situation is not true in the Netherlands, where marijuana is legally available.
The Netherlands provide a wonderful example of successful legalization. The
Dutch are obviously doing something right, because marijuana use is almost twice as
high in the United States as it is in the Netherlands (Jameson Interview). The national
average of drug use in the Netherlands is 15.6%, compared to 32.9% in the United States,
as of 1997 (?Final Report of Dutch??). Hemp is easily obtainable in Dutch coffee
shops. As a result the prices are not so high, the way they are on the American black
market. Low prices discourage crime, as users are not reduced to crime to get enough
money just to pay for drugs (Potter Interview). In the United States, prohibition allows
dealers to charge greatly inflated prices, thus causing users to turn to crime (Jameson
Interview). Another successful tactic employed in Holland is the separation of markets.
Marijuana is kept away from other, more dangerous drugs, and many coffee shops strictly
serve marijuana (Potter Interview). In a study on Dutch drug use, 910 of 945, or 96%,
said they bough cannabis in coffee shops, while the other 35 refer to other drugs. The
goal in the United States should be to do the same, take marijuana out of the black
market. Instead, the policy is to throw everything illegal together, thus marijuana serves
as the ?gateway? drug. Those looking for marijuana will come into contact with other,
?harder? drugs. This is caused by marijuana prohibition, because by separating markets,
the Dutch have effectively prevented marijuana from being the gateway drug (?Final
Report on Dutch??). Through the Netherlands one can see how the legalization of
marijuana can be more effective at accomplishing the goals of prohibition than
prohibition itself.
The legalization of marijuana would be a positive step for the United States, in
that it would provide medical benefits, decrease government expenditures, reduce crime,
and the fact remains that the entire drug war has been a failure. Prohibition has not been
successful in significantly reducing use since its introduction in 1937 (Jameson
Interview). Marijuana is still consumed in large quantities in the United States, and is
only beaten by alcohol and tobacco (?Still Crazy??). If one looks at the success of
Holland, one can see that if the government?s goals were sincere, then legalization would
be a much better path than prohibition. The thought remains that the government?s goals
are not, in fact, sincere, for they continue to vehemently pursue prohibition. When
marijuana prohibition is compared to the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s, drug dealers
take on the same role as the Mafia; marijuana cultivators become ?modern-day
moonshiners (qtd. in Stepzinski). The violent crime associated with the Prohibition was
far more harmful than the alcohol itself. The government obviously decided that
prohibition of alcohol was a mistake and that it should never be done again; however, it
continues with marijuana. The other example is tobacco. Scientists have known of the
adverse effects of smoking tobacco for years, however, cigarettes have yet to be banned.
As of yet, the government has found that education appears to be the best way to prevent
use, not prohibition. One may ask then, why is the same not done for marijuana?
One more thought to leave you with is, that for dealing drugs you can get four
years in a state prison, and for rape you can get as little as one year.
Primary Sources:
All the people I meet on-line that gave me all the research for this project.
Interview: Jameson, Dr. Daniel Ph.D. Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan. E-mail Interview. 20 Mar. 2000.
Interview: Peters, Michael. Recreational marijuana user. New York, New York. E-mail Interview. 19 Mar. 2000.
Potter, Jonathan. Utrecht resident, occasional marijuana user. Utrecht, Netherlands. E-mail Interview. 19 Mar. 2000.
Thompson, Dr. James M.D. Ph.D. Professor of Anatomy, University of Austin. Austin Texas. E-mail Interview. 17 Mar. 2000.
Secondary Sources
Armentano, Paul. ?NORML Statement on the Medical use of Marijuana.? NORML. 12 Mar. 2000. .
Cypress Hill. ?Dr. Greenthumb.? Cypress Hill IV. Track 13. Sony Music. 6 Oct. 1998.
Hodson, Sandy. ?Quadriplegic Faces Additional Charge.? Augusta Chronicle. 23 Feb. 2000.
Moench, Doug. The Big Book of Conspiracies. New York: Paradox Press, 1995.
Stepzinski, Teresa. ?Illegal Crop Can Mean Big Money for Poor Farmers.? Florida Times-Union. 14 Feb. 2000.
?Background.? NORML. 12 Feb. 2000. .
Federal Bureau of Investigation Unifrom Crime Reports, Crime in the United States: 1996. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997. 14 Mar. 2000. .
Federal Bureau of Investigation Unifrom Crime Reports, Crime in the United States: 1997. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998. 14 Mar. 2000. .
Federal Bureau of Investigation Unifrom Crime Reports, Crime in the United States: 1998. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999. 14 Mar. 2000. .
?Final Report of Dutch National Drug Use Will Require New Lies From the Drug Czar.? MarijuanaNews. 28 Feb. 2000. .
?Legalize Marijuana and Reduce Use?? Marijuana News. 28 Feb. 2000. .
?Statement of Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council, American Medical Association.? Taxation of Marihuana. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means. 4 May 1937. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 14 Mar. 2000. .
?Still Crazy After All These Years.? NORML. 12 Feb. 2000. .