WAR ON DRUGS

Benchmark Paper II
Crystal A. McMillon
Wayne State University
November 25, 2014

WAR ON DRUGS

Is There A Cure or A Danger Growing in Our Backyards

Metaphorically, they say the grass in greener on the other side, in this case,
the grass is literally greener because the grass is marijuana, and the sides, and policies
concerning it are as split as the clich saying that Ive opened up with. Is marijuana a drug? Is
marijuana a plant? Does marijuana hurt, or does marijuana heal? So many questions, and so
many answers to prove why marijuana should and should not be consumed, and should or should
not be legalized everywhere. These questions are no longer being ignored, the argument for
marijuana is growing (no pun intended), and we are all increasingly becoming faced with the
decision of figuring out which side of the fence we are on.
U.S. History of Marijuana
Cannabis marijuana usage reached a high in the1970s and early 1980s, declined until the
early 1990s, and has begun to rise again rapidly. Although, marijuana is still illegal, it has
become a popular drug in todays society, being the most commonly used illicit drug. Results
from the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health findings show that In 2012, there were
18.9 million past month users. Between 2007 and 2012, the rate of current use increased from 5.8
to 7.3 percent, and the number of users increased from 14.5 million to 18.9 million (NSDUH,
2012).
According to Suddath (2009), The earliest record of marijuana use is as early as 2737
BC. It was prescribed to treat various health issues: gout, rheumatism, malaria, and poor
memory. The drugs popularity as a medicine spread throughout many countries rapidly. And in
some countries marijuana was used for religious purposes and as a stress reliever.

WAR ON DRUGS

As marijuana became more popular it also increasingly began to be viewed more and
more as a dangerous drug. In 1937, congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act, which criminalized
marijuana, prohibiting possession and distribution of the drug. Starting in the 1970s the War
on Drugs starting expressing the danger of drug use in general, including the usage of
marijuana. This was mostly aimed towards adolescences, due to the fact that this population is
considered vulnerable because of peer pressure. Those who disapproved of the drug believed
that marijuana was a stepping stone drug that leads to the usage of more dangerous narcotics:
cocaine, LSD, ecstasy, etc.
Scientific research was done and it was founded that in 1944, La Guardia Reports finds
marijuana less dangerous, stating contrary to previous research and findings marijuana does not
induce violent behavior, insanity, sex crimes, addiction, other drug use, or personal or social
harm. By 1951-1956 the laws began to stricken, the Boggs Act was introduced, which enforced
mandatory sentences for drug offenders including those who possess or distribute the drug. In
the 1960s marijuana became popular and policies for the drug began to involve. In 1968, the
Bureau of Narcotics & Dangerous Drug was formed, which enforced federal laws for narcotics
and controlled substances, but primarily focusing on marijuana (Marthre, 1997).
Marijuana then became listed as a Schedule I drug in 1970, under the Controlled
Substance Act. The DEA, states that Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as
drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs
are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or
physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs include: heroin, lysergic acid
diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy),
methaqualone, and peyote (DEA, 2014). Finally, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Control and

WAR ON DRUGS

Prevention Act separated marijuana from other narcotics and eliminated mandatory sentencing
for small amounts. Many states then started to decriminalize the drug and reduce penalties as
well. Which is why the scheduling of the drug is still an issue. Not to mention, there has been no
record deaths for the use of this substance.
Michigans Current Policy Description
On December 4, 2008 The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act was passed. This allows possession
of 2.5 oz. and cultivation of 12 marijuana plants. Patients must receive written documentation from their
doctors to apply for an identification card (ID), which allows them to visit dispensaries to medicate or
purchase. In order to receive an ID you must have an illness that includes: Cancer, glaucoma,
HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, Lou Gehrigs disease, Crohn's disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimers
disease, nail patellar, chronic conditions that produces cachexia, severe pain, nausea, seizures, and
muscle spasms.
An initiation of Legislation to allow under state law the medical use of marihuana; to provide
protections for the medical use of marihuana; to provide for a system of registry identification cards for
qualifying patients and primary caregivers; to impose a fee for registry application and renewal; to
provide for the promulgation of rules; to provide for the administration of this act; to provide for
enforcement of this act; to provide for affirmative defenses; and to provide for penalties for violations of
this act.
The people of the State of Michigan find and declare that:

