AutoDrift

An article on Melissa ford

Prohibition in the 21st Century: Decriminalizing Marijuana

“Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit.”
- White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske

The History of Prohibition defined. In 1919 the United States government embarked upon a period known as The Noble Experiment. What this experiment did was effectively render the sale, manufacture and/or distribution of alcoholic beverages and consumption as an illegal activity. Not an unlikely deduction is that in direct proportion to this prohibitive situation, the level of crime and violence in our country soared. Many a speakeasy – akin to the Cannabis Collectives that open today, in spite of moratoriums on operation – existed during this time. It was not until the period that marked the Great Depression that President Roosevelt signed an agreement to an amendment allowing for the sale and consumption of particular types of alcoholic beverages.

The implication in this amendment is that the economic situation of the time demanded a lift on the ban because perhaps it became economically advantageous to allow for the legal consumption of alcohol as it could be taxed. In addition, one might easily surmise that legalizing consumption and distribution of alcohol would and could drive down the crime and violence that are unavoidable outcomes of the illegal manufacturing, distribution and consumption of a product. Similar arguments are made today regarding the Marijuana Debate – most notably in California, which is experiencing an economic collapse. Simply put, the tax gain from marijuana consumption and distribution could serve as an economic boost for the much-deflated Californian economy.

Just as the prohibition of speakeasy days was experiencing a lift, another form of suppression was being enacted. In 1937, it became illegal to cultivate hemp in the United States. Hemp can be cultivated for both industrial and medicinal purposes – as such, its potential for widespread value is nearly unparalleled. We should be reminded, not only did all of our founding fathers cultivate hemp, but, in fact, it was illegal to refuse to cultivate hemp in both the 18th and 19th centuries in the United States. It would be unfair to forget to mention that the Constitution of the United States was written on hemp-made paper. At one time, we intended to use hemp variants not only as the fuel to propel engines as in the T-Ford Model, but also as the material that cars themselves are made of. Arguably, the cultivation of hemp for industrial purposes would have been less taxing on our agricultural and ecological resources than oil has turned out to be on a global scale.

In 1961, the United Nations mandated a Single Convention on Narcotics treatise. This treaty was ratified by 73 participating nations. In effect and actuality, what this treaty did was write a script that rendered the cultivation of any plant for medicinal purposes as illegal on a multi-lateral international governmental basis. According to Paul Hager, a noted Libertarian turned Republican, “all drug use, both legal and illegal, began to decline in the 1970s”. Drug use can be defined as the consumption of a substance for primarily medical-related purposes.

In the 1980s, during President Reagan’s term (s) in office, First Lady Nancy Reagan kicked off a national campaign commonly known to us all as “The War on Drugs”. In 1983, a now international program known as D.A.R.E., which stands for Drug Abuse Resistance Education was founded by the Los Angeles Police Department. Abuse is the misuse, or bad treatment of something that may actually be necessary for use. Someone can be addicted to painkillers and use them in an abusive manner even though they are legal and often times very necessary for medical purposes. In July 2009, the D.A.R.E program was awarded Special Consultative Status by the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

On the flip side of the coin, we have a host of parties who advocate freedom, liberty, human rights, science, medicine, research, sociology, economy and justice as more than worthwhile reasons to decriminalize marijuana. Some of these supporters are Washington-based political action committees like the Marijuana Policy Project, NORML and The Cato Institute. The American Medical Association has stood up in defense of the value of the medicinal properties in marijuana consumption as a tool to treat a host of medical ailments. To cite Paul Hager yet again, who once made the very great claim that “prohibition is a form of illegality in that it runs contra to the principles of limited government that the Constitution itself espouses”.

