Marijuana Legalization Debate
“Facts Don’t Care About Your Feelings” ... Unless We Are Talking About Drugs?
“I know that in fact too many kids that begin with pot end up with heroin and then on to LSD. I know that if you drink to excess you suffer a loss of judgement but I also know that that judgement returns when you sober up. I know and so do you that when you slip out on an acid trip you never know when you’re going to slip out again … marijuana is the flame, heroin in the fuse, LSD is the bomb.”
Today Dragnet’s Jack Webb’s speech rings through EDM songs as kids mock President Nixon’s War on Drugs. It is a captivating speech, but I do not believe it is useful.
I will preface my argument by saying I do not use these substances nor necessarily approve of them, but I do not think that ambiguous moral stances should alter my beliefs about their legality. Many will tell you of marijuana’s health benefits such as curing anxiety or chronic pain, and many others will tell you it is detrimental to our society, but I believe people should be permitted to make decisions, Moral arguments are irrelevant to the legal prohibition of drugs and we should legalise all steps of the marijuana supply chain. Through empirical evidence of the effects of reformed drug laws in other countries, conceptual theories of the effects to the black market, and plans for providing treatment and social welfare through its produced tax revenue, I will elucidate why the facts show that we should support marijuana legalisation and decriminalise all drugs.
Amsterdam may be well known for their liberal party laws with drug and prostitution legalisation but have you heard about Portugal? In 2001 Portugal decriminalised the possession of all drugs to stymie overdose and HIV-related deaths. Portugal experienced a decline in the negative effects from drugs; 5 years into the policy, their street overdose deaths dropped from 400 to 290, and HIV deaths (frequently caused by sharing needles) dropped from 1,400 to 400 between 2000 to 2006.
In the early 1990s Switzerland undertook a new drug policy which provides further evidence for the benefits of accepting drugs. Over the course of two decades overdose deaths dropped 50%, HIV infections were reduced by 65%, new heroine users decreased by 80%, opioid-specific drug overdoses (which is currently a monumental issue in America) dropped by 65%, 95% of users have received treatment, and addicts are now off the streets which were so overrun by drugs during the prohibition that Zurich was called the ‘Bazaar of the Bizarre’ by the New York Times (ibid).
Portugal and Switzerland have reformed ways of dealing with drugs which I think is an important steppingstone for viewing America’s prison issues. Rather than locking up those in possession of drugs in Portugal, individuals are given a citation and required to see a panel to assist them. America’s prison system, on the other hand, has benefited from locking up drug offenders by creating a scapegoat in destabilising minority communities and profiting from their free labour. Even colleges in America who have created an over US$1 trillion-dollar student debt bubble are not ballsy enough to consider themselves ‘for-profit’. America has over 2 million prisoners, with 40,000 prisoners locked up for marijauana offenses and 70 million people with a criminal record. this creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that drugs ruin your life, but not necessarily from the drugs themselves. If the effects of the legality of something are worse the effects of the thing itself, something is wrong. In 2017 there were 1,549 black prisoners per 100,000 black adults but only 272 per 100,000 for whites, so you cannot neglect the effects of imprisonment when discussing the apparent negative effects drugs have on communities. Does a kid have a healthy life when his parent is in jail? And how is a young adult supposed to get into college or find a job with a criminal record weighing him down?
Colorado may be well known for its bucolic setting, but it is probably more well known for its drug policy than its natural beauty as the first state to legalise recreational marijuana use. It is treated similarly to alcohol: you must be 21 or older to purchase it and you need to buy from a licensed dispensary. No one IS allowed to drive or walk down the street blazing, neither of which you can do with alcohol either. So has this turned Colorado into a festival of Dionysus? From February 2014 through July 2020 the state of Colorado has earned US$1.4 billion in tax revenue because of legalisation. Similarly, California, Colorado, and Washington have earned about US$300 million annually. Colorado has a us$4.6 billion K-12 education budget so we can imagine additional tax revenue of a few $100 million would be a significant booM and would change the lives of countless kids! This money should go towards establishing more schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods and decreasing the teacher to student ratio. It can also be put towards teaching more vocational skills or going to other aspects of social work which assist communities like affordable housing and food. Take this on a scale of the entire US and we would see tax revenue of billions of dollars annually. The War on Drugs wanted to enforce drug crimes to prevent people from using these supposedly insidious substances but what has it cost America. A decade ago TIME reported that the government had spent US$2.5 trillion, yet overdoses and abuse had not declined. But if we take into account the money earned from the tax revenue and the money saved from sending less people to jail and less policing, the amount of money could be used to seriously advantage millions of people.