WAR ON DRUGS

(a) Modern medical research, including as found by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of
Medicine in a March 1999 report, has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in treating or alleviating
the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions.
(b) Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports and the Compendium of
Federal Justice Statistics show that approximately 99 out of every 100 marihuana arrests in the United
States are made under state law, rather than under federal law. Consequently, changing state law will
have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a
medical need to use marihuana.
(c) Although federal law currently prohibits any use of marihuana except under very limited
circumstances, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in
activities prohibited by federal law. The laws of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Washington do not penalize the medical use
and cultivation of marihuana. Michigan joins in this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens
("Michigan Legislative Website", 2014).
The laws and policies on marijuana vary from state to state, and locally. In Detroit, MI marijuana
is decriminalized, meaning that it holds no felony or higher charges, its considered a misdemeanor.
Federal laws according to Time Magazine On Oct. 19, the U.S. Justice Department announced that
federal prosecutors would not pursue medical-marijuana users and distributors who comply with state
laws, formalizing a policy at which the Obama Administration hinted earlier this year.

WAR ON DRUGS

6
Netherlands Current Policy

The grass is greener on the other side. The Netherlands, and specifically Amsterdam is known
for its liberal and progressive drug policy on marijuana. Marijuana is decriminalized and accepted in the
Dutch society and has become more and more accepted daily. Coffee shop culture in Amsterdam is
huge. Millions of tourist travel to Amsterdam to visit their coffee shops. Coffee shops are a place where
you can purchase and smoke marijuana. But there are still regulations when it comes to marijuana
within coffee shops. You are allowed to bring your own marijuana in and smoke, or you can choose
from a multitude of different types of marijuana and even edibles. According to the Daily Smoker, The
golden rules for coffee shops: not allowed to advertise, sell hard drugs, sell more than 5 grams to 1
person, one must be 18 to enter, and cant have more than 500 grams located in the shop. Owners must
be licensed, pay taxes, and arent allowed to transport ("The Daily Smoker", 2014). Since the
backdoor of coffee shops is still prohibited, it makes for harder transportation, but marijuana is still
decriminalized.
In the Netherlands drugs that are commonly viewed as illegal are divided into two categories: hard drugs
and soft drugs. Hard drugs consist of alcohol, cocaine, LSD, and morphine. Soft drugs are cannabis and
mushrooms. The Dutch created the Policy of Tolerance. Just like any other policies there are rules
and regulations that follow. Individual cant possess more than five grams of marijuana in public areas.
Individuals in private areas may only possess 30 grams. The cultivation of the herb is limited to
maximum of five plants ("The Daily Smoker", 2014). Once an individual exceeds the limits of the
policy the tolerance stops, and law enforcement steps in.
Amsterdams Policy has generated no harm to third parties. According to the Huffington Post In
2009, the past year marijuana use rate was 11.3 percent in the United States but only 7.0 percent in the

