Marijuana Laws: A Triumph of Ideals Over Science
by Thomas

When I turned 18 the government entrusted me to make my own decisions. I now have the right to vote for my government officials. I can purchase tobacco products if I wish. I am an adult. I can be drafted into military service and sent into combat to defend my country. Should I choose to commit a crime I will be punished to the full extent of the law. After 18 years of life on this planet I am finally mature enough to make my own decisions when it comes to what is best for me. Yet for some reason the United States government still feels I am not a fully competent individual. They have taken the initiative to determine for me that smoking marijuana is in no way good for me, nor for the 600,938 people arrested in 1998 for simple possession of the herb (St. Pierre). It is absurd that our government spends at least 7.5 billion in taxpayer dollars annually to enforce a law established to suppress minorities. There is no reason why adults should not be allowed to smoke marijuana in the privacy of their homes.

So how exactly has the government convinced the masses that Mr. marijuana smoker is such a bad guy and deserves to be locked up? The entire war on marijuana was established on misinformation. When our country was still in its colonial years, hemp was grown for its fiber-content. The fibers were used in a plethora of products including ship sails, books, and clothing. As the plant became an agricultural staple, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson advocated a hemp-based economy. It wasn’t until the 1920’s that recreational use of the plant became associated with minority groups. As white America saw their jobs and culture threatened by Mexican-American immigrant laborers and African-American jazz musicians, hemp was renamed “marihuana” and a government-backed campaign against the plant ensued. America’s cash crop remarkably lost all usefulness and became known as “the devil’s weed.” When the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was founded in 1930, they flooded the United States public with a wave of anti-marijuana propaganda. One such FBN publication stated, "[A marijuana smoker] becomes a fiend with savage or 'cave man' tendencies. His sex desires are aroused and some of the most horrible crimes result. He hears light and sees sound. To get away from it, he suddenly becomes violent and may kill” (St. Pierre).

No evidence exists to suggest any of this is true. The effects of marijuana are in fact quite the opposite. Marijuana users generally smoke to dispel feelings of dischord and to promote a peaceful state of mind. If a murder occurs while the offender is under the influence of marijuana – I assure you – the weed was not a factor (unless perhaps the offender was driven to madness by the unapprised ravings of a non-smoker who believes everyone should follow his disciplined example.)

The federal law prohibiting marijuana is outdated and unfair to begin with. As ludicrous propaganda swept the nation, convincing the public that violence, insanity, and death went hand-in-hand with marijuana use, 27 states passed laws against the herb. On April 14, 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act was introduced by North Carolina Representative Robert L. Doughton. Congress held only two hearings totaling just one hour to debate the worth of the law, which would criminalize the recreational use of marijuana through prohibitive taxation. While federal witnesses testified to the Ways and Means Committee about the “deadly” effects of marijuana, the American Medical Association stood as the lone proponent of the plant. When AMA Legislative Counsel Dr. William C. Woodward questioned the appropriateness of passing legislation based only on newspaper accounts, the committee snubbed him, “If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals…rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the federal government is trying to do” (St. Pierre). The Committee quickly approved the act, and the legislation made its way to the House of Representatives where it was debated for only 90 seconds. During this unreasonably short time only two questions were asked. Firstly a New York congressman asked Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn to summarize the purpose of the bill, to which he replied, “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marijuana. I think it is a narcotic of some kind.” The representative further questioned, “Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support the bill?” In a blatant lie a member of the Ways and Means Committee answered, “Their Doctor Wharton (sic) gave this measure his full support…[as well as] the approval [of] the American Medical Association” (St. Pierre). The deceived House members approved the bill without a recorded vote. From there it was on to the Senate, where Doughton’s bill passed after one short-lived hearing. President Franklin Roosevelt swiftly signed the legislation, and on October 1, 1937, marijuana became illegal under federal law.

After decades of such gross exaggerations it’s no wonder marijuana is not more widely accepted in our culture. I can see now that the hype instilled in my brain throughout my childhood about the evils of marijuana usage was and remains truly inappropriate. Our government officials are clearly afraid to admit that any good can be found in the herb. It is because of their decades of dishonest persuasion that many misconceptions have been formed surrounding the subject of marijuana. It is widely believed that the consequences of routine smoking of cannabis include impairment of the ability to work, apathy, lethargy, unsound judgment, and detachment from reality.

Perhaps the discontinuities behind these beliefs lie in the fact that most perceptions of marijuana are formed upon the bases of studies focusing on the individual’s high, rather than on the role the herb has in a society as a whole. A study conducted in three typical rural Jamaican communities helps to dismiss some of the falsities the authorities would like you to believe. The study took place over eighteen months of fieldwork, and sought to focus on the sociocultural dimensions of ganja use among the rural working class. Participants were observed to smoke multiple times throughout the workday, usually in the same groups, with only a small few of the workers refraining from smoking (Dreher 169). Workers who chose not to smoke, usually for feelings of sickness, were still always welcomed in the groups. (To all you raging opponents of pot out there, take a note about tolerance.) Ganja smoking in Jamaica does not serve as the major function or purpose of life, but rather as an oil which keeps the mechanics of society flowing. Participants claimed smoking kept them focused on their work and improved efficiency. The study clearly rebuts claims that smoking marijuana produces laziness and disfunction. The evidence presented indicates that ganja in Jamaica serves to operate in just the opposite manner. Links between marijuana and “amotivational syndrome” are merely undeserved examples of scapegoating.

Opponents of marijuana also love to throw around the term “gateway drug.” The theory is that users of marijuana tend to experiment with a number of other illicit drugs. Most cocaine users have had experience with marijuana as well as several other forbidden substances, but to say that marijuana led these users to hardcore drugs is unwarranted. The gateway theory is merely a description of the typical sequence taken by users of multiple drugs. Compare the trend to others in society. For example, it is reasonable to say that most people who ride motorcycles have ridden a bicycle. However, it is not so reasonable to say that bicycle riding causes motorcycle riding, nor that increases in bicycle riding automatically lead to increases in motorcycle riding. Thus in the same way the gateway theory is illogical.

Despite the facts the government refuses to confront the public with the truth. They choose instead to miseducate us from our earliest years and paint the marijuana smoker as a failure who needs his drugs to escape the horror his reality has become as a result of marijuana abuse. The truth is marijuana users smoke for a variety of reasons. In a survey of 150 daily marijuana smokers, 99% of the participants said they smoke to get pleasure, to feel good, to get high. 97% claimed they smoke to relax and relieve tension. 88% smoked to enjoy the effects with friends. Large percentages also claimed to use the herb for a variety of other reasons including to overcome depression, to forget troubles, to enhance sexual pleasure, and to deepen self-understanding (Hendin 42). Whatever their reasons for smoking it is clear these people do not deserve to be treated like criminals. The marijuana smoker pays taxes. The marijuana smoker has a job and a family and hopes and dreams just like any other American. Yet every year our government chooses to upset the lives of millions for reasons that are unclear. Even those who smoke to ease suffering from A.I.D.S. and cancer do not escape the harassment of the government.

For thousands of years cannabis has been used for medicinal purposes. The Arabs and Muslims used “benj” (marijuana) to treat gonorrhea, diarrhea, asthma, and as an appetite stimulant. The Chinese text of herbal medicines, Pen ts’ao, first published around 2800 B.C., recommended cannabis be used to ease pain caused by constipation, gout, malaria, rheumatism, and menstrual problems, as well as for relief from the pain of surgical operations (Iversen 122-3). Chinese medical texts continued to recommend the herb for centuries. Marijuana has been made useful in Indian medicine for thousands of years as well. The Athera Veda, an ancient Indian medical text dating from 2000-1400 B.C., also recommends marijuana (or bhang as it is referred to) for its sedative effects. The Indians believed that marijuana improved concentration under conditions of weariness. Extracts of the herb were used to aid sleep, and to ease pain caused by neuralgias, migraine headaches, and menstruation. Wounds and sores were treated with poultices. Today, rural Indians continue to use extracts of cannabis in their medicines to treat dyspepsia, diarrhea, sprue, dysentery, fever, renal colic, dysmenorrhea, cough, and asthma. Medieval Europeans used the herb to ease aforementioned pains and to stop bleeding at the nose and mouth. Western countries began using the plant after 1800. During the second half of the nineteenth century, over 100 articles were published in American and European journals, praising the herb for its ability to stimulate appetite, relax muscles, kill pain, and to suppress convulsions. However, the active ingredients in marijuana degrade over time spent in storage, thus the potency of cannabis-based medicines could never be definite. As more stable medicines evolved such as aspirin and injectable opiates, the use of cannabis-based medicines waned.

But of course nothing comes without its drawbacks. The Web page sponsored by Partnership for a Drug-Free America claims marijuana contains some of the same cancer-causing compounds as tobacco, sometimes in higher concentration. Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many carcinogens as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day. Other claimed effects are distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch) and problems with memory and learning. Should this come as a surprise? Of course inhaling smoke into your lungs is not healthy. If our government wishes to protect us from lung cancer, why don’t they prohibit cigarettes and cigars? As for the memory loss, Harrison Pope, a professor at Harvard University, has been studying marijuana’s effect for years among heavy pot smokers. According to a Web page sponsored by New Scientist, he found that when daily smokers were put up against smokers indulging about every other month, the evidence isn’t so conclusive. Being subjected to memory tests with lists of words, the heavy smokers recalled about 1 in 10 fewer words than the light users.

In terms of long-term effects on memory, professor Jack Fletcher at the University of Texas in Houston has been studying the effects of marijuana for the past 25 years. Flying to Costa Rica annually, he has been studying memorization skills in smokers who consume as many as 10 joints per day. He found that over time, word listing ability was only mildly impaired compared to non-smokers, and when given a task such as pressing a tapper repeatedly while recalling, the results for the heavy smokers fell well within the normal range. Brian Page, an anthropologist from the University of Miami involved in the study described the results as “subtle and sub-clinical.” In the conclusion of this particular article, it was noted that, “Heavy boozing is worse for your neurons than dope.” If it’s our judgment and cognitive skills our government wishes to protect, then why is alcohol legal in this country?

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from America’s prohibition of alcohol. From 1919-1931 Americans were free of all the evils associated with alcohol. However, the crime and violence that came with prohibition outweighed the trouble the government was initially attempting to quell. Since then we have learned that education is the true problem-solver. Informative anti-tobacco campaigns have been successful in discouraging cigarette use throughout the last decade. Yet for whatever reasons the government remains stubborn in applying this philosophy to marijuana. The government would rather arrest you than educate you.

The primary victims of our government’s stubbornness are minority groups. While Blacks and Hispanics make up only 20% of the marijuana smokers in the United States, they represent 58% of the marijuana offenders sentenced under federal law in 1999 (St. Pierre). A report on racial discrepancies released by the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws in 1999 concluded that African-Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, and 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for selling in urban areas. It is an unjust law that discriminates against specific groups while everyone is taking part. Jody Fienman, a former pot runner for a New York delivery service, writes, “I soon became convinced that virtually every person on the island of Manhattan smokes pot. I delivered to doctors, lawyers, professors, architects, housewives, and stockbrokers … a French-restaurant owner, a New York Post writer, a Random House editor, and a Park Avenue trust-funder … an orthopedic surgeon … a former NYPD officer.” That same officer explained, “To set everything up for a drug sting on a delivery service can cost $20,000. Snagging black kids off the street is cheaper and easier” (Fienman 115-120). An estimated 10 million people in this country smoke marijuana on a regular basis.

682,885 Americans were arrested for marijuana violations in 1998, or one every 52 seconds. Of these arrests, approximately 88% were for simple possession. These arrests are a violation against basic human rights. These people were not selling drugs to children or anyone else. They were not driving under the influence of marijuana. They were not endangering anyone. It is wrong that these otherwise law-abiding citizens should be considered criminals. The remaining 12% of the arrested were booked for “sale/manufacture,” which includes marijuana grown for personal or medical use. During President Clinton’s administration a total of 3,470,545 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses. In 1997 alone 695,200 people were arrested for marijuana violations, almost double the number of arrests recorded in 1993, the year Clinton took office (St. Pierre).

Is Mr. Marijuana smoker really a bigger problem to our society than our vastly overcrowded prison system? About 58% of federal prisoners are being held for drug law violations. Among state inmates, approximately 21% are confined for drug offenses. Between 1990 and 1995 the number of correctional facilities (including both State and Federal facilities) jumped from 1,287 to 1,500, a 17% increase. Our prisons have increased in size as well as number. In 1995 the average capacity of State facilities was 910,000, up from 650,000 in 1990. The number of inmates in both State and Federal facilities rose about 7.4% each year between 1990 and 1995, growing from 715,649 to 1,023,572. Of these 1 million prisoners, more than six of every ten were black or Hispanic (Bureau of Justice Statistics). With our State facilities operating at 3% above capacity and our Federal facilities at a whopping 25% above capacity, maybe it is time we reevaluate our definition of a criminal.

Recently President George W. Bush has picked up where Clinton’s administration left off. He has decided to put new emphasis on enforcing a counterproductive law that had previously gone ignored. The law denies federal financial aid to college students with drug convictions. Does this make any sense at all? Isn’t the goal to educate our youth so that they may lead more productive lives and stay off drugs? Apparently this is not the case. 14-year-old Johnny Jones isn’t thinking about his college career when he lights up his joint. He’s thinking about how cool it is to be a rebellious teenager, and to ruin his future over this immature act is just not right.

Fortunately steps towards legalization are beginning to manifest themselves. In June 1996, proposition 215 qualified for California ballot. Proposition 215 would legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in the state of California. In August 1996, drug czar Barry McCaffrey came forth with his first public thoughts on the medical-marijuana initiative. He claimed, “There is not a shred of scientific evidence that shows that smoked marijuana is useful or needed. This is not science. This is not medicine. This is a cruel hoax that sounds more like something out of a Cheech and Chong show” (Sullum 42-43). Two months later the initiative to decriminalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes passed with 65% of the vote, and on December 30, McCaffrey spoke again, this time with Attorney General Janet Reno and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala by his side.

Despite the will of the voters of California, McCaffrey threatened doctors who recommended marijuana to their patients with loss of prescribing privileges, exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid, and criminal prosecution under federal law, which prohibits the use of marijuana under any and all circumstances. When asked whether there was "any evidence . . . that marijuana is useful in a medical situation," McCaffrey replied, "No, none at all. There are hundreds of studies that indicate it isn't." This was quite contradictory to the thoughts of the government’s leading marijuana expert, Mahmoud El Sohly, who in a 1995 interview with The Journal of the International Hemp Association said, “There is no question about the use of cannabis for certain conditions. It does have a history. It does have utility. To suggest otherwise is not science. It is not medicine. It is politics.” El Sohly’s statements indicate McCaffrey is either dishonest or uninformed, neither of which is an acceptable trait in someone who is creating policy. One week after his uninformed comments, McCaffrey announced that the government would give the Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, $1 million for an 18 month study with conclusions reviewing the evidence of marijuana’s medical usefulness. If McCaffrey was so sure that marijuana was so useless, why would he allot so much time and money to its study?

This is clearly an instance of triumph of ideals over science. It is unacceptable that our government continues to ignore science and oppose legalization for political reasons. Marijuana smokers are not part of the crime problem in this country and should not be treated as such. It is unfair that their lives and careers should be disrupted because they choose to smoke marijuana in the privacy of their own homes. Federal restrictions against marijuana should be lifted, and states should be encouraged to experiment with their own versions of legalization until a practical solution is reached.