Eh2500, Semester Project As countries develop and advance, most citizens assume that a democratic government would reflect

the will of its people. In addition, it is assumed that a democratic government would reflect the opinions of its knowledgeable experts. Unfortunately, the United States government does not meet such assumptions. While some resist efforts for marijuana legalization and hold firm to classic beliefs of the drug, it is important to acknowledge what influenced those beliefs when they first arose, before reinforcement of political agendas. Some of these myths include the belief that marijuana kills brain cells, or that marijuana use increases cancer risk. There is strong scientific research data that suggest it can provide medicinal uses, as well as empirical data refuting these classic myths. Admittedly, there is some emerging scientific evidence that suggests negative impacts from heavy marijuana use in developing teenagers; however the purpose of legalization is not to paint a picture of a harmless drug. The purpose instead is to present a drug with positive and negative effects that should be at the people's will to use. Marijuana should be legalized and taxed much in a way alcohol is today because of individual responsibility, incongruent legislation, and a lack of danger to society. Personal freedom is an iconic love of American citizens. Stemming back from the second amendment, we have always supported individual responsibility. The country also battled with another responsibility, alcohol. There were massive protests over the drugs dangerous effects; however the country amended the constitution to nullify the prohibition of alcohol. The result was due to a realization; the utopian ideal of a drug- free society is unrealistic. Whether or not alcohol was legal, people were still getting intoxicated. Politicians also failed to trust the public, ignoring the fact that most could drink responsibly. However while I believe that instantly gratifying acts such as getting high on beer or marijuana have a potential for abuse, they can also

be used as a tool for positive reinforcement. We should not exclude a drug with the potential to benefit larger society due to a small fraction of the population that would abuse the drug, often regardless of its legal status. In addition organized crime used the absence of regulation to profit off illegal distribution, introducing a new crime problem. Prohibition had similar detrimental effects on both alcohol and marijuana, and therefore the demand for legalization should be similar. Marijuana is a less popular drug than alcohol, but the outcry for legalization is still fairly high. In 2011, a record high 50% of Americans favored legalizing marijuana use, versus 46% favoring the current legal status of the drug (Gallup, 2011). This is a contrast from 12% of Americans in favor of legalizing the drug in 1970. That is a difference of 38% in public opinion within less than half a century. What would propel such a massive turn in public opinion? The original stance was founded upon propaganda and political discrimination put forth by decades of political reinforcement. Anti-marijuana propaganda originally depicted the drug as causing weird parties, wild orgies, and unreleased passions (1936) or was the Devils harvest (1942). Marijuana became the poster child for deviance, and what was first used by minority jazz musicians, was gaining popularity with upper class Caucasians. This could have been the reason for a political backlash in response to the rising popularity of the drug, as it was corrupting the ideal white youth. President Nixons administration originally funded the study that claimed marijuana destroyed brain cells. This study was conducted by Dr. Robert G. Heath and was never replicated (Harper, Heath & Myers, 1977). It was later discredited by the National Center for Toxicology Research, who conducted better controlled experiments with larger sample sizes (Slikker et al. 1991). Later findings proved that extreme deprivation of oxygen was the real culprit, and that marijuana did not harm brain cells. Because many classic myths were
Comment [LW3]: awk -- we don't generally speak of discrimintation being "put forth" Comment [LW1]: Starting here the paragraph takes a strange turn. The next couple of sentence don't seem to have anything to do with this paragraph. Comment [LW2]: awk -- alcohol and marijuana are THINGS and cannot "affected" detrimentally by prohibition... More importantly, I think your comparison here is a bit problematic. The histories are very different. Alcohol went from legal to illegal and back. Marijuana has never been legal.

scientifically unfounded, a shift in public opinion was the logical reaction for an increasingly educated society. While the federal government continued to demonize marijuana, despite academic findings, they also were funding an ill- warranted war on drugs. While a strict drug policy has been the norm in the United States, Portugal provides a unique perspective on the issue. They decriminalized all drugs, and in a study published by the Cato Institute found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declinedwhile the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled (Greenwald, 2009). This case study suggests that a greater level of autonomy, through leniency, results in more responsible citizen behaviors. In another study for the Cato Institute, economics professors at both Harvard University and New York University estimated that legalizing marijuana would save the government 8.7 billion dollars annually (Miron, Waldock, 2010). Such monstrous revenue would provide much needed economic relief as our government approaches the fiscal cliff. A study recently published in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences found a loss of IQ among persistent users, with heaviest users losing up to 8 points by age 38. The study also stated that there was zero correlation with IQ loss in marijuana users who started after the age of 18. This study used longitudinal data and had a strong sample size (Meier et al. 2012). Additional research conducted by Veteran Affairs shows a different perspective (1997). This study focused on identical twins, one of whom heavily smoked marijuana, and found that marijuana use had no impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics (Eisen et al. 1997). The science seems to suggest that teen use is the most dangerous. The problem is, the best way to regulate teen use, is
Comment [LW4]: improper format

to allow adult use. If teens could no longer obtain marijuana from drug dealers, and instead adults were required to purchase the drug from establishments, tellers would be able to I.D. individuals for age. While this would not completely cease all teen use of the drug, I believe it would decrease use. From personal experience, as a teenager, marijuana was always much easier to obtain than alcohol. This was because it was easier to find any drug dealer for marijuana than it was to find a law-breaking adult willing to buy alcohol for a minor. Currently 17 states and the District of Columbia have legalized the medicinal use of marijuana. In addition both Washington state and Colorado legalized the drug for recreational purposes. However marijuana is still illegal in all 50 states on a federal level, and it is listed as a schedule 1 drug according to the FDA. This means that marijuana is considered as dangerous as cocaine, heroin, crack, ecstasy, and many other seriously dangerous substances. In fact, the U.S. government funded many important investigations about the drug. For example, a massive study in California directed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that marijuana had zero impact on mortality, but that tobacco did (Sidney et al. 2002). On a related note there has not been a single recorded marijuana related overdose, ever. In response to the legalization of medical use in California, the federal government funded the Institute of Medicine to investigate medicinal uses where they concluded, Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana (Joy, Watson, & Benson, J.A 1999). When tumors were implanted in mice, THC was shown to reduce the size of the tumors as well as increase the average life span of the rats, a study showed in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (Munson et al 1975). In addition a UCLA researcher did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a control group with no cancer. The heaviest marijuana smokers showed no increase in cancer risk, and had showed a lower cancer risk than
Comment [LW5]: awk -- you mean "end" or "stop" but "cease" is not interchangeable here

non-smokers, while tobacco smokers proved a 20-fold risk increase (Tashkin, 2006). Another cancer risk study was conducted with 65,000 individuals, and again tobacco smokers showed a heavy increase of cancer risk while strictly marijuana smokers showed the same risk as a non smoker (Sidney et. al 1997). This empirical evidence refutes many classic myths that have shaped our legislation and beliefs concerning marijuana. Currently the U.S. government is at a legal conflict with state governments and something must be done to correct the ambiguity. Either the FDA should launch large scale arrest operations within all states opposing federal law or we can amend federal law to parallel every state law as well as public opinion. It is vital to pressure the federal government to correct this inconsistency, because while it may not concern someone who is unfamiliar with marijuana, it can strip a marijuana user of their freedoms at the will of any federal agent. If we allow stigmatic beliefs stemmed from archaic political tactics to plague our written law, we will be failing our country as well as ourselves. This version is better in many ways. Good work. Project grade = B+. Course grade = B. References and in-line citations are improved but still have a number of issues.
Comment [LW7]: awk Comment [LW6]: The state laws are all different so this is impossible.

Works Cited Meier, M. et al. (2012). Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Beck, J.E., Friedman, G.D., Sidney, S., Tekawa, I.S.,Quesenberry Jr., C. P. (2002). Marijuana use and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87(4), 585-590. Eisen, S. E. et al. (1997). Does marijuana use have residual adverse effects on self-reported health measures, socio-demographics or quality of life? Veterans Affairs, 97(9), 1083-1087.

Carchman, R. A., Dewey, W. L., Friedman, M. A., Harris, L. S., & Munson, A. E. (1975). Anticancer activity of cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sidney, S., Tekawa, I. S., & Quesenberry Jr., C. P. (1997). Marijuana use and cancer incdidence. Cancer causes & control. Tashkin, D. (2006). Marijuana use and lung cancer: Results of a case-control study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. Benson, J. A., Joy, J. E., & Watson, S. J. (1999). Marijuana and medicine: Assessing the science base. Washington, D.C.: National Academy. Frank, N. (2011, October 17). Record-high 50% of americans favor legalizing marijuana use. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/Record-High-Americans-Favor-LegalizingMarijuana.aspx. Heath, R. G., Harper, J. W., & Myers, W. A. (1977). Effects of cannabis sativa on ultrastructure of the synapse in monkey brain. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 3, 87-93. Slikker, W. et al. (1991). Chronic marijuana smoke exposure in the rhesus monkey. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, 17, 321-32. Miron, J. A., & Waldock, K. (2010). Making an economic case for legalizing drugs. Cato Institute. Greenwald, G. (2009). Drug decriminalization in portugal: Lessons for creating fair and successful drug policies. Cato Institute. Esper, D. (Director) (1936). Marihuana [Theater]. Test, R. (Director) (1942). Devil's harvest [Theater].