Page 1 of 15

While initially the Obama administrations intolerance towards marijuana could be seen as merely incompetent policymaking, it is presently obvious that there is a clear disconnect between the American government and the American people. The government, through corrupt and backwards policymaking, is actively hampering the efforts of its citizens to promote social change, thereby stunting economic and social growth and catalyzing the development of mistrust in the federal government and the Obama administration itself. Of course, not everything can be blamed on the current presidential administration. The War on Drugs began under Reagan in the 1980s, and from the outset the entire war was made to eliminate all drugs, hard, soft, or otherwise (Reagan, weekly radio address to the nation). He created many policies that we still see today, sometimes referred to as draconian drug laws after their harsh nature of punishment for a relatively victimless crime. Most of the war on drugs as we know it is not the result of new policies being written in, but rather it is the result of more stringent enforcement of these laws which have been in the books for decades. The updated, modern enforcement of much older laws highlights a major problem in American politics; a growing disconnection between the application of laws, and enforcement of laws. While every day technology marches onward, providing more powerful and accurate techniques of law enforcement, our old laws remain unchanged to reflect our more enlightened ideas. This blind application of new technologies to old laws completely ignores the fact that the two dont mesh in a reliable manner, making an enormous difference between what the government expects will happen, and what actually happens. Essentially, the government has disconnected itself from reality by refusing to accept new information about its laws and their enforcement, while still accepting new methods of enforcement.

Page 2 of 15

This disconnection from reality is most obviously displayed in the case of medical marijuana. While legal on the state level in thirteen states, it is universally prohibited by Federal law. This odd superposition of legal, but illegal has prompted the government (especially under the Obama administration) to strike out at the medical marijuana industry. This has been called everything from dishonest, to entrapment, to simply having police officers do their job, but the effects remain; the patients that benefit from the medical marijuana industry take enormous risks to simply be healthy enough to get by. To combat this ridiculous pseudo-legality, the Obama administrations response was to pass laws limiting the number of people in the nation who are legally allowed to work with and test marijuana for medicinal properties, and to send out memos for people applying to do tests that the Administration is not looking for the medicinal effects of marijuana at the current time (Obamas War on Pot). This is exactly the opposite of what citizens and the medical community at large have been calling for. In fact, one report from the American Medical Association explicitly states: Our American Medical Association (AMA) calls for further adequate and wellcontrolled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease. Displaying that the same AMA which was cited by the government to originally support the outlawing of pot has actually reversed its decision based on the new evidence it has received over the years (as any credible scientific organization would), while the government has done nothing to review its own policies except stubbornly dig itself in its prohibitionist trench and assume infallibility while facing evidence that is contrary to it (Report 3 of the Council on

Page 3 of 15

Science and Public Health, AMA). Clearly this is not a healthy method of self-reflection, and as evidence shows, it is explicitly harmful to the thousands of Americans suffering from diseases that could be treated with medical marijuana. The disconnection between the American government and reality does not stop there, unfortunately. Much of the War on Drugs is based on outdated system of policies. For example, while our knowledge of the physiological effects of drugs has improved over the years, the rating system of the harmfulness of drugs remains constant. Marijuana, for instance, is a Schedule I drug, described as the highest level of personal harm from use and highest potential for abuse with no medicinal uses. Cocaine, as another example, is listed as a Schedule II controlled substance, which means it does have documented medicinal uses (in this case, as a topical anesthetic). (Controlled Substances Act). The reality is that marijuana has been shown to be less physically damaging than many drugs including nicotine and alcohol, and is shown to have a lower risk of physical dependence than either (Substance Abuse). Finally, while the government likes to tout that decriminalization (or legalization) will dramatically increase the rate of usage, a recent study done in Portugal tells a different story. Portugal, about 10 years ago, decriminalized all drugs and replaced mandatory jail sentences and fines with a rehabilitation program and optional counseling for drug abuse problems. The police funds that previously went into drug law enforcement now were forwarded to the new program for rehabilitation. While people were initially skeptical of the program, saying that decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to drug tourists and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem, numbers indicate this couldnt be further from the truth:

