Skip to footer

7 big myths about marijuana and legalization

The Justice Department recently announced it would not enforce federal anti-marijuana laws in Washington and Colorado. This is regrettable. Legalizing marijuana endangers public health and safety. But that's not what these seven popular myths maintain.

7. Myth: People have always smoked marijuana and always will. Why try to stop it?

Less than 8 percent of Americans smoke marijuana versus 52 percent who drink and 27 percent of people who use tobacco products. Instead of normalizing marijuana, we should be keeping it illegal and continue to spend resources on reducing demand. These efforts work. Communities that implement local anti-marijuana strategies by area-wide coalitions of parents, schools, faith communities, businesses, and, yes, law enforcement, have shown significant reductions in marijuana use. Brief interventions and treatment for marijuana addiction also work, as do probation reform programs and drug treatment courts.

Marijuana policy is not straightforward. For some, using pot is not a dangerous issue. For others, marijuana use is a serious problem. For society as a whole, its use is a large and growing public health issue with significant costs.

The Justice Department’s decision to allow for-profit marijuana businesses to take root is dangerous and misguided, inconsistent with international law, and undermines the president’s own objectives to promote health and education. A greater effort should be exerted to make nonsmoked, scientifically approved medications derived from marijuana available, but we should not let myths guide marijuana policy. America can do better.

Kevin A. Sabet is the author of “Reefer Sanity: Seven Great Myths About Marijuana” and the director of Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana), which he founded with former Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy. He was a senior advisor in the Office of National Drug Control Policy from 2009-2011.

7 of 7
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.