ENG 101—Farrell
November 6, 2011
A Rise in Serial Murder
Throughout the 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s, serial killers became a huge phenomenon in
American culture. A serial killer is defined as an individual who commits three or more murders
over an extended period of time with a “cooling off period” between each slaying. It was an
interesting topic that the media brought attention to, and what film makers took advantage of to
produce chilling horror films. The engrossment of serial murder by society was a result of the
rise of serial killings during this time span. According to James Alan Fox, a criminology
professor at Northeastern University, serial murder peaked in the 1980’s. He has kept a database
of confirmed cases of serial murder beginning in the 1900’s. Reports of his findings show that
before the 1960’s only a dozen or so serial killers were reported in America. During the 60’s the
numbers rose to 19 reported killings and the numbers took a turn for the worse reaching a
whopping 119 in the 70’s. This progressed to more horrifying circumstances when in the 80’s
the killings reached an alarming 200. The good news is rates began to decline during the 90’s
and are continuing to dwindle today with only 61 documented serial murders. The question is
what factors played a role in the increased number of murders during this time span? Some
potential causes that have been considered are the rise and distribution of hallucinogenic drugs, a
movement away from helping the mentally ill by waning use of institutions, sexual gratification
is encouraged rather than repressed, and women becoming an easier target for men. Some may
argue that there are other explanations for the perceived rise of slayings during this time or that
1
there was no increase at all. For example, the number of serial killers didn’t increase, but crime
in general increased due to the rise in population.
An important factor that contributes to the rise in serial murder is the increased use and
distribution of hallucinogenic drugs. Drug abuse played a major role in American culture and
became an austere concern in the 1980’s. This issue arose in the ‘60’s when uninhibited
indulgence of sex and drugs became a symbol of freedom. Over the next decade, illicit drugs
would become a recreational activity performed by the youth culture in all social classes. The
prevalence of illegal drug use became such a major concern that President Reagan launched the
“War on Drugs” campaign in 1982. This campaign was the federal government’s attempt to
reduce the manufacture, sale, distribution, and consumption of illegal drugs. The effect drugs
have on the brain can inhibit a person’s self-control and ability to make sound decisions. An
example of drugs influencing a group of people to commit murderous crimes is during the late
1960’s when Charles Manson founded a hippie cult group. Manson manipulated a group of
people into brutally murdering others on his behalf by giving them hallucinogenic drugs. Most
members of the cult were described to have been normal people that fell under the influence of
drugs and committed gruesome acts that originally would have been out of character for them.
As for others, it just stimulated their existing mental illness. Drugs play an important role in the
crime rates of America.
Another factor that played a significant role in the increase of serial homicide is changes
in the mental health system. The 1960’s was a time noted by its lack of institutional reform. It
was difficult to commit a person based on how insane they may or may not have been. “The
average number of individuals incarcerated in state mental hospitals on any given day fell from
550,000 in 1955 to 200,000 in 1974, a decline of 65 percent.” (Jenkins, p.15) The effects of
2
deinstitutionalization was releasing seriously disturbed deviants onto the streets who before were
restricted to treatment facilities. It also kept people from getting the help they needed because
“most states rely on the McNaughton rule, which says, in essence, that the criterion for sanity is
the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Since most serial killers go to great pains to cover up
their crimes, it’s hard to prove that they don’t know they’re engaged in wrongdoing.” (Schechter,
p.127) Many serial killers were diagnosed with a particular mental illness at an early stage that
may lead them to become violent, but were still released from institutions or dismissed as nonthreatening. For example, John Wayne Gacy, a rampant killer of the 1970’s, was to undergo
psychiatric evaluation for reported sexual assault in 1968. For 17 days, two doctors examined
Gacy and diagnosed him with anti-social personality disorder and whose behavior pattern would
conflict with society norms. However, Gacy was later released and eventually continued his
hunt for young boys until his capture in 1978. “Attempts at predicting violent behavior have a
long and controversial history, but it appears that in the 1960’s even the most extreme warning
signs failed to cause official intervention.” (Jenkins, p.16)
Another significant cause to consider in the rise of serial murder is sexual gratification
was encouraged rather than repressed. The 1960’s was defined as the period of a ‘sexual
revolution.’ It was a time where youth challenged social norms, and Americans took a dramatic
shift away from traditional attitudes towards sexuality. Women’s apparel was becoming less
conservative which caught the male gender’s attention and often ignited unwarranted fantasies.
