moral debates to prove their point. Their argument is multifaceted and deals with numerous factors, situations, and variables. The prohibitionists use only one variable, usage, and do not explore any alternative ways of dealing with the drug market. This topic seems to be much more important to the legalizers than it is the prohibitionists. Perhaps this is because the prohibitionists feel they have already won the debate and do not fear legalization will ever be implemented. Whatever the case, the legalizers add much more to the debate than the prohibitionist by including monetary figures, personal freedom debates, and market suggestions in their proposals.
Unlike the previously explored sectors, the media usually chooses to report on the drug legalization debate rather than give an opinion. Writers from Time magazine and Maxim magazine has done what many media sources have not by printing editorial articles on the legalization debate. Time magazine articles Glass Houses and Getting Stoned and Kicking the Big One, written by Michael Kinsley and Barbara Ehrenreich, respectively, and Maxim magazine's article End the Drug War Now! by Rogier Van Bakel all ridicule prohibition and/or promote legalization. Bakel's harsh language and cutting imagery condemn the local prohibition policies and call for a legalization of marijuana. Kinsley criticizes the government's moral/critical stance on drugs and suggests people be allowed to do what they want with and to their bodies. And Ehrenreich also criticizes the government's moral stance on drugs and claims that prohibition is an addiction itself. Prohibition makes its proponents feel morally righteous, giving them a "moral high." Proponents of prohibition, therefore, continue to preach anti-drug policies to make them feel good. While some of the writers from these articles are more opinionated on the subject than others, they all agree, to some extent, that some form of legalization is better than the current policy of prohibition.
Bakel does not pull any punches when speaking his mind about the drug war. He says, "it's a war that is misguided and arbitrary, outrageously expensive, and downright unjust, conducted in the face of massive opposition from the people it's allegedly protecting" (EDWN 2). In particular, he feels that marijuana users are being persecuted the worst. While thousands, maybe millions, of people have embraced marijuana as being safer and less harmful than many legal drugs and narcotics, to the users and the community, the government strives to lock up these otherwise law abiding citizens. "More than 700,000 cannabis users are busted every year -- that's a mind boggling arrest every 45 seconds" (EDWN 2). And, just last year our Office of National Drug Control Policy rang up an estimated $18.1 billion tab fighting drugs" (EDWN 2). Bakel is angered that users are being jailed for harming no one but themselves, also, that the money spent on capturing and incarcerating these people could be put to use on more worth while, effective causes.
He argues for marijuana legalization with restrictions. Bakel uses Holland as an example. They have an institutionalist set up for the production and sale of marijuana. The government carefully oversees production and sale of marijuana. By law, special shops are allowed to sell small amounts of marijuana to people for personal use in the store. Each person is allowed about the equivalent of five joints per day. "And drug use has skyrocketed [in Holland], right? Er, no (sic): Holland's per capita pot consumption is actually lower than America's. And marijuana use by teenagers is only about half what it is stateside" (EDWN 5). By utilizing this relatively free market approach, the U.S. has the opportunity to lower arrest rates and prosecutions by no longer having to prosecute marijuana users, make revenue by taxation and production, and actually reduce the use of marijuana by consumers.
Mr. Kinsley does not suggest a market plan for the distribution of currently illicit drugs. He does not argue that the economy or consumers would be better off if drugs were legalized. His argument is purely moral critical. He feels that denying a person the right to enjoyment, from drugs or any other source, which does not directly harm someone else is unfair and constitutionally wrong. His is a libertarian argument, that "people have the right to control their own lives, even to wreck their own lives, if that is their choice. Unmentioned as a reason for legalizing drugs, though widely believed and acted on as a practical matter by most Americans, is what might be called the Dionysian argument. Look, it says, the desire for an occasional artificial escape from the human condition is part of the human condition" (GHGS 2). Mr. Kinsley says what political correctness forbids most respected people to say in public: that people like to get high, and should have the right to if they so desire. For some reason alcohol, tobacco, and prescription medications have been accepted as ways to feel better and/or have a release where other drugs have become taboo.
