Don't Panic Ok?

Transition From Submission: The End of Prohibition

August 2^nd 1937, the bill first introduced by Harry Anslinger, the then Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, was approved becoming the cornerstone legislation that lead to the criminalization of cannabis. The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, itself did not ban the use of marijuana, however it instated intricate rules of enforcement, which marijuana handlers were subject to as well as a plethora of penalties inclusive of fines amounting to $2,000 and a term of imprisonment that could last durations of up to five years (Anslinger 1).

Enforcement of the prohibition of cannabis has long since evolved into an ineffective, bureaucratic, and detrimental pestilence that plagues our nation, inflicting substantial wounds upon the wellbeing of society, the health of individuals, and often times prevents the development of medicine and expansion of our economy.

Originally the psychoactive drug was tabooed under the pretext that it was considered to be too hazardous for consumption, although in comparison to legal recreational substances such as alcohol and tobacco, it is undeniably a relatively harmless substitute. In contrast to alcohol, cannabis remains, to a great extent, an innocuous alternative to the individual and the majority of society. In regards to tobacco, Doctor Donald Tashkin, a pulmonologist and UCLA professor of medicine, announced that heavy marijuana use didn’t inflict, the same degree of lung injury caused by tobacco (Gagnon 1).  In respect to alcohol “in 2001, there were 331 alcohol overdose deaths and 0 marijuana overdose deaths” (Calvin 2). In the United States the disproportionate expenditure of alcohol is the third leading preventable source of death, while there has yet to be a single ‘marijuana-induced’ fatality (Calvin 2). Dissimilar to alcohol, it is physically improbable to overdose on marijuana. While it only requires ten times the amount one would imbibe to get intoxicated, for one to perish whilst indulging themselves on alcohol, it comparatively would take an estimated thousand doses of cannabis in order to induce a fatality, a physically implausible task (Calvin 2). Even if one avoids a lethality due to the overindulgence of alcohol, numerous deaths are linked to alcohol’s extended period health detriments. In 2003, the United States Center for Disease Control, documented 20,687 deaths associated to alcohol, even with the exclusion of alcohol related accidents and homicides (Calvin 2). Countless negative long-term health conditions, consisting of cancers and cirrhosis of the liver are directly attributed to alcohol, whereas there has never been a reported case of lung cancer, or any cancers correlated to marijuana, in a smoker who limits his or herself exclusively to cannabis (Calvin 4).  Alcohol’s severe and often life-threatening health effects are by far more destructive than cannabis’s health detriments which current studies have shown to be nothing more than an enlarged appetite, an increased heart-rate, and slight reddening of the eyes (Andres 36). These risks are almost inconsequential in contrast to many legal drugs, both prescription, over the counter, and recreational.

As for the impact on society, marijuana is a much less threatening intoxicant to employ than alcohol or tobacco. In regards to tobacco, marijuana has no carcinogens that may be passed on to bystanders through second-hand smoke. Indeed marijuana is free from any cancer causing agents, although, the same cannot be said for either alcohol or tobacco. The main concern of society, however, if one imbibes alcohol, is that of which will the participant place others’ lives in jeopardy by driving. It’s a common, and well known fact, that driving while under the influence endangers yourself as well as others. Conversely marijuana is justly dubbed a considerably less risky substance to operate a vehicle under than alcohol.  While alcohol lends itself to more aggressive and more hostile driving, recent studies have proven that marijuana imposes a much more cautious and methodical style of driving, which researches have explained to be self instated by the driver. Research supports the theory that while drivers under a cannabis-induced high, they are conscious of their mental state and attempt to compensate where they can. “In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol” (Andres 64). Paul DeFelice, a long time marijuana user, shared his experience with the drug while driving, “… I was high for most of those kilometers [I had driven]. Driving while high causes me to drive a little slower, and more attentively. I feel more attuned to my car and my surroundings. I’m also less prone to road rage, and much more patient and courteous if I’m high.” (Andres 65). Even though driving drunk is illegal innumerable accidents still occur from inebriated drivers, and if a safer option presented itself, such as cannabis, society would benefit from fewer tragedies on our roads.

