PAPERBACK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
An Analysis of Marijuana Policy
INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1960s the use of marijuana as an intoxi-
cant by a growing proportion of the American population
has been an issue of major national concern. Despite
repeated warnings of possible adverse health consequences
and persistent efforts by law enforcement agencies to
restrict the supply and use of marijuana, available data
indicate that experimentation with or regular use of the
drug is no longer restricted to a small minority of Amer-
icans. In 1979, for example, 68 percent of young adults
between the ages of 18 and 25 reported having tried mari-
juana; 35.4 percent reported having used marijuana in
the last month. Among adults over age 26, the propor-
tion having ever used marijuana has more than doubled
since 1971, from 9.2 percent to 19.6 percent (Fishburne
et al., 1980; see Table 1, below).
Although "the marijuana problem" may be viewed as of
recent origin, marijuana is not-a new drug. The canna-
bis plant has been cultivated and used both for its in-
toxicating properties and for its fiber (hemp) throughout
the world for more than 10,000 years (Abel, 1980~. At
various times and places attempts have been made to
restrict its use as an intoxicant; at other times and
places its virtues have been extolled for medical pur-
poses, and it has played a significant role in religious
ritual. Because cannabis is easily grown--indeed, it is
one of the hardiest of all plant ~pecies--its resin has
been used for centuries along with tobacco, fermented
distillates of grains and fruits (alcohol), and opium
derivatives as one means of relieving stresses associ-
ated with daily life.
1
OCR for page 2
2
Despite its long history, the use of cannabis as an
intoxicant was relatively unknown in the United States
until the latter part of the nineteenth century, and
even then its use as a drug was restricted to a tiny
fraction of the population, primarily immigrants from
Mexico. The first efforts to restrict its use in this
country did not occur until 1911, when Congress, which
at that time was considering proposals for federal
antinarcotics legislation, listened to arguments that
cannabis should be included in the list of illegal
drugs. That effort failed, but during the next two
decades a number of state legislatures moved to prohibit
the possession of marijuana unless prescribed by a
physician. It was not until 1937, when the Marijuana
Tax Law was enacted, that the federal government became
involved in the attempt to control its use. Even this
law recognized the industrial uses of hemp and also
exempted the seeds of the plant, which were then being
sold as bird feed. In 1956, Congress included marijuana
in the Narcotics Act of that year and, in 1961, the
United Nations adopted the Single Convention on Narcotic
Drugs, the terms of which state that each participating
country could "adopt such measures as may be necessary
to prevent misuse of, and illicit traffic in, the leaves
of the cannabis plant." Congress approved participation
in the convention in 1967 and three years later passed
the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act.
which provides the basis for current federal prohibitions
. . .
regarc one marijuana use.
Despite this history it was not until the 1960s that
most Americans became aware of marijuana. The political
and cultural protests of that period focused public at-
tention on young people, their life-styles, and their use
of drugs, including marijuana. That period created the
context in which public policies regarding marijuana use
have been debated since the early 1970s. As Abel (1980)
points out, for the first time marijuana
restricted to minority groups and fringe
use was not
elements of
society: many of the new users were native-born, middle-
class, white college students. Without doubt, the polit-
ical and cultural context in which marijuana emerged as
an issue of national concern has strongly influenced the
subsequent policy debate about its use.
The policy debate about marijuana use has also brought
into sharp focus two conflicting but deeply held beliefs
of large and overlapping segments of the American popu-
lation. To many, the use of drugs of any kind solely for
., ~
. . . . . . . .
OCR for page 3
3
the purpose of producing states of intoxication is abhor-
rent, entirely apart from any presumed health effects.
At the same time, many people strongly defend the right
of individuals to privately indulge their desires, so
long as others are not adversely affected. Adding to
the complexity of the issues are continuing uncertainties
about the health and developmental consequences of mari-
juana use, concern over the growing number of adolescent
users, the social consequences of prosecuting otherwise
law-abiding citizens for possession and use of marijuana,
the relationship between the distribution of marijuana
and that of other illegal drugs, the costs of enforcement
of current laws, and the economic implications of the
persistence of very large illegal markets.
The next section of this report presents a brief sum-
mary of existing evidence regarding the health conse-
quences of marijuana use, drawing heavily on the recently
completed study by the Institute of Medicine. The third
section summarizes existing federal and state laws re-
lating to the supply and use of marijuana. The fourth
section of the report reviews the conclusions of the
report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug
Abuse (1972~. The next two sections deal, respectively,
with policies regarding the use and the supply of mari-
juana. The two final sections present a summary of the
committee's conclusions regarding major policy options
and recommendations for research needed to more ade-
quately assess those options.
THE DANGERS OF MARIJUANA
Marijuana is not a harmless drug. Although available
evidence suggests that marijuana may be less likely than
opiates, barbiturates, or alcohol to induce psychologi-
cal and physical dependence in its users, it has the
capacity to reduce the effective functioning of individ-
uals under its influence, and prolonged or excessive use
may cause serious harmful biological and social effects
in many users.
