Editor’s note: This commentary is by Debby Haskins, who is the executive director of SAM-VT (Smart Approaches to Marijuana).
[L]egalizing marijuana use will not give us better control over teen use – quite the opposite. Consider the historical data on teen use of marijuana in Vermont, from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, which is given to almost every Vermont high school student every two years. It’s a gold standard for actual prevalence rates.
In 1997, 32 percent of Vermont high school students were using marijuana – 10 percentage points higher than today. By 2003, the rate had gone down to 25 percent – a healthy decrease of 7 percentage points in six years. But, in 2004, Vermont legalized medical marijuana, and in 2005, the high-school use rate was down by only about .3 points. Last year, in the most recent survey, the rate was 22 percent – still dropping, though very slowly.
What these data show us is that, under “prohibition,” Vermont’s youth marijuana use rate went down at a steady pace. Under legalized medical marijuana, the decrease slowed to a crawl.
Vermont would do a lot better by starting a prevention program that isn’t tied to legalization, while continuing to study the legal states for ideas as the full effects of their legalization efforts become clear.
The RAND Report about marijuana in Vermont recommended that we avoid a standard retail model and that we start a prevention program well before recreational marijuana became legal. Colorado provides clear evidence of that wisdom, because their teen use rate went up by 20 percent in the first two years after recreational marijuana became legal, much of that before stores even opened. Traffic deaths caused by marijuana also went up significantly, and Washington state had the same experience.
The House Judiciary version of S.241 tried to acknowledge these hard facts by stripping out legalization, while leaving the prevention program and new resources for traffic safety. House Ways and Means, after hearing testimony about the nature of youth use in Vermont today, felt that something had to be done right away to reduce teen use. Seeking a way to fund this version of the bill, they chose one of the worst possible methods – legalizing possession and growing of marijuana.
Colorado, in their first two years of legalization, spent $1 million on a teen use prevention program that failed. If that were to happen in Vermont it would set our prevention efforts back by almost 15 years.
Three important factors affect youth use: perception of risk, ease of access, and community norms. Legalizing a drug in any way decreases the perception of risk – both to physical health and for getting arrested. Making even small amounts legal makes it easier for teens to get the drug. The Youth Risk Behavior Survey shows that teens don’t get their alcohol from stores – they get from home or of-age friends. Finally, legalizing normalizes the drug – there will be more people using it, more role models, a growing sense that the community accepts it.
Do we need to do something to reduce teen use? Of course we do. But legalizing recreational marijuana would be worse than doing nothing.
Vermont has decriminalized marijuana use and is expunging the records of people who were convicted of simple possession. We have also legalized industrial hemp and medical marijuana. Industry, compassion and social justice have been served. There is no ethical reason to rush ahead with a cobbled-together bill that is almost guaranteed to increase teen use. Vermont would do a lot better by starting a prevention program that isn’t tied to legalization, while continuing to study the legal states for ideas as the full effects of their legalization efforts become clear.
