In this post, I will present the basis for the reformation of marijuana laws, by highlighting gaps between current marijuana policies and the contrastive realities they were designed to address.
The Drug Enforcement Administration’s stance on marijuana is clear – it condones no use of marijuana whatsoever, not even as a means for medical treatment. Yet, while the strong statement it makes on its website would lead one to conveniently associate the DEA’s drug stance with an effective drug enforcement framework, the reality of persistent marijuana use in the country gives the lie to this. More crucially, it forces one to question the continuing relevance of existing drug regulatory frameworks.
In spite of the DEA’s rhetorical commitment to stamping out marijuana use, it is nonetheless an established fact that North America is the third largest consumer of marijuana in absolute terms in the world, after Asia and Africa. The continuing prevalence of marijuana use in the country even almost eight decades after Harry Anslinger’s and subsequent bureaucratic attempts to prohibit its use surely points towards the need to at least re-think the principle of prohibition that has provided the basis for drug policy thus far.
Of the number of marijuana users unfortunate enough to be arrested, it is an established fact that over 85% of the total number arrests made for marijuana are on the basis of possession alone. To put this into context, possession of less than 2 lbs of marijuana (the minimum sentence imposed) is enough to land one in jail for 6 months to 1.5 years in Arizona, and a fine of between $750 - $$150 000 in most states. Even in states such as Alaska that have partially decriminalized marijuana, possession of between 1 to 4 oz. of the drug is sufficient to warrant a jail term of at least 90 days, and a $1500 fine.
It therefore becomes clear that the current approach to marijuana use in the country falls short on two counts. One, it has not stopped the country from being the third largest consumer of marijuana in the world. As a related trend of this, it is further striking that the existing legal framework has not stopped the common man on the street (most commonly arrested for petty marijuana possession offenses) from taking the risk to smoke a joint in spite of an intimate knowledge of existing laws and harsh persecutions associated with taking such a risk. This surely merits at least a reconsideration, if not a reform of, the laws governing the use of marijuana.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow...I was not aware that North America is the third largest consumer of marijuana.
ReplyDeleteSo if marijuana were legalized, would this number increase or decrease? Have beneficial or negative outcomes?
If it were legalized, then people would not go so far as to smuggle it and keep it secret. Marijuana use would be more open and publicized. For example, on the news there are accounts of daily robberies, thefts and crimes. These headlines sometimes make "breaking news," but the concept is not entirely new. Now, since marijuana is illegal, there is more outrage about its possession. On the other hand, people would take a somewhat indifferent approach if it were legalized: "You have marijuana? Ok" not "You have marijuana? OH MY GOSH! YOU BETTER WATCH OUT!!!" Well, maybe I'm overreacting, but I think you get the point.
Yes NatureNurture, I found the statistic striking too when I came across it in my research, particularly because of the DEA's strong anti-marijuana stance that has underpinned the country's drug policy for the past 80 years.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to your question if marijuana legalisation would result in an increase or decrease of its use, my provisional response would be that I would steer clear of speculating on numbers. What I can qualify nonetheless is that the legalisation of marijuana is not equivalent to its promotion. As much as it is tempting to think of this as so, there is still quite a substantial logic jump to make between legal condonation and legal promotion, and to speculate as such may make one susceptible to the trap of a faulty generalisation.