Marijuana in the 21st Century

Marijuana in the 21st Century

The purpose of this paper is to objectively define the various criterions that make up each side in the marijuana legalization debate and conclude which arguments hold the most veracity. To give the reader of this paper a concise view of individual criterions, both sides of the issue will each receive a paragraph's worth of attention, with the pro-legalization paragraph immediately preceding the anti-legalization paragraph. Let us begin by defining the term legalization as it pertains to marijuana use.

Legalization is defined as a policy abolishing criminal and civil penalties for the possession or sale of marijuana (Boyd 1). Instead these penalties will be replaced with regulation. Such regulation are inclusive of limitations on marijuana use that are consistent with the restrictions opposed upon the use and sale of alcohol and tobacco. In addition marijuana regulation model utilizes restrictions such as minimum age requirements, taxes, and licensing to manage circulation (Boyd 1).

It should be known that I side exclusively with the logic of the pro-legalization camp. While I admire the multitude of moral idealizations that drive the anti-legalization camp, these concepts fail to produce positive results when applied to practical, realistic scenarios. Before I delve into the bulk of the arguments between the pro and anti-legalization camps, it is of utmost importance to the narrative of this essay to understand how marijuana came to be outlawed in the United States.

An abbreviated history of the journey to ban marijuana in the United States is embodied by racism and corporate greed. In the early 1900s, Mexicans immigrated en masse to the United States and provided cheap labor for the farming industry. When the Great Depression hit in the 1930s, white Americans accused Mexican immigrants of taking away vital job opportunities. In order to rationalize its hatred of these immigrants, white America openly criticized the lifestyle that Mexicans brought to the United States, which included vast shanty towns, "uncivilized behavior," and most importantly, marijuana use. By 1937, the possession and transfer of marijuana was made illegal by the Marijuana Tax Act. Marijuana became a pretext for harassment and calls for expulsion of Mexican immigrants from the United States. Much of the testimony that supported the MTA came from publisher William Randolph Hearst's newspaper empire. Starting in the 1920s, use of hemp (the fiber derivative of plants from the genus Cannabis) in paper manufacturing began to grow in popularity. Hearst had significant investments in the timber industry that printed his newspapers, and if hemp started to take business away from timber-based paper manufacturing, Hearst's personal wealth would have taken a major hit. Hearst forced his newspapers to carry disparaging coverage about marijuana, and soon that coverage would make its way into the testimony of anti-marijuana campaigners during the MTA proceedings.

To introduce the pro-legalization camp, I am going to start with its most simplistic argument, an argument I will refer to as the "danger precedent." If a previously legalized drug is considered by medical professionals to be more harmful to its users' health than the drug under current scrutiny, then the debated drug's prospective legality cannot be withheld under the guise of preserving the public's health. Those lobbying to ban the substance in question can fall back on arguments concerning socioeconomic impact or any other sound variable, but they cannot claim to represent the interests of the population's physical health. The very core of the government's mission in regulating controlled substances revolves around the notion of protecting the public from substances it deems potentially hazardous to individual health. Yet if the government legalizes Drug a, which is orders of magnitude more harmful than Drug B, the government's mission is certainly counterintuitive to sound logic. Alcohol is a prime example of this concept. A recent study in France regarding fatal automobile accidents concluded that 2.5% of such accidents were caused by marijuana use, while 29% of such accidents were caused by alcohol use. (WebMD) the danger precedent can be viewed as a magnification of John Stuart Mill's harm principle, which states that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." (Mill) Even though our federal government has largely failed this principle in the legalization of alcohol, in comparison, the government would be seen as adhering more to the harm principle if it were to legalize a substance that causes far less harm to the common good. This decrease in harm will be expanded upon below.

