The Marijuana Dilemma: It’s About Age
by Bob Schwartz
This was going to be a note about the Gallup poll showing that 58% of Americans think that the use of marijuana should be legal, and that 38% have tried it. It would include arguments about how pot stands in relation to other legal intoxicants—alcohol, tobacco, firearms (sorry, that’s the federal law enforcement agency)—and about how our justice system is distorted and how lives are ruined by reflexive, thoughtless, moralistic public policy.
But no. This is about a simple solution. It won’t make everybody happy, particularly those hypocritical it’s-all-bad-for-you-and-society Puritans who apparently missed the Sunday School class where Jesus mentioned getting the log out of your own eye before criticizing someone else’s splinter. But this might work.
Add marijuana to the list of acceptable American intoxicants. Then take the three biggies—alcohol, tobacco and marijuana—and make their distribution to children, particularly younger children, an even bigger deal than it is, so that the jail cells currently filled with marijuana-guilty adults could then be filled by real bad guys. Draconian punishment. Because while adult use of these intoxicants may be equivocal, childhood use of them is not.
We did not need American alcohol prohibition to learn that nothing will stop people using intoxicants. (Another hint: sex, at least if you’re doing it right, is also an intoxicant, the world’s most popular and, yes, one that the Puritans have also tried to circumscribe.) In another missed Sunday School lesson, Jesus did not smash the jars at the wedding at Cana, as he did the moneylender tables at the Temple; he actually made more wine for the celebrants. The poor we have with us always; so too the wine drinkers.
It is widely agreed that none of the three intoxicants are perfect: all of them are abused, all of them have real potential for ruining life and health. (America’s other big intoxicant, coffee, is excepted from this discussion, in part because any regulation of coffee would start a national revolt that really would prompt a new party, the Coffee Party, and in part because it is coffee that makes posts like this possible.) But as much as adolescents want to indulge, and as much as they already find a way to do it, if there’s a beneficial bargain to be made, this may be it. Let the grownups smoke/drink/smoke, let them explain to their kids why it isn’t a good idea for the younger set.
If you are currently a pre-teen or teenager yourself, or you once were, and you indulge in weed or once did, this may seem silly, arbitrary and unworkable. Here’s the news: all social policy is ultimately unworkable, or at least challenging and perplexing. The truth is that marijuana abuse by adolescents, just like alcohol and tobacco abuse by them, really is a bad thing, and really can cause irreversible damage. Adults should be free to get blissed out or ruin their lives (with minimal harm to others); kids shouldn’t be. If we are going to have some sort of marijuana policy, it ought to be a lot more sensible than the one we have now, even if the solution isn’t perfect.
10:39 AM 10/23/2013
Bob Schwartz 
As a pastor and father living in Boulder County, CO (aka marijuana central) – I agree that the main issue is keeping it away from kids. Adults are going to smoke it whether it’s legal or not – they have been for decades – and now, in places like where I live, it’s not even punishable by law in small amounts. I understand the idea of “if everyone’s already using it, then why not tax it and regulate it, and at the same time kill at least part of the black market that inevitably leads to violent crime”. Certainly marijuana use would increase once it is legalized – as people who were once worried about doing something illegal would no longer have to worry about it. It would inevitably be more accessible to kids, because they won’t have to find a dealer, they will just have to have a friend with an older brother who is willing to buy it for them – just like with tobacco and alcohol.
I guess the real issue is to what degree our government should legislate morality. There are plenty of ways to harm yourself that are legal – and we know that parents and role models need to teach their kids that those things are not advantageous (e.g. drinking a lot of alcohol or stabbing yourself with a kitchen knife). There are other ways to harm yourself, however, which are illegal, i.e. chemical food additives, cocaine, certain medications, meth, etc. which we consider detrimental to society and harmful to individuals, which we have banned and we don’t give people legal avenues to indulge in. For me, this is the real issue here: would this be detrimental to society to make marijuana more readily accessible to EVERYONE (because if adults can get it more easily, then kids can get it more easily through them).
