A Short Essay on Legalization of Marijuana in Pennsylvania
Carver Murphy
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park Campus
18 January 2015
Murphy 1
The first step toward establishing whether or not marijuana policies in Pennsylvania
should change is evaluating the current policies of prohibition. The fact of the matter is that the
prohibition of marijuana has been wildly unsuccessful. In 2010, over 106 million Americans
admitted to having tried the drug at some point in their lives. 1 Over 80% of high school students
consider marijuana “fairly easy” or “very easy” to obtain.2 High profile personalities have
admitted to using marijuana, including President Barrack Obama. Pennsylvania would benefit
greatly from legalizing marijuana use in both medical and recreational forms that are safely
regulated, taxed, and controlled. Doing so will reduce costs, reallocate resources to more
effective prerogatives, and end – what will be shown to be – racist enforcement.
Sentencing for crimes related to the possession, sale, or distribution of marijuana, plants,
or paraphernalia are based on the weight of the drug seized. Many of these carry mandatory
minimum sentences that can range anywhere from 30 days to 10 years and fines from $500 to
$100,000. While the highest numbers in these ranges are reserved for large seizures, the penalties
can often be doubled by proximity to a school or playground, involvement of a minor, or repeat
offenses.3 Nevertheless, the penalties for drug use have done little, if anything, to keep people
from smoking marijuana.
Many of the drug free zones around schools or playgrounds encompass huge sections of
cities; this amplifies the penalties placed on urban poor, which is, in turn, a contributing factor to
making enforcement disproportionately racist. Shocking statistics display how anti-marijuana
“Marijuana Prohibition Facts,” Marijuana Policy Project, accessed January 18, 2015,
http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/Prohibition-Facts.pdf.
2
Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2012). Monitoring the Future national
survey results on drug use, 1975-2011. Volume I: Secondary school students, Ann Arbor: Institute for Social
Research, The University of Michigan, Table 9-8.
3
“Pennsylvania Laws & Penalties,” NORML, accessed January 18, 2015, http://norml.org/laws/item/pennsylvaniapenalties-2.
1
Murphy 2
legislation enforcement can be racist. In Pennsylvania, as is true across the country, blacks are
more likely to be arrested than whites. In Pennsylvania, they are 5.2 times more likely; well
above the national average of 3.73 times; making enforcement in Pennsylvania 39% more racist
than the rest of the country. In some counties, that disparity grows to 11.2 and 10 times more
likely. In Philadelphia, before city government decriminalized marijuana, a black person was 4.9
times more likely to be arrested on marijuana charges than a white person.4 These numbers are
staggering – increasingly so when it is revealed that blacks and whites use marijuana at the same
rates5 – and point to what is either a racist execution of the law or a racist law.
The cost of enforcing marijuana prohibition are immense. In 2010, Pennsylvania spent
$100,748,528 on enforcing marijuana possession laws. Billions of dollars are spent enforcing
these policies nationwide. This money could instead be saved or reallocated elsewhere. Simply
decriminalizing marijuana saved California an estimated $857 million in 2006. Additionally,
nationwide estimates for the replacement of prohibition with a system of regulation and taxation
range from $17.4 billion in annual savings to $31 billion.6 Prison expenses, legal fees, and
policing expenses focused on marijuana could be put to better use. For example, in cities like
Reading, Pennsylvania, which has roughly half the number of police it should, that money could
be spent funding a force to combat real crimes like murder, theft, and gang violence. Additional
tax revenue and reallocation of resources could help cities across the commonwealth better
police their streets and balance their budgets.
“The War on Marijuana in Black and White: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Racially biased Arrests.” (2013).
American Civil Liberates Union, Appendix B, Pennsylvania.
5
Ibid, 21.
6
“Marijuana Prohibition Facts,” Marijuana Policy Project, accessed January 18, 2015,
http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/Prohibition-Facts.pdf.
4
Murphy 3
Additionally, all of this spending and resource allocation is unwarranted. Pennsylvania
currently defines Marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. When “The Controlled Substances, Drugs,
Device, and Cosmetic Act” was passed in 1972, the criteria for a schedule a schedule 1 drug was
the following: “In determining that a substance comes within this schedule, the secretary shall
find: a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in the United States, and a
lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.”7 The information now available
about marijuana reveals that it no longer fits the criteria for a schedule 1 drug. It can no longer be
considered to have “a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in the United
States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.”8 Medical marijuana
should be legalized because thousands of patients in states that have legalized it have benefited
from it, doctors there have prescribed it, thereby accepting it as a form of treatment, and
legalized, regulated, marijuana can be administered safely.
Medical marijuana is widely recognized as an acceptable form of treatment for a variety
of ailments; in Oregon alone, as of January 1, 2015, there were 69,865 medical marijuana
patients, 17,776 of are listed as being treated for “persistent muscle spasms, including but not
limited to those caused by Multiple Sclerosis” and 64,321 or whom used it generally for “severe
pain” related to a variety of ailments.9 Knowing this, there are theoretically thousands of patients
in Pennsylvania that could benefit from medical marijuana; if we use the same percentage of the
population in Oregon, 1.77%, there would be 217,090 people who could benefit from this.
Additionally, legalizing paraphernalia can help marijuana users ingest cannabis without smoking
7
The Controlled Substances, Drugs, Device, and Cosmetic Act, 1972, Pub. L. 233, No. 64: 6.
The Controlled Substances, Drugs, Device, and Cosmetic Act, 1972, 6.
9
“Oregon Medical Marijuana Program Statistics,” Oregon Health Authority, accessed January 18, 2015,
https://public.health.oregon.gov/diseasesconditions/chronicdisease/medicalmarijuanaprogram/pages/data.aspx.
8
Murphy 4
it; this would mitigate any risks that the act of inhaling smoke, regardless of the substance,
causes.
Unregulated marijuana can also present risks to the health of those who smoke it; not
because marijuana is unhealthy, but because it can have other substances in it. Regulation will
ensure clean, safe standards of use; which is not necessarily true about today’s marijuana. The
medical community could then determine the criteria for the medicinal application of the
substance. As experts, they are most qualified to determine these criteria in a way that provides
marijuana that isn’t laced with pesticides, herbicides, and/or fertilizers.10
Perhaps the hardest argument to make is that for the legalization of recreational
marijuana. However, that’s exactly the opposite argument that needs to be made. If America is to
consider itself to be a free country, the argument must be made why it should remain illegal or,
for that matter, have been made illegal in the first place. Having established that the medicinal
use of marijuana is valid and prohibition is ineffective, we must now look to see whether or not
marijuana use presents a danger to society or a moral offense strong enough that it warrants
revoking personal freedoms.
In regards to its threat to society, proponents of prohibition often argue that marijuana
can endanger drivers and cause accidents. While it can impair driving, the effects are not as
powerful as the effects of alcohol – which is also illegal. Driving while under the influence is
illegal regardless of what substance it is and can continue to be so even if marijuana usage is
legalized. The introduction of alcohol increases the risk to society in a significant manner by
“Marijuana Prohibition Facts,” Marijuana Policy Project, accessed January 18, 2015,
http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/Prohibition-Facts.pdf.
10
Murphy 5
increasing violent behavior and decreasing motor function.11 Just because one dangerous
substance is legal doesn’t mean another should be. While driving impaired presents a danger to
society, marijuana use does not. Nor does it make people violent; instead it slows reaction time,
relaxes emotions, and relaxes movement.
The illegalization of marijuana may actually present a more significant danger to society
than the legalization of it. It puts the growth, sale, and distribution of marijuana into the hands of
gangs, criminal networks, and cartels; these organizations have proven to be brutal and
dangerous; they have nearly brought parts of Mexico to civil war. Illegalization makes marijuana
a substance of back alleys, dark rooms, and roadside handoffs. As enforcement becomes
increasingly militarized, the dangers presented to police increase, especially along the border
with Mexico, but also on the streets of cities everywhere.
When considering the morality of legalizing marijuana, no universal moral code can be
agreed upon to apply to the issue of marijuana. It would be unfair to assume that marijuana is
offensive to all moral codes and any application of religion as guidance would cross the line
between church and state. Nevertheless, it would be widely agreed that children shouldn’t have
access to marijuana; though marijuana use remains socially acceptable and easily available even
for minors.
The legalization of recreational marijuana in Pennsylvania presents another issue:
that of implementation. Once the decision to legalize has been arrived upon, the questions of
how to regulate and tax it become the issue. If Pennsylvania legalized marijuana, it would not
have to act without precedent. The Commonwealth can look to Washington, Colorado, and even
J. G. Ramaekers, H. W. J. Robbe, and J. F. O’Hanlon, “Marijuana, Alcohol and Actual Driving Performance,”
Hum. Psychopharmacol. Clin. Exp. 15, 551-558 (2000), 553.
11
Murphy 6
the Netherlands to find effective and ineffective methods of legalizing marijuana. Medical
marijuana needs to be regulated by the medical community and subject to medical standards and
scrutiny. Prescriptions would be necessary for patients to obtain medical marijuana, just like any
other medication. To obtain recreational marijuana, it is best that it be made available through
licensed retail establishments. States that have legalized marijuana have often applied similar
regulations to those of alcohol. For example, in Colorado one must be 21 to use marijuana
recreationally. Pennsylvania should impose restrictions similar to those it places on alcohol sales,
such as the 21-year age minimum. This will work to limit exposure to children. Rules against
public intoxication and use could also be instituted. Pennsylvania would be able to heavily tax
the marijuana industry; in addition to the money no longer being spent on fighting it, this money
could be allocated to better places such as education, the massive state budget deficit, or better
policing in urban areas.
The biggest problem with legalization is that it would not necessarily stop crime, child
access to marijuana, or patients denied medical marijuana from accessing it. Nevertheless, it
would go a long way toward relieving these problems. Legalization may very even lessen the use
of marijuana as it did in the Netherlands.12
The final argument to be tackled is that of the “gateway drug” theory. Those who argue
this theory say that marijuana is a drug that leads to the use of other drugs. While there is a
correlation between these two things, one does not cause the other. There is no evidence that the
use of marijuana causes the use of more dangerous drugs. In 1999, the institute of Medicine of
the National Academy of Sciences wrote:
Robert J. MacCoun, “What can we learn from the Dutch cannabis coffeeshop system?”, Addiction 106 (2011):
1899-1910.
12
Murphy 7
Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly
regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably
the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other
illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol
and nicotine before marijuana – usually before they are of legal age.13
We can therefore conclude that marijuana is not the “gateway” drug. It does it fit the
criteria for a schedule 1 drug nor discounted on any moral arguments. There are a plethora of
problems with the cost of prohibition and practical implications of its enforcement; they far
outweigh any benefits society may seek to gain from it. Prohibition hurts society by endangering
its protectors and creating racist enforcement. Additionally, the resources wasted on prohibition
could be allocated to far better purposes; it could be used to fund police to protect cities and
schools to educate children. Marijuana should be made available for medical purposes and
regulated by the medical community. It should also be made available from licensed commercial
institutions for recreational use. Pennsylvania would benefit greatly from legalizing marijuana
use in both medical and recreational forms that are safely regulated, taxed, and controlled.
Maia Szalavitz, “Marijuana as a Gateway Drug: The Myth That Will Not Die,” TIME, October 29, 2010.
Accessed January 18, 2015, http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-willnot-die/.
13