Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jan 2014
Source: Austin American-Statesman (TX)
Copyright: 2014 New York Times
Contact: http://www.statesman.com/default/content/feedback/lettersubmit.html
Website: http://www.statesman.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/32
Note: Letters MUST be 150 words or less
Author: David Brooks
Note: Brooks writes for the New York Times.

MARIJUANA: BEEN THERE, DONE THAT AND MOVED ON

For a little while in my teenage years, my friends and I smoked 
marijuana. It was fun. I have some fond memories of us all being 
silly together. I think those moments of uninhibited frolic deepened 
our friendships.

But then we all sort of moved away from it. I don't remember any big 
group decision that we should give up weed. It just sort of petered 
out, and, before long, we were scarcely using it.

We didn't give it up for the obvious health reasons: that it is 
addictive in about 1 in 6 teenagers; that smoking and driving is a 
good way to get yourself killed; that young people who smoke go on to 
suffer IQ loss and perform worse on other cognitive tests.

I think we gave it up, first, because we each had had a few 
embarrassing incidents. Stoned people do stupid things (that's 
basically the point). I smoked one day during lunch and then had to 
give a presentation in English class. I stumbled through it, 
incapable of putting together simple phrases, feeling like a total 
loser. It is still one of those embarrassing memories that pop up 
unbidden at 4 in the morning.

We gave it up, second, I think, because one member of our clique 
became a full-on stoner. He may have been the smartest of us, but 
something sad happened to him as he sunk deeper into pothead life.

Third, most of us developed higher pleasures. Smoking was fun, for a 
bit, but it was kind of repetitive. Most of us figured out early on 
that smoking weed doesn't really make you funnier or more creative 
(academic studies more or less confirm this). We graduated to more 
satisfying pleasures. The deeper sources of happiness usually involve 
a state of going somewhere, becoming better at something, learning 
more about something, overcoming difficulty and experiencing a sense 
of satisfaction and accomplishment.

One close friend devoted himself to track. Others fell deeply in love 
and got thrills from the enlargements of the heart. A few developed 
passions for science or literature.

Finally, I think we had a vague sense that smoking weed was not 
exactly something you were proud of yourself for. It's not something 
people admire. We were in the stage, which I guess all of us are 
still in, of trying to become more integrated, coherent and 
responsible people. This process usually involves using reason, 
temperance and self-control - not qualities one associates with being high.

I think we had a sense, which all people have, or should have, that 
the actions you take change you inside, making you a little more or a 
little less coherent. Not smoking, or only smoking sporadically, gave 
you a better shot at becoming a little more integrated and 
interesting. Smoking all the time seemed likely to cumulatively 
fragment a person's deep center, or at least not do much to enhance it.

So, like the vast majority of people who try drugs, we aged out. We 
left marijuana behind. I don't have any problem with somebody who 
gets high from time to time, but I guess, on the whole, I think being 
stoned is not a particularly uplifting form of pleasure and should be 
discouraged more than encouraged.

We now have a couple of states - Colorado and Washington - that have 
gone into the business of effectively encouraging drug use. By making 
weed legal, they are creating a situation in which the price will 
drop substantially. One RAND study suggests that prices could plummet 
up to 90 percent, before taxes and such. As prices drop and legal 
fears go away, usage is bound to increase. This is simple economics, 
and it is confirmed by much research. Colorado and Washington, in 
other words, are producing more users.

The people who debate these policy changes usually cite the health 
risks users would face or the tax revenues the state might realize. 
Many people these days shy away from talk about the moral status of 
drug use because that would imply that one sort of life you might 
choose is better than another sort of life.

But, of course, these are the core questions: Laws profoundly mold 
culture, so what sort of community do we want our laws to nurture? 
What sort of individuals and behaviors do our governments want to 
encourage? I'd say that in healthy societies government wants to 
subtly tip the scale to favor temperate, prudent, self-governing 
citizenship. In those societies, government subtly encourages the 
highest pleasures, like enjoying the arts or being in nature, and 
discourages lesser pleasures, like being stoned.

In legalizing weed, citizens of Colorado are, indeed, enhancing 
individual freedom. But they are also nurturing a moral ecology in 
which it is a bit harder to be the sort of person most of us want to be.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom