Click here to load reader
Upload
cheeeknow
View
549
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Santini 1
Prohibition of Alcohol v. Prohibition of Marijuana
Christian Santini001018-152
HistoryMs. Kirchner
28 November, 2009Word count: 3,459
Santini 2
Abstract
Do the similarities between the prohibitions of alcohol to the prohibition on
marijuana foreshadow the war against marijuana to be another failure? Based on the
history of the prohibition of alcohol beginning in 1920 and its undeniable failure, it is
evident that the prohibition on marijuana will undoubtedly follow the historical path and
lead to a possible costly failure.
The main sources that made me better understand the topic and receive legitimate
facts were court trials, government websites, and scientific results. The Supreme Court
ruling of upholding the Webb-Kenyon Act of 1913 demonstrated the federal
government’s perseverance and the power they had to obtain their goals of the
Prohibition. The Federal Bureau of Investigation provided an accurate record of
information on the amount of arrests related to marijuana possession in a set of years.
This data shows a similar pattern with the prohibition of alcohol in that an increase of
criminals in prisons leads to an increase in spending taxpayer’s money on incarceration
and the criminal justice system. I also used the laws of California to show how their
reforms should serve as a model for the United States to gradually introduce the drug to
society and receive tolerance from the general population.
Both prohibitions share too many similarities and a vast amount of factual
evidence that can explain the further outcomes of the current prohibition on marijuana.
Government officials must begin to look at the large amount of scientific data and the
immense opposition by organizations and come to the conclusion of decriminalizing the
use of marijuana.
Word count: 258
Santini 3
Table of Contents
Title page 1
Abstract 2
Table of Contents 3
Essay 4-15
Works Cited 16-18
Santini 4
The Merriam-Webster definition for the term Prohibition refers to “the forbidding
by law of the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic liquors except for
medicinal and sacramental purposes”. According to the National Archives, the named
era, Prohibition began “by the pressure of several social groups that led the House of
Representatives to propose the 18th amendment in 1917 to ban the manufacturing, sale,
and transportation of alcohol in the United States of America. By 1918, the amendment
had the sufficient amount of support from the states to enact the amendment” (Kerr). The
many who experienced the prohibition believed that it was an ineffectual strategy.
Despite the failure of the prohibition of alcohol, the U.S. government ignored the
negative reactions and transitioned in creating a new prohibition on marijuana enacted by
the “Marijuana Tax Act of 1937”. The Marijuana Tax Act required a stamp for the sale of
marijuana, which was never distributed by the government, making the sale of marijuana
basically impossible to obtain. The ban on marijuana shows an even stricter stand of the
government compared to that of the prohibition of alcohol, due to the fact that the use of
marijuana is even restricted for sacramental and medicinal uses. Many questions arise
from this historical issue that has been encountered for the past several years. Do the
reforms of prohibition actually correct the problems caused by the drug or do the negative
affects of the prohibition outweigh the positive effects? Are the costs of maintaining
marijuana illegal too high? Do the similarities between the prohibitions of alcohol to the
prohibition on marijuana foresee the war against cannabis to be another failure? What
are the similarities and differences between the prohibition of alcohol and marijuana in
the United States? Based on the attempt of prohibition of alcohol in the 1920’s and its
undeniable failure, it is evident that the prohibition on marijuana will certainly follow the
Santini 5
same steps of the previous prohibition. To explain the similarities that both the
prohibition of alcohol and the prohibition of marijuana beginning in the mid 1930’s in the
U.S. reflect the future failure of the ongoing prohibition of marijuana, this essay will
discuss the social views that led to the establishment of each prohibition, the U.S.
economy funding to enforce the restrictions that are put in place, and the judicial branch’s
decisions towards reforms of prohibition based on the events in history that occurred
before 1998.
Diverse social groups demonstrated great opposition towards the use of alcohol
and marijuana and began to spread their ideals of prohibition, which influenced the
people of the U.S. government to make a move on the substances. In the academic
database SIRS, the “Alcoholism Timeline” presents that in 1673, Reverend Increase
Mather published Wo to Drunkards: Two Sermons Against the Sin of Drunkenness, in
which he condemns the excessive consumption of alcohol in the colonies (Ljungquist and
Shaw). Reverend Increase Mather, a Puritan minister strongly supported the opposition
towards any form of intoxication and influenced his followers of the Puritan church. His
ideals of the suppression of the means for intoxication were carried on for many
centuries. According to Grolier’s New Book of Knowledge, the prohibition ideal began to
emerge in the 1800's,when many Protestants believed that “after slavery, drunkenness
was the nation's greatest evil” (Kerr). The Protestant movement condemned the
consumption of alcohol, and these settlers soon began to realize that their only way of
being able to establish restrictions was to also have a voice in the political movement.
