War On a Country Builder

Introduction

            The United States is a free country. This means that the people are free to do as they please so long as what they do does not infringe upon the rights of another citizen. This means that the people of the United States have certain rights that are not granted, but protected by the United States Constitution. The freedom of speech; a right many take for granted and invoke for many reasons. The right to keep and bare arms; another right protected by the U.S. Constitution. The right to practice what ever religious beliefs the individual citizen chooses, and the right to not be subjected to laws based in any religion. These and many other rights are in constant battle with policy makers and each other; the people always seeking a balance between their rights and the rights of others. In some the balance is not there, in others some may argue too much freedom is granted.

            One right not mentioned with any specificity is the right to do with and to our bodies what ever we choose. This has caused a lot of debate and controversy. The woman's right to have an abortion hears the pro choice side saying that they have the right to do with their own bodies as they choose. Prostitution, the "oldest profession in the world," also sees arguments that are similar, being touted as a victimless crime. These issues have been and still are in constant debate and controversy, with the federal government taking a neutral stance, allowing individual states to make their own laws. One action, drug use, is not considered by the federal government to be up to the states. Federal drug laws are enforced, regardless of state policies. One drug has created a prison population that is over flowing with otherwise law abiding citizens; productive in every day life, able to keep jobs, take care of children, and get along with other people in a shared community. This drug, not even a narcotic by definition, once a backbone of American industry, made illegal for nefarious reasons, never credibly linked with any illness or side effect, and kept illegal through rhetoric and logical fallacy is marijuana.

Part 1: History of Marijuana

            In the United States today, there are many laws surrounding drugs, criminal laws that lead to the arrest of thousands of individual citizens every year. Citizens who sell, who use, who are addicted to different drugs, illegal and otherwise. None of these laws have worked to lower drug addiction, drug sales, drug use, or fulfilled any touted purpose for that law. The most effective law, written in 1906, is not even a criminal law, but lead to the most significant lowering of drug addiction in US history; the Pure Food and Drug Act (Whitebread, 1995). This law created the Food and Drug Administration, made certain drugs available only through prescription, and required habit forming drugs to have a warning on the label of the potential for addiction. The first criminal law in regards to drugs was the Harrison Act, written in 1914, which covered "only opium, morphine and it various derivatives, and derivatives of the coca life..." (Whitebread, 1995). The Harrison Act did not criminalize the use or even sales of these drugs, but regulated them to nothing more then a tax. So those who were in violation of the law were not because of possession or use, but were charged with tax evasion when they did not pay the very high taxes required by congress for each transaction. Doctor's enjoyed a minimal tax to pay each year in order to prescribe the drugs, while citizens were required to pay a ridiculous amount per transaction that a doctor's prescription was not involved in.

            The first law to criminalize marijuana was a Utah state law. The law itself was passed to respect the states dominant religion, Mormonism. The Mormon church hit some rough patches that made some members who wanted to practice their religion in more traditional fashion, where the men were allowed more then one wife, left the country for northern Mexico. After failing to convert the populace there, some went back to Utah and brought marijuana with them. The church soon said marijuana use violated their doctrine, and the state soon passed laws in direct respect to that doctrine (Whitebread, 1995). What followed were 26 other states, the southwest region criminalizing marijuana for the simple reason that Mexican immigrants smoked it and were seen as lesser people. In the northeast, some states passed laws as a preeminent measure out of fear of it being used to substitute what was illegal at the time by those addicted to the illegal drugs and alcohol. All 27 states criminalized marijuana between 1915 and 1937.

            In 1937 the Marihuana Tax Act was passed and signed into law by President Roosevelt. The one motivation of this act was to prohibit the growth of hemp in America. What led to it is a short story of obvious ulterior motives, ignoring quality information, and plain and simple lying. First, the hearing at congress, the first step to passing a law, was very short, having only three bodies of testimony (Whitebread, 1995).  The first testimony was given by the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger. He said, "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." The second body of testimony came from industry, the first of this testimony was given by someone within the rope industry. They were involved because hemp was grown in the United States for the production of rope. He said that hemp would be cheaper to import from the far east then to grow locally. The paint and varnish people said they could use something else. The birdseed people opposed the act, but then were made exempt from it so they could still use denatured marijuana seeds to produce bird feed. Finally came the medical testimony, given from two sources. The first was a pharmacologist at Temple University who claimed to have injected into the brains of 300 dogs the active ingredient of marijuana and that two of the dogs died. When asked if the dogs were chosen because of the similarities of their reactions to that of humans, the pharmacologist responded, "I wouldn't know, I am not a dog psychologist."

