Reader's view: Instead of legalizing marijuana, let’s connect with our childrenA Local View commentary in the News Tribune on Nov. 21 claimed legalizing and decriminalizing marijuana would eliminate the dangers of synthetic drugs.
By: David Anderson, Duluth News Tribune
A Local View commentary in the News Tribune on Nov. 21 claimed legalizing and decriminalizing marijuana would eliminate the dangers of synthetic drugs.
Would it? What proof was offered? A few states and a couple of countries have loosened control of marijuana. That’s proof?
Claiming the outlaw of marijuana and other illicit drugs is harmful policy is one thing; but providing very little to convince those who have seen the harmful effects of drugs is another.
I would be first to agree that the war on drugs is costly, and that policies to curb drug importation, use and abuse are a failure But to propose a full-scale reverse in policy without weighing the effects of that policy change is absurd.
The 2012 World Drug report states: “The use of synthetic drugs such as ‘ecstasy’ among South American youth also continues to grow, with prevalence of the use of stimulants (cocaine, amphetamine and ecstasy) among young people reported to be high, particularly in Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Uruguay.” Wait. Didn’t the letter say Uruguay legalized marijuana? Why would drugs still be an issue? Uruguay also reported the second-highest, per-capita consumption of benzodiazepines — behind Belgium. That’s kind of a direct contradiction to the correlation between easing marijuana laws and the use of other drugs, is it not?
Yes, we need to have a discussion on drug policy. However, putting the cart before the horse is not the answer. You cannot simply eliminate drug policy and expect all the problems that go with marijuana and illicit drugs to simply go away. They do not.
Perhaps the solution must start in each and every one of our homes, connecting with our children. Now there’s the start of good policy — and without costing the government a dime. How about we try that for once?