Doobie do?

America is forging ahead with legalizing marijuana.  Is it a good idea?

I graduated from high school in 1979, which at one time was said to be the high school class that partook of marijuana more than any other.  If you're wondering whether, like President Clinton, I ever inhaled, I will simply note that I was a typical high schooler in many ways.  But whatever I did in the late '70s and early '80's, I stopped before graduating from college, and it's been decades since I've smoked anything at all (save a cigar once in a great while, when I'm with my high school buddies).

Of course, when I was in high school and college, marijuana was illegal in all 50 states (and the federal government continues to classify it as an illegal substance).   In those days, being in possession of even a very small amount of it could easily get one arrested.  And some people in my circle were.  These days, it seems one can't get hired without passing a criminal background check; whether an employer is apt to overlook youthful indiscretions and silliness, I don't know, but I'm skeptical.

Even in the 1970s, Americans' attitude toward marijuana was ambivalent; my college years were the dawn of the War on Drugs, but marijuana cultivation in the US apparently has been a multi-billion-dollar business for a number of years.  About 10 percent of American adults use it regularly.  And of course, in recent years, marijuana has progressively become decriminalized.  It is now legal for medical purposes in a majority of states.   Ten states have legalized it for recreational use, and another 13 have decriminalized it.  Some Democratic (and perhaps a few Republican) politicians have latched on to legalizing marijuana as a political issue; the newly elected governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker, is one such.

There are a variety of reasons to support legalizing marijuana: the large number of people that already use it wish to do so without facing criminal penalties; many people support its use for medical reasons; there is a humane attitude (which I share) that it is unjust that so many people have been saddled with criminal records for smoking or possessing a small amount of pot; states covet the tax revenue that can be generated by legalizing and taxing its sale; and not least, there are many entrepreneurs that would like to be able to produce, deliver, market and sell marijuana for profit - a development that presumably would also drive out of business the organized criminal elements that traditionally have been the conduits for illegal marijuana.  In addition, it's widely thought that, from the perspectives of personal and public health, marijuana usage is essentially harmless.

It is into this headwind of ever-broader marijuana acceptance that Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker raises complicating questions about the trend.  The chief question is encapsulated in the article's headline, "Is Marijuana as Safe as We Think?"  The answer is a bit disconcerting: there is distressingly little by way of scientific studies to answer that question definitively.  Referencing a National Academy of Medicine report from 2017, Gladwell writes,

For example, smoking pot is widely supposed to diminish the nausea associated with chemotherapy. But, the panel pointed out, “there are no good-quality randomized trials investigating this option.” We have evidence for marijuana as a treatment for pain, but “very little is known about the efficacy, dose, routes of administration, or side effects of commonly used and commercially available cannabis products in the United States.” The caveats continue. Is it good for epilepsy? “Insufficient evidence.” Tourette’s syndrome? Limited evidence. A.L.S., Huntington’s, and Parkinson’s? Insufficient evidence. Irritable-bowel syndrome? Insufficient evidence. Dementia and glaucoma? Probably not. Anxiety? Maybe. Depression? Probably not. 

Then come Chapters 5 through 13, the heart of the report, which concern marijuana’s potential risks. The haze of uncertainty continues. Does the use of cannabis increase the likelihood of fatal car accidents? Yes. By how much? Unclear. Does it affect motivation and cognition? Hard to say, but probably. Does it affect employment prospects? Probably. Will it impair academic achievement? Limited evidence. This goes on for pages.

Gladwell then goes on to note that the FDA would never approve a medicinal drug for use in the United States with the paucity of information available on the usage and effects of marijuana.  He also writes that marijuana users seem to be more prone to violence than non-users, and possibly more likely to exhibit symptoms of schizophrenia - but, again, studies are needed to establish whether there are any actual correlations.  Is marijuana really a so-called "gateway drug" to more harmful and addictive drug abuse?  It would be nice to know.  It seems that, when it comes to public health and public policy, the politics of marijuana are oustripping the science.

Just speaking as someone who has been around the block once or twice: I do not buy into the notion, peddled by advocates for marijuana legalization, that pot has no ill effects.  Certainly, nobody under its influence should operate a motor vehicle.  I don't doubt that there are people who are able to be reasonably responsible humans while maintaining a lifestyle of regular pot consumption - but there are quite a few persons who aren't able to pull that off.  My supposition, based on personal observation, is that being a pothead makes one a worse worker, worse spouse and worse parent.  I don't know what the right public policy is.  I think it's a mistake to criminalize the use of pot, but I have serious misgivings about actively encouraging the development of an industry to deliver pot to consumers.  And I think employers have a right to have strict policies against its usage.

When I was in middle school in the mid 1970s, there were classmates of mine who were smoking pot (and cigarettes, and drinking).  I started sampling that stuff at some point in my high school career.  I contributed my share to the problem of collegiate binge drinking throughout college.  Looking back on that behavior, I chalk it up to one part immaturity, one part personal weakness, two parts social awkwardness, and two parts having a darker side to my personality that had hitherto remained submerged, and which I understood only very poorly then.  Now that I am watching my own children trying to make it through those same developmental years, I'm newly appreciating what a complete and utter idiot I was when I was a youngster, to risk my fragile native gifts, such as they were, on whatever pleasure and supposed social cachet derived from substance abuse.  I'm grateful that I managed to put that behavior behind me.  I have zero interest now over-consuming any behavior-altering substance. (By contrast, it seems a number of acquaintances of my generation who never indulged in that behavior during adolescence and young adulthood, now harbor a curiosity about marijuana.  I hope they tread carefully.)

I'm sharing this slice of my personal history to shed light on my skepticism about marijuana as a political issue.  The prime target audience for that issue isn't people my age; it's the 18-25 year old voters.  I would much rather that kids and young adults in those age groups not expose themselves to the risks (poorly understood as they are) of marijuana usage.  I know what it feels like to be stoned.  It's pleasurable (or was when I was younger).  Taken recreationally, it's a form of self-indulgence.  Perhaps, in moderation, that's okay.  But I can't help but reflect that "go ahead and get high - it's legal!" is quite a different message to our youth than, say, "Ask not what your country can do for you ...". 

Marijuana is a behavior-altering substance.  By all means, let's stop throwing people in jail for having a joint in their pocket.  But let's also not encourage its consumption with our public policies, at least until we know a good deal more about it than we do now.