The War on Drugs -- is it Working?

History of the War on Drugs

Of all the laws the United States has passed in the effort to hinder drug use, the "Pure Food and Drug Act" of 1906 has probably been the most successful. It created the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), which approves any food or medicine before it can be made available for people to use. It also allows for some drugs to only be available through prescription. Finally, it also requires that any drug which could be habit forming say so on its label. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 single handedly reduced addiction, more so than any criminal law passed before or since. Around the turn of the century, drug addiction was quite a problem. During the Civil War and afterwards, morphine was given often and many patients (and doctors) would leave hospitals with an addiction to it.

The first major criminal law passed at the federal level was the Harrison Act in 1914. This act focused on opium, morphine, and different derivatives of the coca leaf, such as cocaine. The two objectives of this act were simple: regulate the medical use of the drugs, and criminalize the non-medical uses. There was something interesting to note about this act, however. In 1914, the states had much more power, and Congress would not have been able to pass this law, as a general criminal law.

Therefore, the way it was passed was that it masqueraded as a tax law. There were two taxes. First, the doctors would pay a small tax fee, and the government would allow them to prescribe such drugs as morphine as long as they followed what the Harrison Act said in regulating the drug. Secondly, a very large tax would be applied to any of these drugs in non-medical use. Using cocaine as an example, let's assume we have someone with an ounce of it on the street. In 1914, the tax applied for this would be about a thousand dollars - while the cocaine itself would be worth considerably less. The crime this person is committing is not illegal possession, but tax evasion. Obviously, nobody is going to pay a tax that is over a thousand times more expensive than the product itself.

From 1915 until the federal marijuana prohibition in 1937, there were 27 different states which passed laws against the use of marijuana. Just after 1914, many Mexican labor workers migrated to the United States to find better working conditions. With them, they brought marijuana. At that time, many of the white citizens did not know much about it. A legislator from Texas was quoted as saying that "All Mexicans are crazy, and [marijuana] is what makes them crazy." Montana's first law against it said "give one of these Mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona". The motivation for these laws in many southern states didn't stem from the hostility toward the drug as much as it did from the hostility toward the new immigrants from Mexico.

In the northeastern states, Prohibition was beginning to happen too. The reasoning was due to fear of use, according to local newspapers. A New York newspaper stated that prohibition is a must, because they've "heard about the drug from the southwest" and that they must "prohibit its use before it gets here" because "all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drug by the Harrison Act and all the alcohol drinkers cut off from their drug by the 1919 Prohibition will substitute this new and unknown drug marijuana for the drugs they used to use."

In the southwest, prohibition was due mostly to the influx of Mexicans, and in the northeast it was due mostly to fear. However, the first state to ever enact a criminal law against the use of marijuana was Utah. It was not because of fear, and they did not (and still do not) have a very large population of Mexican-Americans. In the 19th century, the Mormon Church permitted its male members to have multiple wives. However, in 1876 there was a Supreme Court case called "Reynolds vs. the United States" which allowed Mormons to practice polygamy due to religious freedom, but said it was not allowed in the United States because it was against the law. However, states had all the power back then, and since Utah was a Mormon state, nothing happened to stop polygamy until 1910. Then in Salt Lake City, the Mormon Church decreed polygamy to be a mistake, and banned it from the religion. However, a large number of Mormons wanted to live "the traditional life", and fled to Mexico where they would try (but fail) to convert the "heathen" people (Mexicans, Indians, and others) of northern Mexico to the traditional lifestyle of Mormonism.

By 1914, many of the Mormons had given up their fight and moved back to Utah. However, while down there, Indians introduced them to marijuana and they brought it back to Utah. The church immediately decreed that marijuana was against the laws and morals of the church, and outlawed it. In October of 1915, the state enacted all religious prohibitions to become criminal laws.

