Tuesday, April 14, 2009

As a result of the realization that it is immoral, slavery was abolished. With the realization that prohibition is impossible came the Twenty-first Amendment. It is truly an American process that laws be changed as society’s viewpoint changes; thus, it is not surprising that many Americans’ changing of positions on the legalization of cannabis will impact legislation thereof—as is the case already in many other countries, and even in many other states (Texas, unfortunately, is not one of them). Twelve states allow for medical use, and additional states have decriminalized non-medical usage as well.

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classified marijuana into Schedule I, implying that it supposedly has the highest potential for abuse and lowest potential for medical use. Other drugs in this category are heroin—which indeed has a large potential for abuse—and LSD (Kleber). The very notion of this classification is more than absurd in every possible way: it has been proven that marijuana has no potential for physiological addiction (Nadelmann). It has also been shown to have no harmful potential—in fact, Francis L. Young, an administrative law judge with the Drug Enforcement Agency, claims that cannabis "is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known" (Hoffman). Finally, the claim that cannabis has the “lowest potential medical use” is outrageous—in fact, the contrary is true: recent research indicates that Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, hepatitis C, hypertension, incontinence, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, pruritis, rheumatoid arthritis, Tourette's syndrome, and many other disorders are alleviated by therapeutic cannabis use (Armentano). It is clear that there is absolutely no reason for cannabis to be in the same schedule as heroin, so why does it remain so?

 Two more misconceptions about cannabis use that go hand-in-hand are that it is an addictive substance and that it is a “gateway” drug. Thirty-five percent of American adults have admitted to trying cannabis, but only five percent of those adults have used it in the past year (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Research also indicates that "there is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs" (National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine). The notions that cannabis is addictive and a gateway drug are thus rendered entirely void, by federally funded research. Texas, unfortunately, has not made many efforts to expose this cognitive dissonance through statewide decriminalization, as more progressive states have.

 A prevalent argument against the decriminalization of marijuana is that even if cannabis is not harmful in and of itself, it might be “laced” with other, potentially more dangerous substances, especially narcotics. Again, this is based entirely on faulty assumptions. Primarily, if marijuana were decriminalized, the distribution thereof would be closely regulated by the government, so any possibility of laced cannabis would be eliminated. Users could conceivably grow their own cannabis plants for their personal use without worrying about, potentially, life in prison (Nadelmann). This would also guarantee a complete lack of narcotic additives. A beneficial side-effect to government regulation of cannabis would be the incredible economic growth potential of the country as a whole via taxation, similar to the taxation of tobacco products. Allen St. Pierre, executive director of The NORML Foundation, puts it best: "marijuana cultivation is here to stay. The question is: Do we continue with current, unsuccessful efforts to sanction growers and users, or do we try to harness this unregulated, multi-billion dollar-a-year industry?" Currently, cannabis is the fourth largest cash crop in America (below only corn, soybeans, and hay), even taking its illegality into account. In addition to the massive potential of cannabis taxation, the United States would save approximately $10 billion per year by not having to enforce prohibition thereof (St. Pierre). California and New York both have bills proposed to fully legalize cannabis for adults, citing the economic gain as the chief motivation. Texas may be holding up in this recession better than many other states, but many experts believe the worst is still to come. Assuming this is true, we may very well reach the point where we cannot afford to legislate morality, and just as the Great Depression was largely alleviated with the re-legalization of alcohol, the re-legalization of cannabis may be crucial to getting back on our feet.


References

Armentano, Paul. "Emerging Clinical Applications." NORML 18 Dec 2006 20 Mar 2007 .

Kleber, Herbert, and Joseph Califano Jr.. "Legalization: Panacea or Pandora's Box?." World & I Jan 2006: n.p.

Hoffman, D.; Brunnemann, K.D.; Gori, G.B.; and Wynder, E.E.L. On the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. In: V.C. Runeckles, ed., Recent Advances in Phytochemistry. New York: Plenum, 1975

Nadelmann, Ethan. "An End to Marijuana Prohibition." National Review 12 July 2004: 28+.

National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 6.

