The Great Regulators
Imagine a world where nothing is illegal, equality reigns over freedom and justice is more important than order. A humanity where people can do or say whatever they please, as long as it does not impede on the liberty and choices of others. People are treated with dignity and respect and the only laws are a set of guidelines to maintain equity: the freedom to posses, the freedom of choice, the freedom of expression and the freedom to survive. This may sound familiar—it is our past. A citizen of today can only be free in their minds and even that is adjustable by a few hours in a dark cell, force fed distortions of the law and inequality of punishment. Ignorance’s medicine, in the guise of abuse, solitude and confinement, is shoved down our throats and forced into our unconscious mind in the feeble attempt to heal the “evildoer”. But a proper democracy is not one bloated with incredible laws of oppression, but one where a society, created by the people, can flourish and live in harmony free from the armed tormenters whom act as defenders of our great civilization. Those freedom fighters are only here to elicit fear and alter our minds to be obedient of the corrupted elite that govern our nation.
In a game played by money and greed, humans are merely pawns. The great regulators reign supreme, uneducated with guns at their sides, carelessly moving the pieces around the board, unaware of the chaos they create with every move. As the money pours in and the uncontested power charges their egos, society cracks and turns on itself, cannibalizing the freedoms they once could not live without. The oppressors view human culture as something to control, like a puppet at a show or a careless ship captain navigating iceberg-infested waters. “If not manipulated,” say the regulators, “humans will create an anarchist, immoral state and the Gods will surely hold us and the world responsible and wreck havoc on our souls”. The oppressors certainly know of an end and act in haste to sacrifice the evildoers to their Gods, in order to prove their allegiance and to set aside a place in the utopian afterlife. They have no concern of the present chaos, nor worry about the current fate of freedom.
Our history speaks of legality and morality not prevention or treatment. Marijuana has been used as far back as 3000BC, mostly in religious ceremonies but also for medicinal treatment of such ailments as glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, and influenza. The Virginia assembly in 1619 required every household to grow it and even some states allowed hemp to be used as legal tender. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp at their homes. Cocaine was also used for thousands of years as an aesthesia in dentistry, an ingredient in wine and in the original formula for Coca-Cola. Cocaine was also sold in neighborhood drugstores for five or ten cents. Nicotine was viewed as non-addictive, harmless and smoking was advertised as “good for digestion”[1]. The 1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act changed many drug laws, but even after that law was passed, it was still legal for registered companies and individuals.
As our ethical leaders became increasingly frightened by the influx of immigrants as well as the liberties gained by African-Americans, thus began the first “war on drugs” and they focused their attention squarely on marijuana. The so-called marijuana-induced “sex-crazed teenager” and the “violent” culture played a huge role in the creation of new laws, as the poorer society tends to lean on drugs more than the upper-class. FBI director J. Edward Hoover and certain lawmakers attributed all sinful acts of the youth to the effects of drugs and marijuana and wanted to purge the country of this “immoral behavior”. They dismissed treatment clinics as “barrooms for addicts” and said the only proper response to illegal drug use was to “jail offenders, then throw away the key”. Amid the prejudices, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937[2] criminalized marijuana for the first time. Businesses and casual smokers of previous years were lectured and sentenced to long prison terms. Our Great Regulators even dismissed a study in 1944 by the New York Academy of Medicine which concluded: “marijuana did not cause violent behavior, provoke insanity, lead to addiction, or promote opiate use”. But they could not deny the useful nature of the hemp plant, as showcased by the 1943 video “Hemp for Victory” created by the U.S. government during WWII, in which farmers were encouraged to grow hemp for the war effort. (Hemp was used in rope, cloth and other products). Hemp also outgrows most plants and thrives in almost any climate, it’s good for the environment, and was used as fuel, paper, fiber, and medicine. But after World War II and near the height of anti-communism furor in the 1950’s, The Boggs Act and our ethical leaders raised marijuana penalties to the same level as heroin.
The inconsistency of our laws did not stop with the Boggs Act. By 1962 in Louisiana, a simple drug possession conviction ranged from five to ninety-nine years in prison. In Missouri, a second drug offense could result in a life sentence. And in Georgia, a second conviction for selling marijuana to a minor could bring the death penalty. But in the late 1960s as marijuana usage grew within the white middle-class, there was a re-evaluation of laws that for decades had imprisoned poor immigrants and African Americans. In 1970, the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act set apart marijuana from other narcotics and reduced federal penalties for possession. In the same year, President Richard Nixon chose a bipartisan commission to study the health effects, legal status and social impact of marijuana. Two years later, the 1972 National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse arrived at a conclusion: “marijuana should be decriminalized under state and federal law. Possessing small amounts of marijuana in the home should no longer be a crime, growing or selling marijuana for profit, using it in public, or driving under the influence would remain strictly forbidden and society should strongly discourage marijuana use while devoting more resources to preventing and treating heavy use.” Led by these findings, eleven states decriminalized marijuana and most other states weakened their laws against it. But President Nixon rejected the findings and privately blamed “the Jews” for the new drug law reorganizations.
