Pubdate: Wed, 22 Aug 2001
Source: Jamaica Gleaner, The (Jamaica)
Copyright: 2001 The Gleaner Company Limited
Contact:  http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/493
Author: Dr. R.G. Lampart, Contributor

THE MARIJUANA PROHIBITION

The United States declaration of independence in 1776 states inter alia "We 
hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are 
endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these the 
rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these 
rights Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from 
the consent of the governed." Here is the very essence of democracy.

Harold Laski, that brilliant director of the London School of Economics, 
knowing that the created are also endowed with the desire to change and 
that the desire comes from some inherited force within, postulated further: 
"Laws", he said "do not change people. People change and laws are 
promulgated to regulate change".

In the pursuit of happiness men are constantly changing, hair styles, 
dress, habitat, eating habits, smoking, drinking, playing. Leaders said 
Laski must be cognisant of this inalienable right and be prepared to 
institute changes in the existing laws accordingly.

New Knowledge

Up until 1934 marijuana was widely used and tolerated whether rightly or 
wrongly for its medicinal and recreational social values. Between 1934 and 
1937 new knowledge came to light concerning certain effects that the plant 
had and the discoverer of these effects thought it only right to let the 
public know about them. Here is a quotation from his autobiography. He was 
at the time the director of the Bureau of Narcotics.

"The narcotics section recognises the greater danger of marijuana due to 
its impairment of the mentality and the fact that its continued use leads 
directly to the insane asylum. As the situation grew worse I knew action 
had to be taken to get proper control legislation passed. By 1937 under my 
direction the bureau launched two important steps. First, a new plan to 
seek from Congress a new law to place marijuana under federal control. 
Second, on radio and major forums and the New York Herald Tribune I told 
the story of this evil weed of the fields, river beds and roadsides. I 
wrote articles for magazines. Our agents gave hundreds of lectures to 
parents, educators, and social and civic leaders. In repeated broadcasts I 
reported on the ever increasing list of crimes including rape and murders. 
I continued to hammer at all the facts. I believe we did a good job. The 
public was alerted and the laws to protect them were passed both nationally 
and at the state level".

This was the genesis of the Marijuana Tax Act which made it a prohibited 
substance in 1937. The leaders in power then had no choice but to abide by 
the constitution and the democratic code to protect by all means those by 
whose consent they were placed in power from the users of marijuana whom 
they saw as rapists, murderers and raving lunatics.

New Light

But what of our leaders today. Much change has taken place since then. An 
enormous amount of new light has been shed on the plant. It is by no means 
the same product that was placed before the public in 1937. A sizeable 
proportion of the population both here and in the USA are convinced by the 
simple method of trial and error that the presenters to the public of the 
effect of the plant were mistaken in 1937; that in the pursuit of happiness 
they find great satisfaction in smoking the plant today. Some have even 
gone as far as to use it in their religious services. The present leaders 
have no choice but to protect that right and at the same time institute 
whatever restrictions are deemed necessary to protect any other who may be 
in danger or even inconvenienced by the exercise of that right.

The prohibition of marijuana which in the light of the knowledge then was 
understandable is in the light of the knowledge today unacceptable and 
unconstitutional and the law must be repealed. This is basically what the 
Commission has found and said. Failure to do so is an abrogation of the 
sacred trust derived from the consent of the governed. The Prime Minister 
has no other choice.

I think it is a pity that the US Embassy spokesman spoke so quickly, for a 
closer look at the US situation would have shown that the leaders there 
have no other choice either and should have advised accordingly. The last 
UN convention on this matter of which the commissioners were fully aware 
was in 1988. In today's global village and technology with knowledge 
increasing exponentially much more is known now than in 1988. I believe the 
Prime Minister should in the light of all this call for a new convention. 
In this he would be well supported.

It may be of interest also to note that the man more than any other who was 
instrumental in the passage of the 1937 law died regretting the role he 
played. Perhaps by then he also had begun to see more light. Now in 
pleasant contrast Joe Clark, former Canadian Prime Minister, and now Leader 
of the Opposition, has come out openly for decriminalisation saying that he 
is concerned about being part of a system which makes a young man go 
through life with a criminal record because of a spliff.

I myself who have never in my entire life tried even a spliff find it very 
sad that there are leaders here of a country which in 1962 in her 
presentation to the world as an independent nation spoke of human rights 
and introduced the concept of a special year of human rights being added to 
the world's calendar who have failed to recognise that the whole marijuana 
issue has more to do with constitutional rights than any other single factor.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth