This paper examines American drug policy regarding marijuana by tracing the history of hemp as an agricultural commodity, comparing marijuana's effects to those of alcohol and tobacco, and evaluating the social and financial costs of the war on drugs. Drawing on scholarly sources, the paper argues that decades of prohibition have produced disproportionate incarceration rates, racially skewed enforcement, and enormous public expenditure without meaningfully reducing drug use. The paper concludes that legalizing and taxing marijuana — regulated similarly to alcohol and tobacco — would generate significant tax revenue, reduce incarceration costs, and eliminate many of the social harms produced by current prohibition policy.
Marijuana is one of the most vilified drugs in history, and it is very difficult to see just why this is so. The United States once had a thriving agricultural sector in which hemp (marijuana) farmers produced plants for their fibers and seeds. The fibers were used in products such as rope and paper, and the seeds were used to make oil that served as both a lubricant and a food additive. Unfortunately, as people became aware of its psychotropic properties, growing marijuana for any reason was banned. This ban also coincided with the introduction of petroleum-based products that were superior to those made from hemp.
The drug-use properties of marijuana had been known for centuries, and the plant had been used in religious ceremonies and as an additive to medicines. However, it could also be consumed in quantities that left the user completely incapacitated for extended periods. Young people began receiving the message from schools and community organizations that this drug was especially dangerous, and that perception gradually permeated society. The 1960s counterculture, fueled in large part by marijuana use, did not help its public image.
Because mistaken ideas spread about the drug — that it was addictive, that it turned users into violent maniacs, or that it irreparably destroyed the brain — it came to be treated as a more serious offense than many crimes that would ordinarily have been considered far worse. A war on drugs was instituted, and the United States began spending billions of dollars to stop domestic cultivation and prevent importation. This "war" has cost the country enormously, helping to make the United States the most heavily incarcerated nation on Earth. Those costs could be substantially mitigated if marijuana were legalized and taxed in the manner of alcohol and tobacco. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate, through the history of marijuana use and the subsequent failed war on drugs, that the costs of keeping marijuana illegal are not justified by the benefits its prohibition is supposed to provide.
Hemp has served as a versatile cash crop for reasons beyond the obvious for many years. "For centuries, the plant species Cannabis sativa has been a source of fiber and oilseed used worldwide to produce a variety of industrial and consumer products" (Rawson). The primary product derived from hemp is rope or rope-like cordage, once essential aboard sailing ships and now used for everything from clothing to construction materials. Although hemp was grown in large quantities in the United States at one time, its commercial utility diminished when petroleum-based synthetics such as nylon were introduced. Nevertheless, it is still cultivated in more than 30 nations worldwide, and "about 14 of those sell part of their production on the world market" (Rawson).
The plant was grown in the United States in substantial quantities from the colonial period through the end of the nineteenth century (Rawson). As people discovered the psychotropic effects of its flowers and seeds, however, 33 states had banned its production by 1933 (Rawson). Although these laws prohibited growing the plant, consumers could still purchase goods made from hemp — including "carpeting, home furnishings, construction materials, auto parts, textiles, and paper. Hemp seed, an oilseed, likewise has many uses, including industrial oils, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and food" (Rawson) — until 1937, when Congress passed the first law banning hemp production as a recreational drug.
Farmers were still permitted to grow the plant for industrial purposes during World War II because of the demand for rope and other fiber-based products. Soon after the war, however, "competition from synthetic fibers, the Marihuana Tax Act, and increasing public anti-drug sentiment" (Rawson) combined to end domestic industrial hemp cultivation, and the last fields were harvested in 1958.
In recent decades, public interest in natural fibers with the strength and utility of hemp — grown rather than synthesized in a laboratory — has renewed. Rawson reports that farmers who previously lacked a compatible rotation partner for crops such as wheat and tobacco have expressed interest in hemp as an option. However, hemp production in the United States remains governed by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, and although some states have passed laws permitting everything from limited academic studies to medical use, the Drug Enforcement Administration retains authority over these state initiatives and does not permit the substance's use except in tightly controlled, regulated environments. Hemp-based articles such as clothing may be produced and sold, but these too are subject to strict regulation.
Marijuana is most often compared to alcohol and tobacco because those are legal substances that Americans may freely grow, manufacture, distribute, and purchase. Although both products are restricted and subject to substantial excise — or "sin" — taxes, they remain widely available to the public. The reason these three substances are so frequently compared is that all three produce a mild "high" whose effects can be meaningfully evaluated in medical terms.
Because the impairments caused by alcohol and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana, are somewhat similar, researchers have studied one of the most common impairment-sensitive activities — driving. In a 2009 study, Sewell, Poling, and Sofuoglu examined the effects of both drugs to determine the precise nature of each impairment and whether one was more dangerous than the other. Their findings suggest that the two substances produce opposite patterns of impairment and are most dangerous when combined. The researchers found that the impairments from cannabis "are more pronounced with highly automatic driving functions than with more complex tasks that require conscious control, whereas alcohol produces an opposite pattern of impairment" (Sewell, Poling & Sofuoglu). This difference appears to be related to how each drug is absorbed and metabolized. People impaired by marijuana tend to move more slowly and struggle with simple, automatic tasks, yet can often focus on tasks requiring deliberate concentration. Alcohol, by contrast, diminishes an individual's ability to concentrate and exercise fine motor control while leaving gross motor functions relatively intact. Importantly, the study found that although alcohol consumption has been definitively linked to traffic accidents, cannabis consumption has not shown the same causal relationship. The greater risk with marijuana, the researchers note, lies in dosage — a variable that would be far better controlled under a legalized retail system than it currently is on the illicit market (Sewell, Poling & Sofuoglu).
When tobacco and marijuana are compared, the discussion centers on the health risks of smoking each substance. The act of smoking is inherently harmful because inhaling any dense foreign substance damages lung tissue. Tobacco, however, has proven far more deadly than any other legal drug: as many as 400,000 deaths are attributed to it annually (Fish 90). Critics of marijuana legalization often point out that, in its current unrefined form, marijuana smoke contains up to three times the tar and chemical load of tobacco cigarettes (Husak 69). What this argument overlooks is that the product would not remain in its current unrefined form if legalized and regulated — just as tobacco contains more of these harmful substances before it is processed for commercial sale.
It is well established that tobacco kills 400,000 people per year, yet there is no evidence that THC carries the same addictive properties as nicotine. Alcohol withdrawal is widely recognized as the most dangerous form of substance withdrawal — the removal of alcohol can be fatal once the body becomes deeply dependent on it. Marijuana withdrawal carries no comparable risk. Taken together, a comparison of all three substances suggests that regulated marijuana would likely be the least dangerous of the three.
"Costs, failures, and racial disparities of drug prohibition"
"Tax revenue potential and regulatory framework for marijuana"
Many would say that the legalization of marijuana is fraught with problems — including some of the very financial and social costs that legalization is supposed to remedy. The honest answer is that legalization would require careful planning and robust government oversight. However, it would be no more complex than the regulation and control of alcohol and tobacco that has been successfully maintained for decades. In practical terms, it would require little more than the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives adding marijuana to its mandate.
You’re 49% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.