Such a thoughtful comment deserves a much longer reply than it will get here. Thanks. As for parents, there are a lot of behavioral areas — not just substance use, but school, sex, etc. — where parental engagement is not discussed honestly and plainly in political and social conversation. That’s partly because millions of parents have enough self-awareness not to be pointing fingers at “those people” who don’t have “the talk” with their kids, given that those millions never did either. As for the problems from adding one more potential toxin to the mix, or as for the proper role of government in people’s lives, as the post notes, all enacted and enforced social policies (which is what this is) are imperfect. But ideological absolutes like pure libertarianism have no place in a real world with real people who intend to live together. The case here is the same as others which we don’t handle well as a society: put ALL the considerations on the table, even the ones you don’t like, talk about them respectfully and rationally, do some weighing based on beliefs that are deeply considered and not just adopted because you heard them once or feel obligated to hold, and decide like grownups where to draw the lines — knowing that at some point, you’re going to have to go back to the table, do it all over again, and redraw those lines to fit the times. No one said being a grownup society was easy. Thanks again for reading and for the comment.
Agreed. Lotta money we’re losing by trying to outlaw something so potentially lucrative, and not just for the intoxicating allure. With manufacturing in the toilet, a return to agrarian roots (yes, yet another historical call for the obvious) is a win-win.
Note: the puritans did it like rabbits. Just sayin’
The economic argument is a powerful one, especially, as you note, in hard times. This comment prompted me to think what would have happened if, in some alternate reality, the Bible had forbidden petroleum, branding it the devil’s work. Would that have stopped god-fearing billionaires, from Pennsylvania to Texas and beyond, from pushing it on millions of innocent users and getting them hooked on it?
haha, doubt it since they see themselves as gods ;)
Just to make it clear for you: the Bible doesn’t actually forbid marijuana use. It doesn’t say a word about it actually, nor about tobacco, nor about GMO food. It does speak about mind-altering drugs (farmakia in Greek) which were used recreationally and it instructs people not to be drunk, but to be filled with the Holy Spirit (be controlled by God rather than controlled by substances).
There are plenty of things which the Bible instructs against which are legal in modern society – fornication, drunkenness, etc. The issue isn’t that we should ban something because the Bible forbids it, because we don’t live in a theocracy and Christian maturity involves choice. As a Christian, I’m not trying to enforce Christian ethics on people who are not Christians. The issue is whether this is potentially detrimental to society.
Just have to say that you guys taking pot-shots and making straw-man slights against conservative Christians makes you look just as bigoted and close minded as you disdain them for being.
I don’t know which guys “you guys” are, but since I can’t speak for anybody else, it’ll just be me.
I like to think that I don’t take potshots or build straw men just to knock them down.
There are no “conservative Christians”, not exactly. I’ll explain what I mean. There are Christians who are social conservatives, Christians who are fiscal conservatives, Christians who are Republicans. There are also Christians who are Democrats and Christians who are liberals. Same for middle of the road. Let’s just say this means Christians who are conservative. I’m not sure what I’ve said that even hints at bigotry, disdain or close-mindedness. Though I am not a Christian, I’ve spent a good part of my life in Christian and biblical study, working for part of that time with some of the best biblical scholars in the world. My knowledge base may not count as pastor level, but it’s pretty good. I’ve come away with the abiding sense that Christianity is a radical call, a call to cut against the grain — and there is original testimony to prove it. If I sometimes seem to criticize conservative people or positions, I always try to make a case, because purely ad hominem arguments are the worst. As for criticizing Christians or Christianity, you have the wrong blog. If you read you’ll find more than mere respect for Christianity; you’ll find out and out appreciation. It’s true that my tolerance for rampant hypocrisy, judgmentalism, igorrance of the poor and suffering, etc. may be low at times — especially as practiced by some Christians who should know and act better. But I am far from the first to have a problem with this.
As a final note, please check out what happened to Ohio Governor John Kasich when he decided this week, as a Christian act, to accept the ACA money to expand Medicaid, thus allowing hundreds of thousands of poorer people to be covered. The Wall Street Journal tore him to pieces, in essence saying — please read the editorial for yourself to confirm — that this is no kind of Christianity they recognize as acceptable, and its a kind of Christianity they want no part of. Potshots, bigoted, close-minded, disdain? Go talk to Mr. Murdoch.
The you guys I’m referring to are you and the other commenter.
I’m glad you don’t think you take pot shots or build straw men – that’s nice.
The conservatism I’m referring to is theological conservatism.
What I’m talking about is the comments about hypocritical puritans and the comment about how these God-fearing capitalists think they are gods. From these comments I get a sense of disdain coming from both of you towards theologically conservative Christians.
I do however get a sense of your general respect for Christians, and I appreciate that. I am trying to have a reasonable debate about issues as feel the tone towards my tribe to be negative on your blog. Take that for what it’s worth.
By the way – your post here inspired me to write a post on my blog about marijuana legalization: http://longmontpastor.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/marijuana-legalization-and-christianity/