Nick Zappulla

English 15

Definition Paper

In today’s world, the use of illegal drugs is becoming more acceptable by American society, which raises the question “what really defines an illegal drug?” Why are tobacco and alcohol able to be mass produced, marketed, and distributed across the country while at the same time a drug such as cocaine is illegal? This statement alone shows the ambiguity of today’s laws. Many people use as their argument that these illegal drugs are harmful or habit forming, but to the knowledge of many people, so are cigarettes and alcohol. Today the substance most people show can be successfully decriminalized or legalized is marijuana.

A drug in this context can be defined as a chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction (Webster’s). This substance is at the top of the debate because it is known to be the most used illegal drug in America. Seventy million Americans admit to trying or regularly using marijuana at least once in their lives. It is also the most popular among teenagers and young adults. To use marijuana brings the “war against drugs” as it is called by the government right into the majority, right into the home. The Partnership for a Drug Free America is quick to brag about its “Here’s your brain, here’s your brain on drugs” campaign, but some research shows this might not be the truth at all. Although weed can be harmful to your health, at the same time it has also been shown to have positive medical effects. Until 1941, cannabis was regularly prescribed to patients by doctors and backed by the American Medical Association as a useful tool for treatment of patients. Some disorders that it can help include pain relief (especially from nerve damage), nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, and movement disorders. It can also help an AIDS patient from wasting away by stimulating their appetite. Some research even argues that marijuana can be used to protect the body against certain tumors. To legalize these drugs would enable the governments to regulate, tax, and properly inform people about these substances, just like prescription drugs. And as I have found out from personal experience, it is much harder to get a prescription drug than it is to walk down the street and pick up a bag of marijuana.

To continue this kind of propaganda scheme, keeping the public in the dark about illegal drugs is just as bad as not saying anything at all about them. Of course this paper would not be at all true if it was not acknowledged that marijuana is indeed a negative substance. Used heavily, it does bring some of the same risks as cigarettes, and can lead to mishaps in the workplace or on the road. However since the 1970’s 1970s, panels here and abroad have concluded that marijuana poses less of a threat to an individual’s social and physical health than thought and should be decriminalized(Nadelmann). Of course a student who smokes regularly before school is going to perform less than a normal student, but the same would go if a student came into school drunk everyday.

The only way the government took action with marijuana in 1941 was by using racism and scare tactics as its propaganda. They implanted into peoples head that “blacks and crazed Mexicans”, two races looked down upon in those days, were pushing this drug on school children and honest people, turning them into murders and beasts of society (The First Pot POW). As many people can still agree with this statement, it could not be any further from the truth. Just as people have done for decades, simply because the government says it’s illegal, they turn a blind eye to the facts.

Most people against illegal drugs see an advocate to the cause as just another user trying to justify their illegal and disgusting habit, but on the contrary, most advocates in politics and journalism are not regular users or have never used it at all. As Gary E. Johnson, a New Mexico politician and advocate of legalization, bluntly put it “Politically, this is a zero. This is absolutely a zero. Politically, for anybody holding office, for anybody that aspires to hold office, for anybody who's held office, or for anybody who has a job associated with politics, this is verboten. I am in the ground, and the dirt is being thrown on top of my coffin.” This statement alone shows that even if a respectable or influential person, including scientists and politicians alike, would say something contradicting the law, it would be so at their own risk. The reason it affect the research so much is that many of these labs run mainly on government grants, so those men would not only throw their careers away, but jeopardize their livelihoods as well. Crazily enough most of these claims fall on deaf ears, even by the governments that have commissioned them. However as a whole, they prove that a consensus exists, and that only rhetoric and emotion keep these drugs illegal, rather than the true science of them.

About 80 years ago, it was cigarettes that were being scrutinized similarly to how marijuana is today. Surprisingly enough, similar tactics were used back then as are today. Powerful figures at the time such as Henry Ford and Thomas Edison said that cigarette smoking led to lower productivity, crime, and narcotic addiction. Again cigarette propaganda was targeted to get into the majority. Most men smoked pipes, so they stated that cigarettes were targeting young boys and women. Now of course cigarettes are advocated against strongly today, but for actual scientifically found reasons such as they can cause heart disease or lung cancer. To say the affects mainly stunt a person’s mental vigor and personality are untrue. So if cigarettes are legal today, it makes the definition of an illegal drug even more ambiguous. For prohibition to have lasted less than a decade, it must show that though these drugs are illegal, they still play a major role in our society. If you told some people what was said about cigarette smokers in these ads 80 years ago, they would laugh in your face. Could it possibly be true that the propaganda today about marijuana is following the same, untruthful path?

Dan Baum. Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure. Boston: Little, Brown, 1996.

Eva Betram, ed. Drug War Politics: The Price of Denial. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.

Page, Clarence. "The Harmful Effects of Marijuana Use Are Exaggerated." Chicago Tribune 22 May 2002: p25.

Nadelmann, Ethan. "The Dangers of Marijuana Use Are Exaggerated." 20 1997. 13 Feb 2006 <http://galenet.galegroup.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/servlet/OVRC?vrsn=229&slb=SU&locID=psucic&srchtp=basic&c=2&ste=17&tbst=ts_basic&tab=1&txb=%2522Marijuana%2522&docNum=X3010018211&fail=8192&bConts=8287>.

Johnson, Gary. After Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2000

James A. Inciardi, ed. The Drug Legalization Debate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999.

Johnson, Gary. "Illicit Drugs Should be Legalized." Opposing Viewpoints Series. Ed. Tamara Roleff. Washington: Greenhaven Press, 2005.

T. Mikuriya. (Ed.) 1973. Marijuana: Medical Papers 1839-1972. Oakland: Medi- Comp Press.

"The First Pot POW." The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 13 Feb. 2006 <http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6684>.