St. Pierre, Allen. "Marijuana Ranks Fourth Largest Cash Crop In America Despite Prohibition." The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 14 Oct 1998. NORML Foundation. 3 Apr 2007 .

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2000. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Table G.9. Percentages Reporting Lifetime, Past Year, and Past Month Use of Illicit Drugs Among Persons Aged 26 or Older: 1999. DHHS Printing Office: Rockville, MD.

2 comments:

  1. In Ben Slater's blog, he talked about the legalization of cannabis. The introduction consisted of a brief history of American law's changing when view points change. He used that to relate it to the legalization of cannabis, which starts a strong argument. After that, he goes on to explain marijuana and it's stand point in American law. Showing how marijuana is classified and then later going into explaining the drug and what it does. He writes that marijuana is classified incorrectly by referencing books that have research to back up his claim. Doing this creates a very strong argument.
    Later he brings into the argument a possible conclusion to our current recession. He states that legalizing cannabis would help our economy because of taxation. He gives evidence that cannabis is the fourth cash crop in America. This helps the audience to relate to the argument. With people seeing the economy going down and receiving the knowledge from the studies conducted on cannabis, it seems that a large number of these people will agree with him. Listing his sources and embedding the information was a really good choice because people will be able to look up more information that verifies his argument.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So I would have to say that Ben Slater's blog is one of the most thought out blogs I have seen. The amount of information given and the amount of references add to the substance of the information.

    I am not sure how many times I have heard this argument and seen this data, though. I have nothing against cannabis and it's medical uses but lets be honest. The medical records would be flooded with an epidemic fluctuation of people with Alzheimer's, diabetes, Tourettes and incontinence when most of the people requesting it do not even know how to say the word, much less what it is.

    Now let me back up and say not all cannabis users are... well, slow, but I am sure we all know that guy that goes... "DUUUDDE". There is a persona that comes with being a cannabis user and it is slow and with a comical laugh. People see Bill and Ted when they think about it and to change that thought process is what will change the legal classification. Till then people will watch G4TV and see Half Baked and HighMe and vote to stop it at all cost because no one wants a world of slow potheads.

    Another argument is the amount of taxes it could bring in, like cigarettes do. Will this really happen? With the US working so hard at shutting down cigarette manufacturers do you think this maybe possible? Will we really see the amount of our state tax go up and would that be what is right? Granted, rich people will pay for it and the poor will too, but if it is really medical why would we get taxes from it at all? The argument is not sound, in my opinion. Medical means only a few people will actually buy it and it would be those with a sickness that justifies its use. I would love to see on TV an elderly man on the ground saying "DUUUUDE I've fallen and can not get.. uh wait who am I and where am I?" Then a guy in a cheap pin striped suit with a movie voice telling me I should reup if I am elderly and getting forgetful. It makes me wonder what the side effects would be and how they would be listed. Would they say it may cause death, diarrhea, numbness, and dizziness? I think they would list them and say, "Then dude you got some good $#%@ call us and give us your supplier" or "you got some bad $#@% throw it out".

    Lets be honest the only way taxes will go up is if people who are voting for it are able to get it and stop growing it. We all know that, that cannabis comes from Bill who grows it in his closet and is not terrorists but is not the CEO of a corporation ready to pay taxes due to his 15 baggy a day sales trend. Maybe Bill should get a Pharmaceutical degree and then he could sell it upping the amount of income in his pocket allowing him to spend it on things he wants to help relieve the recession and contribute to some of that sales tax that is alluded to.

    I realize just how rude this sounds and I am sorry because it is not meant to be an attack on you but an attack on the people you support. The issue to me is not the drug but the people who use it. You act like a fool and you will be seen as "less than" in society. This may be an American outlook on the issue but it is an issue that cannabis users will have to change. Just do not hide behind medical usages as a reason to get high, and we all know taxes are not going to happen - the only thing that will change is people will smoke it in the open and not hide it in a blunt. Ricky Williams is a prime example of how to handle your desire to legalize pot, just say "I do not want your millions I wanna get high".

    Plus we all know the real reason you smoke cannabis is for cataracts - the smoke in the air makes the good eye focus as poorly as the bad eye and that solves the issue.

    ReplyDelete