St. George Down Under

Cannabis-Is its Illicit Status Appropriate?

May 11, 2009 at 11:12 pm (Uncategorized) (cannabis, cannabis legalization, cannabis-is its illicit status appropriate, decriminalsation, marijuana, marijuana decriminalization, marijuana legalisation, marijuana legalization)

Should cannabis be legalised in Australia? Your response should provide a considered discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of both legalisation and criminalisation which shows evidence of wide and varied reading.                

Above is the essay question that I chose to address for an essay in ANTH106-Drugs Across Cultures. 40% of my grade, baby. After looking over the question again, I’m a bit nervous. I kinda focused more on why it should be legalised and decriminalised, not so much about the disadvantages. And I only used one of the sources that was recommended, with the others being other sources. Whatever. I’m pretty proud of it. This also isn’t what I turned in. The requirement was no more than 1500 words, and by the end of the rough draft I had nearly 2500. This is the real paper. Take a read if you have the time…

–ζ——δ——ζ–

Cannabis-Is its Illicit Status Appropriate?

            Throughout history cannabis has consistently accompanied humanity. Ancient cultures used hemp to make clothing around 7000 years ago, and recently marijuana was discovered in a 2,700-year old tomb in the Gobi Desert (Viegas 2008). Cannabis was also ‘mentioned in ancient and religious Chinese and Indian texts’ (Cohen 2009). It is curious, then, that cannabis, more commonly known as marijuana, is illegal, and in most places a criminal offense. The question has been repeatedly asked over this decade-Is it valid for marijuana to be illegal?-and it is just beginning to be answered. It is time for marijuana to once again be legal and culturally accepted, as this would cut down on cannabis abuse, legitimize education on marijuana, and cease the marginalization of medical marijuana users, among other things.   

            When looking at the basic statistics of marijuana use, it would surprise even the most devout anti-drug proponent that an illegal substance is used so abundantly. In Europe, ‘5% of the total population are regular users in some countries’ (Iversen 2004), and in Britain ‘half of all young people have tried it (marijuana) at least once’ (Iversen 2004).  According to a study by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, one in four young people ‘had used marijuana/cannabis in the previous 12 months’ (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2004).

           A common argument for marijuana legalisation is the comparison of cigarettes and alcohol to marijuana. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, ‘In 1998, around 19,000 deaths were attributable to the use of tobacco, accounting for 80% of all drug- or alcohol-related deaths,’ alcohol caused ‘2000 deaths among persons aged 0-64 years’, and ‘illicit drug use is associated with around 1,000 deaths per year in Australia’ (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2004). Marijuana falls in the ‘illicit drug’ category, but it is important to note that much more dangerous drugs such as heroin, methamphetamines and cocaine join it.

           Proponents of keeping marijuana illegal may argue that smoking marijuana is more harmful to the body than cigarettes, ‘but to expose the lungs to the same amount of tar as an average 15–20 a day cigarette smoker, cannabis users would have to smoke 4–5 times a day every day of the week’ (Iversen 2004). Also, the majority of cannabis smokers quit when they enter their thirties, while cigarette-smokers do not (Iversen 2004).

            Many governments have created panels and task-forces to investigate the true effects of marijuana. In 2000, an independent look at the British drug laws by the UK Police Foundation yielded this statement:

                        When cannabis is systematically compared with other drugs against the main criteria of harm (mortality, morbidity, toxicity, addictiveness and relation to crime), it is less harmful to the individual and society than any of the other illicit drugs or than alcohol or tobacco (cited in Iversen 2004).

           The United States and countries such as France and Sweden have disagreed with this idea and believe that the best way to stop illicit drug use is to highly criminalize the ‘gateway’ to harder drugs. This method assumes that marijuana is a ‘gateway drug’ and that eliminating it would eliminate the graduation to harder drugs. This method seems to be failing, however, with United States ‘marijuana …arrests nearly doubl(ing) to 642,000 in 1996, from 1992’ (Flynn 1998).

           The Dutch, on the other hand, have chosen the opposite route by legalizing marijuana. Their thinking is that if one legalizes a drug such as marijuana and makes a clear distinction between it and harder drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, the progression from marijuana to harder drugs will be halted (Iversen 2004). And it looks like it has worked. Heroin as well as cannabis use has decreased in the Netherlands, which is lower than many regions in the United States (Iversen 2004). More interestingly, ‘a …comparison of groups of cannabis users in Amsterdam and in San Francisco’ shows the differences in results of both the American method and Dutch method (Iversen 2004). ‘Whereas both groups of cannabis users consumed similar amounts of cannabis, and started at about the same age, the group in San Francisco experienced a significantly higher lifetime incidence of using other illegal drugs – cocaine, opiates and amphetamines-’ than those in Amsterdam (Iversen 2004). It is in these findings that the criminalization of marijuana is shown to be counteractive in its intent. If this strategy was employed in Australia, it is almost certain that its trends would follow that of the Netherlands and reduce the consumption of both cannabis and harder drugs.

            One of the positive aspects of marijuana is its proven medical value. Cannabis has been shown to possess ‘effectiveness in controlling nausea and relieving symptoms of glaucoma, epilepsy and multiple sclerosis,’ (Gray 1998) as well as an appetite stimulant. Many stories of medical marijuana users are similar to that of Jean Charles Pariseau, whose profile was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal issue of February 10, 1998. Pariseau is an AIDS patient who requires an upwards of thirty pills a day. At his worst he was about 37 kilos, and had to ‘fight nausea and stimulate his appetite, but could not keep (his pills) down. He was bedridden and miserable. His physician… gave him less than 3 months to live’ (Gray 1998).

            Pariseau had the option of taking marijuana in its pill form, (which is legal in Canada), but could not swallow the pill. He resorted to going the illegal route of smoking marijuana, and it saved his life. He smokes half an hour before he is to take his pills, and this has helped him to keep the pills down. ‘“Jean has a decent prognosis today,” reports Kilby, a family physician with an extensive palliative care practice who also serves as director of health services at his alma mater, the University of Ottawa. “He can now digest his medications. He has regained weight, recovered his appetite and can join his wife and child at the dinner table”’ (Gray 1998).

           In this case marijuana greatly increased the quality of this man’s life, and possibly saved his life; however he is still at risk of purchasing cannabis with impurities, or being charged for being in possession of an illegal substance, the later which has occurred (Gray 1998). If marijuana were legalized at the very least for medicinal use, this would ensure that patients received proper, safe marijuana, in proper and safe conditions, and they wouldn’t be in danger of being arrested.

           There are downsides to marijuana consumption, however. According to the New South Wales Government’s “Marijuana Factsheet”, marijuana may ‘make you see or hear things which are not there’ and ‘feel distant or separate from reality’ (New South Wales Health 2006). Long term effects listed include ‘an increase in the risk of getting bronchitis, lung cancer and other diseases of the respiratory system, a decrease in motivation, decrease in concentration, memory, and ability to  learn new things, (and) a decrease in sex drive’ (New South Wales Health 2006). These are all obviously negative side-effects and causes of marijuana, and these side-effects should be known.

           Marijuana should be legalized in Australia for those over 18 and regulated, with the same health warnings being applied to the packaging of the cannabis substance as is done for cigarettes. It should be taxed, with the money going to educate people on the above-mentioned risks of marijuana consumption and to run treatment centres for those who abuse the substance. Regulation would make certain that the cannabis sold was safe, as currently there are ‘no limits on concentration, additives, or even the presence of pesticides’ (Inciardi 1999).

           To many societies, and possibly Australia, legalization may be too extreme a measure. It is in these situations where marijuana should be decriminalized, with only a fine as punishment for possession. In the United States ‘there are more marijuana arrests annually than arrests for all violent crimes combined’ (Dubner 2007). Dr. Lester Grinspoon, associate professor of psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School and the author of Marijuana, the Forbidden Medicine and the groundbreaking Marihuana Reconsidered, provides illuminating insight to this statistic in stating, “While marijuana is, in fact, remarkably free of toxicity, the consequences of annually arresting 300,000 mostly young people were not” (cited in Dubner 2007).

           This paper only covers marijuana, but the government of Portugal went so far as to ‘decriminalize the possession and use of all psychotropic drugs’ (Duke 2009) which include cocaine and LSD. The Cato Institute, a think-tank in Washington, DC, has published a study which concludes that ‘”judged by virtually every metric,” the Portuguese decriminalization “has been a resounding success”’ (cited in Duke 2009). In this instance, ‘decriminalization has both freed up funds for drug treatment and, by lifting the threat of criminal charges, encouraged drug abusers to seek that treatment’ (Duke 2009).

            Arresting people for the possession of marijuana is counteractive. ‘The impact of criminalizing otherwise law-abiding, mainly young, citizens, the detrimental impact on their future lives and careers and damage to the relationship between police and communities also need to be taken into account’ (Iversen 2004). With marijuana possession being a criminal offense, those who use marijuana may feel as though the government is out of touch, and therefore may not pay attention to its warnings. If marijuana were decriminalized, or even better legalized, it would give the government taxation leverage and the ability to be a credible expert on the subject.

            This paper does not advocate for the decriminalization or legalization of all drugs, but there does seem to be evidence that legalization and education as opposed to criminalization and punishment is a more successful way to help society understand and more responsibly handle drugs such as marijuana. Removing the stigma of cannabis would bring credibility back to the government on topics such as the dangers of marijuana, and tax dollars from marijuana sales would go towards education of marijuana consumption and the treatment of marijuana abuse. Those suffering from medical conditions where marijuana is the best solution for their ailments would cease to be ostracized.

           Free will has always been an ultimate goal of humanity, and to award it in this situation would allow individuals to make appropriate decisions for themselves in their own interests. If marijuana was brought from the shadows to the light and its use treated as a reality and another normal function of humanity, there is no doubt much angst and suffering would be averted.

 

References

        Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2004. http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04-c01.pdf. (8 May 2009)

        Cohen, P. 2009. ANTH 106:Cannabis Background.  Macquarie University. Powerpoint Presentation.

        Dubner, S. 2007. On the Legalization-or Not-of Marijuana. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/on-the-legalization-or-not-of-marijuana/?scp=1&sq=marijuana%20legalization&st=cse. (8 May 2009).

        Duke, S. 2009. Drugs. To Legalize or Not. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124061360462654683.html. (8 May 2009).

        Flynn, K. 1998. Arrests Soar in Crackdown on Marijuana. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/17/nyregion/arrests-soar-in-crackdown-on-marijuana.html?scp=4&sq=marijuana%20arrests%20statistics&st=cse. (8 May 2009).

        Gray, C. 1998. ‘Legalize use of marijuana for medical purposes, MDs and patients plead’. Canadian Medical Association Journal 158:373-375.

        Inciardi, J. 1999. ‘The Marijuana legalization debate: Is there a middle ground?’ The Drug Legalization Debate 75-100.

        Iversen, L. 2004.‘Cannabis and the Law-high time for reform?’ European Review 4:513-525.

        New South Wales Health. 2006. Marijuana Factsheet. http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/dpb/publications/pdf/factsheets/marijuana.pdf. (8 May 2009)       

        Viegas, J. 2008. World’s Oldest Marijuana Stash Totally Busted. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28034925/. (8 May 2009).

–ζ——δ——ζ–

I would love to hear your thoughts on this issue, as well as on my paper. Drop me a comment, let’s start a discussion!