formation of DNA, RNA, and proteins – which are the building blocks of cells. Other studies indicate, however, no chromosomal damage, even when THC was added to the lymphocytes in vitro. [2] [3]
Marijuana harbors more carcinogens than tobacco smoke, and also presents a greater potential for lung disease than tobacco – per cigarette/ “joint” – because it is smoked unfiltered, is inhaled more deeply, and is usually held in the lungs longer. It should be noted, however, that in general marijuana
would not be smoked as frequently or in the same quantity as cigarettes normally would be, among habitual users of either.
Marijuana crosses the placental barrier, and may have a toxic effect on embryos and fetuses. It should therefore be avoided by pregnant women. Following radiolabeled cannabinoid administration, the placenta contained more than anywhere else in the subject’s body. [3]
It should be noted that during my course of research, I could not find reference to one single documented instance of death related solely to marijuana use. Conversely, almost three times as many people die each year from alcohol-related diseases than lost their lives in the entire Vietnam War. This figure represents over 150,000 per year. In addition, alcohol is involved in 50% of all highway deaths and 65% of all murders.
However, it is believed that heavy marijuana use can lead to amotivational syndrome. The user loses interest in almost everything except using more and more pot. Some studies have found that over one-third of all accident victims have been found to have marijuana in their blood, while others have indicated that “marijuana users have the same or lower incidence of murders and highway deaths and accidents than the general non-marijuana using population as a whole.” [4] [5]
[1] Keep Off The Grass [2] Marijuana: Time For A Closer Look [3] Marijuana,
Tobacco, Alcohol and Reproduction [4] Focus On Marijuana
[5] The Emperor Wears No Clothes
DEPENDENCE:
Tolerance – the need to take more and more over a period of time in order to achieve the original effect – has been demonstrated in both humans and animals. Physical dependence has been demonstrated in subjects who ingested an amount of marijuana equaling 10-20 joints per day. When discontinued, subjects experienced various withdrawal symptoms – loss of appetite, weight
loss, sleep disturbances, irritability, sweating and stomach upset.
Users often take extraordinary measures, sometimes harmful, to continue using drugs. However this has not been unarguably proven in the case of occasional marijuana use. With other drugs, users will often drop out of school, steal, leave their families, go to jail, and lose their jobs in order to keep using their drug. If forced to quit using, they will undergo painful physical or mental distress. Again, in the case of marijuana, this has not been adequately proven. Thus, the argument has developed from the occasional, recreational user, that it is unjust to have drugs as harmful as alcohol and tobacco have been proven to be, legal to purchase for adult Americans, while at the same time continuing to keep marijuana illegal, by keeping it grouped within the same classification as the much more dangerous narcotics.
MARIJUANA AND THE LAW:
The use of marijuana in the United States initially became a matter of public concern in the 1930’s. Regulatory laws were passed and criminal penalties were instituted for possession or sale of the botanical drug in 1937.
By far, one of the strongest advocates for marijuana criminalization was Harry Anslinger. He wrote many extremist anti-marijuana articles and had many gory photos of ax murder victims and the like, published for all America to see that these were the things which marijuana caused people to do under its influence.
As Secretary of the Federal Narcotics Control Board’s Prohibition Unit, Anslinger had looked somewhat into the cannabis problem. He became the first Commissioner of the Bureau of Narcotics in 1930, an appointment which some commentators feel was made through connections to his uncle-in-law, Andrew Mellon, the Secretary of Treasury and Anslinger’s immediate superior. [1]
Anslinger passed the original hempball, but newspapers all over the country began damning marijuana, as well. William Randolph Hearst’s newspapers played a large role, perhaps the most vital, in disseminating much of this adverse propaganda. They finally succeeded, in 1937, in getting marijuana prohibition laws passed. [1]
However, American soldiers were regularly smoking marijuana in the Panama Canal Zone in 1925, and a report issued at that time by the Army stated that no action should be taken to prevent its use or sale. It went on to state that the drug was not habit-forming or dangerous. These findings were reaffirmed eight years later, in a second United States Army report. [2]
Throughout the 1980’s, marijuana use declined among college and high school students. Conversely, marijuana cultivation has been on the rise in America in recent years. New growing practices have increased the potency by five fold or more. It’s a matter of concern among drug abuse experts as to how these higher doses of THC might adversely affect users.
