College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Consistency Demands Cannabis

By Beth Mendenhall

|

Published: Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, December 2, 2009

sadf

Illustration by Ginger Pugh

sfsda

Beth Mendenhall

For over 200 years, the American government has ostensibly sought to protect every citizen’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In other words, as long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of others, human beings ought to have the freedom to choose their lifestyle. Doing so is crucial to individual happiness as well as social progress.

This core tenet of American democratic thought is being denied in many instances, but one in particular has been irking me lately. Any citizen who believes alcohol and tobacco use, as currently regulated, should be a free choice cannot deny without contradiction that marijuana ought to be legalized.

What most people believe about alcohol and tobacco already justifies marijuana legalization. Consider what we know: Alcohol and tobacco have adverse health consequences, for either the consumer or those around them. Alcohol impairs a user’s ability to perform some common tasks safely, such as driving a car or caring for a child. Both are chemically and psychologically addictive. Yet, many adults still choose to consume alcohol or tobacco, because it is a part of their chosen lifestyle. Legal restrictions are designed to protect that choice while mitigating its potential harms.

Marijuana is healthier, safer and less addictive than alcohol or tobacco. Recent scientific studies, only a select few of which I can cite here, are challenging misinformed cultural beliefs about the drug.

For example, the BBC recently reported that David Nutt, professor of neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London and former chairman of the UK’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, publicly recanted his government’s position on the drug, arguing, “It is safer than tobacco and alcohol and, overall, does not lead to major health problems.” Alcohol is far more toxic than marijuana – just 10 times the standard dose can kill you. There has never been a reported death from marijuana overdose. While the negative effects of the smoking medium apply to both cigarettes and marijuana, cannabis users can avoid the risk of lung cancer by baking with it instead.

According to a 1999 report in the Institute of Medicine, fewer than 10 percent of marijuana users become dependent on the drug, whereas 32 percent of tobacco and 15 percent of alcohol users meet the criteria for addiction. Cannabis addiction is primarily psychological rather than chemical, in contrast to tobacco and alcohol addiction, which is usually both.

The “gateway drug” myth rests on faulty logic. While it’s true most users of harder drugs started with marijuana (and probably alcohol or tobacco), the vast majority of marijuana users never move on to those drugs. If marijuana could be purchased via a regulated, legal market, users wouldn’t come into contact with cocaine or heroine dealers at all, thus avoiding the pressure or persuasion to try more dangerous narcotics.

Marijuana use in both the short and long term can be detected, making restrictions easy to enforce. It should be illegal to consume cannabis under a certain age, while driving or while caring for a child. Treating this drug the way we do alcohol and tobacco can decrease its harmful effects while giving users the freedom to pursue their lifestyle choices.

According to federal government statistics, more than 100 million Americans have tried marijuana, 25 million have used it in the past year, and 14 million consume cannabis regularly. Any law disobeyed by 100 million citizens is bad public policy because it erodes the rule of law. The benefits to our economy via a hemp and cannabis industry, as well as reduced government spending in the War on Drugs, are obvious, but legalization is justified regardless.

Our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are enough to warrant legalization of marijuana. So be a good patriot – vote in favor of legalization, privilege science over sensationalism and toke up if you want.

-Beth Mendenhall is a senior in philosophy and political science while pursuing alternative lifestyles! Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

40 comments

Reasoned Thought
Fri Feb 26 2010 17:23
I have always wondered why it took a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw liquor, but just the opinion of a beaurocrat to outlaw drugs. Shouldn't this be a state's perogative to allow or outlaw?

Note: I have never taken, nor will ever take, illegal drugs. So there ya go.

ILuvHondas
Fri Feb 19 2010 13:10
woops! wrong thread... hahaha! Guess what I am!
ILuvHondas
Fri Feb 19 2010 13:09
Don't ants suck juice from the rear of aphids? Does this qualify as unnatural too? I hear they take pretty good care of them too.
Cali Girl
Fri Jan 15 2010 21:46
Leagalize!!!!!!
Lindsey
Wed Dec 9 2009 00:53
It's simple. There are only two stances to take here. One, it logically follows that marijuana should be legalized. Or two, it logically follows that alcohol and tobacco should be banned as well.

