The Marijuana Dispute

Sandra Bennett - In recent years the amount of marijuana use among Americans has rapidly increased despite its hazardous effects and illegality. Studies finding possible medical advantages from marijuana use have propelled America into a controversy advocating the legalization of marijuana and the idea to decriminalize the possession of it. While others, like I, are aware of the harmful effects of the drug and are fighting to prevent America from 'toking up' coast to coast.

I represent an organization known as Drug Watch International. This institution is run by a group of volunteers comprised of a 'worldwide group of recognized medical, legal, educational, and drug prevention activists and researchers. The members of Drug Watch are dedicated to providing accurate information on psychoactive and addictive drugs. As a part of this international drug research and policy network, I've had access to an extraordinary knowledge base relating to illicit drugs, and for this I'm extremely grateful (June 13 1999).

I am also the victim of the worst drug case scenario. I lost my own 15 year old son to cocaine. So not only do I stand from a factual, scientific level, but also at an emotional level. I am one who has seen first hand the horrible consequences of drug use. Opponents of the prohibition of marijuana will cling to the claim that marijuana possesses medical advantages. They use this as their crutch since it is the only insignificantly positive aspect of the plant. However, "having medical properties is not the same thing as being safe and effective for medical use. Marijuana has 483 compounds, 66 of which are cannabinoids. Several of the cannabinoids have already been developed into FDA approved medications. But these medications are not marijuana. They are pharmaceutical drugs, which can be carefully titrated to the patient's needs" (1996). Marijuana can still be harmful even with medical components. Simply advising a sick patient to smoke something that can cause them more harm is ridiculously illogical.

The best way for me to describe the other perspective of this argument is that marijuana should not be legal, nor illegal really, but rather 'kinda illegal'. Advocates for decriminalizing marijuana aim to lower the punishment of small possession charges in order to clean up criminal records. They believe harsh punishments for small possession charges are unnecessary. Police Chief Reuben Greenberg of Charleston, South Carolina, wrote, "With few exceptions other than the drug traffickers themselves, faculties and administrations of our nation's colleges and universities are the most hostile elements to the enforcement of our nation's drug laws." It was this permissive campus drug environment that led to the death of our son Garrett (June 12, 1999). This discussion over the legality and decriminalization of such a harmful drug is extremely important to me, as it is my job and my passion to keep people from being endangered by drugs.

Milton Friedman - Mrs. Bennett, I would like to start by saying I am truly sorry for the loss of your son. This tragedy has given you admirable passion and an emotional advantage in this argument. That being said, I will surprise you by saying that I will not go along with the majority and support my position against marijuana prohibition by spitting out positive medical uses of marijuana. As a Nobel Prize winning economist, I can show proof of financial benefits of marijuana. Also, as a hardcore advocate for human rights, it is my duty to point out the suffocation of human rights that's taking place during this illogical prohibition of marijuana.

President Jimmy Carter- I too would like to send my regrets about your son. I cannot even conceive how excruciating the loss of one's own child, especially to drugs can be. I am truly sorry Mrs. Bennett. I would like to support your position in a way to say that I agree that the escalating drug use in our country is disturbing. However, I also feel that the crime rate has also steadily been on the rise, with small time drug offenders topping the list of charges is also worth inspecting. As increased drug use fills our country, unfortunately so does crime. First time marijuana offenses as well as small possession of marijuana offenses stand as the majority of most of the crime in the United States. Wasted focus and money is spent on these offenses while more serious matters such as assault and rape violations, to name a few, are neglected. It is my view that small possession offenders are not labeled as criminals and are given a less severe punishment. This way more focus can be put on more serious crimes and protection of the innocent.

Bennett - President Carter, I must again note that your vague proposal of a decriminalization is exactly the kind of passivity that is responsible for the death of my son. If you believe that it the government's duty to protect the innocent then it is contradicting to advocate for a policy that will encourage drug use by making it 'less legal'. President Carter, "drug use escalates when the supply is readily available and the consequences are either weak or non existent. Any policy that reduces consequences for the use or makes drugs more readily available in any way can only lead to more tragedy in society" (2001).

Friedman - If I may cut in, Mrs. Bennett, first off I believe your assumption of the government is a bit reversed. The role of the government is to "prevent other people from harming another individual. Government has never had any rights to interfere with an individual for that individual's own good" (1991). Prohibition goes completely against America's proudest value - freedom. It is illogical to restrain Americans from doing what they do to themselves, as long as it does not harm anyone else. Once an individual puts another one in danger, that's when the government does need to step in.

Carter - I somewhat agree that human rights are a factor in the legalization controversy. I believe America is in no way ready for the leap from prohibition to full out legalization. Decriminalization still keeps the drug laws in force while making offensives minor enough to keep a minor offender's record clean while still keeping order. The harmful effects of marijuana are minor compared to other illicit drugs. More focus and stricter criminalization should be forced on harder, more damaging drugs. I firmly believe that "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. We can and should continue to discourage the use of marijuana, but this can be done without defining the smoker as a criminal" (1999). Legalization would be way too extreme and poses too many hazards to society.

Bennett - I see how prohibition walks a fine line in oppressing basic freedoms we are given as Americans. However, I am stunned that both of you so easily shrug off the harms of marijuana. There are extreme dangers of marijuana use that people so easily look over because they don't want to believe it's true. I have done a lot of research of several of the harmful effects of marijuana use. "Today marijuana is so potent that it has become a leading cause of drug related medical and psychiatric emergency room episodes, impacting thinly-stretched medical resources. Several recent scientific studies have found that marijuana use can indeed cause psychosis and worsen psychiatric disorders. It also causes short-term memory loss, impaired cognitive functions such as attention and judgment; impairs coordination, balance and reaction time; increases heart rate, risk of chronic cough, bronchitis, and emphysema; and increases risk of head, neck and lung cancer. Male infertility is also associated with marijuana use. Studies have noted lower I.Q. in children born to pot-smoking mothers. Pot smokers have a higher incidence of absenteeism and injury in the workplace. The unemployment rate for drug users is more than 150% greater that of non-users and [drug users] typically earn less. Marijuana use contributes to delinquency and crime. Society often ends up subsidizing [users'] housing, food, utilities, medical expenses, and other basic needs. All of these problems would increase dramatically if marijuana were legalized because easy access to marijuana will increase use and addiction just as it has with tobacco" (2003).

It is irrational to allow innocent children to this harmful substance. I will stand my ground in believing in any policy that would make this drug easier for children to obtain. Or even worse, portray an image that marijuana is not that harmful by legalizing as well as decriminalizing it.

Friedman - Mrs. Bennett, there are plenty of things that can harm a person that are available legally. Overeating causes more deaths than drugs do. If it is ok in principle to say you must not do drugs because they'll do you harm, why isn't it all right to say you must not eat too much because you'll do harm? Why isn't it all right to say, "Oh, skiing, that's not good, that's a very dangerous sport, you'll hurt yourself" Where do you draw the line? (1991).

As for America's youth being exposed to marijuana, "Exposing government lies is the easy part--and making drugs illegal doesn't keep them out of the hands of kids. Schoolchildren can't buy hard liquor, but hard drugs are as available as candy on the black market. Would legalization increase drug use? Maybe. But the use of tobacco, probably the most lethal drug today, has dramatically decreased because of intense anti-smoking campaigns" (2005). Legalization provides a realm of control over its distribution, including to children. Legalization can prevent children from getting marijuana more effectively than allowing it to remain on the black market for anyone to get their hands on it.

Bennett - Well what happens when the use of marijuana poses harm to other people. What about driving under the influence of marijuana? This is a potentially harmful situation.

Carter - Actually, during my presidency I directed the Department of Transportation to expedite its study of the effects of marijuana use on the coordination and reflexes needed for safe driving (1977). Marijuana has been found to impair the reflexes and it is therefore hazardous to drive under the influence of marijuana. Driving under the influence of marijuana, just like alcohol, should definitely not be tolerated.

Friedman - I think we are all in agreement on this one. I believe people should be able to do whatever they please to do as long as it does not harm other people. Driving under the influence of marijuana is potentially harmful and should always remain illegal

Carter - I must say the legalization aspect still makes me nervous. It is difficult to determine the result of the legalization of marijuana in our society. Now, in regards to Mrs. Bennett's valid concern of protecting children from the exposure to marijuana, I believe my decriminalization proposal will successfully control this issue. Decriminalization effectively protects children by enforcing marijuana use as illegal, yet prevents unnecessary criminal records for minor possession offenses. "I supported change in law to end Federal criminal penalties for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana, leaving the States free to adopt whatever laws they wish concerning marijuana. Decriminalization is not legalization. I do not condone any drug abuse, and we'll do everything possible to reduce it" (1999). It is extremely important to stress the dangers associated with marijuana use and protect our use from exposure to it. I do not believe legalization successfully protects youths. It projects an image that marijuana is ok for kids to use because it is legal. Mr. Friedman, what is an actual benefit from legalization? You mentioned possible financial benefits of marijuana exist. Please do explain.

Friedman - I will gladly explain President Carter. Researching this aspect of the legalization controversy has been some of my finest economic work. Several economists including myself got together to do research on the financial aspects of legalization. This project is called the Marijuana Policy Project. My fellow colleague Dr. Jeffery Miron, wrote a report on our findings called 'The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition'. "Replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of legal regulation would save approximately $7.7 billion in government expenditures on prohibition enforcement-$2.4 billion at the federal level and $5.3 billion at the state and local levels. Revenue from taxation of marijuana sales would range from $2.4 billion per year if marijuana were taxed like ordinary consumer goods to $6.2 billion if it were taxed like alcohol or tobacco" (June, 2005).

We also conducted research on the amount of money spent on minor drug offenses in the United States. Here is what this research indicated:"In 2001, the total quantity of fines and restitutions ordered for drug offense cases in U.S. District Courts was just under $41 million. Adjusting this by the 20% figure implies $8.2 million from marijuana cases. Assuming the ratio of state/local to federal fine revenue is similar to ratio of state/local to federal seizure revenue implies that state and local fines/restitution from marijuana cases is about $3.5 million" (June, 2005).

Imagine the amount of money saved by the elimination of small drug possession charges all together. President Carter's decriminalization policy is a step in lowering court deficits. However, it will take a complete legalization of marijuana to truly show the full financial benefits. I can see how decriminalization is appealing to many because it has a tighter grip on drug law enforcement and control than legalization does. Most of the people in jail for marijuana are first time offenders or minor drug offense violators. This is unnecessary action and wasted government money.

Bennett - Your claim that the majority of marijuana possession arrests being casual users and first time offenders is incorrect. "According to statistics from the Department of Justice, less than 3% of prisoners are incarcerated for drug crimes and the average amount of those in federal prison for marijuana possession is 3-1/2 tons" ( Sept 1999). Not as many prisoners are incarcerated for minor drug possession charges as you may think Mr. Friedman.

Carter - Despite your statistics Mrs. Bennett, I must side with Friedman's claim that looser drug penalty laws will dramatically lower court costs in America.

Bennett - The slightly positive financial benefits associated with legalization and decriminalization should not override the health risks marijuana imposes on society. Safety should be the ultimate issue here. Society needs to view drug users as offensive and disgusting behavior, to apply meaningful consequences to users since most users coerce others into joining this folly; and especially apply significant, unpleasant consequences to those who promote the use of illicit and addictive substances (2001). I believe we have reached a close in our discussion of this controversy. I hope that you will consider my viewpoints on the subject and really think about your standpoint on this issue.

Carter - Mrs. Bennett, you made some great points. I do agree that marijuana use is unacceptable. However, I still stand at my view that fierce criminal charges on people who are caught with small amounts are not logical and therefore decriminalization stands as an effective drug policy.

Friedman - You two can stick to your beliefs, as it is your freedom to do that. I do hope that my arguments have caused you to see things from a different perspective in order to see that legalization is not an insane movement encouraging a corrupted society. I am strictly concerned with the basic rights we are given as Americans as well as enlightened of the financial gains the legalization of marijuana promotes.

Works cited

Cartwright, Gary. "Weed all about it." Texas Monthly 33. (2005): 86-99

Bennett Sandra. "Legalization of marijuana - a looming social disaster." Northwest Center for Health and Safety. 2003. 30 March 2007. < http://drugandhealthinfo.org/>.

Bennett Sandra. "Prevention first". Drug Watch International. 10 September 1999. Presentation to the Municipality of Rio de Janeiro. Available on the World Wide Web: 

< http://www.drugwatch.org/Rio%20speech%20Sandra%20Bennett.htm>

Bennett Sandra. "War on illegal drugs should be escalated". The Columbian. 28 January 2001. 

Bennett Sandra. "What do you say?" D.A.R.E. 1996.

D.A.R.E. 15 March 2007. .

Friedman Milton. "Interview with Milton Friedman on the drug war." Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 2002. 30 March 2007. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/

Excerpt from "Friedman & Szasz On Liberty and Drugs."

Miron Jeffrey. "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition". Washington, DC, Marijuana Policy Project, Jun 2005

Paters Gerhard, and Woolley John. The American Presidency Project. 1999. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7908