|
Hemp fibers are longer, stronger, and more absorbent than cotton. The Declaration of Independence was drafted on Hemp paper. Rudolph Diesel designed his engine to run on hemp oil.
-www.naihc.org Until the 1820's in America 80% of all textiles and fabrics were made from fibers of Cannabis. Hemp is superior to wood pulps and makes an ideal additive to recycled paper to improve its strength. Until 1883, more than three-quarters of the world's paper was made from Hemp fiber. 80% of English wood pulp is imported, destroying the forests and their delicate Eco-systems in Canada and Scandinavia. A Hemp crop produces nearly 4 times as much raw fiber as an equivalent-sized tree plantation. Trees take approximately 20 years to mature. Hemp takes 4 months. Hemp needs no pesticides because it is unpalatable to insects. Hemp needs no herbicides because it grows too quickly for any weed to compete. Hemp paper does not need chlorine bleach, which heavily pollutes rives near wood-pulp paper mills.
Still Crazy After All These Years: A Marijuana Story 
Still Crazy After All These Years
Marijuana Prohibition 1937-1997
A report prepared by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the "Marijuana Tax Act of 1937."
Executive Summary
Part I. Marijuana cultivation in the United States can trace its lineage some 400 years. Cultivation of marijuana for fiber continued in American through the turn of the 20th century.
Marijuana first earned recognition as an intoxicant in the 1920s and 1930s. During this time, exaggerated accounts of violent crimes allegedly committed by immigrants intoxicated by marijuana became popularized by tabloid newspapers and the newly formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Congress approved the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937" based almost entirely on this propaganda and misinformation.
Part II. Marijuana remains the third most popular recreational drug of choice in the United States despite 60 years of criminal prohibition. According to government figures, nearly 70 million Americans have smoked marijuana at some time in their lives. Of these, 18 million have smoked marijuana within the last year, and ten million are regular marijuana smokers.
The vast majority of these individuals are otherwise law-abiding citizens who work hard, raise families, and contribute to their communities. They are not part of the crime problem and should not be treated as criminals.
Part III. The Clinton administration is waging a more intensive war on marijuana smokers than any other presidency in history. Presently, law enforcement arrests a marijuana smoker every 54 seconds in America at a tremendous cost to society. This represents a 60 percent increase in marijuana arrests since Clinton took office. Over ten million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges since the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse issued its recommendation to Congress in 1972 to decriminalize marijuana.
Because of harsh federal and state penalties, marijuana offenders today may be sentenced to lengthy jail terms. Even those who avoid incarceration are subject to an array of additional punishments, including loss of driver's license (even where the offense is not driving related), loss of occupational license, loss of child custody, loss of federal benefits, and removal from public housing. Under state and federal forfeiture laws, many suspected marijuana offenders lose their cars, cash, boats, land, business equipment, and houses. Eighty percent of the individuals whose assets are seized are never charged with a crime.
Marijuana prohibition disproportionately impacts minorities. Blacks and Hispanics are over-represented both in the numbers of arrests and in the numbers of marijuana offenders incarcerated. Blacks and Hispanics make up 20 percent of the marijuana smokers in the United States, but comprise 58 percent of the marijuana offenders sentenced under federal law last year.
Part IV. Nonviolent marijuana offenders often receive longer prison sentences than those allotted to violent offenders.
Most Americans do not want to spend scarce public funds incarcerating nonviolent marijuana offenders, at a cost of $23,000 per year. Politicians must reconsider our country's priorities and attach more importance to combating violent crime than targeting marijuana smokers.
Part V. Marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers at least $7.5 billion annually. This is an enormous waste of scarce federal dollars that should be used to target violent crime.
Part VI. Marijuana prohibition makes no exception for the medical use of marijuana. The tens of thousands of seriously ill Americans who presently use marijuana as a therapeutic agent to alleviate symptoms of cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, or multiple sclerosis risk arrest and jail to obtain and use their medication.
Between 1978 and 1996, 34 states passed laws recognizing marijuana's therapeutic value. Most recently, voters in two states -- Arizona and California -- passed laws allowing for the medical use of marijuana under a physician's supervision. Yet, states are severely limited in their ability to implement their medical use laws because of the federal prohibition of marijuana.
Part VII. America tried alcohol prohibition between 1919 and 1931, but discovered that the crime and violence associated with prohibition was more damaging than the evil sought to be prohibited. With tobacco, American has learned over the last decade that education is the most effective way to discourage use. Yet, America fails to apply these lessons to marijuana policy.
By stubbornly defining all marijuana smoking as criminal, including that which involves adults smoking in the privacy of their own homes, we are wasting police and prosecutorial resources, clogging courts, filling costly and scarce jail and prison space, and needlessly wrecking the lives and careers of genuinely good citizens.
I. Marijuana Use in America Before 1937; Sowing the Seeds for Prohibition
Marijuana cultivation in the United States can trace its lineage some 400 years. For most of our nation's history, farmers grew marijuana -- then known exclusively as hemp -- for its fiber content. Colonialists planted the first American hemp crop in 1611 near Jamestown, Virginia. Soon after, King James I of Britain ordered settlers to engage in wide scale farming of the plant. 1 Most of the sails and ropes on colonial ships were made from hemp as were many of the colonists' bibles, clothing, and maps. 2 According to some historians, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson cultivated marijuana and advocated a hemp-based economy. 3 Some colonies even made hemp cultivation compulsory and called its production necessary for the "wealth and protection of the country." 4 Marijuana cultivation continued as an agricultural staple in America through the turn of the 20th century.
Marijuana first earned recognition as an intoxicant in the 1920s and 1930s. Recreational use of the drug became associated primarily with Mexican-American immigrant workers and the African-American jazz musician community. It was during this time that hemp was renamed "marihuana" and the plant's long-standing history as a cash crop was replaced with a new image: "The Devil's Weed."
In 1930, the federal government founded the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), headed by Commissioner Harry Anslinger. The group launched a misinformation campaign against the drug and enrolled the services of Hollywood and several tabloid newspapers. Headlines across the nation began publicizing alleged reports of insanity and violence induced by "reefer-smoking." Exaggerated accounts of violent crimes committed by immigrants reportedly intoxicated by marijuana became popularized. Once under the influence of the drug, criminals purportedly knew no fear and lost all inhibitions. For example, a news bulletin issued by the FBN in the mid-1930s purported that a user of marijuana "becomes a fiend with savage or 'cave man' tendencies. His sex desires are aroused and some of the most horrible crimes result. He hears light and sees sound. To get away from it, he suddenly becomes violent and may kill." 5
Similar reports swept the country. A widely publicized issue of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology asserted that the marijuana user is capable of "great feats of strength and endurance, during which no fatigue is felt. ... Sexual desires are stimulated and may lead to unnatural acts, such as indecent exposure and rape. ... [Use of marijuana] ends in the destruction of brain tissues and nerve centers, and does irreparable damage. If continued, the inevitable result is insanity, which those familiar with it describe as absolutely incurable, and, without exception ending in death." 6 A Washington Times editorial published shortly before Congress held its first hearing on the issue argued: "The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug and American children must be protected against it." 7 This steady stream of propaganda influenced 27 states to pass laws against marijuana in the years leading up to federal prohibition and set the stage both culturally and politically for the passage of the "Marihuana Tax Act in 1937."
Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina introduced the Act in Congress on April 14, 1937 to criminalize the recreational use of marijuana through prohibitive taxation. The bill was the brainchild of Commissioner Anslinger who later testified before Congress in support of the bill.
Congress held only two hearings to debate the merits of marijuana prohibition. The hearings totaled just one hour. 8 Federal witness Harry Anslinger testified before the House Ways and Means Committee that "this drug is entirely the monster-Hyde, the harmful effect of which cannot be measured." He was joined by Assistant General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury, Clinton Hester, who affirmed that the drug's eventual effect on the user "is deadly." These statements summarized the federal government's official position and served as the initial justification for criminalizing marijuana smoking. 9
The American Medical Association (AMA) represented the lone voice against marijuana prohibition before Congress. AMA Legislative Counsel Dr. William C. Woodward testified, "There is no evidence" that marijuana is a dangerous drug. Woodward challenged the propriety of passing legislation based only on newspaper accounts and questioned why no data from the Bureau of Prisons or the Children's Bureau supported the FBN's position. He further argued that the legislation would severely compromise a physician's ability to utilize marijuana's therapeutic potential. Surprisingly, the committee took little interest in Woodward's testimony and told the physician, "If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals ... rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the federal government is trying to do." 10
After just one hearing, the Ways and Means Committee approved the "Marihuana Tax Act." The House of Representatives followed suit on August 20 after engaging in only 90 seconds of debate. During this abbreviated floor "discussion," only two questions were asked. First, a member of congress from upstate New York asked Speaker Sam Rayburn to summarize the purpose of the bill. Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marijuana. I think it is a narcotic of some kind." The same representative then asked, "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support the bill?" Falsely, a member of the Ways and Means Committee replied, "Their Doctor Wharton (sic) gave this measure his full support ... [as well as] the approval [of] the American Medical Association." 11 Following this brief exchange of inaccurate information, the House approved the federal prohibition of marijuana without a recorded vote.
Doughton's bill sailed though the Senate with the same ease. The Senate held one brief hearing on the bill before overwhelmingly approving the measure. President Franklin Roosevelt promptly signed the legislation into law on August 2, 1937. The "Marihuana Tax Act" took effect on October 1, 1937.
Thus began the criminal prohibition of marijuana that remains in place today.
I. Marijuana Prohibitoin Is a Failure - Millions of Americans Smoke Marijuana Despite Laws Outlawing Its Use
Marijuana remains the third most popular recreational drug of choice in the United States despite 60 years of criminal prohibition. Only alcohol and tobacco are regularly consumed by a greater percentage of the population. Clearly, prohibition fails to eliminate or even significantly deter the use of marijuana among the American public.
It is time to put to rest the myth that smoking marijuana is a fringe or deviant activity engaged in only by those on the margins of American society. In reality, marijuana smoking is extremely common and marijuana is the recreational drug of choice for millions of mainstream, middle class Americans. According to the most recent data from the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), nearly 70 million Americans have smoked marijuana at some time in their lives. 12 Of these, 18 million have smoked within the past year, and approximately 10 million are current smokers (defined as having smoked at least once in the last month). 13 In fact, HHS found that 57 percent of all current illicit drug users report that marijuana is the only illegal drug they have used; this figure rises to 77 percent if hashish (a more concentrated form of marijuana) is included. 14
A recent national survey of voters conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) found that 34% -- one third of the voting adults in the country -- acknowledged having smoked marijuana at some point in their lives. 15 Many successful business and professional leaders, including many state and federal elected officials from both political parties, admit they used marijuana. It is time to reflect that reality in our state and federal legislation, and stop acting as if marijuana smokers are part of the crime problem. They are not, and it is absurd to continue spending limited law enforcement resources arresting them.
Marijuana smokers in this country are no different from their non-smoking peers, except for their marijuana use. Like most Americans, they are responsible citizens who work hard, raise families, contribute to their communities, and want to live in safe, crime-free neighborhoods. They are otherwise law-abiding citizens who live in fear of arrest and imprisonment solely because they choose to smoke marijuana for relaxation instead of drinking alcohol. Marijuana prohibition is a misapplication of the criminal sanction which undermines respect for the law in general and extends government into inappropriate areas of private lives.
Millions of Americans use marijuana; few abuse it. The government should limit its involvement in this issue solely to address and sanction irresponsible marijuana use. Responsible marijuana use causes no harm to society and should be of no interest to the federal government.
III. Law Enforcement Arrests a Marijuana Smoker Every 54 seconds in America at a Tremendous Cost to Society.
In 1972, a blue-ribbon panel of experts appointed by President Richard Nixon and led by former Pennsylvania Governor Raymond Shafer concluded that marijuana prohibition posed significantly greater harm to the user than the use of marijuana itself. The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse recommended that state and federal laws be changed to remove criminal penalties for possession of marihuana for personal use and for the casual distribution of small amounts of marijuana. 16 That year, law enforcement arrested almost 300,000 Americans on marijuana charges. 17
A 1982 National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) report on marijuana reaffirmed that criminal justice approaches were inappropriate and harmful. It recommended not only that marijuana possession be decriminalized, but that lawmakers give serious consideration to creating a system of regulated distribution and sale. 18 Law enforcement arrested over 450,000 Americans for violating marijuana laws that year. 19
In May of this year, research findings from a comprehensive, long term study performed by Kaiser Permanente concluded that no link existed between regular marijuana smoking and mortality and emphasized that marijuana prohibition posed the only significant health hazard to the user. The report advocated that "medical guidelines regarding [marijuana's] prudent use ... be established, akin to the common-sense guidelines that apply to alcohol use." In 1995, the most recent year for which the federal government has arrest statistics, law enforcement charged almost 600,000 Americans with marijuana violations. This figure is the greatest number ever recorded since marijuana prohibition began; it means that one marijuana smoker is arrested every 54 seconds in America.
Despite criticism that President Clinton is "soft" on drugs, annual data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Report demonstrate that Clinton administration officials are waging a more intensive war on marijuana smokers than any other presidency in history. Law enforcement arrested approximately 1.5 million Americans on marijuana charges during the first three years of Clinton's administration -- 84 percent of them for simple possession. The average number of yearly marijuana arrests under Clinton (483,548) is 30 percent higher than under the Bush administration (338,998), and last year's total alone is more than double the 1991 total (287,850). 22
Marijuana penalties vary nationwide, but most levy a heavy financial and social impact for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are arrested each year. In 42 states, possession of any amount of marijuana is punishable by incarceration and/or a significant fine. 23 For example, individuals arrested for simple marijuana possession in Arizona may face eighteen months in jail and a $150,000 fine. 24 Many states also have laws automatically suspending the drivers' license of an individual if they are convicted of any marijuana offense, even if the offense was not driving related.
Penalties for marijuana cultivation and/or sale also vary from state to state. Ten states have maximum sentences of five years or less and eleven states have a maximum penalty of thirty years or more. 25 Some states punish those who cultivate marijuana solely for personal use as severely as large scale traffickers. For instance, medical marijuana user William Foster of Oklahoma was sentenced to 93 years in jail in January 1997 for growing 10 medium-sized marijuana plants and 56 clones (cuttings from another plant planted in soil) in a 25-square-foot underground shelter. 26 Foster maintains that he grew marijuana to alleviate the pain of rheumatoid arthritis. Unfortunately, Foster's plight is not an isolated event; marijuana laws in six states permit marijuana importers and traffickers to be sentenced to life in jail. 27
Even those who avoid state incarceration are subject to an array of punishments that may include submitting to random drug tests, probation, paying for mandatory drug counseling, loss of an occupational license, expensive legal fees, lost wages due to absence from work, loss of child custody, loss of federal benefits, and removal from public housing. In some states, police will notify the employers of people who are arrested. As a result, employees may lose their job. 28
Federal laws prohibiting marijuana are also severe. Under federal law, possessing one marijuana cigarette or less is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and one year in prison, the same penalty as for possessing small amounts of heroin and cocaine. In one extreme case, attorney Edward Czuprynski of Michigan served 14 months in federal prison for possession of 1.6 grams of marijuana before a panel of federal appellate judges reviewed his case and demanded his immediate release. 29 Cultivation of 100 marijuana plants or more carries a mandatory prison term of five years. Large scale marijuana cultivators and traffickers may be sentenced to death.
Presently, Congress is proposing that the amount of marijuana necessary to trigger the death penalty be substantially lowered. The "Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1997," introduced by admitted former marijuana smoker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), would potentially sentence first offenders convicted of bringing more than 50 grams (less than two ounces) of marijuana across U.S. borders to life in prison without parole. Those offenders convicted for a second time -- presumably the first offense would have been convicted before H.R. 41's enactment -- would be sentenced to death. Thirty-seven members of Congress are present cosponsors of this bill.
Federal laws also deny entitlements to marijuana smokers. Under legislation introduced by Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and signed into law last year, states may deny cash aid (e.g., welfare, etc.) and food stamps to anyone convicted of felony drug charges. For marijuana smokers, this includes most convictions for cultivation and sale, even for small amounts and nonprofit transfers. Currently, a murderer, rapist, or robber could receive federal funds and benefits, but not most individuals convicted of cultivating a small amount of marijuana.
In addition, under both state and federal law, mere investigation for a marijuana offense can result in the forfeiture of property, including cash, cars, boats, land, business equipment, and houses. Amazingly, the owner does not have to be found guilty or even formally charged with any crime for the seizure to occur. In 1993, Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde (R) reported that 80 percent of the individuals whose assets are seized by the federal government under drug forfeiture laws \are never charged with a crime. Law enforcement often targets suspected marijuana offenders for the purpose of seizing their property, sometimes with tragic results. For example, millionaire rancher Donald Scott was shot and killed by law enforcement officials in 1992 at his Malibu estate in a botched raid. Law enforcement failed to find any marijuana plants growing on his property and later conceded that their primary motivation for investigating Scott was to eventually seize his land. 30
State and federal marijuana laws also have a disparate racial impact on ethnic minorities. While blacks and Hispanics make up only 20 percent of the marijuana smokers in the U.S., 31 they comprised 55 percent of the marijuana offenders sentenced under federal law in 1995. 32 State arrest and incarceration rates paint a similar portrait. For example, in Illinois, 57 percent of those sent to prison for marijuana in 1995 were black or Hispanic. 33 In California, 49 percent of those arrested for marijuana offenses in 1994 were black or Hispanic. And in New York state, 71 percent of those arrested for misdemeanor marijuana charges in 1995 were non-white. 35
Since the Shafer Commission reported their findings to Congress in 1972 advocating marijuana decriminalization, over ten million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges. Marijuana prohibition is a failed public policy that is out of touch with today's social reality and inflicts devastating harm on millions of citizens.
IV. Nonviolent Marijuana Offenders Often Serve Longer Sentences Than Murderers or Rapists.
Elected officials at both the state and federal level often engage in what the National Criminal Justice Commission calls "bait and switch." Employers of this technique exploit the public's natural fear of violent crime and propose harsh, sometimes mandatory anti-drug legislation in response. Unfortunately, this legislation seldom targets violent criminals or large drug traffickers. Rather, it often inflicts a devastating impact on minor, non-violent drug offenders.
For example, harsh federal and state sentences often apply to all marijuana distribution and "possession with the intent to distribute" offenses, regardless of whether any violence was associated with the event or the defendant is a significant marijuana trafficker. Even minor offenses may qualify for harsh mandatory sentences. This is a needlessly destructive policy that is both a misuse of the criminal process and a waste of criminal justice resources. If combating violent crime is the reason for imposing harsh and unyielding mandatory sentences, then such legislation should solely target violent offenders. There is no justification for treating non-violent marijuana offenses differently, yet many laws continue to do so.
For instance, many adult marijuana smokers share marijuana on a nonprofit basis with friends. Under many state laws, this activity could subject them to lengthy prison sentences.
Similarly, many seriously ill people -- including AIDS and cancer patients -- use marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering. Often their illness requires that a primary caregiver obtain marijuana for them. Many of these caregiverscould serve a mandatory prison sentence if convicted under existingmarijuana laws. Also at great risk are the proprietors of cannabis buyers' clubs (CBCs) who supply marijuana to seriously ill patients who possess a doctor's recommendation. Despite operating with the tacit acceptance of local law enforcement, all clubs operate in violation of federal law and most are in violation of state law. Owners of these clubs, who sometimes grow medical marijuana on site, often face federal mandatory minimum sentences for their activities. For example, federal agents confiscated over 300 marijuana plants at a California CBC called Flower Therapy on April 24, 1997. 36 Even though the club operated in accordance with state law and the plants confiscated were grown for medicinal purposes only, the owners of the club face a mandatory minimum sentence of at least five years in prison if they are found guilty of cultivation. This mandatory sentence is equal to the average prison time served by defendants convicted of violent crimes like manslaughter and is over one-year longer than the average federal sentence served for assault. 37 Likewise, individual patients preferring to avoid the black market altogether and grow a few marijuana plants in their homes are also subject to stiff state and/or federal penalties.
Marijuana possession and cultivation offenses have absolutely nothing to do with violence, yet people convicted of these offenses regularly serve longer sentences than those convicted of violent offenses, including rape and murder. State and national leaders need to reconsider our country's priorities and attach more importance to combating violent crime rather than targeting marijuana smokers.
Most Americans do not want to spend public funds incarcerating nonviolent marijuana offenders, at a cost of $23,000 per year. 38 NORML insists that our elected officials recognize that marijuana smokers are not part of the crime problem and it is wasteful, deleterious, and inhumane for our criminal statutes to treat them as if they were.
V. Marijuana Prohibition Costs Taxpayers at Least $7.5 Billion Annually
While there is a lack of information on the precise costs of marijuana prohibition in the available literature, it is possible to estimate the tremendous annual fiscal costs of marijuana prohibition.
Annual federal government expenditures on the "war on drugs" average $15.7 billion annually. 39 In addition, state and local governments also spend $16 billion per year enforcing drug laws. 40 In 1995, nearly 600,000 of the total 1.5 million drug arrests in America were for marijuana offenses. 41 Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that between 25 and 40 percent of the total $31 billion annual costs are related to marijuana prohibition. Using this basic calculation, marijuana prohibition costs the American taxpayers between $7.5 and $10 billion annually in enforcement alone.
