It is the nature of crime that if the law did not exist, crime would not exist. If you were to eliminate all laws that bind us, you would also have immediately eliminated all forms of crime. While this may seem an oversimplified statement of what makes crime and law and how it applies to society, it should make one examine more closely what makes a law. Often, in an overzealous attempt to combat crime and the “lawlessness” of criminals, we forget to examine whether a law is instituted for the public good, or indeed, if it is even a relevant piece of legislation. Rather than blindly following the law, there is a need to examine major pieces of legislation to ensure that the control of society in that area is beneficial to society, that the costs to the law enforcement agencies are reasonable and that the behavior that is being controlled by the law is truly considered to be harmful to the society at large.
If one were to consider the law against premeditated murder, it would very easily stand up to this scrutiny. It is indeed beneficial to society at large to prevent premeditated murder when possible and punish it when necessary. The costs to law enforcement to investigate and apprehend the guilty are justified; there are no unconsidered programs that are absorbing valuable resources without showing their worth. There are very few people in society who would contend that allowing premeditated murder would be extremely harmful to the entire society. Applying these questions to a law is a simple enough process, but it becomes necessary when laws are being made that focus on issues that are not nearly as clear-cut.
Is the Control of Benefit to Society?
It is a
conventional wisdom that the use of all narcotics: alcohol, marijuana and other
illegal substances, increases crime and lawlessness. It is believed that the effects of these
drugs lead to antisocial behavior that unchecked, leads to increased rates of
violence and crime. However, as was
learned after the
The problem with cannabis is that our blinkered
response to it has led to a punitive and often destructive treatment of
users. Our unwillingness to invest in
research has led us into a situation here young people who have been told that
cannabis for themselves. Because
cannabis is illegal, users are likely to come into contact with other drugs
when they come to buy supplies, and in
effect the very society that claims to protect them is placing them at risk.[1]
Studies have shown that the increased efforts of law enforcement to control drug and alcohol use (both during the era of the alcohol Prohibition Act and during the current “War on Drugs”) leads to an increase in the homicide rate. These results hold true even when it is taken into consideration for such factors as age ratio of the population; incarceration factors such as overall rate, presence of the death penalty and the general availability of guns; and economic factors.
While statistics can be read many ways, such a glaring bit of evidence showing that prohibition itself does not decrease the violence associated with the use of illegal substances, does warrant a closer examination of what the prohibition of marijuana protects society from and what it actually achieves.
Are The Costs to Law Enforcement Reasonable?
To deter someone from crime means to stop him from
lawbreaking by threats of one kind or another.
The subject of deterrent effects of penal sanctions (punishments) is one
on which visceral feelings tend to be more frequently expressed than cerebral
responses. Discussions of deterrence
have permeated with half-truths, nonsequiturs, shibboleths, and often, utter
nonsense.[2]
It is obvious that efforts at criminalizing addiction
have failed. Any agency other than law enforcement with such a high rate of failure
would be forced to reevaluate its methods of dealing with the problem. Over half a century of failure is a long
and dismal record indeed. Since the
police are to some degree insulated from criticism, they may safely ignore a
factual assault on their methods and may remain unwilling to admit their
failure to deal with the problem.[3]
The drain on the resources of law enforcement agencies attempting to control the use of marijuana is extraordinary. Arguably, no other law has taken up as much time, money and effort as the attempt to control the use and flow of marijuana and other illicit drugs, with marijuana taking the forefront in number of arrests. For example, in 1996, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that State and local authorities had made over a million and a half drug related arrests. The majority of those arrests were for the possession of marijuana, in any amount. In 2000, the amount of drug related arrests outnumbered those of any other type of crime by over 100,000.[4] Of those reporting a lifetime use of illicit drugs, over 34 percent were users of marijuana.[5] Each one of those people was vulnerable to prosecution by the law, and in fact, if the enforcement of marijuana was ad effective as desired by the agencies, they would all be in jail.
These
drug arrests, after using a great deal of the resources of the police, become a drain on the court systems. To get a better picture of the cost of the
war on drugs, outside the expense of police investigation and court, it can be
helpful to examine the number of people in jail who are there on drug
convictions. In 2000, drug offenders
made up the largest number of prisoners in
Is The Behavior Being Controlled Harmful to
Society?
The total costs to society for each category of drug
abuse are difficult to determine exactly because of the paucity of adequate
data, but there is no doubt that every country in the world incurs substantial
costs as a result of the direct and indirect damage caused by drugs and
alcohol. [7]
Most
Westerners take drugs. Among the most
highly regarded are alcohol, tobacco, and tranquillizers; among the most
reviled are marijuana, cocaine and its derivatives, and heroin. Societal attitudes to drugs are a complex
affair: some are highly valued as leisure products for adults, others are
endorsed and dispensed by te medical profession even though they are known to
create dependencies or deleterious side effects, and others are universally
condemned.[8]
Unfortunately, a great deal of the information being presented on marijuana use and its “badness” is sketchy, anecdotal or clearly biased. As an example, a health organization concerned with promoting anti-drug programs and counseling presents the following numbers: that adolescents aged 12 to 17 who use marijuana weekly, are nine times more likely to experiment with other drugs, six times more likely to run away from home, five times more likely to steal, nearly four times more likely to engage in some form of violence and three times more likely to think about suicide. Yet these numbers, while unsettling and scary, only tell a part of what is going on.[9] As with any other study, it is important to note that while this evidence suggests a correlation between marijuana use and other anti-social behaviors, it does not prove a causal relationship. In other words, there is no way to tell which came first: the marijuana use or the factors that lead to more anti-social behaviors.
That these adolescents were nine times more likely to experiment with other drugs seems to be justification for marijuana’s reputation as a “gateway” drug. However, it is not made clear that these numbers included experimentation with alcohol (also defined as a drug), something that a majority of adolescents will be involved in, with or without the prior history of marijuana experimentation. Such adolescent anti-social behaviors as stealing, violence, running away and thoughts of suicide are clearly linked to an unstable and unhappy home life. It is yet unclear from this study whether the unhappy home life is a cause or a symptom of the marijuana use.
Just as has been found with medical
problems associated with marijuana use, the findings of psychological effect
have been argued from all sides. A
survey done of
On the other side of the psychological debate, there were similar studies that found different results. In a study of Harvard seniors, it was found that users were more likely to visit a psychotherapist.[12] However, it is important to note in this study that in half of those cases, the individuals were not users at the time that they visited a psychotherapist. Few blamed cannabis for their problems. Again, it has not been made clear what relationship exists between psychological problems and marijuana. Whether using marijuana leads to psychological problems or whether psychological problems lead people to try marijuana to alleviate their symptoms has not been proven.
According to the World Health Organization, cannabis psychosis (mostly reversible) is shown in less than 1% of users and it is still not clear what all is involved.[13]
With the emphasis on the link
between marijuana use and anti-social behaviors, it can be useful to take a
closer look at why someone might start using marijuana and in what ways. Before that, however, it should be noted
that in the
It can be useful to differentiate drug use into four categories: experimental, social, medicinal, and addictive.[14] Adolescents who are defined as “experimenting” with marijuana use the drug once or twice and then not again. Social users take drugs as a means of joining into a social function; while it may be true that people may get together just to smoke marijuana, for the most part the drug is just a part of the function. Medicinal drug use is not nearly as official as it sounds; this can include the using of marijuana to relieve anxiety or tension or to enjoy the drug experience alone. Addictive drug use, which is an individual experience, occurs when one becomes habituated to a drug. It is important to realize the different types of drug use when examining the statistics. There is a big difference between a fifteen year old who tries a joint out on the playground with his friends and a habitual marijuana smoker. For all the differences, though, it is rare to find statistics that differentiates.
What are the Health Risks to the Individual
User?
The health risks of marijuana are either as extreme as those associated with ‘hard’ drugs or as mild as those associated with moderate alcohol use, depending on the source. Some studies indicate that minutes after first smoking marijuana, a person is four times as at risk for a heart problem (which then decreases by the minute) due to the suppression of oxygen flow. Other studies indicate that the relaxation properties of marijuana lead to less chance of tension related illnesses. Marijuana has recently been in the middle of a flurry of studies as the health benefits of the drug for chemotherapy patients become clearer. One of the major drawbacks with drawing conclusions on the health problems associated with marijuana use is that a great deal of the experiments have been based on large amounts being given to animals. There is difficulty, then, with determining what generalizations can be made for humans under normal use. According to one commission of inquiry[15], the short-term physiological effects of marijuana use are quite benign with most effects wearing off relatively quickly. These effects usually have little clinical significance. Marijuana does reliably cause a swelling of the minor conjunctival blood vessels in the eye which produces the “blood-shot” appearance (this is called conjunctival congestion). This is often seen with alcohol use as well. Salivation is also usually decreased quite dramatically, causing a drying of the mouth. Appetite may be slightly stimulated, but for the most part, according to these clinical trials, not as much as is commonly believed. There is no significant effect on the general hormone or blood chemistry, kidney or liver function, or alter basal metabolism. There have also been no reports of significant effect on respiration.
It is also important to note that time and again, it has been shown that marijuana does not cause a physical dependence and addiction like that found with ‘harder’ drugs such as cocaine or heroin. While there has been talk of a “psychological” addiction, there is no proof that the drug itself is the addicting factor. The following quote is a bit lengthy, but goes far to explain this topic:
If we wish to adopt a less propagandistic stance
toward the terms “psychic” or “psychological” dependence, it is necessary to
abandon them altogether. ..It is impossible to induce [classic physical]
dependence to marijuana. Now some
individuals do use nonaddicting drugs such as marijuana regularly and
frequently. But to say that marijuana
“causus” a psychic dependence is meaningless.
Medical “authorities” label continued (or even sporadic) marijuana use
as “dependence” for the simple reason that they cannot understand why anyone
should want to tuse it at all. It is not
the properties of marijuana that “cause” a psychic dependence; rather it is the
personality structure of certain individuals
who happen to use it frequently. It is
the individuals who bear looking into, not the drug. It is illogical to attempt to explain
something that is variable (some users smoking marijuana heavily and some
infrequently) in terms of something that is constant (the drug supposedly
producing a psychic dependence).[16]
So in conclusion: we have a drug that is deemed deviant and “bad” and therefore we spend a great deal of money on controlling that drug. However, evidence suggests that there is a real link between this attempt at control and an increase in violence. The health risks are unclear, with it being suggested that the risks are similar to those of alcohol. Some numbers suggest in increase in anti-social behaviors when marijuana is present, but it is unclear whether that is due to, or the cause of, the use of marijuana. The point brought up at the very beginning of this paper, that eliminating the law against marijuana eliminates the law-breaking associated with its use, is a valid one. The ideas of W. Sharrock on de-criminalizing drugs are illuminating:
Consider the case of marijuana smoking. This is an illegal activity, which some
people regard as serious problem.
Although not serious in its own right, marijuana is bad, in their eyes,
because it can lead to the use of hard drugs.
Marijuana is a social problem too.
Since it is illegal, many people who want to use the drug do so in
defiance of the law and, therefore, engage in criminal activity. The implication of the argument which
labeling theory [here subsumed under the social constructionist perspective] puts
forward is clear. If people ceases to be
concerned about marijuana, then the problem
would disappear. Marijuana use would not
cease: smoking it would stop being an illegal activity. One might speculate that the amount of
marijuana use would also decline as a consequence of legislation since some
people might be smoking it now for the satisfaction to be obtained from a
relatively harmless but illegal activity.
The ‘solution’ to the marijuana problem is not the prevention of its use
by a changing of attitudes towards it.
Such a change could well have other consequences. If the cultivation, distribution and ale of
cannabis were legalized, then one would do away with a lot of deviant
activity. One would have put an end to
the need to smuggle the drug and also the illegalities involved in the use of
the profits from the trade. Whether
marijuana is harmful is a complicated question, and whether it is more so than
other drugs [tobacco and alcohol] in widespread and legal use is debatable. As to the suggestion that ‘soft’ drugs lea to
the use of ‘hard’ drugs, this too might be contested. If it is the case that they do, then part of
the reason may be that it is in someone’s economic
interest to move people from ‘soft’ to ‘hard’ drug use, together with the fact
that because of its illegality, the marijuana trade and the ‘hard’ drug trade
are tied up with one another. Last but
not least, one can point to the way that the treatment of narcotic use has
given rise to the development of organized crime and the formation of criminal
gangs which go on to break the law in a variety of ways above and beyond the
dealing in drugs. IN much the same way,
the prohibition of alcohol in the
Starting
from the assumption that society makes deviant acts possible by setting up prohibitions,
the argument leads to the conclusion that by setting up such rules society also
provides people with the circumstances which will motivate them to perform
further deviant acts, to develop lifestyles and organizations around the needs
of the prohibited activity. This will
result in the formation of deviant groups.
The effect of lifting the proscription on the original deviant act might
not be the prevention of the act from occurring, but it would be the
elimination of the possibility of and the need for many other illegalities
arising from it.[17]
[1] Ashton,
John R., Everyday Psychiatry, Update Books,
John Ashton was the Senior
Lecturer in the Department of Community Health at the London School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine. Formerly Senior
Registrar in Community Medicine, Hampshire Area Health Authority, and Lecturer
in Community Medicine, University of
[2]
Gibbons, Don C., & Jones, Joseph F. The Study of Deviance: Perspectives
and Problems. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
[3] Drugs
in American Society. Goode, E.
[4] See Chart 1 in back.
[5] See Chart 5 at back. For numbers, see Chart 4. To see the effect of population growth on drug use (often in the “War on Drugs” statistics are cited that show the increase of drug use; it is important to put it in conjunction with rising numbers of people) see Chart 6. Population growth by race on Chart 7.
[6] See Chart 3 at back.
[7] Preventing
and Controlling Drug Abuse. Edited
by M. Gossop & M. Grant. World
Health Organization,
[8] Developmental
Social Psychology: From Infancy to Old Age. Durkin, K. Blackwell
Publishers, 1995.
[9] All of the results of that study are graphed on Chart 8 at back.
[10]
Hochman, J.S., & Brill, N.Q.
“Marijuana use and psychosocial adaptation.” Center for the Health Sciences,
[11] Green, M., & Leathers, B. “Adult drug users study.” Commission Research project, 1971.
[12]
Walters, .A., Jr., Goethals, G.W., & Pope, H.G., Jr. “Drug use and life-style among 500 college
undergraduates.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 1972, 26: 92-96.
[13] Preventing
and Controlling Drug Abuse.
[14] Development
of the Child. Elkind, D. and Weiner, I. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1978.
[15] Cannabis: A Report of the Commission of Inquiry into
the Non-Medical Use of Drugs.
Information
[16] Drugs
in American Society. Goode, E.
[17]
Sharrock 1984: 93-94, original emphasis, as quoted in A Sociology of Crime.
Hester, S. & Eglin, P. Routledge,