Public Comment

It’s unfortunate that the concept of visualization has gotten such a bad rap. Because of its connection with what turned out to be mushy-brained 1960s social science, or perhaps because it has become the butt of so many jokes (e.g., the bumper sticker “Visualize Whirled Peas”), it now languishes in history’s big dustheap, somewhere between encounter groups and last week’s coffee grounds. As it turns out, we probably cannot change reality simply by “visualizing” an alternative one.  

Too bad, since there may yet be some value in the old process. The idea of creating something of a visual image in the minds of participants in a discussion may actually help lead to breakthroughs in dealing with complex, seemingly intractible problems, owing to our reliance on our visual sense. 

Problems like, say, the legalization of marijuana. 

I’d like to try to paint a picture of what a post-legalization world might look like, in hopes that it might stimulate other “visualizations” and perhaps inch us towards that goal. 

So how would such a mythical post-punishment world differ from today’s? 

Well, obviously, the major difference is that marijuana, its possession and use would be legal (and not only for “medicinal” purposes). One could plant, grow, sell, give away or otherwise distribute, and smoke, or otherwise ingest, this plant. But would that mean that we would simply go from today’s tightly-constrained regime to a free-for-all where anyone could smoke a joint anywhere, anytime, for whatever reason? From felony prosecutions for possession to totally unrestrained use? 

Not necessarily. Let me flesh out a few details in this painting. 

On the day when decriminalization legislation takes effect, what should the status of this substance be? Well, it’s not as if we have absolutely no guides here; a very useful one goes by the deceptively simple name of “Repeal,” otherwise known as the 21st amendment to our Constitution. Before its enactment, during that dark time known as “Prohibition,” all “intoxicating liquors” were treated pretty much the same as marijuana is today, legally speaking. After Repeal, it was once again legal to sell these spirits, but not without restriction. There are age limits and other restrictions on them (open container laws, bans on alcohol at certain events, etc.).  

So why not apply this to marijuana, after its “Repeal”? Here’s what comes to mind: 

Age restrictions 

As we do with alcohol, we can restrict its possession and use for those under a certain age. Of course, we all know that such restrictions are fairly ineffective; kids will get their hands on the stuff in any case, and use (and abuse) it. It happens with alcohol all the time. But it is at least an attempt to lay some ground rules, to say, basically, “you cannot do whatever you want to do; we care about your health and safety, and we’re going to at least try to keep you away from this stuff until you’re old enough to ruin your life.” Or something along those lines. (The theory being that while we recognize that pot should be legal, it’s not something we necessarily want elementary-school kids using on a regular basis.) 

Restrictions on use 

While marijuana may not be the “killer drug” that it was cracked up to be (here I refer you to the excellent send-up, “Reefer Madness,” and to the now-totally discredited LaGuardia Report), it nonetheless does have potentially powerful psychoactive effects (don’t ask me how I know that). Recognizing this, it seems reasonable to impose restrictions on its use regarding such things as operating motor vehicles, again as we do today with alcohol. 

In fact, I would be quite comfortable with a zero-tolerance policy in this matter: no amount of marijuana would be allowable when driving, or operating a power boat, or any other similar vehicle where impaired judgment can have fatal consequences. (This would be similar to the zero-tolerance policies on alcohol which are currently in force in many European countries.) 

And in keeping with rules restricting alcohol, those who put on public events, and who have to deal with large crowds at sporting events or similar arenas, would be able to restrict the use of marijuana at such events if they felt it necessary. 

Drug testing 

With today’s prohibition comes another unpleasant aspect: mandatory drug testing. Such testing regimes, while they are arguably invasive, even repressive, may still have a role to play in a post-legalization world. 

Just as we don’t want stoned people driving cars, I think I can confidently say that most reasonable people would not object to a strict ban on the use of marijuana by airline pilots, train engineers, bus drivers, cargo ship captains, and others who we entrust our lives (and our environment) to. Even after Repeal, I would think it reasonable to place an absolute ban on marijuana use by such people (at least within a certain time frame, recognizing that such agents stay in the system for a long time), and to insist on mandatory drug testing to enforce this ban. 

Methods of ingestion 

The last aspect of visualizing a post-Repeal world is not one in which bans, mandatory testing or any such legal measures could or should have any part to play. I’m referring to how we ingest the stuff. Obviously, the most widely-used method is simply smoking it. Simple, effective, and, I’m sure, potentially more deadly than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. I don’t have figures at hand, but since I have cleaned a pipe or two in my day, I’ve seen the gunk that is in that smoke. It can’t be good to put that sticky stuff into our lungs. These alternatives should be encouraged over smoking (as primal and convivial as passing a joint or a pipe around can be; perhaps this should be reserved only for rare special occasions). 

I would simply like to suggest that there are other, better ways of ingestion: the second-most-popular, baking and eating, seems much more healthy. (Eating it also provides the secondary benefit of a nice gradual transition into feeling the effects of the drug.) There are other methods of inhaling, such as vaporization, which reduce or eliminate the byproducts of combustion, those sticky, gooey tars, from entering one’s lungs. 

As a general last note, if you are inclined towards legalization but still have nagging doubts about the potential harms, such as the ones I’ve touched on here, consider this: visualize the huge pot of money that will be made available the day that Repeal passes. Think of the money now being spent (some would say “being flushed down the toilet”) on chasing down offenders, locking them up, herding them through the courts, impounding their vehicles, etc. If you want to legalize, but at the same time you want to keep schoolkids from smoking joints, then you can take some of this heretofore wasted money and use it for some really effective public-service campaigns. Or for drug rehab programs. Or maybe for something really useful not related to drugs at all. 

David Nebenzahl is an Oakland resident.