Quinones 1
Layla Quinones
SSP101.1870
April 4, 2009
Dr. Bojana Blagojevic
Term Paper Project
The Criminalization of Marijuana in the United States
Throughout the course of U.S. history, drug use and drug abuse have become a very controversial political issue. More specifically, marijuana criminalization and legalization has been an important topic of discussion in today’s American politics. Despite the government’s “war on drugs” effort, nine states within the U.S.A. have passed laws that allow residents to use marijuana for strictly medical purposes. However, the federal government has neglected to modify its laws therefore, making it a federal crime to use, sell, prescribe, distribute and grow marijuana. This aspect of the legalization of marijuana has brought upon many social and political issues that conflict with state and federal governments’ use of power as well as the individual rights and liberties of American people.
During the 1800’s, marijuana was legal in the United States. However, when the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was established during the term of President Franklyn D. Roosevelt, the status of marijuana changed. The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was essential to the illegalization of marijuana in the United States due to the fact that it set standards and guidelines for criminalizing those who sold and possessed it (California 1). In addition, the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, implemented by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, initially regulated drugs and classified them into five categories known as schedules. With this act, the federal government classified marijuana as a schedule I drug, which determined that it did not have any medical or recreational purpose while being extremely addictive and harmful to those who used it (California 1). However, studies have shown that marijuana had medical value when treating pain and nausea, and has never proven to take the life of any one who used it.
Certain states who advocated for the medical use of marijuana sought out to legalize the drug despite the federal laws that where in place. In 1996, the voters in the state of California voted in favor of the Compassionate Use Act via direct ballot initiatives which allowed for the use of marijuana for strictly medical purposes. The Medical Marijuana Programs were therefore initiated to set guidelines and restrictions to ensure that only medically ill patients where prescribed marijuana for medicinal purposes (California 1). Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Hawaii also made it legal to use marijuana for purely medical purposes, despite the conflict with federal law (Reefer Madness 2). These laws are validated by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who asserts that the supreme court ruling against the possession of marijuana for medical purposes “tramples on the central tenet of the federalist system—that the states may act as laboratories for economic and social experiments as long as they do not put other states at risk” (Up in Smoke 2). In addition, the court neglected to prove that medical marijuana affects the enormous market for illicit drugs on a national level (Up in Smoke 3). This therefore contributes to the highly controversial issue of state power versus federal power.
As a result of states passing laws that conflict with federal laws, many issues regarding state and federal power have arisen. Many argue that the states have the power to control what goes on within it’s boundaries however, due to the addition of Article VI in the U.S. Constitution, federal law is regarded as the “supreme law of the land” (US Constitution: Article VI). This therefore forbids any state from creating laws that conflict with federal laws and, in the case that a state law conflicts with a federal law, federal law will always supersede state law (US Constitution: Article VI). Despite the National Supremacy clause, states like California passed laws that allowed their residents to use marijuana for medical purposes. With the implementation of California’s Compassionate Use Act in 1996, patients with severe medical problems are able to buy and use medical marijuana. In addition, this also applies to the legality of doctors who prescribe marijuana to their patients (California 1).
Unfortunately, according to the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Gonzales v. Raich, the court did not recognize the Compassionate Use Act and prosecuted a terminally ill patient for the possession of marijuana plants (Up in Smoke 1). In this case, the Supreme Court justified it’s ruling simply by rejecting the defendant’s claim that Congress had no right regulating marijuana both grown and consumed within the boarders of the state. Instead they held that “the constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce,” and “interpreted this to include the regulation of even purely local activities, as long as they substantially affect such commerce” (Up in Smoke 1). In addition, they also held that the Controlled Substance Act “is valid even as applied to the interstate, noncommercial cultivation, possession and use of cannabis for personal medical use on the advice of a physician” (California 1). Therefore, despite the state laws that are in place that legalize medical marijuana, these do not protect residents from federal laws that do not deny or recognize the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
Many politicians feel it is within basic human rights to consume a medication that was prescribed to them by a licensed physician. According to the Supreme Court verdict of Conant v. Walters, it is a First Amendment right for doctors to discuss medical marijuana with their patients (Compassionate Use Act). In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor for doctors to prescribe medical marijuana to their patients in order to ease pain or nausea due to sever illnesses such as cancer (Hardy 1). With this ruling, the states that were pro-medical marijuana put into effect laws like the Compassion Use Act in order to aid suffering of terminally ill patients.