I'm actually kind of inclined to agree with the second option, but then I remember how much I like liquor and just how effective Prohibition was.

It's not a "legalizing marijuana will save humanity!" argument. It's merely pointing out, as the title clearly states, that the aim should be this: consistency. Savvy article.

Your name
Mon Dec 7 2009 11:58
To the person who responded to the hippie comment,

I was not stereotyping Mendenhall. I was only saying that she is a hippie in a way that she is a non-conformist and stands up for what she believes in. I say this not only because of this article, but for her other articles as well. In other words, the last comment was meant to be said in a good way. She also has guts to tell people her liberal opinions in a conservative university. I'm sorry that you took this the wrong way and I do agree with you that stereotyping is bad. Unfortunately, there are many people who stereotype others. I think the people who stereotype others need an education.

warren
Sat Dec 5 2009 19:10
I have not smoked for some time {except a few times while on 4 week vacation in the beginning ]. I`m random tested by the work nazies. This is true about the law. I`ve lost all respect and trust for anyone associated with law enforcement. To the reason why I`m writing I don`t have many people to tell this to so I`ll tell you.I will retire in 10 months and plan to continue my right to smoke. In the last two days I have visited 5 head shops 4 in Burlington vt and 1 in Glens falls NY and in every store I met the kindest people on earth. No hard livers no black lungs no wise cracks. Just niceness. Are the old fuddyduddy feds afraid of this? thank you for listening Warren
Rock on Beth!
Sat Dec 5 2009 15:03
I always read in the fourum about Beth and I always hear her being flamed by whoever chooses to keep their mind closed. I do not agree with everything Beth has written in the collegian but you know what, Who cares? At least she speaks up and demonstrates her beliefs in an informed way. Beth, keep doing what you are doing. I enjoy your articles and I love listening to close-minded people make themselves sound unintelligent by making fun of you rather than trying to offer a bit of intellect into the situation.
Your name
Sat Dec 5 2009 07:28
Beth is not a hippie, she is not an athiest and she isn't an idiot.
She is a thoughtful, conscientious, open minded, caring and kind person.
Your name
Sat Dec 5 2009 04:15
I love looking into how self proclaimed atheists justify the idea of "natural rights". I would very much like Mendenhall to justify her belief that we are all equal, have equal rights, etc. without any notion of a "higher authority".

A true atheist would say that "equality is a lie thought up by weaker men".

Stan
Fri Dec 4 2009 22:11
Beth writes about common sense rarely seen in current Government paid and subsidized educational media propaganda programs.

Sincerity and truth will go farther than servitude and obedience.

SEX, LIES AND POLITICS by Pokerface

Your name
Fri Dec 4 2009 13:17
At the Your Name stating "It's official, Beth Mendenhall is a hippie"

What in this article constintues Beth being a hippy. She did not make any statements such as I am a hippy or any hippish statements. You are a person that believes in the stereo type that most marijuana consumers are hippies, stoners, or pot heads. You even extend this to belief to anyone that argues for legalization of marijuana must be a stereotypical hippy, stoner, or pot head. Which in my oppionon makes you ignorant. Google stelleto stoners, Michael Phelps and any of our last 4 presidents and do your research so that you can free your mind from stereotypes. Consuming marijuana does not mean someone is a hippy, a stoner, or a pot head it means they just want to relax and enjoy themselves. Whats sad is people like you that stereotype marijuana consumers believe that they are all the same as your stereotype. When most are typical working class citizens that instead of using alchol or tobbaco to relax choose to use marijuana which in my oppinon is safer.

