The possession and transfer of marijuana were deemed illegal in the United States with the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937. For the “reformers” it was hailed as a great accomplishment. Yet, strikingly similar to the experiences of alcohol prohibition, the demand and use of marijuana did not disappear from legislative action. The 1960s were to the marijuana reform movement as the late 1920s were to prohibition opponents. With resentment and bitterness in the air, a culture of defiance grew from social unrest. Marijuana use rose dramatically during the 1960s while the federal government rushed to respond.
On a more practical level, drug laws continue to inflict damning consequences on the sustainability of America’s criminal justice system. Excessive penalties for drug offenses are a leading culprit of our overcrowded prison system, with the vast majority of prisoners serving time for nonviolent crimes. Most of these offenders, deprived of education and rehabilitation programs in prison, will be released with their chances of recidivism alarmingly high. Forms of legalization and sentence liberalization would reduce drug arrests by as many as one million per year and eliminate tens of billions of dollars spent on drug enforcement. In response to prohibitionist fear tactics, reformers would be wise to stress such fiscal statistics to expose conservative hypocrisy. Numerous studies show that mandatory sentencing measures crowd prisons with low-level users and increase public expenditures on trial proceedings.
Conversely, from an enforcement perspective, countless officers have lost their lives or been seriously injured in pursuit of narcotics, no matter the size of the haul. Just as disturbing are the reports of persistent corruption within police departments across the country in relation to the drug trade. From New York City Police Department to the Drug Enforcement Agency, numerous officers and bureaucrats have been exposed for their hypocrisy through charges of drug use, smuggling and trafficking. The truth remains that some drug enforcers are tempted by the money associated with the illicit trade and have used their posts to engage and conceal in activities that they allegedly spend their lives fighting. Therefore, the drug enforcers, both police and prosecutors, have evolved as unlikely but unique victims of the drug war.
Other countries handle drug debate differently than the United States. For example, the Dutch had long viewed marijuana as a “stepping-stone” drug, but not for the same reasons that this opinion is held in the United States. In essence, laws prohibiting marijuana had forced its market into the criminal arena. Their reasoning was not based on the drug’s chemical qualities, but rather that its prohibition meant it was being sold in the same place and by the same dealers of hard drugs. Subsequent reforms reduced penalties on marijuana possession, thus ushering in age of moderation and control. Both criminal justice officials and drug experts in Holland believe that they have largely solved the marijuana problem because studies show that use among Dutch youth has decreased since the 1970s and legalization has taken away a once valuable form of defiance.
The consistent theme that binds the histories of the alcohol and marijuana prohibition movements is the distinct failure of federal enforcement. While Washington has refused to cede control of marijuana policy, successful enforcement methods have never materialized despite increased police powers.
Michael Stubel is a junior in the School of Public Affairs and the School of Communication and a moderate libertarian columnist for The Eagle. You can reach him at edpage@theeagleonline.com.