https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/04/more-reefer-madness/376827/
As I read through our assigned article “The Atlantic: More Reefer Madness” I could not help but to continue thinking about the erroneous laws/regulations/stipulations surrounding the uses and exploitations of controlled illegal, and legal, substances. Having said that, much here will overlap from previous discussions and assignments on the War on Drugs. However there could never be a limit nor stopping point to shining lights and bringing awareness to, and on, policies thus, procedures, which tear and rip many families apart and which are detrimental to them and children thereof in the short and long term, in our country; to begin at home. Therefore what I will do here is annotate and integrate the most crucial, to me, points, facts, and statements made throughout this article. Hence the elongated quotes to follow.
Considering what this stems and leads to, our Prison Industrial Complex, it is in no doubt whatsoever a conglomerate of a nationwide business adventure and revenue stream at the federal, state, and local levels. Savoring the most lucrative spots nevertheless for the supposed “elite criminals.” As if the crime of, or the person involved, a celebrity or famous person makes any difference between that of a perceived average Joe or up-standing/standard citizen. Realistically speaking crimes do not choose their victims; suspects act upon their resorted to, yet chosen, crimes. So consequences and treatments therefore, should not differ nor be distinct between either one nor actors.
I personally truly struggle with seeing and visualizing people harmed in any way whatever—particularly those with any and all sorts of mental illnesses and difficulties. I began to nearly choke and tear up while watching and observing the brother of Wendy in the show titled, “Ozark.”
But when it comes to marijuana particularly, I again, personally do not agree with legalizing it recreationally. A scenario that plays and replays in my head time and again if that were to occur is experiencing an influx of teenagers and millenials, per se, (including older folks) swamping college parties and free/open spaces merely to experiment with the most commonly abused illegal substance, recreationally they could then claim. Despite unproven (as many say) detrimental adverse health effects of long/short term marijuana smoking [consumptions], categorically it does cause for paranoia, laziness, and irresponsibility of frequent users, to highlight just a few things having been touched on in class discussions and presentations therein. As I’ve observed for myself, of a few as well.
Yet the profound ignorance, pure greed and selfishness, and carelessness surrounding this particular drug is and has been reflected within, and stemming from, thus culminating THE 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act: as Schlosser notes, “This new law did not represent the culmination of a careful deliberative process. Nor did it reflect the thinking of the nation’s best legal minds. The mandatory-minimum provisions were written and enacted in a matter of weeks without a single public hearing. The most important drug legislation in a generation — the enforcement of which would more than triple the size of the federal-prison population and whose sentencing philosophy would influence state drug laws across the country — was prompted by the death of a popular basketball player shortly before a congressional election. …The process of selecting drug quantities to trigger the mandatory-minimum sentences was far from scientific, according to Sterling: ‘Numbers were being picked out of thin air.’ The drug-control bill left the subcommittee in mid-August, while many academics and government officials were away on vacation. There had been little time to study the potential costs of the legislation or its ramifications for the criminal-justice system. In the absence of public hearings there had been no input from federal judges, prison authorities, or drug-abuse experts. President and Mrs. Reagan were calling for tough new drug-control measures, and House Democrats rushed to provide them. Only sixteen congressmen voted against the bill, which passed in the Senate by a voice vote. Reagan signed the final version of the bill on October 27, just a week before Election Day. Nothing was to be gained politically by defending drug abusers from excessive punishment. Drug-control legislation was proposed, almost like clockwork, during every congressional-election year in the 1980s. Election years have continued to inspire bold new drug-control schemes. On September 25 of last year Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich introduced legislation demanding either a life sentence or the death penalty for anyone caught bringing more than two ounces of marijuana into the United States. Gingrich’s bill attracted twenty-six co-sponsors, though it failed to reach the House floor. A few months earlier Senator Phil Gramm had proposed denying federal welfare benefits, including food stamps, to anyone convicted of a drug crime, even a misdemeanor. Gramm’s proposal was endorsed by a wide variety of senators — including liberals such as Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy, and Paul Wellstone. A revised version of the amendment, limiting the punishment to people convicted of a drug felony, was incorporated into the welfare bill signed by President Clinton during the presidential campaign. Possessing a few ounces of marijuana is a felony in most states, as is growing a single marijuana plant. As a result, Americans convicted of a marijuana felony, even if they are disabled, may no longer receive federal welfare or food stamps. Convicted murderers, rapists, and child molesters, however, will continue to receive these benefits. ‘The intent is to get the bad guys off the street with apologies to none.’ … The guilt or innocence of a defendant has at times been less important than the availability of his or her assets. ” (4, 5, and 6). Pointing here directly to greed as I alluded to at the start of this essay.
Fortunately there is some light on the other side of this battle and so called war. “IN 1988 State Senator Stewart J. Greenleaf wrote the bill that made tough mandatory minimum drug sentences part of Pennsylvania law. Greenleaf, a Republican from rural Montgomery County, is now the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in Pennsylvania — and an outspoken critic of mandatory-minimum sentences. ‘These laws just haven’t worked as we planned,’ he now admits. Politicians are refusing to acknowledge the true cost of the nation’s drug laws. ‘We’re not being honest,’ Greenleaf says, ‘to the public or to ourselves.’ In adopting mandatory-minimum sentences, Pennsylvania had simply followed the federal government’s lead, aiming to give long prison terms to major drug dealers. Instead the state’s prisons have been flooded with low-level drug offenders who cannot be paroled. Over the past decade the state’s prison population has doubled. Its prison system is now operating at 54 percent above capacity. In order to keep pace with the current rate of incarceration, Pennsylvania will have to open a new prison every ninety days. Each new prison cell costs about $110,000 to build and about $25,000 a year to maintain. At the moment nearly 70 percent of the inmates in Pennsylvania’s prisons are nonviolent offenders. Convicted murderers granted early release have gone on a number of well-publicized killing sprees. Proposition 200 declared that ‘drug abuse is a public health problem’ and vowed to ‘medicalize’ the state’s drug control policy. In order to free up prison cells for violent offenders, the initiative called for the immediate release of all nonviolent prisoners who had been convicted of drug possession or use. It called for drug treatment, drug education, and community service instead of prison terms for nonviolent minor drug offenders. And it called for the creation of a state Drug Treatment and Education Fund through an increased tax on alcohol and tobacco. Proposition 200 was endorsed by aging hippies, former members of the Reagan Administration, the retired Democratic senator Dennis DeConcini, and the retired Republican senator Barry Goldwater, among others. On Election Day, Arizona voters backed the initiative by a margin of two to one. But the Clinton Administration attacked Proposition 200 as though it were a dangerous heresy, threatening to block its implementation and to prosecute any physicians who recommend marijuana to their patients. Clinton’s drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, called the Arizona initiative a subterfuge, part of ‘a national strategy to legalize drugs.’ The decriminalization of marijuana — including, as in the Ohio model, the cultivation of small amounts — could be the first step toward a rational and sensible drug-control policy. The benefits would be felt immediately. Law enforcement resources would be diverted from the apprehension and imprisonment of marijuana offenders to the prevention of much more serious crimes. The roughly $2.4 billion the United States spends annually just to process its marijuana arrests would be available to fund more-useful endeavors, such as treatment for drug education and substance abuse. Thousands of prison cells would become available to house violent criminals. The profits from growing and selling marijuana commercially would fall, as would the incentive to bribe public officials. But the decriminalization of marijuana is only a partial solution to the havoc caused by the war on drugs. Mandatory-minimum sentences for drug offenders should be repealed, allowing judges to regain their time-honored powers and ensuring that an individual’s punishment fits the crime. The asset-forfeiture laws should be amended so that criminal investigations are not motivated by greed — so that assets can be forfeited only after a conviction, in amounts proportional to the illegal activity. The use of professional informers should be limited and carefully monitored. The message sent to the nation’s teenagers by these steps would be that our society will no longer pursue a failed policy and needlessly ruin lives in order to appear tough. Lying to teenagers about marijuana’s effects, however, only encourages them to doubt official warnings about much more dangerous drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines. The drug culture of the 1960s arose in the midst of tough anti-drug laws and simplistic anti-drug propaganda. In a nation where both major political parties accept millions of dollars from alcohol and tobacco lobbyists, demands for ‘zero tolerance’ and moral condemnations of marijuana have a hollow ring. According to Michael D. Newcomb, a substance-abuse expert at the University of Southern California, ‘Tobacco and alcohol are the most widely used, abused, and deadly drugs ingested by teenagers.’ Eighth-graders in America today drink alcohol three times as often as they use marijuana. Drug-education programs should respect the intelligence of young people by promoting drug-free lives without scare tactics, lies, and hypocrisy. And drug abuse should be treated like alcoholism or nicotine addiction. These are health problems suffered by Americans of every race, creed, and political affiliation, not grounds for imprisonment or the denial of property rights. A society that punishes marijuana crimes more severely than violent crimes is caught in the grip of a deep psychosis. For too long the laws regarding marijuana have been based on racial prejudice, irrational fears, metaphors, symbolism, and political expediency. The time has come for a marijuana policy calmly based on the facts” (6, 9, 10, 14, and 15). So, there you have it. What else further does one [we] need in hearing from experts?