strong stand against drug use and legalization," writes former Bush
41 staffer Peter Wehner in the Washington Post. "Virtually
no lawmaker in either party is doing so."
If you're like me, you probably want the next paragraph to
explain why no one in Washington, D.C. is railing
against legalization. But Wehner doesn't even take a crack at the
question. Instead, he
shuffles through a list of talking points that held sway during
his tenure in the Bush 41 White House, but which were pretty much
dead by the time "Got the Life" was retired after 65 days
on Total Request Live. (That was a joke about the
90s.)
And yet Wehner would have you believe that legalization can be
stopped in its tracks using these arguments; they "simply need to
be deployed." So let's deploy them:
1.) "The vast majority of people who are addicted to
harder drugs started by using marijuana."
This is a reverse version of the old gateway claim, which Wehner
likely didn't use in its original form because we now know that
alcohol is more of a gateway drug than marijuana. So instead of
saying that the vast majority of marijuana users go on to use
harder drugs, Wehner says that most people who use hard drugs
started with marijuana. That's like saying the vast majority of
mass shooters started by playing Duck Hunter; or, that the
vast majority of sex workers started by playing with Barbies. The
claim is only meaningful if there's a verifiable causal
relationship between the two activities. In this case, there's not:
There were 18.1 million regular marijuana users in the U.S. in 2011
(which means they used it in the 30 days prior to being surveyed)
1.4 million regular cocaine users, and 281,000 regular heroin
users. The causal relationship between marijuana and hard drugs is
very, very weak.
2.) "Drug legalization will lead to more cases of
addiction, which shatters lives."
Even under prohibition we can't stop people from developing
chemical dependence on drugs. What we do have control over is how
we treat the small number of people whose chemical dependence leads
them to commit crimes. Currently, we consign the bulk of these
addicts to prisons or homeless shelters, where drugs are plentiful.
One of the best arguments for drug reform--as
evidenced by Portugal's decriminalization strategy--is that
there are more holistic and humane ways to help these people.
It's also worth mentioning that the addiction rate for most
illicit drugs is lower
than people realize: 23 percent for heroin, 17 percent for
cocaine, and 9 percent for marijuana. Alcohol, with a prevalence
for dependence rate of 17 percent, is more like cocaine; and
tobacco, with an addiction rate of 32 percent, is worse than pretty
much everything.
3.) "One of the main deterrents to drug use is because
it is illegal. If drugs become legal, their price will go down and
use will go up."
In 2011, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and
Health, 18.1 million people reportedly used marijuana,
but according to the FBI, only 658,000 people were arrested
that year for marijuana possession. The same disparity exists for
harder drugs: Roughly 2 million people reportedly used heroin or
cocaine in 2011, but only 260,000 people were arrested for
possessing heroin, cocaine, or one of their derivatives. This tells
us not only that illegality is a weak deterrent, but that making it
an effective one would require arresting millions more people than
we currently do. Millions.
As for the price of legal pot: The news coming out of Washington
state and Colorado suggests that excise taxes will be high, which
means the price of legal pot will be close to black market rates.
If I thought Wehner's biggest concern is that legalization would
result in a free-for-all, I'd tell him not to worry one bit.
As Mark Kleiman (who is consulting Washington state on their
regulations) put it: "[A] legal cannabis market should be run
to protect public health and safety, not to maximize revenues."
That's likely what we'll see in every state that taxes and
regulates pot.
But it appears that Wehner actually sees drugs as a front in the
culture war. Bad simply because they're bad, regardless of what the
science says. That's the only explanation I can come up with for
why he spends roughly half of his alotted op-ed space arguing
that
Drug legalization...would send an unmistakable signal to
everyone, including the young: Drug use is not a big deal. We’re
giving up. Have at it.[D]rug use is wrong because it is morally problematic, because
of what it can do to mind and soul. Indeed, in some liberal and
libertarian circles, the “language of morality” is ridiculed. It is
considered unenlightened, benighted and simplistic. The role of the
state is to maximize individual liberty and be indifferent to human
character.
I don't know if Wehner thinks parents in Colorado and Washington
who voted to legalize marijuana want their children to "have at
it," but that's essentially what he's saying. He's also saying that
it doesn't matter if legalization and decriminalization are
successful. I don't suggest the GOP follow his lead.
