A trailer of the 1936 movie Reefer Madness
First of all, I had no idea why marijuana was illegal, so I had to do some research. Apparently, before the 20th century, marijuana was unregulated in the U.S. and it was a common ingredient in medicines. In the 1930s, it was introduced to America by Mexican immigrants for recreational uses. Marijuana is a drug that was deeply rooted in racism. Ethnic groups such as the Mexican immigrants that smoked marijuana scared early 20th century america in to outlawing marijuana. It was supposedly linked to unsavory lifestyles and could even cause violent behavior. It was at this time that a propaganda movie called "Reefer Madness" was released causing hysteria. It was at this point that it became outlawed, following slur campaigns from people such as Harry Anslinger and William Randolph Hurst who claimed that marijuana was a gateway drug and it led to unproductive and criminal lifestyles. Until now it has been illegal for recreational uses. It is still very controversial whether marijuana is worse than alcohol and is a dangerous narcotic. Aside from the side effects of this drug, do we need it legal because it is an experiment of living?
On one hand of the argument, the outlawing of marijuana may seem like the tyranny of the majority. Because it is labeled as a narcotic and is in the same class as the likes of heroin and cocaine, we are given the idea that marijuana is extremely harmful. Mill argues that we need to be able to express multiple ideas in order to discover the truth. Because we are not entirely sure what the side effects of weed are, we need to allow the other side of the argument to be heard. Marijuana has faced a lot of opposition because the pro-marijuana supporters have normally been a not well informed side with very little valid points up until recently. Without political oppression, the people can decide if this substance is harmful.
Mill would say that we are the best judges of our own good and that such an activity as smoking weed could be a learning experience. However, the harm that the side effects could cause for others are what make this debate worth having. If Mill believed that weed was a gateway drug and addictive, he might tell you to think twice before voting for legalization. However, I tend to believe that John Mill would be all for the legalization of marijuana. Because the smoking of pot is an activity that one person engages in despite the personal health risks, I believe that he would see it as a learning tool. Who knew that political theorists in the 1800s might be potheads in the 21st century?
This is a very interesting post that touches upon a major issue of today. I enjoyed reading this and like how you touch upon both the pros and cons of the argument. It was also intriguing how you managed to link this contemporary issue to John Stuart Mill, who was alive in the 1800s. This topic has many layers and there is no "right" answer to it, but I would like to add a few things. First off, I think it'd be interesting if you related marijuana to tobacco products, especially cigarettes. My understanding is that marijuana is not nearly as detrimental to one's health as cigarettes are. I believe that the long term side effects of marijuana do not come even close to that of cigarettes. Additionally, cigarettes contain nicotine which is a highly addictive substance, while marijuana has not been proven to be addictive. Furthermore, cigarettes also contain numerous chemicals and poisons (such as cyanide, acetone, and arsenic, which is found in rat poison). So if cigarettes are legalized despite containing all of these harmful ingredients, why shouldn't marijuana, which is natural and grown from the ground, be? Another thing to think about is that a lot of the danger that comes with weed is that the purchaser of it often times does not know what else has been added to the marijuana. Dealers often time lace the product or mix it with other ingredients to save them money. If marijuana were to be legalized, people could buy them from dispensaries, knowing that they are buying a clean and pure product, which is much less harmful to the health. On a separate note, the whole idea of peer pressure not only applies to countless legal and illegal substances but also will apply to weed whether it is legalized or not. I personally believe that it should be (and will soon be) legalized and agree that it can be seen as an experiment to living. I also think that Mill would support the legalization of marijuana and see it as a learning tool.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem is very Marxist also. While marijuana is classified as a gateway drug, how is it any different than cigarettes? (Like Ryan states above) Cigarettes are proven to be more deadly and toxic for the body than marijuana. So how come cigarettes are legal and marijuana isn't? The answer is money. Over 40 million people smoke cigarettes. This, along with the taxes on cigarette, cause there to be massive flow of income. An income the US government and Tobacco companies are not ready to give up. Marijuana, on the other hand, doesn't have money backing it. Marijuana is much more difficult plant to regulate and commercialize because it can be grown anywhere (unlike tobacco). For these reasons, I believe marijuana is having a hard time becoming legal. In Marx's eye, he would see that the "dominate" cigarette and its income is the reason for the oppression of marijuana.
ReplyDelete