When the media discovered that sex sells it was used to create sexually suggestive
advertisements, and led to the increase of adult movie productions. During the 1970’s, the
launch of the “Free Love” movement embraced the beauty of sex, and encouraged a sexually
active lifestyle. The promotion of sex in society laid the foundation for lust killers. One of the
3
most notorious serial killers motivated by sex was Ted Bundy, who raped and killed as many as
50 women from surrounding Western states. Before his execution, Bundy had been asked to do
an interview with James Dobson, a Christian psychologist. During this interview, Bundy
explained the effects pornography had on his behavior. “My experience with pornography … is
once you become addicted to it, (and I look at this as a kind of addiction like other kinds of
addiction), I would keep looking for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material.
Like an addiction, you keep craving something that is harder, something which gives you a
greater sense of excitement. Until you reach a point where the pornography only goes so far, you
reach that jumping off point where you begin to wonder if maybe actually doing it would give
you that which is beyond just reading or looking at it.” However, Bundy also had this to say,
“But basically I was a normal person. I wasn’t some guy hanging out at bars or a bum. I wasn’t a
pervert in the sense that people look at somebody and say, ‘I know there is something wrong
with him, you can just tell.’ I was essentially a normal person. The basic humanity and the basic
spirit that God gave me was intact, but unfortunately became overwhelmed at times.” The effect
of encouraged sexual behavior was detrimental to a society scattered with dormant killers.
One of the less important causes of serial murder is the availability of women. This is a
potential cause, but not a determined one. Over 90 percent of serial killers are male, and
approximately 60 percent of their victims are women. During this time period, women were
becoming a part of the work force and staying home less. “Where women have always been
victimized by men, the nature of that victimization – its characteristic forms and dynamics – has
changed.” (Haggerty, p. 181) Some of the jobs that have made women the most common victim
for serial killers are street prostitute. 78 percent of women victimized by serial killers are
4
prostitutes. These women walk the streets by themselves, solicit sex, and get into vehicles of
unknown men make them relatively easy targets.
One main objection to this phenomenon is that there wasn’t really a rise in serial killing
during this time, but a rise in crime in general. According to a study done by Robert Stote, and
Lionel Standing, “it appears that serial and multiple murders today represent not an abrupt
‘epidemic’, but rather a proportionate reflection of an increase in violent crime and homicide in
general.” (p.316) The authors based their conclusion on an analysis of data pulled from
newspaper articles published between 1951-1960 and 1981-1990. Overall, the study seemed
flawed because they did not consider all of the information available to them at the time. Also,
there is the potential for serial killers active at the time, but who were not caught until after the
study was complete. For example, the BTK killer started his rampage in the 80’s, but he was not
arrested until 2005; the “happy face” killer began killing his victims in 1990 and was arrested in
2009. Based on other data that has been heavily researched about the serial killer epidemic, their
study does not seem to have enough sufficient information to support their assertion.
In conclusion, the main factors that played a role in the rise of serial murder are the
increase use of drugs, less institution involvement, and encouraged sexual behavior. As
discussed earlier, one of the less significant factors is the availability of women. Regardless of
the factors, there was a growth in the number of serial murders between the periods of 1960 and
late 1980’s. According to Whittington-Egan, “the comparatively recent recognition of the serial
killer notwithstanding, he is by no means a new, essentially ‘modern’, species of homicide
monster. It is just that, like the dinosaur in Jurassic times, he has increased and multiplied to
crescendo proportions since the 1980’s. Serial murder is a growth industry.” (p.325)
5
Works Cited
Beam, Christopher. "The Decline of the Serial Killer." Criminology Careers. Web. 04 Nov.
2011. <http://criminologycareers.net/the-decline-of-the-serial-killer/>.
Corpus, Leilani. "What We Learned from Ted Bundy — The Forerunner." The Forerunner
— Home. Web. 04 Nov. 2011.