Towards the end of 2019 when mainstream media was (and still is) obsessed with bashing Trump about his border wall and every imaginable idea, the Sinaloan Cartel, run by the famous prison escapist, El Chapo, had mobilized an army and taken over the Mexican city of Culiacan. Instead of looking like a quick and stealthy assassination team, they openly patrolled the streets in armoured trucks with mounted machine-guns and AK-47s. They blockaded streets by burning cars and brought the city to a standstill. This was sparked by the arrest of El Chapo’s son Ovidio, so the cartel responded by taking him back, which the government meekly acquiesced to. We cannot underestimate the power given to cartels because of their monopoly on the drug business. Between only 2007 and 2014, 164,000 homicides occurred in Mexico and during this same period 103,000 died in America’s gargantuan and during questionable wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. These organised crime syndicates draw their power from the business of drugs, and taking away that economic incentive would help reduce their power and bloodshed. While murders are a huge danger, do not underestimate the threat of dying from overdoses. Legalised drugs would have more regulatory and safety measures so they would not be unknowingly contaminated with more harmful substances like Fentanyl and would allow for more discussion around safe use and enable more treatment seeking. By ending the prohibition on drugs America could reduce the danger of organised crime and prevent overdoses. In order to properly thwart the black market the government would need to become harsher on the production and sale of these illicit drugs and ensure the business is only conducted through legal, regulated channels. It could be argued that black market marijuana could be cheaper because it is not taxed but I believe the fact that nearly US$1 billion in tax revenue is produced annually in the three main states speaks to people’s attitude to remaining within the law and the small price difference is an acceptable premium for ensuring quality and remaining out of troubles of the law and the moral qualms of the dangerous southern drug industrial complex.
America is founded on the ideas of ‘rugged individualism’, the espoused rhetoric is that hard work will earn money and lead to a good life, yet why do we portray some skills as bad? Wouldn’t it make sense to be more troubled by grain producers whose alcohol kills millions through over consumption and drunk driving as well as leading to domestic abuse and ruining families. Or what about beef ranchers whose produce is 1/10 as efficient as poultry and leads to enormous draining of water reserves, deforestation, and greenhouse gasses, all contributing to climate change. Why do arbitrarily say no to the cultivation of another plant? We laud Claude Moet for creating Moet & Chandon, Jack Daniel’s for his whiskey, and Alonso Menendez for Monte Cristo cigars but why is cannabis forbidden from this limelight? The World Health Organization reports that almost 6 million people die annually worldwide from tobacco and 2.5 million from alcohol but only about 40,000 die in America each year from illicit and prescribed drugs. As conservative pundit Ben Shapiro says, “facts don’t care about your feelings,” but it seems like the facts may be against the Republican beliefs. The marijuana industry is worth over US$50 billion annually but nearly 90% of that is still black market. Marijuana employs over 250,000 people, more than 5 times as many as coal which is far more protected and the median salary in this industry is US$58,000 a year, a figure most college graduates would be happy to earn! Canadian marijuana stocks are listed public companies that are beloved by investors, Canopy has a market cap of over US$6 billion and an average revenue per employee of US$115,000. Once again, these firms should be highly regulated and forbade from advertising in an attempt to stifle the promotion of drug use (as well as including warning of the health effects on the packaging, similar to tobacco in the UK) and only accept the necessary evil. Considering black market drug business is hugely profitable despite lacking billboards and TV commercials promoting it, legal competitors can be too. If we love providing rewarding jobs and believe that becoming self-sufficient is such a glorious thing, then we should surely promote these ideals even in this industry which has been looked down upon.
Drugs suffer a dangerous stigma in America and many suffer from the deleterious effects of addiction without the ability to seek help for fear of embarrassment and legal repercussions and if we are serious about benefiting the people we must allow for recovery and that is accomplished through legalisation. Tax revenue from marijuana sales would predominantly be utilided in funding drug-treatment. One may nit-pick the argument that legalisation leads to better treatment and ends the stigma of addiction disorder by saying that this allows healthcare companies to swoop in and profit. I believe this same demographic would also largely believe in a universal healthcare system like the United Kingdom and I retort by saying if Americans are serious about that switch, this would be a prime example for showcasing its effectiveness. If we are transferring drug users from the prerogative of the state legal system, I have no issue with assisting them with state treatment.
Conservatives widely want to punish drug use and say it is bad but if we want to look into the facts I argue the empirical evidence suggests otherwise and remind you that America was founded on the indelible love and reverence for freedom. I do not necessarily think everyone should be toking and snorting lines but we must look at the beneficial effects of something that will never go away. Harsh legal procedures on the production and sale of black market drugs would incentive a switch to legal drugs which would be safer and earn tax revenue to fund addiction treatment and help society. If the power of the criminal armies to the south worries you, or the domestic gang violence and overdose deaths, you should agree with legalisation. If you would like to see positive accounting for the country with significant tax revenue going into under-funded programs, creation of not only jobs but well-paying jobs, and investment opportunities, you should agree with this legalisation. We have tested prohibition previously on alcohol and that did not reduce alcoholism and we have been at war on drugs for decades and remain unsuccessful at reducing its ill effects. Whether people morally support drug use is irrelevant to its legislation and people need to see the larger picture and side with the fact that legalisation will benefit the country.
Dain Rohtla
“How Did It Go So Wrong?”: Why Legalising Cannabis Simply Does Not Work.
For three decades Mike Power campaigned for the legalisation of marijuana. In 2020, after writing many articles, conducting meetings with senior politicians from across the globe, and giving interviews to mainstream media outlets Mike could finally begin to see the policy he had championed for so long being implemented in Canada and some US states. Mike’s most recent article for the Guardian reflects on the effects of the legalisation he so passionately supported for 30 years and asks one simple question: “How did it go so wrong?”.
Many people, just like Mike Powers, who have spent a significant period of time in parts of the world where weed is legal have come to the same, devastating realisation: legalising drugs does not work. It was a realisation which struck me, and the vast majority of the students I met, as I spent 8 months studying abroad in Ontario, Canada which legalised marijuana in 2018. Before arriving in Canada, I too was convinced by the arguments so vociferously put forward by those who believed legalising marijuana could transform society. After only a few months in Ontario and having done some thorough research I began to realise I had previously been duped.
The arguments for the legalisation of weed are relatively simple but fundamentally flawed. Often backed by dubious research funded by the corporations who make billions from the legal sale of marijuana, these arguments can even seem to have the weight of cold, hard facts behind them. In this article I intend to examine three of the key arguments espoused by supporters of legalisation and demonstrate, with the aid of statistics from reliable and independent organisations, exactly how and why they do not work.
Firstly, supporters of weed’s legalisation often claim that once the drug trade is regulated by the government, the illicit drug trade, and the violence and anti-social behaviour associated with the cartels who run it, would die out. Sadly, this has just not been the case. Statistics Canada, the government agency charged with producing objective evidence on Canadian life and government policies, report that 71% of weed-using Canadians still buy their marijuana from the illegal market. Research from The Cannalysts Inc, an independent cannabis research firm (whose main aim is to provide data to investors in the legal market), indicates that 86% of all cannabis bought in Canada was bought on the black market. Combine this with the fact that in Canada of marijuana exploded after legalisation and it becomes apparent that the illicit drug trade has actually boomed since legalisation. This was of course very predictable. Basic economics teaches us that when a new vendor enters a market their competitors don’t just collapse, but they strengthen when pushed to innovate, cheapen, and improve the strength of their product by new competition. Justin Trudeau’s government, which promised its voters a surge in government revenue thanks to the tax raised by weed sales, could not compete with the low prices offered by the illegal cartels. In fact, Statistics Canada believe that the legal price for cannabis, US$10.23 per gram, is almost double the average black-market price, US$5.59 per gram.
Sadly, this isn’t just the case in Canada. John Hickenlooper, governor of Colorado from 2011-2019 who worked with the state legislature to enact the legalisation of cannabis has since conceded that despite him thinking ‘that the black market would disappear’ he was, in his own words ‘evidently’ wrong. Hickenlooper has stated that following legalisation the black market ‘began to expand’. Kevin Merrill, who spent 30 years with the Drug Enforcement Agency in Colorado and was the Assistant Special Agent in Charge when cannabis was legalised agrees, saying once you legalise weed ‘you would always be able to go out there and probably find it cheaper than what you can through a state-regulated business’. Similar stories are being told wherever weed is legal: in Uruguay, Washington, Oregon and many more places. Once you legalise weed you expand the black market, increasing the profits of cartels who exploit the vulnerable, regularly inflict horrifying violence on those who oppose them and ruin lives.
The fact that weed usage increases enormously with its legalisation doesn’t bother legalisation advocates. Indeed, one of their central arguments on why weed should be legal is that taking it is fine. Supporters of legalisation can often be heard saying words to this effect: Weed is a harmless plant, it doesn’t cause overdoses, it doesn’t lead to domestic violence like alcohol, and therefore adults should be allowed to smoke it should they choose. The truth behind the effects of weed on the human brain, and on the fabric of our societies is much nastier. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s research has found that one in six of those who use cannabis as a teen will go on to battle a lifelong addiction with the substance. The UNODC also report that use of cannabis increases your risk of heart attacks, strokes, can drop your IQ by around 8 points, and massively increases your likelihood in engaging in high risk or anti-social behaviours. We often, rightly, hear about the mental health crisis in the UK, the US and many more countries across the world. Imagine how already struggling health care systems, just like the NHS, would be coping if weed were to be legalised. Cannabis use is the contributing factor in up to 20% of new psychotic disorder cases, the latest research from a multi-centre case control study (which surveyed thousands of users from across Europe and South America) indicates. Indeed, I invite those who insist on calling marijuana a harmless plant to have a look at Colorado’s hospital admissions statistics for marijuana related visits which doubled from 2011 (when marijuana was illegal) to 2014 (when it was legal).
