Marijuana … and then?

Today’s elections in California are transcendental, not so much because the successor of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will be chosen, but due to the possibility that voters might approve the legalization of marijuana, making economic interest prevail over the ethical appreciation of illicit drug consumption, and due to its repercussions in drug-trafficking fighting policies, especially in Latin America.

For better or worse, marijuana is gaining territory. In little less than a decade, it went from being an illicit drug to being permitted for medical purposes in 14 states of the United States and in its capital. Then the decriminalization of its consumption was accepted in many Latin American countries, and now, if Californians vote in favor of Proposition 19, the growing, possession, purchase and use of marijuana for recreational purposes will be legal for individuals over 21 years of age.

The latest polls show that Proposition 19 is losing territory among Hispanic voters. The regulation of marijuana use for medical purposes in California is among the most liberal in the country. It’s a drug more widely accepted, manifested by 50 percent of Californians, 13 percent more than in 1969. This tendency might be favored by the image of doctors prescribing in beach kiosks to any user claiming a headache.

Those who favor the legalization of cannabis prefix economic and practical concepts. They estimate that California will raise $1.4 billion in taxes every year. Thousands of millions will be saved by not having to process criminals that will no longer be criminals and in penitentiary expenses that rise $216,000 per year for every juvenile felon who is incarcerated. That, in comparison to the $8,000 spent per children in the public school system. They estimate that legalization will clean the market and will reduce drug prices, dissuasively enough for drug dealers.

Those against know that marijuana triggers psychiatric diseases, causes addiction, encourages the use of stronger drugs, disinhibits individuals toward felonious behavior, attracts negative effects to the household and the workplace and causes accidents. So the savings in one area will be translated as expenses to another. Society will be sicker and drug trafficking will not dilute itself. It will focus in other businesses and on more profitable products.

Regardless of the arguments, Proposition 19 will generate two additional challenges. Barack Obama’s government will have greater difficulties imposing federal criminal law against drugs in California, since it will have to deal with a new explosion of businesses, such as law firms, pro-consumer groups and franchises, which foresee online and home-delivered marijuana sales as if it were pizza, or as an additive in fast food and ice cream.

But the greatest challenge is for Latin America. Legalization is a new contradiction in the United States, a country that promotes the eradication of drugs and drug trafficking, spending millions of dollars in the countries across the region through the Colombia and Merida plans, but seems to be doing less to deter consumption. This is, definitely, the greatest incentive for traffickers.

In a regional summit this week, the Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos illustrated the upcoming challenge by asking how he could incarcerate a poor man in his country for growing marijuana when it would be legal to produce it, traffic it and consume it in the richest market in the world.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who suffers the most from the havocs of drug trafficking, joined the critics, asking fellow Mexicans in California to vote against Proposition 19, while his country’s Congress dusted off several bills that look toward a possible alignment with the other side of the border.

The legalization of marijuana will open unsuspected doors. It is a mistake if an economic criterion dominates over potential public health issues or has negative effects over households, as well as minimizes the necessary ethical discussion regarding this subject and its moral repercussions.

The legal tolerance given today to marijuana should make us think about the future. Will ambition lead us in the future to legalize harder, more dangerous drugs?