However, decriminalization was still supported in the late 1970’s by The American Medical Association, National Council of Churches, President Jimmy Carter and other lawmakers. The 1974 case of Ravin v. State of Alaska, led the Alaska Supreme Court to rule that “growing and smoking Cannabis was protected in home and yard by the State Constitution’s right to privacy”. But in the 1979 case National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Gain, which argued for the right to have marijuana in a private location such as a home, the California Supreme Court decided “not to guarantee adult Californians the privilege of smoking a possibly harmful drug, even in the privacy of their homes”. Less than twenty years later, a portion of the Violence against Women Act of 1994 was declared unconstitutional, “Because the federal government has no right to regulate a private act, such as rape, that is neither part of interstate commerce nor caused by state officials.” In other words, a citizen can send the police into their neighbor’s home to bust down the door and haul away the non-violent over-user under full protection of the law, but if the same neighbor was raped, police have no right to enter the premises. Even though the federal government and the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) approved decriminalization of marijuana, individual battles of consistency and equality raged on.
Only a few years after the DEA proposed decriminalization, an entirely new administration, led by Ronald Regan, called marijuana “the most urgent drug problem facing the U.S.” In 1982, President Reagan created a drug czar—Carton Turner, a chemist who disregarded any previous research, believed marijuana linked youth to anti-military, anti-nuclear power, anti-big business, and thought smoking it could turn young men into homosexuals. Under President Reagan, the U.S. started the second “war on drugs” by increasing federal penalties with three new acts: The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Anti-Drug Abuse Amendment of 1984 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Marijuana was now (and still is) classified as a Schedule I drug, which requires the following findings[3]:
1. The drug or other substance has high potential for abuse.
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
President Regan considered marijuana as “the most dangerous drug in America” and placed it on the same level as heroin, LSD and peyote. Yet almost all previous scientific research suggested that marijuana is less addictive than heroin, cocaine, nicotine, alcohol and caffeine and can also be used in numerous medical treatments. Cocaine and PCP were (and still are) on a “lower” level, Schedule II, which allowed doctors to prescribe them to citizens. Once again drug use was depicted as a moral problem not a medical one.
President Bush Sr. continued Regan’s moral push and raised drug enforcement spending by 83 percent and under President Clinton, not to be outdone by the republicans, also increased federal spending on drug enforcement with little or no increase on prevention or treatment. Under Clinton, drug possession arrests hit a record high and jails became increasingly overcrowded. To ring in the new millennium, President Bush Jr., along with the USA Patriot Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, made drugs “more” illegal than ever before.
This—was yesterday.
We are conditioned to trust our moral regulators. But these leaders simply place their friends and others, sympathetic to their message, in power to create the laws for the “Great Moral Society” without consideration to science, research and other accepted studies. One such study by the accredited British Journal of Psychiatry states: "The Dutch experience, together with those of a few other countries with more modest policy changes, provides a moderately good empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug; the argument for decriminalization is thus strong."[4] But we again ignore clear information gained by observation, experience, science and experiment for the sensationalized rhetoric of the moral majority. Our leaders continue to spew their message of protectionism for the Great Society as noted in the complete blockade of scientific research due to marijuana’s drug classification.
Our “Great Moral Society” is one where four billion dollars a year of tax money is spent combating mostly addicts and non-violent criminals. An addict defined by the FDA is: “any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.” This is a good definition for someone who needs rehab, not a jail cell.
Alcoholics, for instance, go through an intense sobering process that requires the efforts of family, friends, the government and their community. But most of them endure this detoxification within the safety of loved ones, not near the violent criminals of the prison system. The treatment of alcoholism without jail time is viewed as normal in American society. Also with other addictions, like prescription drugs, no jail time is required for overuse. As a matter of fact, citizens can overuse alcohol, prescription drugs, food, nicotine, and sex and not receive one day of jail time as long as they stay within the boundaries of regulation. The mere use or overuse of a certain drug is not cause for imprisonment.
