By Marc Jampole
I’m about to perform a feat of rhetorical daring and
originality: I’m going to proffer a written opinion about the legalization of
marijuana without sharing my experiences or lack of experiences with the drug.
It seems as if virtually every pundit has to share his or
her smoking history when offering an opinion or a prediction. It was started earlier this week by New York Times columnist and National Public Radio commentator David Brooks, who always looks
to me as if he has indulged in the munchies a bit too often (and I mean that in
a nice way!). His rationale for keeping recreational use of pot illegal is
short on facts and reasoning, focusing instead on the experience of his group of
friends—his clique as he calls it. They all smoked it and then moved on to
their lives' work, except—in the anti-intellectual fashion of all great American
myths—the one friend who was “the smartest of us,” who Brooks hints may have
been destroyed by the devil weed. It’s this
one neat detail that makes me wonder about the absolute veracity of Brooks’
narrative.
Since Brooks’ column, the Internet is reeking with reefer
confessions. Joe Coscarelli, for example, excerpts from seven opinion writers
who cop to blowing weed.
It’s a continuation of the ever-growing trend of the
non-fiction writer to put himself or herself into the center of a non-fiction article.
As an occasional rhetorical device, making one’s reactions or personal history
part of an article can evoke emotions, illuminate a theme or support an assertion.
But it seems as if every other feature article now features and often begins
with a long session of authorial navel-gazing: an anecdote about the writer’s
own experience deep sea fishing for zebra bones or the sexual excitement she
felt meeting the world’s oldest professional throat singer or how learning
about the repeated torture of a preteen reminded him of the fear he felt the
first time he went to the dentist. Regrettably, putting the self into every
article is taught at all the finer universities. Instead of turning out
creative writers, our English departments have produced a generation of hacks
who depend on a single rhetorical device to spice up the facts and analysis.
Of course, Brooks is entitled to his opinion, as are all
those opposed to the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington. And
it makes absolute sense that most of the vocal opponents of legalization are
conservative. From restricting access to abortion to wanting to introduce
religion into science education, social conservatives tend to want to control
the private lives of citizens and keeping pot illegal certainly does that. Meanwhile,
economic conservatives don’t want any control on the free market, and
legalization always brings control—taxation, standards setting, workplace
safety.
It’s ironic, but keeping pot illegal makes it an absolutely
deregulated commodity. And we can see
what happens in this free market: Much of it is controlled by violent cartels.
The relationship between quality and price varies significantly not just from
market to market, but from sale to sale.
Buyers have no idea what they’re getting or the conditions under which
it was grown and processed. Transport and distribution uses public
infrastructure without paying for it, throwing part of the burden of paying for
their economic transaction onto everyone’s back.
Now that we’re talking about it, the market for illegal
drugs makes a wonderful case for government regulation of the free market.
Brooks and other opponents to the legalization of marijuana
line up on the wrong side of history. Remember that the United States prohibited
alcohol drinking for 13 years in the early part of the 20th century. And
abortion was banned for about a century, a victim to the American Medical Association’s
war against midwives (see Paul Starr’s The
Social Transformation of American Medicine). Almost a century later,
senseless restrictions on how adults behave in their private lives are falling
left and right: gambling, gay marriage and now pot smoking. All come with
regulations, as we can see with the greater regulation of cigarette smoking. I
imagine that it will never be legal to toke up in a restaurant or movie
theatre. And that’s how it should be. The government should refrain from
restricting private actions, even as it intervenes in public actions and
interactions, including the sale and purchase of goods and services in the
marketplace.
No comments:
Post a Comment