<http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0332_Ted_Bundy.html>.
Haggerty, Kevin D. "Modern Serial Killers." Crime Media Culture 5.2 (2009): 168-87. Print.
Innes, Brian. “Serial Killers.” London: Quercus, 2006. Print.
Jenkins, Philip. "’A Murder Wave’? Trends in American Serial Homicide 1940-1990."
Criminal Justice Review 17.1 (1992): 1-19. Print.
Schechter, Harold, and David Everitt. “The A-Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers.” New York:
Pocket, 2006. Print.
Stote, Robert, and Lionel Standing. "Serial and Multiple Homicide: Is There an Epidemic?"
Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal 23.4 (1995): 313-17. Print.
Whittington-Egan, Richard. "The Serial Killer Phenomenon." Contemporary Review
290.1690 (2008): 323-30. Print.
6
Casual Paper
Farrell
10/25/11
Steroid Era in Baseball
1998-Present
“Steroid
Era”
in
day:
this
baseball.
is
Many
what
many
players
people
have
call
either
the
tested
positive on a steroid test or have just simply admitted to it.
Steroids, if abused, can plain and simply kill an athlete. If
they are taken correctly they are not bad for an athlete or just
a regular person. People believe Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and
Roger Clemens should not be let in the Hall Of Fame, or be given
any records they had broken because they feel they have cheated.
These three men, before steroids were all Hall of Fame worthy
and
they
continued
their
greatness
while
supposedly
on
performance enhancing drugs.
On November 10th 2007, Barry Bonds hit his 756th career home
run making him the home run record holder passing Hank Aaron,
755. That record number, 756, never goes without the asterix,
“756*” in Cooperstown, where the MLB Hall of Fame is located.
The ball is in a case with the number “756*” above it. The
number has that symbol next to it because in 2003, Bonds was
7
charged with ten counts of false declarations and one count of
obstructing justice from his 2003 testimony to a grand jury on
the subject of performance enhancing drugs in sports. Entering
his rookie season in the MLB with the Pittsburg Pirates Bonds
was 6’2 188 pounds. He was known for his slap-hitting and base
stealing game. After the 2001 off season he mysteriously gained
muscle,
most
people
would
say
too
much
muscle
for
the
time
allotted. He came to spring training in 2002 at 6’2 and roughly
230 pounds. That is when the steroid rumors began to surround
Bonds and his game.
In 2003 Bonds hit 73 home runs in a single season, which is
insane even for someone who is known for their power. However,
this was Bonds first year being known for his new-found power
and had too many questions that came with it. It was overwhelming to the game and the Bonds’ family. Many people from
that year on thought Bonds should have been banned from the
game, saying he is a cheater and only God knows what else. They
also believe he should not have been awarded the home runs he
hit from 2002-2007 in turn would strip him of the all-time home
run record.
What
steroids,
people
Bonds
do
still
not
understand
would
have
is,
been
one
even
of
without
the
the
greatest
hitters in history. He more than likely would have had 3,000
8
hits and who knows how many stolen bases. Without the steroids,
Barry Bonds would have more than likely been remembered as one
of the over-all best baseball players of all-time. The steroids
didn’t make him hit the ball; it didn’t give him the hand-eye
coordination which is very necessary to hit a 95+ mph fastball
and devastating sliders.
Another thing is, Bonds was hardly
ever hurt in his 10+ year career, this is because if taken
correctly
and
not
abused,
steroids
help
recover
faster
and
prevents injury. Many people did not know that and did not care
to think about that in that time of his career.
Without steroids Barry Bonds probably would have been hurt
more often because he played so hard, however, when he would
have been healthy, he would have been a triple threat, hitting,
stolen bases, and defense. Barry, out of college, was a 5-tool
player.
Those
5
tools
are:
Hit
for
average,
hit
for
power,
speed, arm strength, and defense. Bonds had every single one of
those
tools
making
him
a
very
scary
and
very
rare
baseball
player. Another very rare baseball player in a similar situation
was Sammy Sosa.
Sammy Sosa, who played with the White Sox in the beginning
of his career, like Bonds was a 5-tool athlete that a lot of
teams in the MLB were afraid to pitch to and play against. He
stole bases and threw people out from the outfield, hit singles,
9
doubles, triples, but what he is most remembered for is the Home
Runs.