Page 4 of 15

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well. (Drugs in Portugal) The main opposition to such a policy, that decriminalization would increase drug use, has been dealt a devastating blow by this one case study alone. The article specifically mentions that the basis of such an accusation largely results from speculation and fear mongering and that there are no studies to base such an assumption on. The diversion of funds from Portugals jails and police enforcement to rehabilitation clinics emphasizes a question in American criminal policy; are jails institutions that simply isolate criminals from society, or are they to be used for the rehabilitation of criminals to allow them to reenter society when they have served their sentence? A recent poll of Americans shows that only 18% believes that the prison system does a good job in helping prisoners become lawabiding. This is reflected in the fact that 74% of Americans embrace the idea of alternative penaltiesthat is, fines, probation, or community serviceover prison sentences (Mario Canseco). This brings us to our next great disconnect: the one between the government and the people they are supposed to represent.

Page 5 of 15

This disconnection is characterized by the governments blatant disregard for the volition of the individuals that it has been elected to represent, and another instance of this arises in the field of drug rehabilitation programs. While the government is quick to tout their success, citing increased numbers over the past 10 years, they are ignoring an alarming fact: more than half of all people enrolled in such programs are only enrolled because they were sent there by the criminal justice system (Treatment Episode Data Set). Usually these bargains are set up in courts such that the alternative of going to a drug rehabilitation program is going to prison. This is, of course, no choice at all to the individual being prosecuted, and is simply a de facto sentence to a rehabilitation program. The rehabilitation program, now with an increased enrollment, can then use this data to back up claims such as Marijuana is the single most abused drug in the United States (RehabInfo). The disconnect does not stop there, however. Its effects can be emphasized by looking at the cost to the citizens of keeping drugs illegal and criminalized. First of all, there is the cost of the aforementioned mandatory rehab patients. Many of the patients sentenced to a rehabilitation program are only there to avoid going to jail; they are not using the services to actually stop their drug use, and usually they revert to their old ways as soon as they are in the clear. The true beneficiaries of drug rehabilitation programs are the people who come of their own will to change their own habits, not those told to attend a weekly meeting and take a few drug tests. Sending people to mandatory drug rehabilitation programs only seeks to waste money which could be better spent helping those in actual need of the programs. Public drug testing (e.g. for employment) is another hidden cost of criminalization to the American people. While you cannot be legally discriminated against for alcohol abuse during off-work hours, you can be discriminated against for any illegal drug used during off-work

Page 6 of 15

hours. This has set up the double standard of drug testing employees for illegal drugs, costing American companies millions in fees to testing facilities as well as leading to the termination (or simple non-hiring) of millions of otherwise perfectly capable workers. Continuing with the theme of socio-economic costs, the actual cost of sending someone to prison for a nonviolent crime is astounding. First of all, the act of surrounding a normal member of society with the atmosphere in a prison can have devastating psychological effects on the individuals sentenced. Jokes about dropping the soap aside, make no mistake that prison is a dangerous place. Delusions, dissatisfaction with life, claustrophobia, depression, feelings of panic, and even madness have resulted simply from imprisonment (The Psychological Effects of Imprisonment). Not to mention the fact that the entire climate of a prison is meant to induce a tone of monotony that induces passive behavior; the identical jumpsuits, the time schedules, and the complete standardization is meant to induce a lack of individuality to try to psychologically prime their brain into realizing they are a smaller part of a larger group (i.e. to convince them they are a part of society, not against it). The effects of other inmates and prison life on the individual can often be brutal, violent, and stress-inducing. Fear is simply a part of everyday life in prisons, as explained by long-term inmate Jack Abbot in The Pains of Imprisonment: Everyone is afraid. It is not an emotional or psychological fear. It is a practical matter. If you dont threaten someone at the very least, someone will threaten you...Many times you have to "prey" on someone, or you will be "preyed" on yourself (Tosh, 1982). And this does not yet address the actual monetary cost of confining a person in a building for a good portion of their lives. Food, shelter, beddings, and all manner of goods for the prisoners to consume must be physically brought to the prison by an external means. Not to mention the