But the 400,000 police officers specifically assigned to the drug war, ensure that over-users and drugs possessors have a long stay behind bars. Federal law states: possession for any amount of cocaine is a felony, punishable by a year or longer in prison. In fact, most first time offenders of federal possession laws spend a minimum of one-to-three years in prison and in California, three possessions of cocaine (with similar chemical reactions of another psychoactive but legal drug, caffeine) can lead to a lifetime behind bars. Actually, caffeine has no regulations by the federal government at all and has no limits to the amount placed in soda, Excedrin, chocolate, coffee, tea, and so-called “energy drinks”. If caffeine could be snorted or injected directly into the blood stream and involve the same sensations of cocaine, would caffeine become illegal? Caffeine has proven to be as addictive as cocaine but for now, caffeine has no limits to its use and the 400,000 armed tormentors are ready for the next drug over-user to place into the revolving door of the prison system.
Marijuana laws are even worse with broad, inconsistent “deterrents” ranging from state to state. In New York State for instance, an ounce of marijuana brings a fine of $100, whereas the same amount in Louisiana could lead to twenty years-to-life. In Idaho, selling water pipes is nine years behind bars. In Kentucky, products made from hemp fibers are illegal. Certain counties in Ohio hand out a fine for the possession of three ounces of marijuana but a drive to Indiana one hour away can lead to three years in prison. Indiana laws are particularly inconsistent and offenses range from armed robbery at six years, rape at eight years, murder at twenty-five and selling marijuana—a life sentence (as in the case of Mark Young, a marijuana “activist”). Federal law also states that convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters can get welfare payments, but those with marijuana felonies cannot. Twenty states have laws that say: if a citizen is caught smoking marijuana, even in a private location like a home, can lead to a harsher punishment than being arrested for driving drunk. And in one of the most restrictive states, Oklahoma, any amount of marijuana including paraphernalia, is a mandatory one year behind bars, every subsequent offense is two-to-ten years and the sale of marijuana is two years-to-life behind bars. Lawmakers continue to make drugs “more” illegal everyday and the irregularity of past mistakes, with little attention to treatment, is still echoed today.
California’s recent proposition 5 stated: “California’s corrections system does not provide meaningful rehabilitation services to most inmates and parolees. Nonviolent offenders can languish for years behind bars without education, vocational training, or rehabilitation programs of any kind.”[5] So even though we house these non-violent criminals in prison, the system does not provide enough alternatives to their addiction besides jail time. Non-violent criminals get the same jail time as violent offenders and according to the laws, a casual user is no different than an addict. Very little rehabilitation is used; it’s currently a policy of: “It’s the users fault for doing it, so they must be punished and shoved into jail for treatment.” The ineffective laws of today that focus on possession need to change to protect the drug user from the drug dealer and to protect the addict from gaining a foothold in the underground of the American black market. A non-violent drug user is not the same as a brutal drug kingpin and the laws should be changed to reflect that.
Most of the non-violent addicts in prison gain an extraordinary study on how to truly become an elite drug user or worse: a drug dealer. This is good news for the addicts as about seventy-seven billion dollars a year is made in the illegal drug trade, most of which fuels terrorism and kingpins from foreign countries. Imagine what seventy-seven billion dollars and 400,000 workers could do to rebuild New Orleans or rid our country of foreign oil dependency. We believe more in the values of the moral majority and their message of global security with a heavenly afterlife than in society’s duty to listen and respond to rational science and practical research.
This—is today.
Organized crime runs the illegal drug culture, instead of what it should be: the taxpayer. California’s NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) estimates that the state could net some 1.5 to 2.5 billion dollars per year by legalizing marijuana for general adult use, as well as accumulate a savings of over 160 million in taxpayer dollars per year that is currently spent on arrests, prosecutions and imprisonment of drug users. As the Journal of Public Health stated in 1989 (counter to the message by the moral leaders of “abstinence” and prohibition): "The available evidence indicates that the decriminalization of marijuana possession had little or no impact on rates of use. On the other hand, the so-called 'decriminalization' measures did result in substantial savings in the criminal justice system."[6] Imagine that savings going back to the taxpayer.
The taxpayers should focus on treatment centers, twelve step programs, and prisons should focus on drug abuse management. "Fear of apprehension, fear of being imprisoned, the cost of cannabis or the difficulty in obtaining cannabis do not appear to exert a strong influence on decisions about cannabis consumption. ... Those factors may limit cannabis use among frequent cannabis users, but there is no evidence, as of yet, to support this conjecture."[7] Deterrents like long prison sentences do little to discourage drug users and these laws end up hurting the addict by using punishment as treatment. Rehabilitation and treatment centers actually saves society money as stated by the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES) from the Center from Substance Abuse Treatment[8], and every dollar spent on treatment saves society three dollars in crime-related costs, increased earnings and reduced health costs.