[1] Reefer Madness [2] The Encyclopedia Of Psychoactive Drugs: Marijuana
In the sample year of 1990, out of all drug arrests within the United States, 6.1% of those arrests involved the sale of marijuana, and 23.9% involved its possession. Here, in the Northeast, a total of 4.7% of all drug arrests were for the sale of marijuana, and 21.4% were for the possession of it. This represents the lowest figure in the nation for distribution, and only the West ranked lower in arrests for possession. [1]
In 1968, the possession of THC, other than for research, was made illegal. Then, in 1970, the US Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, after which most states followed suit with their own variation of the Act’s contents. The Control Substances Act, as it is also known, distinguishes between different classifications of drugs. Mostly, these categories are based upon the drugs’ potential for abuse and their potential for medical use. Drugs which have a supposedly high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use are grouped together as Schedule 1 drugs. Said drugs may be used legally only in a federally-approved scientific research experiment. Drugs grouped into this category currently include marijuana, heroin, and LSD and the other hallucinogens. These drugs are tightly controlled by state laws, and the sale of them can result in a maximum prison sentence of up to 15 years and a $25,000 fine. [2] [3]
At this same time, in 1970, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (or, NORML) was founded, with the express purpose of lobbying for the decriminalization of marijuana, the destruction of criminal records of marijuana law offenders, the recognition of the medical uses of marijuana, and for research on the effects of marijuana on persons of childbearing age. It should be noted that NORML is against the irresponsible use of marijuana or any other drug. [3]
Ironically, in 1972, President Nixon’s National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse recommended the decriminalization of marijuana in its report, entitled: “Marijuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding.” [3]
In spite of law enforcement efforts, the demand for illegal drugs remains high. As an example, the number of arrests on marijuana charges alone for the period between 1970 and 1977, in the United States, more than doubled, from 188,000 to 457,000. Critics argue that we shouldn’t be cluttering up our jails and prisons, nor using the exorbitant amount of taxpayer money necessary to support those incarcerated, for such a trivial abuse. For this same period, arrest did not appear to deter marijuana use, because the number of people who had tried marijuana also doubled for most age categories.
President Reagan’s Commission on Organized Crime recommended, in 1986, that all US companies begin routine testing of their employees for drug use. Liberal critics are up in arms about this, mostly because it violates the 4th Amendment (unreasonable search), but secondly because the tests are not
completely accurate or reliable. Critics also assert that drugs can stay in the body for literally weeks, and that it is an invasion of privacy also, to judge what types of behavior an employee can or cannot engage in during their free time.
[1] World Almanac and Book of Facts: 1992 [2] Academic American Encyclopedia
[3] The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Drugs: Marijuana
RE-LEGALIZATION:
Aside from some of the situations already cited herein, the arguments for marijuana’s re-legalization seem founded moreso on the theme that the government had no justifiable purpose to illegalize it to begin with. Much evidence points to the fact that marijuana possession was made a criminal offense for the appeasement and profit of a few, select private interest groups – most notably the petrochemical and paper industries.
As far as the taxpayers go, we’ve lost out. About 85% of marijuana arrests are for possession – usually for less than one ounce. Oregon was the first state to repeal the marijuana use prohibition laws, in 1973. California followed suit, in 1976. In Oregon, there was a 4% jump in marijuana use between 1974 and 1977, but this was no different than in other states, where the law had remained the same. California had estimated that it spent between $35 and $100 million per year enforcing the marijuana laws. Criminal custody, booking, and pretrial jailing were eliminated when possession of one ounce or less was reduced to a citable misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum fine of $100. A
savings of 74% resulted from these changes. Even in states where the marijuana laws remain the same, enforcement has become more relaxed. No significant change in the amount of users has taken place due to this relaxation of the laws. [1]
The main argument for legalization is that prohibiting its use has not proven effective. Legalization would eliminate the black-market flow, and the cost of law enforcement against it. Government regulation would generate a tax revenue, and permit better control over the safety and quality of the product.
“The major disadvantage of legalizing marijuana is that its use would undoubtedly increase and with that, the possible harm to health, development, behavior, and public safety would also increase. This liability must be weighed against the problems of continuing to prohibit the supply. One should
remember, however, that reductions for penalties in the use of marijuana have not caused more people to believe that the drug is safe.” [1]
If I had children, I wouldn’t want them smoking marijuana. But, neither would I want them drinking alcoholic beverages, nor smoking cigarettes or using other tobacco products. Once an adult, the choice should be up to the individual, I feel. My feelings are based predominantly on the fact that
alcohol and tobacco are both as lethal as they are legal. There is an inconsistency in the law, and that’s what I don’t like about it. I feel that too many of our tax dollars are going to this so-called “war on drugs,” and that the police and the courts have more pressing issues to deal with and straighten out than who’s smoking marijuana. I feel that most of the anti-marijuana propaganda is all just so much hype, just a smokescreen to divert the average person’s attention away from the real problems facing
American society today. And, I believe also that it is a ploy, more than anything, to benefit a select few private interests which are profiting from keeping it illegal. I see no overly-convincing evidence of harm to society from an individual’s personal use of marijuana.
In the final analysis, in debating the base issue of whether or not marijuana should be re-legalized, I am reminded of a line in the book “In Touch,” by John Steinbeck IV: “The image arises of a mother getting so excited while warning her son against the evils of marijuana – the oldest of relaxants –
that she has to take a tranquilizer to calm down.” Each to their own medicine, I say. Virtually every substance is poisonous to the human body – even water – if taken in excess.
Perhaps marijuana should be re-legalized for use among adults. Should they decide to partake of it, recreationally, it could be regulated. Under the same measures of control which are reasonably expected of alcohol use – i.e. no sales to minors, no driving under its influence – I can’t see where it would become any more of a problem than substances which are readily available in the marketplace. I feel that there is a distinct possibility that its legalization may even curtail the use of alcohol and tobacco among some Americans. And that, I feel, would be worth a change in the current legislation.
Like so many other issues in today’s America, the choice is personal. It should be a matter of personal preference, provided it does not interfere with the rights of others. It should never have been made a matter of government control, of law. Only the future will reveal what is to become of this issue.
[1] The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Drugs: Marijuana
Abel, Ernest L., “Marihuana, Tobacco, Alcohol and Reproduction,”
Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press, ? 1983
Academic American Encyclopedia, Online Edition, Downloaded from the
Prodigy Online Service, September 16, 1992. ? 1992 Grolier
Electronic Publishing, Inc.
Bonnie, Richard J. & Whitebread, Charles H. II, “The Marihuana
Conviction: A History Of Marihuana Prohibition in the United States,”
Charlottesville, Virginia, The University Press Of Virginia, ? 1974
Cohen, Miriam, Ph.D., “The Encyclopedia Of Psychoactive Drugs,
Marijuana: Its Effects On Mind And Body,” New York, New York,
Chelsea House Publishers, ? 1985
Cole, George F., “The American System of Criminal Justice,” Pacific
Grove, California, Brooks / Cole Publishing Company, ? 1992
Compton’s Encyclopedia, Online Edition, Downloaded From America
Online, October 5, 1992
Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago, Illinois, University of Chicago
Press, ? 1965
Herer, Jack, “Hemp & The Marijuana Conspiracy: The Emperor Wears No
Clothes / The Authoritative Historical Record of the Cannabis Plant,
Marijuana Prohibition, & How Hemp Can Still Save the World,” Van
Nuys, California, HEMP Publishing, ? 1985
Janeczek, Curtis L., “Marijuana: Time For A Closer Look,” Columbus,
Ohio, Healthstar Publications, ? 1980
Nahas, Gabriel G., “Keep Off The Grass,” Elmsford, New York,
Pergamon Press Inc., ? 1979
Partridge, Eric, “A Concise Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional
English, “New York, N.Y., Macmillan Publishing Company, ? 1989
Rosen, Leonard, “The Everyday English Handbook,” Berryville,
Virginia, Berryville Graphics, ? 1985
Sloman, Larry, “The History Of Marijuana In America / Reefer Madness,”
New York, New York, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., ? 1979
Steinbeck, John IV, “In Touch,” Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York,
N.Y., ? 1969
Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language,
New York, N.Y. dilithium (sic) Press, ? 1989 *
“World Almanac and Book of Facts: 1992, The,” New York, N.Y., Pharos
Books, Scripps Howard Company, ? 1992
Zeller, Paula Klevan, “Focus On Marijuana,” Frederick, Maryland,
Twenty-First Century Books, ? 1990