Marijuana Legalization: Why Not

Drugs have had a pervasive role in the majority of societies for essentially all of recorded history with cultural acceptance ranging from complete derision to explicit encouragement. Although “western” culture has historically tended to adhere to the latter policy, the voice for marijuana reform is growing exponentially with each coming year in the United States. Starting with users and groups such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, studies regarding the subject of the practical use of marijuana were inevitable, many serving to justify the legalization of the drug, one such survey being conducted at the University of Western Australia, under the supervision of Kenneth W. Clements and Mert Daryal, adopting the name “Exogenous shocks and related goods: Drinking and the legalization of marijuana”. Published in a 2005 edition of science daily, the study goes on to argue that, through extensive use of economic theory, that the legalization of marijuana would be actually beneficial in the sense that it would reduce drinking rates. Despite the expertise of the professors and the wealth of information that they drew from in order to make this study happen, I disagree with their findings, and I believe their argument is fundamentally flawed, marijuana being impractical to legalize for multiple reasons.
Clement’s claim in this article is simple; that the legalization of marijuana would lead to the increase of consumption of marijuana by 4%, while dropping the consumption of beer, wine, and liquor by “1%, 2%, and 4%, respectively” (Clements). Thus, his argument is one in the ilk of utilitarianism; while not stating the negative or positive side effects of marijuana, he supports the fact that reducing alcohol consumption as such would be beneficial to the United States in multifaceted ways. Although not explicitly stated in the article, Kenneth W. Clements, one of the main authors of the article, is one of the foremost experts on marijuana research in Australia, and is in support of the legalization of the substance, citing economic reasons. I find this viewpoint to be less than sound; however, it is not mentioned in this article, and I find his theoretical discovery in the way of determining marijuana’s effect on alcohol to be equally flawed. Using reputable economic equations, such as the Marshallian demand function and the Slutsky equation, he calculates the change in alcohol and marijuana consumption for daily through occasional users, as well as those who do not use and non-users. What results is a table of values based upon the price elasticities and the aforementioned equations, estimating the changes in behavior of the general population with the legalization of marijuana. Consequently, after a thorough explanation of the interior workings of the equations used, the study abruptly ends, leaving the numbers for one to interpret, making this article infeasible to use as a dispositive piece of evidence supporting any premise, due to the fact that it provides many premises, but no actual conclusion, as a proper argument contains premises and a conclusion.
Admittedly, some points in the article did seem rather compelling, most prominently, the fact that alcohol use would go down en-large with the introduction of marijuana to the legal substance system. However, one can refute this rather deliberately ambiguous point simply through numbers. Quite right is the statement that with all users, by this system anyway, that beer consumption would go down by “1%, wine by 2%, and spirits by almost 4%” (Clements), while marijuana usage would increase 4%. This sounds beneficial, reducing the overall substance usage rates, however, this is not so. When one examines table 2 in Clement’s study, one will find that while this legalization affects all types of users a small amount, it has huge repercussions on other groups. Those who would never either drink or smoke marijuana would actually start to use marijuana, while continuing to avoid alcohol. Those who used marijuana or alcohol in the past would also start to relapse, increasing marijuana use by almost 5% (Clements), while continuing not to drink. Furthermore, in every bracket, marijuana has the highest differential percentage change, meaning, in essence, legalizing marijuana would cause a massive increase in substance abuse. Although accurate, Clement’s argument in the abstract is misleading at best, creating the illusion that legalizing marijuana would actually reduce substance abuse, while, in reality, it would simply create a more pervasive drug problem.
