Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Founded by Mark Kleiman (1951-2019)
John Buntin at Governing looks to the development of alcohol policy after Prohibition for cautionary lessons about the future of the legal commercial cannabis industry, and some alternatives to that future. It’s the kind of solid, thoughtful reporting that is Buntin’s hallmark, and well worth a read.
Cannabis isn’t nearly as bad for your brain as football. Should we criminalize football?
Question for David Brooks, Ruth Marcus, Joe Scarborough, and other opponents of cannabis legalization:
It seems likely that very heavy cannabis use starting in adolescence and continuing for many years can lead to measurable decreases in some cognitive abilities. It is possible that occasional use might also cause damage, but right now there’s no strong evidence to back that claim.
On the other hand, it is certain that participation in high school and college football leads predictably to brain damage.
So: If cognitive harm from cannabis is a good reason to support continued criminalization, would you support a ban on high school and college football? And if not, why not?
The Drug Policy Alliance has such great regard for the truth that its reports dole out the precious substance with a sparing hand.
This morning, I got an email from a friend who isn’t involved in the War About Drugs but knows a great deal both about drug abuse and about my views on the topic. Like me, he is neither a hard-core warrior nor a flat-out legalizer. He had just received a fund-raising pitch for the Drug Policy Alliance, signed by George Soros. (I should note that Soros is one of my heroes; I can’t think of an individual in our lifetimes whose philanthropy - especially in the former Soviet Bloc - has created more value for the world.)
My friend wrote, “It looks good. Is it?”
I wrote back “In a word, no. DPA is the main drug-legalization group. They’re not very forthcoming about their actual aims.”
Of course, that’s the point; DPA sounds much more reasonable on paper than it is in practice. You might not guess that its announced goal of “drug policies based on science, compassion, health and human rights” means in practice opposition to any effective form of drug abuse control.
Then, when I got to work, I found in my mail a slick (in both senses) report on drug courts from DPA. It’s unsigned, which I would say reflected prudence on the part of the author or authors; it is not the sort of document anyone with any scholarly self-respect would want his name attached to.
Now, I’m not a fan of drug courts as they currently exist - they enroll too many low-level offenders without severe drug problems who would have done better with a good leaving-alone - so many of the report’s criticisms of drug courts seem on target to me. But the level of sleaze in the argumentation is truly breathtaking.