This article was first written as an essay for an English class that I was taking in college. It is as relevant, if not more so now as it was five years ago when it was written. It is, by far, the most popular article on my blog so I have decided to post it here so I can reach a wider audience.
What is written in this article, I think everyone should know. I am certain that if people knew the actual facts about marijuana, it would not be illegal. Enjoy!
In 1937 the Marijuana Tax Act was passed, making marijuana taxable and therefore controllable by the government. The penalties for marijuana possession and use have gotten more stringent over time with the passage of the Boggs Act and the Narcotic Control Act during the fifties. The Boggs Act established uniform penalties and mandatory minimum sentencing and the Narcotics Control Act increased the penalties and fines for the possession and sale of illegal narcotics, (including marijuana). In 1970, the Controlled Substance Act classified marijuana and by association, hemp, as a Schedule I drug, (along with heroin and LSD) “Schedule I drugs are classified as having a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision“ (DEA para 3). Although the United States government paints marijuana as an evil, insidious, gateway drug that is undermining the very fabric of our society, if people were to know the truth about the lies that started the drug wars, the health benefits of marijuana, the costs associated with the eradication of this innocuous weed, and the versatility of marijuana’s cousin, hemp, they would put an end to this so-called War on Drugs.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 labeled marijuana a drug of maximum danger and no redeeming value. This classification was immediately challenged by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, (NORML), but the government simply refused to discuss it. In 1986 the DEA finally decided to hold the public hearings that the U.S. Court of Appeals had ordered seven years earlier, and the resulting parade of doctors, patients, professors, and lawmen left a two-year court record that is the most thorough review of the evidence in our time. In 1988, twelve years after the case first hit the docket, the DEA’s administrative judge stunned the agency by ruling for the plaintiffs: “Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. . . . One must reasonably conclude that there is accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision. To conclude otherwise, on the record, would be arbitrary, and capricious” (Baum 85). The DEA chose to just ignore this ruling and continue on, business as usual.
One way that the government attempts to control marijuana in this country is by being the only source for research marijuana. To obtain marijuana for research you have to apply to the National Institute for Drug Abuse to get some from their plot in Mississippi. That way they can make sure that the only people that get marijuana legally are the ones that are doing a study to reinforce the government’s position.
The most prevalent method that is used against marijuana is the scare tactic. Scare tactics have been used quite successfully throughout history to get the general public on board with someone’s agenda. Fear is a great motivator for people. The very act of making marijuana illegal was based on scare tactics that held very little if any truth to them. When Harry Anslinger, the man who is considered to be this country’s first drug czar, wanted to create a national drug policy, he made up facts to support his position “Take all the good from Dr Jekyll, and all the bad from Mr. Hyde – the result is opium. Marihuana may be considered more harmful . . . it is Mr. Hyde alone” (Gray 77). The same tactics are still being used today to demonize this plant. MTV in Canada even reported that smoking marijuana causes homosexual incest.
During the 1937 hearings before Congress on the proposed Marijuana Tax Act, Harry Anslinger told them ‘. . . a story about a twenty-one-year-old boy from Florida who slaughtered his whole family with an ax. “The evidence showed that he had smoked marijuana,” said Anslinger. He didn’t bother to mention that Victor Licata had been diagnosed as mentally unstable . . .’ (Gray 79). If marijuana were the scourge that our government wants us to believe then why do they need to employ scare tactics to make and keep it illegal?
The studies that show that marijuana is bad for you hit the papers and people see this and believe it to be true. When the studies are debated in the halls of academe and found to have no scientific value, the damage has already been done as far as the public is concerned, and the general public never sees the reports that repudiate the original reports.
In 1972 President Nixon appointed a former Pennsylvania governor, Ray Shafer, to head a commission on marijuana. His purpose was to create a scientific foundation for the administration’s stance on marijuana. Their findings however, were opposite of public policy “marijuana use, in and of itself, is neither causative of, nor directly associated with crime . . . They found no basis for the gateway theory. Alcohol, they said, was probably a greater danger, and they concluded that personal use of marijuana should no longer be a crime. Nixon buried the reports . . .” (Gray 97). This is another case of a government report not jibing with the administrations stand on drugs and getting buried.
In the 1980’s, during the Reagan White House, marijuana again came into the spotlight on June 24, 1982, when Reagan stood in the Rose Garden and declared his War on Drugs. Only one drug, though got mentioned specifically “The country must mobilize to let kids know the truth, to erase the false glamour that surrounds drugs, and to brand drugs such as marijuana exactly for what they are – dangerous, and particularly to school-age youth” (Baum 166). Marijuana was singled out because it was the drug that affected the greatest number of people. If marijuana were to be made legal, there would be only about 2 million illegal drug users left in this country. Certainly not enough people to warrant the big budgets the War on Drugs generates.
One way to make sure that your story makes the front page is to come up with test results that prove that marijuana use will lead to harder drugs – the “gateway” theory. “In 1994, the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University made the shocking announcement that marijuana smokers were eighty-five times more likely to go onto cocaine than nonsmokers” (Gray 177). They arrived at this conclusion by taking the estimated number of cocaine users that had smoked reefer first, and dividing it by the estimated number who hadn’t (almost nobody). Using the same semi-scientific procedure you can prove that almost any substance is a precursor to drug use.
The gateway theory started with a University of Kentucky study “proving” that marijuana is a cause of heroin use that was published in the Science News and later picked up by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. When asked about the study “the Kentucky researcher quoted in the Science News conceded it is the act of criminalizing pot smokers, rather than the pharmacological properties of the drug itself, that is the real gateway to harder drugs” (Baum 153). It is flawed research such as this that has permeated the government’s position since the beginning of the assault on this plant.
The gateway theory has been proven wrong in several scientific journals and papers and yet, because of skilled management of the media, the theory persists, at least in the minds of the public. In 2006 an extensive report was compiled about whether or not marijuana was a gateway drug, “(Golub and Johnson) reported that 1%-4% of hard drug users skipped both the alcohol/tobacco and marijuana stages. Mackesy-Amiti et al. reported that 39% of their sample started using marijuana after they had used hard drugs. Blaze-Temple and Lo reported that 29% of their sample began using marijuana after having used heroin, stimulants, or LSD (Tarter para 4). These figures tell us that there are other factors that can, and do contribute to the use of harder drugs, rather than the using of marijuana leading to harder drug use.
In the United Kingdom, marijuana was reclassified from a Class A drug, (the same as our Schedule I classification), to a Class C, which is basically a traffic ticket for possession for personal use. Then there were reports that there was “skunk” bud in rural England contributing to youths suffering from schizophrenia, “In September 2006, police forces in 17 English counties launched operation Keymer: a national crackdown on ‘skunk’ producing cannabis farms. The operation succeeded in dislocating supply networks across large parts of the country and creating a temporary drought. This is in itself an impressive achievement” (Klein para 6). The same report also notes the outcome of these efforts, “One of the ironic results of the single most significant law enforcement drug control operations in terms of market impact, was to drive a Class C substance from the scene, and frustrated punters into the arms of suppliers well-stocked up with a range of Class A alternatives” (Klein para 3). This is actually how the gateway theory works: Since there is a certain percentage of the population that is going to use mind altering substances, whether they are legal or not, if you take away the cannabis, those people are going to go onto other, harder drugs.
In recent years there has been emerging evidence of the health benefits of marijuana to alleviate the symptoms of some diseases and slow down or even stop the development of other diseases. There are some studies that suggest that marijuana might possibly be a cure for certain types of cancer.
. . . scientists today are exploring the potential role of cannabinoids to alter disease progression. Of particular interest, scientists are investigating cannabinoids’ capacity to moderate autoimmune disorders such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as their role in the treatment of neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (a.k.a. Lou Gehrig’s disease.)” (NORML, 3)
The report goes on to say “Investigators are also studying the anti-cancer activities of cannabis, as a growing body of preclinical and clinical data concludes that cannabinoids can reduce the spread of specific cancer cells via apoptosis (programmed cell death) and by the inhibition of angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels)” (NORML, 4). Because of the United States firm stand against any use of cannabis, most of the modern research into the possible health benefits of marijuana is taking place outside of the United States and therefore not widely reported here in this country.
Even though individual states have experimented with deregulation of marijuana, the federal government stands firm. In the sixties and seventies almost all states passed laws to lessen the penalties for marijuana use. By the end of 1971, only three states maintained mandatory minimum felony penalties for possession. By 1978, thirteen states, with more than a third of the U.S. population combined, had decriminalized marijuana possession. Since the states are subject to federal law, however, the U.S. government steps in when a state refuses to prosecute and prosecutes the defendant under federal drug laws. When several states passed medical-use marijuana laws, the federal government threatened to sanction the physicians that recommended or prescribed the marijuana.