The recent report, Marijuana and Health, of the Insti-
tute of Medicine (1982 5 [reproduced in the appendix])
concludes:
The scientific evidence published to date
indicates that marijuana has a broad range of
psychological and biological effects, some of
OCR for page 4
4
which, at least under certain conditions, are
harmful to human health. Unfortunately, the
available information does not tell us how ser-
ious this risk may be.
Overall, the report concludes (p. 5~:
[W]hat little we know for certain about the ef-
fects of marijuana on human health--and all that
we have reason to suspect--justifies serious
national concern.
The complete summary of the Institute of Medicine report
appears as the appendix to this report.
Over the past 40 years, marijuana has been accused of
causing an array of antisocial effects, including: in
the 1930s, provoking crime and violence; in the early
1950s, leading to heroin addiction; and in the late
1960s, making people passive, lowering motivation and
productivity, and destroying the American work ethic in
young people. Although beliefs in these effects persist
among many people, they have not been substantiated by
scientific evidence.
Concerns about how marijuana affects citizenship,
motivation, and job performance have become less salient
in recent years as marijuana has moved more into the
mainstream of society and has become less exclusively
associated with radicals, hippies, or disadvantaged
minorities. Though there is still widespread belief
that heavy marijuana use may be incompatible with a
responsible, productive life, evidence that marijuana
has not adversely affected either the productivity or
the sense of social responsibility of some groups of
users (see, e.g., Hochman and Brill, 1973) has tempered
earlier fears of a widespread "amotivational syndrome."
Research that correlates marijuana use with undesirable
behavior, such as alienation or inattention to school
studies, has not established the direction of causality
or ruled out spurious associations (see, e.g., Beachy et
al., 1979~. This issue, however, continues to be the
subject of lively controversy and the Institute of Medi-
cine report (1982:125) concludes that "it appears likely
that both self-selection and authentic drug effects con-
tribute to the 'motivational' problems seen in some
chronic marijuana users."
Recently, a body of literature has accumulated that
reports on links between marijuana use and such health
OCR for page 5
5
impairments as lung disease, chromosome damage, reduced
reproductive function, and brain dysfunction (summarized
in Institute of Medicine, 1982, and National Institute on
Drug Abuse, 1980~. In some areas--for example, effects
on the nervous system and behavior and on the cardio-
vascular and respiratory systems--there is clear evidence
that marijuana produces acute short-te~m effects (Insti-
tute of Medicine, 1982:2,3~:
With a severity directly related to dose, marijuana
impairs motor coordination and affects tracking
ability and sensory and perceptual functions impor-
tant for safe driving and the operation of other
machines. . . . [It also] increases the work of
the heart, usually by raising the heart rate and,
in some persons, by raising blood pressure.
There is as yet no such clear evidence on the possible
long-tenm effects in these areas, or of other potential
health consequences of marijuana use; further research
is needed. In addition, most studies on human popula-
tions have been laboratory studies of young, healthy
adult males. Differential effects of marijuana use on
the elderly, on pregnant women, on groups that are
psychiatrically vulnerable or at risk tor disease or
dysfunction, and particularly on adolescents have not
been studied systematically.
In our view, the most troublesome aspects of mari-
juana use are its potential effects on the development
of adolescents. Parents as well as a number of clini-
cians and researchers are concerned that the social and
intellectual development of teenagers may be harmed by
chronic marijuana use. There is good evidence that
intoxication may seriously impair such important skills
as comprehension and retention of newly presented educa-
tional materials (Institute of Medicine, 1982~. Rapidly
growing tissues have been shown to be particularly vul-
nerable to some, although by no means all, toxic agents,
and there is at least a possibility that toxic effects
may be subtle and not clearly manifest until adulthood.
Scientifically, these are difficult relationships to
identify, and the research to date is still insuf ficient
to strongly support any relationship.
Perhaps more significant than any lasting biological
effect is the effect of the drug in different patterns
of use on emotional development, on the formation of
habits, and on the acquisition of coping skills for
OCR for page 6
6
stress situations. Indeed, although the many issues
raised by the use of intoxicants to escape stressful
challenge have not been systematically studied, the evi-
dent attractiveness of marijuana to many adolescents,
and its possible dose-related interference with the
study and hard work needed for intellectual development
in the crucial high school years, make this a special
matter for concern. This is particularly so in light of
the fact that, unlike alcohol, marijuana is used by many
adolescents during school hours. Finally, reports of
the effects of marijuana use on automobile driving
skills are worrisome.
