Sean Bourke
English 210
25 November 2008
High on Tradition
It’s said that alcohol and tobacco are ingrained into American Culture. The fact that this is an accepted explanation of why two substance only behind drugs like heroin and cocaine in addictive potency shows the utter absurdity of the argument. Living in the information age, it seems to be common knowledge that these two storied substances in our great American culture are absolutely terrible for you. How many deaths are caused directly from alcohol per year on average? Roughly 81,000(Mokdad). How many deaths are caused directly from tobacco per year on average? Roughly 435,000(Mokdad). Only just under 2.5 million people die per year in America(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). An elementary education in math provides one the ability to calculate that these numbers mean about one fifth of deaths in our nation are caused by the American Way. How many people would one suspect die from marijuana each year? Any guess over zero is a gross display of ignorance. It may not be an impossibility, but with no recorded deaths attributed to marijuana, can it really be that dangerous? In retrospect, a California woman died from water intoxication in order to win a Nintendo Wii system through a Radio Station contest. Anything is possible. This is America, and marijuana is unacceptable for that single fact of location, but not because of the public, but because of the government. This is America, our president elect openly admits to having often smoked marijuana in his past. Anything is possible. This is America, the legalization of marijuana for recreational use would be a major indication of progress away from common beliefs in antiquated and often racially driven stereotypes and away from the traditional American way. Anything is possible.
For a brief period of American history marijuana was alright. During the early 18th century, “early editions of American medical journals recommend hemp seeds and roots for the treatment of inflamed skin, incontinence and venereal disease”(Stein). Too bad, it quickly was outlawed in the early 1900s when it became one of the very non American aspects of the crazy Mexicans along the Texas boarder, who often were smoking or in possession of marijuana. In the 1930s the Jazz movements of major cities throughout the country gained momentum. These movements were rightfully considered untraditional, but wrongly therefore considered harmful. And to further marijuana’s bad rap, it was associated with people involved in such Jazz movements. Namely, the Blacks. By the 1950s harsher penalties were attached to the use of marijuana, which then was a drug most commonly used by Hispanics and Blacks. A minimum sentence for first time possession of the drug was two years in prison, with a second offense being five years, and the third offense carrying a five year minimum(Bonnie).
But in the mid 1960s and 1970s penalties were lessened. Why the change in heart of the American government? Well, it was also during this time period that the American middle class, white adults and kids alike, began to experiment with the drug they realized may not make you like the wild Mexicans after all. It surely would not have been acceptable to have everyday business class husbands or wives or their children in jail for marijuana along with the Hispanics and Blacks. The government’s stance on Marijuana’s tragic negative effects, in contrast to the weaker penalties for the drug, remained, regardless of what scientific research proved. Commissioned by President Nixon in 1972, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded their research on the substance in stating that its “relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it”(Shafer). Needless to say, President Nixon never advertised these findings.
In recent times America’s government has come a long way in its attacks on marijuana. Ronald Regan once said, “I now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast.” This of course is completely untrue. A study on rats has shown that only with chronic administration of THC will permanent damage take place in the user’s brain(Department of Health and Human Services, Washington D.C.). Of course, the amounts of THC used are not noted in the study. Who knows how much a rat needs to get high anyways? I am doubtful that amount could even be translated to the amounts normal humans use to get high.
We have now moved passed blatant fallacies and on to the point that today we have our drug Czar, Mister John Walters claiming, "the legitimate [U.S.] government policy [interest is] the fact that Canadian production of high potency marijuana is a business that-- the majority of which by all available estimates is shipped to the U.S. -- it is the single greatest drug threat. It's twice as important a factor in addiction as cocaine. It's vastly more important as a problem than methamphetamine or heroin."(Linnekin) At least there is some truth now coming form the government, but it is poorly misconstrued. And what sort of message is John Walters actually sending here? Yes, it is truth that the potency of marijuana has increased in recent years, yet, is this not perfectly logical to the business? As the drug is illegal, one would want to carry as small an amount as possible. With increased potency it’s possible to traffic less and less actual mass of the drug in order to gain equal profits. Completely ignored also by John Walters, is the actual health benefit in a higher potency. Does he assume that everyone who smokes marijuana will continue to smoke the same amount they have always smoked regardless of the potency of the marijuana they are smoking? With a higher potency the marijuana would have to contain less excess material that only adds dead weight to the substance when smoked. Therefore one has the ability to inhale to a lesser extent in order to achieve their desired effect. Even an alcoholic would never drink the same amount of hard liquor as they would beer or wine. It’s simple common sense.
Now maybe even more important than that, by stating marijuana is the “single greatest drug threat” tells the public what? They are better off doing cocaine or heroin? If this is true, why is marijuana considered the worst of the “gateway drugs.” If marijuana is the most dangerous, what gateways were passed through to get there? And what drugs are on the other side of marijuana’s gateway? With any amount of thought and a small amount of research, one should easily be able to conclude that alcohol and tobacco are the worst gateway drugs. They are the only two legal drugs which can, and are pushed heavily by the media. Good advice Mister Drug Czar John Walters. A study done by the Department of Health and Human Services seems also to disagree with him in stating this;
Prior use of alcohol or cigarettes was highly correlated with becoming a new marijuana user. Among persons aged 12 to 25 who had never used marijuana, those who had smoked cigarettes were an estimated 6 times more likely than nonsmokers to initiate marijuana use within 1 year. Alcohol users were an estimated 7 to 9 times more likely than nonusers to start using marijuana within a year. Daily cigarette smoking was associated with a twofold increase in risk for marijuana initiation. (Gfroerer)
In other words, findings of the study aid the conclusion that alcohol and tobacco are the true gateway drugs. If there is such a thing.
The idea of a gateway drug is misleading in the first place. Just because a gateway is open to an individual, that does not force them to find out what is through it. I like cookies and cereal a lot, that doesn’t mean I go around eating every different cookie and cereal I can find. In contrast, I often stick with the cookies and cereals that please me the most. If an individual is abusing all sorts of drugs in order to find the most happiness through one of them and in turn is using more and more powerful drugs; it isn’t the drugs that have caused the problem. This person is delusional in thinking that drugs will make their life better rather than solving the problems in their life. The drugs did not cause this delusion; It was already present.
Along these lines, it is ridiculous to believe there are a whole bunch of American citizens out there waiting to abuse marijuana when and if it were to become legal. These citizens are already abusing something, maybe marijuana, maybe alcohol, maybe something else. In any case, I for one would rather these individuals, who are seeking relief through mind alteration in the form of some substance, use marijuana rather than alcohol or any other illicit drug. There is also a substantial population of American citizens that choose to use alcohol recreationally and then proceed extremely unintelligently to drive. “In 2002, surveys estimate that Americans took over 159 million alcohol-impaired driving trips, compared with only 116 million in 1997”(Mothers Against Drunk Driving). I would also rather have these brutally unthoughtful people use marijuana, as “evidence strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution”(U.S. Department of Transportation). A few drinks become far more impairing than moderate marijuana usage to a driver (U.S. Department of Transportation, Marijuana). I do not claim, and the studies do not claim marijuana usage to have no negative effect on driving. Nonetheless, it appears to be a vastly weaker threat to our society than driving under the influence of alcohol.
Has the public not noticed that title either? Czar? Czar? Defined as “a person with great authority or power in a particular area” by the electronic dictionary provided by the Apple Computer company, with an accompanying example sentence that says, “America's new drug czar.” Why? What kind of an example is this? When I think if Czar I think of Russia. I think of dictators and emperors. This sentence covers the negative history of this word with a flower blanket of protection. Why is a Czar an acceptable position to have or hold in a free country’s government? This is implicitly telling us that we, members of a free society, are incapable of controlling what we can put into out bodies recreationally. Therefore because this position is providing protection it is deemed acceptable.
But what sort of things have our Drug Czars and the War on Drugs really protecting the public from? A drug that Judge Francis L. Young of the United States Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration found to be, one: “safer than many foods we commonly consume and two: “in it’s natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man”(Young), constituted 82.4% of drug arrests from 1990 to 2002(King). This drug is marijuana. Aside from a lack of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine arrest, the even bigger problem with this is that of the 82.4%, 78,7% were arrests for simple marijuana possession (King). Not only are all drugs other than weed much less dangerous according to law enforcement, but the users of it are more dangerous to society than the dealers, the growers and the traffickers. The dealers to any rational person should pose the biggest threat. As marijuana is illegal, dealers end up setting the age of consumption for marijuana and all the drugs they sell for that matter. It is their choice where to find their customers. Even with that, of marijuana users arrested, a mere 12% resisted arrest or involved violence(King). This statistic does not stipulate whether or not these marijuana users were under the influence of any other drugs in addition. So what kind of people are marijuana users? Or at least what sort of effect does it’s use give to the user?
