Reefer Madness

The following are excerpts of an Op Ed piece I got off CNN.com this morning. You can pull the whole thing if you would like to see it here.

Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Boston, Massachusetts (CNN) -- On November 2, California will vote on Proposition 19, a measure to legalize marijuana. Advocates believe Prop 19 will generate a major budgetary windfall and unleash an economic boom in marijuana-related industries while reducing crime, corruption and Mexican drug violence. Prop 19 opponents fear it will increase marijuana and other drug use via the gateway effect and spur the alleged negatives of use, such as crime or diminished health. Most claims on both sides are exaggerated or misleading. Legalizing marijuana is the right policy for California and the nation. But in considering Prop 19, everyone should start with a balanced assessment of its likely impact.

California has long been at the forefront of the push-back against marijuana prohibition. The state decriminalized marijuana in 1975, meaning it eliminated criminal penalties for possession of small amounts. California then legalized medical marijuana in 1996. Plus, in 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the federal government would not interfere with medical marijuana in states where it is legal under state law.

Prop 19 goes a step further by legalizing all marijuana use for adults 21 or older as well as production and sales. Thus marijuana would be a legal product under California law. Full legalization sounds like a major policy change. But... Almost anyone can get a prescription for medical marijuana... So legalization would have minimal impact on use. This means that concerns over the negatives of use are... irrelevant.

What about Prop 19's effect on crime? Critics believe marijuana causes criminal behavior, as in "reefer madness," but these claims have no empirical support. Legalizers argue black markets are violent and corrupt, so legalization should reduce crime. This view is well-founded, but because the California's marijuana market is close to legal, the reduction in crime will be modest. Likewise, much Mexican drug violence relates to cocaine and methamphetamines, so marijuana legalization will have a small impact.

Perhaps the most important caveat about Prop 19 is that it only legalizes marijuana under state law. The federal government's prohibition will remain in place, so the federal government could still enforce that prohibition in California.

On many fronts, Prop 19 might have less impact than proponents or opponents suggest. But Prop 19 might generate benefits.If Prop 19 passes, this will encourage other states to legalize. And if enough states do so, the pressure on the federal government could pass a tipping point.

In a free society, the presumption must be that people can smoke, snort, eat or inject whatever they wish, so long as they do not harm others. The burden of proof should rest on those who would ban marijuana, not those who want it legal. That burden has never been met. By adopting Prop 19, California can restore a presumption of liberty. That is reason enough.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jeffrey A. Miron.

I am a Libertarian, in that I believe as a God-created human being I have the inalienable right to exercise my free will, irrespective of damage to myself. I emphasize myself, because it is tragic and unnecessary when someone's bad behavior impacts an innocent person's life.

For instance, we have come a long way with alcohol and tobacco. I don't care what you do, just don't subject me to your drunken driving or your second-hand smoke. If you decide to smoke, fine. Sequester yourself live in a haze of smoke whilst I live mine free of that burden. Similarly, I care not if you sit in your house, or a bar and drink yourself until your insides resemble maraschino cherries, but turn the key of that automobile and the consequences with respect to legal ramifications set in.

I don't agree with doing drugs. I don't want anyone I know to do drugs. I think drugs are dangerous and counter-productive. All we have to do is look at the ever expanding list of celebrities that are felled by drugs to come to the conclusion. What I am saying is, the behavior will exist regardless of the law.

Just as the freedoms of speech and expression protect everyone from flag burners (booo) to bra burners (go on, sister!), the concept of liberty allows us to be yutzes and ruin our lives if we so choose. You cannot legislate morality, you cannot legislate thought, you cannot control people who are going to express deviance with laws.

It is not the Government's job to affect a way of life on its citizenry, it is the government's job to assure each and all the right to live the life they choose to the extent they can do so without impeding another persons right to do the same. The Constitution explicitly and brilliantly demands the right to seek the pursuit of happiness, it very clearly does not define happiness! The conclusion? Let them eat cake. As long as they don't eat cake at my house or their cake eating doesn't effect me, I don't care.

Comments?