The case of marijuana has been a hot topic in mainstream United States of America. It is essential to appreciate the general failure by the parties to strike a consensus over marijuana. Scholars and citizens alike are split down the middle over whether marijuana ought to be legal or illegal. This divide is evident in the legislation that has been passed concerning marijuana over the years. Notably, different states have settled for a different solution with some states completely criminalizing the use and possession of marijuana, others limiting the legal use for medicinal purposes and the rest legalizing its use even outside the medical confines. It is this difference that informs the basis of this paper. The paper shall examine the historical context of marijuana legislation with a view to analysing the past, present and future legislation. However, it is noteworthy to appreciate the fact that colossal research has been undertaken both with philosophical and empirical evidence being adduced for the legalization or illegalization of marijuana. As it stands, the Office of the National Drug Control Policy at the federal level is of the view that marijuana consumption is harmful to life and that its application in medical uses is merely limited and more so has alternative applications with safer and secure consequences as opposed to what marijuana portends to the biological system of its consumer. It is thus their view that consumption, use and possession of marijuana ought to be illegalized and that decriminalization efforts do not mean well for the citizenry. Even with that as the backdrop, it is instructive to cognize the fact that marijuana consumption has undergone a number of contradicting legislations in different periods. The first array of legislations was majorly silent on marijuana with the mere mention of poisonous drugs and substances. The next level of legislations undertook to criminalize the consumption and possession of marijuana while the last set which currently prevails decriminalized possession and consumption either on medical or social grounds. The next session shall examine a number of legislation drawing back to the late 1890s to early 1900s.
It is essential to appreciate the structuring of government of the U.S in an attempt to analyse the body of legislation concerning marijuana. This is because the tripartite tier of government confers responsibility on the Federal, States and Local governments. In the context of marijuana regulation and legalization, the responsibility overlaps between the Federal Government through agencies such as the mentioned Office of National Drug Control Policy and the States through the State Departments of Criminal Justice, Agriculture and Social Programs. The legislation on marijuana, therefore, has a dual approach which is informed by contribution by the national and state governments.
In that vein as at 1906, the records from the United States Department of Agriculture indicate that of the fifty states, twenty nine had laws that directly made mention of marijuana. The other twenty one states were silent and legislation would be drawn from the national government. Indeed of the former category, eight had sale of poison laws that classified marijuana as a poison. To that extent, the consumption, sale or any related transaction was governed by the body of law that the state had so designed and determined for that purpose. It should be noted that these laws were dynamic and reactive to the currency of matters at that time. The laws issued a broad overview of marijuana consumption but by large indicated that the sale of marijuana would need a prescription. These prescriptions were only obtainable from professional medical personnel. In that vein, it should be appreciated that as from 1906, the law in these twenty nine states had already approved and promulgated the consumption of marijuana on medicinal grounds. It is consequently of fundamental effect to note that the medicinal debate dates back to the early start of the 20th Century. From that context, a lot of research has been undertaken to determine the factual basis of this line of thought. Indeed, scholars in this line of research have come up with comprehensive reports that justify the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. They have shown that marijuana could be consumed for medical reasons and that its application in the medical concerns had positive results. It is on this premise that other states within the twenty nine but outside the nine, considered marijuana as a non-poisonous application. However, their legislation still required producers to label the drug as marijuana and also imposed on the sellers’ sale by prescription requirements only. It should be noted in the same vein, that the twenty one states, whose body of laws were silent on marijuana, indirectly meant that marijuana could be consumed in the states for whatever reason, be it medicinal or otherwise. Interestingly, some of these states had attempted to legislate on marijuana but were unsuccessful in the full implementation of their proposals. A case in point is California which attempted to impose legislation on marijuana alongside Opium in a bill of 1880. The bill was later to omit marijuana before being enacted into law. As early as 1990s and late 1880s the discourse seemed to split the society into two sides attests to the controversial nature of marijuana consumption. In addition, the resistance in the formulation and implementation of legislation serves to communicate the interests that resonate around the consumption of marijuana. It shows the evident subscription by the citizenry and their law makers to the consumption of marijuana. It has since been confirmed by researchers that the citizenry remain addicted to substances including marijuana.
