I just finished reading an anti-cannabis reform article by the "Real Women of Canada." This just blew my mind and I felt it instinctively necessary to write a response to them.
First, I want to explain a quick history of marijuana prohibition. Out of our Country's "Great Depression" came-forth a big problem. This situation is much like the one we face today with the surge of illegal immigrants from Mexico. In 1929, the stock market crashed which resulted in an enormous slump of high unemployment, low wages, poverty and prohibition. In the South, at that time, there was also an increasing rate of immigrants from Mexico. They were willing to work for far lower pay than the American worker and the economy ate them up. Our government was outraged and brainstormed new ideas to send the immigrants back to Mexico and free these jobs for the American worker. Now these Mexican immigrants were not just bringing cheap labor across the border, they were also bringing a virtually unheard of drug called Marijuana. With a desperate attempt by our government to drive out these workers came the Marijuana Tax Act.
"In 1937, congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act. Presented as a $1 nuisance tax on the distribution of marijuana, this act required anyone distributing the drug to maintain and submit a detailed account of his or her transactions, including inspections, affidavits, and private information regarding the parties involved. This law, however, was something of a "Catch-22", as obtaining a tax stamp required individuals to first present their goods, which was an action tantamount to confession. No marijuana tax stamps were ever produced. This act was passed by Congress on the basis of testimony and public perception that marijuana caused insanity, criminality, and death." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#History
The immigrants, being completely oblivious to the certain outcome of such a law, flocked to pay their $1 tax. When they showed their papers and marijuana the government would swiftly deport them back to Mexico in violation of the crime of having marijuana before paying the tax. In order to pay the tax, however, you must show the marijuana. In order to support this catch-22 the government and special interest groups started a shmeer campaign to convince the public about the "harms of marijuana."
First, I want to explain a quick history of marijuana prohibition. Out of our Country's "Great Depression" came-forth a big problem. This situation is much like the one we face today with the surge of illegal immigrants from Mexico. In 1929, the stock market crashed which resulted in an enormous slump of high unemployment, low wages, poverty and prohibition. In the South, at that time, there was also an increasing rate of immigrants from Mexico. They were willing to work for far lower pay than the American worker and the economy ate them up. Our government was outraged and brainstormed new ideas to send the immigrants back to Mexico and free these jobs for the American worker. Now these Mexican immigrants were not just bringing cheap labor across the border, they were also bringing a virtually unheard of drug called Marijuana. With a desperate attempt by our government to drive out these workers came the Marijuana Tax Act.
"In 1937, congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act. Presented as a $1 nuisance tax on the distribution of marijuana, this act required anyone distributing the drug to maintain and submit a detailed account of his or her transactions, including inspections, affidavits, and private information regarding the parties involved. This law, however, was something of a "Catch-22", as obtaining a tax stamp required individuals to first present their goods, which was an action tantamount to confession. No marijuana tax stamps were ever produced. This act was passed by Congress on the basis of testimony and public perception that marijuana caused insanity, criminality, and death." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#History
The immigrants, being completely oblivious to the certain outcome of such a law, flocked to pay their $1 tax. When they showed their papers and marijuana the government would swiftly deport them back to Mexico in violation of the crime of having marijuana before paying the tax. In order to pay the tax, however, you must show the marijuana. In order to support this catch-22 the government and special interest groups started a shmeer campaign to convince the public about the "harms of marijuana."
Notice the Spanish subtitles. Now, ad's like these worked surprisingly well. I hope that every American, after watching this, would laugh at the extreme exaggeration and misunderstandings of the effects of the drug. Even so, I would also guess that there would be an enormous amount of people who would agree with the "Real Women of Canada's" claim about the harm of marijuana.
"The increased number of accidents that have been reported in the last few years, on both the roads and the ski slopes, may have been due to the increased use of cannabis." -http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2000_Nov_Dec/article_13.html
Although this would be the easiest conclusion to come upon, people often leave out the full story, including what other drugs the driver are on. Dangerous drivers who test positive for THC often test positive for alcohol. In 2001, the United Kingdom Transit Research Laboratory conducted an experiment on the negative effects of cannabis while driving. There results showed that although there were slight effects, they were not enough to support the claim that it severely harms a person's ability to drive.
"Users of cannabis move more easily on to using other narcotic drugs than their drug-free contemporaries. At least 80% of those who later become heroin and cocaine addicts started their career in drugs with hashish or marijuana." -Real Women of Canada
The "Gateway Drug Theory" is one of the many things that pushes my buttons. To base a great portion of your argument on a spurious relationship shows that there really is no hard evidence behind your claims. A spurious relationship is best explained in the following scenario: "An example of a spurious relationship can be illuminated examining a city's ice cream sales. These sales are highest when the rate of drownings in city swimming pools is highest. To allege that ice cream sales cause drowning, or vice-versa, would be to imply a spurious relationship between the two. In reality, a heat wave may have caused both. The heat wave is an example of a hidden or unseen variable (Wiki)." If I was to apply this to the Gateway Drug Theory we would see:
The rate of hard-drug use is highest among those who smoke marijuana. Therefor, marijuana leads to hard-drug use. This does not include many other hidden or unseen variables such as the current way our society is set up, the prohibition of such drugs, the laws themselves, the relative ease it takes to produce and sell marijuana, the accessibility to marijuana, and other drugs such as alcohol and nicotine. If you were to look at the big picture, you would also see that nicotine and alcohol are considered drugs and are often the first drug a person tries, even before marijuana. Therefor with your logic we should be able to assume that cigarettes and alcohol are "gateway drugs."
The "Real Women of Canada" also go on to touch upon the subject of medical marijuana stating that there is no evidence that the drug has any positive medical uses. With all of their evidence coming straight from U.S. government experiments and rulings, I could easily give counter evidence. I find this a waste of your time and mine and hope that everyone could at least cite 10 different experiments that say different with a simple Google search. The simple fact is that as a human being we should be allowed to put whatever we wish into our body. Period. If a peace-loving hippy wants to turn to alternative medicine, who are you to say "no?"
"Some have even recommended legalized possession and the right to grow cannabis for personal use. This is neither rational nor sensible and such proposals undermine the efforts of parents who are trying to influence their children not to use drugs to protect both the health and future of their children." -Real Women of Canada
What is really not rational nor sensible is the idea that one should coerce their personal views and morals onto another. By decriminalizing marijuana, we would not be forcing our lives upon yours. We are not enacting a law that forces you to smoke a blunt every day but that is exactly what the current laws are doing to us. By prohibiting the act of smoking marijuana in our own, personal lives. It is up to the parents to say what their children can or cannot do and when the time comes, the children will be able to make up their own minds. The bulk majority of the article can be thrown away on the basis that every person should be able to do whatever they want to their body and their personal lives as long as it does not directly pose a threat upon someone else's life and well being. This is a strong Libertarian viewpoint and one that I deeply advocate.
I won't even start to mention the politics, cost, blow-back and complete idiocy in America's Drug War. Perhaps for another blog. In the meantime I'm off to...
light up a joint and think.
Peace, holmes.
More reading!
http://www.marijuana.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html
Support Marijuana Reform!
http://norml.org/
http://changetheclimate.org/
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1889
1 comment:
Well said.
Post a Comment