WAR ON DRUGS

Netherlands. This does not prove that legalization lowers drug use; many other factors are at play. But
these data hardly support the claim that prohibition has a material impact in reducing use (Miron,
2013).
Policy Alternative
The new policy I would implement would be called Ending Prohibition on All Drugs which
would be on a Federal level. This policy would legalize drugs entirely. Laws create more problems than
they do solve. Drug laws have done more to punish people and their families than it has shown any
effort to prevent drug abuse. The drug subculture is a vicious cycle, thats hard to escape. It continues
to flourish because the federal government forbids it, which only makes drug usage more attractive.
With the legalization of drugs from an economic standpoint the government could generate billions of
tax revenues, which could go for funding. All of the generated dollars could be used to provide
education, prevention, and treatment to individuals, which will help with the redistribution of resources.
If the government had more control over the drugs, rather than criminalizing a huge fragment of the
population for personal use and possession it would be beneficial for society as a whole.
Politically there are a myriad of influential groups and organizations that would be for and against this
Ending Prohibition on All Drugs policy. Two organizations that would be for the policy change would
be Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) and Drug Policy Alliance (DPA). DPA is an
organization from the US that was established in 2000. The DPA is actively involved in the legislative
process and seeks to roll back the excesses of the drug war, block new, harmful initiatives, and promote
sensible drug policy reforms. The DPA wants a society in which the use and regulation of drugs are
grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights, in which people are no longer punished for

WAR ON DRUGS

what they put into their own bodies but only for crimes committed against others, and in which the fears,
prejudices and punitive prohibitions of today are no more.
LEAP, is an international organization of criminal justice professionals that was established in
2002, who want an end to the War on Drugs. The organization believes that drug prohibition is the cause
of social and personal damage that has been attributed to drug use. They are firm believers that it is
prohibition that makes drugs more valuable. History shows that drug prohibition doesnt reduce the use
or abuse of drugs. By abolishing the prohibition law enforcement can focus more on heinous crimes
within the community: rape, murder, robbery, etc. LEAPs main goal is to educate the public, the media
and policy makers about the failure of the current drug policy and to restore the publics respect for
police, which has been greatly diminished by law enforcements involvement in imposing drug
prohibition ("10 Most Influential Legalization Groups", n.d.).
Organizations that would be against the policy Ending Prohibition on All Drugs would
be the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The International Association of Chiefs of
Police and the Drug Enforcement Administration would be opponents of my new policy.
According to The International Association of Chiefs of Police They believe that the
legalization of drugs would increase use, lead to more experimentation by youth, and exacerbate
the existing deleterious effects that drugs have on society. They are of the opinion that
government subsidization of addicts would have crippling effects on the economy. They also
feel that legalization would help to create a large black market for drugs. Anti-legalization
proponents also point out that drug dealers and hardcore addicts would not suddenly become
productive, law-abiding members of society. The anti-legalization point of view is that dealers
will still be involved in crime and violence and that users will still need to support themselves by

WAR ON DRUGS

engaging in criminal activity. Overall, they believe that the legalization of drugs would lead to
increases, not reductions, in crime because there would be more addicts and because of the
aforementioned black market (Police Chief Magazine ,(n.d.).
Policy analyst focus on two key factors of a policy being administratively feasibility, and
the Ending Prohibition on All Drugs policy has effectiveness and efficiency from factual
statistics in other countries, which are listed above. The policy will accomplish what it is
designed to, which is for a healthier and safer community. The effectiveness and efficiency helps
with the implementation of the change.
When it comes to the legalization of drugs addiction plays a monolithic role in feared
results. Its known that some people have more of an addictive personality than others or are
more susceptible to addiction. An important argument to help implement this change is the fact
that the most addictive drug in our country is tobacco, but yet, it is still legal. Tobacco is the
number one leading cause of death in America, with acute and chronic illness. Each year, an
estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and
another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking ("Tobacco Use", 2012).
Portugal is a nation that decriminalized the use and possession of all illicit drug use in
2001. Having drugs is no longer a criminal offense, it acts as a civil offense, which individuals
receive a ticket as oppose to jail or prison time. People who receive these citations are ordered
to appear at a "dissuasion commission," an administrative panel that operates outside of the
criminal justice system. The panel, with two health practitioners and one legal practitioner,
examines the individual's circumstances and determines whether to make treatment referrals,
issue fines or impose other non-criminal penalties, stated in the Huffington Post (Newman,
2011). There are still legal consequences for trafficking and sales. Evidence shows that this

