Pontification can be harmful. But, like many of America’s most detrimental pastimes, it seems to play a particularly conspicuous role in the university experience. As with anything potentially addictive, however, it is always advisable to employ the proper safeguards. And just like injecting with a used needle, pontification without facts entrains a very temporary good time along with some very nasty consequences.

Beth Mueller’s recent Editorial Board dissent on the subject of marijuana legalization was one such example of pontification on a binge. The column essentially argued society has a right to interdict behaviors it deems dangerous. Or, as Mueller so immaculately put it: “While the unrestricted ability to smoke pot would certainly make plenty of Americans feel good, it wouldn’t really be good.”

The glaring deficiencies in the articulation of her message aside, Mueller performed the equivalent of a logical eight-ball after a hefty whiff of methamphetamines to arrive at this nonsensical statement. Between rips of generalization that would put any seasoned toker to shame, Mueller argued the use of marijuana impairs the mind to such a late-night snack food devouring extreme that the user becomes incapable of “rational thought.” In outlining what her own, rather hazy utopia would look like, Mueller further implied marijuana use entails less appreciation of “the beauty of people, the world and even new ideas.” She concluded by stating alcohol is different because it can be consumed so as to leave a person in control of their mental faculties — something weed just can’t do.

I have no desire whatsoever to engage in conjecture about Mueller’s life. Whether she is one of the 94 million Americans who have tried marijuana as of 2003 interests this writer little.

In any case, stoners are an easy constituency to criticize. After all, the prevailing reasoning goes, they’re not getting off the couch to argue anytime soon. But Mueller, who seems to equate marijuana use with a degradation of our basic humanity, should have held herself to a minimum of journalistic ethics and done the research even the most red-eyed of her peers could have performed if given 30 minutes and an Internet connection. For example, Mueller could have easily cited the fact that 4.2 million Americans were dependent on or abused marijuana, according to the National Institute of Drug Abuse.

In the same vein, Mueller could have set aside the resin-encrusted bong of self-righteousness to find that 6 to 11 percent of fatal accident victims test positive for THC. The same study notes a substantial number of those drivers were under the influence of alcohol as well. And of course, Mueller would further have then been obligated to note that alcohol, which she alleges is much more reasonable of a drug, makes a driver 8 times more likely to be involved in a car accident than a sober one. For legally drunk drivers, the likelihood of a crash is 15 times more likely. See the website of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

What is perhaps even more troubling is Mueller’s unashamed use of conjecture to validate her dubious statements. They essentially boil down to one platitude that has becoming increasingly rare since we graduated the DARE program — marijuana impairs reason and should therefore be illegal. In support, Mueller implores us to imagine that aforementioned Puritan utopia, one where “relaxation entailed a more honest release from the burden of work to be more aware, not less, of the beauty of people, the world and even new ideas.”

Such statements are utterly impossibly to qualify. Even given the fact that current research does in fact indicate marijuana use is correlated with a higher incidence of schizophrenia, this does not by any standard mean every intake of the substance, everywhere, will spontaneously decrease the user’s capacity for the sort of abstract joie de vie to which Mueller so bizarrely alludes. Whether this lack of anything approaching journalism is attributable to bias, inexperience with the subject material or — as a worthy blogger opined — too many viewings of “Cheech and Chong,” few can know. Whatever the reason, it would do well to try harder next time.

So Beth, feel free to make broad — and frankly stupid — generalizations about marijuana’s apparently patent evil. But if you are going to publish those generalizations in a newspaper, make sure to prepare with a good, long puff of reality beforehand. Through the haze, you might find the truth is much more nuanced than first meets the Visined eye.

Sam Clegg ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in economics.