The Feds have been cracking down on California’s medical marijuana dispensaries to stop a national marijuana trade by people with criminal backgrounds. Naturally, marijuana users are up in arms about what they see as an incursion into their â€rightâ€ to have access to the drug. While federal law prohibits the use of marijuana, conflict with state law is not the issue here. It is the corruption of the industry by criminal elements.
When voters approved the medical marijuana proposition, there was no guide as to how the drug would be distributed. Medical marijuana should have only been available through pharmacies, just like other prescription medications. There are no shops set up to distribute other specific prescribed meds. Likewise, there should not be any for medical marijuana. It is this failure in the original proposition that has brought about the current problem.
Significantly, U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte acknowledged that in Sacramento recently. He said, â€œWhile California law permits collective cultivation of marijuana in limited circumstances, it does not allow commercial distribution through the store-front model we see across California.â€ The state can still remedy the problem and require that medical marijuana be sold only through pharmacies.
Before when I wrote on Californiaâ€™s Proposition 19 (â€œLegalizing Marijuanaâ€ July 14, 2010), I said, â€œIf the latest proposition is passed, the main benefit would be the decriminalization of marijuana together with a steep drop in prices that would make trafficking the drug unattractive to criminal elements, and there would be some state income from taxes.â€ This is an argument that has been made in favor of the proposition. But the monetary benefit is actually illusionary.
There cannot be any income from taxes on pot under the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court has already ruled (unanimously) that it is unconstitutional to require anyone to pay taxes on marijuana because to do so is to admit to a violation of federal law (Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 1969). Even if Proposition 19 passes, the use of marijuana remains illegal under federal law. It would not be long before a tax case comes to court and cities like Oakland, who are banking on income from taxes on pot, will find that those coffers will remain empty.
Any savings from decriminalizing marijuana will have to be redirected to the demands of regulation, which are part of the proposition. Drug enforcement will still be required not just for the regulation of marijuana, but also for the increased trafficking of other drugs. The â€œcriminal elementsâ€ are unlikely to enter the legitimate marijuana business, but they will find an increased market for harder drugs, given the legal availability of such an excellent gateway drug.
There is no need for this proposition. Under the present policy in California, all you need is a doctorâ€™s note and you can buy your â€œmedicalâ€ marijuana. Most people who buy medical marijuana donâ€™t actually need it. Ask around. In the past, I have used a doctor who would give me a â€œnoteâ€ for the price of a beer. As it happens, not one note was for pot, but had I wanted one, he would have written it.
In November, California voters will decide whether to fully legalize marijuana (Proposition 19). The state has already legalized marijuana use for medical purposes. If the latest proposition is passed, the main benefit would be the decriminalization of marijuana together with a steep drop in prices that would make trafficking the drug unattractive to criminal elements, and there would be some state income from taxes. The main personal advantage would be that it will be much easier and cheaper to get high.
The disadvantages, however, are significant. Decreased social inhibitions mean an increase in risky behavior, leading to more accidents. And there are health risks similar to tobacco. Marijuana has toxic elements, like cyanide and tar that is higher than in cigarettes; it causes mouth cancer; it increases pressure on the heart and narrows arteries in the brain, reducing cognitive abilities; and there is more. As with tobacco and alcohol, the taxes are nowhere near enough to cover the health and safety costs to society.
Significant loss of cognitive abilities by long-term marijuana users was brought home to me as a college professor.
When I was teaching freshman English, I noticed a pattern among some of the argumentative essays. They were characterized by a curious but complete inability to present a cogent, reasonable argument. Since a number of the essays in this group advocated (poorly) the legalization of marijuana, I referred to these failures as the â€œpotheadâ€ essays.
One day when I was with a student who had written a classic â€œpotheadâ€ essay, though not on marijuana, I decided on an experiment. I said, â€œWould you mind if I asked you a personal question?â€ He answered, no. So I said, â€œHow long have you been smoking pot?â€ A large smile spread over his face. â€œHow did you know?! Iâ€™ve been smoking it since I was thirteen and it hasnâ€™t affected me one single bit.â€ Well, my friend, it had! I had deduced that he was a hardened user from the essay he turned in.
California voters have not always voted in their best interests, so there is an excellent chance that Proposition 19 will pass this November. More is the pity. We are still struggling with the impact and costs of smoking. Legalizing marijuana will only increase the load on society.