Pubdate: Wed, 06 Aug 2014
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2014 The New York Times Company
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: Juliet Lapidos

TIMES READERS ONLINE MAKE THEIR OWN CASES FOR LEGALIZING MARIJUANA

WE learned something about New York Times online commenters recently:
They are far, far more supportive of marijuana legalization than the
average American.

Over the last 10 days, The Times's Editorial Board published a series
calling for an end to the federal ban on marijuana. This stance, we
realized, was hardly avant-garde. As we noted in an essay on public
views, a majority of Americans now favor legalizing use of the drug.
But this majority is not especially large: 54 percent to 42 percent,
according to the Pew Research Center's latest poll.

In the comments section of the High Time series, we asked readers to
state their preference: for legalization, against it or unsure.
Obviously, combing through Internet comments won't yield results that
are publishable in a scientific journal. Still, the lopsided response
seems to indicate that Times readers - at least readers of the online
edition - overwhelmingly believe that prohibition is pointless.

As of Tuesday afternoon, roughly 15,000 comments were published online
on seven editorials: 12,658 were for, 982 against, and 254 unsure.
(Not everyone chose a category. And letters to the editor, by
contrast, were far more mixed.)

By and large, readers seem to support legalization for the same
reasons the editorial writers do. They are convinced marijuana is less
dangerous than alcohol and tobacco and believe that the
criminalization of marijuana is more likely to ruin lives than
marijuana itself. Arrest and incarceration for possession of a
relatively harmless substance is, to many readers,
unacceptable.

Mark Hanna of Virginia summed up the consensus view: "Like many wars,
the war on drugs has caused too much carnage. Let's responsibly
legalize marijuana."

Kyle of Oklahoma made the same point in more detail: "No matter how
bad you think marijuana is for kids, teens or adults, the fact is that
arrest, incarceration, and the ruin they bring is worse. The question
is not whether marijuana is 'O.K.' It is how [to] effectively deal
with it. Illegality and moral censure are and should remain separate
tools. ... I think many people are worried about losing control of
their kids, but I don't think a single one of them wants to see their
kid locked up."

And Justine, a nurse in Portland, Ore., wrote from personal
experience: "I have yet to see one patient come through our doors
suffering the long-term consequence of pot use. Not one. Alcohol? I
can't even begin to count. And when they do, it is very ugly. Patients
in the E.R. because someone smoked a couple of joints and got violent?
Not so much."

Not surprisingly, commenters did advance arguments that the Editorial
Board overlooked, or touched upon only in passing. Some, including
Daniel of Alabama, supported legalization on ideological, libertarian
grounds: "I reject the federal government's right to decide what I put
in my body. Even if it was 'bad' for you, so what? We don't ban
skydiving, driving in cars, hunting, professional backyard wrestling,
traveling to 3rd world countries, sugary foods and beverages, standing
outside during thunderstorms with a metal pole, swimming after eating,
caffeine, ibuprofen, alcohol, cigarettes or prescription drugs, all of
which are statistically more likely to harm you."

Other readers endorsed legalization as a way to reduce the power of
drug cartels. Pedro, a reader in Mexico City, explained: "In Mexico,
we have a bloody war against drugs. ... This prohibition has done
[nothing] but destroy people by putting them in jail. Drug dealers
killing each other for territory, etc. There are more cartels than
there were when the prohibition started. This prohibition has only
empowered drug dealers. I say let cannabis [be] free. Stop benefiting
the cartels."

Instead of allowing gangs to profit from marijuana, some readers
suggested that local governments could patch up their budgets by
taxing the drug. "In this era of dwindling coffers," wrote Kelli
Dunaway of St. Louis, "it seems that the regulation, sale and taxation
of marijuana offers some badly needed fiscal relief. In my state, that
may be the only argument with any impact."

ALTHOUGH the vast majority of readers wrote in support of
legalization, there was, of course, some dissent. There were readers
who considered the series downright reckless and who questioned our
priorities.

Robert Jackson of Denver said "we need to put the needs of America's
youth ahead of the needs of people who want to get stoned." He
dismissed the notion that "pot is a safe and harmless drug" as the
product of a "well-funded blitzkrieg propaganda campaign," and called
the argument that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana a
"propaganda tactic of distraction." Sam Coulter of New York was more
blunt: "Arguing [marijuana] should be legal just because alcohol is
legal is just plain stupid."

We expected some readers to make the slippery-slope case against
legalizing marijuana, and they did. Keval Parekh of New Jersey wrote,
sarcastically, "Sure, Democrats, let's fully legalize marijuana. ...
And while we're at it, how about cocaine, meth, heroin and LSD." But
he also took a rather surprising position: He called on Republicans to
"end their hypocritical stance on alcohol and tobacco. ... They should
come out as against ALL types of drugs (including alcohol and tobacco)!"

Mr. Parekh was not the only reader to recommend doubling-down on
prohibition. Susan of Boston identified herself as "someone who thinks
tobacco smoking should be outlawed."

Somehow we don't anticipate "repeal the 21st amendment, ban tobacco"
working as a slogan on the campaign trail; certainly any candidate who
suggested blanket prohibition would lose The Times's readership. In
fact, many readers argued that legalization - rather than continued or
broader prohibition - was the political winner. They noticed the
near-unanimity in the comments section, and, perhaps getting a little
carried away, imagined hope-and-change emanating from the White House.

Chris of Virginia had some advice for President Obama: "He should use
executive authority to legalize marijuana on a national level and let
each state decide their own laws. This could be an opportunity for
Pres. Obama to cement his legacy and give the nation what it clearly 
desires."

The president would, at least, be giving a majority of Times
commenters what they clearly desire.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt