Defying Reason: The Prohibition of Marijuana (Part 1/3)

This will be the first of a three part look into marijuana policy in the United States. As I have made my way in the world as a young adult, especially in my experiences at college, I have interacted with heavy and casual marijuana users. I was initially surprised when I noticed a pattern developing in conversation with these people: they suffer little or no adverse physical affects from smoking, do not consider themselves addicted to it, and consider the use of alcohol and tobacco to be more dangerous to their health. My first reaction was to dismiss this as "pot-heads" rationalizing their use of illicit drugs. Marijuana, after all, is illegal in all its forms in the United States, with the exception of those few states that have decriminalized its medicinal use as prescribed by a physician. The illegality of cannabis and its stigmatization in the public eye had lead me to assume, to this point in my life, that it is a dangerous drug to public health that should remain steadfastly prohibited. As I have looked into the subject more deeply, however, I have come to believe that the prohibition of marijuana is one of the most illogical domestic policies currently active in the United States.

What reason does the government have for actively prohibiting the use of drugs? Clearly the first answer would be in the interest of public health and safety. This case is easily made for drugs of abuse such as LSD, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, PCP, etc. These are substances that carry serious short and long term health consequences. All of them carry great risk for overdose leading to death, and in the case of heroin, cocaine, and similar drugs, there is a risk of physical dependence and addiction. As a Libertarian I have philosophical objections to prohibiting free citizens from doing anything in the privacy of their own home, but I do not deny the practicality of prohibiting drugs of this sort. The problem, however, is that none of these dangerous characteristics can be attributed to cannabis.

In reaction to a more open attitude toward cannabis in the 1960s, President Nixon in 1972 started the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, expecting its findings to support the long standing prohibition of the drug. The Commission's report, however, drew some damning conclusions for U.S. marijuana policy:

"Marijuana's relative potential for harm for the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it. This judgment is based on prevalent use patterns, on behavior exhibited by the vast majority of users and on our interpretations of existing medical and scientific data. This position is also consistent with the estimate by law enforcement personnel that the elimination of use is unattainable."

Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, 1972.

The Nixon Administration promptly swept the Commission's findings under the rug, and no federal policy changes were made as a result. Sixteen years later, there was still no credible evidence that smoking marijuana poses imminent health risks, as the Drug Enforcement Administration's Law Judge, Francis Young, concluded:

"In strict medical terms, marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating ten raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."

U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, 1988.

So, unlike almost all other illicit drugs, there is no known lethal dosage of cannabis. This in and of itself should be an indictment of public policy toward marijuana. However, studies have also concluded that cannabis has no physically addictive properties. In fact, less than 1% of Americans use cannabis on a daily basis (United States Department of Health and Services, 2002). Also differing from most other illegal drugs, cannabis has little or no adverse effects on a developing fetus (Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education). As far as its long term effects, marijuana smoke does contain some irritants and carcinogens that can be damaging to the lungs with heavy use, however the lack of dependence on cannabis results in more moderate use that does little cumulative long-term damage. Furthermore, studies measuring cognitive impairment and brain deterioration have failed to identify marijuana as a cause of these effects (Ali, S.F., et al. "Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior").

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the determination that the use of cannabis, especially responsible moderate use, has no debilitating or dangerous physical or cognitive effects, long-term or otherwise. There is no lethal dose, there is no risk for physical dependence, and the long-term effects are minimal outside of daily and excessive use. It is reasonable to conclude, upon some research into reputable sources, that cannabis should be decriminalized on its own merits. Where the prohibition of cannabis really becomes absurd is when it is compared to other, legal, substances. Concerns about the health of American citizens are red herrings in this debate, as the legality of alcohol and cigarettes attests. The fact that people are being thrown in jail for nonviolent marijuana offenses, while alcohol remains a staple commodity, is a travesty almost beyond description. By any standard one wishes to apply, alcohol is the more dangerous substance. Its lethal dose is rather easily achieved, and its role in causing car accidents is beyond dispute. Alcohol's tendency to relieve people of their inhibitions leads to violence, unplanned pregnancy, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, and spousal abuse. Alcohol is well known to be addictive, and its prolonged use can result in devastating neurological impairments, liver cancer, heart disease, hypertension, liver cirrhosis, prostate cancer, stroke, and even breast cancer (Center for Disease Control, 2001). The consumption of alcohol by pregnant women is known to be extremely toxic to a developing fetus, resulting in fetal alcohol syndrome, premature birth, low birth weight, and growth retardation. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) alcohol use directly resulted in the known deaths of 75,766 people in the U.S. alone in 2001, a number that only increases with each passing year.

Nicotine and cigarettes also do not hold up in comparison to marijuana. Countless scientific studies attest to the highly addictive properties of nicotine, resulting in its physical dependence. According to the CDC, in 2004 81.3% of smokers smoked daily, and of these, 28.4% smoked 5-14 cigarettes per day (http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5444a2.htm). The consequences of this behavior is well-documented. The CDC estimates that about 438,000 people die each year from smoking tobacco. Cigarettes are attributed to lung cancer, heart disease, arterial diseases, emphysema, chronic airway obstruction, lip and esophagus cancers, stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, cervical cancer, and leukemia, also according to the CDC. In fact, adverse reactions and misuse of over the counter drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen, account for an estimated 7,600 deaths and 76,000 hospitalizations in the United States each year. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that since 1995, vending machines have killed 37 people in the United States, and resulted in 113 hospitalized injuries. The CPSC now requires vending machine manufacturers to provide warning labels for all public machines. Marijuana kills no one. It seems that almost everything human beings do; driving cars, flying in airplanes, cooking, walking down the steps, playing golf, is more dangerous than smoking marijuana in the privacy of one's own home.

Where does all of this leave us in regard to marijuana laws in the United States?  On the federal level, marijuana remains a "Schedule 1" drug, a category reserved for highly addictive, dangerous drugs with no approved medical use.  By contrast, cocaine and some amphetamines are "Schedule 2" drugs, which are legal under certain conditions and are stringently regulated. To this day, people are still recieving life sentences, without the possibility of parole, for growing, selling, distributing, buying and possessing certain quantities of what is, in fact, a natural occurring plant. Cancer patients and paraplegics have been sentenced to years in prison for using marijuana in a medicinal context (a practice which has significant support among many doctors and researchers). Owners of garden supply stores have been given similar sentences because their customers were caught growing marijuana. Are there no bounds to the irrationality that can dictate our laws and the way in which we govern ourselves? The fact that we have allowed policies of this sort to continue for almost a 100 years borders on collective masochism. The government, nor anyone else for that matter, has any legitimate right to dictate what I will and won't do that does not infringe on the civil liberties of other people, especially in the case of marijuana, which has no discernible health risks that call for its prohibition.

Part 2 of this 3 part piece on U.S. marijuana legislation will focus on the common myths associated with cannabis. Part 3 will center around the economic consequences of our marijuana laws.

Sources:

From the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5444a2.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm

From the CPSC:

http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/PRHTML96/96011.html

From the American College of Physicians:

http://www.acponline.org/

Other sources were cited directly in-text.