https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/08/reefer-madness/303476/
My reflection and analyzation is, as indicated in the article and I paraphrase— “how on earth can a ‘Judge’ consciously, or subliminally, logically or coherently impose upon any human being a life sentence for utilizing or dealing [I in fact believe that categorizing and exploiting such as ‘abusing’ exacerbates, increases, and advocates for the stigma surrounding legal and illegal substances] not simply, nor only Marijuana but, any form of a controlled illegal substance,” considering the fact that Judges have in their possessions Degrees consisting of Law and so forth, supposedly having demonstrated the abilities and capabilities to think and use their heads justly and fairly; of “common” sense. That is not to justify the resortings to and usages of illegal substances in any way; it is to say and emphasize that the issues and problems go much deeper than one simply, abusing any form of controlled substances. I’ve stated and will continue emphasizing and reiterating that there are and will always be root causes and extreme (motivational) factors, so to speak, discovered when efforts are made and pursued to evaluate, remedy, and address those who resorted and succumbed to, such substances.
What Schlosser is saying and implying in this article is that the, in a sense, enormous and exorbitant prison/jail sentences handed down to those smoking, possessing, and distributing marijuana [THC] in comparison to those apprehended for violent crimes, including murder, are essentially stupendous and tremendously unfair. “Unfair” however is an understatement, significantly.
The strengths of Schlosser’s argument with close to zero to none when it comes to weaknesses are such that: it makes no logical sense whatsoever for someone to receive a longer and more punitive sentence for involving themselves with marijuana in any way and on any level whatever than someone who commits a violent crime, let alone murder. Particularly for marijuana when analyzing not only the medicinal usages and exploitations but, the much lesser known short term detrimental and adverse effects.
This article relates to what we have covered in class, more so what is within the textbook, in that it expounds upon not merely the War on Drugs but the inequality and unfairness—primarily the disparities however, embodying the War on Drugs and what it strived, yet failed, to remedy on equal footings relative to ALL racial groups, ethnicities, and communities. Yet also the inadequate scheduling of marijuana as a controlled [I] substance. “By 1962, when Harry J. Anslinger retired, many states had passed “little Boggs Acts” with penalties for marijuana possession or sale tougher than those demanded by federal law. In Louisiana sentences for simple possession ranged from five to ninety-nine years; in Missouri a second offense could result in a life sentence; and in Georgia a second conviction for selling marijuana to minors could bring the death penalty. As the political climate changed during the 1960s, so did attitudes toward drug abuse. A series of commissions appointed by Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson repudiated some of the basic assumptions that had guided marijuana policy for more than fifty years, denying a direct link between the drug and violent crime or heroin use. As marijuana use became widespread among white middle-class college students, there was a reappraisal of marijuana laws that for decades had imprisoned poor Mexicans and African-Americans without much public dissent. Drug-abuse policy shifted from a purely criminal-justice approach to one also motivated by interests of public health, with more emphasis on treatment than on punishment. In 1970 the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act finally differentiated marijuana from other narcotics and reduced federal penalties for possession of small amounts. As directed by Congress, President Richard Nixon appointed a bipartisan commission to study marijuana. In 1972 the Shafer Commission issued its report, advocating the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use—a recommendation that Nixon flatly rejected. Nevertheless, eleven states, containing a third of the country’s population, decriminalized marijuana in the 1970s, and most other states weakened their laws against it. President Jimmy Carter endorsed decriminalization, and it seemed that long prison sentences for marijuana offenders had been consigned to the nation’s past” (8 Schlosser). As I’d always been a bit oblivious to the intricacies and detail orientations of the War on Drugs, this article relates directly to our discussions on the War on Drugs by having highlighted such disparities, by a white male. In retrospect and hindsight I remember vividly after coming back to the states, hearing and being told of the inequalities and injustices of our so called War on Drugs and the detrimental effects it had, and has, on African Americans yes, but, minorities as a whole. To be fair, concrete, and unbiased. This article installed much deeper and coherent understandings for me.
Moreover, “Estimates of how many Americans grow marijuana range from one to three million, of which anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 are commercial growers. Weisheit found that aside from being predominantly white and male, marijuana growers generally do not fit any common stereotypes. Some are pragmatists, growing the drug purely for the money; during the farm crisis of the 1980s many farmers in the Marijuana Belt started cultivating marijuana out of desperation. They found it not only easy money but also easy work. As one farmer told Weisheit, “You know, I spent most of my life trying to kill weeds, so trying to keep one alive was hardly a challenge.” Other growers are hustlers by nature, classic American entrepreneurs; they might as well be selling time-shares in a vacation condominium. They try to build marijuana empires. The risks of the trade only add to its appeal. Other growers are less competitive, giving away marijuana to friends or selling it at slightly above cost, sharing agricultural techniques, comparing their crops the way neighbors might compare homegrown tomatoes. Marijuana growers are educated and uneducated, liberal and conservative. They are extremely secretive, worrying more about thieves than about the police. Few belong to NORML (the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) and few read High Times magazine or add their names to any list that might arouse suspicion. Indoor growing often attracts people who love gizmos. There are endless contraptions that can be added to a grow room, from computer-controlled watering systems to electric tables that distribute nutrients evenly by tilting back and forth. Some growers become connoisseurs, producing high-quality marijuana in small quantities, manipulating not only the level of delta-9-THC through cross-breeding but also the proportions of all the other cannabinoids to subtly—or not so subtly—affect the nature of the high. Weisheit met growers and law-enforcement officers alike who were extraordinarily passionate about marijuana, eager to discuss its arcane details for hours. He was surprised, after the publication of his book, by how little controversy it generated in either camp. His mother was disturbed, however, by one of its central implications: “She’s very anti-drug,” Weisheit says, “and her comment was, ‘The thing I don’t like about this book is that it makes these people seem so normal’” (19 Schlosser).
Despite this article having been written in 1994 it, unequivocally and categorically still applies today in 2020 being that there continues to be and we remain to see scores of our citizenry, on both sides of the political spectrum, of all racial groups and ethnicities in this country, harp on and challenge the inadequacies and disparities of and within our monstrous criminal “justice” system.