Personal Marijuana Use

The surging debate surrounding the legalization of marijuana has brought with it the resurrection of the "gateway theory," which alleges that experimenting with marijuana leads to the use of harder drugs like cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. The gateway debate was reborn last week, thanks to a video of FBI director Robert Mueller testifying before Congress that marijuana should be illegal because it leads to more dangerous drug use.

Although the Mueller video has provoked amusement on pot-friendly websites, the unfortunate reality is that the "gateway drug" stigma continues to present an impediment to the reform of marijuana laws. A new Rasmussen poll found that a large percentage of Americans believe the gateway argument:

The new survey also shows that nearly half of voters (46%) believe marijuana use leads to use of harder drugs. Thirty-seven percent (37%) do not see marijuana as a "gateway" drug.

Revealingly, the percentage who opposed marijuana legalization and the percentage who believed in the gateway theory were identical, both coming in at exactly 46%. As we look for ways to persuade those who remain opposed to marijuana reform, it's clearly in our interest to work towards demolishing the pernicious gateway theory once and for all. Let's take a look at what the data shows.

In 1999, drug czar Barry McCaffrey commissioned a major study on medical marijuana conducted by the venerable Institute of Medicine, which included an examination of marijuana's potential to lead to other drug use. In simple terms, the researchers explained why the gateway theory was unfounded:

Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana -- usually before they are of legal age.
…
There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.

In 2006, the University of Pittsburgh released a more thorough study in which researchers spent 12 years tracking a group of subjects from adolescence into adulthood and documented the initiation and progression of their drug use. The researchers found that the gateway theory was not only wrong, but also harmful to properly understanding and addressing drug abuse:

This evidence supports what’s known as the common liability model, an emerging theory that states the likelihood that someone will transition to the use of illegal drugs is determined not by the preceding use of a particular drug but instead by the user’s individual tendencies and environmental circumstances.

“The emphasis on the drugs themselves, rather than other, more important factors that shape a person’s behavior, has been detrimental to drug policy and prevention programs,” Dr. Tarter said. “To become more effective in our efforts to fight drug abuse, we should devote more attention to interventions that address these issues, particularly to parenting skills that shape the child’s behavior as well as peer and neighborhood environments.”

Of course, the simplest refutation of the gateway theory is the basic fact that most marijuana users just don't use other drugs. As the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports:

More than 100 million Americans have tried marijuana; 14.4 million Americans are estimated to be "past-month" users. Yet there are only an estimated 2,075,000 "past-month" users of cocaine and 153,000 "past-month" users of heroin. [DrugWarFacts]

Clearly, people who use marijuana overwhelmingly do not move on to other drug use. That's why the number of people who use marijuana will always be more than 10 times greater than the number of people who use cocaine, heroin, etc. The fact that marijuana users rarely become involved in other drug use is right here in front of us.

Unfortunately, there is one important way in which marijuana use can result in exposure to other more dangerous drugs. Laws against marijuana have created an unregulated black market, in which criminals control the supply and may attempt to market more dangerous drugs to people who just want marijuana. As the Journal of the American Medical Association reported in 2003:

Alternatively, experience with and subsequent access to cannabis use may provide individuals with access to other drugs as they come into contact with drug dealers. This argument provided a strong impetus for the Netherlands to effectively decriminalize cannabis use in an attempt to separate cannabis from the hard drug market. This strategy may have been partially successful as rates of cocaine use among those who have used cannabis are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States."

Ironically, the only real gateway that exists is created by marijuana prohibition, yet proponents of harsh marijuana laws cynically cite the damage they've caused as evidence that the drug itself is acutely harmful. It's truly the height of absurdity, yet it persists despite the mountain of categorical data I've outlined above.

The point here isn’t just that marijuana isn’t actually a "gateway drug," but that there really is no such thing as a gateway drug to begin with. The term was invented by hysterical anti-drug zealots for the specific purpose of linking marijuana with harmful outcomes that couldn’t otherwise be established. Everyone knows marijuana is completely non-lethal, but if it leads to sticking needles in your arm, anything's possible. Through repeated use, the term began to stick and we're now confronted with a marijuana legalization debate in which 46% of the country believes an antiquated, widely-refuted fabrication that erroneously renders marijuana as deadly and unpredictable as anything a scared parent can imagine.

It's perfectly typical of the unhinged drug war demagogues that one of their most popular anti-pot propaganda points doesn't even actually have anything to do with pot. Their tireless reliance on such nonsense may go a long way towards explaining why support for legalization is growing faster than ever before.

Ok, maybe she's just a little tipsy, but this is surreal either way:

Pete Guither patiently sifted through all the nonsense in this epic anti-marijuana-legalization rant at Christian Science Monitor, so I'll just mention one quote from the article:

Maybe parents thought they left peer pressure behind when they graduated from high school. But the push to legalize marijuana is like the peer pressure of the schoolyard. The arguments are perhaps timely, but they don't stand up, and parents must now stand up to them.

They must let lawmakers know that legalization is not OK, and they must carry this message to their children, too.

That's right kids! The drug war is your best friend. If it wasn't for the drug war, that nice lady at school who collects your pee samples would be out of a job.

Of course, urging parents to warn their children against the horrors of legalization may sound utterly ridiculous, but it's actually perfectly ok with me. Go ahead, seriously. Tell them these laws are controversial. The sooner they learn to think critically about drug policy, the better.

This is priceless:

The Amethyst Initiative is a coalition of college presidents who believe we should consider lowering the drinking age to help address the harms of underground drinking. It's great that they understand how the law creates unintended consequences, but listen to what they have to say about the idea of equalizing penalties for marijuana and alcohol:

The leader of the Amethyst Initiative, John McCardell Jr., president emeritus of Vermont's Middlebury College, says there's a big difference between the two debates.

"The fact is marijuana is prohibited across the board. It's not a matter of age discrimination, as where alcohol is concerned," he said. [AP]

Huh? Underage drinking is illegal just like marijuana. What's the difference between reforming alcohol laws vs. marijuana laws? The fact that marijuana isn't legal for anyone serves only to illustrate how marijuana laws are even stupider and more incoherent than the arbitrary drinking age of 21.

I understand that these folks might prefer to avoid getting caught up debating a separate issue, but if they don't wanna talk about it, they don't have to. He could have declined to comment instead of trying to draw ridiculous distinctions. The bottom line is that our marijuana laws are a constant source of insanity and injustice on college campuses and it's bizarre that these college presidents would have the courage to question the drinking age while failing to confront the extremely similar problems posed by marijuana prohibition.

Anyone who thinks 18-year-olds should be able to buy liquor ought to be open to some kind of marijuana reform. Seriously.

Slightly less annoying than those who refuse to even debate marijuana policies are those who vaguely support our position, but still mock and insult us for caring about this. A good recent example was Glenn Beck's hostile interview with MPP's Rob Kampia, in which he treated Rob with utter contempt only to then announce that he's a libertarian and he gets it. It was just weird.

William Teach at Stop The ACLU put on a similar performance yesterday that I've read twice now and still don’t quite understand. He begins by framing the marijuana debate as the dumbest thing on the planet:

It seems like every few years we have to have this debate about marijuana, and sometimes other drugs. But, in the era of hopeNchange, it is becoming louder and more open. We know that Attorney General Eric Holder has told the DEA to stop raiding “medical marijuana” dealers, er, shops. We know that El Presidente Barack H. Obama thinks pot is a joke, and that lots of folks who voted for him thought the issue of legalizing ganja was a like, ya know, really, wow, cool, man….look, a quarter!

Then, once his condescension is fully indulged, he switches gears and says this:

I will say, I really do not think marijuana is that bad of a drug, there are certainly a lot worse, particularly alcohol, which is much more addictive, mentally and physically, than pot, and much more damaging to the body than pot. Personally, I couldn’t care less if it is legalized and taxed, I’ve done it, do not care for the affects. If someone wants to get high and it doesn’t affect anyone else, hey, we want government out of our private business, right?

Precisely. This is all perfectly simple and logical, so what was it that compelled Teach to begin with a barbed caricature of people who essentially feel exactly as he does? We keep seeing this kind of thing lately and I'm still trying to understand it.

The answer may be that we've reached a strange moment where the strength of our argument has outpaced the resolution of the cultural and political associations people attach to marijuana use. In other words, conservatives like Glenn Beck and the folks at Stop The ACLU might simultaneously agree that the war on marijuana is stupid, while also maintaining some animosity towards the stereotypical liberal hippie types that they generally identify the issue with.

If that's all this is about, that's fine, but I wonder if anyone would be surprised to learn that the founder of StoptheDrugWar.org, Dave Borden, has never gotten high once in his life. Or that one of the fastest growing constituencies in drug policy reform right now is former police officers who've gotten involved after becoming disgusted by the injustice and corruption they witnessed on a daily basis in the war on drugs.

To a tremendous extent, the movement to fix our drug laws is not even driven by a desire among its adherents to take drugs without legal consequence. It's about people like Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo, whose dogs were shot dead in a botched police raid over some marijuana that he had nothing to do with. It's about cops choking innocent suspects, or selling drugs themselves, or framing innocent people to cover their incompetence. It's about horrible crazy fiascos you'd never even think about.

Since the effects of the drug war are never confined to those who choose to be involved, there's no easy way to stereotype people who want to change our laws. There are matters of life, liberty, and death at stake here that reach far beyond whether or not Joe Stoner can legally do as he pleases. That's why it's so hard for me to understand why people who ostensibly agree with our case nonetheless endeavor to turn this into something silly or frivolous.