Ironically, many politicians also believe that laws that were put into effect due to the war on drugs, such as the Controlled Substance Act, are actually hurting the citizens of the United States on a greater scale. According to A. Nadelmann, former Political Science professor at Princeton University, “the ‘war on drugs’ has failed to accomplish it’s stated objectives, and it cannot succeed as long as we remain a free society bound by our Constitution. Our prohibitionist approach to drug control is responsible for most of the ills commonly associated with Americans ‘drug problem’” (Buckley 38). This is justified in that “more people die every year as a result of the war against drugs than die from…generically overdosing” (36). This is in part due to the enormous underground drug trade that allows merchants to compete for commercial territories, while others rob and kill people because they are desperate for money to buy their illegal drugs. According to Kurt Schmoke, former mayor of Baltimore, “prohibition is a major source of crime: it inflates the price of drugs, inviting new criminals to enter the trade; reduces the number of police officers available to investigate violent crime” and “ fosters altered and even poisonous drugs” (42). Former police chief Joseph D. McNamara validates this opinion when he identified that “the illegality [of marijuana] permits the obscene markup [of the US society by] enriching drug traffickers, distributers, dealers, crooked cops, lawyers, judges, politicians, bankers and businessmen” (43). It was estimated that there are at least 10,000 additional homicides a year due to the war on drugs effort (43).
The governments failure to recognize that the war on drugs is failing substantially affects the rights, liberties and safety of the citizens of the United States. Many argue that the war on drugs contradicts the basic rights that were outlined by the Bill of Rights. According to McNamara, violators of the laws against illegal drugs are engaging in consensual activity and seek privacy in doing so (42). The right to privacy, although not explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, is violated in this case due to the fact that the consumption of substances is considered as engaging in private activity that does not affect others negatively. As Robert W. Sweet, a district judge of New York City, asserts “when the right to ingest substances is considered in more general terms as the right to self-determination, the right has a constitutional foundation” (45). In addition, Americans also have the basic right to pursue medical assistance to any illness that they might have. For some, marijuana aids them in their struggle to survive with terminal illnesses however, the law criminalizes them. Therefore, the right to use drugs should be protected by an individual’s right to privacy and self-determination, rights that the war on drugs violates and criminalizes.
In many instances the war on drugs has violated the Fourth Amendment that protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. For example, Robert W. Sweet, holds that “the Supreme Court has permitted the issuance of search warrants based on anonymous tips and tips from informants known to be corrupt and unreliable” (44). Steven B. Duke validates this point when he states that under the prohibitionist laws, “a grandmother’s home may be forfeited if a grandson hides drugs in the basement which he sells to his friends” (48). This along with the problem of addicts, who resort to robbery in search for money to buy expensive drugs, puts American property at risk. McNamara also specifies that “a rancher in Ventura County, California, was killed by a police SWAT team serving a search warrant in the mistaken belief that he was growing marijuana” (43).Unfortunately, crime increases due to the illegalization of marijuana and the corruption that manifests from the war on drugs.
