A recent decision by the American Medical Association to affirm its long-held stance that weed is “a dangerous drug and as such a public health concern" has some legalization opponents applauding.
Per the Detroit News op-ed pages:
It’s a high-profile decision that deserves the attention of parents, policymakers and the community. It’s time that we step back, take a harder look at existing health data, and talk about the options we have to reduce drug use and make people the priority.
Generally, the public only hears choices surrounding drug policy presented in the extreme: We can accept complete drug legalization or mass incarceration. Why has it been so difficult to have a fact-based discussion of other options?
Loaded language is part of the problem. Words like “prohibition,” “war on drugs” and “reefer madness” are inflammatory and too vague to add to generate solutions.
Similarly, use of the words “legalization” and “decriminalization” interchangeably serves to distort communication
To prove the dangers of weed, the piece notes that some evidence suggests that adolescent marijuana use leads to “addiction” rates of 17%.
And while the author doesn’t go so far as to demand stepped-up enforcement—she actually indirectly concedes that current national drug policy sucks—she is unable to admit that reform without making weed legal still keeps us tethered to the burden of a failed policy of prohibition enforcement.
(And no, “prohibition” isn’t a “loaded” term. It’s an accurate description of our federal policy. But since we’re listing loaded terms, I’m curious: Who the hell born after the Jazz Age has ever used the phrase “reefer madness” in serious conversation?)
Candy Blunts
Instead of totally dismissing the folly of prohibition, though, she instead chooses to wave off legalization, apparently out of concern that “Big Marijuana” might start selling imitation candy blunts to school children.
Legalization would mean the formation of a commercial marijuana industry operating in our communities. The danger in this development requires honest and careful consideration. Would Big Marijuana hold itself to a higher standard than Big Tobacco when it comes to advertising aimed at minors?
For this reason and others, legalization is not the best option for reform when risks versus benefits are analyzed.
Yeah. Um, I hate to break it to her readers but, if you didn’t know, we’ve already got “a commercial marijuana industry” operating in our communities.
It may not be centralized, but it’s an industry nonetheless. And you can be reasonably sure that, if you live in any city or suburb in southeastern Michigan, somebody within a 20-mile radius of your house is slinging that Kush.
But the piece is problematic for more reasons than just its anachronistic drug talk and naïve underestimation of the prevalence of the weed game.
Firstly, it seems to misrepresent the AMA’s stance via omission. While the AMA did maintain a position on marijuana that it’s always held, the group also admitted that “federal efforts to address illicit drug use via supply reduction and enforcement have been ineffective.”
So if arresting people is a waste of time then why is it that we can’t just leave the whole prohibition thing alone? Why do we insist on having some sort of policy that makes it illegal for grown people to ingest a plant that we already know is safer than liquor and beer?
The author mentions the need to “balance public health and safety” and hints at the potential role of health-care reform, drug courts and mental health courts.
But given all of the information that we have about marijuana, why should people sincere about drug policy reform talk about smoking weed in the same context of truly addictive drugs like cocaine?
Sly conflations by the author aside, do we really need to burden an already taxed drug-rehabilitation network—institutions that struggle enough working with individuals and families devastated by drugs like heroin and meth (and alcohol!)—with the addition of tens of thousands of functional stoners?
And arguing about the impact of marijuana on adolescents is a red herring. We don’t let adolescents drink alcohol legally. Why can’t we impose the same age restrictions on marijuana use and be done with the whole “it’s bad for kids” contention?
And if you are going to scream about how such measures won’t stop some kids from smoking weed, does that also mean we should consider re-banning alcohol every time some underage drunk busts into his father’s liquor cabinet or grabs a six-pack at the party store while flashing fake ID?
I agree that we need to have what the author calls a “nuanced discussion” about drug policy. And no, we can’t ignore the risks of a policy that tends to address addiction with handcuffs rather than hospital beds.
But more than a nuanced conversation, we need to have an honest conversation, one that no longer ignores the fact that even regular marijuana use is less harmful than a steady diet of Newports and Five O’Clock vodka.
If we can start talking honestly about things like the relative health risks of one drug versus another, maybe we just might stop behaving so hypocritically.
