The history, failure, and solution to marijuana prohibition
...o much” (2). As a result, bird seed vendors, to this day, are still exempt from the law as long as their seeds are “denatured”. The final testimony was given by Dr. William C. Woodward, who was a lawyer, doctor, and Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. After months of testing, Woodward concluded that "the American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marijuana is a dangerous drug" (2, 11). The Chairman’s reply was that Woodward was guilty of obstruction and bad faith, as the Committee had no intentions of letting anyone get in their way of passing this bill (2). The proposal was then passed to Congress where they made a unanimous decision to pass it onto Franklin D. Roosevelt where it was signed in 1937. The exact tax that was placed on marijuana differed greatly with weight and breed, but it was high enough as to where the common citizen could not afford to use the drug legally. After the history of these absurd laws has been discussed, one must investigate the failure of prohibition. There are many reasons why marijuana prohibition has failed in the United States. To get a better understanding we must consider; use, availability, failure of decriminalization, social labels, the legal use of alcohol and tobacco, and medical uses. It is through these explanations that I hope to inform the reader of the changes the United States Government must make when dealing with marijuana. To fully understand the cost of marijuana prevention in the United States, one must first look at its increasing prevalence. Finding legitimate statistics on the subject is not an easy task. This is mainly because the business is underground, making surveys and statistics non-beneficial in determining accurate results (7, 8). The NNICC, or the national narcotics intelligence consumers committee, reported in 1996 that “65.5 million Americans had tried marijuana at least once in their lifetime; and 17.7 million reported that they had used marijuana at least once in the past year” (7). This number has drastically risen as the National Review reports “Close to 100 million Americans -- including more than half of those between the ages of 18 and 50 -- have tried marijuana at least once” (5). The fact that one third of the country has tried marijuana is evident enough that the issue needs to be taken seriously. When trying to combat this rise of use and availability in the United States, the Government placed a so called war on drugs, which has cost the country more than $500 billion over the past twenty years, and is at a steady yearly pace of $100 billion (10). In terms of money spent solely on marijuana, reports found “Enforcing marijuana laws costs an estimated $10-15 billion in direct costs in the United States alone” (5). This is clear evidence that something must change in our national legislation. One answer to the problem is decriminalization. Some feel that if marijuana use was not so harshly sanctioned crime rates would fall, along with the number of users. Yes, this is a good idea but ”without ensuring a non-criminal method of acquiring the drug, the policy falls short of the promise implied in the very term "decriminalization" (4). Also, Decriminalization puts the user in a very tight position of choosing how to obtain the marijuana. He or she could go to an underground dealer, which would likely place the user in an environment of crime or get them hooked on other drugs from which the dealer is selling. Or, the user could risk strict cultivation penalties if he or she chooses to grow their own. Either way, this form of control places the user in a very difficult position which could ultimately hurt them both criminally and socially (4). Another significant reason marijuana prohibition has failed is that people convicted of marijuana possession or distribution are forever labeled as users. Although, roughly one third of the United States has used marijuana, society will stigmatize the offender, ultimately ruining their reputation. The labeling theory suggests that once these people are connected with the drug they will accept their new character and struggle to defy the status (10). They will continue with their deviant lifestyle because their label is their identity in the eyes of the social world. Labeling a marijuana user is far more detrimental to one’s reputation than that of a labeled cigarette smoker or alcoholic, which makes no sense medically or socially. There are many health affects marijuana users will suffer from including: Short-term memory loss, accelerated heartbeat, difficulty with concentrating, lapses in judgment, and problems with perception and motor skills (1, 6), but do these really compare to affects of alcohol or tobacco? The American Psychiatric Association describes alcohol as “a leading cause of serious injuries and accidental death” (1). It is the most common reason for preventable birth defects, mainly fetal alcohol syndrome, and also is the main cause of alcoholism (1). Once one is diagnosed with alcoholism they will likely suffer from “serious liver damage, greater risk of heart disease, impotence, infertility, and premature aging” (1). Cigarette smoking is another legal drug which has serious risks to your health. ”The U.S. Surgeon General has confirmed that nicotine in tobacco products has addictive properties similar in severity to those of heroin” (1). Some of the main affects of smoking are lung cancer, heart attacks, emphysema, high blood pressure and ulcer (1). I understand that the affects of these drugs are widely known by the public, but how do alcohol and tobacco remain legal when the medical consequences far exceed those of marijuana? Some may say this is due to the conflict theory the economic giants in the alcohol and tobacco industries have so much influence in Government that they can remain in business even though the affects of their products have been proven to be un-healthy (10). When speaking on health affects of marijuana, the beneficial medical use must also be considered. The argument over the medical use of marijuana has been debated for the last twenty years (3). There are many factors making the subject difficult to argue such as: which forms to use, how much to use, addictions and what cases or diseases are necessary for usage. Even though there are many debatable issues concerning this topic it seems as though the United States has a popular consensus for “a new poll commissioned by Northeast and conducted by the UConn Center for Survey and Research Analysis says that 83 percent of state residents think adults should be allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes if a doctor prescribes it,” (3). 83 percent! This is not a majority, it is popularity. Much of the debate is how the drug is used to heal. The active ingredient in marijuana is THC, which has been proven to lesson the suffering from pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms caused by serious illnesses. (3). Because the Government understands legalizing marijuana for medical use is one step closer to all out legalization, they have developed a pill called marinol which contains the THC, but does not make the user suffer from the affects of smoking the plant. Nine states have passes laws permitting the usage of marinol, California being the first in 1996. Now that medical use is available in the United States and the Government has understood the benefits from semi-legalization, we must look closer into how to make the drug completely legal through a strict model system. I feel the only way legalization of marijuana in the United States would actually work would be to use a model system. “Two of every five Americans -- according to a 2003 Zogby poll -- say "the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and only make it illegal for children," (5). The system could be drawn up using history as an influence, studying what to do and what not to do in regards to the abolishment of alcohol prohibition in the United States and England. Shortly after the repeal of alcohol in the United States, deaths from liver cirrhosis rose dramatically (9). This mainly was due to the lack of influence our government had on controlling usage through regulations, such as availability or limitations of advertisements (9). On the other hand, after the repeal of England’s wartime prohibition, they experienced no rise in deaths from liver cirrhosis due to their involvement in strict controlling programs such as anti-alcohol education and increasingly high taxes (9). In terms of marijuana legalization, the United States should follow the British system of government involvement, as it is their influence which will control the immediate negative affects. The first step to a m...