Perhaps I shall email the folks at Stop The ACLU to request some further insight.

Update: I've heard back from both Jay Stephenson and William Teach at Stop The ACLU in regards to the post. Their take is that the tone of Teach's piece is intended to be humorous, while also taking a dig at naïve Obama supporters. Basically what I thought. It's always interesting to hear how peripheral observers view the issue. I appreciate that they took the time to read and respond.

Phelps resumed competition this weekend, prompting Jim Caple at ESPN to call for a debate on legalizing marijuana:

We need to hear all sides, as part of a serious discussion on this subject, and then make a rational decision about whether marijuana should be legal in this country.

What we do not need is to waste any more energy fretting over a college-age athlete smoking pot and the negative lesson it sends to the nation's youth. Otherwise the negative message kids will learn from Phelps' bong hit is this: Adults are too busy shouting about meaningless crap to intelligently discuss what is actually important.

Damn straight. I'm assuming, of course, that he's referring to those who condemned Phelps and not those of us who launched an angry boycott against Kellogg's. Because that was totally necessary.

Here we go again:

The average potency of marijuana, which has risen steadily for three decades, has exceeded 10 percent for the first time, the U.S. government will report on Thursday.
…
The stronger marijuana is of particular concern because high concentrations of THC have the opposite effect of low concentrations, officials say. [CNN]

Who the f#$k said that? My god, is it really necessary to explain that stronger marijuana has the exact same effect, except more of it? This is basic, basic stuff here. The argument that good pot makes people feels unpleasant is just a non-starter, and I couldn’t be less surprised not to find a name attached to it.

Marijuana has gotten stronger under marijuana prohibition, just like alcohol got stronger during alcohol prohibition. Suppliers are incentivized to maximize the potency of their product to achieve the highest profit while reducing risk. Harsh laws also encourage consumers to obtain the strongest product since penalties are determined by weight, not potency.

In a regulated market, there would be high demand for lower potency marijuana, just as light beer and light cigarettes are extremely popular. A flavorful strain with mild effects and a low price could become a big seller, but nobody in their right mind would ever try to grow something like that right now. Why risk jail over a crop that's half as profitable? Prohibition is shaping the marijuana market, yet drug warriors ironically turn around and cite potent pot as an argument for keeping the policy that made things the way they are.

There's really nothing bad about higher potency pot, since it's completely non-toxic and easy to consume in controlled doses, but to whatever extent anyone is concerned about it, the obvious solution is regulation. Test it. Label it. Put age restrictions on it. Then watch in amazement as marijuana users become even healthier and happier than they already are.

Watch CNBC's Larry Kudlow go ballistic over Gov. Schwarzenegger's recent statement in favor of debating marijuana legalization:



Here's what Schwarzenegger actually said:

"Well, I think it's not time for that, but I think it's time for a debate. I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues [are worth considering] … I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalised marijuana and other drugs. What effect did it have on those countries?"

And here's what Kudlow heard:

"I mean he basically wants to get everybody stoned and then raise taxes"

Did you even read the damn quote, Larry? It's just incredible to watch the childish hissy fits that erupt over something as sensible as suggesting we talk about marijuana laws. Anyone who doesn't want to discuss marijuana policy doesn’t have to, but if you don't think it's important, please do the rest of us a favor and just be quiet.

I'm not sure I understand what Mark Kleiman means by this:

California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano has introduced a bill to legalize cannabis in California. The bill quite sensibly recognizes that California can't have a legal market while the drug remains banned under federal law…

Why not? California has a legal market for medical marijuana, which remains illegal under federal law. There has been federal interference, but the vast majority of dispensaries in California remain in operation. Patients can generally obtain medicine legally and conveniently, despite anything and everything DEA has done to undermine California law.

I'm sure the DEA would like us to think that we can't legalize marijuana, and that might go a long way towards explaining why they keep doing these ridiculous raids that everyone hates. But there is no reason that California or any other state can't legalize marijuana as long as the votes add up. Sure, the feds will likely show up and makes a mess here and there, but in case nobody noticed, those actions consistently lead to greater public support for changing marijuana laws.

If we've learned anything from what's been happening in California for the past decade, it is that the federal government can't even come close to stamping out marijuana reform at the state level. Imagine this:

1) California voters pass ballot initiative creating regulated marijuana sales.
2) Shops begin opening in LA, San Francisco.
3) DEA raids high-profile operations, big headlines, big protests.
4) Federal charges brought against defendants. First jury trial ends in surprise acquittal.  
5) Number of new businesses opening exceeds number of raids being conducted.
6) Voters in Nevada, Oregon pass ballot initiatives creating regulated marijuana sales...

Is any of this impossible?