Enough of NORML

Enough of NORML

Legalization and decriminalization of marijuana

Thomas Johnson and Frances Gravatt wrote to the editor of The Bullet about NORML.

Gravatt, Frances W.

Johnson, Thomas

Gravatt, Frances W. and Thomas Johnson. "Enough of NORML." The Bullet, November 8, 1976

HIST 298, University of Mary Washington

1976-11-08

The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.

3 JPG

300 dpi

English

Fredericksburg, VA

Dear Editor:

Since the beginning of this semester, there has been much discussion of NORML in this newspaper. For the first two or three issues of The Bullet, I found the topic interesting, although a bit antiquated. Now, I am completely bored with the subject and wish to know if it would be possible to move on?

I am very aware of NORML’s goals. I admire what the organization is trying to accomplish, but the recent devotion of this editorial column to NORML is puzzling. It is true that this column is supposed to be a sounding board, but when it is dominated by one particular person’s opinion, one begins to ask his or herself if perhaps there is a brainwashing attempt going on.

My advise is to let a dead horse die. There are certainly more relevant topics that can be considered within this paper. Apathy in itself is a crime, but fanaticism has no place in a newspaper.

Respectfully yours, Frances W. Gravatt

Drug Reality

Dear Editor:

Obviously there is much interest in the drug use at Mary Washington College as indicated by the published responses to my comments about NORML (The National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws). Many responses contained statements deserve comment.

Tom Chasen argues that my “statements are those of an anarchist.” But nowhere in my letter did I advocate the elimination of government. What I and other Libertarians do advocate is the elimination of all laws which deal with victimless crimes-such as laws involving drug production, sale and use, prostitution, gambling etc. Actually I am a strong proponent of a government, but a government that is limited to performing functions which are appropriate to it, such as dealing with real crimes like murder, theft, rape etc., which do have victims.

Maureen Riley asserts that “there are many pragmatic arguments against decriminalization. These would be multiplied in strength, application and support against legalization.” I wish that I knew of just one pragmatic or positive argument that could stand up under the test of reality. The main argument for outlawing drugs, according to those who support such laws, is that these laws will prevent harmful drugs from getting into the hands of people and thus protect them from injury. But in reality just the opposite occurs.

Drugs, although they are now outlawed, are readily available today to anyone who really wants to obtain them. Young children get them and become addicts. Students at Mary Washington College get drugs, apparently easily, and use them (if I can believe what other students tell me). Even prisoners in jail get drugs, and yet it is the government who runs these jails. If the government cannot prevent locked up citizens from obtaining drugs, how could it possibly prevent free citizens from getting them? It can’t, and it doesn’t!

But that is not the purpose of outlawing drugs. The purpose is to establish control of some people over the lives of other people (we are not dealing with drug control, but people control). And in the process there is a set up an extensive black market (mainly run by the mafia). In which enormous profits can be made and kickbacks can be obtained by those who choose to look the other way. Bribery and corruption of law enforcement officers inevitably results when drugs, as well as gambling and prostitution, are outlawed. Also, since these laws are often broken and not uniformly applied (enforced), or are recognized to be irrational and thus ignored, there results an increase in general disrespect for law. With widespread corruption respect is lost in law enforcement officers and even in government itself.

Doug James thinks that my idealism has blinded me to the realities of today’s drug situation. But exactly the opposite is the case. It has been estimated that approximately 50 per cent of all crimes are drug related. This does not mean that individuals crammed full of drugs are dashing around committing crimes simply because of the presence of drugs in their systems. What it does mean is that people who are hooked on drugs must spend fantastic sums of money to obtain these very high priced drugs (which are only high priced because they are outlawed). In order to get the money for these purchases many drug users find it necessary to rob, assault, mug or murder others.

Therefore the reality of the drug situation is that the government is setting you up! There is a far greater chance that you will be a victim of a real and serious crime precisely because certain drugs are outlawed. The reality is that there are hundreds of drug pushers out there getting young and innocent people to try drugs and wrecking their lives in the process, a point Michael Mello seems oblivious of when expressing his fear of children buying drugs at a local store should they become legal. Children are already buying which are being vigorously hustled by pushers, and they are probably often bought precisely because they are outlawed-they are forbidden and thus more desirable.

Drug pushers only exist because the government outlaws the sale of marijuana and other drugs, thus causing prices and profits to be very high. If drugs were sold openly on the free market they would be so cheap, and the profit so low, that the incentive to push drugs would be eliminated. One doesn’t find pushers of alcohol or cigarettes in school yards, but one does find pushers of drugs.

Michael Mello makes his and NORML’s position on marijuana quite clear in his letter. They are simply seeking decriminalization and not legalization. He points out that “under such policy (decriminalization) marijuana would still be technically illegal.” Precisely! And this is a major problem.

Just suppose the people in the 1920’s and 30’s who saw what alcohol prohibition was doing to the country took a position similar to NORML’s. Instead of seeking a repeal of the 18th Amendment which outlawed the production, sale and transportation of alcohol they would have simply said: “By all means keep this prohibition, but just modify it a bit (decriminalize it) to allow us to have a drink in our home, make a little home brew or wine etc. and perhaps even exchange a bit of alcohol for an insignificant consideration. But certainly no one should be allowed to produce, sell or advertise this drug.” Just think of the even greater mess this country would now be in had they taken such a position. Fortunately for us all they did not, but instead called for an end to prohibition! And this is precisely what NORML should do concerning marijuana (even if it is not interested in other drugs or the concept of prohibition per se).

I appreciate the invitation extended by Michael Mello to speak at a future meeting of NORML. But might I suggest an alternative. Perhaps NORML would like to sponsor an Open Forum, possibly to be held in Ann Carter Lee Ballroom, and allow me to briefly present the Libertarian views concerning drugs and Michael Mello or another spokesperson to present NORML’s. We could then answer questions from the audience. I believe such an event would be both mentally stimulating and most educational.

Sincerely,
Thomas Johnson
Professor of Biology

Newspaper article

Dickerson, Courtney

Williams, Megan