Commentary

Joe Benning: The marijuana debate

Editor’s note: This commentary is by state Sen. Joe Benning, a Republican who represents the Caledonia-Orange District in the Vermont Senate.

The marijuana legalization debate will challenge all of us to examine our own capacity for tolerance. For some the challenge will simply be too difficult because they fear an assault on familiarity. For others the challenge will be intolerable because they’ve never had that fear. But to most Vermonters, the challenge rests in our ability to rationally examine facts when deciding whether to effect change.

Should Vermont legalize the use of marijuana? I don’t smoke marijuana. Don’t care to. But as a kid growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, I knew many people who did and some who still do. Their choice to indulge never bothered me. In fact, it taught me to be tolerant of another’s perceived foibles, a cornerstone of what it takes to be a member of a free society. There are people who do things they enjoy that just don’t make sense to me, but unless they are interfering with my ability to do the things I enjoy, I’ve never felt the need to demand they cease and desist. I like to think this is what America is all about. I especially like to think this is what Vermont is all about.

“Freedom” is not an abstract concept, relegated to ancient history books on a dusty shelf. It is the very tangible ability to think, to speak, to act and do without anyone saying I cannot, so long as my doing so does not interfere with my neighbor’s ability to do the same.

 

Despite seven decades of prohibition in the so-called War On Drugs, a sizable number of Vermonters use marijuana. A recently completed study (the Rand Report) indicates at least 80,000 of our fellow citizens are spending between $125 million and $225 million annually in an underground economy to enjoy their diversion. If that report is true (some say its numbers are on the low side) then any rational observer must conclude the untold billions we have spent hoping we would eliminate continued consumption has been wasted. We kid ourselves if we believe prohibition will eventually win the battle. I’d argue it is time to change our approach.

Vermont has the ability to have a civil discussion on legalization through its legislative process. We have the data, we have the history to understand what hasn’t worked and why, and we have a growing desire to take a measured approach to dealing with marijuana consumption in a “Vermont way.” We can do that if we eliminate emotion and passion from the discussion. We can do that if we acknowledge the fact that we have been penalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens for behavior that generally does not interfere with Vermonters’ ability to go about their daily lives.

Some would respond that there are costs to society with legalization due to those who might abuse this substance through youthful indiscretion or driving after imbibing. These are legitimate concerns, but they already exist now, so I would argue they are not a reason to continue a failed policy. We address those concerns through education and regulation, just like we do with the far more problematic substance called “alcohol.” A tax on what is now a substantial underground economy would provide the money necessary to greatly enhance those efforts.

VTDigger is underwritten by:

Some have asked, “What’s the rush?” To that I would say, “There is no better time than the present to restore a lost freedom.” “Freedom” is not an abstract concept, relegated to ancient history books on a dusty shelf. It is the very tangible ability to think, to speak, to act and do without anyone saying I cannot, so long as my doing so does not interfere with my neighbor’s ability to do the same. When Vermonters remember that, we’ll recognize it is time to end the failed policy of prohibition by legalizing, taxing and regulating marijuana consumption.


Commentary

About Commentaries

VTDigger.org publishes 12 to 18 commentaries a week from a broad range of community sources. All commentaries must include the author’s first and last name, town of residence and a brief biography, including affiliations with political parties, lobbying or special interest groups. We have a minimum length of 400 words. We have found the ideal length is approximately 600 to 800 words. We provide some copyediting support, but we do not have the staff to fact-check commentaries. We reserve the right to reject opinions for matters of taste and accuracy. Commentaries are voices from the community and do not represent VTDigger in any way. Please send your commentary to Cate Chant, [email protected], and Anne Galloway, [email protected]

Email: [email protected]

Reader Footnotes

Please help move our stories forward with information we can use in future articles.

Readers must submit actual first and last names and email addresses in order for notes to be approved. We are no longer requiring readers to submit user names and passwords.

We have a limit of 1,000 characters. We moderate every reader note.

Notes about other readers’ points of view will not be accepted. We will only publish notes responding to the story.

For more information, please see our guidelines. Please go to our FAQ for the full policy.

About voting: If you see voting totals jump when you vote on comments, this indicates that other readers have been voting at the same time.
1000
0 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
0 Comment authors
newest oldest most voted
 

Recent Stories

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Joe Benning: The marijuana debate"