Society also needs a wake-up call that a world in which drugs are decriminalized does not mean a world full of drug addicts and pushers. A study by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine stated: "In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."[9] Another study by the Journal of Public Health states: "The available data indicate that decriminalization measures substantially reduced enforcement costs, yet had little or no impact on rates of use in the United States. In the South Australian community, none of the studies have found an impact in cannabis use which is attributable to the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Scheme [decriminalization.]"[10] And in the same spirit, Dr. Charles Schuster, head of the National Institute of Drug Abuse during the 1980s, said “To the best of my knowledge, no one has died because they’ve smoke too much marijuana.” According to a recent study published in the Journal of Substance Use, adolescent drug use is tied more to “sensation seeking”, rather than impulsive decision making[11]. Skydiving, which can cause similar euphoric sensations to certain illegal drugs, causes more deaths than marijuana, yet jumping out of a plane remains completely legal and we certainly do not live in a world overrun by skydivers.
Society tends to blame marijuana as well when addicts upgrade to harsher drugs. In fact, more cocaine users smoked cigarettes and drank alcohol before using cocaine than used marijuana, so the so-called "gateway" argument applies more to beer, whiskey and cigarettes than it does to marijuana. When marijuana usage increased in the 1960s and 1970s, heroin use declined rapidly and when cocaine use increased in the 1980s, marijuana use declined. There is no correlation between a cocaine user and a marijuana user; they are like wine drinkers versus beer drinkers, but our society continues to trust their moral leaders over statistics and data.
Addiction to any drug is a very serious issue which should not be taken lightly but it shouldn’t be treated as an immoral choice that only elicits jail time. Problematic drug use should be dealt with like any other addiction—with treatment. We should not spend billions of dollars on prisons to simply accommodate addicts. Governmental licensing practices and regulations used currently for alcohol and prescription drugs should be used on narcotics as well. Alcohol has many regulations: the legal age to drink is 21, citizens cannot drive while drunk, citizens cannot be in public places while intoxicated and citizens cannot operate heavy machinery, to name a few. To sell alcohol, a business must meet certain preconditions before applying for a license and must renew their license every year to ensure compliance with any new regulations. Prescription drugs have similar regulations and so do cigarettes. The “legalize-it” portion of the world will also be faced with the sad truth that drugs are addictive and harmful when overused, but the fight is not legality—the fight is regulation.
The ultimate goal of the Great Regulators should not be on personal economic gains or other egotistical, selfish possessions but equality for all humans. The freedom to posses will guide humanity towards a safer, more humane world, not one led by confinement and punishment. Better education can lead to an improved perception of addiction and its problems, lending an ear to the addict and their freedom of choice. Humans must also rise out of the shadows of the moral oppressors and use the freedom of expression to take back the civil liberties society once held so dear. And the ultimate freedom, the freedom to survive, will be a right born into every citizen regardless of background. The Great Regulators of the future will pass laws based on science while providing safer alternatives to the expensive, violent and corrupted, valued-based system currently in use.
This is tomorrow—and I imagine that next week will look even better.
------------------------------------------------------
[1] Nolan, Hamilton. “Five Way Camel Cigarettes Are Good For You.” Gawker.com. 19 Jun. 2008. Gawker Media. 7 Dec. 2008
[2] Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937)
[3] “Schedules of Controlled Substances.” Title 21 U.S. Code, Sec. 812 Chapter 13. Subchapter I. Part B. Sec. 812
[4] R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. “Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes.” British Journal of Psychiatry 178 (2001): 123-128.
[5] Abrahamson, Daniel. “Request for Title and Summary from Propsed Initiative” 7 Dec. 2008
[6] E. Single. “The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: An Update.” Journal of Public Health 10 (1989): 456-466.
[7] D. Weatherburn and C. Jones. 2001. “Does prohibition deter cannabis use?” New South Wales (Australia) Bureau of Crime Statistics: Sydney.
[8] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, National Evaluation Data Services, The Cost and Benefits of Substance Abuse Treatment: Findings From the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study, August 1999.
[9] National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999. “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base.” National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 102.
[10] E. Single et al. “The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and the United States. “ Journal of Public Health Policy 21 (2000): 157-186.
[11] Z. Xiao. “Addiction & Treatment” Journal of Substance Use 13.6 (2008): 415-33
-
In a game played by money and greed, humans are merely pawns. The great regulators reign supreme, uneducated with guns at their sides, carelessly moving the pieces around the board, unaware of the chaos they create with every move. As the money pours in and the uncontested power charges their egos, society cracks and turns on itself, cannibalizing the freedoms they once could not live without. The oppressors view human culture as something to control, like a puppet at a show or a careless ship captain navigating iceberg-infested waters. “If not manipulated,” say the regulators, “humans will create an anarchist, immoral state and the Gods will surely hold us and the world responsible and wreck havoc on our souls”. The oppressors certainly know of an end and act in haste to sacrifice the evildoers to their Gods, in order to prove their allegiance and to set aside a place in the utopian afterlife. They have no concern of the present chaos, nor worry about the current fate of freedom.
Our history speaks of legality and morality not prevention or treatment. Marijuana has been used as far back as 3000BC, mostly in religious ceremonies but also for medicinal treatment of such ailments as glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, and influenza. The Virginia assembly in 1619 required every household to grow it and even some states allowed hemp to be used as legal tender. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp at their homes. Cocaine was also used for thousands of years as an aesthesia in dentistry, an ingredient in wine and in the original formula for Coca-Cola. Cocaine was also sold in neighborhood drugstores for five or ten cents. Nicotine was viewed as non-addictive, harmless and smoking was advertised as “good for digestion”[1]. The 1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act changed many drug laws, but even after that law was passed, it was still legal for registered companies and individuals.
As our ethical leaders became increasingly frightened by the influx of immigrants as well as the liberties gained by African-Americans, thus began the first “war on drugs” and they focused their attention squarely on marijuana. The so-called marijuana-induced “sex-crazed teenager” and the “violent” culture played a huge role in the creation of new laws, as the poorer society tends to lean on drugs more than the upper-class. FBI director J. Edward Hoover and certain lawmakers attributed all sinful acts of the youth to the effects of drugs and marijuana and wanted to purge the country of this “immoral behavior”. They dismissed treatment clinics as “barrooms for addicts” and said the only proper response to illegal drug use was to “jail offenders, then throw away the key”. Amid the prejudices, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937[2] criminalized marijuana for the first time. Businesses and casual smokers of previous years were lectured and sentenced to long prison terms. Our Great Regulators even dismissed a study in 1944 by the New York Academy of Medicine which concluded: “marijuana did not cause violent behavior, provoke insanity, lead to addiction, or promote opiate use”. But they could not deny the useful nature of the hemp plant, as showcased by the 1943 video “Hemp for Victory” created by the U.S. government during WWII, in which farmers were encouraged to grow hemp for the war effort. (Hemp was used in rope, cloth and other products). Hemp also outgrows most plants and thrives in almost any climate, it’s good for the environment, and was used as fuel, paper, fiber, and medicine. But after World War II and near the height of anti-communism furor in the 1950’s, The Boggs Act and our ethical leaders raised marijuana penalties to the same level as heroin.
The inconsistency of our laws did not stop with the Boggs Act. By 1962 in Louisiana, a simple drug possession conviction ranged from five to ninety-nine years in prison. In Missouri, a second drug offense could result in a life sentence. And in Georgia, a second conviction for selling marijuana to a minor could bring the death penalty. But in the late 1960s as marijuana usage grew within the white middle-class, there was a re-evaluation of laws that for decades had imprisoned poor immigrants and African Americans. In 1970, the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act set apart marijuana from other narcotics and reduced federal penalties for possession. In the same year, President Richard Nixon chose a bipartisan commission to study the health effects, legal status and social impact of marijuana. Two years later, the 1972 National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse arrived at a conclusion: “marijuana should be decriminalized under state and federal law. Possessing small amounts of marijuana in the home should no longer be a crime, growing or selling marijuana for profit, using it in public, or driving under the influence would remain strictly forbidden and society should strongly discourage marijuana use while devoting more resources to preventing and treating heavy use.” Led by these findings, eleven states decriminalized marijuana and most other states weakened their laws against it. But President Nixon rejected the findings and privately blamed “the Jews” for the new drug law reorganizations.
However, decriminalization was still supported in the late 1970’s by The American Medical Association, National Council of Churches, President Jimmy Carter and other lawmakers. The 1974 case of Ravin v. State of Alaska, led the Alaska Supreme Court to rule that “growing and smoking Cannabis was protected in home and yard by the State Constitution’s right to privacy”. But in the 1979 case National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Gain, which argued for the right to have marijuana in a private location such as a home, the California Supreme Court decided “not to guarantee adult Californians the privilege of smoking a possibly harmful drug, even in the privacy of their homes”. Less than twenty years later, a portion of the Violence against Women Act of 1994 was declared unconstitutional, “Because the federal government has no right to regulate a private act, such as rape, that is neither part of interstate commerce nor caused by state officials.” In other words, a citizen can send the police into their neighbor’s home to bust down the door and haul away the non-violent over-user under full protection of the law, but if the same neighbor was raped, police have no right to enter the premises. Even though the federal government and the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) approved decriminalization of marijuana, individual battles of consistency and equality raged on.
Only a few years after the DEA proposed decriminalization, an entirely new administration, led by Ronald Regan, called marijuana “the most urgent drug problem facing the U.S.” In 1982, President Reagan created a drug czar—Carton Turner, a chemist who disregarded any previous research, believed marijuana linked youth to anti-military, anti-nuclear power, anti-big business, and thought smoking it could turn young men into homosexuals. Under President Reagan, the U.S. started the second “war on drugs” by increasing federal penalties with three new acts: The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Anti-Drug Abuse Amendment of 1984 and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Marijuana was now (and still is) classified as a Schedule I drug, which requires the following findings[3]:
1. The drug or other substance has high potential for abuse.
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
President Regan considered marijuana as “the most dangerous drug in America” and placed it on the same level as heroin, LSD and peyote. Yet almost all previous scientific research suggested that marijuana is less addictive than heroin, cocaine, nicotine, alcohol and caffeine and can also be used in numerous medical treatments. Cocaine and PCP were (and still are) on a “lower” level, Schedule II, which allowed doctors to prescribe them to citizens. Once again drug use was depicted as a moral problem not a medical one.
President Bush Sr. continued Regan’s moral push and raised drug enforcement spending by 83 percent and under President Clinton, not to be outdone by the republicans, also increased federal spending on drug enforcement with little or no increase on prevention or treatment. Under Clinton, drug possession arrests hit a record high and jails became increasingly overcrowded. To ring in the new millennium, President Bush Jr., along with the USA Patriot Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, made drugs “more” illegal than ever before.
This—was yesterday.
We are conditioned to trust our moral regulators. But these leaders simply place their friends and others, sympathetic to their message, in power to create the laws for the “Great Moral Society” without consideration to science, research and other accepted studies. One such study by the accredited British Journal of Psychiatry states: "The Dutch experience, together with those of a few other countries with more modest policy changes, provides a moderately good empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug; the argument for decriminalization is thus strong."[4] But we again ignore clear information gained by observation, experience, science and experiment for the sensationalized rhetoric of the moral majority. Our leaders continue to spew their message of protectionism for the Great Society as noted in the complete blockade of scientific research due to marijuana’s drug classification.
Our “Great Moral Society” is one where four billion dollars a year of tax money is spent combating mostly addicts and non-violent criminals. An addict defined by the FDA is: “any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.” This is a good definition for someone who needs rehab, not a jail cell.
Alcoholics, for instance, go through an intense sobering process that requires the efforts of family, friends, the government and their community. But most of them endure this detoxification within the safety of loved ones, not near the violent criminals of the prison system. The treatment of alcoholism without jail time is viewed as normal in American society. Also with other addictions, like prescription drugs, no jail time is required for overuse. As a matter of fact, citizens can overuse alcohol, prescription drugs, food, nicotine, and sex and not receive one day of jail time as long as they stay within the boundaries of regulation. The mere use or overuse of a certain drug is not cause for imprisonment.
But the 400,000 police officers specifically assigned to the drug war, ensure that over-users and drugs possessors have a long stay behind bars. Federal law states: possession for any amount of cocaine is a felony, punishable by a year or longer in prison. In fact, most first time offenders of federal possession laws spend a minimum of one-to-three years in prison and in California, three possessions of cocaine (with similar chemical reactions of another psychoactive but legal drug, caffeine) can lead to a lifetime behind bars. Actually, caffeine has no regulations by the federal government at all and has no limits to the amount placed in soda, Excedrin, chocolate, coffee, tea, and so-called “energy drinks”. If caffeine could be snorted or injected directly into the blood stream and involve the same sensations of cocaine, would caffeine become illegal? Caffeine has proven to be as addictive as cocaine but for now, caffeine has no limits to its use and the 400,000 armed tormentors are ready for the next drug over-user to place into the revolving door of the prison system.
Marijuana laws are even worse with broad, inconsistent “deterrents” ranging from state to state. In New York State for instance, an ounce of marijuana brings a fine of $100, whereas the same amount in Louisiana could lead to twenty years-to-life. In Idaho, selling water pipes is nine years behind bars. In Kentucky, products made from hemp fibers are illegal. Certain counties in Ohio hand out a fine for the possession of three ounces of marijuana but a drive to Indiana one hour away can lead to three years in prison. Indiana laws are particularly inconsistent and offenses range from armed robbery at six years, rape at eight years, murder at twenty-five and selling marijuana—a life sentence (as in the case of Mark Young, a marijuana “activist”). Federal law also states that convicted murderers, rapists and child molesters can get welfare payments, but those with marijuana felonies cannot. Twenty states have laws that say: if a citizen is caught smoking marijuana, even in a private location like a home, can lead to a harsher punishment than being arrested for driving drunk. And in one of the most restrictive states, Oklahoma, any amount of marijuana including paraphernalia, is a mandatory one year behind bars, every subsequent offense is two-to-ten years and the sale of marijuana is two years-to-life behind bars. Lawmakers continue to make drugs “more” illegal everyday and the irregularity of past mistakes, with little attention to treatment, is still echoed today.
California’s recent proposition 5 stated: “California’s corrections system does not provide meaningful rehabilitation services to most inmates and parolees. Nonviolent offenders can languish for years behind bars without education, vocational training, or rehabilitation programs of any kind.”[5] So even though we house these non-violent criminals in prison, the system does not provide enough alternatives to their addiction besides jail time. Non-violent criminals get the same jail time as violent offenders and according to the laws, a casual user is no different than an addict. Very little rehabilitation is used; it’s currently a policy of: “It’s the users fault for doing it, so they must be punished and shoved into jail for treatment.” The ineffective laws of today that focus on possession need to change to protect the drug user from the drug dealer and to protect the addict from gaining a foothold in the underground of the American black market. A non-violent drug user is not the same as a brutal drug kingpin and the laws should be changed to reflect that.
Most of the non-violent addicts in prison gain an extraordinary study on how to truly become an elite drug user or worse: a drug dealer. This is good news for the addicts as about seventy-seven billion dollars a year is made in the illegal drug trade, most of which fuels terrorism and kingpins from foreign countries. Imagine what seventy-seven billion dollars and 400,000 workers could do to rebuild New Orleans or rid our country of foreign oil dependency. We believe more in the values of the moral majority and their message of global security with a heavenly afterlife than in society’s duty to listen and respond to rational science and practical research.
This—is today.
Organized crime runs the illegal drug culture, instead of what it should be: the taxpayer. California’s NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) estimates that the state could net some 1.5 to 2.5 billion dollars per year by legalizing marijuana for general adult use, as well as accumulate a savings of over 160 million in taxpayer dollars per year that is currently spent on arrests, prosecutions and imprisonment of drug users. As the Journal of Public Health stated in 1989 (counter to the message by the moral leaders of “abstinence” and prohibition): "The available evidence indicates that the decriminalization of marijuana possession had little or no impact on rates of use. On the other hand, the so-called 'decriminalization' measures did result in substantial savings in the criminal justice system."[6] Imagine that savings going back to the taxpayer.
The taxpayers should focus on treatment centers, twelve step programs, and prisons should focus on drug abuse management. "Fear of apprehension, fear of being imprisoned, the cost of cannabis or the difficulty in obtaining cannabis do not appear to exert a strong influence on decisions about cannabis consumption. ... Those factors may limit cannabis use among frequent cannabis users, but there is no evidence, as of yet, to support this conjecture."[7] Deterrents like long prison sentences do little to discourage drug users and these laws end up hurting the addict by using punishment as treatment. Rehabilitation and treatment centers actually saves society money as stated by the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES) from the Center from Substance Abuse Treatment[8], and every dollar spent on treatment saves society three dollars in crime-related costs, increased earnings and reduced health costs.
Society also needs a wake-up call that a world in which drugs are decriminalized does not mean a world full of drug addicts and pushers. A study by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine stated: "In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."[9] Another study by the Journal of Public Health states: "The available data indicate that decriminalization measures substantially reduced enforcement costs, yet had little or no impact on rates of use in the United States. In the South Australian community, none of the studies have found an impact in cannabis use which is attributable to the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Scheme [decriminalization.]"[10] And in the same spirit, Dr. Charles Schuster, head of the National Institute of Drug Abuse during the 1980s, said “To the best of my knowledge, no one has died because they’ve smoke too much marijuana.” According to a recent study published in the Journal of Substance Use, adolescent drug use is tied more to “sensation seeking”, rather than impulsive decision making[11]. Skydiving, which can cause similar euphoric sensations to certain illegal drugs, causes more deaths than marijuana, yet jumping out of a plane remains completely legal and we certainly do not live in a world overrun by skydivers.
Society tends to blame marijuana as well when addicts upgrade to harsher drugs. In fact, more cocaine users smoked cigarettes and drank alcohol before using cocaine than used marijuana, so the so-called "gateway" argument applies more to beer, whiskey and cigarettes than it does to marijuana. When marijuana usage increased in the 1960s and 1970s, heroin use declined rapidly and when cocaine use increased in the 1980s, marijuana use declined. There is no correlation between a cocaine user and a marijuana user; they are like wine drinkers versus beer drinkers, but our society continues to trust their moral leaders over statistics and data.
Addiction to any drug is a very serious issue which should not be taken lightly but it shouldn’t be treated as an immoral choice that only elicits jail time. Problematic drug use should be dealt with like any other addiction—with treatment. We should not spend billions of dollars on prisons to simply accommodate addicts. Governmental licensing practices and regulations used currently for alcohol and prescription drugs should be used on narcotics as well. Alcohol has many regulations: the legal age to drink is 21, citizens cannot drive while drunk, citizens cannot be in public places while intoxicated and citizens cannot operate heavy machinery, to name a few. To sell alcohol, a business must meet certain preconditions before applying for a license and must renew their license every year to ensure compliance with any new regulations. Prescription drugs have similar regulations and so do cigarettes. The “legalize-it” portion of the world will also be faced with the sad truth that drugs are addictive and harmful when overused, but the fight is not legality—the fight is regulation.
