Using marijuana is . . . like what happens when a person with fuzzy vision puts on glasses. Listening to a familiar piece of music, such as a Bach orchestral suite, the mind is newly conscious of the bass line; listening to a conversation, the mind is more aware of the nuances of each voice . . .
-- Charles Reich, The Greening of America
Right, and don't forget the taste of food, and . . .
In the great debate over legalizing recreational drugs, the least convincing assertion of the pro-legalizers is that drug use might not even increase as a result. I can state for certain that drug use would increase. I don't use drugs now. If they were legal, I would use them. Or rather, if marijuana were legal, I would use it occasionally instead of the legal drug I now use regularly, alcohol. To be sure, increased respect for the law is not the only reason so many middle-class, middle-age people have abandoned marijuana: you're also no longer so carefree about where your mind might take you on automatic pilot, especially in public. But society's official disapproval is a substantial deterrent. Without it, many of us would sneak the odd toke or two.
The dishonesty at the heart of the drug debate is the refusal of both sides to acknowledge the pleasure of getting high, a pleasure most participants in the debate probably have experienced themselves without damaging effect. That in itself is no reason to legalize marijuana, let alone more serious drugs. But sensible policy cannot be made without taking it into account.
After last year's revelation that Judge Douglas Ginsburg, President Reagan's brief nominee to the Supreme Court, had smoked marijuana, there was a parade of politicians confessing that they too had "experimented with" the evil weed. They all insisted that this was a youthful indiscretion that they deeply regretted, and they all were awarded little stars for courage and frankness. But where is the politician with the true courage to admit that he enjoyed smoking dope and does not especially regret it?
Both sides of the legalization debate cite the example of alcohol, without really understanding it. Pro-legalizers say other drugs are no worse than alcohol and it's hypocritical for society to spend millions trying to ban the use of "drugs" while other millions are spent promoting the use of Scotch. Anti-legalizers say, hypocrisy or not, we're stuck with the social costs of alcohol but that doesn't mean we need to add other drugs to the vicious stew.
But alcohol is not legal out of tragic necessity, just because Prohibition was a practical failure. Alcohol is legal because Americans like to drink. Almost all drinkers indulge their habit in moderation, with no harmful effect. Quite the reverse: alcohol is a small but genuine contribution toward their pursuit of happiness. Society has decided that the pleasure of drinking is worth the equally genuine cost to society and pain to many individuals of alcoholism, automobile accidents and so on. What's more, this social decision is correct. The world would not be a better place without booze, even if that were possible. The pursuit of happiness has its legitimate claims in the social calculus.