Yes, the LeDain Commission in 1972, followed by a special inquiry in 1996, then by the 2002 report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, none of which have had any actual effect.
The idea that marijuana would still have a black market if it were legalized is well frankly bizzare. A pack of cigarettes is 4 bucks and though I don’t claim to be an expert on marijuana they don’t call it “weed” for nothing. Its an exceedingly easy plant to grown commercially and has been done so for millenia (as hemp). Some schmoe growing marijuana in a clearing 100 miles in the woods has no chance to compete against an industrial farm with mechanical equipment, economies of scale and modern farming methods. I see no reason why we wouldn’t see packs of MJ cigarettes for 4 bucks and loose MJ at an equal price of loose tobacco.
I think Martin Hyde based his claim (of high retail prices) not on economics of the industry, but on a ‘sin tax’ policy. Although I don’t see what’d be the point of that. At best it would send some sort of symbolic message, at the cost of tax revenue and regulating the product that gets sold. There’s already a robust black market network. The way to weaken it is by offering a known good product at lower prices. If the legal price is 5% cheaper, the illicit produce will cut prices by 20%. If it’s cheaper by 25%, then street price drops by 45-50%. But eventually, there’s a point beyond which most of the black marketeers don’t see the point in marketing pot. When pot is legal, possession & consumption will be legal, so high legal prices won’t deter consumption, just where it’s bought from. The government agency in charge of pot, post-prohibition, will know this, and will want to optimize revenues.
According to Hashibe et al., while marijuana smoke contains some of the same carcinogens as tabacco, studies have shown it does not increase the risk of lung cancer. If there are studies that show a cause-and-effect relationship between marijuana and cancer, one must also ask whether tobacco is mixed with marijuana - a pretty common practice to “extend” the marijuana content. In a breathtaking (literally) study done by researchers in Arizona, the authors found that monkeys exposed to marijuana smoke for an entire year showed no more signs of carcinogen-damaged DNA than the controls.
It is, however, very well known that marijuana does create disturbances in immune cell formation. Overall, Marijuana seems to have an affinity or tropism to modulate immune system function which can be seen here, here, here and here. However, one’s immune system is highly efficient and most cells from the white blood cell lineage end up being auto-reactive and are prohibited from leaving the bone marrow and thymus.
Interestingly, marijuana’s ability to influence the immune system can be used to alleviate pain and suffering. Researchers have found uses in multiple sclerosis, HIV-related wasting and increased intraocular pressure caused by glaucoma.
You may also want to read this article in The International Journal of Neurophychopharmacology.
In sum, marijuana is bad but its safer than cigarettes and alcohol. The reason it will never be legalized because its decriminalization would put a lot of people out of a job. With the privatization of prisons, there is money to be gained by housing marijuana users. Where will the guards go? Who will hire the wardens that aren’t needed anymore?
After all, the only reason why its illegal is because Nixon had contempt for a pot-smoking counterculture that were completely against the war. If Nixon blatantly ignored the recommendation of the Shaker Commision, we’d all be in a better place.
The end.
- Honesty
I think you mean if Nixon hadn’t blatantly ignored the recommendation of the Shafer Commission, we’d all be in a better place.
Yea, what he said. 
Well, there is a black market for tobacco–sort of. One hears of people being prosecuted for large-scale smuggling cigarettes from a low-tax state into a high-tax one, but to my way of thinking that’s not nearly as bad as having the local street gang controlling street sales.
i’m surprised no one has mentioned this.
From the link that comrade33 provided:
Wow, people still believe that shit?
People act like Marijuana prohibition is an entrenched part of our culture. It’s only been illegal for half of a century.
Fiorello La Guardia opposed the measure but was outweighed by the federal will.
The History channel, which is largely the American propaganda channel has been having documentaries about how bad prohibition is for America, not just relating to marijuana. They are preparing us for it’s legalization.
The idea that entrenchment stops change in a social function is naive and dismisses the fact that societies change all the time.
Ayahuasca is being argued in the Supreme Court for legalization for it’s use as a sacrament by the churches: Uniao do Vegetal and the Santo Daime. As religions use Cannabis as a sacrament, this will open up a whole level of argument about whether or not the government has the right to sanction the use of a sacrament by one church and not by others. Then people will start to argue that they shouldn’t be forced to belong to an organized religion in order to be allowed a sacrament.
It’s a matter of time, all drugs will be legal within the next decade or so. I know very few people of my generation and younger that believe the hype about Marijuana. I am 28, when my generation starts taking power in the next 5-10 years you’ll see a major shift in priorities. I guarantee you, the drug war won’t be a high one.
Erek
It moderates the pace, though. More precisely, minds don’t change, the old ones just pass away. Like the 2004 Nov Alaskan marijuana legalization ballot showed, vast majority of over 65s said No, whereas 60% of under 30s said Yes.
This sounds unrealistic to me, unless some major trigger occurs, like federal budget crunch. mid-2020s is more likely.
Don’t forget public opinion. A poll in 2001 showed 34% favored legalization of marijuana, 67% opposed it. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/08/23/marijuana-full.htm That was, so this story says, the highest level of support for legalization in at least 30 years – but still a long, long way from a tipping point. So far, such few legalization referenda as have been put before the voters all have failed. The American people just don’t want it yet. (Both poll results and referendum results, of course, might be different on the narrower issue of legalizing the holy hempweed for medical purposes only.)
Sure, I think lack of enforcement will be the rule, as budgets dry up due to the fact that the government is broke, and you’ll see other parts of the government kvetch as budgets that could be going to them keep going to enforcement of a stupid law.
However, you must remember that drugs are actually regulated by the FDA which controls scheduling. It’s scheduling could change at any time. You can already see less emphasis put onto enforcement against psychedelics. Largely the government has stopped caring. They put up a good front, and go after the big suppliers, but the political will just isn’t there anymore.
Erek
FDA controls drug schedules? Cite? It’s under the DEA’s control. The HHS secretary may make ?binding? recommendations to the DEA, but I don’t see where the FDA enters into it. Are you suggesting some unofficial arrangement between the DEA and the FDA?
Public opinion is not molded in a vacuum. That $100mn ONDCP advertising budget, D.A.R.E., journalistic and political conflating of drug problems and drug-war-related problems…etc, are what’s feeding the cycle…
According to a History Channel documentary I saw about it originally the FDA controlled scheduling for drugs. It is after all the Food and DRUG Administration. If the DEA controlled scheduling that would be a clear violation of checks and balances as the DEA is clearly part of the Judicial branch.
Erek
Read this and see what you think.
‘originally’ is the keyword. AFAIK, the DEA Administrator has final say. When Francis Young vacated MDMA from Schedule I in 1988 and asked* the DEA Admin to schedule it to III, the Admin refused and rescheduled it as I.
*The decisions of the DEA’s administrative law judge, Francis Young in late 1980s, are not binding on the DEA Admin.
It is true that hash is a gateway drug. We see this in Ireland all the time(It is actually one of the big arguements for legalising it). The reason it is a gateway drug is that it puts experimental middle-class youths in touch with drug dealers.
Cite (from Ireland)?
Didn’t the **Shaker **Commission recommend to Nixon that he should ignore the recommendations of the **Shafer **Commission.