The importation and sale of marijuana is condemned and punished as a serious crime, but we accept as legitimate the manufacture and sale of an infinitely more addictive and deadly drug: the nicotine in cigarettes that cost the lives of 390,000 American citizens last year.
Jimmy Carter (1990)1

Drug law reformers should consider advocating a specific and distinct policy regarding the recommended legal and social response to the use, production, and distribution of marijuana as opposed to a single policy which attempts to address itself to all presently illegal drugs. This is not to say that we should ignore the other illegal drugs, but only that marijuana, for a number of reasons, ought to be considered separately. It may be that, in fact, different laws and regulations should apply to each of the various illegal drugs, but certainly there should be separate consideration given to our position regarding marijuana as opposed to the policy or policies that we might recommend concerning the other presently prohibited substances. In fact, further reform of the marijuana laws may be our best opportunity for demonstrating that legalization works and thus pave the way for non-criminal policies regarding other drugs.

There are a number of compelling reasons why this is so. First, it is clear that we can form a much broader coalition involving many more organizations and influential individuals if we focus on reforming the marijuana laws rather than attempting to write a policy which would purport to apply to all illegal drugs. In fact, because there are far more users of marijuana than users of any other illegal drug, the harm that society suffers because of the prohibition of marijuana is proportionately greater in some respects and directly affects many more individuals.

It is also the case that it is generally far easier to persuade an open minded individual to consider a decriminalized approach to marijuana than to attempt to persuade him that all drugs should be legalized. This is largely true because even those who support criminal prohibition generally acknowledge that marijuana is probably the least dangerous of the widely used illicit drugs. It is also easier to convert skeptics to consider a noncriminal approach to marijuana use because it is certainly more difficult to envision an effective enforcement of the marijuana prohibition as opposed to the theoretical feasibility of sealing our borders against the importation of other drugs or making the relatively difficult to obtain precursor chemicals needed for production of other drugs unavailable.

Another reason why marijuana legalization is a much more realistic short-term goal than general drug law reform is that marijuana reform is already substantially under way. One third of the United States population lives in jurisdictions which have either decriminalized the first offense possession of small amounts of marijuana or, in one instance, legalized the cultivation as well as the consumption of marijuana by adults. And finally, because of the substantial marijuana law reform already in place, there is a great deal more empirical evidence available to aid us in predicting exactly what the likely consequences would be of a broader reform, enabling us to answer the most troubling question of the prohibitionists: will use increase after legalization? The answer is a resounding no.

It then remains for us to consider precisely what direction further reform of the marijuana laws should take.

The Broader Coalition for Marijuana Reform

Many prestigious organizations and many influential columnists and other opinion leaders have declared their support for a decriminalized or legalized approach to marijuana use. Many of these same organizations and individuals have not addressed the question of legalizing other presently illicit drugs.

Among these is the American Bar Association which adopted a policy in the early 1970s which stated that ". . . there should be no criminal laws punishing the simple possession of marijuana by users."2 Although this policy was revised at the February 1990 meeting of the House of Delegates of the ABA, the revised policy does not call for the imposition of criminal penalties. The ABA president who initiated the change had specifically asked for a policy which supported the use of "appropriate sanctions" against drug use. Due in part to the efforts of the President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Neal Sonnett, this proposal was amended and the present policy of the ABA states that the organization ". . . deplores the use of marijuana and other harmful drugs,. . ." Presumably this includes alcohol and tobacco. The resolution also urges the government to ". . . substantially increase funding to establish education, prevention and treatment programs as widely as possible to reduce and discourage the use of marijuana and other harmful drugs."3

In another recent development, the Americans for Democratic Action, a respected national liberal lobbying organization, passed a resolution at its national convention on June 24, 1990, calling for ". . . the elimination of criminal penalties for simple possession of marijuana."4 Significantly, the organization rejected a proposed resolution which called for "across-the-board legalization of all currently-illicit drugs." That organization did pass another resolution which called for further study to determine the feasibility of broader legalization. Ironically, the ADA also reelected as its national president U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, an outspoken defender of criminal prohibition.