Mr. Kinsley observes that the desire to get high is not restricted to a minority. "The author of this essay is no one's idea of a wild Dionysiac. That, in a way, is the point. The desire to get high occasionally is not restricted to a small self-destructive minority. It's shared by the most boring and respectable citizens" (GHGS 2). By attacking the morality the government works so hard to project and replacing it with a moral critical stance that many believe but refuse to acknowledge, Mr. Kinsley shocks the reader. This shock value may attract more attention than the typical neoclassical economic argument. Instead of debating numbers and profit margins, people are forced to reevaluate a set of morals that has been preached in this country for decades.
Barbara Ehrenreich also uses shock value to get a reaction out of the reader. Like Mr. Kinsley, she rejects the current set of dogmas on drugs and questions the nation's moral stance. Prohibition, in this article, is described as a hypocritical, ineffective law that the country is morally addicted. She feels people are two-faced in the way they deal with narcotics, legal and illegal. "Marijuana prohibition establishes a minimum baseline level of cultural dishonesty that we can never rise above: the President [Clinton] 'didn't inhale,' heh heh [sic]. It's O.K. to drink till you puke, but you mustn't ever smoke the vile weed, heh heh [sic]. One of the hardest things a parent can ever tell a bright and questioning teen-ager -- after all the relevant sermonizing, of course -- is, Well, just don't get caught" (KBO 1). Ehrenreich's point is marijuana is one of the most used recreational drugs in America. Countless studies have shown that it is no worse, maybe even better, to the body than alcohol and does not have the addictive properties of nicotine. All this said the government still spends billions of dollars to try to eradicate this plant from the nation.
Ms. Ehrenreich's hypothesis on why the nation keeps this policy is because prohibition is morally addictive. "[M]aybe it's time to admit that we cling to prohibition for the same reason we cling to so many other self-destructive habits: because we like the way they make us feel. Prohibition, for example, tends to make its advocates feel powerfully righteous, and militant righteousness has effects not unlike some demon mix of liquor and amphetamines: the eyes bulge, the veins distend, the voice begins to bray" (KBO 2). Her claim is that the government is not holding on to prohibition because they believe it is better for society. The government's institutionalist policy of closely regulating narcotics is not to protect the people from economic bads and harmful interactions. Prohibition is a moral critical habit that policy makers and many citizens cannot kick. Though the government tries to make prohibition seem logical and fundamentally and monetarily right, Ms. Ehrenreich shows that it is an outdated moral stance mimicking the Puritan ancestry this country evolved from.
Media personnel use a variety of techniques to promote legalization and/or refute prohibition. They promote institutionalist programs where the government regulates and sells certain illicit drugs, they advocate a moral critical stance that people have the right to do what they will to themselves, and they attack the government's own moral critical stance that they know best. In regards to legalization, the media does an excellent job covering the topic, and economics is widely used. Though the arguments are not purely neoclassical, they do deal with maximizing government expenditures and controlling the drug problem with a freer market. Unfortunately, finding an article disputing legalization is difficult. This only gives the public one side of the story. Without access to both sides of the story, forming an educated opinion is difficult. The reason there are few prohibitionist articles could be because it is more popular to criticize government actions than support them. Writers may be more concerned with ratings than changing current policy. Without both sides, the coverage is incomplete. Whatever the technique, a large number of editorials in popular sources denounce prohibition. And because the split is so close in the public opinion, the media can afford to without upsetting too many readers.
Drug legalization, especially of marijuana, is a hot topic right now not only among political parties, think tanks, special interest groups, and the media, but also among the general public. Some people feel that drugs are wrong, but legalizing them would decrease their use, or at least take the economic power away from criminals. Others agree that it would take power away from criminals, but would increase the availability of drugs and increase their harm to society. And still others say that, in moderation, drugs are a perfectly acceptable form of recreation and that prohibition strips citizens of their basic rights. The public as a whole is divided on the subject. The more specific the question gets about drug legalization, the narrower the gap. For example, in one poll, when asked if all illicit drugs should be legalized and regulated, only 18% of the public agreed (NBC/WSJ); when asked if marijuana should be legalized, 29% agreed (Gallup Poll); when asked if small amounts of marijuana should be decriminalized, 46% agreed (Pew). Contention is strongest over whether marijuana should be legalized, in small quantities, for personal use.
