The Other Prohibition

Marijuana prohibition has been a part of the American legal system since 1937. The results of banning marijuana have been much the same as those that arose from alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s. In both cases, highly organized, violent, criminal gangs came to control the production and distribution of the drugs. Prices rose significantly beyond what they were without prohibition, thus increasing profits for those willing to take the necessary risks inherent in the industry. Otherwise law-abiding citizens became targets for arrest and incarceration for the same recreational use which they had engaged in before such laws were passed.

Proponents of marijuana prohibition cite the harmful effects of marijuana on an individual’s health, productivity and psychic well-being as reasons why the drug should be illegal. While there obviously seem to be negative effects associated with the recreational use of marijuana, it seems strange that such arguments are considered to be a valid basis for legal action when similar and perhaps more addictive and more harmful drugs such as alcohol and nicotine can be used without criminal repercussions. If this is true, then why is using, producing, buying or selling marijuana a crime? Is Marijuana prohibition worth its hefty price tag? Does anti-marijuana legislation prevent crime, violence and social detriment or produce it?

More than 8 million people have been arrested on Marijuana charges over the past decade. Last year alone 771,608 arrests were made. This is the highest annual total ever recorded and amounts to 44.2 percent of all drug arrests in the United States last year. This number far surpasses the total arrests for all violent crimes combined, including murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault (NORML 2004). According to Allen St. Pierre, Executive Director of The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, “at current rates, a marijuana smoker is arrested every 41 seconds in America” (NORML 2004). About 90% of these arrests were for possession alone (Stopteenuse 2002). In fact, nonviolent marijuana offenders often receive longer sentences than their violent counterparts (norml.org/pdf).

According to the Justice Policy Institute, “The U.S. locks up more people for marijuana than the individual prison populations of 8 of the 10 European Union nations—and locks up more people for marijuana than the entire prison populations of the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Portugal” (justicepolicy.org). This is obviously a policy that adversely affects the lives of millions of Americans. Justin Colburn, a policy analyst at JPI, had the following to say about these effects.

“The collateral consequences they will face will not only impact them but their families and entire communities. Depending on what state they live in, they may be denied public assistance, face substantial barriers to employment, experience drivers’ license suspension, and lose the right to vote. Our criminal justice response to marijuana is impacting their ability to take care of their families or contribute as normal taxpaying citizens” (justicepolicy.org).

The cost of all this law enforcement, legal and judicial activity is enormous. In 2002 marijuana prohibition at the federal, state and local level cost the American taxpayers an estimated $12 billion dollars, with that number steadily rising each year. Approximately 53% of that at the federal level, and 80% at the state and local level, was spent on enforcement, court and prison costs, with the rest going to treatment and education (Stopteenuse 2002). Since state and local spending amounts to almost 50% of the $12 billion, this means that less than $5 billion of the total went towards educating people about the dangers of using marijuana and treating those with marijuana-related problems. The rest was spent solely on prohibition.

Seeing all that money being spent each year would lead one to hope that these efforts have at least halted or decreased the usage of marijuana. In fact, marijuana usage rates have not declined in the face of prohibition. They increased steadily from the 1937 passage of prohibition laws until their peak in 1979. They declined significantly during the 1980’s and then rose again in the 90’s. There is no correlation to suggest that usage rates are at all affected by either the existence of prohibition laws or the severity of the punishments (mpp.org, 1999). This observation is supported by a 2005 study conducted by the Justice Policy Institute. The study asserts that the available data “…shows little relationship between growing arrest rates for marijuana offenses and the drug’s use rate” (justicepolicy.org).

A common perception is that the intensified war on drugs during the 80’s contributed to the dramatic 61 percent drop in usage rates seen during that period. However, the increased penalties weren’t even enacted until 1986 and, by that time, rates had already been falling for over five years. The rate of decline did not increase with the passage of these harsher penalties (mpp.org, 1999). This seems to suggest that prohibition laws have little effect on marijuana usage, although cultural or educational factors may play an important role. Despite a concerted effort, prohibition does not seem to be stopping people from using, selling or buying the drug, although it has succeeded in arresting and incarcerating increasingly more of them at a cost of approximately $25,000 per person per year (norml.org/pdf).

Seeing the abysmal success rate of anti-marijuana legislation, its enormous fiscal costs, and the number of Americans who are adversely affected by it each year, it seems to make sense to end marijuana prohibition, just as was done with alcohol over 70 years ago. But many raise concerns over such a solution. They claim that “legalizing” marijuana would lead to an increase in usage, more violent crime, more sexual promiscuity and a host of other social ills. But what evidence is there that such calamities will befall us should we end marijuana prohibition? The same doomsday prophecies were used as justification for continuing alcohol prohibition, and they remained largely unrealized.

As previously noted, it seems clear that prohibition does not lead to a decrease in usage rates. However, this does not automatically mean that repealing prohibition would not lead to an increase in usage. It is difficult to foresee exactly what the effects would be should marijuana be “legalized.” Usage rates have fluctuated up and down since prohibition was instituted with the overall trend being a gradual increase over time. Even if marijuana were to be “legalized,” it would be near impossible to say with any certainty that future increases were caused by such a policy, rather than being part of the normal rate of increase. The same could be said if a decrease were to occur after the end of prohibition. Correlation does not prove causation, and it would be very difficult to come to a definitive conclusion either way.

Over the past 20 years, the Dutch have conducted their own “legalization” experiment which provides some insight. In the Netherlands, marijuana can be sold legally in small quantities at designated outlets such as coffee shops. During this time, usage rates in the Netherlands rose overall, as did those in America, with no clear indication as to whether this was an effect of the policy or not. However one thing is very clear, after 20 years of pursuing such a policy, Dutch usage rates per capita have consistently remained below those found in the U.S. (Fish pg 570). For all age categories, they are 3-7% lower than American rates . (Zimmer & Morgan pg 51).

Seeing that there is no evidence to suggest that usage would spike if prohibition were repealed, what effect would such a policy have on crime in the United States? Here is where the case for “legalization” seems strongest. What is crime but simply breaking a law? It makes sense to assume that the less laws there are in existence, the less “crime” there will be and vice versa. By pursuing a policy of banning marijuana, America has created a large class of criminals that otherwise would never have existed. Absent any laws banning the production, sale or consumption of marijuana, the 771,608 arrests made this year for marijuana violations would never have happened. Hundreds of thousands of people would be freed from prison and would no longer be considered “criminals.” This alone constitutes a huge reduction in what we once considered to be crime. The price of marijuana would fall considerably, and the black market, with the violence and theft that accompanies it, would disappear.

However, critics would suggest that if there were significant, future increases in use, this could lead to more marijuana-induced crimes of a violent or otherwise socially unpleasant nature. This ignores the fact that marijuana is not a drug that induces violent or aggressive behavior. It has the opposite effect. In fact, if anything, marijuana is more likely to lower the user’s violent tendencies and reduce the probability of violent behavior (Goode pg 127). Others would argue that drug use in general spawns crime because users need money to pay for it. Thus marijuana use by its very nature produces criminal behavior. In their book, America’s Longest War, Steven Durke and Albert Gross refute the idea that marijuana is what they call, “criminogenic” or crime-inducing.

“…No one can seriously argue that marijuana per se is criminogenic. …It has no positive correlation with violence. It is not addictive. Even if it were addictive, its cost of production is minuscule…so that the need for money to buy the drug could never be a serious motivation for predatory crime in a legalized system. Indeed, even though prohibition increases the cost of marijuana to the consumer by a factor of more than 100, there is no evidence even under the current prohibitory regime that people rob or steal in order to get the money to buy marijuana” (Durke & Gross pg 53).

They then go on to discuss how it is the prohibition of marijuana that is in actuality criminogenic. Buyers must go into the black market to purchase the drug, where they mingle with violent criminal elements and must often venture into dangerous neighborhoods to do so. Even if they are only looking for marijuana, buyers are exposed to dealers of hard drugs who entice them to try new things. If they are arrested, they are branded as “criminals” and may spend time in jail. The effects of such experiences on a person’s self-image as well as on their respect for laws and societal norms appear to be quite criminogenic. In short, “As ‘outlaws’, all users of illicit drugs have common interests and common experiences that provide mutual emotional and even logistic support, inviting the marijuana user’s entry into the drug culture” (Burke & Gross pg 53-54).

In conclusion, marijuana prohibition simply does not make sense. Marijuana is not violence-inducing, it is not a significant source of crime (other than that associated with prohibition,) and has not been shown to be addictive. Laws against the sale, production or consumption of marijuana are ineffective at deterring use, yet still incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people each year. The enormous sums of money spent annually on enforcement and court costs would be much more useful if instead put towards the prevention of violent crime, or perhaps towards the war on terror, as well as towards drug education and treatment. They could be even be used to fund a tax cut and give back the already overtaxed American population some of its hard-earned money. Marijuana prohibition makes no more sense now than alcohol prohibition did in the 1920’s and it should share the same fate as its predecessor.