Prohibition of marijuana is unjustified in a nation that values democratic freedoms. Inconsistent substance policies along with the existence of significant doubt regarding marijuana’s health hazards underlines the need to revert marijuana’s public image from an illegal drug to a product Americans have the right to purchase legally. The negative views of marijuana legalization are hypocritical from a policy standpoint and represent the enforcement of a temporal ideology rather than an expression of democratic values. Illegality is the federal government’s interference with our right to private property and the pursuit of individual happiness. American citizens should not be degraded to criminals resorting to black market activities that present high costs for the American economy and society. California’s medicinal marijuana industry is a microcosm of the potential benefits that legalization will provide.
The United States democracy should be based strongly on the will of the public. California’s upcoming election over the legalization of marijuana is an expression of democracy based on the concerns that prohibition presents significant costs with less benefits to the state of California. Legalization proponents argue that the benefits of marijuana medicinally, personally, and economically are ignored by the federal government’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act.[i] On October 13th, the U.S. Attorney General asserted that despite the upcoming ballot for marijuana legalization in California, the federal government will continue to enforce marijuana restrictions and laws regardless.[ii] This is a clear demonstration of the federal government’s inconsistency with essential democratic values where the will of the people takes precedence.[iii] The government is a servant to the people and the Attorney General is misunderstanding his role as a public official.
The changing opinion of the American public reflects the realization that most arguments against the use of marijuana are surprisingly weak. In his book, “Drugs and Rights”, Douglas N. Husak[iv] makes the strong point that there exists a culture subconsciously against supporting practices for hedonistic purposes. He states, “For reasons that are deep and mysterious, many persons become apologetic and defensive about arguing in favor of a right to engage in an activity simply because it is pleasurable.” This stigma associated with pleasure seeking activities cannot justify the prohibition of any substance and neither democracy nor the constitution express an explicit prohibition of hedonism. The mind-altering attributes of a substance do not warrant its prohibition. Moreover, the inconsistent research on the medical effects of marijuana is enough to deter health-based arguments against marijuana use.[v]
A political approach, as well as a democratic approach, alleviates the stalemate brought on by an insecure understanding of marijuana’s effect on the body and mind. Almost all arguments in favor of marijuana legalization rightfully cite the health hazards of tobacco and alcohol. This inconsistency in American drug policy holds the underlying truth behind the American views on substances considered “drugs”. Since alcohol and tobacco are legal despite the consistent evidence of their negative effects on the body,[vi] both sides of the marijuana debate must understand that substance policy in a democracy is the byproduct of a culture.[vii] When the mentality of a culture shifts over time it is a democratic government’s duty to reflect these shifts.
One can even argue that the source of negative marijuana views is a result of government propaganda that younger generations are now able to avoid with the advent of the Internet and the spread of knowledge without the government’s perspective. An example of this is the Marijuana Policy Project which posts videos on the website Youtube in order to gather attention to the issue of detrimental marijuana laws.[viii] Instead of understanding marijuana through messages filtered with government intentions, Americans can now become involved themselves in open discussions regarding the effects of marijuana and marijuana prohibition. These discussions allow people to freely express their views on marijuana and the growth of the Internet’s popularity as a source of information is an important determinant of American culture and its values. Popular sites like Facebook have even donated thousands to the cause of legality and deny advertisements on their website featuring arguments in favor of prohibition.[ix] While this denial is a dubious way to gain support for a cause, it is nevertheless a very important example of the government losing its ability to push an agenda. Once the government loses its force in molding our views, the public can reengage in a fulfilling democracy where the government is subject to the perspectives of its citizens.
Illegality is undermined on the strong basis that as humans we have a right to our own property. When the government invades homes and robs marijuana growers of their product, they are directly encroaching upon our rights to engage in business activity of our own choosing along with our right to purchase and sell goods. This is blatantly undemocratic because the prevalence of marijuana growing and usage demonstrates that opinions on marijuana are not constant. An honest democratic government needs to be supportive of the pursuit of financial gains and capitalist behavior. The mere existence of a portion of the population that dislikes marijuana usage does not garner this level of interference with an individual’s pursuit of happiness.
