. He may suddenly get the idea that his best friends or his own immediate family are about to take his life and proceed to kill them . . . in fact, no act is too fantastic or horrible to the user of marijuana" (ibid., p.141)
Penalties for marijuana use fluctuated with popular belief regarding its level of danger. If people believed the effects were particularly bad, the penalties were stiff, but during some decades public attitudes were more lenient, therefore penalties were reduced. Drug use declined, fear increased, and so did penalties throughout the 1950s. One of the first federal mandatory prison sentences was established at that time: 10 years minimum for marijuana possession, and a mandatory death sentence for selling marijuana to a minor (Musto, 1991, p.46). During the 1960s and 70s, penalties declined as use increased, with eleven states decriminalizing possession for personal use (Thies and Register, 1993, p.389). Then, in the 1980s, drug use declined and penalties rose. The "three strike" program was established, under which a mandatory life sentence without parole must be given for third-time offenders. Judges no longer have the power to use their own discretion in sentencing, but are required to base their punishment on the "most serious readily provable charge" (Schlosser, 1994, p.93)-including a mandatory death sentence for anyone found guilty of managing a major marijuana plantation of 60,000 plants (ibid., p.89).
It appears that the current attitude toward marijuana prohibition is based on the belief that relaxed policies lead to greater use. Statistics argue otherwise: nationwide, marijuana use in 1984 was measured at 26.3%, and in the eleven states that decriminalized marijuana, it was 27.3%. In 1988 the percentages were 15.4 and 16.1, respectively. In those eleven states, decriminalization meant that individuals were no longer arrested for simple possession. In ten of those states there is a $0-100 fine for possession-the result of a threat by the federal government to withhold highway money for states that did not have minimum punishment standards (Thies and Register, 1993, p.387). Going outside the country for another example of how legalization does not lead to greater use, Holland has witnessed a 40% decrease in marijuana use since the Dutch government legalized it in 1976 (Schlosser, 1994, p.94). During the same time period, marijuana use has decreased in the United States, so it cannot be definitively argued that either stronger penalties or decriminalization is better at affecting the number of people who use marijuana. It seems clear that social policy, and not legal policy, had the greater effect in Holland.