Isn't legalizing marijuana just the opening wedge to
legalizing all drugs?
In a word, no. It is
understandable that social conservatives fear the infamous "slippery slope," but
marijuana is just not on the same slope with the other illicit drugs. In a few more words,
what does that question mean? Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and
morphine are all "drugs" that are "legal" in different ways. Will
making marijuana as "legal" as tobacco somehow lead to making heroin as
"legal" as caffeine? How would that work?
Prohibitionists like to call anyone who criticizes anything about
prohibition "pro-drug," but this is simply non-sense. Except for hard core
libertarians, who often are personally very "anti-drug," most people who favor
the "legalization" of marijuana do not favor treating other "drugs" in
the same way.
It is my impression that most people who favor the
"legalization" of marijuana also oppose arresting people for the simple
possession of "hard drugs" for personal use. This is not so much the result of
sympathy for addicts as it is an almost total distrust of the "narcotics police"
from the DEA on down, or up, as the case may be.
It seems likely that the political process that leads to the
legalization of marijuana will result in the discrediting of the prohibitionist
establishment. This, in turn, will lead to the reform of the way we handle "substance
abuse," but this is not at all the same thing as the "legalization of all
drugs."
Supported