Marijuana is originally from Asia. It has been used there since at least 3000 BC. It eventually made its way to the Greeks. It has also been found in regions of China dating back 2,500 years. The coolest part of the history of Cannabis is its connection to Shakespeare. "Pipes dug up from the garden of Shakespeare's home in Stratford upon Avon contain traces of cannabis." They decided to research his estate after it was hypothesized that 'noted weed' from Sonnet 76 and 'journey in my head' from Sonnet 72 are references to pot. Even though pot has a long history of use, it became illegal in the United States in 1937.
Theories abound as to why Marijuana eventually became illegal. One is that the paper and chemical companies did their best lobbying to make it illegal for fear that they would be run out of business by the affects of marijuana and the benefits of hemp. Another theory criticizes the theories about economics for not taking into account the social aspect. This theory states that it became illegal because of a deep seeded racist attitude toward African Americans and Mexicans.
But this 1937 Act did not make the possession or use of marijuana illegal. All it did was levy a tax on anyone who dealt with it. This act, though, was the first step toward illegalization. The second step was the 1964 Convention on Narcotics. And the third step was the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. The 1964 Convention basically was a treaty of countries to regulate and stop drug abuse. The 1970 act was the United States implementing that treaty.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 created five Schedules or classifications of the various drugs. The DEA and FDA were in charge of placing each drug into the appropriate schedule. Schedule 1 drugs are drugs that "have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." Marijuana falls into this schedule. As you go down each schedule, you get drugs that are less and less controlled. By the time you get to IV and V, you are dealing with drugs like cough suppressants, Xanax, Valium, and Ambien. This is the first joke of all. Drugs that are highly addictive and regularly abused are at the very bottom of the list. And, to make matters worse, alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are NOT ON THE LIST ANYWHERE. The chart below shows some startling facts...
In 1968, Nixon was preparing to start enforcing the Convention of 1964. He hired the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse to study the affects of marijuana.
After the study, It's chairman, Raymond Shafer, said "The criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance'". President Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act anyway.
Since then, the violence on the borders of US and Mexico has been deadly. There are hundreds of people killed each year in the drug trafficking scene. There is so much money at stake, it has to be kept tight by the drug lords. They have semi-automatic weapons and they have millions of dollars. When there is a drug user, there is a drug dealer. The United States government has spent billions of dollars trying to stop something that simply cannot be stopped. How is this rational? Does it make sense to let the money being made off of marijuana go to Mexico and Mexican drug dealers instead of the United States government? A few days ago, President Barack Obama eased regulations of medical marijuana stores. He has told federal authorities not to target medical marijuana suppliers or users. This is the first step toward legalization. The public opinion on pot has gone from 25% in favor of legalization in the 1970s to 44% today.
Pros versus Cons. The pros of the drug are obvious. It can prevent nausea and vomiting, stimulate hunger for chemotherapy, lower intraocular pressure in the treatment of glaucoma. It has also been shown to stop schizophrenia, help with multiple sclerosis and depression.
Putting money in the hands of the taxpayer and not in the hands of drug cartels is a pro. Ending violence on the border is a pro. Not wasting money trying to stop the cultivation and distribution is a pro.
The cons are not so obvious. The most obvious, though, is the effect it can have on the respiratory system. It is smoke going into your lungs, just like tobacco smoke from a cigarette. With the drug being illegal, adulterants are bound to happen. With the legalization of marijuana, this would not happen.
What about the Gateway drug theory? This is a major con. Or is it? According to a 2005 study in the "Drug and Alcohol Review", "pre-existing traits may predispose users to addiction in general... the availability of multiple drugs in a given setting." The study says that there are many other factors, aside from the actual cannabis that contributes to the use of other harder drugs.
