Is Legalization a Realistic Alternative to the War on Marijuana?

Schmitt 1

Mike Schmitt

English 321

Mrs. Charbonneau

1 April 2003

Is Legalization a Realistic Alternative to the War on Marijuana?

Thesis: The legalization of marijuana would drastically reduce unnecessary government spending and in turn serve as alternative sources of revenue, thus making it a realistic alternative to the war on marijuana.

For the past century, an enormous amount of controversy has surrounded the cannabis plant. The plant itself has a multitude of uses because of the hemp contained within. However, it is the bud from this plant that attracts the most controversy. The United States government has made their stance on the coveted buds clear, no one is to possess them or use them. Bugliosi affirms their position as he states that over 100 billion dollars have been spent fighting the war on marijuana in the past ten years (46). The government supports their costly prohibition of marijuana by classifying it as a harmful drug. The alleged effects of marijuana cause quite a bit of controversy as well, as both sides seem to have endless supplies of evidence to support their hypothesis. Much of the opposition to the war feel that the effects are but a minute detail; the real debate is whether or not the government can constitutionally tell a person what he or she can put into his or her own body. Moreover, there is the notion that the war on marijuana is useless. People who choose to smoke marijuana are obviously not deterred by the possible legal ramifications, thus making the costly war nothing but a waste of money. Due to these trains of thought, the prohibition of marijuana has been questioned since it was passed. Many believe that legalization is indeed a realistic alternative to the war on marijuana.

A common misconception about marijuana usage is put to rest by Torr who states that over 40 million Americans have smoked Marijuana at some point in their lives (140). Marijuana use is not by any means limited to teenagers and college students, which is widely believed to be the

Schmitt 2

case. Nadelman asserts that there is only a small population of addicts that are involved in the 150 billion dollar drug market. The vast majority of the market is employed, productive, responsible, and not significantly impaired from leading normal lives (109-110). This is a very important concept to understand; the fact that 40 million Americans smoke marijuana makes it extremely easy to see how widespread the use of the drug actually is.

Despite the known prohibition of marijuana, usage continues to increase, hinting that the laws enforcing prohibition are ineffective. Boaz affirms that the unsuccessful war on drugs weakens the respect for law and authority (30). Granted, a lot of the offenders do indeed get caught. Jeffrey Miron discovered that 734,497 people were arrested in the year 2000 on possession charges (6). Some insight into the demographics of the offenders is provided by Somdahl. He states that five times as many non-whites are arrested on marijuana-related charges despite the fact that eighty percent of marijuana-related crimes are committed by whites (97). There seems no doubt that the war on marijuana is racist, and its existence only perpetuates racial stereotypes further. Racial profiling aside, the arrests may seem like justice to some, however, the consequences some of the offenders will pay for harming themselves is far too extreme. The consequences differ from state to state. In some states possession is merely a misdemeanor. However, in other states, no line is drawn between possession and distribution; they are both considered felonies. Babbit brings to attention one of the most dire consequences of marijuana usage by minors and young adults. She states that the children may be unable to get into college because of a minor drug misdemeanor (172). Once again, this consequence may be nothing more than justice to some. The concept that the government itself is putting a child’s future at risk is appalling. No one person or governing body has the right to strip someone of their pursuit of happiness or knowledge, especially if that person has done nothing to harm anyone else. “If the government can tell us what we can put into our own bodies, what can it not tell us?” (Boaz 30).

Marijuana is not used solely as a psychoactive drug. The marijuana plant has endless capabilities and more are discovered each day. The debate over industrial hemp is another one of

Schmitt 3

great controversy. Hemp is simply marijuana with a lower concentration of THC. Because of the hullabaloo surrounding the plant, widespread cultivation of hemp has been deterred. The

crop and its products are government regulated which in turn prohibits private parties from growing the plant. Perhaps one of the strongest arguments for marijuana legalization can be made based on the alternatives the plant provides.