Within the same timeline, there emerged legislation that contained adulteration of beverages and other tobacco and alcohol products. In the spirit of promoting consumption of marijuana and other substances, producers benefiting economically from the sale had introduced various forms of adulterated beverages and substances. This mischief perpetuated by producers and which had the consequence of promoting substance consumption was addressed through the introduction of adulteration legislation that limited the use and production of adulterated products. It should be appreciated that it is these set of legislations in the United States of America that set the path for the criminalization of marijuana use and consumption. This is because limiting adulteration was premised on the fact that beverages should not have been contaminated with substances such as marijuana formations. In an indirect way, legislations had started acting upon the consumption and use of marijuana.
Between 1906 and 1923, the states took a direct approach that effectively confronted the consumption of marijuana. The form of legislations around this time in the states prohibited the use and production of marijuana. It was evident that the states had awoken to the realities of marijuana effects. The prohibitions were premised on empirical and philosophical evidence adduced by scholars, researchers and policy analysts. A cost benefit approach on marijuana was undertaken in a number of states. The results mirrored the current narrative of the Office of National Drug Control Agency. It was noted that while marijuana was beneficial on medicinal grounds, this benefit was outweighed by the negative consequences that it accounted for. For instance, the medicinal application was limited and alternatives were available for this application. However, the effects were adverse and touched on economic and social areas. Some of the effects included the addictive nature of marijuana which enslaved its consumers into permanent consumption, the economic drain and pressure it imposed on its consumers with a large section falling in the low class hence resorting to crime for monetary gains, the health effects has it affected some of the sensitive body organs such as the brain. The costs if seen in the wider context, outweighed the economic gain from trade. This compelled states into legislating for the criminalization of marijuana. This line of legislations was even reinforced and facilitated by the national legislative organ, the Congress, through the passage in 1996 of the Pure Food and Drug Act that required all sales of non-prescribed marijuana to be accompanied by elaborate labels. The District of Columbia, Massachusetts and New York were some of the pioneer states that commenced this reformist approach intended to limit the consumption of marijuana. In New York, it commenced with the introduction of the Towns-Boylan Act which restricted and to some extent prohibited the sale of habit forming drugs. By 1916, the Act had been amended to include marijuana as a habit forming drug.
The legislation on marijuana was also to be affected by national legislation such as the Harrison Act of 1914 which restricted revenues from drugs, the Uniform State Narcotic Act 1932 which imposed on the states the need for same regulations and gave the state police power over illicit drugs on transit and the Federal Import and Export Act, 1922 which directly banned trade in marijuana. This Acts were national in nature and affected all states in the same vein. The message the national government sent to the states was a narrative against consumption of drugs.
Finally, the illegalization by the Federal government came in the nature and form of the Marijuana Tax Act, 1937 which limited possession and indulgence of marijuana to medical and industrial applications only and with the caveat that the two exempted categories would incur an exercise duty on the transactions. This has been the prevailing situation even with the continuous development of bodies advocating for or against the non-medical application of marijuana. In the long run, the debate and war has metamorphosed into the current position whereby a number of states have allowed the unlimited application of marijuana, others have limited use to medicinal and industrial application in line with the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act while other have completely criminalized the application of marijuana in whatever way. For example, extreme cases have occurred in Colorado and Washington where the use of marijuana is essentially unlimited. The overall effects is that the economy has been expanded through increased revenues from taxation of marijuana trade. In addition, it is notable that taxation of marijuana earns the states revenues which would otherwise be channelled in illegal trading activities. It should be appreciated that policy on marijuana is influenced by the contemporary society and what is in the best interests of the citizenry.
Works Cited
Caulkins, Jonathan P. Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford UP, 2012.
Ehrhart, W D. Busted: A Vietnam Veteran in Nixon's America. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 1995. Print.
Fine, Duog. Too High to Fail: Cannabis and the New Green Economic Revolution. New York: Gotham, 2012. Print.
Gettman, John. "Cannabis and the US Controlled Substances Act." Journal of Cannabis Theurapetics 1.1 (2001): 95-109.
Office of the National Drug Control Policy. Fact Sheet: Marijuana Legalization. Print. Washignton D.C.: Office of the National Drug Control Policy, 2010.
Peterson, Eller. "Marijuana Legalization: Colorado and Washington State Grapple With Implementing New Laws." Polymic Journal (2013).