Page 7 of 15

running costs of such a facility and the earnings paid to the guards for putting themselves in such a high-risk environment. In California, it cost an average of $47,102 per year (in 2009) to house an inmate in a state prison (Legislative Analysts Office, California), and for the year 2007, the total amount spent by the United States government on corrections facilities was over $74 billion dollars (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Furthermore, the social costs are not distributed evenly throughout the population. There is a strong trend correlating tough drug laws with a permanent social prison class consisting of the poor, the underprivileged, and (statistically speaking) the racial minorities. Jamie Fellner found that While blacks and whites engage in drug offenses in roughly similar rates, arrest rates for black Americans have been from 2.8 to 5.5 times as high as those of whites. Black men enter state prisons on drug charges at more than ten times the rate of white men. Much of this has to do with the racial profiling techniques of the law enforcement officers used to select cars for traffic stops and checkpoints. While such policies are supposedly in place to protect such communities from having a high concentration of drug dealers in their neighborhood, it nevertheless provides a clear racial bias on drug arrest rates. Prisoners who do manage to pay their time to society are often left jobless, their significant other typically leaves them during their sentence, and they are left scraping by, performing unskilled labor for minimum wage. This, ironically, often leads them to steal in order to make more money, which can land them right back in prison, resulting in a criminal or prison class that perpetually has a difficult time taking and keeping a job (Fellner). While the costs of criminalization remain at a staggering level, the benefits of legalization are on the opposite end of the spectrum. A report done by Jeffrey Miron entitled The Budgetary Complications of Marijuana Prohibition analyzes the benefits of the taxation of marijuana in a

Page 8 of 15

manner similar to alcohol and tobacco. Such an act would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement. Furthermore, if it is taxed like alcohol and tobacco, the expected revenue of such a tax is in the neighborhood of $6.2 billion per year (Miron). In a time when the people of America are pushing for less prison sentences and more rehabilitation services or alternative punitive measures, why are we still sending so many people to jail for petty nonviolent offenses? To answer this, we must understand the regulatory interests behind keeping marijuana illegal. First of all, there is the problem of the federal government not wanting to contradict itself. Completely ending the War on Drugs is essentially telling everyone who was arrested in the past years that they were arrested for getting caught at the wrong time, leading to a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the government based on the irresponsible arrests made in the past. So, to avoid this backlash of public opinion, the government keeps the status quo, claiming marijuana is harmful and keeping it illegal so they do not have to pardon thousands of American citizens. As a result, they continue arresting thousands more every year for a nonviolent criminal offense. Sadly, the main regulatory interest is not coming from the federal government itself. Instead, much of the lobbying is coming from individuals who are profiteering from the War on Drugs, in what can be described in some cases as a simple monopoly and in others as utterly heinous. This gives rise to another great disconnect between the governments interests and societys interests as a whole. The top five special interest groups lobbying to keep marijuana illegal are not that surprising: alcohol and tobacco companies, pharmaceutical corporations, police unions, prison guard unions, and private prison corporations (Fang). Proposition 19, the California bill which pushed for the legalization and taxation of marijuana, was rallied against by the California Beer & Beverage Distributors. They gave $10,000 to the campaign against the bill, and their reasoning

Page 9 of 15

was simple; alcohol is a direct competitor to marijuana. By allowing the bill to pass, they deduced that they will have to share the market with a new drug (which could potentially take the market by storm), leaving fewer profits for their own business. Pharmaceutical companies are in a similar position; marijuana used medicinally is able to replace everything from Advil to Vicodin and other expensive pills (Fang). So it does make sense for the pharmaceutical companies and the alcohol businesses to invest in a campaign which will net them more business, but when you consider the fact that they are simply using unjust laws enforced by a delusional government to enforce an effective economic monopoly (which negatively affects the citizens by keeping prices in those sectors artificially high), it makes the business practice seem much more sinister. And yet the attitudes of the next industries make the attitudes of the previous two seem benign by comparison. Police unions love making drug arrests; it is one of their most profitable ventures. Since most of the drug arrests made are for possession and not distribution, very few people are willing (or able) to hire lawyers to help them fight an almost certainly lost case. As a result, large amounts of drugs are confiscated every year, people are put in jails for simple possession charges (as opposed to having police take out the distributors of illegal drugs), and the proceeds from such arrests goes right back into the police union. Simple corruption is the name of the game here, and as long as there is money in politics we will never be rid of the issue. Individuals such as John Lovell use their positions of power to exert their influence and spread their campaigning funds to the anti-legalization movement. For example, Lovell represented the police union in an attempt to steer $2.2 million into a Marijuana Suppression Program, much of which went into overtime pay for police officers and for the hiring of new officers (Fang). For Lovell, legalization would have meant an entire sector of police work being made redundant, and

Page 10 of 15

when the need for the work disappears, so does the money. This would have directly lowered the amount of funds available for the police to utilize. Prison guard unions such as the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) and private prison corporations, however, take the game of legalization to an entire new plane, because for them, it really is a game. The game they play is the same game of any business; making a profit for their shareholders. So, when the product you sell is prisoner containment, how can you best market your product to the people? The answer is remarkably simple; keep as many people in prison as you can, for as long as you can. These companies actively capitalize on the confinement of individuals, and they have a monetary incentive to keep as many people separated from society for as long as possible. Mike Jimenez, president of the CCPOA that took power in 2007, had stated that I have a dream that the bricks and mortar that were planned to build new prisons will instead be used to build new schoolsthat an ounce of prevention will be embraced instead of a pound of cure. Since he has taken charge of the association, however, few of these changes are actually implemented in policy (Cavanaugh, 2011). Their direct interest is to push for the maintaining of sentencing laws and for the support of the stringent three strikes laws, which require a minimum sentence of 25-years-to-life for the third convicted felony committed by an individual. In fact, the situation is so cynical that Cavanaugh goes on to say If it involves imprisoning fewer Californians, youll find the prison guards union on the other side. But if the CCPOA is simply the humble bricklayer in this perverse scheme, then the private prison corporations are its grand architects. For those that may not have realized that you can legally profit off of imprisonment, the gist of it is that the government allots a prison corporation a certain amount of money to keep the facility running, and then pays an additional

Page 11 of 15

amount based on the number of inmates at the current time. Profits are the difference between the amount the government allots you, and the combined cost of holding the prisoners and running the prison. This places a direct monetary incentive for the prison to minimize cost of care to their inmates while maximizing their capacityin other words, give the inmates the minimum legal amount of care, while maximizing the number of inmates in the facility and minimizing the amount of guards used to control them. And like any business, their primary responsibility is to their shareholders. Therefore, any change in the legal system that would give them less prisoners, is a policy they do not want passed. They explicitly state in their business report of 2010: The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them [emphasis added]. So essentially, because decriminalization or legalization of marijuana would affect their profit margin, they vehemently oppose any legislation to reduce prison sentences for individuals convicted of such crimes. The report goes on to talk about some other potential business risks: Legislation has been proposed that could lower minimum sentences for some nonviolent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release based on good behavior. Also, sentencing alternatives under consideration could put some offenders

Page 12 of 15

on probationwho would otherwise be incarcerated. Similarly, reductions in crime rates or resources dedicated to prevent and enforce crime could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities. They do not, at any point in the report, seem to be aware that they are talking about anything that is sentient. When a business model exists that prides itself on such a viewpoint, one should ask questions such as On what grounds was this sector which provides a good for society privatized? and Is it morally objectionable to put people in charge of prisoners, who only care about profits? At the end of the day though, the fact remains that privatized prisons have every incentive in the world to fight the decriminalization and legalization of illegal drugs, putting them (at least for cannabis) on the opposite end of the social reform spectrum as more than half of Americans (Gallup poll). So while the government has been sitting stagnant atop its antidrug throne, the people of America have progressed and are now starting to embrace the legalization movement. While at first the Obama administration may have been aligned with the majority on this issue, this is obviously no longer the case. Whether the administration will adjust its viewpoint in the future to secure the upcoming election is questionable; at the recent Summit of the Americas, most Latin American countries have decided that the drug problem in their countries has gotten completely out of hand. Largely from the prohibition of drugs in the United States combined with a high concentration of wealth, the high profit margins of transporting and selling drugs up through the Americas has allowed for drug cartels to exert large amounts of control over these illicit substances. By legalizing these drugs, the leaders of the Latin American countries hope to curb these drug cartels by eliminating the monopoly the drug cartels have over the illegal market, and

Page 13 of 15

allowing free market economics to balance their economical and political power out. At the Summit, only two leaders were opposed to legalization; Obama was among them (Parsons). Whether he chooses to change his position in the matter or not, it is safe to say that in the next few years the question of complete legalization will become an important question in American politics, as the war on drugs has already been deemed a complete failure which has had devastating effects that have spread throughout society.