The ultimate goal of the Great Regulators should not be on personal economic gains or other egotistical, selfish possessions but equality for all humans. The freedom to posses will guide humanity towards a safer, more humane world, not one led by confinement and punishment. Better education can lead to an improved perception of addiction and its problems, lending an ear to the addict and their freedom of choice. Humans must also rise out of the shadows of the moral oppressors and use the freedom of expression to take back the civil liberties society once held so dear. And the ultimate freedom, the freedom to survive, will be a right born into every citizen regardless of background. The Great Regulators of the future will pass laws based on science while providing safer alternatives to the expensive, violent and corrupted, valued-based system currently in use.
This is tomorrow—and I imagine that next week will look even better.
------------------------------------------------------
[1] Nolan, Hamilton. “Five Way Camel Cigarettes Are Good For You.” Gawker.com. 19 Jun. 2008. Gawker Media. 7 Dec. 2008
[2] Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937)
[3] “Schedules of Controlled Substances.” Title 21 U.S. Code, Sec. 812 Chapter 13. Subchapter I. Part B. Sec. 812
[4] R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. “Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes.” British Journal of Psychiatry 178 (2001): 123-128.
[5] Abrahamson, Daniel. “Request for Title and Summary from Propsed Initiative” 7 Dec. 2008
[6] E. Single. “The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: An Update.” Journal of Public Health 10 (1989): 456-466.
[7] D. Weatherburn and C. Jones. 2001. “Does prohibition deter cannabis use?” New South Wales (Australia) Bureau of Crime Statistics: Sydney.
[8] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, National Evaluation Data Services, The Cost and Benefits of Substance Abuse Treatment: Findings From the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study, August 1999.
[9] National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999. “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base.” National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 102.
[10] E. Single et al. “The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and the United States. “ Journal of Public Health Policy 21 (2000): 157-186.
[11] Z. Xiao. “Addiction & Treatment” Journal of Substance Use 13.6 (2008): 415-33
-
Why oh why do we blame the regulators for the bad behavior of individuals. Whether one likes it or not, marijuana is illegal.
ReplyDeleteSpitting on the sidewalk is illegal in some states and communities. In light of the current flu epidemic, one can understand why that disgusting habit is outlawed.
Using a cellphone and texting while driving a vehicle in California is illegal -- because its a harmful practice, causing untold deaths and injuries in this State.
The laws are there, because we as a community, as a state, as a nation agree that well... , "there oughtta be a law".
While I see the point of the article, it still does not exhonorate those who are currently breaking the drug laws. And I find it absurd that because people decide to break these particular drug laws and that organized crime is involved that we should then eliminate the law???
How about NO LAWS - because that is the logical outcome of this line of thinking. No laws = the maximum amount of personal freedom.
Why oh why do we blame the regulators for the bad behavior of individuals. Whether one likes it or not, marijuana is illegal. I blame the government when they lie and deceive the American public. When the heads of our government say: "marijuana causes homosexuality and marijuana causes unpatriotic fervor" -- To me, they might has well say "masturbation causes blindness" -- All they are doing is trying to trick the American people to believe a certain act is immoral with no basis (except religion) for it's immorality. For years scientific research has been ignored by our government that clearly states marijuana is no different that alcohol and should be regulated as such.
ReplyDeleteAnd if we are so scared that we can get the swine flu from spit on a sidewalk, we'll that kinda proves my point about what messages the government relays to us.
Using a cellphone and texting while driving a vehicle in California is illegal -- because its a harmful practice, causing untold deaths and injuries in this State.Yes. And so is drunk driving and driving under the influence. Those regulations would not change. Texting is not illegal, it’s just regulated… and so is alcohol and marijuana should be as well.
"there oughtta be a law". I agree. And I hope more people will speak out like I have here and try to get the laws changed. But until that happens, people should follow whatever law is current.
“No laws = the maximum amount of personal freedom.” I’m not sure if you read the piece thoroughly enough, but never has “no laws” been the answer. If you read the last few paragraphs it mentions laws similar to alcohol. And the whole point of regulations is to protect citizens from harm by other citizens.
The point of the piece says: if alcohol, cigarettes, porn, skydiving, guns and sex can remain LEGAL, but highly regulated, why not marijuana?
...can we just regulate overly baggy pants? Those just bug the hell outta me...
ReplyDelete