French 1

Patrick French
Professor Kevin Kelleher
EN 102
15 April 2018
Marijuana Policy, a Federal Injustice

Since the early 1900’s, federal law in the United States has put a strict prohibition against

the use of marijuana. In the century following this prohibition, astonishing amounts of tax dollars

have annually been wasted and countless promising lives incarcerated in attempts to enforce

these laws, despite a radical shift in public opinion and scientific research regarding marijuana.

Just as the alcohol prohibition was repealed in favor of regulation, the federal marijuana laws

should be amended into a regulated substance for the overall benefit of the American society and

its citizens.

The initiation and perpetuation of marijuana’s prohibition have never been isolated

incidents. Americans have been familiar with marijuana since the mid-1800’s, where under the

name of ‘cannabis’ it was present in nearly all medicinal tinctures at the time as a recognized

pain reliever (Reiman). At the dawn of the twentieth century, there were two cultural phenomena

that propagated the idea of marijuana from a medicinal substance to a dangerous narcotic. These

phenomena were based off a nationwide resurgence of religious piety and the emergence of a

new target for racial injustice, following the formation of the Woman’s Christian Temperance

Union and the conclusion of the American-Mexican War.

The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union was a grass roots movement with a large

female following, calling for the nation to adhere to sobriety. While the WCTU had limited

political power, it did inspire the formation of the Anti-Saloon League in 1893 (Aaron). Led by
 French 2

influential Protestant ministers, the league was successful in convincing the dominantly

protestant nation that intoxicants were responsible for political corruption and the decay of

morality. This view of strict adherence to religious piety was popular at the time, but today’s

society has a rich diversity with cultural differences, which include radically different views on

intoxicants. This diverse view of alcohol and its religious implications caused the repeal of

prohibition, but other intoxicants such as marijuana still maintain their demonized state in federal

law despite a nation with increasingly secular views in favor of moderation and regulation in leu

of abstinence and prohibition.

This increase in diversity is seen in a more favorable light today, but in the early

twentieth century it was used as a racial weapon against marijuana. During the early phases of

intoxicant prohibition, marijuana was slow to make it to legislature in comparison to other

narcotics such as opium. Before it made it to federal congress, the prohibition movement was

spearheaded by the south-west states following the conclusion of the American-Mexican war.

Cannabis was a common medical substance in American culture without negative connotation.

Today’s undesirable undertone was manufactured in the south-west as a tool to prosecute the

masses of Mexican-Americans immigrating north from the border. Cannabis was a common

relaxant in the Mexican culture, where it was referred to as ‘Marihuana’. South-west states

popularized this foreign term in connection to supposed ‘criminal effects’ of its usage as a way to

persecute the Mexican people, despite ‘marihuana’ being the same cannabis so popularly found

in American pharmacies (Reiman). Using this newly demonized term, the federal government

was able to attack marijuana usage in its recently formed piety temperance crusade. This racial

terminology was able to shift public opinion of marijuana as a medicinal treatment to a ‘killer-

weed’ that induced murder and psychosis in its minority users. This demonization of marijuana,
 French 3

as well as the nationwide temperance movement, caused enough public support to allow the

passing of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which banned its use and sales (Reiman).

While alcohol prohibition was repealed shortly after its inauguration, the racially

motivated war on drugs had kept public opinion on marijuana largely unfavorable until the

passing of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, when the negative effects of its prohibition

became increasing apparent. The Schafer Commission was formed by the largely controversial

President Nixon to gather research on narcotics and suggest how each drug should be scheduled.

The commission declared marijuana should not be a Schedule I drug, but this recommendation

was ignored by President Nixon, federally classifying marijuana in the most restrictive schedule

where it remains today (Reiman). This classification has had largely negative effects on society

through its legal enforcement in its seemingly righteous purpose in protecting the safety and

health of American citizens.

By the time of the passing of the Controlled Substances Act, public opinion had shifted

off the demonization of marijuana, but remained in favor of prohibition in light of bias scientific

studies. Many had realized that marijuana usage would not cause a murderous rampage, and this

has been recently solidified by a study released by the Institute of Labor Economics with

research conducted by the University of Bologna. The study pulls data from the US Uniform

Crime Reporting institution and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health and compares them

to state Censuses from legalized states. The studies have found a drop in violent crimes in states

that have passed legalized marijuana bills, disproving the myth of marijuana inciting violence

(Dragone). Despite this misconception being cleared up, many Americans favored prohibition

because of the scientific research concerning marijuana and its effects on mental health in young

adults.
 French 4

While the correlation of marijuana and depression has been debated for years with many

studies showing different results, there is increasing evidence between marijuana use and the

development of psychosis. A study by the American Medical Association had found that

marijuana use early in life can hasten the onset of psychosis, primarily schizophrenia, by an

average of 2.7 years for youths already genetically at risk for the disorder. Another study

followed 50,000 young Swedish soldiers over a span of 15 years, finding that occasional

marijuana users were twice as likely to develop schizophrenia than their non-user comrades, and

heavy users were six times as likely (MacDonald). These studies have shown a strong

association between marijuana use and later development of psychotic disorders, but do not

suggest a definite causation. It is important to note possible mental health risk that accompany

marijuana use, however these risks are not great enough for an overall ban of use by our federal

government, when legal intoxicants have shown to pose greater risks.

Nicotine and alcohol are some of the most common and popular intoxicants in the

country, with a working method of regulation that is not granted to marijuana despite their

radically different health risks. A report by the British Colombia Mental Health and Addictions

journal estimated that tobacco related health cost per user is over $800 and alcohol related health

cost are at $165 per user, while marijuana health cost average at just $20 per user (Armentano).

Drinking is associated with an increase of various types of cancer and depression of the central

nervous system, while none of these associations have been made with marijuana. Just as studies

have found a correlation between marijuana use and a decrease in violent crimes, the Federal

Bureau of Justice Statistics have found alcohol consumption to play a role in an approximate one

million violent crimes a year (Armentano). Every intoxicant has negative side effects, which is

why regulation is necessary to protect adolescence and abusers from harming themselves with
 French 5

these substances. If alcohol and tobacco, which have shown to have a myriad of damaging

effects, can be regulated for sale with the public weighing the risks for themselves, can

marijuana not be treated the same way? While marijuana use has possible negative effects on

mental health that the public can decide for themselves if use is worth the risk, there are also

medical benefits that are not shared by legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco.

Medical marijuana has recently become a popular alternative to traditional

pharmaceuticals for its health benefits, which are going unutilized in most of the country because

of federal prohibition. The Cancer Prevention Research journal reported in 2009 an association

between a significant reduction of head squamous cell carcinoma risk and a moderate usage of

marijuana. Another study by the U.S. National Institutes of Health in 2006 also found that

moderate marijuana users had a reduced cancer risk compared to the marijuana abstaining

controls (Armentano).

Marijuana has been shown to have less of a risk to the public welfare than alcohol and

tobacco through its possible medical benefits and its non-correlation with crime. Marijuana is

becoming increasing popular in the United States, and public opinion should decide the

legislature in a democracy. It was a radical shift in public opinion of marijuana as a

pharmaceutical to a corrupting narcotic in the early 20th century that led to the prohibition of

marijuana. Since that time, the public has become more informed on the scientific facts

concerning marijuana instead of being blinded by traditional bias initiated by racial and pious

persecutions. In the latest Gallup poll concerning the legalization of marijuana conducted in

October of 2017, 64% of Americans favor federal legalization (Gallup). A shift in public opinion

was enough to prohibit marijuana use, this shift back initiated by scientific and medical research

should be enough to return marijuana to its legal status. Taking into account public opinion and
 French 6

medical benefits and risks, the federal law on marijuana should be amended, making marijuana a

regulated and legal substance.

 French 7

Works Cited

Aaron, Paul, and David Musto. “Temperance and Prohibition in America: A Historical

Overview.” Alcohol and Public Policy: Beyond the Shadow of Prohibition., U.S. National

Library of Medicine, 1 Jan. 1981, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216414/

Armentano, Paul. "Harmful Effects of Marijuana Use Are Exaggerated." Addiction, edited by

Christine Watkins, Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints

In Context,

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010103404/OVIC?u=tusc49521&sid=OVIC&xid

=ec0d28e3. Accessed 15 Apr. 2018

Bonnie, Richard J., and Charles H. Whitebread. “The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of

Knowledge: An Inquiry into the Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition.”

Virginia Law Review, vol. 56, no. 6, 1970,

www.votehemp.com/PDF/The_Forbidden_Fruit_and_The_Tree_of_Knowledge.pdf.

Dragone, Davide, et al. “Crime and the Legalization of Recreational Marijuana.” Journal of

Economic Behavior & Organization, Jan. 2017, ftp.iza.org/dp10522.pdf

Gallup, Inc. “Record-High Support for Legalizing Marijuana Use in U.S.” Gallup.com, 25 Oct.

2017, news.gallup.com/poll/221018/record-high-support-legalizing-marijuana.aspx.

MacDonald, Ann. “Teens Who Smoke Pot at Risk for Later Schizophrenia, Psychosis.” Harvard

Health Blog, 30 Nov. 2011, www.health.harvard.edu/blog/teens-who-smoke-pot-at-risk

for-later-schizophrenia-psychosis-201103071676

Reiman, Amanda, and Malik Burnett. “How Did Marijuana Become Illegal in the First

Place?” Drug Policy Alliance, 8 Oct. 2014, www.drugpolicy.org/blog/how-did

marijuana-become-illegal-first-place