Seems to me several different things are being fuzzily spoken of as being the same - but they aren't.
1)Decriminalization of marijuana possession doesn't mean complete decriminalization. (In the 11 states that "decriminalized marijuana possession" in the 1970's isn't it still illegal to grow and sell marijuana?)
2)"Decriminalization" isn't necessarily the same as legalization. "Legalization of drugs" would mean marijuana, cocaine, meth, ectasy, etc. would be sold at 711 right beside the cigarettes and beer. They would be marketed just as tobacco and alcohol are. (And btw both are sneakily marketed to underage users - look at all the fruity wine coolers for example - who are those products aimed at? And studies have shown that the cigarette companies "anti-smoking" ads aimed at underage consumers are actually counter-productive, that is they actually encourage underage kids to smoke. So you can bet legalized cocaine, ectasy, etc. would be marketed to kids too.)
3)Finally, marijuana and "drugs" are lumped together. (Marijuana and the other drugs now illegal may - and are - be very different in many ways.)
Distortion 1: Drug Use Post-Prohibition
Distortion 1: If drugs were legalized there would be an explosion of drug use.
Incorrect. The available research, as affirmed by a recent Federal analysis of drug policy, indicates there would be little if any increase in use.
From 1972 to 1978, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession (covering one-third of the US population) and 33 other states reduced punishment to probation with record erased after six months to one year. Yet, after 1978 marijuana use steadily declined for over a decade. Decriminalization did not increase marijuana use.
Of course, "decriminalization of marijuana possession" doesn't tell you anything about what "legalization of drugs" would mean. |