Admittedly, the numbers used in the equations do look both valid and sound, however, I believe his logos based argument is weak, due to several reasons. Foremost in the errors is that one of the presumptions of the Marshallian demand function is that perfect use of the utility maximation function is in effect, essentially, that every user of alcohol is willing to try marijuana, with only economic reasons preventing such usage, which is erroneous, as it stands that currently, out of the over one hundred and ninety million drinkers who imbibe at least once a year, only fourteen million have ever tried marijuana. Also, with his usage of the Slustsky equation, he presumes the static nature of the price of marijuana when legalized. This is a shortsighted assumption however, as if the drug were to be legalized, as with the vast majority of similar commodities, it would be taxed extremely heavily by the government, which would negate the change in consumer buying power, thus making the equation invalid. The Slutsky equation demonstrates that demand changes due to price changes are a result of two effects; the substitution effect, the consequence of a shift in the exchange rate between two goods; and an income effect, the outcome of a modification in price results in a change of one’s purchasing power. For the consequence of a shift to be determined, the “p” or price variable needs to be the same on both sides, while if one were to use it for marijuana, as the price would change with legalization for the aforementioned reasons, this would not be the case. Therefore, this reasoning is flawed. The use of Barten’s equation is also invalid in this situation, as, again, demand is not solely determined by the increased purchasing power of the consumer, which the Barten equation presumes, making one of the premises false. A argument featuring extensive use of logos requires a logical response, and my response is this; what works on paper regarding the interrelatedness of alcohol and marijuana is exactly what it sounds like: a paper model at best, with little application to the real world. Indeed, as Clements stated, one can use equations to predict the increase of ice cream sales with the increase in temperature, and the inevitable fall with the drop in temperature (Clements), yet, a comparison of marijuana and alcohol is the proverbial apples and oranges comparison, as users of alcohol may not use alcohol for reasons that may be conducive to marijuana use. Moreover, Clements goes on to state that “It should however be noted that as the standard errors are relatively large, the changes in alcohol consumption are not estimated too precisely.” (Clements), meaning that all perceived benefits of legalization in this article are estimates at best. For instance, in the 1970s, Alaska legalized marijuana, resulting in static alcohol consumption, while teenage marijuana consumption almost doubled (Saffer). Indeed, the states’ residents were forced to recriminalize the substance. The equations presume that people value each substance equally, as per Marshallian demand, yet, it discounts that people are different and not necessarily logical. Using logic in a situation devoid of it will nullify such reasoning, and man’s use of substance is probably one of the least logical phenomena present in our everyday lives. One has reason to reject or proportion the belief to the evidence if there is reason to doubt, and after looking at the aforesaid flaws in even just the Marshallian demand and Slutsky equation usage, there is reason to doubt, and therefore at least proportion one’s beliefs to the information to come about marijuana.
Despite the arguments presented in Clement’s and Daryal’s article, I still strongly disagree with the legalization of marijuana for multifaceted reasons. However, this study has proved rather thought provoking in the sense that one would not assume that the consumption of marijuana and alcohol have a tangible link. Granted, there is some good that would result from the legalization of marijuana. If these economic equations are indeed correct, the reduction in consumption of alcohol would result in saving the United States well over a billion dollars in alcohol damage related costs (Model). Revenue from marijuana would also bolster the economy, as, judging from the already astronomical figure of past or present marijuana users in the United States between just the ages of eighteen and twenty five, standing at fifty one percent, the crop would cultivate a massive new source of revenue. However, for both practical and somewhat altruistic reasons, marijuana must remain illegal. Marijuana is a psychoactive drug that is mentally addictive, having detrimental effects on one’s memory, motivation, and motor skills, essential abilities to keep a job, making it nearly impossible for a marijuana addict to work (Saffer). However, an addict still wants the drug despite legal means to obtain money; therefore, illegal means would have to be resorted to in many cases, thus raising crime rates. Additionally, legalizing a recreational drug is bad in principle, sending the message to younger generations that it is acceptable, as it is allowed in our culture legally, as shown in the legalization of marijuana in Alaska, which presents further problems. Furthermore, in conjunction with the aforementioned increase in substance abuse with the legalization of marijuana, it is established that marijuana is simply not good to ingest, as smoking, the most common form of indulging, results in an increase of acute chest illnesses, airway obstruction, and altered alveoli in one’s lungs. Some may argue that, due to the high cost of the drug medicol, which is the marijuana derived medical version of the drug, that illegalizing the substance makes sure the poor cannot access some of the painkilling and arguably cancer restrictive aspects of THC, the active ingredient in both marijuana and medicol. However, this is quite a fallacy, as the only reason medicol is expensive is it has no demand due to the strong push for marijuana legalization, and some states’ inability to keep the drug off the streets, and even out of their hospitals. Thus, the argument that medicol is more expensive and useless is a circular argument, as it would be cheaper if the illegal and legal supply of marijuana diminished. The drug itself also raises heart rate to dangerously high levels, and has the potential to cause disorientation, hallucinations, and severely impaired memory in the long term. Quite simply, marijuana is a drug, and it is morally unacceptable to legalize it, as by legalizing it, an implicit tone of governmental auspices is cast. In the words of Lü Bu-we, an ancient Chinese official, words I will never forget from my legal class junior year that so appropriately affirm my beliefs and the exact reason why marijuana legalization is infeasible; “In making judgments, the Early Kings were perfect, because they made moral principles the starting point of all their undertakings and the root of everything that was beneficial. This principle, however, is something that persons of mediocre intellect never grasp. Not grasping it, they lack awareness, and lacking awareness, they pursue profit. But while they pursue profit, it is absolutely impossible for them to be certain of attaining it.” While commercialism places profit above all else, losing sight of ethics dooms one’s cause both financially and morally, thus, although Clements makes valid points, marijuana should not be legalized, if not by economic means, then by moral means alone. Again, one needs to proportion to beliefs or all out reject if there is reason for doubt. There is reason for doubt due to the flawed equations. The rest of the evidence suggests marijuana may be detrimental to one’s health, with negligible, due to medicol, health benefits. Thus, marijuana should be kept illegal.