If Pot Were Legal

No qualms vexed John Kaplan eight years ago when, as an assistant U.S. attorney in San Francisco, he put drug pushers behind bars. A nonsmoking teetotaler, he had little sympathy for drug users of any kind. Later he became a law professor at Stanford University, and the California legislature hired him to help revise the state's drug laws. Then a surprising thing happened: the legislature fired Kaplan and four other professors working on the project because, after three years of exhaustive research, they reluctantly concluded that marijuana should be legalized.

Now Kaplan, 41, has turned his provocative findings into a thoughtful book, Marijuana--The New Prohibition (World; $8.50). After weighing the medical and sociological aspects of marijuana, Kaplan uses the cold analysis of a corporate controller to conclude that the financial and social costs of trying to outlaw marijuana are far greater than the benefits. As a rough equivalent to alcohol, Kaplan says, marijuana should be handled in ways that profit from the nation's experience with Prohibition.

Bathtub Grass. Though marijuana law enforcement now costs California alone more than $72 million worth of police and court time each year, Kaplan notes that the busts have not decreased use of the drug. The law has little effect on the unstable and heedless users who are most likely to become serious marijuana abusers or go on to hard drugs. By lumping marijuana with hallucinogens, amphetamines, barbiturates and heroin, in fact, the law encourages young people to distrust warnings about those far more perilous substances. Pot prohibition gives sporadic users the stigma of criminal records and makes young people cynical about law in general.

What might work better? Twenty-three states have eased the penalties for possession of marijuana, partially to concentrate on those who deal in it. The Nixon Administration is now proposing the same strategy for federal law. Kaplan is dubious. When pushers are caught, he argues, the supply becomes restricted and the price goes up, enticing more pushers into the field and encouraging pot smokers to try more dangerous substitutes or to grow their own. One British manufacturer already turns out a hydroponic unit capable of producing 400 tons of cattle food per year in a space the size of a garage; Kaplan claims that a similar device could be adapted to pot cultivation. Bathtub grass, he suggests, is as inevitable as bathtub gin.

No Advertising. Kaplan predicts that the U.S. will repeal pot prohibition within ten years. Even so, he opposes the irresponsible strategy of making marijuana as available as candy. He advocates a regulatory scheme roughly similar to --but tougher than--those now used for tobacco and alcohol. Either private manufacturers or a Government monopoly would grow marijuana and package it in uniform grades and strengths. Government-licensed marijuana stores would sell the drug, imposing high taxes to price it out of many young people's reach. Sales to those under 18 would be illegal, as would the driving of a car under the influence of pot.

Kaplan's system could, in fact, discourage marijuana use. Pot manufacturers and sellers would be forbidden to advertise their wares. Consumers could be restricted to buying small quantities, perhaps by a system of rationing coupons. And a share of marijuana tax revenues would be earmarked for the drug-control efforts that hold more promise than law enforcement--drug education, counseling and rehabilitation.

Kaplan concedes that licensing marijuana would "almost certainly" increase experimentation and use. But he argues that licensing would reduce the "forbidden fruit" appeal that the drug now has and encourage parents to show their children how to use it sanely. As he points out, "Authorities on alcohol report that alcoholism is least likely not among the children of abstainers, but among those who grew up in families where alcohol is used moderately." Kaplan also argues that his scheme would shrink the market for harder drugs by providing a legal and convenient alternative.

Vain Hypocrisy. The Kaplan plan is not without its problems. How strong should legalized pot be, for example? Would politicians campaign on pot platforms, wooing the 18-year-old vote with pledges of higher potency? Could legislators resist pressures from licensed pot producers demanding permission to advertise? Although agreeing with Kaplan, University of Texas Law Professor Michael Rosenthal notes that adopting Kaplan's proposal might be something of a gamble. If pot-control efforts were not at least as strong as those now being used to discourage cigarettes, the nation could be trading its current law-enforcement problem for a public health problem.

Whatever the possible drawbacks of licensing, Kaplan feels that it would be vastly more honest than the present system, which he finds riddled with the same hidden hypocrisy that undermined Prohibition. Kaplan cites a recent historical study, which found that the Volstead Act "resulted largely from pressure by white rural Protestants to have made illegal a practice that they associated primarily with urban Roman Catholics." It was a way of censuring not only drinking behavior but an "entire lifestyle, including Catholicism." In the same way, Kaplan charges, marijuana bans are vain expressions of opposition to the youth culture, and they do more harm than good.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.