The microcosm of Duke University campus is a small-scale model of the nation's opinion about marijuana legalization. In may experience at Duke University, students and faculty members represent people from diversified backgrounds, beliefs, economic levels, and ages, and therefore are decent representations of the populace. Four letters were written in the Duke University campus newspaper, The Chronicle, on this topic between March 28th, 2002 and April 8th, 2002. Corresponding with the near split vote for small amounts of recreational marijuana in other national sectors, the letters are split fifty-fifty between those who are pro legalization and those who are anti legalization. The first two letters present the main arguments for and against legalization and the last two letters reiterate and reinforce their predecessors. Though they argue different points, the letters do have one thing in common: they all speak in a moral critical voice. The writers' arguments are based on what is morally right and what is good for people. They are trying to reach anyone with a sense of right and wrong and educate him or her about the potential risks and benefits associated with marijuana smoking.
Rami Zheman started the chain of letters by writing about a friend who lost his financial aid and will not be able to finish school due to a marijuana possession charge. This made Zheman "realize how silly illegality of marijuana really is" (New Pro). He asks the questions " . . .why are we prohibiting it and who does it really harm?" (New Pro). His answer to the first question is that marijuana was prohibited because of "xenophobic beliefs in the Southwest; that is, white Americans were afraid Mexicans would invade their culture" (New Pro). Also, politicians did it "...to advance their careers by blaming social problems on marijuana without any scientific evidence as to its actual effects on people. In fact, there is " ... overwhelming evidence that marijuana smoking does not contribute to crime or societal ills" (New Pro).
Zheman uses a combination of historical information and moral critical argument to convey his message. He wants to appeal to the morality of the general public by showing that the roots of marijuana prohibition were seeded in racial prejudices and ulterior motives of advancement. The pioneers of marijuana prohibition did it based on their fear of other races. The politicians, who claim to be prohibiting marijuana for the country's best interest, are doing this for their own self-serving purposes. Today's society, as a whole, places a great deal of emphasis on being racially tolerant and having leaders concerned more for society's well-being than their own. Because of this, Zheman's argument may have the desired effect and make the public question the morality of marijuana prohibition.
Damaging to Zheman's argument are the broad-based statements he makes. Believing that the only reason politicians promote prohibition is for their own career goals may be difficult for the reader to swallow, and is hard to prove. Believing that the only reason past leaders outlawed marijuana was because of their fear and hatred of immigrants and minorities many also be difficult to believe. Zheman would be better off citing specific examples of these moral atrocities to give his argument more credibility. Then the reader would have actual people to vilify, instead of a broad group of policy makers.
Mike King does not feel that Zheman did a proper job presenting both sides of the marijuana debate. King says, " . . . to suggest that marijuana is harmless and should be legalized is typical but irresponsible nonetheless" (Evidence). This is because marijuana use can cause " . . .psychological symptoms of depression like anxiety and withdrawal" (Evidence). King is attacking legalizers that do not present the whole picture to the general public. His argument is based on the social responsibility for people promoting a drug to disclose the risks along with the benefits.
King's disapproval of marijuana stems from the negative side effects marijuana can have. Because it can harm people, it should remain illegal. But there are many things in life that people use daily that can be and are harmful. Drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and sunbathing all have harmful effects. Prohibiting activities solely based on risk is impractical. King's first point will probably have the greatest effect on his readers. People have a moral obligation to disclose any and all facts that pertain to the welfare of others when they are promoting potentially dangerous products. If legalizers fail to do this, it could damage their platform and make their call for morality, social freedom, and truth seems hypocritical.
The public seems much more concerned with the moral critical side of the argument than anything else. The public discusses what is "right" and what is "fair" more than they discuss what is cost effective. Generally, the public puts more emphasis on the morality of topics, and drug legalization is no different. This is way marijuana legalization is more hotly debated than other drugs. Many people view marijuana as no more harmful than tobacco or alcohol. The negative effects of marijuana are not as visible as a drug like heroine or crack cocaine. Marijuana smoking is associate with things like "having the munchies" or acting "silly." Being morally opposed to a drug with these visible side effects is more difficult then being morally opposed to a drug that causes violent withdrawals.
Much like the public sector examined in this paper, the Catholic Church is also concerned with moral rather than monetary arguments, and the Catholic Church makes it more difficult to be morally against drug use. Catholicism may not be the first place people would look to find a pro legalization stance on marijuana. This religion is often equated with being conservative, and, so far, liberals have been the prime supporters of legalization. Some how it is hard to visualize the stereotypical Catholic priest on the same side of the argument as a stereotypical pot smoker. But Father Joe Vetter repeated the same arguments that many legalizers make. Though he did give more restrictions on the use of marijuana than the typical marijuana lobbyist, he did reiterate the same arguments that can be found in High Times magazine, "the number one publication of the marijuana culture."
Father Vetter has been a Catholic his entire life and has been a priest for twenty-nine years. He edited the newspaper for the Diocese and also has written articles for the Herald Times on the Catholic Church's view on contemporary subjects. His personal opinion on marijuana prohibition came from his historical knowledge about alcohol prohibition. Father Vetter has read about alcohol prohibition and knew people who were alive during the time. From his knowledge, "prohibition did not work. It created an underground market that hurt society more than the absence of alcohol, or the attempted absence I should say, helped society. And it seems the same is happening with marijuana" (Vetter). His argument is historically based. He is using a similar situation and adapting it to form his opinion about the current one. The problem with debating the costs and benefits of marijuana legalization is that it is purely hypothetical. By comparing alcohol and marijuana prohibition, we can better speculate what would occur with marijuana legalization. As for the use of marijuana, Father Vetter preaches a moral critical stance. His message is for the general public and is aimed at their sense of morality. "The big debate, from a religious point of view, is what is best for the individual and what is best for society as a whole. So the question is: How do you get people to use marijuana responsibly?" (Vetter). This question is interesting coming from a religion that is viewed as being conservative. The Church is not asking how to get people to stop, just how to get people to be responsible.
Father Vetter said, "the Church does not have an official position on drug and alcohol use. What they have said is to have reason behind what we do. Putting ourselves in situations where we lose control of ourselves, where we lower our inhibitions to the point we lose good judgement, that's a problem. That is a sinful situation" (Vetter). The Catholic Information Network's Father Mateo agrees with this statement. He says "No one who 'understands' what the Church has said would say 'the use of drugs is wrong.'" It is the MISUSE of drugs that Church and society in general call wrong" (Mateo). The restrictions that the Church proposes are not based on the current government laws. They are based on a person's set of morals and good conscience. A person must have a strong moral basis and appeal to that when confronted with choices like drugs and alcohol. Drinking or using a drug to relax or for medical purposes are acceptable, losing control is not.
The Church's argument has nothing to do with money or market efficiency. They do not take into consideration how much is spent on the drug war or how much can be made by legalizing marijuana. The Church is not appealing to the government to legalize anything, nor are they proposing any plan for legalization. Their sole purpose is to speak to the common person and preach morality and moderation in all aspects of life, not just drug use. Father Vetter said, "Not all laws are moral. Sometimes, breaking a law is more moral than following it. People must be well educated in what is right and what is wrong. After that, the Church believes that we are here for guidance. The decisions should be left up to the individual" (Vetter).
Those who are looking for a moral backing against marijuana and other drug use should look elsewhere besides the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church, one of the most popular Christian religions in the US and one not known for promoting depraved behavior, does not shun marijuana and other drug use, where is this moral stance against drug use coming from? Thus far, no group or argument has shown indisputable proof for or against legalization. The proponents for the current institutionalist program have not been able to show concrete evidence that prohibition is less costly than legalization. Legalizers have not been able to prove that legalization is less costly than prohibition. Unless both are tried, there will be no way to prove, without a reasonable doubt, which policy is more cost effective. The moral critical arguments for both sides have no solid backing in the documents both sides use as evidence for their cause. The Bible does not specifically denounce or promote drug use, nor does the Constitution.
The Catholic Church, and some other Christian religions, does not deal with the drug topic well. In seven years of regularly attending an Episcopal Church, I never heard a sermon about drugs. The Catholic Church does not even have an official stance on drug use. Priests are left to interpret the Bible and the preaching from the Pope and form their own view. Though it seems that most priests agree that it is not the drug but the overindulgence that is sinful, nothing is prohibiting a member of the Church from sermonizing that any drug use is a sin. This makes inconsistencies in their stance a potential problem. They also do not directly deal with economics. Indirectly, one could see a utility maximization argument. The Church suggests people weight the social, moral, and person benefits against the costs and make a rational decision. This, in essence, is basic neoclassical maximization. But I do not believe the Church considers economics in its decision making process. Economics is the study of people's choices. One premise of economics is that people naturally maximize their utility, regardless of their knowledge of the study. So the fact that the Church's argument fits into an economics model is not surprising. In researching the legalization debate, the Church provides little insight other than conscience should be factored into the discussion.