Bibliography American Medical Association. Report 3 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes. 2009. http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/csaphreport3-i09.pdf

Page 14 of 15

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Direct expenditures by justice function, 1982-2007 (billions of dollars). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/exptyptab.cfm Cancesco, Mario. Americans, Britons, and Canadians Endorse Alternative Penalties. Apr. 26, 2012 http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/2012.04.26_Justice.pdf Cavanaugh, Tim. The Golden States Iron Bars. July 2011. http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/23/the-golden-states-iron-bars Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Interest Groups and Criminal Justice Policy. http://www.cjcj.org/drug/policy/interest/groups/and/criminal/justice/policy Coolican, J. Patrick. Beer Lobby Gives $10,000 To 'No' On Proposition 19 Pot Legalization. Sept. 2010 http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/09/beer_lobby_gives_10000_to_no_o.php Department of Health and Human Services. National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services. http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/teds08/teds2k8natweb.pdf Fang, Lee. At Conservative Conference, Retired Police Officer Explains How Lobbyists Profit From Marijuana Prohibition. Feb 13 2012. http://www.republicreport.org/2012/policemarijuana-cpac/ Fang, Lee. Exclusive: Why Cant You Smoke Pot? Because Lobbyists Are Getting Rich Off of the War on Drugs. Mar. 12, 2012 http://www.republicreport.org/2012/exclusive-why-cant-yousmoke-pot-because-lobbyists-are-getting-rich-off-of-the-war-on-drugs/ Fellner, Jamie. A Drug Abuse Policy That Fails Everyone. Aug. 2010 http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/08/11/drug-abuse-policy-fails-everyone Haney, Craig. The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Post-Prison Adjustment. December 2001. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/Haney.htm Herald Tribune. Latin America on Its Way to Legalizing Drugs, Experts Say. http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=341018&CategoryId=12394 Krestev, Jenny. The Psychological Effects of Imprisonment. http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc82.html Mauer, Mark. The Changing Racial Dynamics of the War on Drugs. Apr. 2009 http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/dp_raceanddrugs.pdf Miron, Jeffrey. The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition. June 2005. http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport/ Newport, Frank. Record-High 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana Use. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx

Page 15 of 15

Norml. Marijuana Decriminalization & Its Impact on Use. http://norml.org/marijuana/personal/item/marijuana-decriminalization-its-impact-on-use-2 Norml. Californias Largest Physician Group Calls for Full Legalization. Oct. 2011 http://blog.norml.org/2011/10/17/californias-largest-physicans-group-calls-for-full-legalization/ Norml. Politico Reports On Obamas Medical Cannabis Conundrum. http://blog.norml.org/2012/04/23/politico-reports-on-obamas-medical-cannabis-conundrum/ Norml. Real World Ramifications of Cannabis Legalization and Decriminalization. http://norml.org/library/decriminalization/item/real-world-ramifications-of-cannabislegalization-and-decriminalization-2 Parsons, Christi. At Latin America summit, Obama to face push for drug legalization. Apr. 13, 2012 http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/13/world/la-fg-latin-america-summit-20120414 Rehabinfo. Drug Rehab Statistics. http://www.rehabinfo.net/drug-rehab/statistics/ Rolling Stone. Obama Explains Increasing Medical Marijuana Crackdowns, Raids In 'Rolling Stone' Interview. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/obama-marijuana-raids-rollingstone_n_1451744.html Rolling Stone. Ready for the Fight: Rolling Stone Interview with Barack Obama http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ready-for-the-fight-rolling-stone-interview-withbarack-obama-20120425 Stoller, Matt. Who Wants Keep the War on Drugs Going AND Put You in Debtors Prison? June 2011. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/matt-stoller-who-wants-keep-the-war-ondrugs-going-and-put-you-in-debtors-prison.html Szalavitz, Maia. Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html Wikipedia. Controlled Substances Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act Wikipedia. Substance Abuse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse