First Draft

“To the libertarian, laws against marijuana smoking are offensive to human rights and freedom. To the conservative, any risk to society’s security is an invitation to disaster” (National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (NCMDA) x). This widespread view on one of the nation’s biggest issues needs to be debated. History has shown marijuana to be used as a medicine in countries such as China as far back as 5000 B.C., but it is important to note that these marijuana users differ considerably from those in the United States. Marijuana is commonly labeled as a narcotic in America; a drug abused so much that it is detrimental to American society. Because of this label, legalizing the drug is an issue that is silenced by the American Federal Government as quickly as it is brought up. The term “abuse” so structures our perceptions and principals that it is possible to only see the abusive aspects of marijuana. People are therefore under pressure to prove that the label is invalid. Data must be collected to credit the beneficial claims of drug use and discredit the falsities. It has also been observed that “any statement frequently repeated in public assumes the status of fact” (6), making it even more difficult for a marijuana activist to speak out against the label. This essay will counter the Federal Government’s “built-in assumption that the individual should be able to do without recreational drugs, that their use is unnecessary, and a life without them is the normal state of affairs” (180).
The Federal Government has three main reasons why they feel marijuana should not be legalized. The first reason is marijuana’s high level of exposure. When marijuana first arrived in America, it was used inconspicuously by underprivileged socioeconomic groups such as jazz musicians and artists. Few people spoke out against marijuana because its presence was so minor. But for unknown reasons, marijuana smoking began to develop in the 1960’s as a common form of recreation. By 1972, an estimated 24 million Americans had experimented with the drug. The Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics shows an estimated 210 million people living in America in 1972. A majority of these people (around 120 million) are adults ages 18-64, which is also the most popular age group for marijuana users. These numbers, therefore, result in approximately 20% of the major adult population experimenting with marijuana. The drug was a secret mainstream of American life until the media got involved. TV reporters and newspapermen directed a lot of attention towards marijuana users. This high level of exposure of marijuana caused an uproar of disapproval and leads us to another reason why the Federal Government prohibited marijuana: marijuana is a symbol of social conflicts and public issues.
Marijuana was now said to be affecting the dominant social order and thus creating a problem that needed to be stopped. The sixties was a stressful time for most adults. All of the media being portrayed of the nation’s youth doing drugs and breaking laws shocked and upset a lot of people. Marijuana became a symbol of separation from traditional society and also a symbol of “disorder in a society frustrated by increasing lawlessness” (9). Although these reasons were strong enough to make a valid case against the legalization of marijuana, the Federal Government still needed a more powerful reason to convince the nation of marijuana’s atrocities. They turned to health issues as their third reason for the creation of their new laws.
Marijuana, according to the Federal Government, is “perceived to threaten the health and morality not only of the individual but of the society itself” (6). It is first observed as a threat to public safety because of links between marijuana and aggressive behavior. General health is another health issue. Everyone believes long term use of marijuana results in fatality, psychosis, addiction, and fear it attracts its users to more dangerous drugs such as heroin. Finally, the health of society is at risk. Idleness, hedonism, an increase in sexual activity and a decrease in motivation replaced people’s cherished values. All of these reasons were observed by the public in three different ways, with all three “schools almost at sword points with each other” (Bloomquist 2).
The first school is composed of people who are firm supporters of the Federal Government’s laws. These citizens, however, do not have children or have poor relationships with children. The second school agrees something has to be done about the drug problem, but they stress creating limits rather than trying to eliminate marijuana altogether. The last school has a disturbing, “Go to it kids, and while you do we’ll make a few bucks off your bodies and heads and then, later, if things get too hot, we’ll try and take the stuff away from you again” (3) approach towards the issue. But no matter what group you fall in, you will find it tragically apparent how misinformed the public is about marijuana.
Approximately half of the adult population believes a majority of crimes committed are by people under the influence of marijuana, and every 7 out of 10 adults feel that “marijuana makes people want to try stronger things like heroin” (NCMDA 121). A large amount of these misinformed individuals also believe that users have actually died just from using the drug. Why are the public’s views so incorrect? How did they come to these conclusions? We must go back to the early 1900’s when narcotics first became an issue. The public was presented with isolated findings and incomplete information, “with little attempt to place such findings in a large perspective or to analyze their meanings” (6).
The over-medication and careless prescriptions of narcotic drugs such as opiate, morphine, heroin, and cocaine were common practices in 1900. These unfortunate patients became more addicted to these drugs at this point then any time since. The Federal Government teamed up with pharmaceutical industries in enforcing stricter prescriptions to stop this accidental drug addiction from continuing. People started to notice ethnic minorities using narcotics for non-medical purposes around this time as well. The Federal Government’s reaction towards this problem was quite different. Suddenly, narcotics were labeled a hazard, and society began “enacting criminal legislation, prohibiting non-medical production, distribution, or consumption of these drugs” (12). Narcotics were considered detrimental to the economic and political systems, thought to lead to crime and insanity, and perceived as a threat to the nation’s youth. All 50 states passed anti-narcotic laws within a meager 14 years, and the Federal Government passed the Harrison Narcotics Act to further support these laws.
The Harrison Narcotics Act enforced a license for pharmaceutical prescription of narcotics at a reasonable cost. Unfortunately, the section of the law stating, “Nothing contained in this section shall apply . . . to the dispensing or distribution of any of the aforesaid drugs to a patient by a physician” was misinterpreted by law enforcement officers. They argued that opiates could not be prescribed to an addict by a doctor because addiction was not a disease. The addict, therefore, was not a patient, and the physician or doctor was withheld to blatantly disobeying the Act by illegally giving these addicts their drugs of choice. Many of these practitioners were humiliated, arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for their unintentional wrongdoings, while the pushers and dealers remained at large. The Illinois Medical Journal wrote in 1926, “instead of stopping the traffic, those who deal in dope now make double their money from the poor unfortunates upon whom they prey.” Disaster resulted from the errant and distraught nature of the narcotic abusing population. In May of 1915, only a year after the Act was created, an editorial in the New York Medical Journal wrote, “Sporadic crimes of violence were reported, due usually to desperate efforts by addicts to obtain drugs.” The Harrison Act intended to slow down and ultimately halt user abuse of narcotics, but instead did just the opposite. In 1918, secretary of treasury William Gibbs McAdoo appointed a committee to look into the large scale problem. The committee discovered the wrongful use of narcotic drugs had actually increased since the passage of the Act. So what does marijuana have to do with these laws?
Mexican immigrants and West Indian sailors brought marijuana into America via the Gulf States around the early 1920’s. The new drug became popular among Negroes (specifically jazz musicians), who in turn brought the substance with them to urban areas of the North. Here, it was introduced to whites in the lower class and racially mixed neighborhoods, and the practice of smoking marijuana was adopted by many deviant groups considered “somewhat beyond the pale of respectability” (Goode 7). The Federal Government immediately and incorrectly declared marijuana a narcotic drug, “although at present no sound medical opinion would classify marijuana as a narcotic similar to the opiates” (Smith 3).The same narcotic laws created in the early 1900’s were then edited to include marijuana, justifying any destructive legal penalties imposed on its users for threatening society.
But these smokers were treated unfairly. For the most part, they still showed loyalty towards the American system as a whole, and were “essentially indistinguishable from their non-marihuana using peers by any fundamental criterion other than the marihuana use” (NCMDA 40). These individuals were trapped in an issue that is handled on “the basis of power and legitimacy, and not on the basis of scientific truth” (Smith 181). The American Medical Association, for example, urges educational programs to act as a deterrent to marijuana use. But what are being discussed in these programs are attitudes toward the drug, not factual information. Dr. Sidney Birnbach, director of health and safety in the Yonkers, New York, school system even admitted in 1966, “These facts aren’t given “objectively”—they’re slanted…You can call it brainwashing if you want to. We don’t care what you call it—as long as these youngsters get the point.” The public had no choice but to believe what the government was telling them. “Government agencies effectively banned all marijuana research so that no new information could be developed” (Smith 1). This forbidden research is critical towards unveiling the untold truths about marijuana that the public is completely unaware of. The information also helps marijuana activists crush the Federal Government’s arguments on why marijuana should remain illegal.
Some crucial information we are aware of, however, describes the various profiles of users, a summary of the drug’s effects, and the many factors that influence these effects. Marijuana’s effects change depending on the kind of person who uses it, and can even vary with the same person at different times. The user’s biological characteristics and personality, therefore, play a huge role in determining his/her drug use. “Sigmund Freud once had a patient who believed that the center of the earth was filled with jam. Freud was not concerned with the [validity] of that statement, but with the kind of man who made it” (180).
There are 4 kinds of marijuana users: experimental, sporadic, heavy, and very heavy. It is important to note that “not all marihuana users fit neatly or precisely into these slots” (NCMDA 41), but they do help the reader better understand who lies within each assorted group. Experimental users make up the largest group of marijuana users. Their curiosity and desire to share a social experience draw them into trying the drug. These individuals have tried marijuana only a few times, and are just as responsible, goal-oriented, and orderly as any non-user. Experimental users may either quit the drug after their first experience, or become Sporadic users. These people tend to use the drug more because of its socializing aspects. Marijuana is known to increase the enjoyment of shared activities such as listening to music or watching a movie. Sporadic users are still not very different than non-users: they stress education and responsible, independent decision-making. Heavy users seem to need the drug experience more often and tend to smoke marijuana several times a day. They use the drug mainly to relieve anxiety or boredom, slowly becoming pessimistic and irresponsible, but still sharing broadly based interests of society. The last and smallest group of marijuana users is known as Very Heavy users. These abusers of the drug (they are rarely drug-free) are held in low-esteem and viewed with social disapproval by almost everyone. The laws enacted against marijuana users are aimed at Heavy and Very Heavy users, but mainly affect the Experimental and Sporadic users. It is unfair when an experimenter of a recreational drug gets penalized at the same level an abuser does. And the injustice doesn’t stop there, because the effects of the drug are “dependent not only on the personality of the user but also on the dose” (Goode 49).
Dosage, Method, Metabolism, Set and Setting, Tolerance, and Duration are the factors influencing marijuana’s effect on the user. Set refers to factors such as personality and life style, while setting refers to the environment in which the individual takes the drug. Dosage refers to the quantity of the drug being consumed, and, depending on a person’s tolerance level, the dose may be increased to produce the same desired effects. Smoking marijuana is the most common method of the 3 (injection/smoking/oral) because it produces a rapid but less efficient delivery of the “high.” A person’s metabolism within their liver and lung cells chemically alters the substance and provides for its elimination from the body. Finally, the duration of use is an important factor to recognize. It varies from short-term (less than 2 years), long-term (2—10 years), and very long-term (greater than 10 years), with most of Americans being short-term users. Our nation’s laws do not consider these aspects. They see any marijuana user as drug abusers, regardless of these profiles or factors, and treat them as such. But is this a fair statement, considering most marihuana users’ “only contact with the law has been as a result of their marihuana use” (NCMDA 77)? Judge John H. Saunders of the Santa Anita, California, Municipal Court, says, “These consequences can be severe and the time spent in prison is the least of it. When the convict is released from prison, he becomes a second-class citizen economically. Persons convicted…will not be licensed by the state in a wide variety of fields.”
The laws were highly effective, however, until the 1960’s, when marijuana became the socio-recreational medium. Society began to question the lack of scientific research and low public awareness, and continue their questioning to this day. The Mercury News in San Jose, California, printed a very recent article (October 14th) about a lobbyist group urging for U.S. policies on marijuana to be changed after finding “environmental damage in national forests and parks caused by illegal gardens.” They stress it is better for the government to regulate and tax the drug rather than have its users destroy these publicly open forests and parks with herbicides and pesticides. This way, users can keep their activities within the privacy of their own homes, and, more importantly, out of the reach of our innocent youths. The plea was curtly dismissed and ignored like all other appeals before it. One of the libertarian’s main questions for the Federal Government is why other abusive substances such as alcohol and tobacco are legal while marijuana is not. After all, these issues already went through the hostility marijuana is going through now, resulting in only failure. By 1913, half of the nation’s population lived under alcohol prohibition, and 14 states had banned the sale of cigarettes between 1895 and 1921. These prohibition movements rose and fell within a short time span of only 30 years. What went wrong?
