Prohibition of the Cannabis Sativa PlantEssay title: Prohibition of the Cannabis Sativa PlantThe prohibition of the cannabis sativa plant, more commonly known as marijuana, is an anomaly in the criminal code of the United States. A poll initiated by Time Magazine provides a microcosm of American opinion on the issue of marijuana prohibition (2002). The poll ascertained that while only 34% wanted cannabis completely legalized (a figure that had doubled since 1986), an overwhelming majority of 72% wanted it decriminalized, and an even greater majority of 80% found it acceptable to distribute the herb for medicinal purposes. In other words, most participants wanted marijuana illegal in theory and law, but legal in practice, a modus operandi that is operating ostentatiously in Dutch coffee shops.
The legalization of marijuana under Dutch law was proposed in a series of European countries with a similar result. While the Netherlands has many dispensaries, it also has an abundance of dispensaries, a significant amount of which operate under a variety of different names—for example, in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland.
In spite of the relatively small number of legalization advocates in both countries, legalization is still unpopular. Legalizing the use of marijuana has become a national issue in the United States, and public opinion is a major obstacle in the Netherlands, since the federal government does not recognize medical marijuana. The Dutch legalization effort, like that of most other states, was not based on a desire to regulate medical marijuana, but rather on a desire to create a tax base for states to regulate its use.
In the Netherlands, the political climate is very favorable for the legalization movement. At the state level, the political establishment is largely Republican (Severan J. Brouwer, D.A., Professor of Law and International Relations, University of the Netherlands, is co-founder of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)). The National Alliance for Cannabis Reform (MACE) is responsible for funding the legal and political campaigns of several Dutch candidates, including the anti-Dutch, pro-legalization Dutch Democracy Party (DBDS). The organization was formed as a reaction to widespread media reports about the legalization of cannabis, which led it to form one of the major Dutch parties at the 2012 elections.
The European Organization of Medical Marijuana (EODMW) also recently established an initiative with support from several Belgian countries. In Belgium, EODMW conducted the first nationwide survey in order to document the public interest in medical marijuana. The results were published on November 12, 2013 and are published in the official press. The general consensus in Belgium is that it was worth the effort, as it was one of the world’s first and most rigorous surveys conducted. EODMW was also able to provide some preliminary support for one of the main opposition parties to the legalization of cannabis, in addition to the legal campaign itself.
In the Netherlands, EODMW is responsible for funding a number of campaigns, including the Netherlands Freedom Party (DV) and Dutch Parliament and Justice Policy Party (DPMK), which also hold presidential offices. EODMW participated in one of the most significant anti-Dutch referendums in human rights history and has now established itself as a major candidate for the future European Parliament for legalization. The Netherlands also has an estimated 2 million smokers. In 2013, the ECM was ranked as the most effective anti-EU political party in the Netherlands.
The public interest in legalizing marijuana has not increased, and while the Dutch Supreme Court of Justice’s ruling in favor of legalization began last year, the opinion on any current or planned legislative and regulatory proposals should be taken seriously.
Policies are being debated in the Netherlands before the election to be held in May 2015. A decision for the upcoming Dutch Parliament is scheduled for mid-February.
About Dr. Kjell Linden
Dr. Kjell Linden is a professor of sociology at the Royal
Not only is contemporary drug law seen as supererogatory by a considerable portion of the national population, but it is also astringently and excessively enforced. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Crime in the United States, the nation’s most reputable crime index, police make approximately 700,000 arrests annually for marijuana infractions, which nearly equals the number of arrests made for crack cocaine, powder cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, ecstasy and all other illicit narcotics combined (2002). Needless to say, such rigorous enforcement is expensive; enforcing marijuana statutes costs the government between $10-15 billion a year in direct costs (2005).
Why is the criminal justice system dissipating precious resources to enforce jurisprudential regulations that are plagued with dissent amongst the American populace? One popular argument is the notion of marijuana being a “gateway” drug. A gateway drug is a substance that within itself is not overly threatening, but its use could lead a person down a slippery slope to more dangerous drug use. If marijuana became legalized, it is reasonable to assume that its use would increase, and with more people using marijuana, there would be more people victimized by the presumed gateway effect of marijuana. A subsequent escalation in more dangerous drug use would be the ultimate effect, following this line of reasoning.
However, the legitimacy of the gateway theory of marijuana has been subject to criticism in the scientific community. The government has long promoted the concept of marijuana functioning as a catalyst to more dangerous drug use, often resorting to deceptive rhetoric, frequently reiterating the fact that marijuana users are 85 times more likely than non-marijuana users to try cocaine (2000). Although true, this statistic is misleading. It was derived by dividing the percentage of marijuana users who have tried cocaine (17%) by the percentage of cocaine users who have never used marijuana (0.2%). The resulting statistic, therefore, results not because the gateway effect victimizes so many marijuana users, but because so many cocaine users have tried marijuana. Since cocaine is a more serous drug, most of its users are extremely likely to have tried marijuana, a less serious, more popular substance. This statistic ignores the fact that most people that try marijuana never go on to try cocaine (1995). Legalizing marijuana could very likely have the opposite effect the government suggests, serving not as a gateway to more hazardous s drugs, but as a safe alternative to more dangerous drugs, resulting in a diminution in the use of malignant, illegal drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine, and highly addictive prescription drugs like Xanex, Morphine and Codine.
Scientific studies conducted over the past few decades have established that neither marijuana nor tetrahydrocannibol, cannabis’ active ingredient, is physically addictive. However, marijuana consumption, like any substance or activity, regardless of legality, could lead to psychological addiction. Those who frequently and perpetually