The first federal anti-pot law was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Compared to other laws that Congress has passed over the years, the hearing for the Marijuana Tax Act was incredible short - only two hours over two days. Many hearings drag on for weeks. In the late 20s and early 30s, both the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) and the FBN (Federal Bureau of Narcotics) were created. The commissioner of the FBN (from 1930-1962), Harry Anslinger, spoke for one of three groups testifying at the hearing. He was quoted as saying that "marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death".

The next part of the hearing dealt with the prohibition of hemp in America. Hemp plant is used to make rope, used as bases for paints and varnishes, and seeds of the plant are used in bird seed. Since industries would be tremendously affected by this, the next body of testimony came from a spokesman representing these industries.

An interesting quote from a birdseed manufacturer, in response to a congressman asking if they could use some other seed, was "No, congressman, we couldn't. We have never found another seed that makes birds' coats so lustrous or makes them sing so much." Other than that, the industries agreed to use other products. An interesting note is that in 1937, we were importing hemp plant, because it was cheaper than growing it. However, before 1820, hemp was widely grown in the United States. It was a fact that our founding fathers did in fact grow and use hemp. The arbitrary decision of prohibiting marijuana and anything relating to it hurt many industries in the late 30s, although birdseed companies actually (to this day) remain exempt from the act.

The last group of testimony heard was medical in nature. A pharmacologist at Temple University injected what he claimed was the active ingredient of marijuana into 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died. The congressmen asked if he chose dogs because of their similarity to humans, and the doctor replied "I wouldn't know, I'm not a dog psychologist".

The first time the active ingredient in marijuana was synthesized was in a laboratory in Holland after the war, so what was actually injected is unknown, and could have been anything.

Dr. William C. Woodward, doctor and lawyer of the American Medical Association, testified that "The AMA knows of no evidence that marijuana is a dangerous drug". The response of the congressman was "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?" Another congressman followed up by saying "... if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you."

In 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt was the President, and the country was in the heart of "The New Deal", the domestic reform program which tried to provide recovery from The Great Depression and also attempted to provide legislation to "benefit the mass of working people". It's interesting to note that the AMA opposed every single piece of New Deal Legislation from 1932 to 1937, which may be why the "new deal" Congress acted in the way they did toward the established Dr. Woodward.

Despite the opposition from the AMA, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 passed from the committee to the Congress. However, rather than being debated there, it was passed through right up to the House of Representatives, where it was easily passed. A Republican from New York asked two simple questions. The first was, and these are all direct quotes, "Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"

The speaker replied "I don't know, it has something to do with a thing called marijuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind." The next question from the Republican was "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"

The remarkable response was "they support this bill 100%."

The bill passed without a single vote, and went to the desk of President Roosevelt who signed off on it.

During World War II, however, there was a need for hemp to outfit our military ships, so the Federal Government went into business of growing hemp on gigantic farms throughout the Midwest and south to create more rope for the military.

Commissioner Anslinger would later name the pharmacologist from Temple University, who injected dogs with strange substances, the Official Expert of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics about marijuana. When Aslinger said "marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death", five murder trials took place around the same time where the defendant s' sole defense was insanity due to using marijuana before the crime. Sure enough, the expert witness for one famous case where two women shot a bus driver was the same pharmacologist. When the doctor was called to the stand, he talked about how he was an expert - he admitted to testing it on dogs, studying it, writing about it, etc. However, he also actually admitted he'd even used it himself. When asked what happened when he took the drug, he was quoted as saying "after two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat." He later testified he flew around the room for fifteen minutes before finding himself at the bottom of a two-hundred-foot high ink well. The headlines the next day, on October 12th, read "Killer Drug Turns Doctor to Bat!"

Anslinger continued to make a name for himself by starting a campaign to arrest jazz musicians; he had received reports or got the notion that they were using non-medical marijuana. Trying to get more agents to try to bust these musicians, he went in front of the senate in 1948. When the senators asked him why he wanted more agents, he said "because there are people out there violating the marijuana laws." The senator asked who, and Anslinger replied "musicians." After a pause, he followed up by saying one of his more famous lines, "and I don't mean good musicians, I mean jazz musicians." By the next day, more than 75 newspapers had already written negative editorials about him, and over fifteen thousand letters were sent to Anslinger.

The next act, in 1951, was called "The Boggs Act", as a response to the media perceiving an increase in drug use. The Boggs Act quadrupled all the penalties in every category of illegal drug use. In 1956, "The Daniel Act" passed, multiplying the penalties in all categories once again.

Virginia had the highest level of crime involving marijuana, which led to a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years (40 years for selling marijuana). That compares to the mandatory minimum sentence for murder of only 15 years.

When John F. Kennedy became president in 1961, things began to change. He fired Aslinger and many others in the FBN, including the dog pharmacologist. It was rumored that Kennedy used marijuana to relieve pain in his back. Looking back, the "War on Drugs" may not have happened or been entirely different, if it were not for the assassination of Kennedy in 1963.

However, in 1969, a law passed unlike the past prohibition laws. It was called "The Dangerous Substances Act", and actually lowered penalties, and it finally abandoned the "tax" idea.

The act classified every drug, except for nicotine and alcohol, by two criteria. The first is "what's the drug's medical use?" and the second is "what's the drug potential for abuse?" The penalties would then reflect those criteria.

When Nixon become president, the War on Drugs stepped up. Just recently, "the Nixon tapes" have been released - tapes of conversations he had while in the oval office. Nixon's stance on drugs, according to the tapes, is that people "drink to have fun" and that it's a "sociable event", whereas people smoke marijuana to "get high". When talking to his personal advisors, he actually said "you know, it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter with them? I suppose it is because most of them are psychiatrists". Nixon's stance on drug education was "to enforce the law" because "you've got to scare them."

On September 9th, 1971, Nixon had a meeting with Raymond P. Shafer, head of the presidential commission on drug policy. After hearing that they were considering recommending the decriminalization of marijuana, Nixon had a meeting with Shafer. He said that he was enough of a pro "to know that for you to come out with something that would run counter to what Congress feels and what the country feels, and what we're planning to do, would make your commission just look bad as hell." According to the people who transcribed the tapes, Shafer sounded very unnerved. Nixon then instructed Shafer not to seek input from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, because they were "soft on drugs".

He then said that "as an old prosecutor, I don't mind somebody putting it in J. Edgar Hoover's hands, but I come down very hard on the side of putting it in, uh, hardheaded doctors, rather than a bunch of a muddle-headed psychiatrists." After a long pause, he continues, saying "anyway, the thing to do now is to alert the country to the problem and say no, this far, no farther, and I think that's what you want to do, take a strong line." With that, people start getting up and the meeting was over without Shafer saying another word. Eventually, Shafer's commission would recommend decriminalization.

Nixon was shocked, and in a conversation he had in the oval office with another advisor, he continued ranting. "Dope? Do you think the Russians allow dope? Hell no. You see, homosexuality, dope, uh, immorality in general: these are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are pushing it. They're trying to destroy us."

In the late 1970s, organized groups started to push for harsher drug laws, and under President Ronald Reagan, and First Lady Nancy Reagan, they got that. The drug laws were strengthened, more than they were in the 30s, and with more enforcement capabilities. Tool previously used against heroin and cocaine trafficking were now being employed against marijuana. Things like the mandatory minimum sentencing were being forced again, and now someone selling marijuana in the United States could be punished more harshly than someone convicted of murder.

In June of 1982, Reagan created a new post under his Administration, and appointed chemist Carlton Turner to head it. Turner, now the head of the White House Drug Abuse Policy Office, believed that marijuana was extremely dangerous, and might have the power to induce homosexuality.

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Amendment Act of 1988 raised federal penalties for using, cultivating, and selling marijuana. Sentences were determined by how much of the drugs were involved. Attempts or "conspiracies" were treated as harshly as actual acts. Possession of 100 grams of heroine was now equal to possessions of 100 marijuana plants.

Channel One News, the station broadcast to thousands of schools across the US, has shown dozens of news segments containing anti-drug propaganda. They've received millions of dollars from the White House to do this, and that money comes from taxes. In addition to this, six magazines that show advertisements paid for by the National Drug Control Policy signed contracts which allow the NDCP to declare which news articles these magazines can run. The magazines would run one free advertisement for every ad the drug policy office would pay for. However, if the magazines printed certain articles that met specific standards, they wouldn't have to run the free ad.

Current Status of the War on Drugs

The War on Drugs is one of the most expensive ventures in the United States. We are spending more and more money, yet we're losing this war. Despite the fact that federal spending on the drug war increased from $1.65 billion in 1982 to $17.7 billion in 1999, more than half of the students in the United States in 1999 tried an illegal drug before they graduated from high school. Additionally, 65% have tried cigarettes by 12th grade and 35% are current smokers, and 62% of twelfth graders and 25% of 8th graders in 1999 report having been drunk at least once.

Then there is the "Drug Abuse Resistance Education", known as DARE. A federally funded Research Triangle Institute study of DARE found that "DARE's core curriculum effect on drug use relative to whatever drug education (if any) was offered in the control schools is slight and, except for tobacco use, is not statistically significant." Despite the fact that research has determined that DARE is ineffective, it has received over $500 million in grants each year.

A professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Dr. Dennis Rosenbaum, recently completed a six-year study of 1,798 students and found that "DARE had no long-term effects on a wide range of drug use measures" and that DARE does not "prevent drug use at the stage in adolescent development when drugs become available and are widely used, namely during the high school years", and also that DARE may actually be counter productive. According to the study, "there is some evidence of a boomerang effect among suburban kids. That is, suburban students who were DARE graduates scored higher than suburban students in the Control group on all four major drug use measures."

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in 1999, the nation spent $146,556,000,000 on the Federal, State, and Local justice systems. In that year, the United States had 1,875,199 adult jail and prison inmates. The cost to put a single drug dealer in jail is about $450,000. The cost for arrest and conviction is about $150,000. The cost for an additional prison bed ranges from $50,000 to $150,000, and it costs another $30,000 per year to house a convict. With the average sentence being five years, that adds up to another $150,000. For that same $450,000, treatment could be provided for about 200 people. Despite the investment of more than $5 billion for prison construction over the past decade, the prison system is currently operating at 32 percent over rated capacity, up from 22 percent at the end of 1997.

In 1999 the United States spent a record $147 billion for police protection, corrections, and judicial and legal activities. The Nation's expenditure for operations and outlay of the justice system increased 309% from almost $36 billion in 1982. Discounting inflation, that represents a 145% increase in constant dollars.

Let's look at California as an example. From 1984 to 1996, the state built 21 new prisons and only one new university. In fact, the money spent on prisons has increased 30%, while spending on higher education decreased by 18%.

One would assume the War on Drugs is costly, so why keep it up? A big part of is called asset forfeiture. In 1994, federal forfeitures totaled about $730 million. What this is, is the loss of money and property when it is determined that your property may be involved in a crime directly or indirectly. The only way to get your possessions back is by proving yourself innocent which is hard to do. Today, forfeiture is more than just the war on the drugs, entire businesses can be seized in the War on Terrorism. Locally, a business got completely seized because the Arab owner was suspected of being involved with terrorism in one way or another. Now, it produces billions of dollars worth of assets. However, one of the last things Clinton did while in office was enact the "Civil Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000", which safeguards an innocent owner's interest in property, and making it more difficult for the government to seize properties - needing preponderance of the evidence before going in. This will hopefully put a dent in the corrupt asset forfeiture law, where in 1991, it was discovered that 80% of people who had property forfeited were never charged with a crime.

The War on Drugs continues, and your taxes continue to pay for it. The national deficit continues to rise, and the rate of drug use continues to expand.

One of the biggest problems with the War on Drugs has to do with civil rights, or a complete lack thereof. They say it's perfectly legal to violate your civil rights. For instance, on 1999, 1,350 wiretaps were authorized by state and Federal courts. Of these, 978 - a total of 72.4% - were for drug investigations, and only 7 - about half a percent - were for kidnapping.

The prison system, when dealing with the War on Drugs, is a complete joke. The overall incarceration rate of the United States is more than six times its biggest competitors. The number of prisoners convicted of non-violent drug related crimes equal more people than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska.

Data shows that about a fourth of those initially imprisoned for nonviolent crimes are sentenced for a second time for committing a violent offense. Whatever else it reflects, this pattern highlights the possibility that prison serves to transmit violent habits and values rather than to reduce them.

To put it into perspective, at the rate in which incarceration is going (assuming it stays as it is now), an estimated 1 of every 20 Americans (5%) can be expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime. For African-American men, the number is greater than 1 in 4 (28.5%) - and over 80% of all those incarcerations would be drug related.

Racism, unfortunately, happens in all walks of life - but when it deals with the police, it's one of the most touchiest subjects one can bring up. Most drug offenders are white. Five times as many whites use drugs as African Americans. Yet they comprise the great majority of drug offenders sent to prison. The solution to this racial inequity is not to incarcerate more whites, but to reduce the use of prison for low-level drug offenders and to increase the availability of substance abuse treatment.

The racism is in the statistics. Fifty-eight percent of offenders under 18 years of age admitted to prison in 1997 were black and 25% were white. In 1990, African-American youth comprised 61% of admissions and whites 21%. Still, the shift from 1985 to 1990 was more dramatic: During this period the percentage of African-American young people put in prison increased from 53% to 62%, and the percentage of whites fell from 32% to 21%. Look at it another way: nationwide, one in every 20 black men over the age of 18 is in prison. In five states, between one in 13 and one in 14 black men is in prison. This compares to one in 180 white men.

Once again, civil rights come into play when dealing with the federal justice system. According to Amnesty International, contrary to international standards, prisons and jails in the USA employ men to guard women and place relatively few restrictions on the duties of male staff. As a consequence, much of the shocking and humiliating experiences of having staff touching and viewing female prisoners' bodies is permitted by law. Also, retaliation for reports of abuse impedes women's access to protection of their human rights. One woman who won a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons for sexual abuse reported that she was beaten, raped, and sodomized by three men who in the course of the attack told her that they were attacking her in retaliation for providing a statement to investigators.

The corruption just begins there, however. The Mollen Commission, while investigating the New York Police Department, "found that police corruption, brutality, and violence were present in every high-crime precinct with an active narcotics trade that it studied, all of which have predominantly minority populations. It found disturbing patterns of police corruption and brutality, including stealing from drug dealers, engaging in unlawful searches, seizures, and car stops, dealing and using drugs, lying in order to justify unlawful searches and arrests and to forestall complaints of abuse, and indiscriminate beating of innocent and guilty alike." Also, they noted that "on average, half of all police officers convicted as a result of FBI-led corruption cases between 1993 and 1997 were convicted for drug-related offenses."

It's the same in other parts of the country. In 2000, according to LA Times, "Roughly 70 officers are under investigation, suspected either of committing crimes or knowing about criminal conduct by officers and failing to report it. About 100 criminal convictions have been overturned as a result of alleged police misconduct." Also, in 1995, "10 police officers from Philadelphia's 39th District have been charged with planting drugs on suspects, shaking down drug dealers for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and breaking into homes to steal drugs and cash." In New Orleans, 11 police officers were convicted of accepting nearly $100,000 from undercover agents to protect a cocaine supply warehouse containing 286 pounds of cocaine. The undercover portion of the investigation was terminated when a witness was killed under orders from a New Orleans police officer.

Mandatory minimum sentences are a way to transfer the power from the judges to the prosecutors in a court of law. It's the prosecutors, not the judges, who decide whether or not to reduce charges, whether to accept or deny a plea bargain, and to decide what the final sentence is. One unnamed judge was quoted as saying "'The people who drew up these guidelines never sat in a court and had to look a defendant in the eye while imposing some of these sentences." Since the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug users, the Federal Bureau of Prisons budget increased by more than 1,350%, from $220 million in 1986 to about $3.19 billion in 1997.

Another problem with the War on Drugs is that it creates misconceptions about such things as marijuana. Corporations will randomly make their employees do drug testing, and if they come out positive than they can be terminated, regardless of how we'll they've been doing in their job. Companies which use Factor 2000, an impairment testing system, are finding that drug and alcohol use are not the most common reasons for failure; rather, severe fatigue and illness are more common. A positive drug test does not even show if the employee was impaired or intoxicated on the job, nor does it show if the employee has a drug problem or how often the drugs are used. It just shows if an employee has used any sort of drug in his semi-recent past. However, since the early 90s, employers have cut down on drug testing and now do most of the testing just to satisfy government mandates.

It is estimated that the United States spends $1 billion annually to drug test about 20 million workers. Studies also show that drug testing in the workplace actually hinders productivity rather than increasing it.

According to a study funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and published by the Southern Economic Journal in 2001, "Non-chronic drug use was not statistically related to either of the labor supply measures, indicating that light or casual drug use did not lead to negative effects on the labor supply."

Asa Hutchinson, administrator of the DEA (The US Drug Enforcement Administration), on legalization of drugs, was quoted as saying "The essence of our democracy is that freedom is maintained through individual participation, individual sacrifice, and the sharing of common values. The drug culture erodes and ultimately destroys everything that is necessary for democracy to work. When one of us is overtaken with the consuming and controlling desire for drugs, there is nothing else - no thought of responsibility to family, nothing for the betterment of community, and our common values are shelved for the immediacy of drugs... Legalization of drugs is advocated today in the name of freedom, but freedom cannot be maintained by a society devoted to drugs. There is an inconsistency there. We give up freedom and we become slaves to an addiction.... Our common freedoms and our cherished democracy cannot survive in that culture. This battle is important, it is worthy, and it is essential to our nation." Apparently, someone has a problem with overreacting.

One of the biggest problems with the War on Drugs is that it fails to separate marijuana from "hard drugs". When it comes to drugs like heroin, or cocaine, his statement might apply. It's happened countless times with hard drugs, people get addicted to them and drugs become their entire life. However, with marijuana this is not a problem. People are about as likely to become addicted to marijuana, and "give up freedom and become slaves to addiction" as they would to say, soda pop. If you drink enough of it, and like the taste, you'll continue drinking it. However, it doesn't take over your life, or kill you slowly. Actually, while not researched, I'd be willing to bet that soda pop is worse for you than ingesting marijuana, since it's a factor in weight gain, a known health hazard.

Another ad-campaign promoted by the DEA is "if you buy drugs, you're supporting terrorists". This is a scare tactic, designed to manipulate your feelings of patriotism. It's a low blow, perhaps a last ditch effort, to try to say if you do drugs, you don't care about America, and you don't care about what happened on September 11th. Also, it's not shown to be true at all. It's interesting to see that when talking about controlled substances, it's no longer the government simply lying to you about how marijuana will kill you and ruin your life; now they're just attacking your morals and love of country.

However, there are still lies. Walking around Nathan Hale high school, I saw a poster about marijuana, and how it's addicting and then listed a bunch of facts. Some of those facts listed were how it gives you memory loss, makes you stupider, and kills you. I wonder where these facts came from? My guess is from an ad campaign.

Simply put, there needs to be in change when it comes to the drug policy in the United States. It's been medically proven that marijuana is not a harmful drug, and that many legal substances - including tobacco and alcohol - are much more harmful and addicting. Yet, when someone gets caught with possession of marijuana they get put in jail, along with the millions of others who've also committed similar non-violent drug related crimes.

When it comes to the number of deaths caused in the US every year, tobacco is at the very top with 430,700 kills. Alcohol is second with 110,640. Prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death with 32,000 per year. After suicide and homicide, all other licit/illicit drug induced deaths finish sixth with nearly 17,000. Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory drugs, such as aspirin, caused 7,600 deaths. And finally, after an "exhaustive search", there were no deaths induced by marijuana alone - ever. It has been scientifically proven that it is impossible to overdose on ingestion of marijuana.

When one says that the drug policy needs changing, they are correct, but what should it change to? A system with no enforcement of any laws regarding harmless drugs? While the legalization of marijuana is a long-term goal for its supporters, going from one extreme to another with any policy generally creates an odd mix of outrage and support, usually not working well together. Instead, let's look at the Netherlands Drug Policy.

The Netherlands have a system where it separates the 'unacceptable risk' drug users and the 'acceptable risk' drug users. Though it isn't officially legal, it is tolerated. Cannabis is sold in coffee shops. The statistics comparing the United States and the Netherlands should be interesting. Of people polled (ages 12 and above), in the US 33% said they'd used marijuana while only 15.6% in the Netherlands said they did. 5% in the US said they'd used in the last month while half that said they had in the Netherlands. With heroin, 1.1% of the US population said they'd used it while in the Netherlands, only 0.3% had.

Then it gets even more interesting. The United States spent $81 million in 1997 on drug-related law enforcement, and the incarceration rate was 645 for every 100,000 people, and the homicide rate was 8 per every 100,000 people. In the Netherlands, they spent only $27 million on law enforcement, and the incarceration rate was just 77 to every 100,000. The homicide rate is way down too, at just 1.8 for every 100,000.

The idea of separating the hard and soft drugs has worked effectively. The number of drug addicts has been stable at about 25,000, and there are very few new young addicts. The average age of a heroin user in the Netherlands is 36 years old. The whole idea is to minimize risk and reduce harm. However, hard drugs are not tolerated and carry harsh sentences.

Cannabis is not legal, but the authorities tolerate it. They even allow places to sell it, as long as it's not to minors, have a limit of 5 grams, and is does not advertise. The only harsh sentences involving marijuana deal with importing/exporting of it, and the amount. Generally, it's acceptable to have cannabis in the Netherlands though.

Those are the facts. Dan Savage, a local writer for the Seattle magazine "The Stranger", wrote an editorial about a young man glorified in the news because he turned in his father for growing marijuana in their house. While the news was busy describing how this father was an evil person, and glorifying the son who seemed confused, saying "everyone thought I was a hero, except for the members of my family", the media forget to mention a few small details. First, he wasn't growing the marijuana to sell it to people for profit, he was using it medically. Secondly, they didn't mention that the loving father had two younger sons who now didn't have a father because their big brother wanted to get revenge on his father for some reason.

The media, supposedly an unbiased source, is either too scared or too ignorant to see the other side of the story. That side of the story that says marijuana is not going to destroy your life, and that it's a harmless plant which the United States is fighting by spending millions of dollars each year, money which could be spent on education, a proven antidote to hard drug use. Besides, do we really want to live in a society that encourages family members to spy on each other?

The War on Drugs is a pointless, expensive, and often misdirected one. The fact that a marijuana user could get a longer sentence than a rapist, a child molester, or even a murderer, is simply mind boggling.

Sources:
(1) http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
(2) http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/01/15/drug-strategy.html
(3) http://www.redlichlaw.com/crim/substantive-due-process-drug-war.pdf
(4) http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/pol/495lect03.htm
(5) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/