By 1928, an estimated $25 million a day was being spent in America to satisfy the thirst for alcohol, because even though the nation was under prohibition, “only 5 states prohibited possession of alcohol” (12). Alcohol use did not decline during prohibition, and its demand actually increased. Crime and homicides also increased due to the difficult accessibility and the dangerous dealings involved with the distribution of alcohol. So many more problems than solutions rose from alcohol prohibition. “Alcohol was legalized not because we found out anything new or magical about the drug, but because prohibition produced a series of social changes that were intolerable” (Smith 1). The habit was just too ingrained in society to be suddenly eliminated. The anti-tobacco movements suffered the same defeat. They argued tobacco was a stepping stone to alcohol use. This strong dispute was, unfortunately, the only case they had to show for at the time. All of the 14 states that previously banned the sale of cigarettes repealed their rulings within 10 years.
The government did act sympathetic towards the efforts made by anti-alcohol and tobacco movements; they silenced their requests by regulating distribution and extracting revenue for their troubles. Louis Alan Talley, Taxation Specialist, tells us of $5.3 billion accumulated by 1940, and $8.9 billion by 2005. Some may argue this money is necessary to help the nation pay for certain things such as education or military funding, and I wholeheartedly agree with them. But as the Center for Science in the Public Interest points out, “society is overburdened with an estimated $184 billion per year in health care, criminal justice, social services, property damage, and loss of productivity expenses,” with alcohol and tobacco being 2 leading causes. So now where is your money going? It’s only aiding those suffering from the damaging side effects of alcohol and tobacco abuse; a vicious cycle to say the least.
Marijuana advocates dispute that the drug is no more or less harmful than alcohol and tobacco and should therefore be treated in similar fashion. They compare marijuana users to social drinkers, and describe marijuana as “a pleasant but largely dispensable and not particularly important aspect of life” (Goode 150). Marijuana adversaries contend that the drug is a stepping-stone to narcotics and should remain prohibited. But in reality, alcohol and tobacco are the gateway drugs. Interestingly, “while marihuana is perceived as less harmful than before, alcohol and tobacco are regarded as more harmful than before” (NCMDA 14), and yet those 2 drugs have achieved social legitimacy. Why can’t marijuana also achieve social legitimacy?
“Protagonists and antagonists of the drug are locked in deadly combat because each side chooses to ignore the valid points made by the other” (Goode 147), but they do agree on one thing: society should not approve or encourage the recreational use of any drug, in public or private. Any encouragement enhances the possibility of abuse and becomes a hazard to not only the individual but to society as a whole. Protagonists argue that the risks taken with marijuana use are greatly outweighed by those resulting from heroin or cocaine use. They also believe the economy would benefit if the Federal Government imposed a tax on marijuana. Antagonists argue that children would resort to harder drugs now that marijuana is legal simply to revolt against the law. But “their objections are on moral, not medical, grounds, although their argument will be cast in medical language” (Smith 179). They cannot hide the fact that marijuana has reached social legitimacy in America. Even “law enforcement policies both at the Federal and State levels implicitly recognize that elimination is impossible” (NCMDA 131), and would require a huge increase in funding and manpower. Frankly, there are more dangerous crimes than marijuana abuse that warrant that kind of attention.
But the subject must be dealt with soon. Kathleen Taylor, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, states, “half our violent crimes go unsolved” since the government is too busy dealing with trivial marijuana-possession cases. Research must be developed and a better understanding of the drug and its users must be evaluated. Until society reaches a universal agreement on the issue, we can take three courses of action. We can enforce the laws selectively; we can change the laws so the problem is handled as a public health issue; or we can eliminate the laws altogether and see what may result. I feel that the legalization of marijuana is a serious issue and must be observed from all standpoints before assumptions or conclusions can be made. What we choose today determines how we live tomorrow.