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.

Stage Three: Commentary

The Editorial Board’s entry “Government, marriage are unhappy couple” in the Austin American Statesman highlights the growing problem of disrespect for the separation of church and state advocated by America’s founders. Religion is never explicitly mentioned, but this notion of legislated morality seems to be inevitably acquainted therewith. From reproductive rights to gay marriage rights to stem cell research, the religious Right can’t turn down the opportunity to attempt to impose its morals on the rest of America. Worse than this, however, is the inherent hypocrisy in calling oneself “conservative” while defending the use of big government to crack down on utterly trivial matters, especially in such economically tumultuous times.

The Board takes a logically sound stance on Rep. Warren Chisum’s asinine proposal to force unhappy newlyweds to remain married for two years. They fortunately keep a professional tone, praising his intentions and values, but even more importantly they don’t hesitate to call him out on his naïveté. They cite Rep. Jessica Farrar’s apt quote that it’s not “the government’s job to force people to stay unhappily married,” illustrating the contradiction between so-called “conservatives” such as Chisum and true conservatives that are against any unnecessary government intrusion.

The intended audience of (largely) Austinites is one that is much more progressive than other parts of Texas, and they clearly recognize the appeal of such a commentary to this crowd; tension is growing in the GOP that may ultimately result in nothing less than a schism, leading to a party of neo-conservatives/religious zealots separate from the traditional conservatives who may merge with the libertarians. Conservatives are becoming sick of being grouped in the same party as those who are so blatantly in favor of government intrusion--as they should be. In fact, that's exactly why I now consider myself a libertarian; I was disgusted with the perversion of the word "conservative" into its exact opposite, an ideology of expanded governmental power and injection of Christian values. I sincerely hope that such a split will take place in the Republican party so that true conservatives will finally vote for the libertarian candidates they've wanted to support but were too afraid that they would be too obscure.

Article Introduction and Colleages' Blogs

News8Austin's article on Michael Phelps' suspension from swimming in Austin highlights the "Reefer Madness" hysteria that lives even in the twenty-first century. It also demonstrates a profound level of cognitive dissonance: even though absolutely no "anti-doping rule was violated," the federation still deemed it fitting to reprimand him for not acting as a "role model." Well, what about the DUI conviction he already had? Does anyone seriously consider driving under the influence of alcohol--which has been proven study after government-funded study to be more harmful, more addicting, more intoxicating, and even more of a gateway drug than cannabis--to be perfectly acceptable behavior, while responsibly consuming cannabis and harming no one at all is worthy of reprimand? It's time to face the facts: spewing propaganda may have flown in the pre-Internet days, but now the tools are available to counter such lies with actual science instead of fear-mongering.