If you want a logical, well-formatted argument on the legalization of marijuana that incorporates statements from both sides and uses economic and moral standpoints, pop-culture music is not the place to look. But the use of marijuana and the advocating for its legalization is a strong message in the lyrics and words of many of today's musical artists. Completely different types of bands that have little in common, agree on marijuana legalization. From Sublime to Snoopy Dogg, marijuana is a powerful creative force for many artists today. Two bands that have centered their image on marijuana are Cypress Hill and the Kottonmouth Kings. They promote marijuana in their interviews, their documentaries, and their lyrics. And unlike many bands who merely sing about the joys of getting high, Cypress Hill and the Kottonmouth Kings use some logical arguments for their stance and are fighting to have marijuana legalized in the U.S.
Cypress Hill was formed in 1988 in Los Angeles, California (CH Home). This interracial trio is a strong supporter of marijuana legalization, and they promote it strongly in their lyrics. Cypress Hill advocates replacing alcohol use with marijuana in songs like "I Wanna Get High" and "Insane in the Brain." Their song "I Wanna Get High" is pretty straightforward with its message. The chorus is a repetition of the phases "I wanna get high -- so high" and " yo hits from the bong" (IWGH). The entire song proclaims their love for marijuana and the effects of smoking it and instructs other people to partake in this "powerful potion" (IWGH). There is neither a clear-cut argument here nor a discussion of the costs and benefits to society or individuals produced by smoking marijuana. This song is a simple message that getting high feels good and everyone should feel good. Though this notion my not swing Congress, it may help convince some of their listeners to try marijuana.
Cypress Hill's argument is deeper than their songs' lyrics state. They are active members in NORMAL (National Organization To Reform Marijuana Laws) and the band members have spoken a number of times on behalf of both marijuana and hemp (marijuana's brother plant that is used for textiles and is not smoked because of its low THC content). They argue on a moral critical stance. The band members oppose the government telling people what they can and cannot do to their bodies. It is a common argument with legalizers. They state that if an adult makes an educated choice and understands the consequences of his/her actions, then the government has no right to stop these actions as long as they do not infringe on someone else's well being. Cypress Hill even uses biblical references to argue on the moral front. They state in their intro "Legalize It," "Genesis 1:12 'I have given you all the seed bearing plants and herbs to use.'" Taking the Bible literally, God promotes the use of marijuana; whether he meant people to use it to get intoxicated is not specifically stated.
The Kottonmouth Kings are another pop-culture band that has centered its image on marijuana. The band formed in 1994 in Southern California (KKHE). Though they do not get much radio play, they have a huge underground following and have toured with big-name bands like Cypress Hill and Insane Clown Posse, two other bands that promote marijuana use. Their concerts are an ode to marijuana. Band members dress in clothes stamped with marijuana leaf symbols. They wear marijuana leaf replica jewelry. Their stage looks like a jungle, and the plants are fake marijuana bushes. They repetitively chant "smoke it like it's legal." And their intermission is referred to as a "chronic break" (chronic is a slang term for marijuana).
Their song lyrics and titles also promote marijuana use; songs like "So High," "All About the Weed," and "High Society" rave about the effects and importance of marijuana. They promote marijuana use as recreation and as an escape from the harshness of reality. In "High Society" they call for legalization by singing, "It's time for some realization, / Not fueled by media manipulations/ But the manifestation of the last generation, legalization." The Kottonmouth Kings are strongly anti-government, anti-big business, and anti-corporate America. Their approach toward the future of society is philosophical and naturalistic. Their argument is that man is part of nature and needs to return to those roots, and that anything provided by nature, like marijuana, should be used to its fullest potential. Band member Daddy X says that they "are trying to express the idea that we all come from a tribal heritage. We are tying to reconnect to our mother earth" (KKHE).
Daddy X also talks about the legalization debate. He says, "Of course we are totally behind it. We work with NORML and support High Times. It is a plant. What more can be said. Why don't they make tornadoes illegal if they want to condemn nature? It's totally insane and then when it's legalized for medical use, they ignore the law and keep f***ing with people" (KKHE). Though comparing the prohibition of marijuana with the prohibition of natural disasters is not really logical, their point is clear. Their philosophical message is that man is connected to nature and should stay that way. We continue to distance ourselves from the earth, and the government is making parts of Mother Nature illegal, which the Kottonmouth Kings say is wrong. If the government wants to outlaw parts of nature, they should concentrate on things that truly hurt people, like tornadoes. They promote marijuana because they think it is not harmful and should be embraced instead of criminalized.
Finally, they state that people should have the right to do what they will with their lives. Daddy X's advice is that people should "demand your right to your moments in this holographic gift with no rules, no borders except for those you choose to accept and live by" (KKHE). This is the same moral critical argument that Cypress Hill and many other pro-marijuana advocates preach. A person's body is theirs to do what s/he will and the government does not have the right to say otherwise.
Musical groups and musicians promoting marijuana use is nothing new. Peter Tosh and Bob Marley sang the song "Legalize It" with the words "Legalize it -- don't criticize it/ Legalize it and I will advertise it" in the 1970's. For decades, popular artists have been arguing for a person's right to control what goes into his/her body. And if a person enjoys smoking marijuana then it is his/her right to that pleasure. Interestingly, the 1990's saw some artists jump on the marijuana bandwagon that had previously denounced the plant. In 1988 rapper Dr. Dre declared "I don't smoke weed or sens/ 'Cause it's known to give a brother brain damage." In 1992 he titled his first solo album "The Chronic" and had the symbol of a marijuana leaf painted on the compact disc (EDWN). Popular music often represents the opinion of the younger generation. If this is true, marijuana's popularity may be on the rise.
It is difficult to say why popular music is so strongly pro marijuana. Even artists that do not indorse it do not ridicule it. Finding a song on the top forty pop charts that is anti drug is a laborious task. From at least the 1960's on, popular music usually takes the "anti-establishment" position on issues the public is divided about. For example, music of the 1960's and 1970's protested the Vietnam War and songs of the early 1990's sang against police brutality. Popular songs that did not protest these situations did not promote them either. One would be hard pressed to find a pro Vietnam song during the 1960's that was at the top of the charts. That said, the trend appears to be that being pro government on issues that are highly controversial is not the popular thing to do. Music is swayed by public opinion more than other sectors, and hence can be a better litmus test for the feelings of the young left than any other sector.
In the final analysis, drug legalization, especially marijuana legalization, is a difficult subject for any of the sectors to tackle. Both sides have arguments that are hard to refute. The suggestion for a legal institutionalist policy for marijuana sounds logical. Other countries have similar policies and most of them have lower marijuana use per capita than the U.S. An institutionalist policy could create revenue through taxes, save money on incarcerating marijuana users, and give people more freedom. But proponents of the current prohibitive policy have a logical economic argument also. Does the country want to risk legalizing a drug that could be detrimental to society? And once legalized, it would be harder to reinstitute prohibition. From a moral standpoint, most laws in the U.S. uphold people's right to do what they will to their bodies. People are even allowed to kill themselves if they wish. What is the moral difference if killing yourself quickly with a gun or slowly with a drug? Prohibitionists argue that hey are not just protecting people from themselves, but also protecting law abiding citizens from potential junkies.
Marijuana and/or drug legalization was discussed, if not briefly, in all the sectors investigated. Combining all their arguments paints an elaborate picture of this issue. Economics does play a strong part in this debate. It contributes largely to the arguments that deal with profit maximization and resource allocation. Even though few legalizers argued for a completely free market that let the invisible hand regulate the drug problem, the institutional suggestion was based on neoclassical principals. Most legalizers want the market to play a larger role than the government currently allows. Even professional economists suggest restrictions for a legal drug market. This shows that there are negative externalities that the public does not consider. The economic argument between the legalizers and prohibitionists is the cost of these externalities. If both sides could agree on what constitutes an externality and the cost, the debate may be able to move forward. For those sectors that do not directly consider economics in their arguments, it is still present. Those sectors focus on personal freedoms and morality. Though these factors are hard to specifically define and measure, they can be categorized as "utility." In a sense, the sectors that are not discussing profits and resources are still dealing with economics by trying to maximize people's utility. It is evident that there are no easy answers. Prohibitionists and legalizers cannot argue the same subtopics or specifically define the variables in their arguments. The figures from the legalizers' neoclassical argument or much different from the governments predictions of the cost and benefits from an open market. So too are the legalizers' institutionalist cost and benefit figures different from the government's figures. Morally, legalizers say people should have control over their bodies. Prohibitionists argue people do not have the right to harm others. Unless these two sides can find something to agree to disagree on, current drug laws will most likely stay stagnant.