Studies have shown that it would be more cost effective for the government to implement a program that aids the American people with drugs problems rather than criminalizing them. Wm. F. Buckley Jr. asserts that “for every one dollar spent on the treatment of an addict reduces the probability of continued addiction seven times more than incarceration” (36). He then adds that “it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana” (37). In fact, it is at a substantial cost to society that the crime rate in America has only increased due to the war on drugs. Many non-violent citizens have become lost in the prison system for dealing with a drug that kills nobody. This costs the government more of the people’s tax dollars to keep a drug offender in jail rather than to educate him at a drug rehabilitation program. Unfortunately, the government also spends more tax dollars on the compensation of finances that a family loses due to the incarceration of the head of household; which also leaves many children without fathers and many mothers relying on welfare.
The war on drugs has inevitably failed to prevent crime and drug use in the United States. The finances that have been allocated for the war on drugs effort have increased tenfold over the years however, crime has increased and the amount of drug users has remained relatively the same (46). In addition, the war on drugs has also created a “pervasive and unbelievably powerful underground economy” that contributes to thousands of deaths and incarcerations per-year (Barnes 2). It has also caused the criminalization of many severely and terminally ill patients who find medical marijuana extremely helpful in their treatment for pain, nausea, depression, multiple sclerosis and other severe conditions. The laws set forth against marijuana have violated multiple rights outlined by the Bill Of Rights including the right to privacy and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Lastly, the states who believe that they can help their citizens by legalizing marijuana have taken a step toward “civil disobedience.” Since, their residents are not protected from the federal government, many innocent and non-violent citizens have been incarcerated due to their relations with marijuana.
Bibliography
Barnes, R. Eric. "REEFER MADNESS: LEGAL & MORAL ISSUES SURROUNDING THE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION OF MARIJUANA." Bioethics 14.1 (Jan. 2000): 16. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. LAGCC, LIC, NY. 4, April 2009. <http://rpa.laguardia.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3157338&site=ehost-live>.
Bourgois, Philippe. "The Mystery of Marijuana: Science and the U.S. War on Drugs." Substance Use & Misuse 43.3/4 (Feb. 2008): 581-583. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. LAGCC, LIC, NY. 4, April 2009. <http://rpa.laguardia.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31417063&site=ehost-live>.
Buckley Jr., William F., et al. "THE WAR ON DRUGS IS LOST. (Cover story)." National Review 12 Feb. 1996: 34+. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. LAGCC, LIC, NY. 4, April 2009. <http://rpa.laguardia.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9601317643&site=ehost-live>.
California Medical Association. “The Compassionate Use Act of 1996: The Medical Marijuana Initiative.” CMA Legal Council. The California Medical Association’s INofrmation-On-Demand Service Online: www.cmanet.org. 2009, Jan.
Gizzi, John. "Peter Lewis: 'The Aviator' of the Left." Human Events 61.21 (20 June 2005): 7-7. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. LAGCC, LIC, NY. 4, April 2009. <http://rpa.laguardia.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17384124&site=ehost-live>.
Hardy, Quentin, and Quentin Q. H.. "Inside Dope. (Cover story)." Forbes 172.10 (10 Nov. 2003): 146-154. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. LAGCC, LIC, NY. 4, April 2009. <http://rpa.laguardia.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11225635&site=ehost-live>.
Joffe, Alain, and W. Samuel Yancy.. "Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth." Pediatrics 113.6 (June 2004): e632-e638. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. LAGCC, LIC, NY. 4, April 2009. <http://rpa.laguardia.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13164462&site=ehost-live>.
"Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth." Pediatrics 113.6 (June 2004): 1825-1826. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. LAGCC, LIC, NY. 4, April 2009. <http://rpa.laguardia.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=13164809&site=ehost-live>.
"Reefer Rx: Marijuana as medicine." Harvard Health Letter 29.11 (Sep. 2004): 6-7. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. LAGCC, LIC, NY. 4, April 2009. <http://rpa.laguardia.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14163055&site=ehost-live>.
SerVaas, Cory. "MEDICAL MAILBOX." Saturday Evening Post 243.1 (Summer1971 1971): 124-125. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. LAGCC, LIC, NY. 4, April 2009. <http://rpa.laguardia.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18020085&site=ehost-live>.