Your name
Fri Dec 4 2009 12:04
It's official, Beth Mendenhall is a hippie.
Dan S.
Fri Dec 4 2009 02:19
There’s enough here for a separate comment, so here it is:

‘Your name’ (12-3-2009 12:11): You ask where does it stop. But she answers in the first paragraph: as long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of others. The simple consumption of cannabis harms no one besides the user, and even then the harm is minimal. Just as with alcohol, the law shouldn’t concern itself with the use of cannabis until that use proves detrimental to someone else. As it stands, the law presumes the simple possession and use to be detrimental to others, which it patently isn’t.

Her point about baking seems to have been simply that it circumvents the problems associated with smoking plant matter. It is imperceptive, or disingenuous, to suggest that it is the foundation of her argument or even a major component thereof.

The issue of medical versus recreational substance use is one of subjective philosophy, but since you bring it up: Alcohol and tobacco aren’t used medicinally by and large. In fact both can be quite harmful, but if used responsibly those harms are limited to the consumer, and as such are no one else’s business. If the same standard is applied to cannabis, as I argue it should be, then whether or not it’s used medicinally is irrelevant to the law. I would extend that to, for example, psilocybin mushrooms, but Beth doesn’t so that’s beside the point.

Why doesn’t she, you ask? Because cannabis is far more commonly consumed than any other illegal drug; in fact it’s usage is closer to alcohol and tobacco. It’s criminalization makes criminals of one third of our population, and when that many people are breaking one law, there are more than a few wondering why they should follow other, better-founded ones: it erodes the respect for and rule of law.

You also suggest that almost all ‘druggies’ started with cannabis, but that’s not the question. When looking into the gateway fallacy, the question is how many cannabis users go on to regularly use harder drugs. There surely exists a correlation between cannabis use and the use of other drugs (the criminal distribution networks are so intertwined, after all), but no causal relationship has been established.

Of course, as ever, it boils down to the children. What about them? Well, as has already been observed, dealers don’t card, for anything. However well enforced our laws may be, there will be ways for minors to get hold of whatever drug you care to name. But in any case it is more difficult for minors to access legalized, regulated drugs than illegal drugs on the uncontrolled black market.

Dan S.
Fri Dec 4 2009 02:14
An excellent article, and it’s heartening to see the generally positive bent of the comments. Beth nails it, but a there are some things broached in the comments worth tackling:

‘thedude’: Do you really think the welfare spending on a small portion of cannabis users would outweigh the expenditures of the criminal justice system on the arrest, trial, and imprisonment of cannabis offenders? What should and shouldn’t be covered by welfare programs is a separate issue and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

‘dave’: Most ‘pot heads’ would be dysfunctional and apathetic without pot, but the majority of cannabis users get by just fine in the world and many are quite successful. Most prominently, I can think of four presidents, an Olympic medalist, and innumerable artists.

‘Your name’ (12-3-2009 12:21): Yes, poor Beth. So immature that all she can do is put forth a cogent and multifaceted policy argument, instead of just ‘tsk tsk’-ing and moving on like a proper adult.

‘Folks at Enforcement’: ‘Big Ag’ would probably get into the game, but there already exists a community of hobbyist growers and a body of lore on small scale growing that would allow anyone with objections to the agricultural industry to avoid their product.

the dude
Thu Dec 3 2009 23:02
I don't agree. I can just see many, many people sitting on their asses, collecting welfare checks, and smoking pot and watching COPS all day. Then, when their lungs are all blackened from the habit/addiction they collect welfare for, they go to the hospital so that me and those who don't wish to live in a fantasy-world pay for it. Yeah, that's a world I want to live in. Thanks, Beth Mendenhall. You fail again.
Your name
Thu Dec 3 2009 20:46
legal or not i will still use it everyday and so will millions of other people so why should the government keep ignoring it and not tax it..... and to the person who said it could lead to legalizing coke or meth, this just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
Mokkie
Thu Dec 3 2009 20:19
Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
Dennis
Thu Dec 3 2009 13:29
Why can't any of the opposition come up with something that resembles an actual rebuttal, rather than a personal attack?
dave
Thu Dec 3 2009 12:23
Maybe if the pot heads can get off their duffs to get to the polls. How many stoners have you met that are eager to get out and do anything?






log out