Currently the majority of weed smokers in America are white(Ramchand). The stereotypical white weed smoker is typically considered a laid back, lazy person who enjoys music. Thank you Law enforcement for protecting your neighborhoods from these horrible people. I would much rather have thieves and rapists around than those peaceful bastards. But this isn’t true either. One would suspect that with roughly half of weed smokers being white, they would also account for roughly half of the arrests. This is not at all the truth. Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be arrested for possession of marijuana than any other group, with Blacks being 2.5 times more likely than whites (Ramchand). Is that really what the war on drugs is protecting us form? Citizens who aren’t the norm, who aren’t the typical white middle class?
Is that really what the American way is? Is it self inflicted punishment for a free toy? Is it inhaling proven cancer causing toxins from cigarettes? Is it ethnically in-proportionate arrests? It is perfectly ignorant to consider marijuana out of line for public recreational use after examining the facts and trends. One cannot claim - if they claim to have any intelligence - that marijuana is any more harmful than alcohol or tobacco. Even if it were proven that marijuana aids in the onset of cancers, why would that make it worse than tobacco? or even alcohol that has been linked to the onset of liver, colin and breast cancer. Does this American way warrant this sort of outlandish protection? What is causing it to persist.
Fear. Often believed to be the strongest and oldest human emotion, fear can be the root of any decision. Clearly the substance marijuana is not to be feared with its lack of real and or proven negative effects. It is a weed. The effects of a country where it is legal however, are very much feared. For 13 years in the United states, starting in 1920, alcohol was prohibited. An incredible increase in criminal activity occurred. It simply did not work. And because America knew what the country was like with alcohol legal, they were able to say to themselves that it had been much better with alcohol legal, and go back to its previous standing. The United States today doesn’t know what it is like to have marijuana as a legal, sellable, taxable substance. The Netherlands does.
More people will smoke marijuana if it is legal? In 2001 36.9%(US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance) of Americans had used marijuana at least once in their life compared to only 17% of the population in the Netherlands (Trimbos). Legalizing marijuana will cause more violence? The homicide rate in American per 100,000 people is 5.56, whereas in the Netherlands it is far less at only 1.51(Barclay). Seeing this, one could still assume that engaging in marijuana use leads to lack of motivation and an unsuccessful life style, but the statistics show different trends. In the United states today, 5% of people are unemployed and 9.3% of youths (International Metalworkers’ Foundation), youths being the group most suspected of falling out of motivation to achieve success in life and also the group most heavily targeted by the war on drugs with its so called “protection.” In the Netherlands, the unemployment rate is half that of the United States at 2.6%, in addition to the unemployment of youths holding a lower rate at only 6.6%(Netherlands). Is this the toll legalization of marijuana takes on a country? Lower usage rates and lower unemployment rates? By all means, continue heading this protection Drug Czar John Walters, I’m sure the American people want nothing to do with such statistical decreases in the negative aspects of our society.
Currently The U.S. Penal Code, which valiantly protects our society, states that any person can be imprisoned for up to one year for possession of one marijuana cigarette and imprisoned for up to five years for growing a single marijuana plant (The controlled Substances Act). Is it fair to punish or take away an individuals freedom in the “land of the free” for a plant? A weed! Is this really what Americans want? No. It’s true that there is not a majority who believe the drug should be completely legal, but there is a majority who think it shouldn’t be completely illegal. About 80% of people think it’s OK for marijuana to be used as medicine, and about 72% that think that recreational use of marijuana should incur only a fine(Stein). Have politicians of late who support a “get tough on drugs” attitude really been supporting the protection of American citizens? Or are they desperately clinging to the protection of beliefs and traditions of the families they were born into.
It’s clear form historical trends that marijuana will be smoked in this country regardless of what the law forbids and what the government claims. Are we not better off with the government providing standards and laws applied to the usage of this drug, as alcohol and tobacco have in place, rather than friends, family and drug dealers providing information, suggestions and the substance itself? Is this not a free and equal country? And have certain minority groups not been targeted with an unjust higher frequency by it’s unwarranted laws? Marijuana has gained the status of something much more than this or a drug or a medicine or a plant. Marijuana is a symbol. It’s a symbol of tension and unease that harkens back to those days of Texas - Mexican Boarder disputes, to the Jazz movements and to the Vietnam war protests. The current power holding generation in government is far too preoccupied with the stigma attached to marijuana from its past to unbiasedly weigh the pros and cons of it’s use and legality. Despite that, progress is inevitable. This is America, to say marijuana laws and legality will not change is to imply that free society of America will remain stagnant. Anything is possible.