Other organizations including the American Medical Association have also called for decriminalization of marijuana in past years.'5 The 20-year-old National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, as its name clearly implies, works for the decriminalization of marijuana but does not take a position regarding the decriminalization of other presently illegal drugs.

The American Civil Liberties Union, widely regarded as one of the most "liberal" of citizen organizations, has a policy which specifically " . . . opposes laws which criminalize the cultivation, possession, use and sale or delivery of marijuana. . ."6 On the other hand, the ACLU takes a much more cautious position in its official national policy regarding other drugs. Its policy on victimless crimes states that "The ACLU opposes the definition of behavior as criminal when such behavior. . . does not in and of itself harm another person. . . Examples of behavior that should be exempt from criminal prohibition include. . . the introduction of substances into one's own body."7 The policy does not explicitly endorse the legalization of the manufacture or distribution of drugs other than marijuana.

Other groups which have endorsed elimination of criminal penalties for use of marijuana include the American Public Health Association, the Canadian Commission of Inquiry into the Non-medical Use of Drugs, the National Council of Churches, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse and others.8

Many widely read columnists have likewise addressed themselves specifically to legalization of marijuana but not necessarily to the legalization of other drugs. Among these is Washington Post columnist Jerry Knight who wrote recently "one-third of all drug arrests are for simple possession of marijuana. If cops didn't have to worry about pot smokers, pot smugglers and growers, they could concentrate on crack, heroin, cocaine, PCP and amphetamines — the drugs that are doing the real damage. . . Experimenting with marijuana would provide the best opportunity to test the premise that we would be better off if drugs were legal and controlled, rather than outlawed and uncontrolled."9

Likewise, Chicago columnist Mike Royko has repeatedly called for legalization of marijuana but has not explicitly called for the legalization of all other drugs. Syndicated columnist Stephen Chapman has also called for legalization of marijuana but has been more cautious when it comes to other illegal drugs.

These organizations and individuals are not likely to join with us if we pursue a policy calling for immediate broad scale removal of criminal penalties for all illegal drugs. On the other hand, it is reasonable to assume that these and other like-minded individuals and organizations could be expected to join with us if we call for a reconsideration of criminal penalties for the use and production of marijuana.

There Are More Users of Marijuana than All other Illegal Drugs

Again, despite the preoccupation of the press and politicians with talking about the use of crack and other forms of cocaine, marijuana is now, and has been for at least the past 20 years, by far the most widely used illegal drug in the United States. Most casual observers presume otherwise. Indeed, in one recent article in the ABA's magazine Human Rights, an article entitled "Is Legalization the Answer?" begins with the assertion that "according to figures by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (sic), cocaine remains the most widely used drug in this country, . . . ."10

The truth is that every credible survey done in this country in recent years has demonstrated that marijuana is by far the most widely used illegal drug. The most reliable survey of drug use in this nation is done annually by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Those surveys are analyzed by the United States Congress' General Accounting Office. The GAO issued a report in March 1988, which showed that more people used marijuana within the past 30 days than all of the other categories of illegal drugs combined. The survey showed that approximately 10 percent of the "household population" reported having used marijuana within the past 30 days. This compares with approximately 3 percent of the population who reported using cocaine in the prior 30 days. The percentages for heroin, hallucinogens, sedatives, stimulants, and tranquilizers were approximately 1 percent or less.11

The fact that there are so many more current users of marijuana than other illegal drugs means that a very large portion of the limited law enforcement resources of our nation are occupied with marijuana users, producers, and distributors. More than any other single drug, marijuana law enforcement drains the limited resources of our police, prosecutors, judges, probation and parole officers, and prison workers. Many believe that it is a misuse of those resources for any of them to be directed toward drug use generally. But the greatest tragedy is that these resources are expended to a large degree in efforts to enforce the marijuana prohibition laws.