It seems that rational minds can conclude that the pros heavily outweigh the cons. It would be a good thing to let patients who need marijuana have easy access. It would a good thing to stop Mexican drug cartels. It would be a good thing to tax marijuana and make money. It would be a good thing to stop wasting taxpayer money in an effort to stop a drug that is not harmful. The DEA would be better utilized stopping the trafficking of many other drugs. It would be a good thing for marijuana to become legal in the United States.
Sources:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/09595230500126698
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/77339/?page=entire
http://www.world-mysteries.com/marijuana1.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/UK/03/01/shakespeare.cannabis/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1195939.stm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200612/23/eng20061223_335258.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/20/govt%E2%80%99s-latest-action-on-medical-marijuana-first-step-in-legalizing-pot/
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act
10 comments:
I found some interesting facts when I researched this subject. It is a topic with many facets...most of the research from anyone in the medical community was overwhelmingly negative. I could fill this blog with lots more articles on the horrible effects of marijuana use. To legalize its use in a controlled medical situation versus legalizing it for the general population are two very different things. However, making it OK for use in medical situations starts things down a slippery slope that I do not believe is worth venturing into. The US has some very powerful medicines (morphine, oxycodone, fentanol) that are successfully used to control pain in patients who need it. Not that these can't be abused as well, but to add pot to this mix just adds to the already large drug problem in this country. I will try to add later some information I found about the failure other countries have had (mostly European) after they legalized pot use. Interesting. And the debate continues.....
Here is an exerpt from the link-
Gateway Drug
Marijuana is a gateway drug. In drug law enforcement, rarely do we meet heroin or cocaine addicts who did not start their drug use with marijuana. Scientific studies bear out our anecdotal findings.
For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported, based on a study of 300 sets of twins, that marijuana-using twins were four times more likely than their siblings to use cocaine and crack cocaine, and five times more likely to use hallucinogens such as LSD.
Furthermore, the younger a person is when he or she first uses marijuana, the more likely that person is to use cocaine and heroin and become drug-dependent as an adult. One study found that 62 percent of the adults who first tried marijuana before they were 15 were likely to go on to use cocaine. In contrast, only one percent or less of adults who never tried marijuana used heroin or cocaine.
Significant Health Problems
Smoking marijuana can cause significant health problems. Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, of which 60 are cannabinoids. Smoking a marijuana cigarette deposits about three to five times more tar into the lungs than one filtered tobacco cigarette.
Consequently, regular marijuana smokers suffer from many of the same health problems as tobacco smokers, such as chronic coughing and wheezing, chest colds, and chronic bronchitis. In fact, studies show that smoking three to four joints per day causes at least as much harm to the respiratory system as smoking a full pack of cigarettes every day.
Marijuana smoke also contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into malignant cells.
Mental Health Problems
In addition, smoking marijuana can lead to increased anxiety, panic attacks, depression, social withdrawal, and other mental health problems, particularly for teens. Research shows that kids aged 12 to 17 who smoke marijuana weekly are three times more likely than nonusers to have suicidal thoughts.
Marijuana use also can cause cognitive impairment, to include such short-term effects as distorted perception, memory loss, and trouble with thinking and problem solving. Students with an average grade of D or below were found to be more than four times as likely to have used marijuana in the past year as youths who reported an average grade of A.
For young people, whose brains are still developing, these effects are particularly problematic and jeopardize their ability to achieve their full potential.
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/bldea050426_3.htm
On the gateway drug idea....I think the evidence in the article posted from MAK is proving my point exactly. There is nothing in the gateway drug section of this post that actually talks about the marijuana itself. It even says at the end, that in adults it is less likely. Does this not prove that it's something beyond the drug itself? Like teenage angst? Or the proclivity of certain personalitites to do something dangerous/fun/illegal?
As far as health problems go, I agree that it is unhealthy to do in large quantities, just like pretty much anything else. Smoking 4 joints a day sounds crazy. That seems to be an extreme. I'm still not sure how it can be worse than tobacco or alcohol, both of which cause plenty of problems on their own.
I think the desire to keep marijuana illegal is based mostly on perceptions and social norms, as opposed to facts.
