Should the U.S. Legalize Marijuana?

Recommend (5) Comments (6)

“Do as the Dutch Do” -- this phrase has become a clarion call for legalization advocates, who fondly imagine a day when the world, or at least the U.S., treats marijuana the way the Dutch do. Almost every drug legalization discussion leads both sides of the debate focusing on drug policy in the Netherlands. It is fascinating that this tiny country of 16 million people is so often referenced in comparison to countries (like the U.S. or U.K.) with much larger populations. The reason, of course, for this often-used comparison is due to the fact that the Netherlands is one of the only places in the world where you can buy marijuana legally.

In 1976, as the counter-culture swept through much of the western world proclaiming free love and drugs (and as drug use was reaching historic levels in the United States), the Dutch approved a formal policy to allow the possession and sale of up to about ninety marijuana cigarettes (thirty grams). The government allowed “coffee-shops” selling marijuana to appear around the country and approved in 1980 guidelines allowing more local control discretion of commercial marijuana practices. As the Dutch got used to the idea of legal marijuana, coffee-shops popped up in nicer parts of town and the number of them grew eleven-fold in eight years (nine in 1980 and 102 by 1988) (Jansen 1991). Currently, a lower-end estimate numbers coffee-shops at about 1,500.  

But not everyone has been pleased with the proliferation of coffee-shops in the Netherlands. Pressures from residents to reduce the noise associated with marijuana-vendors and patrons, and international bodies (like the International Narcotics Control Board, an arm of the United Nations) calling for less drug tourism and drug trafficking led the country in 1996 to tighten their regulations. Now coffee-shops are licensed and it is only legal to possess fifteen joints (five grams) at one time.

MacCoun and Reuter, two advocates of softer marijuana policies, point out that between 1976 and 1984, marijuana use rates remained about the same for adults and youth. Thus the effect of legalization (or, “depenalization” as they put it) was minimal. From the mid-eighties to the mid-nineties, though, they observe that “surveys reveal that the lifetime prevalence of marijuana in Holland increased consistently and sharply.” They report 15 percent of 18-20 year olds used marijuana in their lifetime in 1984 turned into 44 percent by 1996 -- a 300 percent increase. Indeed, they also find cite past-month prevalence of 8.5 percent in 1984 to 18.5 percent in 1996. Why would marijuana use suddenly increase in the mid-1980s, after remaining relatively flat for nearly the first ten years of lenient marijuana laws? MacCoun and Reuter point to “commercialization” as the culprit. That is, they contend that during this period between 1984 and 1996, the greater glamorization and more visible promotion of marijuana lead to an increase in use. They claim that depenalization without commercialization does not increase use, as noted in steady use rates between 1976 and 1984 (MacCoun and Reuter 2001).

Their analysis is tightly reasoned and highly plausible – the glamorization of cocaine in early 20th century America probably led to a major increase in use during that time – but there could also be other possible reasons. Still largely unanswered is why the year 1984 is so special. What about that year made it such a tipping point for commercialization? Using MacCoun and Reuter’s own numbers that they cited from Jansen, the number of coffeeshops grew at a faster rate between 1980 and 1985 (9 to 71 -- an 8 fold increase) than between 1985 and 1988 (71 to 105) (MacCoun and Reuter 2001). Could the increase between 1984 and 1996 be more related to what I call “normalization,” that is the time where a drug is gradually accepted and brought into a culture to the point where it becomes an established, often times irreversible norm? Normalization by definition does not occur over night -- indeed when a policy as obvious to the public as marijuana legalization is implemented, it makes sense that prior anti-drug attitudes take time to soften – acceptance takes place gradually.  

The approval of marijuana in the Netherlands seems to also have the effect of downplaying the known risks of the drug, resulting in the normalization of marijuana in that country. The former Dutch health minister, Dr. Ernest Bunning, is on record as saying: “The moment we say, ‘there are people who have problems with soft drugs,’ our critics will jump on us, so it makes it a little bit difficult for us to be objective on this matter.” Even Amsterdam’s Police Commissioner, Jelle Kuiper, notes: “As long as our political class tries to pretend that soft drugs do not create dependence, we are going to go on being confronted daily with problems that officially do not exist. We are aware of an enormous number of young people strongly dependent on soft drugs, with all the consequences it has” (Collins 1998).

Additionally, the normalization of marijuana seems to have an effect on the production of the drug. Jansen notes that the annual Nederweit (high potency Dutch-grown marijuana) crop is about 100 tons a year -- almost all grown illegally -- of which 65 tons is exported. The Dutch Ministry of Justice reports that the Nederweit industry employs a remarkable 20,000 people. And since sentences for even large scale marijuana distributors are very low (the maximum a marijuana smuggler can go to jail is four years; “two years-of which he would serve one-is more likely”) (Collins 1998).

The normalization of marijuana in Europe has officials increasingly worried. A European Union working group on drug policy issued a draft resolution in July of 2004 identifying marijuana as “European drug problem number one” and recommending that governments criminalize Internet sites that promote marijuana use or cultivation.  Soon after Britain eased restrictions on marijuana use, drug problems increased, leading Prime Minister Gordon Brown to re-classify marijuana to a more serious status.   If lenient policies lead to increases in use (as is the case with our legal drugs in the U.S.), what is the damage that can result in those increased use rates?  The following two arguments explain how the scientific community has come to realize that today’s marijuana is not the harmless herb its advocates argue it is.