A second way to quantify the costs of marijuana prohibition is to isolate the yearly financial burden inflicted on the criminal justice system by arresting over half a million otherwise law-abiding citizens on marijuana charges. Every time a marijuana arrest occurs -- even the most trivial arrest -- at least two police officers are taken off the street for several hours to prepare the paperwork and process the defendant. (This occurs even if the individual is allowed to later go free on bond.) If one assumes for simplicity that all the approximately 600,000 marijuana arrests reported in 1995 were simple cases involving no prior use of police time or resources and taking no more than two hours to process, then marijuana prohibition costs law enforcement a minimum of 2,400,000 man hours annually. These are police man hours and fiscal costs that could be better spent targeting violent crime. For example, following the adoption of marijuana decriminalization in California in 1976, the state saved an average of $95.8 million annually. 42
Of course, these fiscal costs do not end with an arrest. In many instances, police continue to investigate the facts of the case, prosecutors prepare the case for trial or negotiate a plea bargain (estimated at between five and ten hours per case), 43 and judges and court personnel engage in a trial or accept a plea agreement in open court. These prosecutorial costs alone likely cost Americans hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Clearly more sophisticated economic analysis is needed in this area. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that government is interested in calculating the precise cost of marijuana prohibition because it does not want to have to justify these costs to the American public. It is wasteful and disadvantageous to spend billions of otherwise limited federal dollars on a failed and ineffective public policy at the expense of already underfunded social programs.
VI. Marijuana Prohibition Makes No Exception for Medical Users
Marijuana prohibition applies to everyone, including the sick and dying. Of all the negative consequences of marijuana prohibition, none is as tragic as the denial of medicinal marijuana to the tens of thousands of seriously ill patients who could benefit from its therapeutic use.
It is clear from available studies and rapidly accumulating anecdotal evidence that marijuana is therapeutic in the treatment of a number of serious ailments and is less toxic and costly than the conventional medicines for with which it may be substituted. In many cases, marijuana is more effective than the commercially available drugs it replaces. Prestigious groups such as the American Public Health Association, the Federation of American Scientists, and the British Medical Association, as well as New England Journal of Medicine editor Jerome Kassirer, publicly endorse the medicinal use of marijuana. Moreover, in 1988, the Drug Enforcement Administration's own chief administrative law judge, Francis L. Young, declared that marijuana was "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." 44
The best-established medical use of smoked marijuana is as an anti-nauseant for cancer chemotherapy. During the 1980s, smoked marijuana was shown to be an effective anti-emetic in six different state-sponsored clinical studies involving nearly 1,000 patients. 45 For the majority of these patients, smoked marijuana proved more effective than both conventional prescription anti-nauseants and oral THC (marketed today as the synthetic pill, Marinol). Currently, many oncologists are recommending marijuana to their patients despite its prohibition. 46
In addition to its usefulness as an anti-emetic, scientific and anecdotal evidence suggests that marijuana is a valuable aid in reducing pain and suffering for patients with a variety of other serious ailments. For example, marijuana alleviates the nausea, vomiting, and the loss of appetite experienced by many AIDS patients without accelerating the rate at which HIV positive individuals develop clinical AIDS or other illnesses. In addition, it is generally accepted -- by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and others -- that marijuana reduces intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients suffering from glaucoma, the leading cause of blindness in the United States.
Clinical and anecdotal evidence also points to the effectiveness of marijuana as a therapeutic agent in the treatment of a variety of spastic conditions such as multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, epilepsy, and quadriplegia. A number of animal studies and a handful of carefully controlled human studies have supported marijuana's ability to suppress convulsions. A summary of these findings was published by the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Institute of Medicine in 1982. 48
Between 1978 and 1996, legislatures in 34 states passed laws recognizing marijuana's therapeutic value. Twenty-five of these laws remain in effect today. Most recently, voters in two states -- Arizona and California -- overwhelmingly passed laws allowing for the legal use of marijuana under a physician's supervision. Unfortunately, all of these laws are limited in their ability to protect patients from criminal prosecution or provide medical marijuana to those who need it by federal prohibition. In addition, federal officials have threatened to sanction physicians who recommend or use marijuana in compliance with state laws. Clearly, patients who could benefit from marijuana's therapeutic value are being held hostage by a federal government that continues to treat the issue as if it were part of the "war on drugs" instead of a legitimate public health issue. Congress must act to correct this injustice. When compassion and justice are in conflict with current law, then the law must change.
At NORML's urging, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), along with co-sponsors Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), introduced legislation in Congress on June 4, 1997, that would remove federal obstacles which currently interfere with an individual state's decision to permit the medicinal use of marijuana. H.R. 1782, the "Medical Use of Marijuana Act," allows physicians to legally recommend or prescribe marijuana to seriously ill patients where state law allows them to do so. In addition, it permits states to legally implement different systems of growing and distributing medical marijuana under state law.
H.R. 1782 is not a mandate from Washington and would not require any state to change its current laws. It is a states' rights bill that acknowledges the will of the American people and would allow states to determine for themselves whether marijuana should be legal for medicinal use. It is a common-sense solution to a complex issue and would provide a great deal of relief from suffering for a large number of people. NORML implores Congress to support this compassionate proposal to protect the ten of thousands of Americans who currently use marijuana as a medicine and the millions who would benefit from its legal access. Many seriously ill patients find marijuana the most effective way to relieve their pain and suffering and federal marijuana prohibition must not, in good conscience, continue to deny them that medication.
VII. It Is Time To End Marijuana Prohibition and To Stop Arresting Otherwise Law-Abiding Marijuana Smokers
The "war on drugs" is not really about drugs; if it were, tobacco and alcohol would be the primary targets. They are the most commonly used and abused drugs in America and unquestionably cause far more harm to the user and to society than does marijuana. Yet neither is illegal.
America tried to prohibit alcohol, but soon discovered that the crime and violence associated with prohibition was more damaging than the evil sought to be prohibited. With tobacco, America has learned over the past two decades that education is the most effective way to discourage use. Americans smoke far fewer cigarettes today than in the past without having the criminal justice system issue a single arrest, administer one drug test, seize any property, or sentence anyone to jail. Yet, the federal government fails to apply these lessons toward a rational and effective marijuana policy. Instead, politicians continue to support and enforce a failed, 60-year old public policy at the expense of rational discourse, billions in misappropriated funds and resources, and many of the founding principles and freedoms that America was built upon. The "war on drugs" has become largely a war on marijuana smokers, and the casualties of this war are the wrecked lives and the destroyed families of the half a million otherwise law-abiding citizens who are arrested each year on marijuana charges.
As a nation we have talked too long in the language of war. It is time to seek a policy that distinguishes between use and abuse, and reflects the importance America places on the right of the individual to be free from the overreaching power of government. Most would agree that the government has no business knowing what books we read, the subject of our telephone conversations, or how we conduct ourselves in the bedroom. Similarly, whether one smokes marijuana or drinks alcohol to relax is simply not an appropriate area of concern for the government. By stubbornly defining all marijuana smoking as criminal, including that which involves adults smoking in the privacy of their home, government is wasting police and prosecutorial resources, clogging courts, filling costly and scarce jail and prison space, and needlessly wrecking the lives and careers of genuinely good citizens.
Responsible marijuana smokers present no threat or danger to America, and there is no reason to treat them as criminals. To do so is to wage war without cause against a significant segment of our nation's adult population.
Speaking before Congress on the 40th anniversary of marijuana prohibition -- August 2, 1977 -- President Jimmy Carter stated: "Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use." Twenty years later, the former president's words ring as urgent as ever. After 60 years of a failed and destructive policy, it is time to once and for all end marijuana prohibition
Myth: Marijuana is a Dangerous Drug
Any discussion of marijuana should begin with the fact that there have been numerous official reports and studies, every one of which has concluded that marijuana poses no great risk to society and should not be criminalized. These include: the National Academy of Sciences' "Analysis of Marijuana Policy"(1982); the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (the Shafer Report) (1973); the Canadian Government's Commission of Inquiry (Le Dain Report) (1970); the British Advisory Committee on Drug Dependency (Wooton Report) (1968); the La Guardia Report (1944); the Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (1916-29); and Britain's monumental Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1893-4).
It is sometimes claimed that there is "new evidence" showing marijuana is more harmful than was thought in the sixties. In fact, the most recent studies have tended to confirm marijuana's safety, refuting claims that it causes birth defects, brain damage, reduced testosterone, or increased drug abuse problems.
The current consensus is well stated in the 20th annual report of the California Research Advisory Panel (1990), which recommended that personal use and cultivation of marijuana be legalized:
"An objective consideration of marijuana shows that it is responsible for less damage to society and the individual than are alcohol and cigarettes."
References:
The National Academy of Sciences report, "Marijuana and Health" (National Academy Press, 1982) remains the most useful overview of the health effects of marijuana, its major conclusions remaining largely unaffected by the last ten years of research.
Lovinger and Jones, The Marihuana Question (Dodd, Mead & Co., NY 1985) is the most exhaustive and fair-handed summary of the evidence against marijuana.
Good, positive perspectives may be found in Lester Grinspoon's Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine (Yale Press, 1993) and Marihuana Reconsidered (Harvard U. Press 1971), which debunks many of the older anti-pot myths.
See also Leo Hollister, "Health Aspects of Cannabis," Pharmacological Reviews 38:1-20 (1986).
Still Crazy After All These Years
Marijuana Prohibition 1937-1997
A report prepared by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the "Marijuana Tax Act of 1937."
Executive Summary
Part I. Marijuana cultivation in the United States can trace its lineage some 400 years. Cultivation of marijuana for fiber continued in American through the turn of the 20th century.
Marijuana first earned recognition as an intoxicant in the 1920s and 1930s. During this time, exaggerated accounts of violent crimes allegedly committed by immigrants intoxicated by marijuana became popularized by tabloid newspapers and the newly formed Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Congress approved the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937" based almost entirely on this propaganda and misinformation.
Part II. Marijuana remains the third most popular recreational drug of choice in the United States despite 60 years of criminal prohibition. According to government figures, nearly 70 million Americans have smoked marijuana at some time in their lives. Of these, 18 million have smoked marijuana within the last year, and ten million are regular marijuana smokers.
The vast majority of these individuals are otherwise law-abiding citizens who work hard, raise families, and contribute to their communities. They are not part of the crime problem and should not be treated as criminals.
Part III. The Clinton administration is waging a more intensive war on marijuana smokers than any other presidency in history. Presently, law enforcement arrests a marijuana smoker every 54 seconds in America at a tremendous cost to society. This represents a 60 percent increase in marijuana arrests since Clinton took office. Over ten million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges since the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse issued its recommendation to Congress in 1972 to decriminalize marijuana.
Because of harsh federal and state penalties, marijuana offenders today may be sentenced to lengthy jail terms. Even those who avoid incarceration are subject to an array of additional punishments, including loss of driver's license (even where the offense is not driving related), loss of occupational license, loss of child custody, loss of federal benefits, and removal from public housing. Under state and federal forfeiture laws, many suspected marijuana offenders lose their cars, cash, boats, land, business equipment, and houses. Eighty percent of the individuals whose assets are seized are never charged with a crime.
Marijuana prohibition disproportionately impacts minorities. Blacks and Hispanics are over-represented both in the numbers of arrests and in the numbers of marijuana offenders incarcerated. Blacks and Hispanics make up 20 percent of the marijuana smokers in the United States, but comprise 58 percent of the marijuana offenders sentenced under federal law last year.
Part IV. Nonviolent marijuana offenders often receive longer prison sentences than those allotted to violent offenders.
Most Americans do not want to spend scarce public funds incarcerating nonviolent marijuana offenders, at a cost of $23,000 per year. Politicians must reconsider our country's priorities and attach more importance to combating violent crime than targeting marijuana smokers.
Part V. Marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers at least $7.5 billion annually. This is an enormous waste of scarce federal dollars that should be used to target violent crime.
Part VI. Marijuana prohibition makes no exception for the medical use of marijuana. The tens of thousands of seriously ill Americans who presently use marijuana as a therapeutic agent to alleviate symptoms of cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, or multiple sclerosis risk arrest and jail to obtain and use their medication.
Between 1978 and 1996, 34 states passed laws recognizing marijuana's therapeutic value. Most recently, voters in two states -- Arizona and California -- passed laws allowing for the medical use of marijuana under a physician's supervision. Yet, states are severely limited in their ability to implement their medical use laws because of the federal prohibition of marijuana.
Part VII. America tried alcohol prohibition between 1919 and 1931, but discovered that the crime and violence associated with prohibition was more damaging than the evil sought to be prohibited. With tobacco, American has learned over the last decade that education is the most effective way to discourage use. Yet, America fails to apply these lessons to marijuana policy.
By stubbornly defining all marijuana smoking as criminal, including that which involves adults smoking in the privacy of their own homes, we are wasting police and prosecutorial resources, clogging courts, filling costly and scarce jail and prison space, and needlessly wrecking the lives and careers of genuinely good citizens.
I. Marijuana Use in America Before 1937; Sowing the Seeds for Prohibition
Marijuana cultivation in the United States can trace its lineage some 400 years. For most of our nation's history, farmers grew marijuana -- then known exclusively as hemp -- for its fiber content. Colonialists planted the first American hemp crop in 1611 near Jamestown, Virginia. Soon after, King James I of Britain ordered settlers to engage in wide scale farming of the plant. 1 Most of the sails and ropes on colonial ships were made from hemp as were many of the colonists' bibles, clothing, and maps. 2 According to some historians, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson cultivated marijuana and advocated a hemp-based economy. 3 Some colonies even made hemp cultivation compulsory and called its production necessary for the "wealth and protection of the country." 4 Marijuana cultivation continued as an agricultural staple in America through the turn of the 20th century.
Marijuana first earned recognition as an intoxicant in the 1920s and 1930s. Recreational use of the drug became associated primarily with Mexican-American immigrant workers and the African-American jazz musician community. It was during this time that hemp was renamed "marihuana" and the plant's long-standing history as a cash crop was replaced with a new image: "The Devil's Weed."
In 1930, the federal government founded the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), headed by Commissioner Harry Anslinger. The group launched a misinformation campaign against the drug and enrolled the services of Hollywood and several tabloid newspapers. Headlines across the nation began publicizing alleged reports of insanity and violence induced by "reefer-smoking." Exaggerated accounts of violent crimes committed by immigrants reportedly intoxicated by marijuana became popularized. Once under the influence of the drug, criminals purportedly knew no fear and lost all inhibitions. For example, a news bulletin issued by the FBN in the mid-1930s purported that a user of marijuana "becomes a fiend with savage or 'cave man' tendencies. His sex desires are aroused and some of the most horrible crimes result. He hears light and sees sound. To get away from it, he suddenly becomes violent and may kill." 5
Similar reports swept the country. A widely publicized issue of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology asserted that the marijuana user is capable of "great feats of strength and endurance, during which no fatigue is felt. ... Sexual desires are stimulated and may lead to unnatural acts, such as indecent exposure and rape. ... [Use of marijuana] ends in the destruction of brain tissues and nerve centers, and does irreparable damage. If continued, the inevitable result is insanity, which those familiar with it describe as absolutely incurable, and, without exception ending in death." 6 A Washington Times editorial published shortly before Congress held its first hearing on the issue argued: "The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug and American children must be protected against it." 7 This steady stream of propaganda influenced 27 states to pass laws against marijuana in the years leading up to federal prohibition and set the stage both culturally and politically for the passage of the "Marihuana Tax Act in 1937."
Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina introduced the Act in Congress on April 14, 1937 to criminalize the recreational use of marijuana through prohibitive taxation. The bill was the brainchild of Commissioner Anslinger who later testified before Congress in support of the bill.
Congress held only two hearings to debate the merits of marijuana prohibition. The hearings totaled just one hour. 8 Federal witness Harry Anslinger testified before the House Ways and Means Committee that "this drug is entirely the monster-Hyde, the harmful effect of which cannot be measured." He was joined by Assistant General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury, Clinton Hester, who affirmed that the drug's eventual effect on the user "is deadly." These statements summarized the federal government's official position and served as the initial justification for criminalizing marijuana smoking. 9
The American Medical Association (AMA) represented the lone voice against marijuana prohibition before Congress. AMA Legislative Counsel Dr. William C. Woodward testified, "There is no evidence" that marijuana is a dangerous drug. Woodward challenged the propriety of passing legislation based only on newspaper accounts and questioned why no data from the Bureau of Prisons or the Children's Bureau supported the FBN's position. He further argued that the legislation would severely compromise a physician's ability to utilize marijuana's therapeutic potential. Surprisingly, the committee took little interest in Woodward's testimony and told the physician, "If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals ... rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the federal government is trying to do." 10
After just one hearing, the Ways and Means Committee approved the "Marihuana Tax Act." The House of Representatives followed suit on August 20 after engaging in only 90 seconds of debate. During this abbreviated floor "discussion," only two questions were asked. First, a member of congress from upstate New York asked Speaker Sam Rayburn to summarize the purpose of the bill. Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marijuana. I think it is a narcotic of some kind." The same representative then asked, "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support the bill?" Falsely, a member of the Ways and Means Committee replied, "Their Doctor Wharton (sic) gave this measure his full support ... [as well as] the approval [of] the American Medical Association." 11 Following this brief exchange of inaccurate information, the House approved the federal prohibition of marijuana without a recorded vote.
Doughton's bill sailed though the Senate with the same ease. The Senate held one brief hearing on the bill before overwhelmingly approving the measure. President Franklin Roosevelt promptly signed the legislation into law on August 2, 1937. The "Marihuana Tax Act" took effect on October 1, 1937.
Thus began the criminal prohibition of marijuana that remains in place today.
I. Marijuana Prohibitoin Is a Failure - Millions of Americans Smoke Marijuana Despite Laws Outlawing Its Use
Marijuana remains the third most popular recreational drug of choice in the United States despite 60 years of criminal prohibition. Only alcohol and tobacco are regularly consumed by a greater percentage of the population. Clearly, prohibition fails to eliminate or even significantly deter the use of marijuana among the American public.
It is time to put to rest the myth that smoking marijuana is a fringe or deviant activity engaged in only by those on the margins of American society. In reality, marijuana smoking is extremely common and marijuana is the recreational drug of choice for millions of mainstream, middle class Americans. According to the most recent data from the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), nearly 70 million Americans have smoked marijuana at some time in their lives. 12 Of these, 18 million have smoked within the past year, and approximately 10 million are current smokers (defined as having smoked at least once in the last month). 13 In fact, HHS found that 57 percent of all current illicit drug users report that marijuana is the only illegal drug they have used; this figure rises to 77 percent if hashish (a more concentrated form of marijuana) is included. 14
A recent national survey of voters conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) found that 34% -- one third of the voting adults in the country -- acknowledged having smoked marijuana at some point in their lives. 15 Many successful business and professional leaders, including many state and federal elected officials from both political parties, admit they used marijuana. It is time to reflect that reality in our state and federal legislation, and stop acting as if marijuana smokers are part of the crime problem. They are not, and it is absurd to continue spending limited law enforcement resources arresting them.
Marijuana smokers in this country are no different from their non-smoking peers, except for their marijuana use. Like most Americans, they are responsible citizens who work hard, raise families, contribute to their communities, and want to live in safe, crime-free neighborhoods. They are otherwise law-abiding citizens who live in fear of arrest and imprisonment solely because they choose to smoke marijuana for relaxation instead of drinking alcohol. Marijuana prohibition is a misapplication of the criminal sanction which undermines respect for the law in general and extends government into inappropriate areas of private lives.
Millions of Americans use marijuana; few abuse it. The government should limit its involvement in this issue solely to address and sanction irresponsible marijuana use. Responsible marijuana use causes no harm to society and should be of no interest to the federal government.
III. Law Enforcement Arrests a Marijuana Smoker Every 54 seconds in America at a Tremendous Cost to Society.
In 1972, a blue-ribbon panel of experts appointed by President Richard Nixon and led by former Pennsylvania Governor Raymond Shafer concluded that marijuana prohibition posed significantly greater harm to the user than the use of marijuana itself. The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse recommended that state and federal laws be changed to remove criminal penalties for possession of marihuana for personal use and for the casual distribution of small amounts of marijuana. 16 That year, law enforcement arrested almost 300,000 Americans on marijuana charges. 17
A 1982 National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) report on marijuana reaffirmed that criminal justice approaches were inappropriate and harmful. It recommended not only that marijuana possession be decriminalized, but that lawmakers give serious consideration to creating a system of regulated distribution and sale. 18 Law enforcement arrested over 450,000 Americans for violating marijuana laws that year. 19
In May of this year, research findings from a comprehensive, long term study performed by Kaiser Permanente concluded that no link existed between regular marijuana smoking and mortality and emphasized that marijuana prohibition posed the only significant health hazard to the user. The report advocated that "medical guidelines regarding [marijuana's] prudent use ... be established, akin to the common-sense guidelines that apply to alcohol use." In 1995, the most recent year for which the federal government has arrest statistics, law enforcement charged almost 600,000 Americans with marijuana violations. This figure is the greatest number ever recorded since marijuana prohibition began; it means that one marijuana smoker is arrested every 54 seconds in America.
Despite criticism that President Clinton is "soft" on drugs, annual data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Report demonstrate that Clinton administration officials are waging a more intensive war on marijuana smokers than any other presidency in history. Law enforcement arrested approximately 1.5 million Americans on marijuana charges during the first three years of Clinton's administration -- 84 percent of them for simple possession. The average number of yearly marijuana arrests under Clinton (483,548) is 30 percent higher than under the Bush administration (338,998), and last year's total alone is more than double the 1991 total (287,850). 22
Marijuana penalties vary nationwide, but most levy a heavy financial and social impact for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are arrested each year. In 42 states, possession of any amount of marijuana is punishable by incarceration and/or a significant fine. 23 For example, individuals arrested for simple marijuana possession in Arizona may face eighteen months in jail and a $150,000 fine. 24 Many states also have laws automatically suspending the drivers' license of an individual if they are convicted of any marijuana offense, even if the offense was not driving related.
