Jews and Pot

October 27, 2010

Jews’ view of the pot initiative? Mixed

by Idan Ivri, Contributing Writer

Tweet

Share

Marijuana is everywhere. Smokers come from every walk of life — from the college student to the cancer patient, from the wealthy older couple to the heroin addict who started out just smoking weed.

Jews care about this issue because Jews, like every other group, can be found among those who use, who dispense, who grow, and also those who disdain this all-pervasive drug. In fact, the halachah of pot is not entirely clear.

The Talmud states that the law of the land is the law. But when it comes to pot, what does that mean? State and federal rules on marijuana are rapidly changing. California has legalized medical use and decriminalized recreational possession of small amounts, but many smokers still rely on the black market. And marijuana remains completely illegal under federal law, although enforcement is inconsistent.  Now, Californians face Proposition 19 on the Nov. 2 ballot, a measure that would allow possession, purchase and taxation of marijuana for adult recreational use.

The Jewish perspective on pot is ambivalent, and observant Jews could plausibly take either side of Proposition 19, according to Rabbi Elliot Dorff, a professor of ethics and Jewish law and rector at the American Jewish University. On one hand, Judaism “is very insistent on responsibility for our actions,” Dorff said, meaning that becoming extremely intoxicated on any substance is forbidden. Any drug that harms the body is also forbidden because “in the Jewish tradition, God owns our bodies, and we have a fiduciary relationship to take care of [ourselves],” Dorff said.

On the other hand, marijuana may be more akin to alcohol — a drug that observant Jews may take in moderation — rather than tobacco, which the Jewish tradition frowns upon as dangerous and highly addictive, Dorff said. Where marijuana falls on that sliding scale is an “empirical question,” he added, and the answer may affect how Jews vote on Proposition 19. Schools, synagogues, drug control experts and law enforcement all have a role to play in providing that answer and determining the boundary between the law and making a responsible individual choice.

Cities Rule

The most distinguishing feature of Proposition 19 is how much authority it delegates to cities. Possession of up to 1 ounce would be legal statewide, but California already has made possession of that amount an infraction on par with a speeding ticket. The real meat of Proposition 19 is that cities would become free to make their own rules on regulating and taxing the commercial sale of marijuana to adults over the age of 21. 

“I think they’re trying to make sure cities can opt out, like with liquor stores [or] medical marijuana dispensaries,” said Kyle Kazan, a former Torrance police officer and member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), which supports the measure. “You can zone it away.”

Story continues after the jump.

Opponents, however, see the delegation of authority to cities as a “legal nightmare,” which has become one of the catch phrases of the No on 19 campaign.  “You’re going to have 550 different versions of this law, city by city,” said Rodney Jones, chief of the Fontana Police Department and a Proposition 19 opponent. County sheriffs will have a particular problem, Jones said, because they cross city lines and will be responsible for enforcing small differences in rules on marijuana.

But Kazan said police already handle similar complexity in enforcing various city ordinances on the sale of liquor.  And if the initiative had set a single rule for marijuana sales statewide, supporters worry that “the other side would say, ‘How dare they have a one-size-fits-all solution?’ ” said Hanna Liebman Dershowitz, an attorney and member of the legal committee of Yes on 19.

The Case for Talking to Kids

Even if only a few cities authorize sales, both sides agree that Proposition 19 almost certainly would increase overall use of marijuana in California.  It would be more widely available in stores than it is on the black market now, and it would not be stigmatized as illegal. And unless governments levy huge taxes, it would also likely be much cheaper. The real debate is whether the inevitable increase in use will be more harmful than the status quo.

Drug war veterans have long argued that marijuana physically damages the brain and other organs, but the data on that are inconclusive. “ ‘Reefer Madness’ isn’t true,” said Keith Humphreys, a professor of psychiatry at Stanford University School of Medicine and former senior policy adviser at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Obama. “The [idea that] everyone who picks up a joint has their life ruined is absurd,” he said. 

But that doesn’t mean marijuana is harmless, Humphreys said. “I don’t deny that some people use marijuana and they’re fine, but if a million people pick up regular marijuana use, probably at least 10 to 20 percent will have significantly adverse experiences in life, maybe do badly in school, maybe get in a car accident.” Legal marijuana would be particularly harmful to high school students who are already on the verge of flunking out, he said.

Nobody knows exactly how much usage will increase, but Humphreys predicts the state could add anywhere from 1 million to 3 million new smokers. Vulnerable groups, such as teens and the poor, are particularly likely to smoke more, he said, because they have less disposable income and will be more attracted by the lower price.