This Committee has reviewed the scientific literature
surveys of marijuana effects on health and behavior, in-
cluding the major recent study conducted by the Institute
of Medicine (1982) and those by the National Institute
on Drug Abuse (1979; 1980), Tashkin et al. (1978), Nahas
(1977), and Fried (1977~. We agree with the conclusion
of the Institute of Medicine report that it is likely
that long-term heavy marijuana use will be shown to re-
sult in measurable damage to health, just as long-term
chronic tobacco and alcohol use have proven to cause such
damage. It is evident that the full impact of marijuana
use on human health will not be clear without careful
epidemiological studies involving substantial popula-
tions of users--a matter of some decades--even though it
is predictable that this drug--like all others--will
cause harm in some of its users, particularly in its
heaviest users, and among these, in its heaviest adoles-
cent users. At this time, however, our judgment as to
behavioral and health-related hazards is that the re-
search has not established a danger both large and grave
enough to override all other factors affecting a policy
Decision.
OVERVIEW OF CURRENT MARIJUANA POLICIES
Current federal and state marijuana laws are in part
governed by international treaty. The major federal law
relevant to marijuana is the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which repealed all
prior federal legislation and reduced federal penalties
for possession and sale. Although marijuana possession
and sale are still prohibited, possession has been re-
duced from a felony to a misdemeanor offense; the maxi-
mum penalty for a first offense is $5,000 and one year's
OCR for page 7
imprisonment. The Act also provides for conditional dis-
charge, by which first offenders found guilty of simple
possession or casual transfer (which is treated as simple
possession) may be placed on probation for up to one year
(Congressional Digest, 1979~.
The Uniform Controlled Substance Act of 1970, drafted
by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws, was designed to make state laws more compat-
ible with the new federal law. Like the federal act,
the Uniform Act reclassified marijuana as a hallucinogen
rather than a narcotic and reduced the penalty for pos-
session from the felony to the misdemeanor level; a
majority of the states have adopted the Uniform Act.
Eleven states have withdrawn the criminal sanction from
possession for personal use. In these states, arrest
has been replaced with a traffic-ticket type of citation
and a small fine is the sole al lowable penalty. About
30 states include some provision for conditional dis-
charge of first offenders, and about a dozen of them
provide for all records of the offense to be expunged.
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that possession
for personal use by adults at home was protected by the
constitutional right to privacy and hence was not subject
to any penalty (Rosenthal, 1979~.
State penalties for second-offense possession and for
selling marijuana are extremely variable. (See National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and Center
for Study of Non-Medical Drug Use, 1979, for summary
tables of state marijuana laws.) Sale is almost always
a felony, with maximum sentences ranging from two years
to life, although casual transfer, or "accommodation,"
is sometimes exempt from felony treatment. All but 15
jurisdictions punish cultivation as heavily as they do
sale; the Uniform Act includes the two in the same
classification (manufacture), with the same penalty
provisions.
Federal prohibition of small-scale possession is vir-
tually unenforced. At the March 1977 House of Represen-
tatives hearings on decriminalization, the chief of the
criminal division of the Department of Justice testified
that the federal government no longer effectively prose-
cutes the use of marijuana, "nor do we, under any
conceivable way, in the Federal Government have the
resources to do so" (Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse
and Control, 1977:13~. In terms of its effects from a
law enforcement point of view, the present official fed-
eral policy of complete prohibition does not differ in
',,
OCR for page 8
8
fact from a policy of prohibition of supply only. Com-
plete prohibition is the federal law, but partial prohi-
bition is the practice. However, the law, even though
partly unenforced, has probably had a restraining in-
f luence on the willingness of states to adopt policies
of less than complete prohibition. The states tradi-
tionally have followed the federal lead in drug abuse
legislation, although they are not legally required to
do so (see the testimony of Jay Miller, American Civil
Liberties Union, to the Select Committee on Narcotics
Abuse and Control, 1977~. In summary, in most states
and according to federal law, U.S. marijuana policy is
one of complete prohibition--that is, prohibition of
both supply and use.
Major alternatives to complete prohibition include
prohibition of supply only--called partial prohibition--
and regulation.* Prohibition of supply only means having
no penalty (or only civil penalties) for use, possession,
or, sometimes, "casual transfer" of small quantities of
marl juana, while having criminal penalties for manufac-
ture, importation, or commercial sale of marijuana.
Regulation means not only eliminating penalties for use
but also allowing controlled production and distribution.
Within each of the three broad policy options--
complete prohibition, prohibition of supply only, and
regulation--numerous subsidiary policy choices exist.
For example, a policy of complete prohibition necessi-
tates decisions about the resources to be devoted to en-
forcement, the appropriate penalties to be imposed for
violations, and whether marijuana should be made avail-
able for any medical uses. Under a policy of prohibi-
tion of supply only, decisions must still be made about
penalties and permitted medical uses. In addition, one
must also determine how to distinguish between users
*In this discussion, we use the terms "complete prohibi-
tion, " and "prohibition of supply and use" interchange-
ably. We also use the tens "partial prohibition,"
"prohibition of supply only," and "decriminalization" as
equivalent. We generally prefer the terms "partial pro-
hibition," or "prohibition of supply only" since many
people seem to regard decriminalization as the equivalent
of legalization or regulation--which it most certainly is
not. (The policy of partial prohibition has also been
called the vice model.) Finally, we use "regulation" and
"legalization" as equivalent terms.