Conservatives would decry my application of the danger precedent to the legalization of marijuana as factually bankrupt. Over the past century, conservatives have successfully painted a cultural image of marijuana that depicts the substance as highly harmful to one's physical and mental well-being. They tend to back up this theory with scientific claims, regardless of how dubious those claims may be. This potential for flawed information is the primary issue with much of this detraction, as much of the anti-marijuana movement's rhetoric has been gleaned from decades of propaganda, hearsay, exaggerations, and outright lies. This is why each claim against marijuana needs to be checked against the most up-to-date scientific research available. The first mass anti-marijuana movement was the "Reefer Madness" campaign that started in the federal ban on marijuana helped to create the drug war that now exists in the United States and Mexico. I use the word "helped" because marijuana is not the only drug that ignited this war, as much of the blame can also laid upon the smuggling of cocaine, heroin, and ecstasy. A great deal of research on the war on drugs has found it to be quite costly and the amount of drug use and drug related incarcerations have actually increased and not decreased. Indeed, "there is a growing concern about the efficacy of the war on drugs and the use of incarceration as a deterrent. Nationally, in 1980 there were 24,000 drug offenders in state prisons; in 2004 there were 400,000. There was virtually no increase in other types of offenders. While basic statistics on total marijuana production and consumption do not exist in any reasonable form, accurate estimates exist for drugs like heroin. As a result, studies related to these other drugs can inform our understanding of the consequences of legalization of marijuana (Boyd, 25)." If the facts known about incarceration rates for drugs such as heroin or cocaine are an indication of the production and consumption of marijuana many incarcerated individuals are in prison as a result of marijuana related offenses. Such incarcerations drain valuable resources and seem unwarranted given the more benign nature of marijuana when compared to drugs such as heroin and cocaine.

Another argument for the legislation of marijuana lies in the idea that there are economic benefits associated with such a policy. States throughout the country are experiencing declines in tax revenue as a result of unemployment and massive numbers of foreclosures. To leverage such losses some economists have argued that the legalization of marijuana is necessary. An article entitled "Legalize Marijuana for Tax Revenue" explains the amount of tax revenue that could be realized nationally from the legal sell of marijuana. The article concedes that the statistics on marijuana consumption is not readily available because it is not regulated. However the author estimates that there are between 25 million and 60 million marijuana consumers in America. In addition the average cost of a marijuana per cigarette is $5. per cigarette, factoring in one per day for each user, total spending on marijuana may add up to $45 billion to $110 billion a year.

"From Canada we've learned that the production cost of (government-sponsored) marijuana is roughly 33¢ a gram. Currently, U.S. marijuana consumers pay at least $10 per gram retail for illegal marijuana. If the cost of retailing and distribution is the same as for legal tobacco cigarettes, about 10¢ a gram, then selling the (legal) product at exactly the same prices as on the street today ($10 per gram) could raise $40 billion to $100 billion in new revenue. Not chump change. Government would simply be transferring revenue from organized crime to the public purse (Eastori)."

As it pertains more specifically to individual states, California is currently in a severe budget crisis. The state has undergone many budget cuts and is now contemplating ending welfare financial aid to students and eliminating welfare benefits. According to an article entitled "Now on the ballot, could marijuana legalization happen in California?," "Banning marijuana outright has been a disaster, fueling a massive, increasingly brutal underground economy, wasting billions in scarce law enforcement resources, and making criminals out of countless law-abiding citizens (Wood 1)." In the case of California the resources that are being utilized to Indeed California is not the only state that could benefit finically from the legalization of Marijuana. According to an article entitled "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Decriminalization and Legalization for Hawaii," the state of Hawaii could also benefit a great deal from tax revenues and from decreases in black market activities. The state currently spends a great deal of money on detaining people on marijuana related offenses. Legalization could help to free up some of these resources which could then be used on more important programs throughout the state.

When examining the economic benefits of marijuana legalization it is important to weigh the social costs related to outlawing access to goods, because such restrictions create black markets. Black markets are associated with social costs because they assists in the perpetuation of that affects innocent citizens and communities. This violence takes place because gangs start to compete form markets and a natural outcome of black markets is a decrease in respect for established laws (Boyd). Additionally one aspect of the impact of the black market that is usually overlooked is the cost of production that dealers are able to lower (Boyd). Dealers on the black market do not have to adhere to labor laws and as such costs can be greatly reduced. Additionally, the author explains that Standard economic theory explains that taxation can be utilized as a tool to counterbalance some of the social costs associated with the black market (Boyd). Therefore as a result of legalization of marijuana the harmful impacts of the black market can be minimized (Boyd).

In addition the author explains that" there is no control on the quality of the cannabis sold in the black market. Its D-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content can vary in unpredictable ways, and minors can purchase it in the absence of age restrictions. The retail cannabis black market is also not separated from that for cocaine and heroin, so cannabis buyers may be offered other illicit substances (Hall & Lynskey)." Exposure to these other substances can be much more detrimental to youngsters than the ability to obtain marijuana legally. Any effort to keep marijuana illegal must take into consideration the aforementioned issues which can have grave consequences, particularly on the lives of young people.