Penalties for marijuana cultivation and/or sale also vary from state to state. Ten states have maximum sentences of five years or less and eleven states have a maximum penalty of thirty years or more. 25 Some states punish those who cultivate marijuana solely for personal use as severely as large scale traffickers. For instance, medical marijuana user William Foster of Oklahoma was sentenced to 93 years in jail in January 1997 for growing 10 medium-sized marijuana plants and 56 clones (cuttings from another plant planted in soil) in a 25-square-foot underground shelter. 26 Foster maintains that he grew marijuana to alleviate the pain of rheumatoid arthritis. Unfortunately, Foster's plight is not an isolated event; marijuana laws in six states permit marijuana importers and traffickers to be sentenced to life in jail. 27
Even those who avoid state incarceration are subject to an array of punishments that may include submitting to random drug tests, probation, paying for mandatory drug counseling, loss of an occupational license, expensive legal fees, lost wages due to absence from work, loss of child custody, loss of federal benefits, and removal from public housing. In some states, police will notify the employers of people who are arrested. As a result, employees may lose their job. 28
Federal laws prohibiting marijuana are also severe. Under federal law, possessing one marijuana cigarette or less is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and one year in prison, the same penalty as for possessing small amounts of heroin and cocaine. In one extreme case, attorney Edward Czuprynski of Michigan served 14 months in federal prison for possession of 1.6 grams of marijuana before a panel of federal appellate judges reviewed his case and demanded his immediate release. 29 Cultivation of 100 marijuana plants or more carries a mandatory prison term of five years. Large scale marijuana cultivators and traffickers may be sentenced to death.
Presently, Congress is proposing that the amount of marijuana necessary to trigger the death penalty be substantially lowered. The "Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1997," introduced by admitted former marijuana smoker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), would potentially sentence first offenders convicted of bringing more than 50 grams (less than two ounces) of marijuana across U.S. borders to life in prison without parole. Those offenders convicted for a second time -- presumably the first offense would have been convicted before H.R. 41's enactment -- would be sentenced to death. Thirty-seven members of Congress are present cosponsors of this bill.
Federal laws also deny entitlements to marijuana smokers. Under legislation introduced by Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and signed into law last year, states may deny cash aid (e.g., welfare, etc.) and food stamps to anyone convicted of felony drug charges. For marijuana smokers, this includes most convictions for cultivation and sale, even for small amounts and nonprofit transfers. Currently, a murderer, rapist, or robber could receive federal funds and benefits, but not most individuals convicted of cultivating a small amount of marijuana.
In addition, under both state and federal law, mere investigation for a marijuana offense can result in the forfeiture of property, including cash, cars, boats, land, business equipment, and houses. Amazingly, the owner does not have to be found guilty or even formally charged with any crime for the seizure to occur. In 1993, Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde (R) reported that 80 percent of the individuals whose assets are seized by the federal government under drug forfeiture laws \are never charged with a crime. Law enforcement often targets suspected marijuana offenders for the purpose of seizing their property, sometimes with tragic results. For example, millionaire rancher Donald Scott was shot and killed by law enforcement officials in 1992 at his Malibu estate in a botched raid. Law enforcement failed to find any marijuana plants growing on his property and later conceded that their primary motivation for investigating Scott was to eventually seize his land. 30
State and federal marijuana laws also have a disparate racial impact on ethnic minorities. While blacks and Hispanics make up only 20 percent of the marijuana smokers in the U.S., 31 they comprised 55 percent of the marijuana offenders sentenced under federal law in 1995. 32 State arrest and incarceration rates paint a similar portrait. For example, in Illinois, 57 percent of those sent to prison for marijuana in 1995 were black or Hispanic. 33 In California, 49 percent of those arrested for marijuana offenses in 1994 were black or Hispanic. And in New York state, 71 percent of those arrested for misdemeanor marijuana charges in 1995 were non-white. 35
Since the Shafer Commission reported their findings to Congress in 1972 advocating marijuana decriminalization, over ten million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges. Marijuana prohibition is a failed public policy that is out of touch with today's social reality and inflicts devastating harm on millions of citizens.
IV. Nonviolent Marijuana Offenders Often Serve Longer Sentences Than Murderers or Rapists.
Elected officials at both the state and federal level often engage in what the National Criminal Justice Commission calls "bait and switch." Employers of this technique exploit the public's natural fear of violent crime and propose harsh, sometimes mandatory anti-drug legislation in response. Unfortunately, this legislation seldom targets violent criminals or large drug traffickers. Rather, it often inflicts a devastating impact on minor, non-violent drug offenders.
For example, harsh federal and state sentences often apply to all marijuana distribution and "possession with the intent to distribute" offenses, regardless of whether any violence was associated with the event or the defendant is a significant marijuana trafficker. Even minor offenses may qualify for harsh mandatory sentences. This is a needlessly destructive policy that is both a misuse of the criminal process and a waste of criminal justice resources. If combating violent crime is the reason for imposing harsh and unyielding mandatory sentences, then such legislation should solely target violent offenders. There is no justification for treating non-violent marijuana offenses differently, yet many laws continue to do so.
For instance, many adult marijuana smokers share marijuana on a nonprofit basis with friends. Under many state laws, this activity could subject them to lengthy prison sentences.
Similarly, many seriously ill people -- including AIDS and cancer patients -- use marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering. Often their illness requires that a primary caregiver obtain marijuana for them. Many of these caregiverscould serve a mandatory prison sentence if convicted under existingmarijuana laws. Also at great risk are the proprietors of cannabis buyers' clubs (CBCs) who supply marijuana to seriously ill patients who possess a doctor's recommendation. Despite operating with the tacit acceptance of local law enforcement, all clubs operate in violation of federal law and most are in violation of state law. Owners of these clubs, who sometimes grow medical marijuana on site, often face federal mandatory minimum sentences for their activities. For example, federal agents confiscated over 300 marijuana plants at a California CBC called Flower Therapy on April 24, 1997. 36 Even though the club operated in accordance with state law and the plants confiscated were grown for medicinal purposes only, the owners of the club face a mandatory minimum sentence of at least five years in prison if they are found guilty of cultivation. This mandatory sentence is equal to the average prison time served by defendants convicted of violent crimes like manslaughter and is over one-year longer than the average federal sentence served for assault. 37 Likewise, individual patients preferring to avoid the black market altogether and grow a few marijuana plants in their homes are also subject to stiff state and/or federal penalties.
Marijuana possession and cultivation offenses have absolutely nothing to do with violence, yet people convicted of these offenses regularly serve longer sentences than those convicted of violent offenses, including rape and murder. State and national leaders need to reconsider our country's priorities and attach more importance to combating violent crime rather than targeting marijuana smokers.
Most Americans do not want to spend public funds incarcerating nonviolent marijuana offenders, at a cost of $23,000 per year. 38 NORML insists that our elected officials recognize that marijuana smokers are not part of the crime problem and it is wasteful, deleterious, and inhumane for our criminal statutes to treat them as if they were.
V. Marijuana Prohibition Costs Taxpayers at Least $7.5 Billion Annually
While there is a lack of information on the precise costs of marijuana prohibition in the available literature, it is possible to estimate the tremendous annual fiscal costs of marijuana prohibition.
Annual federal government expenditures on the "war on drugs" average $15.7 billion annually. 39 In addition, state and local governments also spend $16 billion per year enforcing drug laws. 40 In 1995, nearly 600,000 of the total 1.5 million drug arrests in America were for marijuana offenses. 41 Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that between 25 and 40 percent of the total $31 billion annual costs are related to marijuana prohibition. Using this basic calculation, marijuana prohibition costs the American taxpayers between $7.5 and $10 billion annually in enforcement alone.
A second way to quantify the costs of marijuana prohibition is to isolate the yearly financial burden inflicted on the criminal justice system by arresting over half a million otherwise law-abiding citizens on marijuana charges. Every time a marijuana arrest occurs -- even the most trivial arrest -- at least two police officers are taken off the street for several hours to prepare the paperwork and process the defendant. (This occurs even if the individual is allowed to later go free on bond.) If one assumes for simplicity that all the approximately 600,000 marijuana arrests reported in 1995 were simple cases involving no prior use of police time or resources and taking no more than two hours to process, then marijuana prohibition costs law enforcement a minimum of 2,400,000 man hours annually. These are police man hours and fiscal costs that could be better spent targeting violent crime. For example, following the adoption of marijuana decriminalization in California in 1976, the state saved an average of $95.8 million annually. 42
Of course, these fiscal costs do not end with an arrest. In many instances, police continue to investigate the facts of the case, prosecutors prepare the case for trial or negotiate a plea bargain (estimated at between five and ten hours per case), 43 and judges and court personnel engage in a trial or accept a plea agreement in open court. These prosecutorial costs alone likely cost Americans hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Clearly more sophisticated economic analysis is needed in this area. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that government is interested in calculating the precise cost of marijuana prohibition because it does not want to have to justify these costs to the American public. It is wasteful and disadvantageous to spend billions of otherwise limited federal dollars on a failed and ineffective public policy at the expense of already underfunded social programs.
VI. Marijuana Prohibition Makes No Exception for Medical Users
Marijuana prohibition applies to everyone, including the sick and dying. Of all the negative consequences of marijuana prohibition, none is as tragic as the denial of medicinal marijuana to the tens of thousands of seriously ill patients who could benefit from its therapeutic use.
It is clear from available studies and rapidly accumulating anecdotal evidence that marijuana is therapeutic in the treatment of a number of serious ailments and is less toxic and costly than the conventional medicines for with which it may be substituted. In many cases, marijuana is more effective than the commercially available drugs it replaces. Prestigious groups such as the American Public Health Association, the Federation of American Scientists, and the British Medical Association, as well as New England Journal of Medicine editor Jerome Kassirer, publicly endorse the medicinal use of marijuana. Moreover, in 1988, the Drug Enforcement Administration's own chief administrative law judge, Francis L. Young, declared that marijuana was "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." 44
The best-established medical use of smoked marijuana is as an anti-nauseant for cancer chemotherapy. During the 1980s, smoked marijuana was shown to be an effective anti-emetic in six different state-sponsored clinical studies involving nearly 1,000 patients. 45 For the majority of these patients, smoked marijuana proved more effective than both conventional prescription anti-nauseants and oral THC (marketed today as the synthetic pill, Marinol). Currently, many oncologists are recommending marijuana to their patients despite its prohibition. 46
In addition to its usefulness as an anti-emetic, scientific and anecdotal evidence suggests that marijuana is a valuable aid in reducing pain and suffering for patients with a variety of other serious ailments. For example, marijuana alleviates the nausea, vomiting, and the loss of appetite experienced by many AIDS patients without accelerating the rate at which HIV positive individuals develop clinical AIDS or other illnesses. In addition, it is generally accepted -- by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and others -- that marijuana reduces intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients suffering from glaucoma, the leading cause of blindness in the United States.
Clinical and anecdotal evidence also points to the effectiveness of marijuana as a therapeutic agent in the treatment of a variety of spastic conditions such as multiple sclerosis, paraplegia, epilepsy, and quadriplegia. A number of animal studies and a handful of carefully controlled human studies have supported marijuana's ability to suppress convulsions. A summary of these findings was published by the National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) Institute of Medicine in 1982. 48
Between 1978 and 1996, legislatures in 34 states passed laws recognizing marijuana's therapeutic value. Twenty-five of these laws remain in effect today. Most recently, voters in two states -- Arizona and California -- overwhelmingly passed laws allowing for the legal use of marijuana under a physician's supervision. Unfortunately, all of these laws are limited in their ability to protect patients from criminal prosecution or provide medical marijuana to those who need it by federal prohibition. In addition, federal officials have threatened to sanction physicians who recommend or use marijuana in compliance with state laws. Clearly, patients who could benefit from marijuana's therapeutic value are being held hostage by a federal government that continues to treat the issue as if it were part of the "war on drugs" instead of a legitimate public health issue. Congress must act to correct this injustice. When compassion and justice are in conflict with current law, then the law must change.
