As a police officer in two major East Coast cities, I had plenty of dealings with marijuana.
I always hated those instances because most of them never should have occurred.
I don’t approach this subject as a kid who wants to use the drug recreationally without repercussions. I want to see marijuana legalized because nearly every level of government and law enforcement is wasted, to some extent, on this substance.
On Sunday, former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders spoke in favor of legalizing marijuana. I should note that President Bill Clinton fired Elders in 1994 because of her controversial opinions and statements.
Nonetheless, she held a highly respected post and achieved much to reach that level. Being fired did not diminish her expertise or compromise her medical license. Whether her views/agendas are labeled liberal or extreme, she is still a medical doctor and gives qualified professional health recommendations.
Elder’s comments come at a time when California, with Proposition 19 on its ballot, looks to become the first state in the country to fully legalize marijuana.
Much has been made over Attorney General Eric Holder’s opposition to the proposal, and with waning public support for marijuana enforcement, this undoubtedly puts him in a difficult position.
Though I do not wish to give an extended list of the pros and cons — and there are plenty of each — I must include an important consideration pertaining to the federal government’s handling of marijuana.
Marijuana is considered a Schedule I Controlled Substance, the highest level in the controlled scheduling established jointly by the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. Substances are ranked based on their addictiveness and medical benefits. Schedule I substances are considered most addictive and are not currently approved for medical use. Marijuana finds itself in the same category with hard drugs such as PCP, LSD and heroin. Without delving too deep into the issues surrounding more serious drugs, it is worth pointing out that amphetamines, cocaine and methadone all fall into the lesser Schedule II class.
For marijuana to be grouped in with those highly addictive drugs, and to be ranked higher than some other dangerous drugs is laughable if not appalling. This classification system is the supreme law.
Increasingly, states are trying to separate themselves from the archaic and extreme federal law by legalizing on a medical basis and/or decriminalizing marijuana.
There is a lot of fine print with regards to the way marijuana enforcement is handled in states that have decriminalized the substance, but regardless of these differences voters have supported decriminalization numerous times in the past decade.
Additionally, several cities have passed their own laws decriminalizing marijuana, often times in opposition to the states they are in. Philadelphia did so earlier this year. But marijuana-related crime rarely occurs because of the use of the drug, but rather because of its sale. The fight over territory between rival dealers increases violent crime, all because of its illegality.
Power is put in dealers’ hands, and decriminalization perpetuates that. Full legalization is the only way to overcome marijuana-related crime.
I’d be naïve to claim that legalization would not introduce a multitude of problems.
There’s no doubt it would. But marijuana should hardly be considered a “gateway drug,” as so many of its opponents contend. Instead, marijuana’s illegal nature opens up the potential for introduction to harder, more dangerous and significantly more addictive drugs. With those issues out the way, any of the problems that may arise are far less than the ones I saw as a cop.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
If marijuana were legal, I wouldn’t have seen an already-bankrupt city waste hundreds on court cases (each incident paying myself and the detective big overtime money). If marijuana were legal, I wouldn’t have found a man dead in the street because he was unable to distribute a brick that was stolen from him.
If marijuana were legal, police officers would be able to “worry about the real criminals,” like so many people tell cops.
All that said, I can understand and agree with the attorney general’s assertion that the “legislation will greatly complicate drug enforcement efforts.” If California is the only state in the nation where the substance is legal, then trafficking into the state will likely occur, and with its continued illegality elsewhere, this can cause serious problems and dangers.
But Holder’s assurance to “vigorously enforce” existing federal law in California is unsettling. Certainly, as attorney general he must uphold federal law, but his language is a clear message to California that it will be under closer watch, and his harsh language means that a reasonable dialogue concerning the issue is nowhere in sight.
Part of me feels that California is, in a way, messing it up for everyone.
Supporters and opponents have said that the new law, if passed, will be an interesting look at the impact legalization has on society. Because of marijuana’s continued federal ban, I argue that will not be the case. Thus, the scenario that could play out would not be a fair representation.
Yet, I do see Proposition 19 as a bold move and perhaps one that will pave the way for something important in this country.
In the meantime, as a former police officer, I’d like to give a warning: Be mindful that marijuana remains illegal.
Just because you disagree with that does not give you the right to use it with immunity. The law may be improper, but it is still the law. You must be willing to educate yourself on the substance and face the consequences of your actions. Marijuana is clearly an issue that many young people care about. So act like it.