The Protestant involvement in the persuasion for reform against alcohol exemplifies the
diffusion of the idea of prohibition on the drug began to be passed down by generations
Santini 6
in the United States by grandchildren of religious followers who migrated away from
persecution. As the development of the women’s movement began to grow, the Women’s
Christian Temperance Union emerged. This union viewed drinking as “a moral
abomination that demeaned men, threatened women, and destroyed the family” (Faue,
and Nash). The push for prohibition was also supported by the Anti-Saloon League,
which was noted In the Encyclopedia of American History: The Emergence of Modern
America that “the WCTU was extremely successful in popularizing the idea of a national
prohibition amendment, but it was the ASL that bolstered the final drive toward national
Prohibition”. The ideals and concepts of these social groups began to persuade the
members of Congress over time, which finally led to the inaction of a bill against the
consumption of alcohol in the U.S. The increase of the Puritan population and the
influence in the government, the influence of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union
and the Anti-Saloon league all shared the strong opposition towards the consumption of
alcohol and made efforts to get the results of a ban on alcohol across the U.S in which
they were able to attain for a couple of years.
While the people of the United States were witnessing and experiencing the
period of Prohibition on alcohol, a prohibition on marijuana began to establish itself
taking stronger roots than previous opposition toward the drug. The 1856 edition of the
Encyclopedia Britannica, in its lengthy entry on hemp, noted that the herb "produces
inebriation and delirium of decidedly hilarious character, inducing violent laughter,
jumping and dancing" (Hanrahan). The Encyclopedia Britannica’s description of
marijuana, would have undoubtedly altered the perception of marijuana on society due to
its credibility. The source goes on to say that in 1910, Mexican immigrants introduced
Santini 7
“recreational use of "marihuana" to the Southwest. Then in the next following five years
Utah passes the first state anti-marijuana law after a group of Mormons returns to Salt
Lake City with marijuana from Mexico” (Riegelhaupt and Starzyk). Many Mexicans used
marijuana as a cultural thing, just how Americans drink alcohol. The actions taken by the
Utah’s legislators showed how political officials of the era believed in maintaining a
cultural division between Mexican immigrants. The employment of state laws had denied
the acceptance of allowing the recreational use of “Acapulco Gold”, the slang used to
refer to cannabis, which was introduced by the Mexican population that began to emerge
in the U.S. society.
Early influence of prohibition ideals and the publishing of the effects of marijuana
and alcohol on a person impacted society on their view on the drugs. Alcohol condemned
by various denominations, such as Protestantism and Puritanism began to carry out their
theologies since the beginning of the settlement of United States. They were able to get
their way through their ties with political officials. Certain anti-cannabis views held by
government officials due to be being prejudice against the Mexican immigrants had
significant impact on prohibition. Furthermore, the increase of social groups like the
WCTU and the ASL added additional effort in influencing America’s society and led to
the conformity of these prohibition ideals that conflicted with traditional customs. Certain
anti-cannabis views held by government officials due to be being prejudice against the
Mexican immigrants had significant impact on prohibition. In other words, if immigrants
were associated with importing marijuana, many people didn’t want the practice to be
accepted. This prejudice demonstrated ignorance of different cultures and a failure to
accept the way people choose to live their life. This history shows how the laws against
Santini 8
the growing, imported use of cannabis paralleled the laws against alcohol.
The economy of the U.S. during prohibition is also worth of review. The U.S.
economy wasted a vast amount of currency on funding the opposition toward the
corruption caused by the prohibition of alcohol in the early part of the 1900’s. In 1923,
Charles Hanson Towne reported that “evidence of the economic challenges caused by the
prohibition was seen at the Sing Sing prison”. The prison witnessed the highest amount
of prisoners in the 1920’s, specifically a prison population of 1,600. The “noble
experiment”, which was the name given to the prohibition because it was meant to reduce
the amount of criminals in prisons and give a slight economic relief that eventually led to
the contrary result of increasing the amount of prisoners resulting in higher costs in
housing the criminals. The annual budget of the Bureau of Prohibition went from $4.4
million to $13.4 million during the 1920s, while Coast Guard spending on Prohibition
averaged over $13 million per year (FBI). While the plan for prohibition was to improve
the problems caused by alcohol, instead more problems arose when alcohol was illegal.
