British philosopher John Stuart Mill proclaimed, more than a century and a half ago, that the state has no right interfering in individual behavior that might harm the individual but bring no harm to others: ôOver himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereignö (Wilson 2004, 158). Despite MillÆs liberal view, the conservative approach to marijuana control disregards such philosophy, spending billions of dollars per year to enforce the prohibition of marijuana. Such an approach causes high levels of economic and social costs that are out of proportion with the individual harm cause by marijuana consumption. The enormous costs of prohibiting marijuana, that do little to reduce demand or consumption rates, mandate consideration of less harmful alternatives.
From a social utility perspective, prohibition and criminalization of marijuana use is counterproductive, doing more harm than good. Enormous costs are involved in law enforcement, the justice system, and the penal system to enforce harsh laws with longer sentences against marijuana users. These resources prevent law enforcement from controlling more serious crimes. Marijuana laws also keep the drug market in operation without regulation, making users more susceptible to harm from using marijuana whose contents, ingredients, and sales go unregulated. Further, the lives, education, and careers of hundreds of thousands of marijuana users are jeopardized from the stigma of arrest. Evidence demonstrates that these harms are greater to the many than the benefits to the few of prohibiting marijuana. Such laws also go against public health and welfare goals, since an unregulated market increases the risks of using marijuana both in terms of quality of marijuana and exposure to criminals who purvey more harmful illicit drugs. Studies in states that have decriminalized marijuana use demonstrate that use in those states has not risen beyond cons
...