Celebrities and athletes from Melissa Etheridge to Michael Phelps have all drawn attention to this international hotbed of an issue because the reality is that this issue, as addressed in America has international ramifications. Even our Presidents, while not necessarily setting precedents on the issue, have partaken in their fair share of “illicit” activities. After all, allegedly or admittedly, Clinton has inhaled, Obama has puffed and Bush has sniffed some coca stuff. America is internationally vested in the policies and treatises of The United Nations. We are a participatory entity in this all-inclusive world body on many levels. Perhaps we have far too much to lose in acceding to the decriminalization of marijuana on a federal level; for to do so would be to completely contradict our international stance on every issue ranging from war, politics, economics and trade to name but a few.

Global interests are complex and convoluted as well as intricately woven dynamics, each within and throughout the other not-so-seamless thread. To change one issue in one arena is to possibly tip the scales off balance in another area, thereby creating a ripple-effect of catastrophe in the socio-political climate on an international level. What we would have in such an instance is an unraveling of the global quilt – shreds. This can never be truer a statement than now, as indeed, globalization and the age of automation have rendered the planet a small world after all.

Encouraging, however, is to take note of the Netherlands and their approach to the matter. The Dutch seem to turn a blind eye to the cannabis consumption everywhere prevalent in their domain, and in this way passively condone its use while at one and the same time not overtly defying the 1961 U.N. treatise to which they are party. This allows them a degree of autonomy by which to approach the root sociological issue of drug use or abuse on their own terms. Studies indicate that the use of illicit drugs such as heroin and cocaine in the Netherlands are relatively low, in comparison to the rampant drug abuse in the United States on a per capita basis.

Can we be encouraged or discouraged by the course of political action regarding resolving the social conflict that divergent viewpoints breed on various issues? Does policy making or changing depend on the issue at hand, the monetary stakes of vested parties or simply pure politics in general? Could it be said that politics is a rigged game, for which true change is not possible; or, if it is possible, it can or should only occur incrementally, as rapid transition breeds the turbulent tragedy of tumult. Revolution can serve to be regressive and not progressive.

In this year alone, President Obama advocated the consideration of dialogue on the issue of cannabis consumption for medical purposes during his campaign for Presidency. Governor Schwarzenegger admitted – during the recent budget slam of July – that the topic was worth discussing, especially as a means of responding to the economic crisis in California. Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts presented the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009 to the House of Representatives for consideration as well. It appears the topic is definitely a conversation piece of the day.

The bill presented by Congressman Frank, known by the reference H.R. 2943 hopes to reduce the number of non-violent criminals being housed in our prison system. Currently, approximately , or nearly 250,000 arrests and/or incarcerations in the United States are related to marijuana charges alone. Yet, Governor Lynch of New Hampshire recently vetoed a medical marijuana bill that would have made New Hampshire the 14th state in the union to decriminalize cannabis consumption for medicinal purposes. Even if we took a moment’s refuge in hope with the stance of Justices O’Connor and Thomas’ positions in the matter of Gonzales vs. Raich, the prohibition of the 21st Century battle is not anywhere near soon over. This issue is much bigger than America, and it is too deeply embedded across cultural lines whose socio-economic impact on an international level is unprecedented.

It has never been proven, by any research of any kind, anywhere, in any place, at any time that the use of marijuana induces violent behavior. In fact, one might make the not-so-outlandish claim that the key to world peace may very well lie in cannabis consumption. Imagine a summit, a roundtable of world leaders, 191 of them, in a vaporized conference room at a United Nations World Summit on Global Peace. I am beginning to see some very far-out possibilities. Somehow, I foresee that a necessary and resultant shredding of a document, a certain treatise mandated in 1961, would be a very important ceremonial aspect of this world summit.

Do governments exist to control the populace? Are they driven by the need to be a profit before people institution, fabricated on the heels of fallacy and illusion? Are governments driven by a need to manufacture consumption and distribution of resources according to the economic whim and private interest of the few? Why did we choose oil over hemp as fuel? In the end, our choices to date have only served to our detriment on every level as a global entity, that is, environmentally, economically, politically and socially.