The Never-Ending War

Look in any American history textbook and anyone can find a little section about alcohol prohibition and the gangs it created, the bootlegging it spawned, and how the prohibition came to be worse than the act of drinking itself, and in 80 years, what has changed? What has changed is that now we are fighting against another substance, marijuana. Moreover what has changed is that since 1984 our prison population has been exploding, our cost of this war is increasing endlessly, more people, not less, are using marijuana, and the war is not fighting criminals, but everyone from store clerks to medical doctors. Some may argue that marijuana prohibition is absolutely necessary for the stability of our country, and many others argue that the prohibition is doing more damage than the drug itself. So all we can wonder is who is wrong, who is right, and what can we do about it? The point of this paper is not to argue for or against marijuana use on a moral level, but rather to argue about prohibition, its effectiveness, and especially its impact on the average American citizen since 1984, when Reagan made his bold promise to the American public.

With over a reported 20 million US citizens using marijuana in the past year, some may wonder if the pot laws are removing criminals from the street, or if they're just removing citizens whose only crime is marijuana possession (Gettman). Which leads to the question asked by many people who work in drug prevention and drug reform, do marijuana laws make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens? In 2006 over 800,000 citizens were arrested on marijuana charges, of which 89% of those arrested, were arrested only for possession (Gettman). These statistics mean that every 38 seconds a pot smoker is arrested in the United States ("Marijuana Arrests for 2006"). Furthermore, one may wonder if the war on marijuana (as well as other drugs) may be targeting specific races. When looking at the arrest data for 2006, it can be seen that 875,101 white citizens were arrested for drug charges last year, yet 483,886 black citizens were arrested for drug charges (United States 2). If looked at in the form of percentages, it can be said that while black citizens make up 13.4% ("US Census") of the US population, they also account for 35.1% of drug arrests (United States 2). So now that we have all of this data, what can truly be said for it all? How does all of this affect the average non-marijuana using American?

One thing that every tax-paying citizen understands and can relate to is money; everyone wants to know where their money is going, how it's being spent when it gets there, and how effective the usage of the money is. Last year US taxpayers lost an estimated 42 billion dollars fighting marijuana through lost tax revenue as well as court costs and other legal fees (Gettman). These numbers do not even include the annual budgets of government funded so-called "drug-education" programs, such as DARE, and other government funded drug policy related organizations. Furthermore, the annual cost of 1 prisoner was $22,650 in 2001 (United States). So for every prisoner we have, that is just a little more money spent by each individual taxpayer. Whereas in a legally regulated system of marijuana, state and federal governments could tax the sale and possession and instead generate an estimated 31 billion in revenue (Gettman). Though when it comes down to it, even the economic benefits can be disregarded by some as worth the cost of keeping marijuana out of the public's hands and more importantly, out of the hands of children. Yet, with billions of dollars a year being spent on law enforcement, anti-drug advertising, "drug education," and other anti-drug efforts, is it working?

In data compiled since 1990 up until 2005, annual marijuana usage has averaged out around 20.5 million people per year, with the highest being in 2002 at 25.9 million and the lowest in 1992 at 17.4 million (Gettman). By looking at this simple data flow, we can see that the annual marijuana usage has had absolutely no significant change, whether it be positive or negative, in the past 15 years despite constantly increased funding and increased efforts by the US government. And to further increase the bitter taste that data leaves, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicates that the number of users are probably higher due to users not wanting to admit to their use (Gettman). And yet even further, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration claims that 40% of the subjects who took the survey and tested positive for marijuana in a urine sample had declined their use on the survey (Gettman). So now that we have a clearer image on the annual national usage of marijuana, we need to look further and decide if prohibition is at least making it difficult for these users to receive marijuana. With so many of those opposing marijuana legalization claiming that if legalized, marijuana would become easily available to our children, one has to wonder, is it hard to get under current law?

The truth of the matter is, availability is not what is stopping the children from using marijuana, and neither are a lot of government efforts. For example, the "Just Say No" campaigns and the DARE program have been found ineffective against adolescent marijuana use. Furthermore, it can even be considered counterproductive as exposing the youth to the drug only makes it seem a forbidden fruit, and therefor more appealing (Melillo). With 77.45% of young adults aged 18-25, and 54.81% of teens aged 12-17, claiming that marijuana is "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get, obviously supply is not a factor in the usage (Gettman). Moreover, it can be seen that a smaller fraction of adolescents in the Netherlands have used marijuana than have used in the United States, despite the Netherlands having a taxable policy on marijuana (Gettman). So what is it that the Dutch are doing that we are not doing here in America? The Dutch's policy on drug education focuses less on scare tactics and skewed truths and more on a policy of "harm reduction." Harm Reduction policy is a form of policy in which the government does not condone nor condemn the use of drugs, but rather aims to reduce the harms caused by the drugs. For example, many countries across the world have opened up needle-exchange programs which give heroin addicts a clean needle to shoot up with, thus reducing the dangers associated with sharing needles. While the harm reduction program may not work to such extreme lengths for marijuana, in a harm reduction based U.S. policy, the children would receive a more scientifically based education on the subject and are left to make an informed decision, rather than a decision based off of mixed signals from the government and peers, thus reducing underage use.

Marijuana prohibition is a hotly debated topic, with many people feeling strongly in either direction, so what it really boils down to, is how does the public feel about prohibition after so many years? Despite Reagan's promise in 1984, more people in the US support legalization now than ever. The most recent Gallup Poll shows that, in 1985, 25% of the US were in support of legalization, and in 2005, 36% supported legalization (Carroll). So with all this money and effort flooding in to prevent drug use, is the government really just fighting public opinion, or are they just taking the war too far? Many seem to agree with the latter, that they're just being too harsh. If you look at polls relating to "decriminalization", a system in which possession is punished with a fine rather than jail time, but sale and distribution are still criminal offenses, reform has a much higher percentage of support. When CNN/Time Magazine asked their customers, "Assuming marijuana is not legalized, do you think people arrested for possession of small amounts of marijuana should be put in jail, or just have to pay a fine but without serving any jail time?" 72% replied that they should be fined without jail time, and a further 4% said they should receive nothing ("CNN/Time Magazine Poll"). From these polls, we can see that while the public does not want marijuana to be freely sold and distributed, neither do they wish to criminalize users.

So with the public's opinion being split practically down the middle and thousands serving jail time, the question is where do we go from here? Do we simply just legalize marijuana, regulate it, and hope for the best? Do we free users from the worry of jail time for possession and allow the black market to continue? Despite public polls, if decriminalized, marijuana users will win out, they will no longer face jail time but rather just a small fine. But what does this do for the middle class family man or woman? In a decriminalized society, the marijuana supply will still be controlled by the black market. It will not be taxed, it will not generate any revenue for the government, and taxpayers will still be losing billions of dollars. The economical decision would be to legalize marijuana, regulate the sale and distribution, control the potency, tax it like any other commodity, and reap the benefits of a multi-billion dollar industry, but is this the socially acceptable route?

Marijuana prohibition is at a peak point in history; the support for it has fallen, the use of marijuana has risen, and other systems have proven more effective. It is time for our society to try to envision a world in which marijuana is legal and taxed, yet without the apocalyptic fears. The United States in the past has been known as a nation on the cutting edge in technology and in social reform, and we stray further from this image the older this country gets. It is time for the United States to fix the problem it created over 70 years ago and to end the war it has been financing increasingly for almost 30 years. The government is losing this war, and some may argue it has already lost it. It is now time for them to decide to continue on endlessly or to step up and end it through legalization.