Congress ignored the exceeding costs and did not act quickly enough to change how law
enforcement should act against moon shiners. The future failure of the 1920’s prohibition
on alcohol was evident in this economic struggle the United States government had in
managing their expenditures.
The same effects on the economy are visible in the prohibition on marijuana. In
carrying out the enforcement for marijuana prohibition, a large budget is necessary, just
like the prohibition of alcohol, which is evident when “taking the 1966 marijuana arrest
and disposition data and applying fiscal 1967-68 budget -figures, Calof arrived at a
"hybrid" estimate of $29,783,418.56 for -the 18,243 adult and juvenile marijuana arrests
Santini 9
and the dispositions of 14,209 adult -felony offenders. This averages out to
approximately $1,630 per arrest, or $2,100 per adult disposition” (Source la, p.114). This
corresponding expense on marijuana prohibition since 1966 is obviously increasing,
which compares to the big budget spent on the prohibition of alcohol. This comparison of
the outstanding costs in enforcing each prohibition should reveal to the government and
to the people that the policies carried out against marijuana will not fix the problem just
like how laws during the “noble experiment” did not aid in the alcohol problem. Since
1983, the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting also known as CAMP has spent more
than “$9 million of federal and state money in an effort to curb California's burgeoning
pot crop, estimated to be worth between $1 billion and $3 billion at wholesale, a year”
(Morganthau). Despite the large amount of taxpayers’ money being spent, there has not
been any success in actually stopping California’s pot crops. The continuation of the
prohibition and campaign against marijuana has led to an estimated $225 million gone to
waste until this year.
Historical records in several sources show that government spending increased
during the prohibition of the 1920’s on alcohol in ensuring that officials enforce the ban,
while on the other hand, the black market flourished in illegal manufacturing of alcohol
and trafficking. The everlasting prohibition of marijuana seems to reflect the same
effects. In order to properly carry out each of the prohibitions, federal organizations were
formed to control the crime that was caused by the prohibitions.
The Volstead Act of 1919 added additional strictness to the existing 18th
amendment in that it clearly defined what “intoxicating liquors” were, which was decided
that 0.5% of alcohol would be the highest percentage that can be sold. The government
Santini 10
officials who voted to accept these laws were not aware of the consequences of an
increase in criminal behavior. During the era of the first prohibition the FBI was already
founded, and they took part in maintaining a stable American society. Carlisle’s work on
“World War I: Eyewitness History” covers main issues during the era of World War I,
stated “Prohibition, although it succeeded in reducing access to alcohol by the poor, led
to a crime wave as smugglers, bootleggers, and speakeasy operators profited from
supplying illegal beer and liquor to those who could afford their prices”. The need for the
consumption of alcohol in the U.S. society has become such a part of a normal life and
culture; citizens drink at a plethora of events, from sports competitions to baby showers.
The description provided by the eyewitness shows that the efforts of the U.S. government
in trying to control illegal consumption were ineffectual even though the FBI had been
founded about a decade before the prohibition. Based on a graph from the Enforcement
of the law [prohibition] “fell to the Department of the Treasury and the Coast Guard was
charged with interdicting the flow of "Demon Rum" before it reached American shores”
(Canney). Despite of adding another establishment in aiding to carry out the prohibition,
smugglers were still able to find a way around and achieve in distributing the contraband.
The countless attempts of the government to enforce the restrictions were more
ineffectual than the predicted results and soon the people began to realize that it was
necessary to follow a different path rather than legal restrictions.
Since the mid 1930’s the prohibition of marijuana has had various organizations
to fight the war against the drug and has led to the increase of arrests for the possession of
cannabis. Based on the statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports in 1993 an
estimated “18.6 million people used marijuana and police arrested 380,689 of them”
Santini 11
(“FBI”). As the organizations try to eradicate marijuana by arresting them, they are still
unable to remove the ones that provide the drug. Instead of focusing on arresting the
dealers that are allowing the people to access the drug, most of the arrests are for small
possessions of marijuana and will gradually affect the U.S. economy by prosecuting these
users. Already eleven states containing one third of the nation's population don't make
arrests for possession of marijuana for personal use: Alaska, Oregon, California,
Nebraska, Colorado, Minnesota, Ohio, Mississippi, North Carolina, New York, and
Maine. These decriminalization laws were enacted during the 1970's and have resulted in
considerable savings. Since “1980 there have been an average of 386,000 marijuana
arrests a year” (“FBI”). The decriminalization by the eleven states exemplifies how these
take into consideration of the failure of the 1920’s prohibition on alcohol and should lead
the example for other states to follow the same steps. The eleven states exemplify the
harmless effects of enacting these laws of decriminalization and can serve as an example
for the federal government by demonstrating that these so-called radical reforms should
be taken into consideration to show that they are able to learn from their mistakes and
prevent the same error of enforcing prohibition, which lead to a worthless and
economically stupid path to take.
The judiciary branch is the sole branch that focuses in enforcing the laws that are
put in place by the Constitution and the federal government. The judiciary branch was a
strong force during the 1920’s prohibition and continues to enforce the ongoing
prohibition of marijuana. As the judiciary branch in the early 1900’s had the power to end
the prohibition on alcohol, which they saw was ineffective, so can the judiciary branch
from today end the prohibition on marijuana. Throughout each prohibition, the various
Santini 12
lawsuits that took place had altered the predicted path of the prohibition.
The prohibition on marijuana continues to witness several cases on changing the
existing legislation and the ones who have the last word in the decision is the judicial
branch. In certain states the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is accepted by the
state government despite the federal government prohibits any use of marijuana. In result
to these contradictions between the state and federal government, courts are responsible
in reaching a conclusion pertaining to this dispute. On December 10, 1987 a trial between
the United States v. Alister Henderson Simon was held on the matter of the religious use
of marijuana by Rastafarians. The jury decided he was guilty and did not accept his claim
of the religious use of the drug stating that the, “smoking of marijuana, while prevalent
among Rastafarians, might not be a tenet of the religion” (U.S. v. Simon). This decision
made by the United States Court of Appeals demonstrates the strong effort of the U.S.
trying to get rid of the drug even if it used as a sacramental substance, but on the other
hand the use of wine for sacramental uses is acceptable. This case also exemplifies how
the United States is attempting to eradicate the use of the drug even if it means to violate
the freedom of religion. Despite this ruling many will continue the use of the drug
because of its importance and value in their culture and religion.
The Prohibition of the 1920’s left the judicial branch with a big importance in
making sure the laws dealing with the prohibition are being enforced correctly. During
this era, the “Supreme Court upheld the Webb-Kenyon Act of 1913, which permitted dry
states to ban interstate shipments of liquor into their territory from elsewhere, if they
wished. Congress also passed a prohibition law for Alaska and Washington, D.C., and
permitted the people of Puerto Rico to vote on the issue, after which the island went dry”
Santini 13
(Jaycox). The Supreme Court’s power was used to uphold the Webb-Kenyon Act of
1913, which demonstrates the role and strong influence of the federal government in
supporting the state governments to impose greater power of enforcing the prohibition.
Also, it shows how all the branches of the government are working together to extinguish
the use of alcohol. In 1922, the eve of the prohibition, the case of Vigliotti versus
Pennsylvania, Vigliotti was found guilty of selling, during the spring of 1920, spirituous
liquor without a license a few months after the 18th amendment became effective and was
sentenced (Vigliotti v. Pennsylvania, 258 U.S. 403, 1922). Vigliotti’s case predicted the
path of future trials to come dealing with the prohibition in that there would be a zero
tolerance mentality and all those accused will be held guilty. The defendant insist that
two punishments for the same act, one under the National Prohibition Act and the other
under a state law, constitute double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment (United States
v. Lanza). In the case of the United States versus Lanza the Fifth Amendment was put
into effect and allowed the federal government to try Lanza for the same crime again. The
Fifth Amendment included this specific statement towards the topic of double jeopardy to
demonstrate their strong efforts in making that all offenders receive the punishment of a
fine or a sentence in jail to show the public that they are treating this situation seriously to
prevent people from committing the same crime. The prohibition brought a strong wave
of government opposition towards alcohol and in effect led to several cases that clogged
up the prisons for a victimless crime.
The Prohibition of alcohol that was carried out from 1920 to 1933 reflected the
opposite of the expected results. The government realized the increase of economic
spending on housing the vast amounts of criminals, the increased crime rate, the strong
Santini 14
opposition from diverse organizations, and the large amount of federal and local judicial
cases that clogged up courts. Now the prohibition on marijuana is witnessing the same
negative effects and is following the same steps of the first attempt on prohibition. For
example, the similarities between the increase of organized crime in both prohibition time
periods. Also, there was an increase in government economic funding in trying to enforce
both prohibitions. These failures impact the citizens due to the government spending of
taxpayer’s money on law enforcement like the Drug Enforcement Administration on
attempting to eradicate something that is impossible because it has been so intertwined
into the American culture like alcohol was in the 1920s. Clearly, a call for immediate
action must be taken by the local and federal governments to address the subject of
marijuana and to prevent the continued failure that was evident in the “Noble
Experiment”.
We can no longer prohibit the use of marijuana and use it for our advantage. What
if marijuana did indeed become legalized again? The concept of allowing the use of
marijuana can bring an increase in the government economy by taxing the drug like
alcohol. By no longer having to enforce restrictions on the drug the government is able to
cut down on the amount of taxpayers’ money being spent on law enforcement and
housing the people in prisons that commit the crime. With marijuana out of the black
market, the government has the ability to oversee the production of the plant and can
place restrictions on the potency to prevent harm to the people. By allowing the sale of
cannabis in stores, it will reduce the rates of underage consumption by requiring the
person to be 21 or older. Placing a sin tax on the drug like one on tobacco and alcohol
will bring in money to provide for drug rehabilitation programs. From learning and
Santini 15
analyzing the history from the past one should be able to prevent similar situations from
occurring. The analysis of the history of the prohibition of alcohol should come to serve
as an example for the ongoing ban on marijuana, to prevent the situation to get any
worse.
Word count: 3,459
Santini 16
Works Cited
Aldrich, M. Ph.D., "Fiscal Costs of California Marijuana Law Enforcement," Chapter
8, pp. 97-118.
Canney, D. (1999). RUM WAR: THE U.S. COAST GUARD AND PROHIBITION,
SIRS Knowledge Source. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from Knowledge Source
Comprehensive Search Portal http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-
display?id=SMIAMIDADE07805&artno=0000105376&type=ART&shfilter=U&
key=%22coast%20guard%22%20prohibition&title=Rum%20War%3A%20The%
20U%2ES%2E%20Coast%20Guard%20and%20Prohibition&res=Y&ren=Y&go
v=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N.
Carlisle, Rodney P. (2007). Lost Generation in the 1920s: 1919–1927. World War I,
Eyewitness History. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2007. Retrieved October 7,
2008, from American History Online. Facts On File, <http://www.fofweb.com/
activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE52&iPin=EHWWI12&Sin gleRecord=True >.
Faue, E. & Nash,G.. (2003). Prohibition. Encyclopedia of American History: The
Emergence of Modern America, 1900 to 1928, vol. 7. New York: Facts On File,
Inc., 2003.Retrieved November 10, 2008, from American History Online.
Facts On File, <http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?
ItemID=WE52&iPin=EA HVII212&SingleRecord=True>.
Hanrahan, C. & Odle, T.. (2005). Marijuana. In Jacqueline Longe (Ed.), Gale
Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine, Vol. 3(2nd ed., pp. 1288 1292).
Detroit: Gale. Retrieved October 01, 2008, from Gale Virtual Reference
Library via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.do?prodId=IP.
Santini 17
Jaycox, F. (2005). The Progressive Era, Eyewitness History. American History
Online. Facts On File. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from American History
Online. Facts On File,<http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=W
E52&I Pin=EHPEEssay09&SingleRecord=True>.
Kerr, K. A. (2008). Prohibition. The New Book of Knowledge®. Retrieved October 1,
2008, from Grolier Online< http://nbk.grolier.com/cgi-bin/article?assetid=a202
4105-h>.
Ljungquist, M. & Shaw, A.. (2008). Alcoholism Timeline, SIRS Knowledge Source.
Retrieved October 12, 2008, from Knowledge Source Comprehensive Search
Portal http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SMIAMIDADE-0-
8220&artno=0000266135&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&title=Alcoholism%20
Timeline&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N.
Riegelhaupt, C. & Starzyk, K.. (2008). Marijuana Legislation Timeline. SIRS
Knowledge Source. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from Knowledge Source
Comprehensive Search Portal http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-
display?id=SMIAMIDADE-0 8220&artno=0000257778&type=ART
&shfilter=U&key=&title=Marijuana%20Legalization%20Timeline&res=Y&ren=
Y&gov=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N.
Thornton, M (1991). Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure, CATO Institute. Retrieved
October 12, 2008, from CATO Institute http://www.cato.org/pub_displ
ay.php?pub_id=1017&full=1.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1997). Crime in the United States FBI Uniform
Crime Report, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office 213-214.
Santini 18
Drug Enforcement Administration. (2006). The DEA Position On Marijuana.
Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office.
United States of America v. Simon. No. 87-1511. United States Court of Appeals,
First Circuit. 25 March 1988.
Vigliotti v. Common Wealth of Pennsylvania No. 530. Supreme Ct. of the US. 10
April 1922.