Sophia Voravong, writing for the Lafayette Journal and Courier, has an article about a proposal to decriminalize marijuana possession expected to be considered by the upcoming Indiana General Assembly.
[Sen. Brent] Steele, chairman of the Senate committee on corrections, criminal and civil matters, wants to make possession of 10 grams or less of marijuana an infraction — similar to a traffic violation— instead of a misdemeanor, he told the Indianapolis Business Journal last month.
I don’t particularly think marijuana itself is inherently more troublesome than alcohol or cigarettes. And I don’t think those things are terribly likely to be gateways to harder, more damaging drugs like heroin or meth. But I do have a problem with decriminalization. I figure either they should leave it alone or legalize it. The problem I have with merely imposing a lighter penalty is that you’re still buying it from criminals.
In a sense, by decriminalizing marijuana but not legalizing it, you are encouraging more interactions between mostly law abiding citizens and folks more likely to rob them or use violence to protect their market share or enforce contracts.
I don’t know much about the drug economy, but my sense is that Anheuser Busch plays hardball, but they do it through the courts, police, and exercise of economic leverage. They have options, so direct violence probably isn’t in their tool kit. Joe Drug Dealer who has a marijuana line he would like you to purchase can’t go to the courts to enforce his contracts and the opinion of the FTC is probably low on his list of concerns. And, if John Drug Dealer tries to introduce competition into the market place, they probably won’t work out their differences in court.
So, anyway, it seems likely that by increasing the number of marijuana transactions and expanding the population engaging in such transactions, you increase the opportunities for violence. That, more than any real concerns about the nature of the drug itself, makes me think that decriminalization isn’t such a great idea.
is there any evidence that “decriminalization” actually does increase comsumption? after all, possession would still be illegal; it would just be less illegal.
the benefit of decriminalization would be that it would decrease the burden on our courts and penal systems to try, convict, imprison, and place on probation so many marijuana offenders. and realistically speaking, indiana isn’t going to legalize it outright until a number of other states (or the federal government) have done so first, so the choice is either to reduce penalties or to leave them as they are now.
Possibly not. The second Google result I got (skipping NORML) was a Cato study (pdf) by Glen Greenwald of the experience of Portugal when it decriminalized all drugs in 2001.
I don’t know if it matters to the dynamic whether the decriminalization pertains to all illicit drugs versus just to marijuana.
Put me down for full legalization. Why did we criminalize a weed, again?
Still won’t use it, though – never saw much sense in lighting things on fire and breathing in the smoke.
IMO anyone should be able to produce their own intoxicants, in their own home, for their own use. As in, grow pot, make beer or wine, grow tobacco, and operate a still. Everyone used to have these rights. What is the constitutional basis for the US government to require “Registration of stills” for personal use, under 26 U.S.C. §5179 ?
I say legalize it. But then, who ever asks me?
The Portugal experience is instructive. I’m also in favor of full legalization, but would gladly accept decriminalization as a step in the right direction. People smoking a little pot are no harm to anyone, and certainly not worthy of incarceration.
Gene’s on the right track – legalize possession of everything, criminalize sale of everything.
You can count my vote “for” legalization of everything. I have held that position since 1976. I got “equal time” on a Terre Haute TV station to say that. I agree w/Doug. Decriminalization means the illicit market still is there, with all the harms that accompany it. Plus, how many people would get off their asses to raise pot or synthesize some other drug? Legalization means someone manufactures it and it is sold legally. When was the last time we had a nationside problem w/bootlegging alcohol? We also can tax it if it’s legal. How’s that? Massive budget cuts—no more “war on drugs”—with taxation on matters Alexander Hamilton deemed appropriate for taxation. (He saw tobacco and alcohol as mere “vices” for which reasonable taxation was appropriate.)
I don’t see that as an argument against decriminilization because no one needs recreational marijuana. There is no reason to buy from a criminal, ever (unless you’re already addicted, which activists deny can ever happen). If you need it for medical reasons, there are already legal ways to obtain it (at least where I live). Otherwise, if you don’t want to associate with criminals, don’t buy it. There are plenty of other ways to relax that do not harm your health. Marijuana smoke is about 20 times more dangerous to health than tobacco smoke because it is inhaled deeply and held in the lungs. Inhaling smoke of any kind on a regular basis causes serious health problems–that’s just a fact. So all the restrictions pertaining to smoking would apply to prevent the spread of second-hand smoke. No smoking indoors, no smoking near doorways, no smoking in public places, no smoking around children, etc, as well as all the cancer warnings and deterrent taxes that would multiply the retail price as it does with tobacco. The market for cheap illegal dope would not be going anywhere. Just look up how big the illegal tobacco market is. It would be even bigger for marijuana because it is so easy to grow.
Add to that the mind-altering effects of dope and you’d also have the same restrictions that there are around alchohol–no driving or cycling allowed, no getting high at work or school, no getting high around children, etc. And of course there would be an age limit, so all the kids who will want to take up the newly acceptable practice of smoking pot would still have to buy from criminals (who would no doubt take the opportunity to push their wide variety of drugs on their new customers). When you think it through, legalization would not lead to the chilled out toker’s paradise that activists fantasize about nor would it eliminate the criminal element. It might actually expand the black market as acceptance grows and people want a cheaper alternative to the regulated brands. Trying to shut down that black market would be just as difficult as it is now, if not more so as the waters are muddied (and sniffer dogs distracted) by legal dope.
Legalization won’t solve any problems, and may create new ones but decriminilization of personal consumption is a more just way of dealing with an unhealthy activity. Law enforcement should focus on the criminals, who are usually involved in multiple illegal trades anyway. Catching a dope dealer can also mean catching a meth dealer or a pimp or a car thief. Criminals will always be there, whether dope is legal or not, and we will still have to fight them and suffer the collateral damage. Legalizing one drug won’t change that one iota.