CBS News asks Judge Jim Gray and Drug-Free America’s David Evans: Should Pot Be Legal?

We all know Judge Jim Gray is a powerful advocate for ending marijuana prohibition.  We all know David Evans is a rabid prohibitionist.  Let’s just skip to the fun parts and give you the bullet points from David Evans’ reefer madness:

(CBS News) David Evans: We cannot legalize marijuana because…

• Marijuana is far more powerful today than it was years ago… [Yes, because prohibition forces illegal producers to make the most potent product.]
• …it serves as an entry point for the use of other illegal drugs. This is known as the “gateway effect.”… [There is no "gateway effect", Institute of Medicine debunked that a decade ago and every serious study since has agreed.]
• Higher potency marijuana may be contributing to a substantial increase in the number of American teenagers in treatment for marijuana dependence…. [No, that's because of drug courts that sentence marijuana users to rehab.]
• Drug legalization advocates claim that marijuana is less dangerous than drugs like alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. However, studies … show that marijuana is not harmless but that it is toxic and addictive.  [Marijuana is notably non-toxic to healthy cells and organs and is not even as addictive as coffee.]
• The legalizers claim that as legalized drugs become less expensive, people will no longer need to commit crimes in order to pay for their drug use. The problem with this claim is that some drugs are already inexpensive. Marijuana, the most abused and addictive drug for young people, is very inexpensive….  [Really, you consider $10-$15/gram inexpensive for a young person?]
• Even supporters of drug legalization admit that “low prices would encourage use.” A good example of this is [crack] cocaine. … Higher levels of drug use cause increased crime, especially property crime to pay for the drugs.  [Wasn't this a discussion about marijuana?  So, then, you're saying the people who'd rob someone for money for that $400 ounce now will rob more people for that $40 ounce in the future?]
• Drug users, many of whom are unable to hold jobs, commit robberies and other crimes not only to obtain drugs, but also to purchase food, shelter, clothing and other goods and services. Even if drugs were legalized, addicts will still need to pay the rent and may resort to crime to do so.  [Uh, if marijuana is legal, marijuana users can keep their jobs or find new ones without being discriminated against for the metabolites in their urine.]
• …most violent drug related crime is committed because people are under the influence of drugs. The use of drugs changes behavior and causes criminal activity because people will do things they wouldn’t do if they were rational and free of the drug’s influence…. Cocaine-related paranoia is an example.  [Again with the cocaine!  Please, what crimes are being committed by people under the influence of marijuana, except for noodling too long on a guitar solo or not sharing the bag of Doritos?]
• If legalizing drugs will increase drug use, then drugged driving will also likely increase. Many studies show a clear correlation between drug use and motor vehicle accidents, trauma, and dangerous driving….  [If legalizing marijuana causes more people to choose it instead of alcohol, we'll have less dangerous driving!]
• Pot use among Dutch kids was very low before they “decriminalized” pot. It was about 5%. It is now approaching US levels but is still lower than the US. It has risen substantially due to the more relaxed attitude….  [Pot use among adults and teens in the Netherlands is half what it is in the US.]
• Your comment that increased pot use will not lead to more addiction is preposterous…. This argument does not work when we consider that drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and marijuana are dangerous and highly addictive.  [Cocaine and heroin are dangerous and highly addictive.  Can we please stick to talking about pot?]
• [Prohibition] keeps potential drug users from using drugs by virtue of the fear of arrest and the embarrassment of being caught.  [Right, all 22 million of us who will smoke this year are terrified, but it's not stopping us from using cannabis.]
• [Prohibition] helps drug users/addicts into treatment through the use of laws and drug courts that offer treatment as an alternative to incarceration.  [Helps drug rehabs, you mean, by providing them unaddicted people forced into rehab by courts.  Over one third of those attending marijuana rehab haven't even used cannabis in the past thirty days!]

Some other points to notice from Mr. Evans’ rants:

• He insists on calling us “legalizers”.  I call Evans a “prohibitionist” because he supports continuing the status quo of prohibition.  But to say that we support “legalization” of drugs is not semantically correct.  A “legalized” drug, as Judge Gray points out, would be something like aspirin, a substance that has no restrictions on marketing, age of use, sales, manufacture, and purchase.  We don’t call for that, we call for sensible regulations on marijuana not unlike alcohol and tobacco.  It would be more accurate to call us “regulators”.
• He must always bring drugs into the discussion – cocaine, heroin, and meth – because a discussion of the dangers of marijuana use alone doesn’t scare people anymore.
• He continues to harp on the negative consequences of drug use while ignoring the demonstrable consequences of drug money, which include corruption, violence, and terrorism.

There will be a part two to this debate on CBS News website tomorrow.