According
to
www.espn.com,they
say
Sammy
Sosa
was
the
second best home run hitter in the steroid era, behind Bonds.
Sosa ended his career with the Rangers where he hit his 609th
home run, which is 6th all-time, however; he hit most of his
homeruns with the Orioles and the Cubs.
With
the
whole
steroid
issue
also
came
the
mysterious
“corked bat.” One game as a Cub, Sosa hit a ball and the bat
broke, the umpire picked it up and noticed that the bat was
corked. There was a huge ordeal on the whole cheating issue, and
Sosa ended up being suspended for a couple games. Before all of
the issues with steroids, and corked bats came out, Sosa hit and
hit and hit, every game he was 2-3 or 2-4, just putting up
numbers game after game season after season. Nevertheless, just
like Bonds he gained an enormous amount of weight in pretty much
5
months,
which
just
like
Bonds,
brought
up
questions
that
overwhelmed Sosa.
In 1998 Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire had the epic “Home Run
Battle”. The season went back and forth on who was going to have
the most home runs. In the end of the “battle” they both had 50+
home runs, which was unheard of at that time. In concession,
would Sosa have averaged 60 home runs and 148 RBI’s (runs batted
in) a season for the 7 seasons he did, without steroids? No, but
10
he
more
than
likely
would
have
averaged
30+
stolen
bases
a
season and probably would have had the most outfield assists in
his career. For whatever reason, the critics do not like talking
about that. The critics believe he is a cheater and does not
deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. No one will really know if
Sosa will be inducted into the HOF until 2013 where he is on the
ballot for it. If it were up to me, Sammy has gone down in
history as one of the best hitting outfielders in history. On
the other side of the ball, Roger Clemens faced these problems
as a dominating pitcher.
Roger “Rocket” Clemens had won World Series’ with multiple
teams
and
is
what
most
people
would
call
one
of
the
most
dominating pitchers to ever play the game. That was until a few
years ago when Clemens was indicted on lying to a grand jury on
steroid use. (Thompson p54) Clemens, known as one of the best
power pitchers in history, was a stud from his rookie year until
retirement.
After
12+
years
in
the
big
leagues
he
had
won
multiple Cy Young awards, gold gloves, and multiple World Series
rings. Before any suspicions came upon Clemens and steroid use,
he was respected, feared, and hated all at one time. This was
simply because he was a bastard to hit off of.
He had not been questioned until about 1998 or 1999 because
he got bigger and into better shape. It came to the surface
11
saying he had been taking B12 shots for energy before workouts;
however,
there
was
information
that
leaked
saying
it
was
anabolic steroids in the needles instead of what he believed to
be
a
harmless
needed
vitamin.
Roger
Clemens
did
not
need
steroids to win the Cy Young, he was a stud before and after he
supposedly took the steroids.
“Rocket”
consistently
threw
96-97
before
his
supposed
steroid use, and after the investigation took place, he threw
the same exact speed. Therefore, that shows he did not need the
steroids to make it big. He was great before, and it also showed
how
the
supposed
“steroids”
helped
him
from
being
hurt
and
helped him stay healthy for a very grinding career.
In
conclusion,
steroids
may
make
someone
bigger
and
stronger. Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Roger Clemens would have
still been studs in every facet of their game without taking
anything to make them recover faster or build muscle faster.
They
are
remembered
for
the
way
they
played
the
game,
not
because they supposedly abused steroids, but because they were
some of the best players to ever play the game. A lot of people
would disagree with that statement, however, look at their stats
before and after their alleged steroid use started. All three of
them
put
up
great
numbers
in
almost
all
categories
besides
homeruns, but like I have stated before, they were ALL-AROUND
12
players who did everything the right way and loved the game of
baseball. I will end with this, how would you feel if you played
the game you loved, spent more than 10 years of your life doing
the most you can for a hometown, and in return they suddenly
turn on you?
Works Cited
13
1. "Barry Bonds." Barry Bonds Steroids Use. 2010. Web. 06
Nov. 2011. <http://www.barrybondssteroids.net/>.
