Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization

THE BLUNT TRUTH:
THE NECESSITY BEHIND REFORM OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION

Ashley Samolej
December 9, 2013
FYS 112 2A: Reform Topic Research Paper
Dr. Sager

What comes to mind when thinking of our country’s fight for marijuana legalization? Depending on the information that one has been exposed to, consideration of the possibility may bring forth an initially negative reaction. For many, the extent of factual awareness on the subject falls to the prevalent stereotypes and assumptions, which portray a generally negative view. Misleading information exists on both ends of the debate, and to move toward a more fact-based opinion requires consideration in several different areas; the question of legalizing marijuana
does not present a simple answer. If it is to become legal, it will have a large impact on our society, and we are left to speculate if this change will be beneficial or harmful. A realistic approach suggests that it is not a black-and-white issue, but a problem relying on drawing parallels of similar issues (past and present) as well as some subjectivity in the weighing of positives vs. negatives. Evidence regarding the prohibition’s inefficacy, effects on our economic and criminal justice systems, and infringement on personal freedom, as well as potential damaging effects of marijuana use upon the individual will be presented and examined. With consideration to each of these aspects, it will be objectively proven that the benefits of legalizing marijuana would come to outweigh the harms. It is not hard to notice the increased prevalence of marijuana use among citizens, thus rendering our prohibition ineffective. NORML, the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws, estimates that around 25 million Americans have used marijuana in the last year.1 This is a huge number of our citizens participating in the use of an illicit drug, and that number alone is proof that the ‘War on Drugs’ is not effective. Back in 1971, a statement by J.L. Robertson provides great insight into factors behind this inefficacy. Robertson explains that “The punishments have not changed. The diligence of the law enforcement agencies did not suddenly diminish. What did change, slowly but surely, was the extent to which society became tolerant of the use of narcotics.” Although this statement was made over forty years ago, it can still be easily applied to the increase in practice of smoking marijuana we are seeing today; society has grown more accepting of its use. Robertson goes on to pinpoint one of the causes of this being the media, specifically songs that encourage drug use. There have always been songs about weed; however, they are becoming more and more popular. This is one medium through which individuals are led to develop a less negative view of the drug.2 Other sources which may inspire drug use many popular television shows and movies. Examples of these being: ‘That 70’s Show,’ ‘Weeds,’ ‘Skins,’ and the many documentaries about marijuana, such as ‘The Union.’ Media such as this has made casual marijuana use appear to be quite common. It is easy to observe that much of society is accepting of, if not participating in, the use of marijuana. In fact, a poll conducted in 2000 by Rasmussen Research revealed that 56% of respondents believe that “morally speaking, smoking marijuana is no worse than having a drink.”3 In order to continue a truly effective prohibition, the government needs to possess the support of its society, and in this case it does not.
Our current approach to prohibition presents many socio-economic challenges, as presented by Benjamin Powell, Ph.D. and Director of the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University. First, our prohibition is a supply side war, in which law enforcement targets the supplier over the consumer. This approach poses a higher risk to the supplier, raising prices. Drug demand is somewhat “price-inelastic,” meaning that price increases do not cause a significant decrease in demand. Therefore, our current approach is enabling the suppliers to make even more money while drug use continues. Second, prohibition causes higher drug potencies (seen during alcohol prohibition), causing more harm to those who continue as users. While a substance is banned there is no regulation, meaning no guarantee for users that what they are buying is ‘safe’, or if it even is what they think it is. Third, illegality leads to more violence due to the absence of law guiding business transactions. Finally, every arrest comes with a loss of that citizen’s liberty, as well as the contributions to society of that otherwise productive citizen who is now in jail.4 If the prohibition was effective and people discontinued use of marijuana, these problems would not exist. However, that is not the case. Prohibition of marijuana leads to a more dangerous environment with higher risks than would exist otherwise.
Expanding upon the previous points, Powell’s claims are reinforced by similar explanations from Robert MacCoun and Peter Reuter (both Professors of Public Policy at highly respected universities), in their co-written book, Drug War Heresies. Powell stated that demand for drugs is not drastically lowered by raised costs because of “price-inelasticity,” but how does this work? MacCoun and Reuter explain that the estimated change in demand for marijuana is
-1.0- -1.5% per 1% price increase. Comparably, movies present a -3.5% demand change per 1% increase in price. Although prohibition raises prices, there is not a relevant reduction in demand. To reach the “threshold levels of low availability and high price beyond which drug use becomes impossible” would be a difficult feat.5
Moreover, Powell’s mention of prohibition causing violence is also supported by other discussions of black markets. The harms of black markets are only “slightly related to goods.” These real problems are the illegal incomes, violence, and socially damaging role models, a prevalent problem in inner city areas.6 Many assume that poverty exists in these inner city areas in part because of drug use. However, “it is not the drugs that ‘cause’ the conditions of poverty but rather the conditions of poverty that encourage the adoption of drugs if they contribute to economic needs”7 Prohibition creates this underground market of drugs, which provides an “attractive occupational alternative” to those who face difficulties securing a regular job.8 In this way prohibition encourages illegal activity as a means of survival and leads to gangs and related violence becoming more of a ‘norm.’