Jason Ablin, head of school at Milken Community High School, has worked with high-school students for 20 years, but he’s not convinced that the status quo of criminalization is an effective deterrent, either.

“I think if kids are going to use drugs and alcohol, they’re going to find ways to acquire them — they do it with alcohol already,” Ablin said. “We have a lot of double standards with marijuana use. The association with marijuana is counter-culture, so that becomes a lot more damning than, say, alcohol,” he said.

For Dershowitz, that association is patently unfair. “As we look inward [following] Yom Kippur and the New Year, we also need to look outward to reflect on our actions as a society,” she said. Dershowitz is particularly troubled by the social and legal stigmas that follow a young person who is busted by law enforcement for marijuana, even now that the penalties have been reduced. “We should abhor a system that erases other people’s chances to turn toward the good simply because they’ve chosen an action that we singled out for disdain.”

Instead of focusing on heavy-handed scare tactics and criminalization, Ablin prefers to engage kids in a broader public policy discussion about the way society treats drugs in general. “Because I work in schools, I have a lot more confidence in kids to critically think through problems,” Ablin said. “You’re not getting anywhere with kids by talking at them. [You’ll do] much better work by listening to them.” 

On a single page

1 | 2 | 3     Next Page

A version of this article appeared in print.

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

We should pass Prop 19 because it stops police departments from kicking down doors and killing pets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc

Comment by PabloKoh on 10/27/10 at 12:13 pm

Hey Dude: Thanx for using Dorf as your Jewish Law expert.  There’s hardly a Jewish law he can’t contort, so Conservative practice is not much different from Reform, which has no Jewish law at all.  Amazing you couldn’t find an Orthodox expert, when they’re all over the place.  Can you say the word: ‘Shul’? But you guys are alergic to Orthos anyway… What does he say about doin’ pot on Shabbat? ... oh yeah, it’s medicinal… sure, that’s it.

Comment by Abbushuki on 10/28/10 at 5:37 pm

I’m so tired of seeing marijuana users referred to as “smokers”.  Smoking is the least healthy way of using marijuana and many marijuana users consider it to be just as unpleasant to be around (or do) as tobacco smoking.  Millions of marijuana users have transitioned to healthier ways of ingesting cannabis, such as vaporizing, eating, pills and tinctures.  Referring to all marijuana users as “smokers” paints us all with the same dirty brush and makes it seem like all marijuana use involves an unhealthy act (smoking).  Marijuana use can be completely smoke free (and, thus, carcinogen free).  I suggest you abandon the “marijuana smokers” line and switch to “marijuana users”.

Comment by Sarah Lovering on 10/28/10 at 5:58 pm

Marijuana should certainly be decriminalized as it has the potential to benefit (medically etc.) a significant portion of the population and it’s effects are more mild than many legal substances.  It is only a matter of time before this truth overturns the current laws at the state and federal level.  Such regulations were established on the radically manipulated beliefs of politicians who sought a scapegoat for unrelated national security concerns.  Its a matter of time.

Comment by Jillian Hensiek on 10/29/10 at 11:24 am

Anyone ever tried pot latkes with applesauce?  I think anyone who has would agree that this stuff needs to be legal.

Comment by Berman on 10/29/10 at 2:21 pm

I’ll never forget how Jack Weiss made me feel when I asked him what he thought about the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal at a benefit I attended a couple years ago.  He made me feel like an idiot, and was really quite snarky about it.  The benefit was prior to the election that he subsequently lost for City Attorney, I believe.  I think he made some reference to “political suicide” when I asked him about supporting Marijuana legislation.  My point is this:  Decriminalization WORKS. If you don’t believe me, google Decriminalization in Portugal and see what what you get And oh, yeh,  Jack Weiss was a total prick.

Comment by Nerak on 10/29/10 at 2:39 pm

I never used pot myself but I fully support Prop 19, and my whole family has voted Yes on it. EVERYTHING should be legal in a free country. Peter can merry Pan but they can not smoke pot together? Are you kidding?

Comment by RussianJew on 10/29/10 at 3:26 pm

If a construction foreman sees one of his guys, and that guy looks high, the foreman will kick his butt. The arguement that it will put you at risk from inebriated people is unlikely at best. What it will do is gut the money from the black market and enforcement, there’s a lot of money in both

Comment by pete1729 on 10/30/10 at 3:59 pm

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?