At NORML's urging, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), along with co-sponsors Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), introduced legislation in Congress on June 4, 1997, that would remove federal obstacles which currently interfere with an individual state's decision to permit the medicinal use of marijuana. H.R. 1782, the "Medical Use of Marijuana Act," allows physicians to legally recommend or prescribe marijuana to seriously ill patients where state law allows them to do so. In addition, it permits states to legally implement different systems of growing and distributing medical marijuana under state law.
H.R. 1782 is not a mandate from Washington and would not require any state to change its current laws. It is a states' rights bill that acknowledges the will of the American people and would allow states to determine for themselves whether marijuana should be legal for medicinal use. It is a common-sense solution to a complex issue and would provide a great deal of relief from suffering for a large number of people. NORML implores Congress to support this compassionate proposal to protect the ten of thousands of Americans who currently use marijuana as a medicine and the millions who would benefit from its legal access. Many seriously ill patients find marijuana the most effective way to relieve their pain and suffering and federal marijuana prohibition must not, in good conscience, continue to deny them that medication.
VII. It Is Time To End Marijuana Prohibition and To Stop Arresting Otherwise Law-Abiding Marijuana Smokers
The "war on drugs" is not really about drugs; if it were, tobacco and alcohol would be the primary targets. They are the most commonly used and abused drugs in America and unquestionably cause far more harm to the user and to society than does marijuana. Yet neither is illegal.
America tried to prohibit alcohol, but soon discovered that the crime and violence associated with prohibition was more damaging than the evil sought to be prohibited. With tobacco, America has learned over the past two decades that education is the most effective way to discourage use. Americans smoke far fewer cigarettes today than in the past without having the criminal justice system issue a single arrest, administer one drug test, seize any property, or sentence anyone to jail. Yet, the federal government fails to apply these lessons toward a rational and effective marijuana policy. Instead, politicians continue to support and enforce a failed, 60-year old public policy at the expense of rational discourse, billions in misappropriated funds and resources, and many of the founding principles and freedoms that America was built upon. The "war on drugs" has become largely a war on marijuana smokers, and the casualties of this war are the wrecked lives and the destroyed families of the half a million otherwise law-abiding citizens who are arrested each year on marijuana charges.
As a nation we have talked too long in the language of war. It is time to seek a policy that distinguishes between use and abuse, and reflects the importance America places on the right of the individual to be free from the overreaching power of government. Most would agree that the government has no business knowing what books we read, the subject of our telephone conversations, or how we conduct ourselves in the bedroom. Similarly, whether one smokes marijuana or drinks alcohol to relax is simply not an appropriate area of concern for the government. By stubbornly defining all marijuana smoking as criminal, including that which involves adults smoking in the privacy of their home, government is wasting police and prosecutorial resources, clogging courts, filling costly and scarce jail and prison space, and needlessly wrecking the lives and careers of genuinely good citizens.
Responsible marijuana smokers present no threat or danger to America, and there is no reason to treat them as criminals. To do so is to wage war without cause against a significant segment of our nation's adult population.
Speaking before Congress on the 40th anniversary of marijuana prohibition -- August 2, 1977 -- President Jimmy Carter stated: "Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use." Twenty years later, the former president's words ring as urgent as ever. After 60 years of a failed and destructive policy, it is time to once and for all end marijuana prohibition
Myth: Marijuana is a Dangerous Drug
Any discussion of marijuana should begin with the fact that there have been numerous official reports and studies, every one of which has concluded that marijuana poses no great risk to society and should not be criminalized. These include: the National Academy of Sciences' "Analysis of Marijuana Policy"(1982); the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (the Shafer Report) (1973); the Canadian Government's Commission of Inquiry (Le Dain Report) (1970); the British Advisory Committee on Drug Dependency (Wooton Report) (1968); the La Guardia Report (1944); the Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (1916-29); and Britain's monumental Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1893-4).
It is sometimes claimed that there is "new evidence" showing marijuana is more harmful than was thought in the sixties. In fact, the most recent studies have tended to confirm marijuana's safety, refuting claims that it causes birth defects, brain damage, reduced testosterone, or increased drug abuse problems.
The current consensus is well stated in the 20th annual report of the California Research Advisory Panel (1990), which recommended that personal use and cultivation of marijuana be legalized:
"An objective consideration of marijuana shows that it is responsible for less damage to society and the individual than are alcohol and cigarettes."
References:
The National Academy of Sciences report, "Marijuana and Health" (National Academy Press, 1982) remains the most useful overview of the health effects of marijuana, its major conclusions remaining largely unaffected by the last ten years of research.
Lovinger and Jones, The Marihuana Question (Dodd, Mead & Co., NY 1985) is the most exhaustive and fair-handed summary of the evidence against marijuana.
Good, positive perspectives may be found in Lester Grinspoon's Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine (Yale Press, 1993) and Marihuana Reconsidered (Harvard U. Press 1971), which debunks many of the older anti-pot myths.
See also Leo Hollister, "Health Aspects of Cannabis," Pharmacological Reviews 38:1-20 (1986).
Marijuana Myths: There are so many incorrect tales: 
Myth: Marijuana is Harmless
Just as most experts agree that occasional or moderate use of marijuana is innocuous, they also agree that excessive use can be harmful. Research shows that the two major risks of excessive marijuana use are: (1) respiratory disease due to smoking and (2) accidental injuries due to impairment.
Marijuana and Smoking:
A recent survey by the Kaiser Permanente Center found that daily marijuana-only smokers have a 19% higher rate of respiratory complaints than non-smokers.1 These findings were not unexpected, since it has long been known that, aside from its psychoactive ingredients, marijuana smoke contains virtually the same toxic gases and carcinogenic tars as tobacco. Human studies have found that pot smokers suffer similar kinds of respiratory damage as tobacco smokers, putting them at greater risk of bronchitis, sore throat, respiratory inflammation and infections.2
Although there has not been enough epidemiological work to settle the matter definitively, it is widely suspected that marijuana smoking causes cancer. Studies have found apparently pre-cancerous cell changes in pot smokers.3 Some cancer specialists have reported a higher-than-expected incidence of throat, neck and tongue cancer in younger, marijuana-only smokers.4 A couple of cases have been fatal. While it has not been conclusively proven that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer, the evidence is highly suggestive. According to Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA, the leading expert on marijuana smoking:5
"Although more information is certainly needed, sufficient data have already been accumulated concerning the health effects of marijuana to warrant counseling by physicians against the smoking of marijuana as an important hazard to health."
Fortunately, the hazards of marijuana smoking can be reduced by various strategies: (1) use of higher-potency cannabis, which can be smoked in smaller quantities, (2) use of waterpipes and other smoke reduction technologies,6 and (3) ingesting pot orally instead of smoking it.
Myth: One Joint Equals One Pack (or 16, or maybe just 4) Cigarettes
Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a "mild but significant" increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day.7 What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes.
A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked.8 This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average joint has been estimated to contain 0.4 grams of pot, a bit less than one-half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two cigarettes (actually, joint sizes range from cigar-sized spliffs smoked by Rastas, to very fine sinsemilla joints weighing as little as 0.2 grams). It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different parts of the respiratory tract differently: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, pot tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways.9 One consequence of this is that pot, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema.
Myth: Prohibition Reduces the Harmfulness of Pot Smoking
Whatever the risks of pot smoking, the current laws make matters worse in several respects: (1) Paraphernalia laws have impeded the development and marketing of water pipes and other, more advanced technology that could significantly reduce the harmfulness of marijuana smoke. (2) Prohibition encourages the sale of pot that has been contaminated or adulterated by insecticides, Paraquat, etc., or mixed with other drugs such as PCP, crack and heroin. (3) By raising the price of marijuana, prohibition makes it uneconomical to consume marijuana orally, the best way to avoid smoke exposure altogether; this is because eating typically requires two or three times as much marijuana as smoking.
Unlike the government, NORML is interested in reducing the dangers of pot smoking; California NORML and MAPS (the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) are currently researching the use of waterpipes and other advanced smoke reduction technology.
References on Marijuana and Smoking: Donald Tashkin, "Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health,?" Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 635-7; June 1993; Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, ed. C. Nora Chiang and Richard L. Hawks, NIDA Research Monograph 99 (National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD 1990); NAS Report,op. cit.; California NORML, "Health Tips for Marijuana Smokers."
Myth: No One Has Ever Died From Using Marijuana
The Kaiser study also found that daily pot users have a 30% higher risk of injuries, presumably from accidents. These figures are significant, though not as high as comparable risks for heavy drinkers or tobacco addicts. That pot can cause accidents is scarcely surprising, since marijuana has been shown to degrade short-term memory, concentration, judgment, and coordination at complex tasks including driving. 10 There have been numerous reports of pot-related accidents - some of them fatal, belying the attractive myth that no one has ever died from marijuana. One survey of 1023 emergency room trauma patients in Baltimore found that fully 34.7% were under the influence of marijuana, more even than alcohol (33.5%); half of these (16.5% used both pot and alcohol in combination. 11 This is perhaps the most troublesome research ever reported about marijuana; as we shall see, other accident studies have generally found pot to be less dangerous than alcohol.
Nonetheless, it is important to be informed on all sides of the issue. Pot smokers should be aware that accidents are the number one hazard of moderate pot use. In addition, of course, the psychoactive effects of cannabis can have many other adverse effects on performance, school work, and productivity.
Myth: Marijuana is a Major Road Safety Hazard
A growing body of research indicates that marijuana is on balance less of a road hazard than alcohol. Various surveys have found that half or more of fatal drivers have alcohol in their blood, as opposed to 7 - 20% with THC, the major psychoactive component of marijuana (a condition usually indicative of having smoked within the past 2-4 hours). 12 The same studies show that some 70-90% of those who are THC-positive also have alcohol in their blood. It therefore appears that marijuana by itself is a minor road safety hazard, though the combination of pot and alcohol is not. Some research has even suggested that low doses of marijuana may sometimes improve driving performance, though this is probably not true in most cases.13
Two major new studies by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration have confirmed marijuana's relative safety compared to alcohol. The first, the most comprehensive drug accident study to date, surveyed blood samples from 1882 drivers killed in car, truck and motorcycle accidents in seven states during 1990-91.14 Alcohol was found in 51.5% of specimens, as against 17.8% for all other drugs combined. Marijuana, the second most common drug, appeared in just 6.7%. Two-thirds of the marijuana-using drivers also had alcohol. The report concluded that alcohol was by far the "dominant" drug-related problem in accidents. It went on to analyze the responsibility of drivers for the accidents they were involved in. It found that drivers who used alcohol were especially culpable in fatal accidents, and even more so when they combined it with marijuana or other drugs. However, those who used marijuana alone appeared to be if anything less culpable than non-drug users (though the date were insufficient to be statistically conclusive). The report concluded, "There was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents." (It must be emphasized that this is not the case when marijuana is combined with alcohol or other drugs).
The second NHTSA study, "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance," concluded that the adverse effects of cannabis on driving appear "relatively small" and are less than those of drunken driving.15 The study, conducted in the Netherlands, examined the performance of drivers in actual freeway and urban driving situations at various doses of marijuana. It found that marijuana produces a moderate, dose-related decrement in road tracking ability, but is "not profoundly impairing" and "in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs." It found that marijuana's effects at the higher doses preferred by smokers never exceed those of alcohol at blood concentrations of .08%, the minimum level for legal intoxication in stricter states such as California. The study found that unlike alcohol, which encourages risky diring, marijuana appears to produce greater caution, apparently because users are more aware of their state and able to compensate for it (similar results have been reported by other researchers as well16) It should be noted that these results may not apply to non-driving related situations, where forgetfulness or inattention can be more important than speed (this might explain the discrepancy in the Baltimore hospital study, which looked at accidents of all kinds). The NHTSA study also warned that marijuana could also be quite dangerous in emergency situations that put high demands on driving skills.
Myth: Marijuana Prohibition Improves Public Safety
There is no evidence that the prohibition of marijuana reduces the net social risk of accidents. On the contrary, recent studies suggest that marijuana may actually be beneficial in that it substitutes for alcohol and other, more dangerous drugs. Research by Karyn Model found that states with marijuana decrim had lower overall drug abuse rates than others; another study by Frank Chaloupka found decrim states have lower accident rates too.17 In Alaska, accident rates held constant or declined following the legalization of personal use of marijuana.18 In Holland, authorities believe that cannabis has contributed to an overall decline in opiate abuse. Recent government statistics showed that the highest rates of cocaine abuse in the West were in Nevada and Arizona, the states with the toughest marijuana laws.
Myth: Drug Urinalysis Improves Workplace Safety
There has never been a single, controlled scientific study showing drug urinalysis improves workplace safety. Claims that drug testing works are based on dubious anecdotal reports or the mere observation of a declining rate of drug positives in the working population, which has nothing to do with job performance. Such scientific studies as have been conducted have found little difference between the performance of drug-urine-positive workers and others. The largest survey to date, covering 4,396 postal workers nationwide, found no difference in accident records between workers who tested positive on pre-employment drug screens and those who did not.19 The study did find that drug-positive workers had a 50% higher rate of absenteeism and dismissals; put another way, however, drug users had a 93.4% attendance record (versus 95.8% for non-users) and fully 85% kept their jobs for a year (versus 89.5% for non-users)! An economic analysis of postal workers in Boston concluded that the net savings of drug testing were marginal, and that there could be many situations where it is not cost-effective.20 Another survey of health workers in Georgia found no difference in job performance between drug-positive and drug-negative workers.21
Myth: Random Urinalysis is Needed in Safety-Sensitive Transportation Jobs
Government rules mandating random drug testing were promulgated without any prior statistical evidence that illicit drugs constituted an inordinate safety hazard. Not a single commercial passenger airline accident has ever been attributed to marijuana (or, for that matter, alcohol) abuse.22 Drug tests on rail workers found no elevated incidence of drug use among workers involved in accidents.23
Random drug testing of transportation workers was enacted as a hysterical reaction to a single 1987 train collision, in which 16 Amtrak passengers were killed by a Conrail train that failed to stop. The engineer and brakeman of the Conrail train at fault were found to have recently smoked marijuana, though it was never firmly proven that marijuana caused the accident. The Conrail engineer had an extensive record of speeding and drunken driving offenses and was known by management to have drinking problems. Critical safety equipment that would have averted the accident was missing or disabled. A subsequent investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that Conrail improve both its management and equipment, but did not recommend random testing. Nonetheless, Congress responded by mandating random drug testing on the entire transportation industry, from airline flight attendants to gas pipeline workers.
Myth: A Single Joint Has Effects That Linger for Days and Weeks
While it is true that THC and other cannabinoids are fat-soluble and linger in the body for prolonged periods, they do not normally affect behavior beyond a few hours except in chronic users. Most impairment studies have found that the adverse effects of acute marijuana use wear off in 2-6 hours, commonly faster than alcohol.24 The one notable exception was a pair of flight simulator studies by Leirer, Yesavage, and Morrow, which reported effects on flight simulator performance up to 24 hours later.25 The differences, described by Leirer as "very subtle" and "very marginal," were less than those due to pilot age. Another flight simulator study by the same group failed to find any effects beyond 4 hours.26 Similar "hangover" effects have been noted for alcohol.27
Chronic users may experience more prolonged effects due to a build-up of cannabinoids in the tissues. Some heavy users have reported feeling effects weeks or even months after stopping. However, there is no evidence that these are detrimental to safety.
References on Accidents and Drug Testing: Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews Vol. 2 #3-4 (Brain Information Service, UCLA 1986); Dale Gieringer, "Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1): 93-101 (Jan.-Mar 1988); Dr. John Morgan, "Impaired Statistics and the Unimpaired Worker," Drug Policy Letter 1(2): May/June 1989, and "The 'scientific' justification for drug urine testing," The University of Kansas Law Review 36: 683-97 (1988); John Horgan, "Test Negative: A look at the evidence justifying illicit-drug tests," Scientific American, March 1990 pp. 18-22, and "Postal Mortem," Scientific American, Feb. 1991 pp. 22-3; Dale Gieringer, "Urinalysis or Uromancy?" in Strategies for Change: New Directions in Drug Policy (Drug Policy Foundation, 1992).
Myth: Pot is Ten Times More Potent and Dangerous Now Than in the Sixties
The notion that pot has increased dramatically in potency is a DEA myth based on biased government data, as shown in a recent NORML report by Dr. John Morgan.28 Samples of pot from the early '70s came from stale, low-potency Mexican "kilobricks" left in police lockers, whose potency had deteriorated to sub-smokable levels of less than 0.5%. These were compared to later samples of decent-quality domestic marijuana, making it appear that potency had skyrocketed. A careful examination of the government's data show that average marijuana potency increased modestly by a factor of two or so during the seventies, and has been more or less constant ever since.
In fact, there is nothing new about high-potency pot. During the sixties, it was available in premium varieties such as Acapulco Gold, Panama Red, etc. , as well as in the form of hashish and hash oil, which were every bit as strong as today's sinsemilla, but were ignored in government potency statistics. While the average potency of domestic pot did increase with the development of sinsemilla in the seventies, the range of potencies available has remained virtually unchanged since the last century, when extremely potent tonics were sold over the counter in pharmacies. In Holland, high-powered hashish and sinsemilla are currently sold in coffee shops with no evident problems.
Contrary to popular myth, greater potency is not necessarily more dangerous, due to the fact that users tend to adjust (or "self-titrate") their dose according to potency. Thus, good quality sinsemilla is actually healthier for the lungs because it reduces the amount of smoke one needs to inhale to get high.
MARIJUANA HEALTH MYTHS
by Dale Gieringer, Ph.D., Coordinator, California NORML
[Part 2 of 2]
Myth: Pot Kills Brain Cells
Government experts now admit that pot doesn't kill brain cells.29 This myth came from a handful of animal experiments in which structural changes (not actual cell death, as is often alleged) were observed in brain cells of animals exposed to high doses of pot. Many critics still cite the notorious monkey studies of Dr. Robert G. Heath, which purported to find brain damage in three monkeys that had been heavily dosed with cannabis.30 This work was never replicated and has since been discredited by a pair of better controlled, much larger monkey studies, one by Dr. William Slikker of the National Center for Toxicological Research31 and the other by Charles Rebert and Gordon Pryor of SRI International.32 Neither found any evidence of physical alteration in the brains of monkeys exposed to daily doses of pot for up to a year. Human studies of heavy users in Jamaica and Costa Rica found no evidence of abnormalities in brain physiology.33 Even though there is no evidence that pot causes permanent brain damage, users should be aware that persistent deficits in short-term memory have been noted in chronic, heavy marijuana smokers after 6 to 12 weeks of abstinence.34 It is worth noting that other drugs, including alcohol, are known to cause brain damage.
Myth: Marijuana Causes Sterility and Lowers Testosterone
Government experts also concede that pot has no permanent effect on the male or female reproductive systems.35 A few studies have suggested that heavy marijuana use may have a reversible, suppressive effect on male testicular function.36 A recent study by Dr. Robert Block has refuted earlier research suggesting that pot lowers testosterone or other sex hormones in men or women.37 In contrast, heavy alcohol drinking is known to lower testosterone levels and cause impotence. A couple of lab studies indicated that very heavy marijuana smoking might lower sperm counts. However, surveys of chronic smokers have turned up no indication of infertility or other abnormalities.
Less is known about the effects of cannabis on human females. Some animal studies suggest that pot might temporarily lower fertility or increase the risk of fetal loss, but this evidence is of dubious relevance to humans.38 One human study suggested that pot may mildly disrupt ovulation. It is possible that adolescents are peculiarly vulnerable to hormonal disruptions from pot. However, not a single case of impaired fertility has ever been observed in humans of either sex.
Myth: Marijuana Causes Birth Defects
While experts generally recommend against any drug use during pregnancy, marijuana has little evidence implicating it in fetal harm, unlike alcohol, cocaine or tobacco. Epidemiological studies have found no evident link between prenatal use of marijuana and birth defects in humans.39 A recent study by Dr. Susan Astley at the University of Washington refuted an earlier work suggesting that cannabis might cause fetal alcohol syndrome.40
Although some research has found that prenatal cannabis use is associated with slightly reduced average birth weight and length,41 these studies have been open to methodological criticism. More recently, a well-controlled study found that cannabis use had a positive impact on birthweight during the third trimester of pregnancy with no adverse behavioral consequences.42 The same study found a slight reduction in birth length with pot use in the first two months of pregnancy. Another study of Jamaican women who had smoked pot throughout pregnancy found that their babies registered higher on developmental scores at the age of 30 days, while experiencing no significant effects on birthweight or length.43
While cannabis use is not recommended in pregnancy, it may be of medical value to some women in treating morning sickness or easing childbirth.
Myth: Pot Causes High Blood Pressure
According to the NAS, the effects of marijuana on blood pressure are complex, depending on dose, administration, and posture.44 Marijuana often produces a temporary, "moderate" increase in blood pressure immediately after ingestion; however, heavy chronic doses may slightly depress blood pressure instead. One common reaction is to cause decreased blood pressure while standing and increased blood pressure while lying down, causing people to faint if they stand up too quickly. There is no evidence that pot use causes persisting hypertension or heart disease; some users even claim that it helps them control hypertension by reducing stress.
One thing THC does do is to increase pulse rates for about an hour. This is not generally harmful, since exercise does the same thing, but it may cause problems to people with pre-existing heart disease. Chronic users may develop a tolerance to this and other cardiovascular reactions.