Many countries do not have laws restricting private parties from growing the hemp plant. Bugliosi has said that it is legal to grown marijuana in Canada, Australia, France, Great Britain, Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, Romania, India, China and Korea among others (7). This fact shows that other countries have discovered the economic and environmental benefits of industrial hemp. One of the primary uses of industrial hemp, and perhaps the least controversial, is the production of rope. The hemp fiber is widely known to be durable, but many of the fashion experts shy away from using the fiber based on the uncertainty of its legality. However, as Robinson points out, in 1984, Ralph Lauren publicly disclosed that he used hemp fiber in the majority of his clothing (7). Robinson could easily understand why Lauren would use the fiber, as he asserts that hemp fiber is eight times stronger and four times more durable than cotton-based fiber (8). How one can be against a plant that allows better quality clothing and fabrics to be produced is beyond comprehension.

Moreover, the environmental benefits of industrial hemp are becoming more and more overwhelming everyday. Hemp had been used to make paper prior to prohibition, but mass production has since ceased in the United States. Robinson affirms that the use of hemp would help reclaim deforested and heavy-metal-contaminated lands. For every 10,000 acres of hemp grown and processed into paper, 45,000 acres of forest can saved (42). These statistics would make one wonder why the government has not yet allowed the paper industry to turn to industrial hemp as a source for its products. It provides the same ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Moreover, the environmental benefits of industrial hemp are becoming more and more overwhelming everyday. Hemp had been used to make paper prior to prohibition, but mass production has since ceased in the United States. Robinson affirms that the use of hemp would help reclaim deforested and heavy-metal-contaminated lands. For every 10,000 acres of hemp grown and processed into paper, 45,000 acres of forest can saved (42). These statistics would make one wonder why the government has not yet allowed the paper industry to turn to industrial hemp as a source for its products. It provides the same yield of paper, using 78% less of the land. Furthermore, as Robinson is quick to point out, the entire crop of hemp can be replenished in less than one hundred days (12). If marijuana were legal, hundreds of thousands of acres of forest

Schmitt 4

would be spared, and a larger yield of paper could be available to consumers.

Another one of the debatable issues regarding marijuana is its medicinal capabilities. Marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes in some states, but the federal government has decided to override the state’s decision in many cases, which is a constitutional concern. Marijuana is often prescribed or recommended by doctors following cancer treatment because just as Stein affirms, marijuana restores the appetite and combats nausea following chemotherapy (66). In the past few years there has been an abundance of cancer patients who have been denied marijuana and often penalized if they should choose to use marijuana to ease their pain. The same can be said about Glaucoma patients, who use marijuana to “reduce intraocular pressure” (Stein 67). Stein also acknowledges that marijuana can be used to calm spasms from spinal cord injury, Multiple Sclerosis, and Epilepsy (67). A person who is severely ill has the right to the best possible remedy available. The government’s decision to override the people’s choice in several states can be considered inhumane, as it deprives many innocent, suffering people the relief they need.

Perhaps the largest atrocity with regards to the war on marijuana is the amount of money that is spent fighting it. The aforesaid war is widely considered to be “racist, violent, corrupt, and unsuccessful” (Torr 94). Additionally, the increasing amount of government spending should have prompted someone to take a second look at the budget. President Nixon declared the war on drugs in 1971, “If we cannot destroy drugs in the U.S. it will surely destroy us” (Gary 81). It was this simple misnomer about marijuana that perpetuated three decades of wasteful, outlandish spending. Moreover, at the current rate of spending, this expense will likely double in the next ten years. Torr states that an average of fifteen billion dollars is spent each year on intelligence and operations (105). This is an extremely large sum of money to be spending yearly on such a needless cause, especially one with such dubious results.

Furthermore, this sum does not include a lot of the other government spending that is marijuana-related. Swisher provides additional statistics to reveal where the taxpayer’s money is

Schmitt 5

going. She states that the United States government allocates over one billion dollars to produce and market anti-marijuana campaigns (23). She also avows that it costs the taxpayers over five billion dollars to arrest and prosecute marijuana offenders (21). However, Swisher reveals the most appalling of all expenses. She divulges that the government spends over thirty billion dollars to keep marijuana offenders in jail (20). This means that the government is spending well over fifty billion dollars each year fighting the war on drugs. The majority of taxpayers do not realize how expensive the war truly is. Moreover, marijuana hardly has any true, long-term devastating effects like the harder drugs do. “If marijuana is legalized, the drug warriors could then focus their resources on the war against hard drugs” (Nadelman 125). Fifty billion dollars is an extremely large sum of money and one that could be better invested in education or infrastructure related endeavors. It could actually lead to a clearly sensible tax reduction as well.

One of the conditions that make the legalization of marijuana a truly realistic alternative is not only the elimination of wasteful government spending, but the unquestionable prospect of an immense revenue increase. If marijuana were to be legalized, the government would place a significant tax on it, just as they do to tobacco and alcohol. The tax would be relatively high as there would undoubtedly be a significant demand for marijuana. Robinson states that prior to the prohibition of marijuana, the government taxed eleven dollars per ounce for industrial use, and one hundred dollars for recreational use (27). These dollar amounts were prior to the Great Depression, so if the rate of inflation since the said timeframe is considered, the revenue increase is beyond belief. Trebach estimates that five thousand dollars worth of marijuana could sell for a total of one hundred thousand dollars (96). The sum of money that the government is not making because of its prohibition on marijuana makes the government appear imprudent. This is mainly because they are wasting money rather than generating it. Baum estimates that the government could draw in at least sixty billion dollars from the taxation of marijuana (42). This amount of revenue is actually greater than the amount of money that we are currently spending to eradicate the substance. If the government were to control marijuana, there would be at least an extra one

Schmitt 6

hundred billion dollars at their disposal. The naysayers are quick to object to this fact, feeling that marijuana can never be successfully controlled. They feel as if the effects of legalized marijuana would be tremendously detrimental to society. Unfortunately, they can never provide any proof that this would indeed happen. In fact, several countries in Europe, such as the Netherlands, have completely legalized marijuana. Others, such as Great Britain, have decriminalized the possession of minute amounts. Nadelman has observed Europe and his conclusion is very inconsistent with the naysayers argument. He asserts that in Europe the ability to sell marijuana without advertising and the addition of tax has done wonders to decrease violence and corruption (122). There is absolutely no doubt that if European countries are able to do it, then the United States would successfully be able to do it as well.

Economics, however, should not be the only motive behind the legalization of marijuana. The cannabis plant’s senseless illegality has many other dire consequences. First of all, there is a misconception that marijuana causes violence. It is not the marijuana, or any other drug for that matter, that actually causes the violence. “It is the necessity for illegal drugs [that] creates an unsafe atmosphere” (Milhorn 19). Drug related violence only occurs because the entire market is an underground market which features deception and corruption. Torr concurs with Milhorn. He feels that the prohibition of marijuana causes crime. By driving up the price of drugs, prohibition forces drug users to commit crimes to pay for a habit that would easily be affordable if it were legal (105). This fact is supported by the law of supply and demand. Since marijuana is illegal, there is a very small supply. Thus, the unsatisfied demand for marijuana is extremely high. The higher the demand, the higher a dealer can charge for his product. However, as Miles points out, drug dealers only exist because certain drugs are illegal (205). The consistency of the argument that violence stems from its illegal status cannot be ignored. Although those who oppose the legalization of marijuana are quick to distort the facts and say that marijuana itself causes violence, Torr makes the point that less than four percent of non possession or distribution crimes involve drugs (97). It is clear that marijuana users are generally not committing crimes

Schmitt 7

while under the influence of the drug.

Along similar points, Nadelman states that legalization would result in purity assurance under FDA regulation, labeled concentration, no black market, the reduction of crime, and savings from spending (112). These are some very strong arguments, as a potential consequence of marijuana being illegal is the chance of receiving some that may not be truly marijuana. Because marijuana is illegal, the victims of adulterated drugs have no recourse for legal remedy. Marijuana is only seriously hazardous to one’s health when it is laced with other drugs. Very often drug dealers, who as stated before need not exist, will taint marijuana with addictive substances to insure that buyers return. Chronic, one of the most popular marijuana based drugs, features the cannabis plant sprinkled with cocaine or crack cocaine. Although cocaine is only a mildly addictive substance, crack cocaine is dangerously addictive and potentially lethal. Another common substance found laced in marijuana is phencyclidine. This drug is commonly known as PCP and is a very strong hallucinogen. Unfortunately, the victims of the said atrocities have no course of action against those who are endangering their lives. If marijuana were to be legalized, the remaining black market dealers would be rooted out and thrown in jail, or simply go away.