MacCoun and Reuter define more problems with drug prohibition in the “taxonomy of drug-related harms’ chart. The ‘harms’ are separated by source, being: use of drug, illegal status of drug, or enforcement of illegal status. Also identified is the specific portion of society which is harmed by each issue. Pertinent examples to this paper are those caused by illegal status and enforcement. These include: lack of quality control, restriction on medical uses, harm to employability, users accruing crime experience, users become acquainted with criminal networks, prevention of potential benefits of use, economic compulsive violence, sense of public disorder (widespread violation of law), increased police and court costs, use of jail space, court congestion, corruption of authorities, and strained international relations.9 All of these problems stem not from marijuana itself, but from our ineffective prohibition. To cure these numerous societal ills, the substance must be legalized and governmentally regulated. For an ineffective program, prohibition is certainly costing taxpayers a huge amount of money. NORML provides that “enforcing marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers an estimated $10 billion annually.”10 Our country is facing huge amounts of debt, yet we continue to pour money into consistently failed attempts for effective prohibition. Along with the unnecessary spending, our nation is also missing out on the profit that would come with legalization. The taxes placed on cigarettes and alcohol are huge sources of economic gain. In 2011 tobacco taxes brought in $15.5 billion.11 The distribution and sale of marijuana is estimated to be a $113 billion a year industry.12 If this were legalized and regulated it could be taxed just as alcohol and cigarettes are. These changes would not only remove the annual loss of $10 billion but provide easy means to instead earn billions more. Strictly from an economic standpoint, our society stands to gain a lot from legalizing marijuana.13 What other costs do we incur by keeping this substance illegal? Every person that is arrested for simple marijuana possession loses their liberty and becomes a loss of contribution to society. In 2006, there were 738,916 arrests for individuals with the sole crime of possession of marijuana. When compared to the 611,523 violent crime arrests for that year, that number seems absurd.14 Not only is a vast amount of money devoted to this effort, but so are our people and time resources. More effort should be put into pursuing dangerous and violent criminals over these harmless possession charges. Furthermore, every year a large percentage of the total possession charges are in fact given to teenagers: “23 percent of the 50,300 people arrested for lowest-level marijuana possession [in New York, NY] were teenagers.”15 That is 11,569 teenagers, in New York City alone, arrested for possession. Already facing the regular struggles of adolescence, they are now forced to do this while possibly having a drug possession charge on their record. A permanent association with drug possession makes the task of finding a job, already difficult, that much harder. Arresting and charging individuals severely inhibits their chances of success. While it is acknowledgeable that they did break a law and they must face the consequences, the stigma placed on a record of marijuana possession is a heavy penalty for its severity as a crime. This criminal association that has been pinned on marijuana users is very damaging to society in the long run, arguably more so than the drug itself. Federal law states that possession of any amount of marijuana for a first offense is punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine.16 Yet, it can be argued that the vast majority of marijuana users are in no way dangerous, that a drunk person often poses more of a threat to others than someone high from weed.
It is common knowledge that alcohol has a tendency to increase aggressive behavior, and that drunk individuals may pose a threat to the public. The study-based site “Drug War Facts” claims that “rather than inducing violent or aggressive behavior . . . marihuana was usually found to inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses . . . generally producing states of drowsiness, lethargy, timidity and passivity.”17 A concern regarding many drugs is that they induce dangerous behavior, extending the threat of harm from themselves to others. Marijuana does not seem to incite risky behaviors, and any negative health effects that it may present are tied primarily to the user. Because of this, simple possession of marijuana does not pose a direct threat to anyone but the user, yet the punishment reflects an objectively worse
crime. The fact that alcohol and tobacco are both dangerous, legal drugs invalidates a lot of the argument that marijuana is illegal solely due to potential health risks. It has been known for decades that alcohol is a harmful substance. Addiction is very possible, and it has been proven a carcinogen. Along with the harm to the user, it promotes dangerous behavior and has killed many people beyond users. This is something that our society has been aware of for quite some time. Alcohol is still legal. Tobacco, in both cigarettes and chewing form is also a health hazard, yet society continues to partake in the use of these. Occasions of death occurring solely from marijuana use are virtually unheard of, with research finding that “there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose.”18 This is something that definitely cannot be said for alcohol. The Center for Disease Control website estimates that excessive alcohol intake accounts for 80,000 deaths per year.19 Cigarettes do not cause overdose deaths, but it is undisputed that they cause cancer as well as many other life-threatening diseases. The tobacco industry is estimated to be responsible for over 440,000 deaths per year.20 Additionally, marijuana is less addictive than its legal counterparts – with 15% of alcohol users compared to 9% of marijuana users being classified as substance dependent,21 and 85-90% of cigarette smokers being addicted to the point that they experience withdrawals if they do not smoke every day.22 The idea that marijuana is not as threatening as alcohol and tobacco is also reinforced by studies. Referring again to “Drug War Facts,” multiple case study summaries of marijuana’s physiological effects are presented. These are published by a nonprofit organization called Common Sense for Drug Policy. Dealing with safety, they are all in agreement that marijuana is not an extremely dangerous substance:
1) A careful search of the literature and testimony of the nation's health officials has not revealed a single human fatality in the United States proven to have resulted solely from ingestion of marihuana.
2) The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young, concluded: ‘In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume.
3) On existing patterns of use, cannabis poses a much less serious public health problem than is currently posed by alcohol and tobacco in Western societies.23

These statements were derived from data-driven studies and summarize factual information. No claim is made that marijuana is 100% safe, but verification is provided that it is not as extremely dangerous as is often assumed. However, it is a common assumption that marijuana is a carcinogenic agent, and it would be unwise to add another detrimental substance to our already burdened health care system. Because of this, it is necessary to examine not only the immediate danger, but also the long term health effects of marijuana use. Cigarettes do not pose immediate danger, but over time cause a multitude of expensive and death inducing health problems. If marijuana is to present the same case it would only become another strain on our nation’s health. Much research has been done in the way of identifying marijuana as a carcinogen. The problem with carcinogenic studies is that there are so many variables between participants of these, that it is extremely difficult to determine the accuracy of the results. The University of Washington’s Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute states that “the association between smoking marijuana and lung cancer remains unclear.” There is evidence that suggests marijuana may be carcinogenic, in that it contains high levels of benzopyrene and benzanthracene (known carcinogens), yet studies have failed to either prove or rule out an actual increased cancer risk solely from marijuana use.24 It is an undisputed fact that cigarettes cause cancer, so if marijuana were as dangerous, it would make sense to assume that studies would provide more of a direct conclusion as opposed to scattered and heavily debated evidence.25 It is necessary to consider marijuana’s risks not only on the body but on the mind as well. Claims exist that it is severely detrimental to mental health, cognition, and memory. A recent experiment was conducted using healthy ‘experienced marijuana smokers,’ who completed complex cognitive tests before and after smoking a joint (marijuana cigarette). There were noticeable effects on response time, with more premature responses and increased mental calculation and read times occurring in cases where participants were given the highest potency. However, overall accuracy of responses remained generally unaffected. The study concludes that “acute marijuana smoking produced minimal effects on complex cognitive task performance in experienced marijuana users.” 26 Another study, conducted by Bruce Johnson in 1973, examines marijuana use among 3,500 college students and concludes that “marihuana use, in and of itself, was an unimportant factor in explaining low grades, leaving college, and college deviance.”27 There is evidence of temporary inhibitive effects on mental capabilities, but wherein does this differ from alcohol? The substance does not render one completely ‘stupid,’ or incapable, and it is reasonable to expect responsible usage as is expected with alcohol.28 Because of this, the cognitive effects of the two do not possess a definitive distinction. Therefore, to avoid hypocrisy, cognitive inhibition is not reason enough to justify marijuana’s illegality. Another issue arising on the individual level is the stereotype that marijuana causes users to become unmotivated and unsuccessful, something we would not want to become widespread. In Saying Yes, Jacob Sullum calls this phenomena ‘amotivational syndrome.’29 However, like most stereotypes this is an unjust generalization. The belief that marijuana ‘makes one lazy’ reflects only the actions of those marijuana users who become or make themselves known by society. Consider the previously discussed numbers: around 25 million Americans smoked marijuana last year and only 738,916 were arrested for possession. That leaves millions of users who are not caught, remaining anonymous. Sullum accurately points out that individuals who are open about their marijuana use are generally those who do not face losing anything by doing so. Users who are leading professional lives know that smoking marijuana could seriously damage their success if the fact were known, and strive to keep it a secret.30 The image of a ‘typical stoner’ is not that of the hidden majority, but of a tiny portion of users. These individuals likely already possess the characteristics that marijuana is claimed to instill, and their openness about it stems from having little to lose. Therefore, this stereotype cannot be said to encompass the group as a whole, let alone represent the majority. Furthermore, there are countless examples of successful people who have admitted to smoking weed in their past, or even currently.
Some of the more well-known individuals falling into this category include: Rick Steves, Michael Phelps, Barack Obama, Stephen King and Arnold Schwarzenegger.31 This is proof that every marijuana user does not automatically become unproductive. Some users are the ‘worst case’ scenario, while some end up extremely successful. However, the vast majority of users are nothing other than the average working adult, lying somewhere in the middle of the extremes.32 Just like alcohol, marijuana is a substance requiring the user to be responsible and control the extent to which it affects their life. Anyone who decides to get high every day will face problems with school or a job, but is it not the exact same case for an individual who gets drunk every day? When we talk of the average alcohol user, we do not assume them to be an alcoholic; most individuals are capable of drinking on occasion and continuing a normal life. Occasional marijuana use inhibits success no more than the occasional alcoholic beverage
does. It can also be argued that the illegality of marijuana violates our constitutional rights. We are granted liberty and in that we are granted the pursuit of happiness, the stipulation being that what we are doing cannot harm others. Drug War Heresies includes a section dealing with philosophy of drug prohibition, including a portion of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty where he discusses the harm principle. “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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant . . . over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”33 The previously discussed evidence suggesting that marijuana does not pose a threat to those beyond users is relevant again here. Yes, the user may face negative health effects (to a disputed degree), but who being harmed beyond the user? As stated earlier, marijuana is not thought to incite violent or aggressive behavior.34 Because it is not directly encouraging harm to others, the reasoning of the harm principle provides that marijuana should not be illegal.
Additionally, even if cases were to result in which a marijuana user committed a violent crime, there are other laws regarding actions bringing harm to another person. Again, we must compare marijuana to alcohol. Used incorrectly, alcohol can cause harm to others. Yet responsible use is expected, and the user is held accountable for his own actions – any wrongdoing is not considered to be ‘the alcohol’s fault.’ The same exact accountability can and should be applied to marijuana users. The use of the drug itself is not harmful to others, and any subsequent choices causing harm would be prosecutable under another law. Therefore, responsible marijuana use is something which should be protected by our right to individual pursuit of happiness.
Peter Christ, a retired police captain and Vice Chair of Law Enforcement against Prohibition (LEAP), made bold statements regarding prohibition in an interview for the political debate show “2 Sides.”35 The show airs on the Buffalo-based WGRZ network. Christ shares that he is in favor of legalization of drugs, his reasons stemming from the 20 years he spent in law enforcement. He explains that failure of drug prohibition will never be overcome; a war is won when the enemy is defeated, can drugs every truly be defeated? All we can realistically hope to accomplish is to reduce the extent of usage, aiming for complete elimination is futile. According to Christ, the most beneficial action would be to eliminate black markets and allow government regulation and control; in doing this we end the myriad of economic and social issues which stem solely from prohibition. A notable point is made in his parallel of the drastic decrease in violence seen right after ending prohibition of alcohol in 1933, a strong reinforcement to the assumption that we could expect the same regarding marijuana.
In the same interview, Christ also discusses the fact that law enforcement has no place enforcing drug usage – a heavy statement coming from a police captain. He explains that law enforcement was originally created to protect people being harmed by others. Enforcement of drug use is moving into an area of trying to protect people from themselves, trying to enforce morality. This is not only impossible, but was never an intended function of law enforcement. He goes on to claim that “we have destroyed more lives than drugs have, by incarcerating people and hanging felony convictions on them, denying them college educations, denying them jobs, for no good reason.”36 Christ’s interview serves as an extremely relevant primary source, showcasing some of the most important reasoning behind current legalization efforts. His statements thoroughly defend many of the major points which have been made throughout this paper. Christ’s opinion is one which earns a good amount of credibility due to his experience and the relevance/involvement of his career to the issue. However, a pressing question still remains: if prohibition is causing more problems than it solves, infringes on our personal liberties, and marijuana does not pose some monumental health risk, why was it banned in the first place? In the late 1800s, marijuana was completely legal, used medicinally among the upper and middle white classes, and recreationally among the lower classes. More specifically, “marijuana was used primarily by Mexican-American inhabitants of the southwest . . . with this immigration came increased reports . . . of the vagrancy, immorality, and violence of these groups, conditions that soon became associated with the use of marijuana.”37 Around this time the upper and lower classes were losing their differentiation, and antidrug legislation became one way to “isolate and legally dominate” the nonwhite lower class portions of society.38 Cloyd, author of Drugs and Information Control, claims that most drug abuse debates are fueled more by emotion than by fact, observed with alcohol prohibition. He states, “it was not drinking that put the real force behind the movement to control intoxicants; it was the emotional contamination of the issue . . . Neither drinking nor drug use is significant enough to warrant a massive legislative movement, rather it is the fluid nature of human emotion.”39 This observation draws a parallel of these two prohibitions and provides insight into the power of emotional drive behind the debates.
Not surprisingly, this flawed reasoning has not remained consistent. As the pro-weed documentary “The Union” explains:
However, by the time the war [World War II] was over, hemp again became bad, and in
1948 when the marijuana law once again came into question, Congress recognized marijuana was made illegal for the wrong reason. It didn’t make people violent at all, it made them pacifists. The communists would use it to weaken America’s will to fight. Congress now voted to keep marijuana illegal for the exact opposite reason they had outlawed it in the first place.40

This inconsistency proves that our government admits logic behind marijuana’s initial banning was flawed, and rightfully leads to questioning of this ‘new reasoning.’ This too, presents an obvious flaw. These communistic fears are outdated and no longer plague our society, so why are they considered to be a reasoning behind prohibition? Obviously these past decisions were heavily driven by emotions and fear, and the lack of objectivity only serves to inhibit the government’s righteousness in continuing prohibition. In hindsight, marijuana’s illegality was largely based on generalized associations and resulting fears. Still today, “defenders of the drug laws have never satisfactorily explained why using the currently illegal drugs is morally problematic in a way that drinking is not.” Attempts have been made to reason that alcohol differs from marijuana in that it can be consumed responsibly.41 This claim definitely lacks supporting evidence; in fact, the opposite can be proven. In 2009 there were an estimated 1,440,409 arrests for driving under the influence, clearly constituting irresponsible alcohol usage. In this same year, there were 99,815 marijuana violation arrests (6% of 1,663,582 total drug abuse violation arrests).42 Although this number is high, simply being caught in possession of the drug does not necessarily indicate irresponsible use. Even if, hypothetically, every one of those marijuana arrests were using irresponsibly, the number is still significantly lower than the DUIs. Furthermore, DUI arrests do not encompass the whole of irresponsible alcohol use, as there were undoubtedly many more arrests under laws such as drunk and disorderly conduct. There were thousands more arrests for one kind of irresponsible alcohol use than all (irresponsible or not) marijuana use. This data alone invalidates the argument that marijuana cannot be used as responsibly as alcohol. Thus, the illegality of marijuana must be attributed to the original cause for prohibition: societal attitudes and fears. As a society, we generally manifest our view of drugs as ‘bad,’ as something to be avoided. Society demoralizes drugs and we generally listen and avoid them, even though we are unaware of exactly why. Yet we embrace the use of alcohol, and from a pharmacological perspective, alcohol is also a psychoactive drug.43 This scientific definition is ignored, because societal norms have taught that alcohol use is acceptable, while marijuana is not. We have not differentiated marijuana’s illicitness in pharmacological or any other scientific/factual terms. Instead, this prohibition has developed and continued because of personal opinions, emotions, and fears that have grown into cultural definitions.44
Marijuana is a substance surrounded by misconstrued beliefs, and careful research brings forth information which calls for reexamination of the need (or lack thereof) for continuing this prohibition. No valid evidence has been brought forth to properly define why it must be illegal while similar substances are not. Is it illegal because it alters thought processes? Alcohol does the same. Maybe because it alters biological processes? Caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol all do that. What about the threat of health risks? Again, we must compare to the legal counterparts, which all pose risks as well. Stereotypes which identify cannabis as a volatile, brain-killing, motivation-killing substance can be easily disproven. Ending the prohibition would provide economic gain, restore lost personal liberties, reduce black markets and related gang violence, free up law enforcement resources, and end the hypocrisy of claiming cannabis to be substantially different from legal substances. With all of these benefits, the only major drawback of legalization is the possibility of negative health effects, which current studies suggest to be no worse than those already posed by legal drugs. This single drawback, however, is a personal choice. Using or not using marijuana would become a completely moral decision. Negative health effects would not be forced upon anyone, and legalization would not harm those who choose not to use marijuana. Yet, the benefits of ending this prohibition would be seen universally amongst our society. For this reason, the benefits of a successful campaign for marijuana legalization drastically outweigh the negatives.