OCR for page 9
9
and suppliers; whether cultivation should be permitted ;
how stronger preparations of the cannabis plant, such as
hashish, should be treated; whether to criminalize amall-
scale casual transfers, made with or without payment; and
what should be done about certain specific behaviors,
such as the public use of marijuana and the operation of
motor vehicles under the influence of the drug. Under a
policy of regulation, some of the issues to be decided
are the type of control system (e.g., state monopoly or
licensed sale), the rules as to potency and quality, and
appropriate penalties for violation of the system's
rules.
The variety of choices within each of the broad policy
options suggests that none can be characterized in a
monolithic way. Some regulatory systems could be so
stringent as to have results similar to prohibitory
laws: e.g., a regulatory system that raised the price
drastically above what the illegal -=rket charges.
Similarly, lack of enforcement could strongly reduce the
impact of a prohibitory option. As we have already
noted, this latter effect has already occurred in some
jurisdictions in which the law provides for complete
prohibition but users are not in fact prosecuted.
A REVIEW OF THE REPORT OF THE
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MARIJUANA AND DRUG ABUSE
An attempt to describe a full array of policy options
together with associated benefits and detriments of each
of them was made by the National Commission on Marijuana
and Drug Abuse in its 1972 report, Marijuana: A Signal
of Misunderstanding. With respect to the major policy
choices, the Commission did a thorough job. The members
and staff recognized the limited knowledge base for their
deliberations and subsequently recommended that a second
commission be appointed to review the situation four
years later. Such a follow-up commission was never
appointed. It seems appropriate, then, that this Come
mittee reappraise the Commiasion's work in light of
subsequent research findings, especially those relating
to recent changes in marijuana policies.
The Commission examined the spectrum of social poli-
cies available to control marijuana use and the benefits
and detriments of implementing each policy. m e legal
alternatives presented included those identified above:
complete prohibition; prohibition of supply only; and
OCR for page 10
10
regulatory approaches. The Commission emphasized that
choosing among the three approaches requires considera-
tion of the social milieu, cultural values, and practi-
calities of implementation. The Commission considered
such social conditions particularly important in exam-
ining marijuana controls because both use of the drug
and the laws prohibiting supply and use had symbolic
importance, representing a clash of values between a
dominant culture that opposed marijuana use and a large
minority that either used marijuana or condoned its use
The probable effects of the various policies considered
by the Commission include changes in use patterns, en-
forcement costs, and influence on related social concerns
such as the marketing of other illicit drugs and general
respect for law.
The Commission commented on all three broad policy
options. It suggested first that total prohibition has
resulted in costly enforcement, alienation of the young,
discrimination through selective enforcement, some deter-
rence of supply (especially to middle-aged and middle-
class potential users), but minimal deterrence of use by
those with access to the drug. Second, the Commission
stated its belief that prohibition of supply only would
support the official policy of discouraging use, but at
the same time would recognize the practical difficulties
of attempting to eliminate use. The report listed a
number of choices that might be made under a system of
partial prohibition and described some of the practical
problems they might entail (e.g., the need to distin-
guish between casual and commercial distributors).
Finally, the Commission described regulation as a policy
that only mildly disapproved of occasional use and that
concentrated on controlling excessive use, but was mostly
designed to lower the costs of prohibiting the drug.
The Commission argued that marijuana consumption would
increase considerably if complete prohibition were
replaced by regulation. In addition, the Commission
considered a major drawback of any regulatory system to
be that its elimination of the main symbol of society's
disapproval--criminal sanctions--would cause resentment
among the nonuser majority of the population. Marijuana
was described as being symbolic of countercultural life-
styles: "the drug's symbolism creates a risk of strong
political reaction to any liberalization of the present
laws by older members of the society" (National Commis-
sion on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, 1972, Appendix Volume
II:1149~.
OCR for page 11
11
On balance, the Commission concluded that, since the
threat of punishment had not apparently deterred the
millions of people who had already used marijuana, the
replacement of complete by partial prohibition would not
produce a significant increase in marijuana use. Conse-
quently, the Commission recommended that individual mari-
juana users should not be subject to criminal prosecution
for their private use or possession of small amounts of
the drug, and that, on balance, the best policy was one
of prohibition of supply only. In accordance with this
view, the Commission recommended that federal and ~ tate
laws should be amended to achieve partial prohibition.
In the decade since the Commission report, a number of
states have changed their laws in varying ways. These
legal changes can be viewed as natural experiments, and
one can use the data from them to reassess the Commis-
sion's conclusions regarding these policies.
THE USE OF MARIJUANA: COMPARING
COMPLETE AND PARTIAL PROHIBITION
To compare the two types of marijuana control policies
presently used in the United States--prohibition of
supply and use and prohibition of supply only--we need
to consider only the one particular in which they differ:
the application of criminal sanctions against marijuana
users. To compare the effects of the two policies, we
can examine the effects of the prohibition of use and
determine whether prohibition results in more costs than
benefits or vice ver$a.
In recent years the prohibition of marijuana use has
come under increasing criticism. Many students of the
U.S. marijuana situation, including the National Commis-
sion on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, members of Congress,
political analysts, and legal experts, have suggested
that existing laws prohibiting marijuana use be repealed.
These suggestions have been prompted by the failure of
current policies to deter large numbers of users, the
consequent criminalization of large numbers of young
Americans, and the high social costs of such law en-
forcement. A number of professional associations ant
agencies have also gone on record in support of the
removal of all criminal penalties for the private pos
session and use of marijuana as a means of reducing the
economic costs of law enforcement and the social costs
of arrest or imprisonment (criminalization) of young
OCR for page 22
22
CO
-
C)
-
0
o
CO
o
so
C)
U.
s
so
:e
0
_,
a;
o
v
lo
P4
c
EN
em
He
ED
off`
o
0
0
o'
0 UP
~ ,_
Cal ~
c
A
.O ~o
···~
~0 ~
· ~e
O0 ~0\
0 ~
· ~e~
OO ~O
ID ~_'
·-
0`0
UPUP
· e
~O
···e
~UP0`
0UP ~Id
· ~·~
Cal0
O~
·-
~O
lo
.
~1
0
C: :
0 0 0
a: ~:^
_. ~_1 0 _t O
(U C ^' e'4 ~
~C O ~ ~
~erl E! _1 ~V
0
=~ ~ O
0
3
o
v
0
0
o
0
C~
o
S"
o
o
o
C
o
e~
e
~0
.
0
0
er1
0
0
_'
JJ
o
0
~C
o
·e
:^
·
e ~80 ~
~1
O
~1 ~u,
OCR for page 23
23
had leveled off by 1979 and has since shown a decline.
In an annual survey of national apples of some 17,000
high school seniors, Johnston et al. (1982) found that
7.0 percent of the class of 1981 reported tally mari-
juana use, compared with 6.0 percent in 1975 ant 10.7
percent in 1978, the peak gear (see Table 2~. There has
been a similar bent in initial use at younger ages.
Although the present policy of prohibition of supply
is not preventing the current levels of marijuana use,
including use among the very young, it is probable that
most strategies under a regulatory policy would result
in an overall increase in use. Even more important than
overall use rates, however, are likely changes in con-
numption patterns; such patterns are the most difficult
changes to predict. The smallest increases in numbers
of users can be expected to occur among those to whom
marijuana in now most readily available - the goung-
Johnston et al. (1982) found that close to 90 percent of
the high school seniors in their national sample survey
report that marijuana is "fairly easy. or "very easy"
for them to get. This percentage remained relatively
stable over the seven years, 1975-1981. At the same
time, the reported availability of most other illegal
drugs (except cocaine) declined considerably. For exam-
pie, while 46.2 percent of the 1975 high school seniors
said that LSD would be "fairly easy" or very easy" to
get, only 32.2 percent of the class of 1978 gave those
responses. It would appear, therefore, that the reports
of easy availability are not due to a tendency of adoles-
cents to report any illegal drug as easy to get, but re-
flect their actual access to the drug. It might also be
noted that only 13.9 percent of the class of 1978 re-
ported having no friends who smoke marijuana; thus it is
reasonable to expect that at least 86 percent have a f ac-
tual basin for estimating the availability of the drug.
Other survey data corroborate these f indings .
Radosevich et al. (1979) report that a 1975 national
survey by the Drug Abuse Council found that at least 70
percent of the high school students in their sample re-
ported marijuana "easy to get,- and O'Donnell et 81e
(1976) found similar results. There are no contrary
reports for recent years. In sum, one can be reasonably
confident that, at least with respect to older adoles-
cents, the prohibition against supply does not succeed
in suppressing access to marijuana. (The effect on price
is discussed below.)
OCR for page 24
24
Regulation could be expected to provide the greatest
increase in availability to those to whom the drug is
now least available, i.e., older adults who are not in
contact with marijuana sellers or a drug-using subculture
and who are most likely to avoid illegal "connections."
It has been argued that a serious cost of the adoption
of a regulatory policy for marijuana is the likelihood
that such a change might delude many people into believ-
ing that the drug is safe.
_ ~_ _ ~_ _ ~ ~ _ ~ ~
., ~ ~ _
As noted above, there Is no
~nalcac~on cnat the elimination of penalties for mari-
juana use has caused the drug to be regarded as any less
dangerous. Moreover, alcohol and tobacco are almost
universally regarded as involving risks to health, and
these drugs are already made available under regulatory
systems.
To the extent that marijuana use causes harm, one is
necessarily concerned about policy changes that will lead
to increases in use. As we have noted, however, it is a
fact that marijuana is already widely available despite
the legal prohibition of supply and that, despite the
best efforts of government under any foreseeable set of
conditions, it will continue to be. Though a regulatory
policy would increase the availability of the drug, esti-
mates of the size of these increases, and associated in-
creases in harm, must be weighed against estimates of
the costs and weaknesses of continuing prohibitions of
supply. Tn ^ - mom; theme tats ; Q.!~. ; Q He_ m^~"
-it I---- -age-, _- arc__ _~ __ "~_
harm would be done, overall, by retaining the partly
effective, costly prohibition of supply or by moving to
a system of legalized regulated sales--wherein presumably
more people would use more marijuana, but some of the
costs imposed by prohibition of supply would be removed.