Our marijuana laws make no exceptions for the medical use of marijuana even though clinical and anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that marijuana can alleviate symptoms like the nausea caused from chemotherapy. By continuing our current marijuana policies we are essentially denying people the care they need and deserve.
The most often stated reason for not allowing the use of medical marijuana is that attitudes towards marijuana in general will relax and therefore more people will start smoking it. In a paper entitled “Sending the wrong message”: Did medical marijuana legalization in California change the attitudes about and the use of marijuana? The authors found:
“. . . that while perceptions of harm from marijuana use have decreased over time in California and in other states, marijuana and other drug use has remained stable. Though support for medical use and general legalization of marijuana has increased over time in other states, personal approval for recreational use has decreased and use has not changed” (Khatapoush)
The drug policies in this country are so puritan that they will not even allow an indigenous plant to be used to eliminate someone’s distress.
There are many studies that are beginning to show that marijuana doesn’t impair an individual as much as was previously thought. One study found that “Experienced marijuana users perform tasks as accurately after having smoked cannabis as they do sober” (Norml 1). Another study suggested that “US drivers involved in fatal crashes who had trace levels of cannabis in their blood or urine are less likely to have engaged in risky driving behavior than drivers who test positive for low levels of alcohol” (Norml 1). These two studies suggest that there isn’t as significant an impairment from smoking marijuana, as some would have you believe.
In April of 2004 the National Drug Intelligence released a National Drug Threat Assessment: Marijuana 2004. It said in part, “marijuana will remain widely available and used in the United States . . . current high levels of demand for the drug will not soon diminish” (DOJ para 4). The report goes on to say “ . . . the transportation of marijuana from foreign and domestic sources and the subsequent distribution and sale of marijuana in U.S. markets are likely to continue with great regularity, fueled by both high demand and steady supplies” (DOJ para 5). Even though the government’s own agencies are saying that the attempt to eradicate marijuana is a failed policy, the War on Drugs continues. It is almost as if the war has gained a life of its own and no one is really in control of it anymore.
The costs associated with the prohibition of marijuana are monies that would be better spent elsewhere. Even though there are no exact numbers for the costs of marijuana prohibition, it is possible to estimate the costs. The annual cost of the War on Drugs for the federal government averages $15.7 billion. State and local governments spent another $16 billion. In 1995 almost 600,000 of the 1.5 million total drug arrests were for marijuana offenses. Given those numbers you could reasonably assume that 40 percent of the $31.7 billion is for marijuana prohibition. That means that it is costing the American taxpayers around $12 billion a year for marijuana law enforcement alone. And this is after 34 states to date have either decriminalized the possession of marijuana or enacted laws that allow the use of medical marijuana. And still the federal government keeps insisting on prosecuting a war that is failing and unpopular with the majority of the citizens of this country.
In a report compiled by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws of over a dozen government funded studies on the effects of marijuana “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” (Norml 1). Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the United States government keeps insisting that marijuana is a drug that has no medical or social redeeming qualities. They have concealed the truth, and outright lied to propagate this myth that marijuana is the evil, insidious, gateway drug that they make it out to be. Making marijuana illegal in the first place made absolutely no sense and keeping it illegal now makes even less sense. It is time to quit listening to the half-truths and outright lies that our government has been feeding us for over seventy years and have some honest, unbiased research done on the true properties of marijuana and the possible medical applications for the drug.
And it is not just the prohibition on marijuana that is flawed, but rather it is our entire drug policy in this country that is flawed. Just as the case to outlaw marijuana was based on misleading information, half-truths, and outright lies, so too, was the case to start and continue on with the failed, destructive policy known in this country as the War on Drugs.
A by-product of these efforts to eradicate marijuana and its use is that we, as American citizens, do not have easy access to hemp. “Although it grows wild across much of America and presents no public health or safety threat, hemp is nevertheless routinely uprooted and destroyed by law enforcement. Each year, approximately 98% of all the marijuana eliminated by the DEA’s “Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program” is actually hemp” (NORML, 4). Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa L that has less than 1% of its psychoactive component, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Hemp is an extremely versatile plant, parts of which can be used in the making of textiles, paper, paints, clothing, plastics, cosmetics, foodstuffs, insulation, and others products. Because of the policies against marijuana in this country we do not have a cheap, sustainable, product that it a natural alternative to synthetics and that is grown in thirty other countries including Canada, Japan and the European Union.
During World War II, 400,000 acres of hemp were grown in this country to support the war effort. Rope was made from it since nylon was in short supply at that time. After the war, it was no longer economically viable to grow hemp in this country so the production of industrial hemp stopped. When the Substances Control Act was passed in 1971, there were no longer any hemp farmers left to protest the grouping of hemp along with marijuana.
The arguments for this stance on hemp also come from fear. One of the fears that people state is that people will be able to get high by smoking hemp. In a report entitled Hemp and Marijuana Myths and Realities Dr. David P. West states “The THC levels in industrial hemp are so low that no one could get high from smoking it. Moreover, hemp contains a relatively high percentage of another cannabinoid, CBD, that actually blocks the marijuana high” (West 2). Another myth put forth by the pro drug war people is that people will use hemp fields to hide marijuana plants “Hemp is grown quite differently from marijuana. Moreover, it is harvested at a different time than marijuana. Finally, cross-pollination between hemp plants and marijuana plants would significantly reduce the potency of the marijuana plant. (West 3). These are only two of the “facts’ that the pro drug war proponents put forth as fact that can’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.
On August 2 1977, the fortieth anniversary of the marijuana prohibition, President Jimmy Carter stood before Congress and said: “Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging than the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use” (Gray 98). Now, more than ever we need to heed these words and stop making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
The government’s stance on marijuana, the laws that make it illegal, and the mounting evidence that they are wrong about it, seems to be; My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts. It is time that America and Americans took another look at drugs and our drug policies, this time using facts instead of government propaganda. It is time that people found out the truth about cannabis. Cannabis is not the gateway drug that our government says it is and it has proven medicinal properties, and it’s cousin, hemp, is a source of a natural cheap alternative to some synthetic products.
Read more articles here: www.outofstepper.com
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Works Cited
Baum, Dan. Smoke and Mirrors. New York; Little, Brown and Company, 1996.
“Cannabis Poses Less on-Road Risk Than Alcohol, US Crash Data Says.” 22 Feb. 2007. National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 24 May 2007. <http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7189>
Drug Enforcement Administration. 21 May 2007. <http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ concern/marijuana.html>
Gray, Mike. Drug Crazy. New York; Routlege, 1998
Khatapoush, Shereen, and Denise Halifors. “ ‘Sending the Wrong Message’: Did Medical Marijuana Legalization in California Change Attitudes About and Use of Marijuana Journal of Drug Issues. Tallahassee: Fall 2004. Vol. 34, Iss. 4. ProQuest. 23 May 2007. <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=
924500051&Fmt=4&clientid=1848&RQT=309&VName=PQD>
Klein, Axel, Dan Doctors. Drugs and Alcohol Today. Brighton: Dec 2006. Vol. 6, Iss. 4. “Lessons of the UK cannabis drought.” ProQuest. 25 May 2007. <http:// proquest.umi.com/pqdweb? did=1231573531&Fmt=3&clientid=
1848&RQT=309&VName =PQD>
“Marijuana Intoxication Does Not Adversely Impact Decision Making, Study Says” 24 May 2007. National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 26 May 2007. <http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7271>
“National Drug Threat Assessment: Marijuana 2004.” April 2004. United States Department of Justice. 26 May 2007. <http://www.usdoj.gov>
Tarter, Ralph E, Michael Vanyukov, Levent Kirisci, Maureen Reynolds, Duncan B Clark. “Predictors of Marijuana Use in Adolescents Before and After Licit Drug Use: Examination of the Gateway Hypothesis.” The American Journal of Psychiatry. Washington: Dec 2006. Vol. 163, Iss. 12. ProQuest. <http://proquest.umi/pqdweb?did=1191029391&Fmt=4&clientid=1848&RQT=309&VName=PQD>
West, David P. Ph.D. “Hemp and Marijuana: Myths and Realities.” North American Industrial hemp Council. 27 May 2007. <http://www.naihc.org/
hemp_information/content/hemp.mj.html>