Still another alcohol-related crime leaves society in trepidation; it is the danger of sexual and violent assault that alcohol aids to promote, while marijuana remains, again, without a parallel. While most violent and sexual crime is directly linked to alcohol consumption on the part of the aggressor, experiments have found that during the high produced by marijuana, the user enters a state of mild lethargy, which he or she is less inclined to physical activity let alone the commission of crimes and/or assault either violent or sexual (Andres 32). If and when marijuana is available to the public for legal use then hopefully a much safer community will exist, if its inhabitants will select the safer choice both for themselves and for others.

As proven, marijuana itself is relatively harmless, but a greater, and much lesser acknowledged, hazard lies in the prohibition of cannabis. August 2^nd 1977, on the 40^th anniversary of the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act President Jimmy Carter, while addressing Congress, proclaimed that, “Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use” (Armentano 1). He could not have spoken more truthfully, for abundant threats present themselves in the prohibition of cannabis. “Since the 1970’s, more than a dozen government-appointed commissions have examined the effects of marijuana, and made public policy recommendations regarding its use. Overwhelmingly, the conclusions of these expert panels have been the same: marijuana prohibition causes more social damage than marijuana use, and the possession of marijuana for personal use should no longer be a criminal offense” (Armentano 1).

First off prohibition itself is unproductive, in New Zealand the Parliamentary Health Committee itself issued a statement announcing that they acknowledged that marijuana prohibition enforced by traditional crime control methods has not been profitable nor does it yield positive or successful results (Armentano 4). In the United States alone, the marijuana remains the third most popular recreational drug despite over 60 years of criminal prohibition, only to be topped by alcohol and tobacco, both as before mentioned, much more life-threatening. Indeed the DEA reported that “the demand for marijuana appears to be relatively stable..” despite their multi-billion dollar attempts to manage it. Unfortunately, prohibition is as expensive as it is ineffective, costing taxpayers over $7.5 billion annually to keep marijuana illegal (Armentano 2), with $10-15 billion dollars in direct costs (Andres 126). Money that could otherwise go to more positive and constructive services to the community, regrettably that is merely a fraction of the true cost that marijuana prohibition takes on society. There are roughly 700,000 arrests each year a marijuana related violation, an estimated 80% of those arrests are only for possession of the drug (Andres 75). Although because of federal imposed mandatory minimums many of those who are arrested end up incarcerated, sending thousand of otherwise law-abiding citizens into America’s penal system. “In 42 states, possession of an amount of marijuana is punishable by incarceration and/or a significant fine” (Andres 135).

As well as clogging our already overflowing correctional facilities, it costs taxpayers $25,000 annually to keep one person in jail (Andres 133). Not only is it costly to keep these transgressors in jail, but to a certain degree inhuman with the current state of our penitentiaries. The judicial system places these essentially innocent people, whose only crime in many cases is possession of marijuana, into prisons that helplessly overcrowded, such as the Maguire Correctional facility in Redwood City, California. It was originally designed to house no more than 688 inmates, however it now contains 978 prisoners, some who are share living quarters with 14 other people, without toilets, windows, or running water (Andres 84). In Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is forced to detain his charges in tents located in the scorching Arizona desert, that in summer reaches temperatures of up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit (Andres 84). Without the criminalization of marijuana our prison system would be significantly less crowded, and devoid of fundamentally guiltless detainees, even keep society safer from criminal activity.

Keeping cannabis illegal has negative effects on the crime-rate; frequently the prohibition of the drug leads to non-marijuana related offenses. “This renewed focus on marijuana smokers represents a shift away from enforcement against more dangerous drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Specifically, arrests for the sale of cocaine and heroin have fallen 51% [however d]rug arrests have increased 31% [since 1989], and the increase in marijuana arrests accounts for the most of that increase… Approximately 44% of all drug arrests in this country [the United States of America] are marijuana arrests” (Andres 135). Potent and dangerous drugs are subject to more leeway in the presence of marijuana prohibition that inundates the general public with addicts to ‘hard’ and more harmful drugs such as cocaine and heroin. In addition to introducing worse drugs into the community, the prohibition of marijuana also helps to encourage and fund criminal activity. A drug that becomes illicit becomes more expensive due the risk factor of the providers, thus giving user an incentive to obtain immense sums of money through the commission of profitable crimes (Barnett 142).  The criminal process doesn’t cease there though, it goes on to pass into the hands of organized criminal organization. “Drug laws attempt to prohibit the use of substances that some people wish to consume. Thus because the legal sale of drugs is prohibited, the people who still wish to use drugs are forced to do business with the kind of people who are willing to make and sell drugs in spite of the risk of punishment” (Barnett 140). Often times these dealers are criminals that are part of an “immense and sophisticated black market [created by the criminalization of a drug] that generates billions of dollars for criminal activities” (Lehman 45). Not only does this insert a great threat into the community but also puts the individual who is purchasing the drug in jeopardy, as he or she is forced to interact with these individuals, generally away from the police so as to avoid incarceration (Barnett 140). Acquisition of cannabis from these persons also leaves the risk of obtaining a substance that may well have been tampered or manipulated with placing the consumer at even greater peril. With the decriminalization of marijuana the government would be easily able regulate and restrict producers and solicitors of cannabis as to ensure safe and fair trade in the substance, preventing much of the accidental or intentional harm of the caused by the dealers.