Indeed the legalization of marijuana could benefit the economy as it pertains to the budget crises that many states are dealing with and in terms of social costs. On the one hand, the tax revenue realized from the legalization of marijuana could assist in offsetting the decrease in tax revenues. In addition legalization of marijuana could serve the purpose of decreasing the social costs associated with the presence of a black market. The black market for marijuana increases crime and disparity in certain communities. In addition the resources used to shut down the black market could be better used in the realms of education and assistance for those that are truly in need. With these things understood proponents of legalization believe that the legalization of marijuana could result in the development of communities that are safer and economies that are sustainable.

Still others argue that while marijuana has been prohibited thee has been a great deal of misinformation fed to the public concerning the health risks associated with marijuana. They argue that exaggerated claims about the adverse health effects of cannabis make young people skeptical about any health information they are presented with as it pertains to drugs (Hall and Lynskey). Those that support legalization of marijuana posit that when young people are told that the health related effect of marijuana use are as severe as those associated with heroin or cocaine, the benign experiences they have with marijuana may cause them to underestimate the more malignant health risks associated with the use of heroin and cocaine (Hall and Lynskey).

Lastly as it pertains to the arguments that support the legalization of marijuana, the medicinal benefits of marijuana must be discussed. Although some states, such as California allow people with a prescription to carry marijuana most states have no such provisions. In addition although the carrying of medical marijuana is permissible under state law in California, the possession of Marijuana is still a federal crime and can be treated as such. Hall and Lynskey report that laws against the distribution of marijuana prevent some individuals with chronic diseases such as cancer from having the ability to access marijuana for medicinal purposes. The medicinal qualities of marijuana has been correlated with the THC present in marijuana. Research has found that THC is a reasonably effective "antiemetic in the treatment of nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy, it stimulates appetite in patients with AIDS-related wasting and it has analgesic and antispasmodic effects." The number of persons being denied these benefits is hard to quantify, but one estimate was that there were 14-000 potential patients in a population of 5-000-000 adults in New South Wales, Australia (Hall and Lynskey)."

Although my personal inclinations lead me to believe that the legalization of marijuana is the most effective way to ensure public health and safety while also providing tax revenues, there are also some logical arguments against the legalization of marijuana. Just as there are many arguments that support the legalization of marijuana there are also many arguments that challenge the legalization of marijuana. One of the primary arguments against marijuana legalization is "internal harms" or the direct internal costs of marijuana use. An article published by the Institute for Social and Economic Research, at the University of Essex the direct internal costs of marijuana use pertains to harms experienced by the user. These harms are inclusive of health risks, curtailment of life and loss of productivity and earnings (Pudney).

The literature related to the topic of marijuana use does report that there are health risks associated with marijuana use. For instance an article entitled "The challenges in developing a rational cannabis policy" reveals that health risks associated with marijuana use are most prevalent amongst individuals who use it chronically. These health risks include

"cannabis dependence syndrome; chronic bronchitis and impaired respiratory function in regular smokers; cardiovascular disease in older adults who continue to smoke into middle age; respiratory cancers in very long-term daily smokers; and psychotic symptoms and disorders in heavy users -- especially those with a preexisting history of such symptoms, a family history of such disorders or who begin use in their early teens (Rofmann et al.; Hall & Lynskey 259) ."

There are also psychosocial effects associated with regular marijuana use among adolescents. These psychosocial effects include marijuana addiction; poor academic performance and decreased amounts of educational attainment; and an increased risk of using other illicit drugs (Hall & Lynskey). The author further explains that the presence of these correlations "between adolescent use of marijuana and psychosocial outcomes remain contentious because of the possibility that the associations are due to residual confounding rather than cannabis use (Hall & Lynskey)."

Additionally studies have also found that people who consistently consume marijuana are more likely to have gum disease. According to Seppa, a New Zealand study "assessed participants' use of marijuana…One-fifth of the people had smoked it about once a week in the years preceding two of the dental exams, while nearly half had smoked pot less often and 32% had never used it. By the time they reached age 32, the heaviest cannabis users were three to five times as likely as the nonusers to have an area of severe gum detachment, the researchers report in the Feb. 6 Journal of the American Medical Association. Heavy users were also twice as likely to have incurred some oftheir periodontal damage between the ages of 26 and 32 (Seppa)."

Gum disease is more likely to occur in people who consume marijuana because after consuming the drug, users tend to have an increase in appetite and they tend to crave sweet foods (Walsh & Seppa). It is likely that after consuming these foods people do not brush their teeth and as such they acquire gum disease at a higher rate than people who do not consume marijuana (Walsh & Seppa).

Those that oppose the legalization of marijuana assert that the aforementioned health risk are reason enough to ban the use of marijuana for any reason. They contend that the harms produced by the ingestion of marijuana far outweigh any benefits that could be associated with the legalization of marijuana. To this end they argue that one of the primary function of government in general and legislation in particular is to ensure public health.

Furthermore as it pertains to internal harms the literature reports that there are dangers associated with cannabis use and driving. An article published in Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse even though there are fewer studies that have examined the impact of marijuana use on driving there is evidence that indicates that the use of marijuana can be attributed to an increased likelihood of being involved in a traffic accident. In addition the authors point out that the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which is found in marijuana can have a profound effect on motor skills. This retardation of motor skills in combination with inexperienced driving means that younger drivers are at an increased risk of having an accident if they use marijuana (O'Kane, Tutt, & Bauer, 2002). Additionally the authors explain that the harmful effects of marijuana use on the driving task are further increased when used with alcohol (O'Kane et al.; Lewis et al.)

Anti-legalization proponents argue that the legalization of marijuana will lead to more fatal car accidents. These accidents not only affect the marijuana user but also the people that they share the road with. They fear that the legalization of marijuana will lead to even more intoxicated drivers and more traffic related deaths associated with substance abuse. This fear is real and should be taken into consideration. Millions of people have been killed because of drivers who were intoxicated or high as a result of drugs or alcohol.

The opposition of the legalization of marijuana has also been associated with beliefs about morality. That is, some people believe that because marijuana is a drug that is used most often to get high, it should not be legalized; it just isn't right. More specifically the theory of "moral panic" has been used to explain why some people are so opposed to the legalization of marijuana. Moral panic occurs when

"A condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other rightthinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or (more often) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes more visible (Zagdow 642)."

As it pertains to this discussion the legalization of marijuana is the condition that poses a threat to societal values. With this understood people opposed to the legalization of marijuana believe that by legalizing marijuana there are moral standards that will be violated. This is an extremely logical stance, given that many people have strong beliefs about the use of drugs. These beliefs are sometimes attributed to religious affiliations. For instance, some religions believe that the consumption of drugs is sinful. It is important to remember that people's religious beliefs are deeply engrained in their psyche and play a significant role in the positions that they hold concerning certain issues.

Indeed, those opposed to legalizing marijuana believe that the consumption of marijuana simply makes people lazy and unproductive. They fear that the legalization of marijuana will increase the number of people who can effectively function in society. In the past this has been referred to as the amotivational syndrome ("Marijuana amotivational syndrome." This syndrome describes a set of symptoms caused by long-term marijuana use. These symptoms include reductions in energy, reductions in the desire to compete and decreases in the desire to work. It is believed that these symptoms are present in people even once the marijuana leaves their systems ("Marijuana amotivational syndrome").

There is also the belief that when drugs are legalized addiction to drugs increases. This is one of the arguments used by the DEA in their efforts to ensure that marijuana does not become legal. This argument insists that the legalization of marijuana will encourage people who might not otherwise thy marijuana, to purchase the drug. An increase in the purchase of the drug will lead to greater amounts of addiction to marijuana.

Lastly some opponents of legalizing marijuana claim that the marijuana of today is much more potent than the marijuana of the past. The amount of high that marijuana causes is associated with the THC levels. It is true that in some instances marijuana sold today has much higher levels of THC than did the marijuana of the past. As such it is more dangerous and thus opponents of making marijuana use legal (Martin).

Strengths and Weaknesses of both Argument

As it pertains to the arguments for the legalization of marijuana, there are many fundamental truths that are present. For instance the illegal nature of marijuana leads to a substantial number of people being incarcerated. Such incarcerations seem to be a waste of precious resources in light of the relatively benign nature of marijuana use when compared to other types of drugs. Additionally public safety suffers because of the presence of the black market for marijuana. The black market creates violence and turf wars that lead to communities being terrorized. In addition when marijuana is not regulated, the quality of the marijuana on the black market is unpredictable and as such it may contain harmful chemicals that can cause harm.