cannibis plant

Aaron Brown advocates for the decriminalization of cannabis.

High expectations are not held for “far-right” conservatives when it comes to personal liberty. As Austrian economist Mark Thornton recently described, there are still some hold-outs on the issue of legalizing or decriminalizing cannabis. Thornton responds to several accusations that have arisen since states have begun to nullify federal law and legalize marijuana.

One point of criticism is that marijuana smoking has increased and is as great a concern as cigarette smoke, despite average consumers going through many more tobacco cigarettes than “happy cigarettes.” Thornton also responds to blame being placed upon libertarians for ‘promising’ all sorts of benefits with legalization. One such ‘broken promise’ is that since the days Mary Jane was completely illegal, potency has actually risen.

Three things must be addressed here. First is the difference between decriminalizing something and legalizing it. Secondly, there are valid explanations for the so-called promises being broken. Thirdly, and most importantly, the foundation for why marijuana should be decriminalized needs examination.

The terms “legalize” and “decriminalize” are often used interchangeably, especially because of the ease of smashing the former into two syllables and the long inhale that must precede the articulation of the latter. But they do, can and should mean two different things. When something is decriminalized, the laws which once defined it as a crime are struck from the book. The policeman who once investigated it moves on to other tasks.

With legalization, on the other hand, the act or event now has new sections in law books describing its bounds and parameters. Far too often, permission must be granted by municipal or state agencies to engage in the legalized behavior. Requests are submitted, forms are photocopied, permits are granted and licenses are issued. Decriminalization subtracts from the bureaucracy’s workload; legalization lays it on thick. We cannot expect to see the same results from two very different actions.

When an economist, praxeologist or libertarian pundit explains the effects of ending a prohibition of a certain good, some take these explanations of decriminalization to be promises of the outcome of legalization. I bet there are many “Beltway libertarians” who conveniently set aside a taxation-is-theft mindset and hastily promote the legalization of skudunk with boasts of sky-high government revenues. But the ‘promise’ stands true that the potency of a substance decreases after decriminalization, ceteris paribus.

That is, all other things being equal, the fact that nobody is hunting you down to lock you up will mean the same risk — none — is taken whether you carry the cheap diluted product or “the good stuff.” The principle of increasing potency with increasing restriction is called the “Iron Law of Prohibition.” Consider the movie-goer who sneaks a flask into the theater where outside drinks are not allowed. He won’t be hauling spring water but smuggling in some ‘good old mountain dew.’ It isn’t worth the risk of punishment to carry half a tall boy. You may begin to see the Iron Law of Prohibition is not just a theoretical rule to guide our understanding of history or help us feel good about the new legislation. Indeed, public health experts Beletsky and Davis found in their study of the opioid fentanyl:

"The Iron Law of Prohibition helps to elucidate the folly of interdiction targeting a product with inelastic demand. … These interventions also resulted in market-driven changes in the potency of products that were made available through clandestine supply chains. … Alcohol prohibition, while well-intentioned, was undertaken without sufficient consideration of potential unintended consequences, with disastrous results. Under the Iron Law of Prohibition, the current approach to illicit opioids is likewise doomed to failure."

Pragmatically, it is foolish to make potentially dangerous substances illegal. But pragmatism is not the end-all and be-all. Due to various factors — besides otherwise innocent men being free from reefer-related prison terms — the potency of pot has actually increased. As Thornton keenly observes, however, if you take into account the legalization of CBD and hemp, substances which don’t involve hallucinogenic THC, “it would mean that consumers as a group have effectively cut the potency of their products in half.”

When it comes to law and justice, we ought not to lay a foundation of feelings, which are subject to any and all influences. We ought not to rest upon the laurels of the latest sociological data. We ought not to be fully persuaded by anything other than solid, absolute right, and wrong. Just as there was no moral right for men of the Prohibition Era to steal other men’s alcohol and destroy it, there is no moral justification for men of our own day to imprison each other for possessing certain chemicals.

We can pronounce and denounce one thing as safe and another harmful, but to violate the right of property is injustice through and through. Might doesn’t make right. A majority’s opinion can become law, but can and should are two different things. It’s high time to stop infringing on people’s rights to run their own lives, to make their own personal choices and to engage in trade freely.

We can argue all day about the potential dangers of freedom versus potential benefits, or we can come down from our high horses and only engage in threats, force and violence when one’s rights are transgressed, rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It’s time to trash the Schedules. I highly recommend we decriminalize ganja and reap the benefits of treating our neighbors more justly.

aaron brown profile pic

Aaron Brown is a senior studying Construction Engineering.

Opinion Policies

Editorials are longer opinion pieces that are written by a group of community members recruited across campus who address relevant issues on a local, national and international level. Editorials are research-based. The purpose of the Editorial Board is to promote discussion concerning relevant issues in the community while advising on possible solutions. Topics are chosen via relevancy and interests of the members, which are then discussed by the Editorial Board in order to reach a general consensus concerning the topic or issue.

Feedback policy

If you have a grievance concerning the content or argument of the Editorial Board, please contact either Opinion Editor Peyton Hamel (peyton.hamel@iowastatedaily.com) or the Editorial Board as a whole (editorialboard@iowastatedaily.com). Those wanting to respond to editorials can also submit a letter to the editor through the Iowa State Daily website or by emailing the letter to Opinion Editor Peyton Hamel (peyton.hamel@iowastatedaily.com) or Editor-in-Chief Sage Smith (sage.smith@iowastatedaily.com).

Column Policy

Columns are hyper-specific to opinion and are written by only columnists employed by the Iowa State Daily. Columnists are unique because they have a specific writing day and only publish on those writing days. Each column undergoes a thorough editing process ensuring the integrity of the writer, and their claim is maintained while remaining research-based and respectful. Columns may be submitted from community members. These are labelled as “Guest Columns.” These contain similar research-based content and need to be at least 400 words in length. The following requirements should be met: first and last name, email and relation or position to Iowa State. Emails must be tied to the submitted guest column or it will not be accepted or published. Pseudonyms are prohibited and the writer will be banned from submissions.

Read our full Opinion Policies here. Updated on 10/7/2020

(5) comments

Josh Montgomery

Great article.

NORML ISU Event Tonight!

9/22 @ 8pm - Carver Hall 0101!

MJ dispensary headlining!

Grateful Dead band closing!

Legalize It!

Josh Montgomery

Sorry—meant to say the event will be Wednesday 9/22 @ 8pm (so “tonight” as in the night of the 22nd).

Great article Aaron.

Seymour Trout

Do we really want a world where you can buy a pack of doobies from any convenience store? Guess how many high school kids would be blazing up behind the gym, crashing their cars, sitting in class stoned out of their minds? And, really, think of how many lives are ruined, how many marriages ruined, how many children neglected and abandoned, because of addictions begun as teenagers. Do we really want a Stoned America?

Rick Stewart

Marijuana is safer than alcohol, so yes we want legal age students to be able to buy a pack of doobies from convenience stores, as a significant number of them will then be choosing not to buy alcohol, the most dangerous drug after sugar.

The best study, out of Australia, concludes drivers under the influence of marijuana are not significantly different than sober drivers.

I encourage you to use Google to investigate your other questions, as I am quite confident you will discover your concerns have not been validated by science.

Mark Nelson

If we had it all to do over again, we would have kept tighter control on societal hazards from alcohol to refined sugar to opioids. Do we really need weed machines in bars? Yes kids, there used to be something called a cigarette vending machine in every bar in Ames.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.