Numerous benefits can be derived from the decriminalization of cannabis, including large advances in the medical field and leaps for the economy. “Marijuana is one of the safest therapeutic active substances known. No one has ever died from an overdose, and it has a wide variety of therapeutic applications including: Relief from nausea and appetite loss; reduction of intraocular pressure; reduction of muscle spasms; and relief from chronic pain.” Additionally cannabis has been proven to be effective in the treatment of innumerable conditions including: AIDS: in which marijuana has been known to reduce nausea, vomiting, and as well as to ease the loss of appetite. Glaucoma: marijuana can reduce intraocular pressure, alleviating the pain and slowing—and sometimes topping—damage to the eyes. (Glaucoma is the leading cause of blindness in the United States. It damages vision by increasing eye pressure overtime.) In the subject of cancer marijuana can stimulate the appetite and alleviate nausea and vomiting, which are common side effects of chemotherapy treatment. Multiple Sclerosis: Marijuana can limit the muscle pain and spasticity caused by the disease, as well as relieving tremor and unsteadiness of gait. (Multiple sclerosis is the leading cause of neurological disability among young and middle aged adults in the United States.) Epilepsy: Marijuana can prevent epileptic seizures in some patients. Chronic Pain: helps to alleviate it (Andres 147). In fact  “More than 70% of U.S. cancer specialists in one survey said they would prescribe marijuana if it was legal; nearly half said they had urged their patients to break the law to acquire the drug. The British Medical Association reports that nearly 70% of its members believe that marijuana should be available for therapeutic use” (Lehman 63).

Although there are now strict regulations against physicians even suggesting the use of marijuana, indeed in “February 11, 1997, Federal Register the Office of National Drug Control Policy announced that federal policy would be as follows: physicians who recommend and prescribe medicinal marijuana to patients in conformity with state law and patients who use such marijuana will be prosecuted; physicians who recommend and prescribe medicinal marijuana to patients in conformity with state law will be excluded from Medicare and Medicaid; and physicians who recommend and prescribe medicinal marijuana to patients in conformity with state law will have their scheduled-drug DEA registrations revoked” (Lehman 63). These restrictions place physicians in a serious ethical dilemma: whether to help their patients recover and/or to help to ease their symptoms or to keep their position in the field of medicine.

Not only would patients benefit from the legalization of marijuana but also so would the economy. The cultivation and distribution of marijuana would lead to a massive increase in employment, both in regards to the field and in the government whose jurisdiction would be the regulation and control of both the growth and allocation of the drug. Even though the drug is proven to be relatively harmless laws should still govern the many aspects of the drug, such as the legislation imposed on alcohol and tobacco.

The removal of the harmful and redundant prohibition of marijuana would lead to a safer, more productive, and better-off society for the individual and the community alike. Continuation of marijuana prohibition is wasteful of resources, time, and inflicts greater damage than it prevents. The information is in, the conclusion is overwhelming and clear that the possession and private use of marijuana should be in no way a criminal offense. Drugs are problem for the surgeon general, not the attorney general (Lehman 2).

Work Cited

(Various Sources Omitted/Not Cited)

Andres, Martin et al. Marijuana: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Jamuna Carroll. Detroit: Bonnie Szumski, 2006. 

Armentano, Paul. "National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws." NORML. 13 Dec. 2006. 6 Nov. 2007 <http://norml.org/>. 

Barnett, Randy E. Addiction: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Jennifer A. Hurkey. San Diego: David L. Bender, 2000.

Calvin, Joh