An additional consequence of the illegality of marijuana is that it “is a direct cause of government corruption” (Torr 106). Although no one who opposes the legalization of marijuana will admit to it, it has become quite clear in the past couple decades. What many people do not realize is that the corruption is two-sided. It is not just drug dealers paying politicians to look the other way. “The huge illegal drug industry has mountains of money for a media blitz and for buying politicians to sing the songs of ‘evil’ and ‘danger’ which is certain to kill any legislative attempt at legalization” (Nadelman 108). This may come as a shock to some, as it might be hard to understand why those involved in the drug industry would want marijuana to be illegal. However, it is quite simple. As long as marijuana is illegal, the drug dealers are making an extremely large amount of money. When talk swirls around Washington about legalization, the

Schmitt 8

drug dealers become terrified as legalization would put them on the streets. In order to insure

that marijuana stays illegal, politicians are given relatively large bribes to shoot down any propositions. Drug dealers pay off law enforcement officials as well. “When police officers and border guards arrest people carrying more cash than they will make in a decade, it is hardly surprising that some of them are persuaded to look the other way” (Torr 106). Many government officials know very well that they can easily benefit from the illegality of marijuana. Government corruption is a serious problem that would be reduced if marijuana is legalized.

The opposition’s strongest argument against the legalization of marijuana is health-oriented propaganda. Countless myths and distorted facts and figures have been presented to Americans for the past couple decades. The government’s ability to make the masses believe these falsehoods has enabled them to convince society that marijuana is bad, and those who use it, worse. How the government can achieve this may perplex some, but Rowan Robinson discovered some very interesting characteristics to the government tests. He found that a government report once showed that ten heavy marijuana smokers had brain atrophy. It turns out that the ten people who were tested were from a mental clinic. Moreover, five of them were schizophrenics, and three of them had severe head injuries (67). One could easily expect all ten of them to have some sort of mental disturbance, regardless of whether or not they had smoked marijuana.

One of the United State’s most successful weapons in fighting the war on marijuana has been the alleged “gateway theory”. This proposes that because someone smokes marijuana, they are be more likely to use cocaine or heroin. They draw this conclusion because the vast majority of those who do use cocaine or heroin did at one point smoke marijuana. The gateway theory, however, is nothing more than anti-drug propaganda fabricated by the government to ultimately scare people from using marijuana. Even those who oppose the legalization of marijuana admit that the gateway theory is a hoax. Benjamin states that less than one percent of marijuana smokers go on to use other drugs in their lifetime (41). The logic used to make the gateway

Schmitt 9

theory is about as solid as stating that french fries lead to robbery, as most burglars have indeed eaten french fries at sometime during their lives.

A serious inconsistency is the government’s stance that alcohol and tobacco should be legal, while marijuana should not. Nadelman states that tobacco causes one million deaths annually in the United States alone. Alcohol causes 350,000 deaths from cirrhosis, and caffeine causes cardiac and nervous system disturbances. All three of these substances are more harmful than marijuana (110). Although there are plenty of anti-tobacco campaigns, “no one has suggested making the most addictive substance in our civilization illegal” (Nadelman 109). If the government is allowing its people to make the choice to use the most addictive substance, there is no reason that it should not let them have the choice to use a plant that is not addictive.” It is not just tobacco that makes one wonder what the government is thinking. “Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol. It should be treated not as a criminal issue, but as a social and public health issue” (Hutchings 7). The government needs to be consistent and give the people the right to make their own decisions regarding usage.

