Up In Smoke

by UrbanPrimitive

The legal status of marijuana has been debated in this country throughout the twentieth century. Though both sides of the debate offer a great wealth of information, it’s very rare that either tells the whole story. This point is stressed in Dr. Mitch Earleywine’s book Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence. While the technical facts of marijuana use and how it affects the user are not arguable, the reasons behind both its advocates and opponents are.

Many prohibitionists say that this is a moral issue; that it’s simply a question of ethical behavior. A smaller fragment of this group even state that their opinion is based with independence from consequences of actions. This boils down to the idea that some actions and choices are just wrong despite whether or not any harm is caused as a result. They continue to argue that if harm were to be caused, and a treatment or remedy for the harm were found, the use of marijuana for any purpose is still morally bankrupt and should remain banned.

Anti-prohibitionists also take a moral stance on this issue. Citing the Constitution, they say that the marijuana policies in place infringe on the rights of freedom of religion, the right to privacy, and private property. On the religious point, they urge that marijuana use is common in some religions and therefore protected. They also refer to the use of other intoxicants such as wine used in Jewish traditions and peyote used by the Native American Church. In essence they are saying that they value religious freedom more than anything. On privacy they simply argue that any activity done alone or amongst intimates that causes no harm to others should be protected as a private right. Also, they argue that marijuana can be someone’s private property and therefore protected by the fourteenth amendment. Federal courts have not ruled in favor of these arguments and state that the use or possession of marijuana is not a fundamental right and therefore not sheltered by the Constitution.

The innate flaw in arguing this issue, or any issue, as a question of morals is that no two people have completely identical beliefs. What one person views as a heinous crime, another will not even bat an eye at. To say that something or some one is wrong because it goes against your particular set of principles is contrary to the ideas in which this country was founded; that of freedom of choice; that any one person’s feelings should not dictate how everyone else has to behave.

Questions of morality aside, both groups also make stands on the purpose of marijuana laws. Prohibitionists believe that the laws are in place to reduce the damage users inflict to themselves and others. They quickly state that policy has been effective and that reported levels of use and problems stemming from use are low and a sign of success. The statistics themselves are that one third of American adults have tried marijuana in their lifetimes but only 3% of these adults report using the drug once a week or more.

On their side, anti-prohibitionists claim that the drug laws themselves cause a great deal of harm or at the very least do not promote the well being of society. Their data suggest that these regulations have created an underground drug market plagued with violence, and that areas with strict law enforcement also have higher drug related murder rates. There are those with in the pro marijuana camp that believe that the drug laws were founded in reasons other than controlling drugs. One such belief is that drug laws stem from racist feelings harbored by politicians against immigrants who used marijuana before coming to America. Others feel that the legislature is financially motivated due to marijuana’s byproduct; hemp. Hemp is a natural fiber that can be used to make everything from ropes to paper to clothing. If it were to be legally grown in the United States its impact would be felt to some degree in all business markets, taking money away from other big businesses such as logging and timber. Also, anti-prohibitionists battle their opponents’ statistics with ones of their own. A group of surveys and research studies have stated that less than 10% of users experience marijuana related problems, that cannabis is notably less harmful to the user than alcohol and nicotine, and that the number of people seeking rehabilitation for marijuana addiction is low by comparison. They also remark that no one reported, in any known study, a decrease in their quality of life due to an ongoing marijuana habit.

Though both groups have left the arena of moral philosophy for one more based in evidence, neither group completely defends their ideals or defeats those of their rival. We’re left with the opinion that it’s each and every person’s choice on whether or not marijuana is a blight or bonus. I feel marijuana is a double edged sword with both pros and cons if used for medical or recreational purposes. In the end, if potentially hazardous drugs such as morphine, oxycodone, and, codeine can be used to benefit the ill, why can’t marijuana?