Myth: Marijuana Damages the Immune System
A variety of studies indicate that THC and other cannabinoids may exercise mild, reversible immuno-suppressive effects by inhibiting the activity of immune system cells know as lymphocytes (T- and B-cells) and macrophages. It is dubious whether these effects are of import to human health, since they are based mainly on theoretical laboratory and animal studies. According to a review by Dr. Leo Hollister:45 "The evidence [on immune suppression] has been contradictory and is more supportive of some degree of immunosuppression only when one considers in vitro studies. These have been seriously flawed by the very high concentrations of drug used to produce immunosuppression. The closer that experimental studies have been to actual clinical situations, the less compelling has been the evidence."
The immune suppression issue was first raised in research by the notorious cannabophobe Dr. Gabriel Nahas, but a flurry of research by the Reagan administration failed to find anything alarming. The recent discovery of a cannabinoid receptor inside rat spleens, where immune cells reside, raises the likelihood that cannabinoids do exert some sort of influence on the immune system.46 It has even been suggested that these effects might be beneficial for patients with auto-immune diseases such as multiple sclerosis. Nevertheless, not a single case of marijuana-induced immune deficiency has ever been clinically or epidemiologically detected in humans.
One exception is the lungs, where chronic pots smokers have been shown to suffer damage to the immune cells known as alveolar macrophages and other defense mechanisms.47 It is unclear how much of this damage is due to THC, as opposed to all of the other toxins that occur in smoke , many of which can be filtered out by waterpipes and other devices48.
There is no reason to think marijuana is dangerous to AIDS patients. On the contrary, many AIDS patients report that marijuana helps avert the deadly "wasting syndrome" by stimulating appetite and reducing nausea. Cannabinoids do not actually damage the T-cells, which are depleted in HIV patients: one study even found that marijuana exposure increased T-cell counts in subjects (not AIDS patients) whose T-cell counts had been low.49 Epidemiological studies have found no relation between use of marijuana or other drugs and development of AIDS.50
Myth: Marijuana Causes Chromosome and Cell Damage
According to the NAS,51 "Studies suggesting that marijuana probably does not break chromosomes are fairly conclusive." Cannabinoids in themselves are neither mutagenic nor carcinogenic, though the tars produced by marijuana combustion are. Some laboratory studies have suggested that high dosages of THC might interfere with cell replication and produce abnormal numbers of chromosomes; however, there is no evidence of such damage in realistic situations.
Myth: Marijuana Leads to Harder Drugs
There is no scientific evidence for the theory that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. The cannabis-using cultures in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America show no propensity for other drugs. The gateway theory took hold in the sixties, when marijuana became the leading new recreational drug. It was refuted by events in the eighties, when cocaine abuse exploded at the same time marijuana use declined.
As we have seen, there is evidence that cannabis may substitute for alcohol and other "hard" drugs. A recent survey by Dr. Patricia Morgan of the University of California at Berekeley found that a significant number of pot smokers and dealers switched to methamphetamine "ice" when Hawaii's marijuana eradication program created a shortage of pot.52 Dr. Morgan noted a similar phenomenon in California, where cocaine use soared in the wake of the CAMP helicopter eradication campaign.
The one way in which marijuana does lead to other drugs is through its illegality: persons who deal in marijuana are likely to deal in other illicit drugs as well.
--References
1 Michael R. Polen et al. "Health Care Use by Frequent Marijuana Smokers Who Do
Not Smoke Tobacco," Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 596-601 (June 1993).
2 Donald Tashkin, "Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health?"
Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 635-7 (June 1993).
3 D. Tashkin et al, "Effects of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or
Cocaine on the Lung," in Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, NIDA
Research Monograph 99 (1990).
4 Paul Donald, "Advanced malignancy in the young marijuana smoker,"
Adv Exp Med Biol 288:33-56 (1991); FM Taylor, "Marijuana as a potential
respiratory tract carcinogen," South Med Journal 81:1213-6 (1988).
5 D. Tashkin, "Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health,?"
op. cit.
6 Nicholas Cozzi, "Effects of Water Filtration on Marijuana Smoke:
A Literature Review," MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies)
newsletter, Vol. IV #2 (1993) (Reprints available from MAPS and Cal. NORML).
7 D. Tashkin, "Respiratory Status of 74 Habitual Marijuana Smokers,"
Chest 78 #5: 699-706 (Nov. 1980).
8 T-C. Wu, D. Tashkin, B. Djahed and J.E. Rose, "Pulmonary hazards
of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco," New England Journal of
Medicine 318: 347-51 (1988).
9 D. Tashkin et al, "Effects of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or
Cocaine on the Lung," loc.cit.
10 Herbert Moskowitz, "Marihuana and Driving," Accident Analysis
and Prevention 17#4: 323-45 (1985).
11 Carl Soderstrom et al., "Marijuana and Alcohol Use Among 1023
Trauma Patients," Archives of Surgery, 123: 733-7 (1988).
12 Dale Gieringer, "Marijuana, Driving, and Accident Safety,"
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20 (1): 93-101 (Jan-Mar 1988).
13 H. Klonoff, "Marijuana and driving in real-life situations,"
Science 186: 317-24 (1974).
14 K.W. Terhune et al., "The Incidence and Role of Drugs in
Fatally Injured Drivers," NHTSA Report # DOT-HS-808-065 (1994).
15 Hendrik Robbe and James O'Hanlon, "Marijuana and Actual
Driving Performance," NHTSA Report #DOT-HS-808-078 (1994).
16 Klonoff, loc. cit.; A. Smiley, "Marijuana: On-road and
driving simulator studies," Alcohol, Drugs and Driving: Abstracts and
Reviews 2#3-4: 15-30 (1986).
17 Peter Passell, "Less Marijuana, More Alcohol?"
New York Times June 17, 1992.
18 Michael Dunham, "When the Smoke Clears," Reason
March 1983 pp.33-6.
19 Norman, Salyard and Mahoney, "An Evaluation of Preemployment
Drug Testing," Journal of Applied Psychology 75(6) 629-39 (1990).
20 Zwerling, Ryan and Orav, "Costs and Benefits of Preemployment
Drug Screening," JAMA 267(1): 91-3 (1992).
21 David Charles Parish, "Relation of the Pre-employment Drug
Testing Result to Employment Status: A One-year Follow-up," Journal of General
Internal Medicine 4:44-7 (1989).
22 Dale Gieringer, "Urinalysis or Uromancy?" in Strategies for
Change: New Directions in Drug Policy (Drug Policy Foundation, 1992);
testimony of R.B. Stone in Hearings on the Airline and Rail Service Protection
Act of 1987, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
Feb. 20, 1987.
23 Gieringer, op. cit.; statistics reported in Federal Register
Vol. 53 #224, Nov. 21, 1988 p. 47104.
24 Alison Smiley, "Marijuana: On-Road and Driving Simulator Studies,"
Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving 2 #3-4: 121-34 (1986).
25 V.O. Leirer, J.A. Yesavage and D.G. Morrow,
"Marijuana Carry-Over Effects on Aircraft Pilot Performance,"
Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 62: 221-7 (March 1991);
Yesavage, Leirer, et al., "Carry-Over effects of marijuana intoxication
on aircraft pilot performance: a preliminary report," American Journal
of Psychiatry 142: 1325-9 (1985).
26 Leirer, Yesavage and Morrow, "Marijuana, Aging and Task
Difficulty Effects on Pilot Performance," Aviation Space and Environmental
Medicine 60: 1145-52 (Dec. 1989).
27 Yesavage and Leirer, "Hangover Effects on Aircraft Pilots
14 Hours After Alcohol Ingestion: A Preliminary Report," American Journal of
Psychiatry 143: 1546-50 (Dec. 1986).
28 John Morgan, "American Marijuana Potency: Data Versus Conventional
Wisdom," NORML report (1994). See also T. Mikuriya and M. Aldrich,
"Cannabis 1988: Old drug, new dangers, the potency question," Journal of
Psychoactive Drugs 20:47-55.
29 Dr. Christine Hartel, Acting Director of Research, National
Institute of Drug Abuse, cited by the State of Hawaii Dept of Health, Alcohol and
Drug Abuse Division in memo of Feb. 4, 1994.
30 For an overview, see NAS Report, op. cit., pp. 81-2.
R.G. Heath et al, "Cannabis sativa: effects on brain function and ultrastructure
in Rhesus monkeys," Biol. Psychiatry 15: 657-90 (1980).
31 William Slikker et al., "Chronic Marijuana Smoke Exposure in
the Rhesus Monkey," Fundamental and Applied Toxicology 17: 321-32 (1991).
32 Charles Rebert & Gordon Pryor - "Chronic Inhalation of Marijuana
Smoke and Brain Electrophysiology of Rhesus Monkeys," International Journal of
Psychophysiology V 14, p.144, 1993.
33 NAS Report, pp. 82-7.
34 "Cannabis and Memory Loss," (editorial) British Journal of
Addiction 86: 249-52 (1991)
35 Dr. Christine Hartel, loc. cit.
36 NAS Report, pp. 94-9.
37 Dr. Robert Block in Drug and Alcohol Dependence 28: 121-8 (1991).
38 NAS Report, p. 97-8.
39 NAS Report, p. 99.
40 Dr. Susan Astley, "Analysis of Facial Shape in Children
Gestationally Exposed to Marijuana, Alcohol, and/or Cocaine,"
Pediatrics 89#1: 67-77 (June 1992).
41 Dr. Barry Zuckerman et al. "Effects of Maternal Marijuana and
Cocaine Use on Fetal Growth," New England Journal of Medicine
320 #12: 762-8 (March 23, 1989); Dr. Ralph Hingson et al.,
"Effects of maternal drinking and marijuana use on fetal growth and development,"
Pediatrics 70: 439-46 (1982).
42 Nancy Day et al., "Prenatal Marijuana Use and Neonatal Outcome,"
Neurotoxicology and Teratology 13: 329-34 (1992).
43 Janice Hayes, Melanie Dreher and J. Kevin Nugent,
"Newborn Outcomes With Maternal Marihuana Use in Jamaican Women,"
Pediatric Nursing 14 #2: 107-10 (Mar-Apr. 1988).
44 NAS Report, pp. 66-67.
45 Dr. Leo Hollister, "Marijuana and Immunity," Journal of
Psychoactive Drugs 20(1): 3-8 (Jan/Mar 1988).
46 Sean Munro, Kerrie Thomas and Muna Abu-Shaar, "Molecular
characterization of a peripheral receptor for cannabinoids," Nature
365:61-5 (Sept. 2, 1993) ; Leslie Iversen, "Medical Uses of Marijuana?",
ibid. pp. 12-3.
47 D. Tashkin, "Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To
Health,?" op. cit.
48 Nicholas Cozzi, ibid.
49 Donald Tashkin et al., "Cannabis 1977,"
Ann. Intern. Med. 89:539-49 (1978).
50 Richard A Kaslow et al, "No Evidence for a Role of Alcohol
or Other Psychoactive Drugs in Accelerating Immunodeficiency in HIV-1-Positive
Individuals," JAMA 261:3424-9 (June 16, 1989).
51 NAS Report, p. 101.
52 "Survey: Hawaii war on pot pushed users to 'ice,'"
Honolulu Advertiser, April 1, 1994 p. 1.
 |