            The second medical testimony was given by Dr. William C. Woodward, who was both a lawyer and a doctor. Dr. Woodward was also the Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. His testimony was as follows, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug" (Whitebread, 1995). Immediately following this, one congressman said to him, "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?" Another congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you." Despite the objections of the American Medical Association, the bill was passed out of committee on to the floor of Congress. When the Republicans asked the speaker what the bill was about, he told them he did not know, it has something to do with a thing called marihuana, and that he thought it was a narcotic of some kind. When the Republicans asked if the American Medical Association supported the bill, a member of the committee who supported the bill stood up, remember the doctor's name was Woodward, and said, "Their doctor Wentworth came down here. They support the bill 100 percent." That was good enough for the Republicans. The bill was passed and signed into law by President Roosevelt.

            What followed was a circus of murder trials where defense claimed not guilty by reason of marijuana induced insanity. In one case, the same pharmacologist who tested on dogs was called in as an expert witness and claimed he had used the drug on himself and was turned into a bat. In all the cases where this defense was used, the defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Anslinger, who had disgraced himself earlier by wanting to round up jazz musicians for using the drug, wrote to that pharmacologist telling him that if he did not stop testifying he would no longer be the FBN's expert. No more cases occurred where that defense was used. In 1951 the Boggs Act was passed. After medical experts had once again contradicted Anslinger's claims, and Anslinger himself said that his original claims were not accurate, but that marijuana use leads to the use and addiction to heavier drugs, the Boggs Act was passed to increase the severity of punishments across the board in drug violations. In 1956, the Daniels Act was passed, which once again created even harsher punishments for drug violations. In 1969 the Dangerous Substances Act was passed, altering the way we punish drug violations, including making certain ones less harsh for the first time in US history, as well as classifying every drug we know of, except of course for tobacco and alcohol, into two categories; what is the drugs medical use and what is its potential for abuse? This is how the United States regulates drugs today. Never having seriously readdressed marijuana without industry bias.

Part 2: Marijuana Today

            By definition, a narcotic is a drug that puts an individual to sleep (Whitebread, 1995).  This leads to the conclusion that most drugs used for recreational purposes are not in fact narcotics. This would include marijuana. Legal professionals still refer to the drugs for which they arrest people as narcotics, whether this is done as a simple misnomer or for a more nefarious reason is unknown and quite moot other then to set the stage for drug laws today. Today they are as they were in 1969, with various degrees for which a person can be charged, from simple possession to distribution, and what constitutes each charge in individual cases.

Part 3: Marijuana Fact vs. Fallacy

            The most likely danger of marijuana use would be damage to the lungs. Smoking marijuana is as it sounds, the inhalation of smoke produced from burning it, usually in a cigarette or from a pipe. While the inhalation of smoke is dangerous regardless of what is burning, the effort here is to contrast it with the legal use of tobacco. Tobacco use has been linked with many diseases, most being forms of cancer. One noncancerous disease that effects most smokers is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Tan et al., 2009). A study conducted in Canada lead to findings that concluded that tobacco smoking and marijuana smoking is synergistic as they relate to the development of COPD. Meaning that they are more likely to work together then separate in creating the illness. However, the findings also suggest that tobacco smoking without smoking marijuana increased the risk as well. There was not enough information and the study was not big enough to reach any conclusions on those who smoke marijuana only. What all this suggests is that marijuana smoking is at most, no more dangerous then cigarette smoking and that it is most likely not as dangerous because the tobacco only smokers developed COPD at nearly the same rate as those who smoked both tobacco and marijuana.

            The long term mental effects of marijuana use, and the rhetoric that went with Anslinger's assumptions have long been proven false. Yet still today, the rhetoric is being pushed as facts. For example, John Walters, the director of the White House of National Drug Control Policy made the same claims that ruined Anslinger's career as the head of a very similar office, the FBN.  He sited, "studies long ago," which could lead to the reasonable conclusion that he is referring to Anslinger's own propaganda (Walters, 2005). Walters makes the same claims in his USA Today article that Anslinger made, saying marijuana use can lead to dependency, mental illness, and a public health threat. He also sites more recent studies and the conclusions that were derived from those. Psychology experts and doctors looked at some of these studies from a different perspective, one that might be a little less bias and goal oriented then the ones Walters mentions. It is also important to note that the alternative conclusions are never mentioned by Walters, begging the question of whether or not the Bush administration office holder had a different goal in mind then finding the truth.

            When the studies were reexamined, they found that those who at younger ages had non-psychotic psychiatric disorders had increased risk of developing schizophrenia, the mental disorder most associated by others to have been caused by marijuana use. The alternative explanation finders also studied the use of marijuana by those with the non-psychotic disorders and found they are more likely to use marijuana then those who do not have any disorders; "These data raise the possibility that future schizophrenia patients have Increased rates of premorbid behavioral disturbances and psychiatric diagnoses, and these, In turn, are associated with Increased rates of cannabis use" (Weiser & Noy, 2005). When looking at the history of government officials spurning marijuana use, combined with these alternative explanations, one can easily figure out whose findings are more likely accurate to the truth and whose findings show bias.

Part 4: Policing and Policy

            The most rampant problem with policing and policing policy as it relates to marijuana is the significant disparities in race. Minorities are the most arrested individuals in the US for marijuana violations, and marijuana violations lead the drug arrests in the US. New York city has gone through many phases on how they police marijuana from arresting and detaining, to arresting, gathering information, then releasing, all phases included a criminal record being written (Johnson, Golub, Dunlap, & Sifaneck, 2008). Possible alternatives, such as warn and destroy, a policy of having the offender destroy the marijuana on site without creating a criminal record and warning against future occurrences has not been tried. Policing policy tends to go along the line of if it is not working, it is not tough enough on the crime. This was displayed in the various laws that have been passed concerning drugs by congress as well as NYC's various ways of policing drug related offences. The option of decriminalizing has never been seriously considered.

Conclusion

            Marijuana and hemp have been a part of American culture since there has been a United States of America. During World War II the growth of Hemp was mandated to help cover the needs of the US military, just a few years after it was suggested the US would not need to grow it (Whitebread, 2005). Those who opposed the decriminalization of marijuana and hemp have sited various studies, most of which have lead to debatable conclusions or even simply lied about the effects of marijuana. This warrants the question of why would the government seek to misinform the public about why marijuana is illegal to the extent of creating fear? To this author, only one answer makes sense; the truth behind the laws are based in corporate and industry profit margins not in public health concerns.

            A substance that helped build the United States, hemp, was made illegal because of religious dogma, racism, and irrational fear. It is kept illegal because industry leaders fear the impact such an easily grown, cultivated, and processed plant would have on their industry. Nothing but rhetoric, logical fallacy, and propaganda keeps the people from realizing the truth behind the unjust laws. The majority in America does not feel the impact as much as minorities do so there is little reason for them to seek change.

 

 

 

References

Collica, K. & Furst, G. (2012). Crime and society. San Diego: Bridgepoint Education

Johnson, B. D., Golub, A., Dunlap, E., & Sifaneck, S. J. (2008). An analysis of alternatives to new york city's current marijuana arrest and detention policy. Policing, 31(2), 226-250. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639510810878703

Tan, W. C., M.B., Lo, C., Jong, A., Xing, L., FitzGerald, M. J., M.B., Vollmer, W. M., PhD., . . . Sin, Don D,M.D., M.P.H. (2009). Marijuana and chronic obstructive lung disease: A population-based study. Canadian Medical Association.Journal, 180(8), 814-20. Retrieved December 17, 2012 from ProQuest.

Walters, J. (2005, May 18). Marijuana policy just right. USA TODAY. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/408982661?accountid=32521

Weiser, M. & Noy, S. (2005, March). Interpretting the association between cannabis use and increased risk of schizophrenia. Dialogues clin neurosci; (7)1: 81-85 Retrieved December 17, 2012 from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181719/

Whitebread, C. (1995). The history of the non-medical use of drugs in the United States. Retrieved December 13, 2012 from; http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm