The Straight Dope

In an earlier tripe, I suggested that the abortion debate was moved from a moral question to a metaphysical one which is masquerading as a scientific one. I think this switch was made because the average American was beginning to take a more live-and-let-live attitude toward their neighbors, accelerated by the obvious ugliness of the McCarthy era, and the moralists were fearful of losing on strictly moral grounds. I intimated that this was a masterful bit of public relations on the part of the anti-abortion forces, which implies that the switch and the masquerade were intentional, and therefore deceitful.

Strange to say, I don't think the equally intractable debate about pot smoking is quite as easy to define as the abortion debate. True, industrial hemp was the victim of a strange corporate struggle, and herbal hemp was strongly demonized by folks who probably knew better, but in the balance, I think the movement of this debate has been largely unconscious. By this I mean that the best arguments available to decide the issue have been articulated over and over again, yet the issue is not decided, and nobody seems sure why. The debate twists and turns in the breeze.

The problem is this issue cannot be decided on its merits. I think it is obvious to the majority of Americans that it is useless to throw pot smokers in jail, yet this majority will not stand against it even in the name of logic, freedom or general fairness. This is because the pot debate is inextricably linked to the issue of Capitalism. I'll explain why.

As anybody who smokes can tell you, there is no better way to relieve the strain of everyday life than by smoking pot. Even Prozac, the corporate attempt at legalization, fell far short of the benefits pot smoking can provide. The way pot does this is by calming the stress level long enough for the person to gain a little perspective. On the face of it, this should be a boon to Capitalism. For instance, a customer service clerk who received a nasty phone call for something he or she could do nothing about might be angry about it, might be less likely to be pleasant to the next caller, might do the paperwork poorly because the mind is elsewhere, etc. This clerk may very well quit such unpleasant work before long. A pot smoker, however, is much more likely to gain some perspective about the job: 'the person was angry, nothing personal'; 'the company is paying me to take this kind of abuse - if I get angry about it, I prove that I don't have enough self-esteem to keep from taking it personally', etc. This person is more likely to return ready for the next challenge, and may keep a record of the worst phone calls to laugh about with their friends.

Certainly perseverance and increased productivity, both aided by pot smoking, are consistent with the goals of capitalism. But this is where the compatibility ends. The individual company may benefit from employees who smoke pot, but the capitalists generally do not. The reason is the same: perspective. You see, a pot smoker is much less likely to buy the latest Jaguar, even though he has the credit power to do so. The old blue Toyota will do just fine, thanks; it gets him to work, doesn't have large maintenance costs, and he'll keep his money in the bank. The only trade-off is easy: he just needs to be able to bear the condescending looks of his colleagues and neighbors. For a person with perspective, this is no problem.

This is the hub of the problem: pot-smoking reduces consumerism. People with perspective, pot smokers or not, don't generally need the ego-hype that comes with the newest and latest. If the working-class masses stop trying to out-do their neighbors with petty, though sparkly, acquisitions, our economy goes in the toilet. People save their money, which is not good for anybody except the people.

And consumers know this, although as I've said, I think largely unconsciously. Somewhere down deep, millions of Americans know that their pretty Jaguar is worthless to them if all their neighbors prefer Toyotas. A large majority of these folks have smoked pot, and therefore can see through the misinformation campaigns, and would never compare pot to alcohol, cocaine or heroin, because they know better. At the same time, there is the understanding that they have accepted the capitalist game of consumerism, and so they will not vote for something which runs contrary to it.

I can't really fault these folk. They've really taken only a mild moral position: ego beats logic - grow up and live with it. But I want to speak clearly here: we all know that in order to smoke pot, you must buy it. If three friends give you money to get them some as well, and you get caught, you're a dealer. This is a felony. Trying to evade capture is a felony. Lying to the police about it is a felony. Did you think they meant three different felonies? No sir. If you are bringing back pot for your friends, and a cop tries to pull you over, and you run around the corner and ditch the bag, then tell the cop you didn't have any pot, you could go to jail for life. That's of course just one example.

Let me trumpet to you what I only find buried deep in the back pages of the press: more than half of those in prison under three strikes are in for victimless, non-violent crimes, the majority of these for pot-related "offenses". We have a higher percentage of the population in jail right now for smoking pot, than any country on the planet - capitalist or not - has in political prisoners. Here is the ugly underbelly of capitalism. Ego beats morality, every time.

I hope that Jaguar brings you the attention you deserve.

September 14, 1999