WAR ON DRUGS

10

movement didnt lead to a major increase in drug use. Evidence indicates reductions in youth
drug use, problematic use, falling overdose and HIV/AIDS rates, less drug related crimes,
criminal justice overcrowding, greater access to drug treatment, and safer and healthier
communities.
The U.S. war on drugs, a punitive criminal justice approach to drugs that has cost
taxpayers more than a trillion dollars, transformed the U.S. into the largest incarcerator in the
world, due to small amounts of possessions of drugs, failed to significantly reduce drug use, led
to hundreds of thousands of overdose fatalities and HIV/AIDS transmissions, and has created
racial disparities. From an ethical standpoint, drug enforcement involves unethical behavior,
example; racial profiling and letting a guilty person free because he/she acted as an informant in
case. As an American citizen these unethical acts go against our freedom, and what our country
stands for.
With my policy, Id be the educator; I would educate individuals on the knowledge that
Ive attained throughout my research, providing them with a model, facts, and statistics. My plan
to implement my proposal is to gather public support by gathering votes. If voting were
successful, that would allow me the leverage for the regulation of the policy. Once my policy is
passed I would need goverment regulation, private distribution, and warehouses. For those who
cant handle the change, I would have government supporters and private institutions in place for
them. Allies for this change would be substance abuse centers, prevention programs, health care,
educators, civil libertarian, community organizers, and individuals against drug prohibition.
Opponents of this would be the chief of police, civil rights and political leaders, and certain drug
organizations.

10

WAR ON DRUGS

11

The number one key value in the NASW is to service, Social workers primary goal is to
help people in need and to address social problems, which is the war on drugs (NASW, 2014)
Implementing this policy could redirect public resources towards social development, increase
economic opportunities, and enhance the safety, health and well being of our society. The key
point of the social work profession is to focus on individuals, communities, and groups to
enhance or restore social functioning. The goals of this policy contribute to greater social justice,
with the vulnerable and oppressed population, by focusing on the social issues that lead to drug
use. We need to provide prevention treatment, education on poverty, social reintegration, etc.
which all have a huge impact on societal conditions. The war on drug displays act of inequality,
because the war on drugs is a system designed to keep minorities as a permanent disenfranchised
underclass by keeping them incarnated due to minor drug charges and keeping them addicted to
drugs. With this policy, our focus would view drug use as a health issue and not as a criminal
issue. What the policy promotes will contribute positive social relations between the target
population and overall society. Which displays another core value, the importance of human
relationships by enhancing the well being of society. There is no relation with drug laws and
increase rates of abuse and use. Drugs are more of a social, cultural, and economic trend, that
everyone doesnt follow.

11

WAR ON DRUGS

12
References

Code of Ethics (English and Spanish). (n.d.). Retrieved November 24, 2014, from
http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp

Mathre, M. (1997). Cannabis in Medical Practice. Medical History Timeline. Retrieved

from http://www.medicalcannabis.com/cannabis-science/medical-history-timeline/

Michigan Legislative Website. (n.d.). Retrieved November 23, 2014, from

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(m122enuloym0iqfnfgf4lwyy))/mileg.aspx?
page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-initiated-law-1-of-2008

Newman, T. (2011, July 6). Portugal Celebrates 10 Year Anniversary of Decriminalizing Drugs.
Retrieved November 21, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-newman/portugaldrug-laws_b_891703.html

Police Chief Magazine - View Article. (n.d.). Retrieved November 22, 2014, from
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?
fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=533&issue_id=32005

Suddath, C. (2009, October 21). A Brief History of Medical Marijuana. Time Magazine,.
Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1931247,00.html

12

WAR ON DRUGS

13

The Daily Smoker. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2014, from

http://www.dailysmoker.com/various/amsterdam/drug-policy/harddrugs

Tobacco Use. (2012, November 16). Retrieved November 23, 2014, from
http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/osh.htm

13