ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

John Stossel: Legal weed is no disaster

| Friday, Jan. 11, 2019, 8:03 p.m.
Pixabay

Ten states and Washington, D.C., have now legalized adult use of marijuana.

Supporters of America’s long war on drugs said legalization would create disaster. Has it? No.

Colorado and Washington offer the longest points of comparison, because weed has been legal in those states now for five years.

More people in Colorado tried marijuana after legalization, but that’s not a surprise.

Colorado’s crime rate did rise a bit. But, many things influence crime rates. Washington state’s violent crime rate rose a little but slightly less than the national average.

In California, people I interviewed said legalization made the streets safer. “It’s cleaned up the corner,” said one woman. Marijuana stores “have a lot of security (and) pay attention to who’s on the sidewalk.”

Sounds good to me.

But, drug warriors are not convinced. Paul Chabot, a former anti-drug policy adviser for Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, tells me that legalization has been a disaster.

“Colorado youth have an 85 percent higher marijuana use rate than the rest of the country,” he says in my new video on marijuana legalization .

He is wrong. Federal and state surveys and the New England Journal of Medicine report that teen marijuana use dropped a little in Colorado. Maybe there’s something about legal businesses, with the dreary name “dispensaries,” that makes weed less sexy to kids.

However, there is bad news: The driving death rate increased in Colorado and Washington after legalization. But, the data isn’t clear — driving deaths are up even more in some neighboring states like Idaho, where weed is still banned.

Chabot says, “Pot driving fatalities in Colorado are up 151 percent!”

That’s true, but that statistic is misleading because traces of marijuana stay in a person’s system for a long time. Some of those people may have used marijuana weeks before.

A more stringent measure that may indicate whether someone was actually high at the time of an accident suggests an increase of 84 percent.

That’s terrible, but the numbers of accidents are so small — 35 in all of Colorado in 2017, up from 19 in 2014 — it’s hard to draw conclusions. That deserves more study.

If anti-drug warriors like Chabot want to look seriously at the statistics, they should also include the harm done by drug prohibition itself.

It’s nearly impossible to overdose on pot. But, banning marijuana drives sales into the black market, where criminals do the selling. And, criminals are more likely to settle their disagreements with guns. They don’t perform the reliable quality controls that legal drug sellers must do to please their customers.

Banning drugs doesn’t stop teens or adults from using them. Anyone who wants the stuff knows how to get it. One survey found that teens said it’s easier to buy weed than alcohol. Banning marijuana creates fat profits that inspire dealers to recruit students to sell to their peers.

Then there are the billions of dollars spent by law enforcement — $900 per second. (That’s just the federal cost. Total spending is much higher.) And, the million people arrested yearly for drug violations.

I suggest to Chabot that drug prohibition has worked out as badly as alcohol prohibition did nearly 100 years ago.

“Just because something doesn’t work doesn’t mean that we end it,” he replies. “Doesn’t mean we quit.”

I say failure sometimes does mean you should quit, because you’re doing more harm than good.

Well, today, two-thirds of Americans say marijuana should be legal. One state at a time, with New York and New Jersey about to join the list, Americans are giving up on marijuana prohibition.

Good. Adults should have the right to make their own decisions about what to put in their own bodies.

John Stossel is author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me