Pubdate: Fri, 01 May 2015
Source: Observer, The (CN SN)
Copyright: 2015 Carlyle Observer
Contact: http://www.carlyleobserver.com/opinion/submit-a-letter
Website: http://www.carlyleobserver.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2915
Author: Lynne Bell

Seeing Things Differently ...

LEGALIZE POT? PERHAPS NOT...

This column is not an argument either for or against the use of 
marijuana. My middle-aged, mom-ish self is now part of a demographic 
that is more in tune with the use of pot medically, rather than 
recreationally, so I feel I would be spectacularily unqualified to 
make an emotional argument on either the pro or the con side on 
whether the use of pot is morally right or wrong.

However, this week, I am assigned to argue why marijuana should not 
be legalized for recreational use in Canada. As I mentioned, I 
haven't given pot a thought for well...decades. I think medically, 
marijuana is a wondrous thing, and criminally, I don't think a young 
person should emerge from court with a record for simply doing what 
some kids do, which is experimenting, and in some cases, making 
unwise decisions along the way to adulthood.

Given my own muddled feelings about marijuana, I decided to approach 
this argument logically. Canadian statistics were tough to find 
(sorry!), but several U.S. studies (I'll spare you the footnotes), 
make a compelling argument for not legalizing marijuana for 
recreational use, one being that "the greatest costs to marijuana are 
not related to its prohibition; they are the costs resulting from 
marijuana use itself."

That quote didn't come from a legal or medical journal. It came from 
CNBC Business News. In an article entitled "Why We Should Not 
Legalize Marijuana", a compelling case is made for not legalizing 
pot, from a pro-business, pro-productivity point of view.

Aside from the pain-in-the-neck factor of having a stoner on the 
payroll, the article states that the main financial cost of marijuana 
use to the nation is surprisingly, not related to America's criminal 
justice system. The author even calls for a drug policy that will not 
offer up a stark choice between punishment or treatment, but ideally, 
to have the legal and public health systems work together to get 
certain pot users into treatment, in order "to improve both public 
safety and public health."

In a perfect world, this would mean that someone who is arrested for 
a drug-related crime-dealing perhaps?- early in their blossoming 
criminal career, could potentially be flagged for, and receive 
treatment, instead of travelling down the dead-end road leading to 
bigger crimes, harsher sentencing, and a life derailed.

And, as any police officer will tell you, marijuana is an intoxicant, 
and anyone under the influence is a danger to themselves and others, 
if they choose to get behind the wheel as a drugged driver.

Another, less hypothetical argument states that the economic benefits 
of two legal drugs-alcohol and tobacco-don't really exist. I'm citing 
U.S. (2010) statistics here, but in 2010, U.S. tax revenue collected 
from alcohol was an estimated $14.5 billion (that's state and federal 
combined) while alcohol-related costs were a staggering $185 billion. 
Tobacco presents the same economic nightmare, with $25 billion state 
and federal taxes collected in 2010, with costs to the nation 
estimated at over $200 billion. I think we could make the same 
argument in this country.

These numbers are the canary in the coal mine for any argument 
stating that legalizing marijuana would be a good economic deal for 
any government, anywhere.

The adverse effects of alcohol and tobacco are well-known, and it's 
certainly too late for a turnaround. However, before we consider 
legalizing marijuana for recreational use in Canada, we must not only 
look at the potential human cost to our nation, but the economic one as well.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom