February 3, 2007
The inconsistent nature of U.S. drug laws
As I prepare for tax season, I have been in a curmudgeonly state about the many frivolous ends to which the federal government so blithely directs my tax dollars. I heard on the news today that along with the usual payoffs to corrupt foreign governments and studies on snail darter mating habits, the U.S. government spends something like $30 billion per year on the so-called “War on Drugs.”
I have never understood humankind’s fascination with getting blitzed, stoned, high, wasted---or whatever you want to call it. The only drug that I can stomach is caffeine. (I’m a tea addict.) My illicit drug use history is limited to a few brief experimentations with marijuana during the summer of 1983. Unlike the former President Clinton, I did inhale---but I didn’t think much of the cannabis experience. I get a much better high on my exercise bike.
As for alcohol---the last time I drank to excess was New Years Eve of 1986. On New Years Day 1987 I was seized by the uncontrollable urge to vomit at the mere sight or smell of food; and my head felt like a football must feel after it has been place-kicked. I said to myself, “This is stupid----I’m never going to do this again.” And I haven’t, not for twenty years. I don’t expect that I ever will.
But the drug laws are written for the morons who do want to use them. Despite my preference for small government, I am not a complete libertarian where drugs are concerned. Some narcotics---especially the opiates (like heroin)---are so potent and so addictive that they should be banned outright.
Nevertheless, the War on Drugs has become a bloated bureaucratic beast with many contradictions. For example: consider the contradictory statuses of alcohol and marijuana in the eyes of the law.
The manufacture, distribution, and consumption of alcohol are perfectly legal activities. In the fourth quarter of 2006, Anheuser-Busch made $191 million. One hundred and ninety-one million dollars would have been a good quarter even for Pablo Escobar or Al Capone---who also made a lot of money on intoxicants. (Al Capone, in fact, specialized in the same drug that produced Anheuser-Busch’s banner profits.)
But Anheuser-Busch made its “drug money” with the full blessing of Uncle Sam---because they chose a drug that respectable society happens to smile upon. Alcohol is deeply imbedded in many of our traditions. The three martini business lunch is now a thing of the past, but evening cocktails are still very much a part of the business world and social intercourse.
An enthusiasm for drinking alcohol is still socially acceptable, in fact----even in these goody-two-shoes, politically correct times of ours. Think about all the snapshots you have seen of trendy partygoers, in which each person is holding up an alcoholic beverage before the camera---as if there was something novel about a can of Budweiser or a glass of champagne.
Alcohol even has a place in the Christian faith. I was raised Catholic; and I witnessed ceremonial alcohol use every Sunday at mass. When my parish held its annual summer festival, I saw a lot more alcohol use that wasn’t so ceremonial: there was always lots of beer for sale---all for the good of the church.
Meanwhile, a few ounces of marijuana can get you thrown in jail. Federal laws now allow for up to one year of jail time for the possession of a single marijuana cigarette. But anyone over the age of 21 can legally buy as much beer as his or her credit card can handle.
Employers also measure alcohol and marijuana use by very different---and contradictory---yardsticks. In the age of workplace drug testing, a corporate employee who smokes a single marijuana cigarette in the privacy of his home on Sunday afternoon can be fired from his job on Monday if subjected to a random urine test. On the other hand---most employers don’t fire workers who are arrested for DUIs. To me, the person who endangers others by driving under the influence is much more of a “threat to society” than the person who uses marijuana in a controlled environment.
I realize, of course, that my hypothetical “Sunday afternoon marijuana cigarette” is likely not the norm for marijuana users. But this example is illustrative of the contradictory positions of two "drugs"---marijuana and alcohol---in the eyes of the law and society.
Alcohol is more of a "drug" than marijuana
Despite its deep roots in Western culture, alcohol is a highly addictive drug with numerous unhealthy side affects: damage to the liver, central nervous system, digestive system, and the heart---just to name a few. According to the national center for health statistics, 20,687 Americans died as a direct result of alcohol consumption in 2003. (This statistic doesn’t even include automobile accidents caused by alcohol.) Moreover, alcohol has virtually no salubrious upside. A few studies have suggested that very light alcohol consumption may impede the absorption of certain fats; but these studies have been inconclusive.
Marijuana isn’t exactly a substance for health nuts (or people with any common sense), either. Marijuana use can increase the risk of certain cancers, and may cause infertility. And if you plan to smoke marijuana, then you had might as well hook your mouth up to the tailpipe of your car: smoking a single marijuana cigarette is approximately equivalent to smoking a pack of the unfiltered cigarettes. That means high blood pressure, emphysema, lung cancer, heart attacks, etc.
As a drug, however, marijuana can't measure up to alcohol. For one thing, experts agree that it is considerably less addictive. Studies have also shown that while both marijuana and alcohol impair reflexes to the point where they make driving unsafe, marijuana has a slightly smaller impact on rational judgment.
Despite these scientific realities, marijuana has been illegal in most of the United States since the 1920s. The first anti-marijuana laws were passed at the state level, with Utah leading the way in 1915.
The federal government began a serious crackdown on marijuana in the 1930s, when Harry J. Anslinger became the director of the newly created Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Anslinger claimed that marijuana was the drug of “Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers.” Anslinger also established links between pot and “pacifism and communist brainwashing.” In later years, marijuana would be linked with the 1960s counterculture. Hippies really enjoyed smoking weed.
So, marijuana became a taboo (and a crime) chiefly because of its cultural associations---just as alcohol gained acceptance because of its cultural associations.
My objective here is not to elevate or ennoble marijuana use. The use of marijuana---or any mind-altering “recreational” drug---is an activity strictly for idiots, in my book. But history and common experience show that some people are going to be idiots at least some of the time. The question is: at what point should idiocy become a crime?
Based on the available data, it is difficult to justify the criminalization of marijuana while we simultaneously allowing alcohol to flourish. The current laws just don’t make sense, if one insists on consistency.
Notes: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm