Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Goldy is Not Amused | Have a Shroomy Day »

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Think of the Children and Legalize Pot Already!

posted by on December 19 at 14:50 PM

Big news earlier in the week about pot—big news that Dominic already Slogged about today. Pot is now America’s #1 cash crop. If this had happened on Clinton’s watch, of course, we’d be hearing about how the non-inhaler-in-chief is to blame. Bill Clinton set a poor example for all those red-state farmers growing weed, the president “sets the tone” and Bill Clinton’s tone is pure moral relativism, blah blah blah. But since Bush was in office when pot shot to #1, well, I don’t think we’re going to hear much about this story on Fox News.

Here’s my favorite chunk of the story:

Marijuana remains popular with the baby boomer generation, which first experimented with it in the 1950s and 1960s. And its use is booming among teenagers and young adults, especially as alcohol cannot be sold to under 21s.

That’s a point I made in my book Skipping Towards Gomorrah, which featured a long chapter on pot. If we want to keep pot out of the hands—and lungs and stomachs and brains—of the darling kiddies, then we need to legalize pot. Someone with a license to sell booze isn’t going to risk losing that license by selling cases of Schlitz to children. A liquor license is too valuable, and the booze business is too profitable, to flush it away by selling six-packs to 14-year-olds.

Someone who sells pot, on the other hand, doesn’t need a license. It’s every bit as illegal to sell pot to 15-year-olds as it is to 25-year-olds or 35-year-olds. Pot dealers, unlike booze dealers, have no reason to police themselves. So if you want to stop pot dealers from selling to high-school students (hell, if you want to stop high-school students from dealing), legalize pot, issue licenses to growers and dealers, and sell it in “coffee shops” like the Dutch.

Will some kids manage to get their hands on pot anyway? Yes, some will—just like some kids get their hands on beer. But it will be much, much harder for them to get their hands on pot.

RSS icon Comments

1

I agree with you but would add that it is so much easier for someone to grow weed on their own property than it is for people to brew their own beer or booze. Even if legalized there will still be illegal growing operations selling weed to kids.

I agree that we should legalize weed. A lot of problems will go away but of course there will be new problems that pop up. I think its worth it though. To me alcohol is a much more dangerous drug than weed.

Posted by Suz | December 19, 2006 3:08 PM
2

Can't agree enough - the issue of actually legalizing is big enough, but the point about it being easier for underage kids to get pot than booze was certainly the case when I was under 21. If politicians (and the voters that elect them) could think pragmatically instead acting on their first reactions to every question, what a country we'd have.

Posted by kap0w | December 19, 2006 3:14 PM
3

You are so right. Even in college it was easier for me to find pot than alcohol.

Posted by Baxter | December 19, 2006 3:26 PM
4

True, but legalization requires logical thought. And we all know our country isn't capable of that.

Posted by Original Andrew | December 19, 2006 3:34 PM
5

Good point, Dan.

One of the biggest mistakes that the decrim movement made in the late 1970s was in not distinguishing adult cannabis use from "teen" cannabis use. Stroup and others were so convinced of pot's harmlessness that they didn't even see the parental backlash coming (ever hear of the "Bong Show" put on by a bunch of Florida mothers back in the 1970s featuring bongs with cartoon characters on them?)--until it whacked them over the head.

Posted by abracapocus | December 19, 2006 3:39 PM
6

Suz, sure you could grow your own pot, but honestly, it's not much more difficult to brew your own beer. The growing part isn't too difficult, but separating stems and seeds, drying, and all the rest is a bit of effort. This is America, and we pay for convenience constantly. If pot were legal, there would be debates about terroire, brands would get reputations, just like vodkas, and people would pay for consistency, quality, and prestige. It happens to a degree now, with people talking about BC Bud, Thai stick, Maui Wowie, and all the like; the only difference is that if legal, it would be verifiable.

Posted by Gitai | December 19, 2006 3:43 PM
7

While I agree that weed should be legalized and regulated, it being the #1 cash crop is a poor reason. In a rare turn of events, some White House hack actually made a cogent statement, noting that #1 cashcrops cocaine in Colombia and heroin in Afghanistan haven't exactly done wonders for those countries.

Posted by him | December 19, 2006 3:51 PM
8

Him,

Um, except given those countless thousands of poor farmers an income which has allowed them to, you know, eat and keep their families alive.

Posted by Original Andrew | December 19, 2006 4:14 PM
9

Him? It's the illegality of cocaine and heroin that create the profits that fund the criminal networks that terrorize Columbia and contribute mightily to the messes that are Afghanistan and Pakistan. Legalize production and sale, tax and regulate both markets, and coca and poppy production will be about as violent as corn and soybeans.

It's just not cricket for drug war fans to point to the violence created by prohibition and their war on drugs as proof that the war on drugs should continue, is in any way a success, or is somehow better than the legalization alternative. Decriminalize drugs and... wait for it... drugs won't be produced and sold by criminals.

Posted by Dan Savage | December 19, 2006 4:15 PM
10

I'm sure it's real hard for kids to get pot and booze, just as it was when I was kid ...

Translation for the sarcasm-impaired, it was easy then, it's easy now. Locking up people doesn't do anything but make more criminals.

Dan's right.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 19, 2006 5:22 PM
11

OA:
well, if they grew subsistance crops then they could eat. But they wouldn't be as rich, for sure.
Dan:
Certainly true. And I agree money is better poured into treatment than into fighting the war. But I doubt such amounts of money will ever be poured into treatment, and the effects of rampant drug use without either (a) treating its populace or (b) trying to prevent its entrance (ie, drug war) can devastate a society.

Posted by him | December 19, 2006 6:50 PM
12

Speaking as the daughter of an alcoholic smoker, people who want to self-destruct can and will do so legally if they choose.

Making some drugs (like pot) illegal does not prevent their use. However, as Dan notes, making them legal does impose certain restrictions and expectations. Plus, making them illegal creates marvelous profit margins for criminals. Altria, Jim Beam, and GlaxoSmithKline would be good competition for the mob, don't you think?

Posted by JenK | December 19, 2006 7:34 PM
13

It's not that hard to brew beer. My Dad did it for years, stinking up the house and handing out bottles to relatives over the holidays. He still grows hops in the backyard.

If pot is ever legalized, I would like to see a show-down between ciggarette companies and the newly established joint companies. You know they'll do it.

Posted by redletter | December 19, 2006 7:52 PM
14

It should be noted that pot is America's number one cash crop precisely because it is illegal. The price of the product and distribution would go down dramatically if it were legalized. If the experience of some European countries is any indication, usage would spike during the first few years of legalization, then drop and eventually level off - at a lower level than it is at today. Yes, price and usage would drop. Along with Dan's reasons about kiddie usage, these are other good points for legalization.

Posted by B.D. | December 20, 2006 7:20 AM
15

To the first comment - actually it is easier to make beer at home than to grow pot. Equipment is cheaper, space requirements are less.

Posted by A homebrewer | December 20, 2006 10:38 AM
16

Yes, price and usage would drop.

Nothing like removing the thrill of the forbidden ;)

My first drink was during a sit-down dinner party given by the mother of my high school best friend. Somehow a glass of vouvray of with my poached salmon, asparagus and twice-backed potato did not turn me into a raving alcoholic.

Posted by JenK | December 20, 2006 2:34 PM
17

is killin the bc bud i've had as of late.

my first drink coincided with my first cigarette, with my much older brother in an irish pub in germany.

i ain't no ragin' alcoholic, neither.

Posted by tillamook | December 20, 2006 5:26 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).