« At third federal sentencing, elderly child porn defendant gets one year in prison and lawyer pledges SCOTUS appeal | Main | "Mass Probation: Toward a More Robust Theory of State Variation in Punishment" »

August 28, 2014

How should governments approach a product that research suggests reduces overdose deaths, domestic violence and Alzheimer's?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by this week's research news indicating, as reported in recent posts here and here, that reform of marijuana prohibition and/or marijuana use might alleviate some of biggest social ills and public health concerns in the United States.

In a prior post, I noted that I have been trying to avoid claiming that marijuana reform likely can and will improve many social ills and that marijuana is some kind of magical wonder drug.  But upon seeing this notable new FoxNews piece, headlined "Marijuana compound may slow, halt progression of Alzheimer's," it is now that much harder for me to resist suggesting that marijuana reform could very well end up being a real boon for public health.  

Perhaps even more importantly, as the question in the title of this post highlights, I think it is now becoming especially difficult for government officials and bureaucrats to keep saying seriously and aggressively that even considering the reform of marijuana prohibition is obviously dangerous and is sure to result in profound public health problems.  I certainly understand and appreciate and respect concerns of anti-drug advocates who, I believe in good-faith, fear the potential consequences of wide-spread repeal of marijuana prohibition.  But, especially in light of the growing research suggesting marijuana reform may do a whole lot more good than harm, I hope prohibitionist might become a bit more open-minded about array of positives that might come from smart, good-government, liberty-enhancing reforms in this arena.

August 28, 2014 at 01:23 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How should governments approach a product that research suggests reduces overdose deaths, domestic violence and Alzheimer's? :


The federal government has an initiative to reduce the use of major tranquilizers for the behavioral problems associated with Alzheimers dementia. This is because of a small increase in mortality (no specific effect).

Here is an anecdotal experience with marinol in dementia behavior problems.


Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Aug 29, 2014 12:40:40 AM

Marijuana should be legal because it is relatively harmless and because in general people should be free to choose how they live their lives. Even if it had no medicinal value, I would still support its legalization. Even if, like alcohol, it was associated with domestic violence, I would support its legalization. Even if, like tobacco, it caused lung cancer, I would support its legalization, though it should carry warnings like cigarettes do. Even if, like aspirin, you could overdose on it, I would support legalizing its use by consenting adults, though with some control over its distribution and dispensation. Thankfully, though, it doesn't seem to cause any of the harms those legal drugs do. So people should be able to use it, buy it, sell it, and enjoy it in the privacy of their own homes. You know, like free people.

Posted by: C.E. | Aug 31, 2014 5:23:24 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB