I once spoke to an RCMP officer who works with teenagers, and she rolled her eyes and described the stupid arguments that she hears about pot.
"Hey dude," they say, with that classic glassy stoner gaze, "it's a herb, it grows in the ground, how can it be bad for you?"
I laughed in sympathy. It is without a doubt the stupidest argument ever given by giggling pro-pot advocates. If anything that grows in the ground is good for you, why aren't stoners also scarfing down deadly nightshade or fistfuls of poisonous mushrooms? For that matter, why not swallow horse chestnuts?
This is not to say that I disagree with the idea of pot being legalized. The stoners just need better arguments, so the RCMP don't get so bored listening.
Arguments for the legalization of pot can be divided up into three broad categories: medical, utilitarian and ethical.
Start with medical. Learn about how the human body processes marijuana, along with other drugs. It's fairly well known (among stoners) that the active ingredient of pot, delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, has a very low toxicity. Unlike alcohol or nicotine, which are legal for adults, it is virtually impossible to consume so much THC that you will simply drop dead.
That said, there are other health effects, both long and short term, from increased heart rate to paranoia. Links to mental illness and several cancers appear strong.
To argue properly, you'll have to look at studies of pot's effects on moderate and heavy users, and contrast those with the effects on users of other legal and illegal substances (tobacco, cocaine, Double Whoppers, etc.). Research canabinoids, and bone up on your basic biochemistry.
Next we have the utilitarian leg of the issue. Is it worth it to use the police, the courts and the jails to prevent people from smoking pot?
How many people use it, and how much does it cost the medical system? How many more people use it in places where it is partly decriminalized, such as the Netherlands? How would you re-prioritize the money saved if we dropped the war on pot?
Of course, you'll have to suggest ways of dealing with stoned drivers more effectively (your medical research will have shown you that psychomotor skills are impacted by pot) and ways to regulate its sale and production. Get out your lawbooks and look at tobacco, alcohol and prescription drug regulations for inspiration.
The final arguments are ethical. These boil down to the notion, present in a number of philosophies, that individuals have the right to make their own decisions about what they put in their bodies.
I recommend reading On Liberty, by the 19thcentury philosopher John Stuart Mill. It remains one of the most concise arguments for personal freedom ever put to paper. But there are many others, from Henry David Thoreau's essay Civil Disobedience to Isaiah Berlin's Two Concepts of Liberty.
Once you've studied, you'll have to craft your arguments about the rights of the individual and the individual's responsibilities to society. How far can a government legitimately trespass into an individual's life?
Combining all three of these strands of argument will involve more than simply quipping about pot being an herb. You may want to write an essay, or create a flip chart or PowerPoint presentation to go alongside your speech the next time you argue with a Mountie.
Unfortunately, to do all of this properly, you'll have to be sober.
Matthew Claxton is a reporter with the Langley Advance, a sister paper of The Record.
