Why Marijuana Should Remain Illegal
Published: February 26, 1994 * Sign In to E-Mail * Print
To the Editor:
I read with concern "Legalizing Marijuana Would Allow Regulation of Its Potency" (letter, Feb. 13). According to the writer, marijuana with high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC (the chemical that causes the psychoactive effects on the abuser), is not a new phenomenon, and this high potency should not be used as a reason to keep marijuana illegal.
Marijuana is not the same drug it was 20 years ago. Special fertilizers, plant hormones and steroids, carbon dioxide and advanced indoor horticulture techniques are used by the informed grower to "push" the plant to produce the highest grade, most potent variety of marijuana, sinsemilla.
Because of its potency, domestic marijuana is the most highly prized cannabis product in the world. In 1970, the average THC content of a marijuana plant was 1.5 percent. The THC content of today's sinsemilla variety ranges from 8 percent to 20 percent. Today's marijuana is a drug that is significantly more potent than it was during the Woodstock era.
The writer then states that "if the Government really believes that stronger varieties of marijuana are less desirable, then it has one more reason to support legalization. If cultivation of marijuana were legal, growers would not be pressed to produce the strongest possible product, and health authorities would be able to regulate its production and strength."
This logic doesn't hold up. Why would a marijuana abuser opt for a less potent drug when stronger varieties are available? As health regulators distributed the lesser drug, illegal growers would be pushing their higher potency marijuana.
More to the point, potency, although a factor, is not the only reason that marijuana should remain illegal.
Marijuana contains known toxins and cancer-inducing chemicals, which are stored in fat cells for long periods of time. Scientific research relates marijuana use to damaged brain cells and respiratory systems, decreased hormone production in both sexes, acute memory loss, lowered immune systems and impaired motor skills. THC and marijuana smoke have been directly linked to miscarriage, in-utero fetal death, stillbirth and infant death just after birth, along with behavioral and biological abnormalities of offspring.
Also, contrary to reports concerning medical use of marijuana, there are no reliable scientific studies showing that marijuana is an effective drug for treating nausea and vomiting. Although some studies show that pure THC, one of the many chemicals in marijuana, has some effect in controlling nausea and vomiting, this chemical is available in a pharmaceutical capsule for use by the medical community.
Marijuana certainly isn't a drug we want to put our stamp of approval on, no matter what the THC level. And we should beware of those who say "there is nothing new about strong dope." STEPHEN H. GREENE Acting Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration Washington, Feb. 17, 1994 http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/26/opinion/l-why-marijuana-should-remain-illegal-310506.html Locate an article on a controversial subject where the author makes an argument you do not agree with.

Write a 350- to 700-word rebuttal to the article using valid arguments and supporting data. In the rebuttal, offer an analysis in which you do the following: Analyze the reliability, credibility, and validity of the data used by the author.
Identify any logical fallacies in the argument. *
Format your rebuttal consistent with APA guidelines.

Legalizing marijuana would not only benefit marijuana smokers, but other aspects of society as well. Unfortunately John P. Walters thinks otherwise. "The legalization scheme is unworkable. A government-sanctioned program to produce, distribute, and tax an addictive intoxicant creates more problems than it solves. First, drug use would increase. No student of supply-and-demand curves can doubt that marijuana would become cheaper, more readily available, and more widespread than it currently is when all legal risk is removed and demand is increased by marketing."
(Walters). This claim is partially true. Marijuana cost would go down, it would be more readily available, all legal risk would be removed, and most likely drug use would increase. But if it is going to be legal anyway, increase in its use would not be a problem. distribution of marijuana would be legal. Considering it costs $30,000+ per year to house an inmate, that is a tremendous amount of tax dollars being spent that could be better used for numerous other resources. It is for these reasons that the positive aspects of legalizing marijuana far outweigh the few drawbacks.
When used with such a disease, it can lessen spasms and muscle cramps, as well as relieve shaking and other effects of gait (MPP). Recent statistics show that the leading cause of neurological disability among people ages 16-40 in the United States is multiple sclerosis. Such a remedy, no matter how temporary, can greatly reduce the suffering and pain from which MS patients fall victim (MPP). And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Because of the marijuana ban, it has become increasingly more difficult to conduct studies on marijuana, stunting further research of other possible medicinal benefits. If it was legalized, even if only medically, there is no doubt that more beneficial uses would be discovered.
The ban of marijuana, over the past several years, has not reduced demand or availability in the U.S. On the contrary, marijuana use has dramatically increased due to the widespread publicity given to the drug by music artists, movies, and television, as well as the health benefits that are becoming more known as colleges do independent studies disproving assumptions from old government "facts", most of which were not actually studied at all. There was a time when alcohol was scrutinized, and considering how many have died from it, it would seem to be a great deal more dangerous than marijuana. Then factor in all of the benefits of marijuana, and the fact that no fatalities have ever occurred from a marijuana overdose, legalization is just a matter of time.
Marijuana is more effective than conventional drugs in many instances.
Among the arguments, proponents for medical marijuana have presented a stronger argument for legalization through their use of research and evidence.
Opponents of medical marijuana have given many reasons for why it should not be legalized. One of the main reasons they argue is that “Marijuana smoke contains known carcinogens and produces dependency in users” (Medical). In many studies it has shown that it does have some harm such as the harms associated with smoking, but the National Academy of Science affirmed that “marijuana’s short term medical benefits outweigh any smoking-related harms for some patients”(Medical). Though marijuana has been proven to be damaging to the lungs than tobacco, a study in 2006 “found no evidence that marijuana smokers had higher rates of lung cancer” (Medical Marijuana). The FDA has tested the effectiveness of marijuana and has found that the cannabinoids are helpful in “treating pain associated with chemotherapy, postoperative recovery, and spinal cord injury, as well as neuropathic pain, which is often experienced by patients with metastatic cancer, multiple sclerosis,[and] diabetes” (Medical Marijuana).

There is also no evidence shown that patients who use marijuana become addicted. Though the opposing side argues this, they show no evidence in supporting this claim, which therefore, the claim is invalid. There are many pharmaceutical drugs used for treatment and they are addictive, yet it’s legal. Also carcinogens can have a negative effect, but there are many things in society, such as tobacco, that contains harmful toxins, yet it’s still legal. To say that marijuana should remain illegal because it is addictive, is irrelevant because these items are still present in society today and are harmful to the human body, but still they remain legal.

In other arguments, opponents such as the DEA have argued continuously that medical marijuana has no medicinal value. Although NORML has shown that it helps with “pain relief, nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, and movement disorders”. This research has also proven that marijuana helps with HIV/AIDS patients.

HIV is one of the leading causes of deaths, primarily in African Americans. In this disease, patients suffer from loss of appetite and pain as shown in Figure 1. Many patients have complained that pharmaceutical drugs that physicians provide them, does not help them through this disease. Studies have shown that medical marijuana has proven for some patients to have better results than prescription drugs, but opponents have held back millions of patients who are suffering. Some ill patients need medical marijuana, like mal-nourished plants need water to survive. The DEA are taking these rights away from the ill and they continue to live in a horrible state. The DEA are constantly breaking into people’s homes and arresting them for the use of medical marijuana. Innocent people are being charged heavy fines or even jail time just because they wanted to relieve their pain and suffering.

NORML has shown that “73 percent of Americans support making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe”. This shows that many of the American people want to give medical marijuana to the seriously ill patients. They understand that legalizing medical marijuana is only accessible for ill patients and not for recreational use. Also “since 1996, voters in 13 states- have adopted initiatives exempting patients who use marijuana under physician’s supervision from state criminal penalties” (NORML). Ill patients in America should be given their rights in every state so that each patient can receive equal care. As citizens of the United States seriously ill patients are born with rights and should not be deprived from them.

Many of the different reasons, that the opposing side has given, are irrelevant and can be easily proven by the evidence given by the proponents. The DEA have let millions of patients suffer miserably for many years because they refuse to give them the proper care. Research has already proven that it has medicinal value and it should not be withheld from these patients any longer.

Public opinion on the medical value of marijuana has been sharply divided. Some dismiss medical marijuana as a hoax that exploits our natural compassion for the sick; others claim it is a uniquely soothing medicine that has been withheld from patients through regulations based on false claims (Joy).

The debate over the legalization of Cannabis sativa, more commonly known as marijuana, has been one of the most controversial issues ever to occur in the United States. Its use as a medicine has existed for thousands of years in many countries worldwide and is documented as far back as 2700 BC in ancient Chinese writings. Marijuana should be legalized for several reasons. First, the government could earn money from taxes on its sale. Its value to the medical world outweighs its potential abuse, and because of its importance to the paper and clothing industries. Legalization should be considered despite efforts made by groups, which say marijuana is a harmful drug that will increase crime rates and lead users to other more dangerous substances.

Government could impose heavy taxation on it.
The Marijuana Tax Act, which passed in 1937, coincidentally occurred just as the decoricator machine was invented. With this invention, hemp would have been able to take over competing industries almost instantaneously. William Hearst owned enormous acres of forest so his interest in preventing the growth of hemp can be easily explained. Competition from hemp would have easily driven the Hearst paper-manufacturing company out of business and significantly lowered the value of his land. DuPont's involvement in the anti-hemp campaign can also be explained with great ease. At this time, DuPont was patenting a new sulfuric acid process for producing wood-pulp paper. According to the company's own records, wood-pulp products ultimately accounted for more than 80% of all DuPont's railroad car loadings for the 50 years the Marijuana Tax Act was passed. Two years before the prohibitive hemp tax in 1937, DuPont developed nylon which was a substitute for hemp rope. The year after the tax was passed DuPont came out with rayon, which would have been unable to compete with the strength of hemp fiber. DuPont's point man was Harry Anslinger, who was appointed to the FBN by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, who was also chairman of the Mellon Bank. Anslinger's relationship to Mellon wasn't just political, he was also married to Mellon's niece. The reasoning behind DuPont, Anslinger, and Hearst was not for any moral or health related issues. They fought to prevent the growth of this new industry so they wouldn't lose money.
As we start the new century, people should be concentrating on the serious drugs like heroin and amphetamines. In the UK in 1991, 42,209 people were convicted of marijuana charges, clogging courts and overcrowding prisons, and almost 90 percent of drug offenses involve cannabis. The British government spends 500 million pounds a year on "overall responses to drugs" but receives no taxes from the estimated 1.8 billion pound illegal drug market. Figures like this can be seen in the United States as well. The United States spends billions of dollars annually on the war on drugs. If the government were to legalize marijuana, it could reasonably place high taxes on it because people are used to buying marijuana at high prices created by the risks of selling marijuana illegally. It could be sold at a convenient store just like a pack of cigarettes for less than someone would pay now, but still yield a high profit because of easy growing requirements. An entire industry could be created out of hemp based products. The oils extracted from the seeds could be used for fuels and the hemp fiber, a fiber valued for its strength that it is used to judge the quality of other fibers, could be manufactured into ropes, clothing, or paper. Most importantly, the money the government would make from taxes could be used for more important things, such as serious drugs or the national debt. The recreational use of marijuana would not stimulate crime like some would argue. The crime rate in Amsterdam, where marijuana is legal, is lower than many major US cities.
Full Marijuana Tax Act
Medical Benefits.
The American Medical Association tried to argue for the medical benefits of hemp. Marijuana is actually less dangerous than alcohol, cigarettes, and even most over-the-counter medicines or prescriptions. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care. For marijuana to be illegal in the United States when alcohol poisoning is a major cause of death in this country and approximately 400,000 premature deaths are attributed to cigarettes annually. A Person that drinks an extreme amount of alcohol will experience and inability to stand or walk without help and may result in unconsciousness or death. Even though these effects occur only under an extreme amount of alcohol consumption, the fact is smoking extreme amounts of marijuana will do nothing more than put someone to sleep, while drinking excessive amounts of alcohol will kill someone. The most profound activist for marijuana's use as a medicine is Dr. Lester Grinspoon, author of Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine. According to Grinspoon, "The only well confirmed negative effect of marijuana is caused by the smoke, which contains three times more tars and five times more carbon monoxide than tobacco. But even the heaviest marijuana smokers rarely use as much as an average tobacco smoker." Marijuana also relieves nausea suffered by cancer patients undergoing powerful chemotherapy. It is also used by patients who have multiple sclerosis and AIDS. Marijuana also proved to be effective in the treatment of glaucoma because its use lowers pressure on the eye.
Information site
An other information site
And in conclusion.
Marijuana supports can expect strong opposition from companies like DuPont and paper manufacturers but the selfishness of these corporations should not prevent its use in society like it did in the 1930's. Regardless of what these organizations will say about marijuana, the fact is it has the potential to become one of the most useful substances in the entire world. If people took action and the government legalized it today, we will immediately see benefits from this decision. People suffering from illnesses ranging from manic depression to Multiple Sclerosis would be able to experience relief. The government could make billions of dollars off of the taxes it could impose on its sale, and its implementation into the industrial world would create thousands of new jobs for the economy. Also, because of its role in paper making, the rain forests of South America can be saved from their current fate of extinction. No recorded deaths have ever occurred as a result of marijuana use, it is not physically addictive like alcohol or tobacco, and most doctors will agree it is safer to use than those substances . Marijuana being illegal has no validity at all. Due to all the positive aspects of marijuana it should be legalized in the United States.

Sooner or later, marijuana will be legal

Share this on:
Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon LinkedIn
September 28, 2010|By Bill Piper, Special to CNN

*
It's as predictable as the sun rising and setting. Even though police made more than 850,000 marijuana arrests last year, a recent government report shows youth marijuana use increased by about 9 percent.
Supporters of the failed war on drugs will no doubt argue this increase means policymakers should spend more taxpayer money next year arresting and incarcerating a greater number of Americans. In other words, their solution to failure is to do more of the same. Fortunately, the "reform nothing" club is getting mighty lonely these days -- 76 percent of Americans recognize the drug war has failed; millions are demanding change.

In the almost 40 years since President Nixon declared a war on drugs, tens of millions of Americans have been arrested and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent. Yet drugs are just as available now as they were then.
It is hard to find even an elected official who hasn't used marijuana or other illegal drugs. President Obama used drugs. Former President George W. Bush made taped comments that many interpreted as indicating he did too. Then there's Bill Clinton, who famously said he smoked pot but didn't inhale. Al Gore, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin admit they used drugs.
Drug use is so widespread the FBI changed its policy of not hiring people with a history of illegal drug use because the policy disqualified so many people that it could not fill its law enforcement positions.
The war on drugs hasn't just failed; it's created problems of it own. Laws restricting the availability of sterile syringes have increased the spread of AIDS and hepatitis C.
Aggressive campaigns to arrest and incarcerate drug users have increased drug-related deaths by making drug users too afraid to call 911 when a friend is overdosing. The government's misleading and over-the-top anti-drug messages have made young people mistrust other anti-drug messages from parents and adults.
Mass incarceration of drug offenders has drained state and federal resources, distracted police from dealing with violent crime, and produced a generation of children with one or both parents behind bars instead of at home.

The racial disparities are appalling. As Michelle Alexander so eloquently shows in her new book, "The New Jim Crow," a drug conviction automatically makes a person a second-class citizen who can be legally discriminated against in housing and employment, denied school loans, and barred for life from serving on juries, accessing public benefits and even voting. While African Americans make up only about 13 percent of the U.S. population and about 15 percent of drug users, they make up about 38 percent of those arrested for drug law violations and a mind-boggling 59 percent of those convicted for drug law violations.
Like Prohibition did for alcohol, drug prohibition is also enriching organized crime. Instead of regulating marijuana to control who can access it, policymakers have ceded control of the $400-billion-a-year global drug market to crime syndicates and thugs.
In Mexico, where parts of the country are like Chicago under Al Capone on steroids, 28,000 people have died since President Calderón launched a war three years ago against well-armed, well-funded drug trafficking organizations. The U.S. government doesn't report its prohibition-related deaths, but law enforcement officers, drug offenders and civilians die every day in our country's war on drugs, too.
It is long past time to abandon the silly notion that America can be a drug-free nation. The inconvenient truth in drug policy is that Americans love drugs -- alcohol, caffeine, marijuana, cocaine, and prescription drugs for everything from anxiety to fatigue. Although some people develop problems with their drug use, most do not. This holds true for both legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, and illegal drugs like marijuana and cocaine. Decades of evidence shows that the average user of any drug doesn't get addicted and doesn't create problems for anyone else. Obviously, some do.
We recognize these facts when it comes to legal drugs. It's why we don't arrest the tens of millions of Americans who drink responsibly, but do arrest people who drive while drunk or get belligerent and start fights. Yet we waste tens of billions of dollars every year arresting Americans for marijuana or other drugs, even when they're not harming anyone. Then we either jam them into overcrowded jails where they take up space that could hold someone who committed a violent offense, or jam them into a treatment program where they take up limited spaces for people who really need help.
What matters most is not how many people use marijuana, alcohol or other drugs, but what's the best way to reduce the problems associated with substance misuse without creating more harmful social problems. Drug use rates rise and fall almost independently of what politicians say and do, but criminalizing drug use makes the situation worse. Prohibition doesn't stop drug use; it makes drug use more dangerous while filling prisons with nonviolent offenders and making crime lords rich. With marijuana use among young people rising despite decades of punitive drug policies, policymakers should reform U.S. drug policy. Or maybe voters will reform it for them. In November, California voters will vote on Proposition 19, which seeks to control marijuana like alcohol, redirect police resources toward violent criminals, and end California's embarrassingly racist marijuana enforcement once and for all. Polling shows support is about 50-50.
Even if Proposition 19 loses, it will only be temporary. Support for marijuana legalization is growing, and not just in California. Legalization will happen. It's just a question of how many lives and tax dollars will be wasted before it does. Some vested interests, of course, will fight change until the bitter end. Progress has never been accepted by everyone.
The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Bill Piper.