Majority supports legalizing pot; majority is wrong

---

I'll be fairly concise in expressing why, and I'll forgo the usual exercise of posting links to scientific studies about brain damage, psychosis and all that. Those are easy to find, and the stoners and libertarians will surely counter my links with links of their own once they get out of bed. That's an endless game that goes round and round. Here's why I disagree with legalization:

• More people using "recreational" drugs means more societal problems. The elimination of sanctions for use will mean more use.
• More people using "recreational" drugs means more tragedy for families and individuals.

---

---

Legalization for some age groups will increase access among all age groups because those who are underage will know who is willing to supply it. Yes, I know, they can all get it now. Legalization will make it even easier. That is not something we want.

Legalization will not eliminate the illegal drug trade, because legalization will come with limits and there will always be a market for those who want to go beyond the limits. You will not "take the money out of it" by legalizing it.

Those who argue the drug war has been a failure are inventing their own definition of failure. While it is certainly true that it hasn't eliminated or even reduced drug use, laws against other crimes don't do those things either. That's not the point. The point is to punish people you catch committing the crimes, because that's justice. At least as far as we're talking about people convicted of possessing large amounts for distribution purposes, the drug war succeeds every time one of those people is put in prison. That said . . .

The myth of the individual user rotting away in prison because he was caught with a joint is just that. A myth. Someone who is caught with a joint might not even spend a night in jail, if he's arrested at all. That is one of the most dishonest arguments of the legalization people.

The argument that people are just using it "in the privacy of their own homes" is garbage because everyone who obtains it participates in a broader market, that the broader market is the societal problem. Even those who "grow their own" have to get the seeds and the equipment from somewhere, so none of us do anything in a vacuum, and none of us really do anything that doesn't affect anyone else.

Yes, I know, alcohol is just as bad and maybe worse. And stoners use this to argue that pot should be legal too for the sake of "consistency." I say the point of laws should be to make things better in society, not worse. I really don't give a rip about "consistency." If alcohol is a huge societal problem that is costing us millions and destroying lives (and it is), why do want to unleash another one just like it for the sake of "consistency"? That would be an idiotic thing to do.

No one needs to smoke pot. No one is denied anything positive by not being able to smoke pot.

Legal and cultural acceptance of drug use, regardless of the drug, will increase the incidence of drug use among that subset of the population that is most susceptible to hard-core addiction. We will have more people on our hands who cannot keep a job and cannot stay out of trouble - people who might have never tried the drug in the first place if the law didn't say it was OK.

It is powerful for parents to be able to tell their kids that drug use can land you in prison. It helps us to convince them not to do it. I do not want that taken away. I don't think it would matter in my son's case - he's too smart to do something so stupid in any case - but in the case of a lot of kids, it just might make the difference.

Prohibition of marijuana does not "turn people into criminals" as stoners claim. People decide to be criminals by disobeying the law. The matter of whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant. You're not supposed to break the law. If you do, the legal jeopardy you now face was your own choice. Now, I respect people who choose to expose themselves to legal jeopardy over a worthwhile principle, like those who got arrested during the Civil Rights demonstrations of the 1950s and 1960s. They were courageous people. I do not respect people who choose to expose themselves to legal jeopardy because they feel like getting stoned. That's just stupid.

Yes, the Founders loved individual liberty, but their priority was not protection of the most stupid, self-destructive things people can think of to do.

I guess I would sum it all up like this: Those of you who are fighting for this as a matter of "liberty," I don't think your priority is very worthwhile. There are a lot of issues that fall under the category of liberty that are worthwhile. I don't think the right to inhale smoke so you can get stoned is one of them, and I really don't care very much if you are denied this particular freedom, since it's a stupid thing to do. So no. I don't join the majority, nor will I, no matter how large it gets. Drug use is bad for this country and bad for everyone who engages in it (and for their families and for many others who are affected by their choices). I do not want to see more of it, and that's what legalization will bring. Oh, and if you do end up behind bars for weed, good. I am happy. I hope you have a miserable time there.

---