Regulatory Systems: Some Concrete Aspects
To this point, a policy of regulation has been discussed
rather abstractly in contrast with the more concrete dis-
cussion of prohibition policies. Experimentation with
varying systems of regulation followed by adjustment and
readjustment based on experience would be necessary be-
fore those most appropriate for particular circumstances
could be developed. This can be a complex matter. For
instance, U.S. alcohol policy, developed with the repeal
of Prohibition, consists of an umbrella of national pol-
icy and a wide variety of supporting state and local
regulation. The national policy umbrella includes
OCR for page 25
25
controls on importation, taxation, potency, packaging,
labeling, advertising, use in federal jurisdictions
(e.g., parks, military installations), and use in systems
regulated by the federal government (e.g., air transpor-
tation); it also provides funds and guidelines for the
treatment of casualties of excessive use. Under the
umbrella policy, states and local jurisdictions regulate
taxes, retail sales , hours of availability, age limits,
and the like, where supply is legal, or prohibit sales
entirely. Some states have monopoly systems for package
sales, others use licensed private stores. Historically,
under this system, the strictness of controls has re-
flected local sentiment about the consumption of alcohol.
Al though few "dry" jurisdictions exis t today, various
degrees of local ''dryness" were quite widespread until
very recently (National Research Council, 1981) .
Control ling Use
A regulated system of marijuana sale might attempt to
moderate use by inhibiting the frequency of use and the
amounts used as well as by prescribing conditions of
purchase and use. However, it is likely that under a
regulatory system consumption would in great part be
controlled by informal social norme--as it is today.
Manipulating the price of the drug is an obvious means
of inhibiting use. It has been argued that most adults
would be willing to pay a higher price for legal mari-
juana than they currently pay for illegal supplies in
return for not having to seek out "connections" and being
relieved of the feeling that they may be supporting or-
ganized crime. A high price would be comparatively more
restrictive for young people--precisely those whom one
would most want to discourage from use--since, though
they seem affluent compared with young people in previous
times, their budgets are in fact more constrained than
those of adults. The possibility of illegal markets
selling to young people remains, but today's kind of
illegal market for marijuana would probably shrink
greatly under a regulatory system in the same way that
illegal alcohol distribution systems have become so
scarce. Young users would be much more likely to gain
access to marijuana by diversion from the legal market--
as they do today for alcohol--or from homegrown plants
than from a wholly illegal chain of distributors. Such
a development would make marijuana selling Bless prof-
itable and status-producing occupation among the young.
OCR for page 26
26
It has been suggested that if legal limits were im-
posed on the potency of legally available marijuana, a
substantial illegal market for high-potency forms of the
drug, including hashish, would still exist. Since it is
likely that there would continue to be some users who
prefer high-potency foes of cannabis, this is a reason-
able concern. But there is no compelling a priori reason
to believe that a legal structure for retail marijuana
sales, which includes limits on potency, would result in
any increase in the availability and use of high-potency
products.
Home Cultivation
Cultivation of marijuana by users is another issue that
would have to be confronted in devising a regulatory
system. Growing marijuana without payment of a tax might
be treated as a revenue offense. Without criminal pen-
alties or vigorous enforcement, however, deterrent
effects would be minimal since marijuana can be grown
indoors anywhere in the United States using artificial
light--and at comparatively little expense. A recent
British study of options for marijuana control (Logan,
1979) suggests that, from a law enforcement perspective,
it is not feasible to attempt to control home cultiva-
tion. Whether users would take the trouble to grow their
own marijuana would depend in part on the legal price.
The relatively high prices that might be charged in order
to discourage use and to increase revenues would also
tend to encourage home cultivation. Whatever its disad-
vantages, however, the use of homegrown marijuana at
least would not bring users into contact with those who
illegally sell the drug. With respect to young people,
moreover, marijuana under cultivation is much harder for
children to hide from parents than is the purchased pre-
pared drug, and cultivation by juveniles could remain
illegal if age limits on use were imposed. Nonetheless,
the treatment of home cultivation represents a major
issue for the design of a regulatory system.
Public Education
Excessive use may be discouraged by policies aimed at
public education and at the use of the media, including
a ban on commercial advertising. Although information
OCR for page 27
27
on how to use drugs, on drug hazards, and on the attri-
butes of drugs is passed along most effectively through
informal channels (see, e.g., Hanneman, 1972), media and
education programs can make such information far more
readily available.
Research on the communication of messages to the pub-
lic has identified source credibility as a major factor
contributing to the persuasive power of a message
(McGuire, 1969~. It appears that the public is now ex-
tremely wary of some government information programs
that attempt to influence health behaviors. The credi-
bility of the federal government may be especially sus-
pect when it issues health warnings about an illegal
substance that it is clearly trying to prohibit.
Rosenthal (1979) asserts that distrust of the government
and the medical establishment has grown because of past
exaggerations and distortions of the effects of some
mind-altering drugs.
Informal Social Controls
In an assessment of possibilities for governmental con-
trols under a regulatory system, the operation of infor-
mal norms for controlling substance use practices must
be taken into account (Maloff et al., 1980~. National
experience with alcohol use, for example, provides evi-
dence that there are informal rituals and sanctions that
generally encourage moderation in the use of recreational
drugs. Moreover, moderation is encouraged when a drug
is introduced gradually, that is, to a growing population
of users, like marijuana in the 1960s and early 1970s.
One might expect that when a new drug is introduced into
a society, governmental control would be particularly
important since no informal controls for teaching people
appropriate rules for use would have developed. If a
potent drug is made widely available precipitously and
very cheaply to a novice population, severe societal
disruptions may occur: for example, the gin epidemics
of early eighteenth-century England (see Clark, 1976~.
Because in the past two decades informal norms for con-
trolling marijuana use have spread in the United States
under conditions of greatly increased availability of
marijuana, there is reason to believe that widespread
uncontrolled use would not occur under regulation. In-
deed, regulation might facilitate patterns of controlled
use by diminishing the "forbidden fruit" aspect of the
OCR for page 28
28
drug and perhaps increasing the likelihood that an ado-
lescent would be introduced to the drug through families
and friends who practice moderate use, rather than
through their heaviest-using, most drug-involved peers.
Relations Among States
As has historically been the case with respect to alco-
hol, state governments differ in their approaches to
marijuana. So long as present federal law continues to
prohibit cultivation and distribution of marijuana,
states cannot adopt a regulatory system, although they
are legally free to reduce or eliminate their own penal-
ties for sale and are not compelled to enforce federal
laws. If federal law were changed, however, the insti-
tution of a regulatory system in one state would have
reverberations in other states. Residents of states
that continued to prohibit marijuana could be expected
to cross state lines to purchase the drug in a state
with a regulated system, thus further compromising the
ability of states to enforce prohibition of supply among
its residents. Furthermore, states that attempted to
curtail consumption by raising prices might find their
populations turning to lower-cost marijuana from neigh-
boring states with lower prices. This is a familiar
situation. Large numbers of both cigarettes and guns
are smuggled illegally into New York from other states.
Moreover, New Yorkers may travel to New Jersey to gamble
in a casino, or Virginians to the District of Columbia
to buy cheaper liquor. It is difficult to see how state
prohibitions could remain effective if the number of
states with regulatory systems grew very large unless
the changes occurred in only one region of the country.
However, there may be advantages in permitting a state-
by-state approach. Conditions governing the costs and
benefits both of partial prohibition and of regulation
vary among the states. In this area of uncertainty, we
may learn from experiment. If one regulatory system
proved successful, other states would be more likely to
adopt similar systems; similarly, if it worked poorly in
one state, other states would be less inclined to adopt
a regulatory policy.
OCR for page 29
29
Effects on Foreign Relations
The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which now
obligates the U.S. government to prevent the importation
of marijuana and to prohibit the adoption of a licensing
system by any state, is a serious (although not an insur-
mountable) obstacle to the adoption of a federal regula-
tory policy and the development of state licensing. The
treaty allows a signatory to terminate its adherence to
the agreement at any time after two years from the date
of the convention. Of course the general impact of any
move to withdraw from the convention includes a broad
foreign policy context, which is beyond the expertise of
this Committee to judge.
CONCLUSIONS
For the last decade, concern with health hazards attrib-
utable to marijuana has been rising. The hearts, lungs,
reproductive functions, and mental abilities of children
have been reported to be threatened by marijuana, and
such threats are not to be taken lightly. Heavy use by
anyone or any use by growing children should be discour-
aged. Although conclusive evidence is lacking of major,
long-term public health problems caused by marijuana,
they are worrisome possibilities, and both the reports
and the a priori likelihood of developmental damage to
some young users makes marijuana use a cause for extreme
concern.
At the same time, the effectiveness of the present
federal policy of complete prohibition falls far short of
its goal--preventing use. An estimated 55 million Ameri-
cans have tried marijuana, federal enforcement of prohi-
bition of use is virtually nonexistent, and 11 states
have repealed criminal penalties for private possession
of small amounts and for private use. It can no longer
be argued that use would be much more widespread and the
problematic effects greater today if the policy of com-
plete prohibition did not exist: The existing evidence
on policies of partial prohibition indicates that partial
prohibition has been as effective in controlling consump-
tion as complete prohibition and has entailed consider-
ably smaller social, legal, and economic costs. On
balance, therefore, we believe that a policy of partial
prohibition is clearly preferable to a policy of complete
prohibition of supply and use.
