Requiem for Proposition 19

Daniel Pulido ’11 is from Bogota, Columbia.

It feels strange to say that in Middlebury College the war on drugs has been lost. It makes a lot more sense when you go to the Bronx in NYC, or Baltimore in Maryland. But it is strikingly clear when you think about northern Mexico or my home country: Colombia.

Some will argue that we should legalize marijuana because it is actually not that dangerous. Some will even claim that it is beneficial. I disagree, apart from the proved medical uses of marijuana; I am convinced that marijuana is very dangerous, especially if consumed before the age of 18. I could give several examples in which the consumption of marijuana has had profound negative effects in the life of a person and has served as gateway towards harder drugs.

But, for the legalization of marijuana, we don’t have to be convinced that it is innocuous. When prohibition ended in 1933, it happened not because Americans suddenly changed their minds about the negative effects of alcohol. It happened because Americans realized that the law was doing more evil than good. The thesis that I am trying to advance is that the same thing is happening right now with our current laws on marijuana and other harder drugs.

If there were a law that could magically eliminate marijuana from our societies without any secondary effect, I would be the first one supporting it. But there is no such law. Despite our enormous efforts, the millions of dollars spent in law enforcement and the thousands of lives lost, we have not been able to reduce marijuana availability; in fact, in many places it is easier for a teenager to get marijuana than beer. Another factor that plays against the illegality of marijuana is that the consumption in the U.S. is actually higher than in the Netherlands, where it is legal. But the impossibility of enforcing the law is not the only problem, and, in my opinion, not even the most important one. The illegality of marijuana has fueled gang wars all around the U.S., and it has financed terribly violent conflicts in Mexico and Colombia. After 40 years of the war on drugs, we are not even close to controlling the drug dealers, and in the mean time they are deterring the development of important sectors of our societies. The legalization of marijuana is not accepting that the drug dealers have won — quite the opposite. It is taking the ultimate measure against them. Following this idea I think the legalization should not aim at making marijuana cheaper or more available. The legislation should aim at making marijuana legal enough to stop the illegal trade. We can limit the number of places that sell it, and we can prevent the prices from falling through heavy taxation.

I fully understand people who are against the legalization of marijuana based on moral arguments. But laws should not be judged purely on their intentions; they have to be considered also on their practical consequences. The laws that make marijuana illegal have been ineffective and harmful, and our society as a whole will be better off without them. We should turn our attention towards education, prevention and rehabilitation; dealing with this problem as what it is: a public health problem, not a criminal one

Most of the criticisms that the bill received were inaccurate and purposely misleading, trying to create fear and not addressing the actual problems of the bill. The two main points used by the opposition to Prop 19 were driving high and being high at work. The bill explicitly said that it did not change any current laws prohibiting driving under the influence of drugs, driving high would have been just as illegal as it is right now. About being high at work, part (c) of Section 11304 of the bill reads: “No person shall … be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act (i.e. smoking marijuana) … Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.” This could be read as employers not being allowed to prohibit marijuana consumption at the work place, just as they cannot do with cigarettes but can with alcohol. The other key fragment is “actually impairs job performance,” this has been interpreted by some lawyers as forcing the employers to prove that marijuana consumption makes the employee completely unsuitable for a determined job. I agree that in this particular point the bill should have be required to be clearer, and the right of the employer to have a marijuana-free work environment should have been defended.
Prop 19 was not perfect. It was not clear about the rights of the employers. It had problems of implementation, as each county would have had its own regulations. It had the practical problem of California becoming an exporter of marijuana to other states. It conflicted with federal law. Nevertheless, I believe Prop 19 was the first step in the right direction.