The potential economic gains of marijuana legalization are numerous and demonstrate that in a just republic the government must realize the ills associated with illegality. California’s medicinal marijuana economy is a clear example of how a substance that once had such a negative image can be transformed for the better for both the economy and society. In his dissertation titled, “Marijuanomy: The Overlooked Side of L.A.’s Marijuana Economy”,[x] Jason Ma engages in an economic analysis of how the medicinal marijuana economy of Los Angeles works despite federal illegality. He conducts interviews with various actors in this economy such as shop owners, chefs who make and sell food with marijuana, and doctors who may bend the rules of medicinal marijuana laws yet benefit greatly from the industry. His dissertation shows how marijuana, despite being painted as an erratic and dangerous drug by government fueled propaganda,[xi] acts in much the same way as any other good in the market.
As the demand for medicinal marijuana increased with the loophole that allowed many marijuana shops to open across the city, we see that an economy grew around the substance that provided numerous financial benefits to many individuals and the city of Los Angeles. Jobs were created to establish distribution routes from farms to shops, along with different paraphernalia, food and entertainment that are geared toward marijuana users and growers. Yet these groups experienced scrutiny from the city and conservative culture and were inclined to remain anonymous in their interviews. As a society that supports the improvement in the implementation of democracy, it is hypocritical that these citizens must be marginalized due to differing cultural views. The main obstacles they faced were from state and local government’s themselves that maintained their harsh view on marijuana and the industry despite the strong and stable demand for the good.
Despite the taxes gained from allowing medicinal marijuana shops and users to engage in safe economic transactions, many states across the U.S. lack this privilege. Marijuana users, growers, and dealers must engage in criminal black market activities. Instead of being allowed to safely enter a store, purchase your good at your own discretion and privacy, most users across the nation must face the potentially violent and highly suspicious business practices of street drug dealers and gangs. Husak demonstrates that business disputes in the black market are settled by violence and states that “the sale of illicit drugs [is] the source of more than half of all organized crime revenues”. Along with the high prices consumers must accept due to illegality, it is unjust for citizens to face these levels of government-induced distortion. The ease of California’s medicinal marijuana industry, for consumers at least, is a demonstration that the status quo needs to change.
The last main issue that needs to be addressed when considering the democratic legitimacy of marijuana prohibition is the level of incarcerations. The U.S. leads the world in prison rates,[xii] and it is even debated that the U.S. has more laws than any other country. A high number of laws and punishments add a heavy toll on the health of society and productivity in a capitalist economy. The cost of maintaining such a high number of bodies in prison rather than in regular society is undemocratic because it impedes our right to a healthy economy. It is also undemocratic because it demonstrates a gross misinterpretation of the purpose of the justice and prison system. Entering the prison system as a violator of a marijuana offense groups criminals of many different backgrounds and is not conducive to the improvement of a person on an individual basis. Marijuana laws and punishments do not deter usage and there is no clear evidence that usage has been bad for the health of our society. Prisons are meant to keep violent criminals away from the general public and they are also meant to establish changes in behavior that the public believes causes significant damage to the well being of America. Marijuana does not induce violence and its prevalence is enough of an example that it is accepted by our society to a certain degree. The effects of smoking the plant do not warrant illegality of the substance nor do so many citizens deserve to be jailed when usage has been seen throughout all levels of society.[xiii]
Democracy calls for communication and negotiation between all aspects of the public and the government. It calls for equality and a degree of fairness that each citizen deserves. When it comes to personal choices a democratic government must consistently reflect the ever changing populous and must be the enforcer of what people feel is best for society. The United States government has no right in interfering with the usage of marijuana because the public has demonstrated that its usage is not only minimally negative if not strongly beneficial,[xiv] but that its usage alone exemplifies American actions and the character of many American citizens. Marijuana usage does not deserve to be marginalized by a government wishing to maintain their control over society and individual choices. In no way can the government justly implement laws because they think they know better than taxpayers and voters.
Appendix I
[i] See: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/21C13.txt. This act places marijuana in the same schedule as heroin and LSD. The description of Schedule I is: “The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” which is false and subjective.
[ii] Wohlsen, Marcus . "US opposes California Prop to legalize marijuana." http://Msnbc.msn.com. 16 Oct. 2010. 16 Oct. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39689330>.
[iii] While the current administration is supportive of medicinal uses of marijuana, violations of the rights of Americans under the previous administration were prevalent. See: Gerber, Rudolph J. Legalizing Marijuana:Drug Policy Reform and Prohibition Politics. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2004. Page 131.
[iv] Husak, Douglas N.. Drugs and Rights. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
[v] See the government’s site for its description of marijuana: NIDA InfoFacts: Marijuana." National Institute on Drug Abuse. 9 Jul. 2010. 14 Oct. 2010. <http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html>. and their citation of: Tashkin DP. Smoked marijuana as a cause of lung injury. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 63(2):92–100, 2005. This contradicts new findings discussed in this article: K aufman, Mark "Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection." The Washington Post 26 May. 2006. 14 Oct. 2010 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html>.
[vi] "Alcohol, tobacco make top 10 list of risky drugs." Msnbc.msn.com. 24 Mar. 2007. 16 Oct.< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17760130/ >.
[vii] On page 45, Husak describes the usage of drugs in religious ceremonies and this demonstrates that views on substances are entirely subjective.
[viii] "Marijuana Policy Project." Youtube.<http://www.youtube.com/user/MPPstaff?feature=chclk>.
[ix] "Facebook co-founder Sean Parker donates $100,000 to marijuana legalization measure in California." NYdailynews.com. 10 Oct. 2010. 14 Oct. 2010. <http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2010/10/10/2010-10-10_facebook_cofounder_sean_parker_donates_100000_to_marijuana_legalization_measure_.html>.
[x] Ma, Jason. "Marijuanomy: The Overlooked Side of L.A.’s Marijuana Economy. Diss. University of Southern California, 2010.
[xi] See Appendix image. This image associates marijuana with intravenous injections that is a false example of how it is consumed. In his manifesto, Ginsberg Allen discusses the controversial actions of the US Treas. Department Narcotics Bureau and their depictions of marijuana. Ginsberg, Allen "The Great Marijuana Hoax." The Atlantic Monthly Nov. 1966, Number 6 ed., sec. Volume 218: 104-112. <http://www.cannatrade.com/pdfdocuments/new/TheGreatMarijuanaHoax.pdf>. The image depicted is one of many examples of marijuana propaganda from the past.
[xii] See Freedom House Country Report: "United States Country Report." Freedom House. 16 Oct. 2010. <http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2010&country=7944>.
[xiii] See the introduction in “Legalizing Marijuana: Drug Policy and Prohibition Politics” where Gerber outlines numerous politicians and professors admitting to using marijuana
[xiv] On page 131 of his text, Gerber describes the malicious act of the federal government raiding marijuana shops where the majority of the customers were AIDS patients.
As an ardent supporter of legalization, I found a lot to agree with in this post. However, there is an incidental misstep in your argumentation toward which I’d like to direct your attention.
ReplyDeleteYou make much mention of “democracy”, and the need to preserve “democratic values” in the face of state-enforced prohibition. You equate the state’s moral failure as a failure to uphold democratic ideals. For instance, you say, “[Prohibition] is blatantly undemocratic because the prevalence of marijuana growing and usage demonstrates that opinions on marijuana are not constant. An honest democratic government needs to be supportive of the pursuit of financial gains and capitalist behavior.”
I would suggest you reexamine your usage of the term “democratic”. Keep in mind that a democracy works by carrying out the majority position; true adherence to “democratic values” would entail 51% of the population enforcing its beliefs on the remaining 49%. From my perspective as a classical liberal, tyranny by the majority is hardly supportive of liberty – and from your positions in support of legalization, it sounds like you care a lot more about preserving liberty than upholding the majority’s willingness to curtail minority lifestyles.
An “honest democratic government” has no obligation to support either “the pursuit of financial gains” or “capitalist behavior”, unless the 51% majority makes it so. Clearly in the case of prohibition, the majority has decided they are not in support of allowing the market to conduct marijuana transactions, and – in a democratic society – that majority decision is the only one that matters.
Luckily for us, we don’t live in a world where democratic rule is allowed to subject the populace to tyranny by the majority. Our federal government has limited powers over the populace, whose local decision-making on the state and municipal level often mean far more to daily life. As Americans, we care more about freedom than we do about democracy. Perhaps I am idealistically over-looking the disparity between how our system was originally intended to function and how it actually functions, but this is only all the more reason to fight to make things right.