2. Bryant, Howard "Juicing the Game - Page 2 - ESPN." ESPN:
The Worldwide Leader In Sports. Web. 06 Nov. 2011.
<http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=br
yant_howard>.
3. "Clemens Says He Got B-12 Shots; Ex-trainer Claims
Steroids - CNN." Featured Articles from CNN. 13 Feb.
2008. Web. 06 Nov. 2011. <http://articles.cnn.com/200802-13/politics/steroids.baseball_1_house-panel-steroidsor-other-performance-claims-steroids?_s=PM:POLITICS>.
4. Thompson, Teri, Nathaniel Vinton, Michael O'Keefe, and
Christian Red. American Icon: the Fall of Roger Clemens
and the Rise of Steroids in America's Pastime. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 2009. Print.
14
Ken Farrell
Causal Argument
October 30, 2011
Intended audience is anyone that questioning their beliefs or religion or anyone who is curious on the
topic.
Since history has been recorded it seems that religion has always been a staple. Even though
many anthropologists disagree on the date, it is widely accepted to be one of the major factors that
drives and keeps many communities together. It is a way of life for so many people and it is their values
and traditions. While this may seem like a positive product, participants often lose sight of the true goal
and for centuries people have fallen into a repetitive cycle of fallacy; a spiritual rut. Most people in
society today have a religion or belief in something but where did religion start, how did it start and
why? How can so many people believe in something that is not tangible? Things like wind and gravity
are of course not tangible but differ from religion because they are proven, fact. There are reasons
people are religious, psychological reasons that many ignore. People are religious mainly because they
were introduced to it at a young age, there is a sense of fear within if you don’t believe, and it is
something humans can go to with a guilty conscious and in times of need.
Within the US, children are typically introduced to religion at a young age and do not normally
have a say in the matter. Whatever religion or beliefs your parents possess are usually passed to you.
The passing of a certain mindset or belief is not just within hundreds of generations, it thousands and soon every.
It is very rare for someone to be brought up in a certain religion and get older and not believe it
anymore. If you have been told since the day you were born that this is truth and everything else is
15
wrong then it is extremely hard to question that. It is a never ending cycle; it gets passed from
generation to generation. The parents have good intentions of course but it leaves very little room for
one to decide on their own. Robert Kurzban and Peter Descioli believe “Religions are very concerned
with people’s thoughts and behavior, seeking to impose control not only on their own members but also
on non-members.” So since you are taught a religion/way of life at such a young age it causes you to be
sort of stuck in those ways or behaviors. The consequences of not being religious or believing in a
certain thing have extremely harsh “punishments”. As a kid and growing up that is intimidating.
Without this never ending cycle of passing religion down there would be an increase of individuals
making their own choices about a religion or belief. Being taught religion at a young age is a large factor
in why many people are religious. Without this step in the chain huge amounts of people would either
not believe in a religion or have the opportunity to choose what they want.
Fear is a large factor in why people are religious. People are afraid to question their religion.
Many are scared of death and what will happen after life, so there is a sense of security that religion
gives an individual. In society it is the normal thing to go to church every Sunday and believe in a
religion, it is comfortable and justified as practical. Within these “safe houses,” people are pushed by
fear. Fear is inarguably the strongest human or animal emotion. It has been used by countless leaders
throughout history to manipulate the will of people. It has not just the power to control people but a
situation. People are not only afraid of what will happen if they don’t believe, they are also afraid to
branch out and believe in something unique. Religion answers the questions that humans don’t have
answers to. There are so many unexplainable things that go on around us every day and religion is here
to help answer those questions. There is fear in not knowing and that causes a sufficient amount of
people to believe. Specifically in Christianity, these fears are all ruled by a single principle, one that
cannot be tested, but only believed based on writings of men, inspired by God. This principle is, as the
bible states; “And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” It
16
is generally agreed within the Christian faith that literally if you do not believe in God and Jesus of
Nazareth as his son, you will spend eternity suffering. This is the type of fear that is instilled in people
and can has a very strong affect. A sense of what if and fear in what will happen if you do not believe is
the next link in the chain of why people believe in religion.
Lastly, religion is like a shoulder to cry on in a time of need and something to turn to when you
have a guilty conscious. When you have nothing, it is much easier to have faith. Religion is something to
hold on to when times are bad; when you are satisfied with life there is less of a need for religion. When
you have a guilty conscious because of bad choices that were made many turn to religion to clear their
slate. Awdhesh k. Singh disagrees stating that even when things in life aren’t going bad “religion has 5
major benefits: love, compassion, health, peace, and confidence.” He goes on to explain in depth the
reasons why these are beneficial and that using religion to support you when you’re down is only a small
piece. Although there are obvious benefits of being religious like Singh states, there are still the large
amount of people that only seek “god” because it creates a sense of comfort and assurance. A sufficient
amount of people do not go to church every Sunday but how many do you think cried out for
forgiveness when they made a mistake or prayed as they lay on their death bed?
There are many opposing causal chains for why individuals believe in religion. The most
common being “just have faith”. That is the answer to all problems or anything that cannot be
explained. Religious people live off of the phrase” just has faith.” No one would just have faith in
anything though, religion is the only thing people will blatantly believe in even with no hard facts. You
must rely on faith and faith alone. Austin Cline agrees and states that “belief in the existence of god and
in the truth of religious doctrines is neither founded upon nor defended by logic, reason, evidence, or
science. Instead, people are supposed to have faith — a position they wouldn’t consciously adopt with
just about any other issue.” I agree in the sense that “god” is something to monumental for the human
17
brain to understand so you must have faith but basing an entire way of life on something that has no
fact is something I cannot agree with.
There are multiple reasons for why people believe in religion, learning from a young age, fear
and something to go to in hard times are only a few. Many things make up a religion including people’s
opinions. “Religious Doctrines and their authoritarian agendas are the product of human brains.”
(Kurzman and Descioli) A lot of what people believe in is the ideas fed to them by the human brain. A
god is much higher than that and is much deeper. Ask yourself what do I believe and why do I believe
this? Who taught me this? Is it truly a reflection of me?
18
Works Cited
Descioli, Peter and Kurzban, Robert. Why Religions Turn Oppressive. “Skeptio”. Volume 15 Number 9.
2009.
Author Unknown. 10 Reasons Why People Are Religious. “Personality Café”. June, 2009.
http://personalitycafe.com/intp-forum-thinkers/3191-10-reasons-why-people-religious.html
Singh K. Awdhesh. The Five Benefits Of Being Religious. “Ads by Google”. 2007.
http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Five-Benefits-of-Being-Religious&id=4769882
Cline, Austin. Why not believe?. 2009.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/whynotbelieve.htm
(King James Version of the Bible )
19
Mr. Farrell
November 2, 2011
English
Decriminalize, Don’t Legalize
For the past few generations the term “Legalize It”, has been a reference to the same thing.
Cannabis or Marijuana has been this hot topic for debate over the last few years due to stereotypes,
misrepresentations and he said- she said. There really is no hard evidence of the side effects, because
there have not been as many test ran on the substance as you would think. To me it is like a
conversation with your parents, you ask “why is marijuana bad?” and they respond, “because I said
so”. I mean they talk like it is SO BAD, yet it has no overdose point and the so called “side effects” are
less harmful than Alcohol. Which leads me to question not why is it legalized, but why is it frowned
upon. Oddly enough, I do not believe that marijuana should be legalized; instead I think it should be
decriminalized and left to the hands of the people.
Legalizing this substance could have a drastic effect on the drug game and crime rate. This is
because when you look at some of the stuff sold by drug dealers, marijuana is this safest and cheapest.
Now if you take away the dealers ability to make money off of that, then he’ll move to another drug. If
20
there is not some sort of safe drug in the sales, then I believe our government would see the most
drastic change in drug and gang affiliation. There will always be people struggling enough in society to
resort to drug sales, and the hostility in this business comes from pressure by government officials.
Their basis for keeping it illegal is because it is supposedly a “gateway drug”. Yet on a government
website called Drug Facts it says “Marijuana does not cause people to use hard drugs. Marijuana is the
most popular illegal drug in the United States today.” So how can it be called a gateway drug, yet say it
does not lead to other drug use? This shows what I mean by misrepresentation. So if it is not a gateway
drug, and if it does somewhat slow down the drug game then why keep it away from us, when you
could decriminalize it. This would further lower the hostility in the sales of the substance, and it would
provide a safe alternative for those who chose to sell drugs instead of putting harder drugs into our
societies.
What separates this substance from the harder drugs I was referring to, are the facts that there
are minimal side effects and the drug is not physically addictive. Yet for some reason another
misrepresentation is that this drug is highly addictive. Well that same website, Drug Facts, has research
statistics which are “According to a federal Institute of Medicine study in 1999, fewer than 10 percent of
those who try marijuana ever meet the clinical criteria for dependence, while 32 percent of tobacco
users and 15 percent of alcohol users do”. The two examples which are more addictive are sold in
stores by the same people “protecting” the society from “weed”. Another odd thing about these two
21
substances is that they both can kill you in the long run. As I mentioned earlier, there is no overdose or
really any way marijuana can kill you. Also all of the side-effects of marijuana stated by the government
are shared with either alcohol or cigarettes. The lung damage and risk of cancer is one side effect linked
with cigarettes. Yet on another government website called “Marijuana Facts” informed me that
“Several longitudinal studies have established that even long-term use of marijuana (via smoking) in
humans is not associated with elevated cancer risk, including tobacco-related cancers or with cancer of
the following sites: colorectal, lung, melanoma, prostate, breast, cervix. A more recent (2009)
population-based case-control study found that moderate marijuana smoking over a 20 year period was
associated with reduced risk of head and neck cancer.” Not only does it not cause cancer, but
prolonged use reduces the risk. Now I’m not going to tell you it does not harm your lungs, because
inhaling any kind of smoke is not healthy; but if you’re going to smoke, weed is the safest substitute to
cigarettes. Isn’t it funny you can use a safer, yet illegal “drug” to break your ADDICTION to a LEGAL
substance sold in stores? It is also said that Marijuana causes brain damage and mental illness. But I
have yet to find any kind of test were brain damage from marijuana use occurred with the exception of
the chimp testing in the late sixties. The only way scientist could achieve these results was to put an
amount of THC into a monkey via test tubes which was completely impossible to be consumed by a
human at such a rate. As for mental illness, many studies done in Germany shows that marijuana use is
typically used as a crutch or coping device, meaning the mental illness chose the weed, the marijuana
22
does not create it. I guess this just goes to show how things can get blown out of proportion and have a
completely false front.
Now you may ask, why does the government put on a false front regarding marijuana? This
question is simply answered with the word “money”. Without Marijuana being this scary, illegal drug,
how else could they make money off of it by using the police? If it were sold in stores so it could be
taxed, then the people would be growing it at home for free. There only choice to make some sort of
profit off of the substance is in citations and drug classes. I have first hand experienced these drug
classes and they are a JOKE. You pay $75 to listen to a man or a women talk about how weed is not bad,
and how they used to do it all the time as kids. I remember something that the teacher told our class
almost word for word, he said “You know weed is not bad, I know weed is not bad and even they (the
Government) know it is not that bad, but I’ll take your $75 dollars every time you get caught.” This is
the best representation of what they government has done with this substance. They put a blanket of
fear and aggression over the substance so their profit is not questioned.
I am sorry but I do not believe it is right for them to be making money off the illegal substance
marijuana while they also make money of cigarettes and alcohol which are both legal. This is why I see it
best for this substance to be decriminalized. Decriminalizing marijuana would make the sale of
marijuana less hostile and could drastically soften the drug game, along with keeping it difficult for
those children too young to experiment with the substance out of reach. As a kid I used to stand outside
23
of gas stations and ask for the stuff I wasn’t old enough to get. I am not proud of this, but I am aware
that it is literally that easy to get alcohol and cigarettes in this country and I do not believe it should be
that easy to obtain marijuana. Decriminalizing it would keep the marijuana in the hands of the people
who understand the substance enough to cultivate it themselves and there would be no risk of harsh
additives which is seen in cigarettes. I see more positives in the decriminalization of marijuana than I do
where it is either legal or illegal.
24