Many people who are not willing to accept the futility of the efforts to enforce drug laws generally see some merit in taking marijuana out of this picture so that the efforts of law enforcement may be concentrated on the more dangerous drugs. While that approach may not be the point of view we wish to promote, it would be foolish to exclude those who hold that view from our ranks. If we are to progress in promoting noncriminal approaches to drug use, we must first begin by doing so in the area where we can achieve the broadest consensus.

There are several arguments usually made for a general repeal of drug prohibition. These include the contention that drug prohibition leads to greatly increased violence among those who deal in illegal drugs, greatly increased corruption of police and other public officials charged with enforcing the drug prohibition laws, and the general disrespect for the rule of law engendered by futile efforts to enforce ultimately unenforceable statutes. To the considerable degree that marijuana is the cause of these problems, eliminating marijuana from the equation would go a long way toward relieving those problems.

In terms of the disruption of individual lives because of the efforts to enforce drug prohibition, more lives could be spared than disrupted if marijuana were taken out of the criminal justice system.

The fact that there are more present and prior users of marijuana than other illegal drugs also translates into broader support for reform of the marijuana laws among the general population than for a broader legalization of other presently illegal drugs. This fact was recently documented by a survey conducted for the Drug Policy Foundation in January and February 1990. Fourteen hundred and one interviews of adults nationwide selected on a random basis were conducted for this survey. Those surveyed were asked to respond to various propositions regarding legalization and decriminalization of various drugs. Eight percent agreed with the statement that "serious drugs (crack, cocaine, or heroin) should be decriminalized, with a fine imposed on adults who use them." Another 6 percent agreed with the statement that "serious drugs should be legalized so that adults can make their own decisions about using them."

However, 14 percent agreed with the statement that "marijuana should be decriminalized with a fine imposed on adults who use it." Another 17 percent agreed with the statement that "marijuana should be legalized so that adults can make their own decisions about using it."

Clearly there is substantially more support for reform of marijuana laws than for reform of the laws dealing with the more dangerous and addictive drugs.

More Empirical Evidence about What Happens When Marijuana Laws Are Relaxed

Probably the most troubling argument used against those who advocate broad repeal of criminal laws against drug use is the assertion that use would increase drastically if the legal deterrent to use were abandoned. Even many who favor the repeal of criminal prohibitions against drug use implicitly concede that we might have to pay the price of accepting a greater number of users under a legalization scheme.

Ethan Nadelmann, in his highly influential article for Foreign Policy magazine, while making a very persuasive case for general drug legalization, concedes at one point that "There can be no guarantee, of course, that legalization would lead to better and healthier societies in either the short or the long run. Indeed, the possibility cannot be excluded that drug abuse would become more widespread than it is now."12

Similarly, James Ostrowski, in his analysis, "Thinking About Drug Legalization" for the Cato Institute, argues very effectively that even if there were a significant increase in the amount of use of drugs under a legalization scheme, that increase would need to be at least five times the present usage in order to equal the harm presently caused to society by the illegal consumption of those same drugs.13 He also argues that there is reason to believe that no significant increase in the use of illegal drugs would occur if the criminal prohibition were repealed. However, such arguments are necessarily matters of conjecture. In modern American society, there has been no experience with the legal consumption of cocaine or heroin, or most of the other presently illegal substances.

This is not true of marijuana. During the 1970s, 11 states containing one-third the population of the United States passed statutes which provide for no criminal penalty for at least the first offense possession of relatively small amounts of marijuana. One state, Alaska, actually eliminated any criminal penalties for adults who both cultivate and consume marijuana in the privacy of their homes.