We now know that the use of cannabis (which is undeniably encouraged by its legalisation) has horrific effects on the health of its users. But what does that mean for society at large? In Colorado, it’s meant a mass increase in homelessness since legalisation as people spiral out of control with mental health related issues. It’s meant placing an enormous strain on hospitals, as the Colorado Department of Public Health’s own reports indicate that hospitalisations involving patients with possible marijuana exposures and diagnoses increased from approximately 803 per 100,000 between 2001 and 2009 to 2,413 per 100,000 after marijuana was legalised. I am forced to use statistics about hospital admissions in Colorado for a simple reason best articulated by Dr Torbati, the medical director of the emergency department at Los Angeles’ Cedars-Sinai hospital, “There was no funding provided in Prop. 64 [the law which leaglised cannabis in California] that I am aware of to fund surveillance efforts specific to marijuana”. This is not just the case in California, most states are refusing to allow their healthcare professionals track the effects of cannabis’ legalisation on hospital admissions.
I’d like to also briefly comment on the more libertarian argument frequently employed by supporters of drug legalisation, that as adults in a free world individuals should have the right to take a harmful substance should they choose. One Colorado hospital has noted a 15% increase in babies born with THC in their blood. A 2018 study which controlled for alcohol abuse, anti-social personality symptoms, and relationship satisfaction still reported that marijuana use is ‘positively and significantly associated’ with all forms of inter-personal violence (physical, psychological, sexual). Legalise marijuana and you don’t just harm yourself but those around you too.
The final argument often put forward by pro-legalisation campaigners that I am going to consider is perhaps the most commonly employed and also one of the most ridiculous: the “it worked in Portugal and Switzerland” argument. Portugal and Switzerland are often held up as shining examples of countries whose liberal stance on drugs has led to a decrease in crime, violence, and cases of HIV. This is entirely correct. There is, however, one small issue with using Portugal and Switzerland as models for legalisation. Cannabis is illegal in both of these countries. If you use, produce, buy, or sell cannabis in Portugal or Switzerland you are absolutely breaking the law. Grow or sell weed and you will face serious prison sentences, simply use weed in Portugal and you could face: fines, foreign travel bans, the suspension of any professional licence (from medical to taxi driver), confiscation of personal possessions, and more.
In 2001, Portugal implemented a new “drug strategy” which contained three major elements. Firstly, one of the most aggressive anti-drug information campaigns in the world . Secondly, the establishment of “dissuasion commissions” which targeted users and encouraged them to seek treatment. Thirdly, maintaining the illegality of all drug related activity but shifting drug usage from a criminal to an administrative offense so that users could seek treatment in hospitals not prisons. Switzerland has broadly similar laws which I won’t go into detail with for brevity’s sake (as Swiss law varies by canton any analysis of Swiss drug laws is inevitably lengthy and complex, and further Portugal is more commonly used as an exemplum). The drug laws of these two countries and the almost unprecedented education campaigns which were instigated at the same time as reform are designed to send a set of clear messages to their populations: do not take drugs, if you do please seek medical help, if you sell drugs we will lock you up. Quite how the success of this strategy has been interpreted as evidence that we should entirely legalise drugs baffles me. The cases of Portugal and Switzerland prove that prison isn’t the best punishment for every offence, that the public’s understanding of the effects of drug use is minimal, and most importantly of all that drugs should remain illegal.
The science says cannabis does significant damage to the bodies of its users, the evidence from Canada, the US and Uruguay says it increases the profits of the cartels and encourages the black market, the evidence from Portugal and Switzerland says that the most effective way to control the crime and negative health effects of drug use is to maintain the illegality of drugs, and the evidence from almost every country in the world is that widespread cannabis use is linked with social issues. So why on earth does anyone support marijuana’s legalisation? The answer is depressingly simple and obvious: money. The legal sale of marijuana brings untold misery to the communities it affects and untold profits to the corporations who can sell it on a mass scale. Marijuana companies are behaving in exactly the same way as the tobacco industry did only decades ago as they manipulate facts, pour money into the hands of politicians and scientists, and lobby relentlessly for the free and open sale of their products simply to keep profits high. It took millions of shocking deaths, each one a tragedy, from lung cancer for us to realise that the only way to stop people damaging their health with tobacco was to severely restrict its sale. We should keep that lesson in our minds as we listen to the scientists tell us of the devastating impact cannabis has on our mental health. Let’s ask our politicians to show a little courage and refuse to be bullied or bought into legalising weed by billion-dollar corporations, and keep our communities safe.
Eamon Macdonald