Dealing With the Marijuana Problem
The New York Times editorial board thinks America has a marijuana problem. This may come as a surprise, as the same board has long supported legalizing weed. The esteemed paper of record once assumed there would be few problems with addiction or overuse. “It is now clear that many of these predictions were wrong,” the board concluded last week.
The Times pointed to data showing millions of Americans smoke weed frequently and more use it on a daily basis than alcohol. “This wider use has caused a rise in addiction and other problems,” the board writes. “Each year, nearly 2.8 million people in the United States suffer from cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, which causes severe vomiting and stomach pain. More people have also ended up in hospitals with marijuana-linked paranoia and chronic psychotic disorders. Bystanders have also been hurt, including by people driving under the influence of pot.”
But the paper argues against prohibition, arguing that it has its own harmful effects. The editorial board wants regulations and taxes rather than bans. That may displease conservatives who prefer outright outlawing it. But measures such as this may be our only hope to stem reefer madness. The public is too “culturally libertarian” to embrace a ban. Making it more inconvenient to toke offers the hope of limiting its harm. It worked with smoking; it can work again with weed.
I am personally extremely anti-marijuana. Refusing to smoke weed is one of the four planks of the Greerhead Pledge. It’s a nasty habit that turns people into unproductive slugs. It reduces brain function and increases the chance of mental illness. It’s not even a good social drug like alcohol. People don’t gain the urge to socialize under its influence. It would be better if it were banned, with some exceptions made for medicinal use.
But our country is likely to turn a deaf ear to that. We live in an age of cultural libertarianism where Americans desire a maximization of individual rights. This can lead to conservative victories, such as greater gun rights. But it also leads to legalized gambling, drugs, and “sex work.” People don’t want to have their rights infringed upon. Some see that freedom as the right to carry their gun around wherever they want; others view it as the liberty to do any drug they please.
America’s common moral consensus can be summed up in “let people enjoy things” and “mind your own business.” So long as the individual isn’t “harming anyone,” it’s considered fine to legalize. As Aaron Renn observes, the nation now lacks the “softly institutionalized generic Protestantism” that stood for our moral consensus. It emphasized moral reform and vice suppression. But with its decline, all that’s left is “live and let live.”
This may seem daunting to those who want to reduce the prevalence of marijuana use. But that doesn’t need to be the case. Modern America was capable of suppressing one vice without outlawing it.
That vice is, of course, smoking. Cigarettes were once ubiquitous in this country. One could smoke them in the office, restaurants, and even on planes. In 1965, 42.5 percent of American adults smoked. Today, that number stands below 12 percent.
How was this changed? Besides health campaigns warning about the dangers of smoking, we made it harder to do so. Starting in the 2000s, we started to ban smoking at work and inside all buildings. Now if you wanted to smoke, you had to make the extra effort to stand outside and take a smoke. This made it highly inconvenient. No longer could you just light up a cig at your desk. You had to put aside work and brave the weather to do so.
Americans hate to be inconvenienced. We structure our society, in theory, for maximum ease and accessibility. Being forced to go the extra mile to do anything will dissuade Americans from doing it.
We also hate taxes, which is another thing that was heavily levied on tobacco products. Not only were Americans having to expend a lot of effort to smoke one measly cig, they had to pay a whole lot more for it as well.
If we were able to dramatically cut tobacco smoking, we can do the same for weed. There needs to be stiff restrictions on where potheads can smoke. People, for the most part, don’t smoke at work, but they love to smoke in public places. That should be curbed. Most places don’t allow people to drink in public. It’s time to do the same for weed. There should be restrictions on smoking weed on public streets and in parks, and they should be strictly enforced. In practice, the only place you should be allowed to smoke weed is at a private residence. And even this domain should face restrictions.
A landmark case in DC ruled in favor of a woman who sued her neighbor for the weed stench he brought to her front door. Just like loud music and other public disturbances, marijuana users must ensure that their pastime does not interfere with their neighbors. They need to smoke responsibly and not stink up the entire neighborhood. That lawsuit hopefully establishes a precedent for the entire country and leads to city ordinances and rental agreements spelling it out.
Along with these rules, we must place heavy taxes on the product and regulations on its potency. A federal tax on pot, as suggested by the Times, should be enacted as soon as possible. Once the standard is set, the states will follow. Potheads, like smokers, should pay a heavy price for their habit.
We are unfortunately facing the prospect of legal weed. There may come a day when more people realize its harmful effects, and it is once again banned. But that day probably won’t come for a long time. It might even require a revival of the old moral consensus that fell by the wayside in the 1960s.
In the meantime, we have to deal with this upcoming certainty. It would be a nightmare to allow weed to pervade our entire society. Legalization doesn’t have to deliver us to this evil. Making it extremely inconvenient and extremely expensive would go a long way toward reducing our marijuana problem.
The post Dealing With the Marijuana Problem appeared first on The American Conservative.