I also think the chart in the middle of the article is really revealing.
it is undoubtable that the argument for/against the leagalization of marijuana is a grand one which could be disputed until the end of time. however, to have an 'open-minded' approach to the concept is needed as well as deserved. yes MAK, we may have a variety of 'powerful drugs' to deal with pain, nausea, etc.. all of which are pharmaceutically enhanced medications designed to treat symptoms...'a pill for every ill'.. or so some say. cannabis being 'grown', from the 'ground', a natural medication or a recreational drug, however you look at it, the effects of cannibis are far more docile than those of manufactured medications......which in turn also become recreational drugs with a far higher margin for problems. as for the 400+ chemicals in marijuana...........
now it is a cultivated crop, and depending on the means of growing it, may have pesticides, herbicides, etc, but marijuana is rarely 'laced' with anything at all. of course, any burning/smokey object is going to produce tar or resin,...that is inevitable. there is no 'added' chemical to promote addiction, there is no 'added' chemical to alter the taste or 'smoke-ability' much like many ciggarettes. but jamie, you are right. there is way too much bloodshed and money involved in this 'WAR ON DRUGS'. what a load of shit...war on drugs. makes me sick. the amount of money law enforcement puts forth to put somebody in jail on a minor marijuana offense could get a person into college...hell, get a person through college. marijuana needs to be looked at from a different viewpoint rather than the 'old school' approach of...'marijuana is corrupting our youth' or 'black men rape white women when they use marijuana', etc. come on now, supply it, tax it, and stimulate the economy. the entirety of the worlds 'fights' are based on opposing viewpoints. and this is turning into just that...another fight. enough with the bullets and blood. wait, on second thought, lets invest in McDonalds and the future of obese, artery clogged, heart failing finger pointers...
http://asignalofmisunderstanding.blogspot.com/
(Shane's informative blog on the subject)
People like MAK just don't have a clue. Having watched numerous documentaries on the drug war, and having read information that Jamie and Shane have presented, it seems clear that our government's failure to legalize MJ is merely it's attempt at maintaining the status quo, and it does so due to the pressure of special interests.
Also MJ being legal = hemp is legal
Hemp's resurgence as a viable cash crop, with myriad uses, could completely revitalize the US economy.
Can kagame or any other genius out there tell how the U.S. would SUCCESSFULLY make pot legal? And is it just me or do the people who are so vocally in favor, for the most part, big users themselves?
Below are some facts concerning other country's attempts to legalize marijuana. Again, how would the U.S. be different?
B. The Netherlands
Proponents of legalization almost certainly would cite Amsterdam as the drug Mecca of the Western world. Anyone may go into the restaurants in this city and order marijuana and hashish from a menu; further, heroin and cocaine have been decriminalized for all practical purposes. The police simply leave the users alone. Consequently, health officials estimate that Amsterdam has 7,000 addicts, 20% of whom are foreigners.58 These addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city, thus necessitating that Amsterdam maintain a police presence far greater than those of cities of comparable size in the United States.59
The Dutch have not raised one dollar in tax revenue from drug sales, and drug violators account for 50 percent of the Dutch prison population, a higher proportion than in the United States.60 The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes.61 Nationwide, the number of reported crimes increased to 1.3 million in 1992 from. 812,000 in 1981.62 Faced with public disgust at home over soaring drug related crime and pressure from other European Community countries to strengthen drug laws, Dutch authorities are implementing an aggressive program to reduce drug-linked crimes and disturbances and show new teeth in combatting illegal drug sales.63 Eberhard van der Laan, leader Of the Social Democrats in the Amsterdam City Council says, "People are absolutely fed up with all the troubles caused by drug addicts - car windows broken, noise, whole streets almost given up to the drug problem."64 Legalization advocates claim that marijuana use in Netherlands has not increased since the laws were liberalized, but the number of Amsterdam drug cafes rose from 30 to over 300 in one decade. They also fail to note that daily marijuana use by U.S. youth has declined by 75 percent.65
C. Switzerland
Much like Amsterdam, Switzerland until recently followed a policy of decriminalization. Indeed, a city park in the town of Zurich for many years was allowed to be a haven for drug users - police simply would ignore the problem by claiming that it was better to have all the addicts in one place rather than having them roam throughout the entire city.66 Unsurprisingly, in February of 1992 Switzerland ended this experiment with decriminalization after experiencing an unacceptable increase in use, violence, crime and health costs and consequences.67 Specifically, the number of addicts residing at the park (called Platzspitz) jumped from a few hundred in 1987 to over 20,000, by early 1992.68 Approximately 20% of these addicts were foreigners who came to Zurich to take advantage of the city's lax drug laws.69 In deciding to close the park, city officials cited the increased incidence of crime and prostitution--as Andres Oehler, a municipal spokesperson stated, "it was felt that the situation had got out of control in every sense."70
MORE....
D. Spain
Since 1983 in Spain, it has been legal to use, but not sell, cocaine and heroin. Recently, however,
Spanish officials have begun a crack-down on drug pushers due to a dramatic increase in the addiction rate.71 Unsurprisingly, Spain and Italy, which also legalized use of cocaine and heroin, have the highest rates of both drug use and overdose of all European countries.72
E. China
Lest we forget the lessons of history, consider that in the late 1800's, opium was legal in China. By 1900, ninety million Chinese were addicted to the drug, and it took fifty years of repressive police measures and rehabilitation to correct the problem.73 Today, opium and other addictive drugs are illegal.74
F. Japan
In the 1950's, Japan was faced with an epidemic of amphetamine use that created half a million addicts. Through socialization and policies aimed at both reducing supply and demand, the number of addicts was decreased to a few thousand within four years.75 A heroin epidemic involving thousands of addicts was dealt with successfully in the 1960's using the same measures. 76
G. Other countries
Throughout recent history, numerous other countries have attempted legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, all meeting with the same harmful results. In Egypt in the 1920's, an unrestricted supply of cocaine and heroin created an epidemic that eventually resulted in the strict prosecution of all addicts.77 In Thailand and Iran, countries that traditionally have had cheap and unrestricted sources of narcotics, the addiction rates have been and continue to be high.78 Finally, the Republic of Singapore had to resort to strict law enforcement and mandatory rehabilitation in order to overcome a heroin epidemic.79
Given the experiences of countries such as Great Britain, Switzerland, The Netherlands, China, Japan, Spain, Egypt, Iran, and Thailand, it is little wonder why countries that traditionally have had lenient drug laws are all moving in the direction of illegalization. Undoubtedly, the danger that drug legalization presents was foremost on the minds of the numerous countries - the United States included - that signed the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971. And such danger also is why the International Narcotics Control Board for the United Nations concluded in 1992 that "legalization advocates have not yet presented a sufficiently comprehensive, coherent or viable alternative to the present system of international drug abuse control."80
I think the comments left here by MAK are pretty obviously irrelevant. To group Marijuana into a group with drugs like cocaine and heroin is to not understand the differences, something one has to properly understand to properly assess the pros and cons of legalizing pot. I think the underlying theme of these countries that MAK is trying to use is a slippery slope argument. That type of argument simply does not hold water. If the DEA is not using their man power on marijuana, they will use it on the other drugs and NOT the way MAK is suggesting. Legalizing one thing does not mean that we will let other things go by the wayside. I believe it would be the opposite. Other drugs would get more attention because marijuana would be left alone.
I would say that most people who want to legalize pot are 1 of 3. 1. They need it for a condition they have. These are medical marijuana users. 2. They are sensible people who understand that it's time to legalize a drug that is less harmful and possibly more profitable than alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco. 3. They use the drug often. Therefore, I cannot agree that the majority of people who advocate legalization are just heavy users themselves. That comment is clearly an improper assessment.
Post a Comment