References
Basov, Suren; Jacobson, Mireille; Miron, Jeffrey A. Prohibition and the Markets for Illegal Drugs: An Overview of Recent History. World Economics. Oct. – Dec. Issue , 2001 http://www.world-economics-journal.com/BackIssues.Asp?Vol=2&Iss=4
Boaz, David. Drug Legalization, Criminalization, and Harm Reduction. June 16, 1999 The Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-dbz061699.html
Cato Institute. March 25, 2002 http://www.cato.org
CNN.Com: Transcripts from CNN Crossfire. April 20, 2001
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0104/20/cf.00.html
Cypress Hill Homepage. 4/8/02 http://www.cypresshill.ht.st/
Cypress Hill. I Wanna Get High. 4/8/02 http://www.hollandserverhosting.com/hilllyrics/sunday/sunday01.html
Dongre, Milind. "Column Overlooks Marijuana's potential Health Risks." The Chronicle. Volume 97, Issue 127. Duke University. April 4, 2002
Drug War Facts: Economics http://www.drugwarfacts.org/economi.htm Feb. 7, 2002
Drug War Facts: Marijuana http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm Feb. 7, 2002
Ehrenreich, Barbara. Kicking the Big One. Time Magazine. Feb. 28, 1994 http://time.qpass.com/time/magazine/article.qpass
Fedoroff, Luke & Jacobs, Chandra. "Recent Letters Present One-Sided Marijuana Analysis." The Chronicle. Volume 97, Issue 129. Duke University. April 8, 2002
Gallup Poll. Poll Number 18952. April 9,1999 http://poll.orspub.com/poll/lpex.dll/ors/m/marijuana/
Gov. Johnson, Gary E. Stop Arresting People for Bad Choices. Cato Policy Report. Nov./Dec 1999.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n6/johnsonspeech.html
Hudson Institute. March 25, 2002 http://www.hudson.org
James Write. Kottonmouth Kings: Higher Education. Interview. 4/8/02
http://www.shoutweb.com/interviews/kotonmouthkings0800.phtml
King, Mike. "Evidence Shows Link Between Marijuana, Depression." The Chronicle. Volume 97, Issue 125. Duke University. April 2, 2002
Kinsley, Michael. Glass Houses and Getting Stoned. Time Magazine June 6, 1988. http://time.qpass.com/time/magazine/article/qpass
Kottonmouth Kings. All About the Weed. 4/8/02 http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/SongUnid/
Kottonmouth Kings. High Society. 4/8/02 http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/SongUnid/
Kottonmouth Kings. So High. 4/8/02 http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/SongUnid/
Marijuana Reform Party of New York State home page. March 7, 2002
http://www.marijuanareform.org/index.html
Mateo, Father. "Ask Father Mateo." Catholic Information Network. January 18, 1996 http://www.cin.org/mateo/mat93007.html
McGarrell, Edmund. Dangerous Drug Proposals. March 25, 2002 The Hudson Institute. http://hudson.org/crime2/Dangerous_Drug_Proposals.htm
Miron, Jeffrey. 2002. E-mail communication, February 20, 2002.
Miron, Jeffrey A. The Case for Drug Legalization Boston Globe. June 1998
MJM Speakers’ Bureau. http://www.mjmspeakers.com/ Copyright 2000, 2001
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll. Poll Number 7352. Dec. 1999
http://poll.orspub.com/poll/lpex.dll/ors/d/drugsillegalgeneral/
Peter Tosh. Legalize It. 4/8/02 http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/SongUnid/
Pew Research Center. Poll Number 5419. March 21, 2001
http://poll.orspub.com/poll/lpex.dll/ors/m/marijuana/
U.S. Department of Justice. Myths and Misconceptions of Drug Legalization. Chapter four: The Economics of Drug Legalization. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths5.htm
Van Bakel, Rogier. End the Drug War Now! Maxim Magazine. February 2002. http://www.maximonline.com/grit/articles/article_4493.html
Vetter, Joe Father. Interview. April 15, 2002
Zheman, Rami. "New Prohibition Targets Marijuana." The Chronicle. Volume 97, Issue 122. Duke University. March 28, 2002