OCR for page 30
30
We believe, further, that current policies directed at
controlling the supply of marijuana should be seriously
reconsidered. The demonstrated ineffectiveness of con-
trol of use through prohibition of supply and the high
costs of implementing such a policy make it very unlikely
that any kind of partial prohibition policy will be ef-
fective in reducing marijuana use Significantly below
present levels. Moreover, it seems likely to us that
removal of criminal sanctions will be given serious con-
sideration by the federal government and by the states
in the foreseeable future. Hence, a variety of alterna-
tive policies should be considered.
At this time, the form of specific alternatives to
current policies and their probable effect on patterns
of use cannot be determined with confidence. It is pos-
sible that, after careful study, all alternatives will
turn out to have so many disadvantages that none could
command public consensus. To maximize the likelihood of
sound policy for the long run, however, further research
should be conducted on the biological, behavioral, devel-
opmental, and social consequences of marijuana use, on
the structure and operation of drug markets, and on the
relations of various conditions of availability to pat-
terns of use.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH
Health and Behavior
The pers is tent concern about the health-related effects
of marijuana requires both an immediate and a continuing
response. First, as the report of the Institute of Medi-
cine (1982:5) recommends, there should be "a greatly
intensified and more comprehensive program of research
into the effects of marijuana on the health of the
American people." An important goal of this research
program should be the identification of subgroups at
high risk for physiological and psychological damage in
relation to patterns of use and toses of marijuana. The
report presents a detailed agenda of needed research.
Second, to the extent that potential health hazards are
identified, policy research should address possible
nafeguartn and precautions to protect the user.
If marijuana use can be scientifically shown to en-
tail grave risks--to the brain, the cardiovascular and
respiratory systems, or to reproductive functions, for
OCR for page 31
31
example--that are currently not known, it can be argued
that, as was the case with cigarette smoking, knowledge
of those effects will be more effective than criminal
enforcement as a deterrent to use.
Drug Markets
Research on the price elasticity of demand in legal and
illegal markets is a clear priority. The result of such
research will be important in determining the likelihood
of controlling heavy use through price mechanisms and in
computing the amount of money--if any--that could be
realized in taxation of marijuana.
Present knowledge of the structure and activities of
drug markets and networks is insufficient to allow pre-
diction of the effects of policy changes on them. Re-
search in this area is difficult but the questions are
important. If many dealers who sell cocaine, PCP, am-
phetamines, and barbiturates as well as marijuana would
be put out of business if marijuana were available
through legal channels, it might result in a curtailed
market for a variety of other drubs.
On the other hand,
~_
~ . ' ~ ~ t ~ . ~ . _ ~ t ~
it Is also possible that the market structure as so
loosely organized, and dealers so transiently involved,
that removing marijuana from the illegal markets would
have little effect. To be sure, much research on some
of these questions could not be conducted unless a regu-
latory system were in place in some state. Nonetheless,
some research, particularly ethnographic and economic
studies, should be undertaken now to discover the impor-
tance of marijuana profits to drug-dealing networks; the
transiency, size, and nature of such networks ; etc. It
is essential for research in this area to be supported
by appropriate government agencies.
Ef fects on Use
Although many questions remain to be answered before the
most informed choices can be made between prohibiting
and regulating supply, there are many things that cannot
be known unless some jurisdiction tries a regulatory
policy. Although adoption of a regulatory policy is
likely to result in increased use, little is known about
changes in patterns of use that are likely to result.
If federal laws prohibiting supply are changed to allow
OCR for page 32
32
states to license marijuana sales, epidemiological re-
search programs must be ready to monitor any changes in
use and their consequences. To do so, research should
be organized and operating well in advance of any such
policy changes in order to determine rates of use before
the change. Although the shift in the law from complete
to partial prohibition in 11 states has apparently had
little effect on consumption patterns there, we do not
know the degree to which legally available marijuana
would attract a larger market. The impact on use of
educational campaigns, health warnings, and informal
social controls under a regulatory system should be
investigated.
In the absence of the opportunity for states to adopt
regulatory policies, there can only be educated guesses
about which age groups are likely to increase use or
whether individuals who now use marijuana will use more
etc. Meanwhile, every bit of analysis to predict the
answers to these questions, by surveying public atti-
tudes, assessing past experiences with the spread of drug
use in society (e.g., alcohol use following the repeal of
Prohibition), and critically reviewing the experience of
other societies in which marijuana is more readily avail-
able, will be valuable.
Marijuana regulation would permit systematic provision
of comprehensive, clearly communicated health warnings
on package inserts or covers, in public health education,
by medical practitioners, and by public health interest
groups as well as by the government. The extent to which
such warnings would have more credibility for users than
current health warnings, generated in an atmosphere of
prohibition, is an important subject for research. De-
spite widespread pessimism about the failures of drug
education campaigns, there are encouraging results in
educational approaches based on the Stanford Heart Dis-
ease Prevention Program experience. With appropriate,
research-based models and techniques, public health edu-
cation may be an attractive means for limiting excessive
use (see, e.g., Maccoby, 1979~.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
partial prohibition
