Whether the object of their disfavor is marijuana or something else, there are really two arguments here. One involves the facts about whatever they would ban, and the other is how and whether their pet law would work. Not only does the end not justify the means, it also does not guarantee that the means will work. It is obvious from listening to most prohibitionists that they simply cannot bring themselves even to think about this. To them merely suggesting that marijuana prohibition doesn’t work is pro-drug and anti-child. The notion that marijuana prohibition might actually be counterproductive and make things worse is literally incomprehensible to them.

To illustrate the counterproductive nature of marijuana prohibition let’s pretend for a moment that the law really is a magic wand. (It runs on a Microsoft program which means that t is very powerful, crashes a lot and would work much better if it came with a manual.) In any case, we are going to wave this magic wand and make marijuana (but not low THC hemp) disappear. Poof!

Now, leaving aside the suffering of the medical marijuana patients – which is where their suffering usually gets left anyway – would the world be better or worse off? Would the hard drug problem, alcoholism, social problems, juvenile delinquency, etc. get better or worse? Think about this from the prohibitionist perspective: assuming that marijuana is a "bad thing."

Even most people who see marijuana as a "good thing" are concerned that it is being used improperly by kids who are too young. So now that there is no more marijuana for them to "experiment" with – or "abuse" by actually inhaling, are the children going to better or worse off?

According to a Dec. 12, 1994, statement by Joseph A. Califano, Jr., president Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), a "jump in marijuana use by children and teens signals that 820,000 additional Americans will use cocaine." He explains, "If historical trends continue, the jump in marijuana use among America's children (age 12-18) from 1992 to 1994 signals that 820,000 more of these children will try cocaine in their lifetime. Of that number, about 58,000 will become regular cocaine users and addicts." 

Never mind that this is a simple logical fallacy, (post hoc ergo propter hoc) and that this is contradicted by the Dutch experience, which is real not theoretical. Would this work in reverse? Would making marijuana use drop to zero, cause cocaine or other hard drug use by young people to fall?

Remember, almost all teenagers who use cocaine and marijuana, also use alcohol. In fact, Califano has taken to calling alcohol and cigarettes "gateway drugs." (He has not yet started saying that caffeine is one, which -- by his "logic" – it is.) But here we are in his pot-free world. Is hard drug use going down – or up?

In our society – alcohol being the most prevalent, socially accepted drug -- people who use marijuana and other drugs are looking for a non-alcohol "high." The fact is that most people who use marijuana do not "go on to" hard drugs. For most, marijuana is not a "gateway" but an alternative to other things, including alcohol. But in a world without marijuana, where are they going to go? Most will probably just drink more. However, there are many other substances that they can use. Not all of them are things that adults think of as "drugs." Inhalants are already a frequent choice.

The problem for the prohibitionists is that all but the most rabid of them recognize that marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol and the most common illicit drugs. Having made marijuana disappear, they will have made the "drug problem" worse by their own definition. Their own numbers do not show that a marijuana-free world would see a decline in hard drug use, because alcohol and tobacco are perfectly efficient "gateways."

In recent memory, we have seen that whenever there has been an intensification of drug prohibition enforcement, marijuana is always the first to disappear because of its relative bulkiness. This has invariably been followed by an increase in hard drug use, which is then blamed on marijuana! (See HOW THE NARCS CREATED CRACK From National Review Magazine, December 5, 1986 .) This is not a conspiracy. Just bad economics and "good" politics.