Furthermore, the United States government continues to ignore countless amounts of evidence coming from respected researchers worldwide that suggest that marijuana is not as harmful as they say it is. A popular myth used to be that marijuana was addictive. Too much overwhelming and well-publicized evidence that this was untrue thwarted the said falsehood. The government now does concede that marijuana for the most part is not addictive. They are still proposing the theory that marijuana is psychologically addictive, which is a very dubious category of addiction itself. Dr. Roe, a former chair of cardiothoracic surgery at the University of California at San Francisco states, “Poison is a misleading shibboleth. The widespread propaganda that marijuana is a ‘deadly poison’ is a hoax. There is little or no medical evidence of any long term ill effects from sustained, moderate consumption of uncontaminated marijuana” (qtd. in Murdock 3). As more and more doctors state that marijuana is not harmful, the government will have an increasingly difficult time defending its choice to keep marijuana

Schmitt 10

illegal.

Robinson asserts that a very important discovery was made in the year 1992. It was then that it was discovered that the brain produces a cannabinoid that produces THC like effects (72). This discovery alone could not prove much for those trying to get marijuana legalized. However, Robinson goes on to say that there are specific receptors in the brain that were designed for the reception of THC. These are found in the Cerebral Cortex, and are responsible for the euphoric feeling associated with a marijuana high (72). These discoveries are very significant in the battle for legalization. The presence of THC receptors in the human brain prove that THC really is not a foreign chemical that the body is unaccustomed to.

After all this trouble one might wonder why someone would actually bother smoking marijuana. A Minnesota woman may have made the best case when she made the following comment on skiing stoned: “If you’re moving when you’re high it’s the greatest experience. You feel so many sensations in depth: the wind against your face, the muscles that you use becoming visible in isolation; everything envelops you with happiness” (qtd. in Novak 1). Marijuana causes many sensations to be multiplied because of its negligible effects on the blood circulation. Because of the altered blood circulation, marijuana can augment intimate sensations as well. “For most smokers, marijuana can and does increase sexual pleasure, and for some users, it leads to the increase in desire” (Novak 73). Another effect of marijuana, and probably the one that is joked about the most, is the increase in appetite, as marijuana stimulates the taste buds. People who are affected by this are often said to have the “munchies”. Despite the overwhelming evidence that marijuana is not as harmful as other legal substances, the government still withholds the aforesaid pleasures from its people.

Much of the debate over the legalization of marijuana is whether or not it is a realistic alternative to fighting the war against it. Since the inception of the prohibition of marijuana, many government officials have swayed from stance to stance. Most of them publicly denounce marijuana to appease the masses, but their real feelings remain unknown. Murdock asserts that

Schmitt 11

Jimmy Carter was the first president to endorse legalization (8). Many other presidents’ campaign trails have been marred by rumors of drug usage, which brings to mind a simple notion. They used drugs and still went on to lead a very successful life; something some people do not understand is possible. Maybe the American government will follow the Canadian government’s suit. Fizli asserts that Canadian senators issues a six hundred page report on marijuana and concluded that it is not harmful to health and should be legal for any Canadian over the age of 16 (18). Granted the age may be debatable, but large governing bodies such as the Canadian senators are setting precedents that should be considered.

What makes legalization a realistic alternative is not the fact that marijuana is not harmful. Although the understanding of that concept would decrease a lot of anti-marijuana propaganda, it really is not relevant as the government truly does not have any power to say that one cannot smoke marijuana. The said ruling is unconstitutional; the government should have no say in what goes into someone’s body. What makes it a realistic alternative is the fact that the United States is spending over fifty billion dollars a year to insure that no one uses marijuana, and that those who do are punished. There is absolutely no reason to waste fifty billion dollars of the taxpayers’ money on such a petty matter. Marijuana usage does not pose a threat to society. Furthermore, the government could receive in excess sixty billion dollars in revenue from taxing marijuana, thus giving them well over one hundred billion dollars more at their disposal. There are an abundance of concerns in the United States that one hundred billion dollars a year could provide. However, they would rather spend it restricting the peoples’ God-given rights: life, liberty, and by and large, the pursuit of happiness.