Marijuana a legitimate commodity for federal government to protect, tax

In the New York Times last week, journalist David Brooks described his experiences with recreational marijuana as a young man and lamented the loss of what he calls “higher pleasures” attendant to the legalization of the drug in Colorado and Washington this year. These higher pleasures, according to Brooks, derive largely from success or satisfaction — they come from the things that take time and work to achieve and are, therefore, the most worthwhile pursuits.  

First, one must acknowledge that Brooks does understand that measures such as the legalization of marijuana enhance, rather than detract from, freedom. However, he has also noted that such freedoms should sometimes be curtailed for the betterment of society.

As acceptable and normal as some of his arguments are, the real thesis of Brooks’ piece feels paternalistic, elitist and unfair. The narrative is about how he and his friends grew up and how, as grown-ups, they stopped smoking.

More insidious, however, is the classist language by which he delivers this narrative. He describes those things that give us purpose, such as love, achievement and intellectual passion, as higher pleasures.

As stated, on some points, Brooks is correct. We restrict sales and levy sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol precisely because curtailing some freedoms can better society. I would suggest that even more extreme restrictions and taxes should be leveled against guns. We should make full use of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, a division that was originally part of the Internal Revenue Service.

Brooks went further to insist that Colorado and Washington are “effectively encouraging drug use.” There are a plethora of problems with this.

First and foremost, legalization is not tantamount to encouraging use, but rather, refusing to discourage use. While it is true that marijuana prices will plummet, these prices will plummet as a result of relaxation of onerous government regulation (i.e., the substance being illegal contributed to it being commodified on the black market). The difference is between something being against the law and being subsidized: Marijuana is not being subsidized, merely legalized.

Second, by Brooks’ reasoning, the government is essentially in the business of encouraging the use of alcohol and tobacco. In Pennsylvania, the state government deals liquor, which has the potential to have all the negative effects Brooks chooses to highlight regarding cannabis. These arguments, though, have more potential than any of his others and are not fully explicated. 

While I would never contemplate not pursuing the pleasures that Brooks describes as higher pleasures, I think every person has the right to pursue what makes him or her happy. As such, it seems silly to term an arbitrary group of said passions as “higher.” A hipster might think that competing in mainstream sports is not a higher pleasure while Brooks would disagree. 

In addition to the confused nature of language, I think it reveals Brooks’ limited perspective. The experience of use that he had with his educated friends while a high schooler in an affluent suburb of Philadelphia will be very different from the experience of someone in less fortunate circumstances. This point is highlighted by the title of his column, “Weed: Been There Done That,” as if his experiences are identical to every other user.

Ultimately, my argument is merely the following: We don’t know what other people are going through. Brooks has no idea why someone might decide to partake of the “lower” pleasure of marijuana. As such, it’s not our place to contemplate such questions or to pontificate on how one might grow out of such a pleasure.

That is not to say that we shouldn’t be concerned with preventing addiction to the substance. Alcoholics exist in our society, and there is a societal system in place, or at least we like to believe there is one in place, that is supposed to help such people return to a state of normalcy.

There is a lesson to be learned here. Rather than lamenting the loss of higher pleasures to substance abuse, we should come up with ways to prevent substance abuse without curtailing personal freedoms or creating unnecessary criminalization and incarcerating numerous citizens.

This brings us full circle: The way to do this is to levy high taxes on legalized substances and use the revenue created to fund programs that not only rehabilitate addicts, but also help prevent addiction in the first place. These steps can help create a humane, respectful policy and approach to addictive substance regulation and management.

Write Rohith at rop33@pitt.edu.