Oregon was the first state to repeal criminal prohibition of marijuana use in October 1973. No significant increase in marijuana use was detected in surveys in that state in 1974 and 1975.14 The National Academy of Sciences reported in 1982 that:

While the percentage of adults who were current users had increased by January 1977 (from 20 to 24 percent), use had increased similarly nationwide in the same period, suggesting that the causes for the adult increase in Oregon were the same as those for increases in the rest of the country rather than the result of changes in the law. Indeed, the percentage of adults who have ever used in Oregon in 1976 (24 percent) was lower than the average percentage of adults who have ever used in the western United States (28 percent) in 1975-1976, although higher than the national average (21.3 percent). . .. Only a small proportion of nonusers said fear of legal prosecution was a reason for non-use in 1974, 1975, and 1976 (National Governor's Conference 1977).15

The Academy reported similar results in the state of Maine where criminal penalties for marijuana use were repealed in 1976. Other states which have decriminalized marijuana possession include Colorado, California, Ohio, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, and Nebraska. The National Academy of Sciences defines decriminalization as a policy of prohibition of supply only. The academy's report concludes that "probably the most important fact about a policy of prohibition of supply only is that where it has been adopted it has apparently not led to appreciably higher levels of marijuana use than would have existed if use were also prohibited."16 The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (commonly known as the Shafer Commission) suggested in its 1972 report that the repeal of the criminal prohibition of marijuana use would not result in a change in use patterns. The National Academy of Sciences found that "the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse's speculations about the lack of change in use patterns resulting from repeal of prohibitions on use have been confirmed by data since 1972. Reports from California, Oregon, and Maine indicate no appreciable increase in use following decriminalization of use, at least in the short term."17

By far the most dramatic experiment with marijuana legalization in the United States in modern history is in the state of Alaska. In 1975, the state of Alaska's Supreme Court ruled in the case of Ravin v. Alaska that the right to privacy contained in the state's constitution includes the right of adults to cultivate and consume marijuana in their homes.18 The unanimous Alaska Supreme Court ruled that "the use of marijuana, as it is presently used in the United States today, does not constitute a public health problem of any significant dimensions." The court also said that marijuana use "is far more innocuous in terms of physiological and social damage than alcohol or tobacco. The defense in the Ravin case was assisted by the Alaska ACLU and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Eight years after the Ravin decision, an article appeared in Reason magazine. The author found, based on statistics provided by the state of Alaska, that there had been no increase in automobile deaths or aircraft accidents since the Ravin decision, there had been no unexplained epidemics of infectious diseases, birth defects or infant deaths, and Alaska's crime rate grew at a much slower pace than it had prior to the Ravin decision. There was no evidence that young people were using marijuana any more frequently than they had prior to the Ravin case and SAT scores for Alaskan students were the highest in the nation.19

Despite the fact that there is now an initiative effort to overturn the Ravin decision, there is no convincing evidence that there has been any increase in marijuana usage in the state of Alaska attributable to the legalization there.

These same arguments cannot be made in as convincing a fashion for any of the other presently illegal drugs. But the indisputable hard evidence here in our own country shows that removing criminal penalties for marijuana use does not lead to an increase in marijuana use.

If our present policy of threatening marijuana users with imprisonment, fines, forfeitures, and loss of rights and privileges does not deter marijuana use, what conceivable legitimate purpose does it serve?

The Marijuana Laws Are Uniquely Difficult to Enforce

At this time there is more consideration than at any other in recent history of increased use of the military to enforce civilian laws in our country. The failure of conventional law enforcement to stop the use of illegal drugshas caused politicians and portions of the public to consider extreme measures.

There is increasing discussion among legislative and executive branch leaders of attempts to "seal the borders" of the United States in order to prevent the importation of cocaine, heroin, and other drugs produced in other nations. There is an almost desperate need on the part of politicians to convince the public, and a desire on the part of many citizens to believe, that it is possible to stop the flow of drugs into the country, if only enough resources are devoted to the task.

In early August 1990, for the first time in our nation's history, active duty soldiers of the Army were used to fight marijuana growing in the Humboldt County area of northern California.20 The Bush Administration says similar operations will soon be underway in several other states.

There are also increasingly tight controls on the availability and distribution of precursor chemicals, both those sold for use in this country and those exported to other countries, in attempts to prevent the production of a wide range of illegal drugs.

Neither of these measures are likely to cause any lasting diminution of the supply of drugs. But, even if these measures could be effectively implemented and if these strategies could reduce the availability of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and PCP, marijuana would always remain available. Even now, there is a marked trend, increasing in recent years, toward domestic cultivation of marijuana. President Richard Nixon's futile effort to stop the flow of heroin and marijuana into the United States across the Mexican border in the early 1970s, led to a large increase in the domestic cultivation of cannabis. The spraying of paraquat and other herbicides on marijuana crops in Mexico and elsewhere further promoted domestic marijuana production.

Estimates today are that at least 25 percent of the marijuana consumed in the United States is grown domestically. It is estimated that the percentage of domestic production has more than doubled since 1984.21

Obviously, if the present trend toward greater domestic production and especially toward greater indoor cultivation continues, the likelihood of law enforcement efforts preventing the continued widespread availability of high quality marijuana is very slight. Indeed, the frustration of law enforcement with conventional methods has also led to radical new approaches to domestic law enforcement. Often, these efforts are aimed specifically at marijuana growers and consumers.

The so-called "Operation Green Merchant" in which Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided retail indoor horticultural supply businesses and their customers last October may be only the first step in a continuing campaign aimed at small scale growers/consumers of marijuana. The Green Merchant cases typically involve DEA agents obtaining the name of an individual who has received shipments of merchandise of an unknown nature from companies which advertise in High Times magazine. Warrants are being routinely obtained for searches of citizens' homes based on the allegation that the resident received such a shipment and has a high electric bill or has some of his windows covered or keeps dogs on the property. The fact that there are perfectly legitimate uses for this equipment which are consistent with high electrical consumption and that having one's windows covered has never been considered evidence of criminal activity in the past has not prevented judges across the country from issuing search warrants for the purpose of enforcing the marijuana laws.

There are proposals in state legislatures around the country as well as in Congress to inflict civil penalties on marijuana offenders which are indistinguishable from the penalties for major international traffickers in dangerous drugs. These so-called "user penalties" are designed to inflict punishments on people who are accused of any drug offense, including misdemeanor marijuana possession. In order for these civil penalties to be inflicted, there is not even the need for a criminal conviction to occur. People are being deprived of their right to practice their profession or occupation if it is licensed by the state, they are being denied the right to student loans, public housing, driver's licenses, and other rights merely because they have been accused of the possession of as little as a single joint of marijuana.

The difficulty of enforcing the drug laws generally, but especially the impossibility of enforcing marijuana laws in a free society is causing more desperate efforts by law enforcement and new attacks on the Bill of Rights. Senator Edward M. Kennedy said on Aug. 6, 1990, in a speech at the American Bar Association's meeting in Chicago, "our constitutional rights do not contribute to the drug problem, and compromising will them not solve it. We do not need to trample the Bill of Rights to win the war on drugs."

Increasingly the assaults on the Bill of Rights are premised on the need to enforce the marijuana laws.

The Argument for Marijuana Legalization Is Easier to Win

One reason why many more people are willing to consider decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana use is the widespread recognition that marijuana is less harmful than other illegal drugs and in fact is less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and some other drugs which are not illegal.

Nowhere has the case for the relative safety of marijuana use been made more eloquently nor more adamantly than in the decision of Drug Enforcement Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young in his Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law. The action was filed by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics and others seeking the rescheduling of marijuana under federal law as a substance with recognized medical use. Judge Young heard literally years of testimony from every conceivable interested party including the most rabid of anti-drug fanatics. Judge Young's decision was based on some of the most exhaustive and expert testimony ever offered in any court of law.

Judge Young addressed himself to the question of whether marijuana might have an acceptable level of safety for use under medical supervision.22

In Judge Young's Findings of Fact, he stated: The most obvious concern when dealing with drug safety is the possibility of lethal effects. Can the drug cause death? Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But, marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven documented cannabis-induced fatality.

This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from 20 million to 50 million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death. By contrast, aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year. . . simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death. At present, it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 (lethal dose for 50 percent of test animals) is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms, this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly fifteen hundred pounds of marijuana within about 15 minutes to induce a lethal response. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug related toxicity. . . In strict medical terms, marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating ten raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis, marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care.

In his Conclusion and Recommended Decision, Judge Young stated:

There are those who, in all sincerity, argue that the transfer of marijuana to Schedule II will "send a signal" that marijuana is "okay" generally for recreational use. This argument is specious. . . . the fear of sending such a signal cannot be permitted to override the legitimate need, amply demonstrated in this record, of countless sufferers for the relief marijuana can provide when prescribed by a physician in a legitimate case.

Judge Young's decision has such force and credibility that it is an effective rebuttal to those who persist in arguing that some as yet unrecognized or undiscovered hazard to the health of users justifies the harsh criminal prohibition of marijuana use.

The issue of medical use of marijuana also brings to light another reason why we are more likely to succeed in attempting to reform the marijuana laws than in attempting to reform laws relating to other presently illegal substances. Those who recognize the need for the availability of marijuana for the treatment of various ailments recognize that the reason the substance is not available medically is the very same prejudice which perpetuates the criminal prohibition of its recreational use. For that reason, those who advocate medical availability are our natural allies.

We also have a growing and significant potential ally in those environmentalists who are increasingly recognizing the amazing potential of the marijuana plant to relieve our dependence on trees for the making of paper and on petroleum for the production of fibers and fuels. Many of those who are not yet ready to endorse the legalization of recreational use, are nonetheless intrigued by the environmental and industrial implications of the many uses of the marijuana plant, cannabis sativa, also known throughout this country's history as hemp.

The Reform Has Already Begun

As stated above, eleven states encompassing one-third of the population of this nation have already decriminalized or legalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana. The state of Alaska has gone much further and has virtually legalized the consumption as well as the cultivation of marijuana by adults in private.

More than 30 states have diversion programs or other provisions for expunging of marijuana offenses from one's permanent records.

Dozens of cities around the nation have passed local ordinances which permit or mandate the prosecution of marijuana offenses as city ordinance violations which are not criminal offenses. Some of these local ordinances mandate punishments of no more than five to twenty-five dollars. Recently in Berkeley, California, an unsuccessful initiative effort was begun to repeal a policy of the city of Berkeley which makes enforcement of marijuana laws the lowest priority for city police and calls on the city to work for legalization and legal private cultivation of marijuana.23 Thirty-three states have recognized the medical use of marijuana and urged that it be made available for prescription to patients who need it.24

Only one or two states in the union treat first offense possession of small amounts of marijuana as a felony. There are suggestions in some state legislatures at this time to reclassify any and all marijuana possessions as felonies. As of this time, that has not occurred.

The fact is that nearly every jurisdiction in this nation recognizes that marijuana offenses, especially marijuana possession and consumption, are not crimes which deserve to be treated as harshly as crimes involving other illegal drugs. It is for this reason that I urge that we focus our efforts on the marijuana laws, both to avoid losing ground we have won, and to maximize the likelihood of further progress.

What Should the Marijuana Laws Say?

It is clear that the possession and use of marijuana without the commission of any other criminal offense in conjunction with that use should not be treated as a criminal act. Merely eliminating the criminal penalties however may not be enough to remove the stigma of punishment. As noted above, there is a clear trend in the nation at this time to inflict greater and greater punishments under the guise of "civil" penalties. These punishments which relieve the state of its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and which relieve the defendant of the protections that he would normally have under the U.S. Constitution are primarily a means of punishing conduct which is victimless and which is undeserving of any punishment. These penalties are dangerous to the very foundations of American justice.

What should be recognized when writing the marijuana laws is the principle enunciated by Mr. Justice Brandeis in his profound dissenting opinion in the case of Olmstead v. United States, "the makers of our Constitution...sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sanctions. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man."25

What this means is simply that those who choose to consume marijuana in a responsible manner should be let alone by the government. Surely the model created in Alaska 15 years ago is closest to the ideal stated by Justice Brandeis. It therefore is my sugg tion that we pursue the adoption of a policy substantiaJl similar to the Alaska model of legalization of consØnption and cultivation of marijuana by adults in private. Among the advantages that this model presents is the elimination of any sort of commercial commerce in marijuana beyond that which may occur on an informal basis among friends. This model, permitting every consumer to supply himself or herself, should virtually eliminate the black market in marijuana. That commerce which does persist will be of a benign nature. There will not be the enormous profits to be made in promoting the use of marijuana which presently exists with the artificially inflated prices brought on by prohibition.

There will still be laws against the possession and consumption of marijuana by minors just as there are now against the possession and consumption by minors of alcohol and in most places of tobacco. And, if the lessons of our own recent history are any indication, there will be no increase in marijuana consumption.

Footnotes

1 Human Rights, The Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, American Bar Association, Spring 1990, Volume 17, No.1, p.17.
2 Human Rights, The Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, American Bar Association, Summer 1990, Volume 17, No. 2, p.16.
3 Criminal Law Reporter, Volume 46, Feb. 21, 1990, p. 1437.
4 "ADA Calls for Free Needle Programs, Marijuana Decriminalization; Re-Elects Representative Charles Rangel, President." National Drug Strategy Network, News Briefs, Volume 1, No. 11, Aug. 1, 1990, p. 7.
5 National Academy of Sciences, Report and Analysis of Marijuana Policy, 1982, p. 12.
6 Policy Guide of the American Civil Liberties Union, Revised June 1989, Policy No. 215, p. 265.
7 Ibid., Policy No. 210, p. 260.
8 National Academy of Sciences, Report and Analysis of Marijuana Policy, 1982, p. 12.
9 Jerry Knight, Washington Post, September 12, 1989.
10 Sharon Rosenbaum, "Is Legalization the Answer?" Human Rights, Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, American Bar Association Spring 1989, Volume 16, No. 1, p. 18.
11 General Accounting Office, Controlling Drug Abuse: A Status Report, March, 1988. p. 6.
12 Ethan A. Nadelmann, "U.S. Drug Policy: A Bad Export." Foreign Policy, Spring 1988, No. 70, pp. 104-105.
13 James Ostrowski, "Thinking About Drug Legalization," Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 121, May 25, 1989, pp. 23-24.
14 National Academy of Sciences, Report and Analysis of Marijuana Policy, 1982, p. 13.
15 Ibid., pp. 13.
16 Ibid., pp. 12.
17 Ibid., pp. 12-13.
18 Ravin v. Alaska, 537 Pac.2d 494 (1975).
19 Michael Dunham, "When the Smoke Clears." Reason, March, 1983, pp. 33-36.
20 Michael Isikoff, Washington Post, "War on Drugs Mobilizes National Guard, Raiders Attack Domestic Marijuana Boom in Remote Patches." Aug. 14, 1990, pp. 1.
21 Gordon Witkin and Alice Z. Cuneo, "Inside the High Flying Pot Industry," U.S. News and World Report, Nov. 6, 1989, pp. 27-30.
22 In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, Docket No. 86-22, Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Finding of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Decision of Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young, September 6, 1988, U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration
23 'Berkeley Anti-Marijuana Initiative Fails to Get on Ballot." News Briefs, National Drug Strategy Network, Volume 1, No. 11., Aug. 1, 1990, p. 7.
24 R.C. Randall, ed., Cancer Treatment and Marijuana Therapy, (Washington: Galen Press, 1990), p. 337.
25 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928).