Table Of ContentPOLITICAL PHILOSOPHY • PUBLIC POLICY
S
T
“Matt Stolick reviews the science and medicine but goes further in explicating the O
folly and futility of using the law to punish users of this drug by carefully exploring L
I
how the fi elds of philosophy, religion, and ethics further inform the issue. His powerful C
treatment of the subject leaves little doubt that the long-standing prohibition of marijuana K
is an anachronistic and harmful absurdity.”
—LESTER GRINSPOON, M.D., associate professor emeritus of psychiatry
at Harvard Medical School and author of Marijuana Reconsidered
Otherwise
and Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine
“This comprehensive examination of the cannabis issue is highly accurate in its scientifi c O
analysis, broadly multidisciplinary, and highly worthy of attention. The philosophical
t
arguments advanced are quite thought-provoking in their examination of cannabis
h Law-Abiding
policy. It portends to be a very signifi cant contribution to the fi eld.”
—ETHAN RUSSO, M.D., senior medical advisor at the e
r
Cannabinoid Research Institute
w
Matt Stolick presents a detailed social and scientifi c exploration of the social history i
Citizens
of cannabis, the chemical makeup of the cannabis plant, and the effects of cannabis s
e
use. By offering a truly interdisciplinary look at this highly political issue, he clearly
articulates the reasoning behind the categorical rejection of legal cannabis use by L
the United States and other nations. Approaching the discussion of cannabis use
a
from perspectives embedded within philosophy, political science, psychology, and
w
neurobiology, Stolick provides an even-handed account of the scientifi c realities and
-
social practicalities surrounding the use of cannabis for both medical and recreational
A
purposes.
b
i
Drawing on the moral thought of Aristotle, Kant, Mill, and Christianity, this book dem-
d
onstrates the moral nature of cannabis use. Grounding discussion of cannabis use in
i A Scientific and
both moral theory and scientifi c fact, this book gives readers a thorough understanding
n
of the social and political issues that continue to dictate cannabis law.
g
Moral Assessment
M S
ATT TOLICK is associate professor of philosophy at Findlay University in Ohio. C
of Cannabis Use
i
t
i
z
e
n Matt Stolick
s
For orders and information please contact the publisher
Lexington Books
ISBN-13: 978-0-7391-2745-2
A division of Rowman & Littlefi eld Publishers, Inc.
ISBN-10: 0-7391-2745-4
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200
Lanham, Maryland 20706
1-800-462-6420
www.lexingtonbooks.com
OOtthheerrwwiisseeLLaawwAAbbiiddiinnggPPOODDLLIITTHH..iinndddd 11 1100//2211//0088 1122::0088::5577 PPMM
O T H E R W I S E L A W - A B I D I N G
C I T I Z E N S
O T H E R W I S E L A W - A B I D I N G
C I T I Z E N S
A Scientific and Moral Assessment
of Cannabis Use
Matt Stolick
LEXINGTON BOOKS
A division of
ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC.
Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth,UK
LEXINGTON BOOKS
A division ofRowman & Littlefield Publishers,Inc.
A wholly owned subsidiary ofThe Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group,Inc.
4501 Forbes Boulevard,Suite 200
Lanham,MD 20706
Estover Road
Plymouth PL6 7PY
United Kingdom
Copyright © 2009 by Lexington Books
All rights reserved.No part ofthis publication may be reproduced,stored in a
retrieval system,or transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic,mechanical,
photocopying,recording,or otherwise,without the prior permission ofthe publisher.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available
Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Stolick,Matthew,1969–
Otherwise law-abiding citizens:a scientific and moral assessment ofcannabis use /
Matthew Stolick.
p.;cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13:978-0-7391-2745-2 (cloth:alk.paper)
ISBN-10:0-7391-2745-4 (cloth:alk.paper)
eISBN-13:978-0-7391-3161-9
eISBN-10:0-7391-3161-3
1. Cannabis—Social aspects—United States.2. Cannabis—Therapeutic use—United
States.3. Cannabis—Law and legislation—United States. I.Title.
[DNLM:1. Cannabinoids—therapeutic use—United States.2. Marijuana Smoking—
legislation & jurisprudence—United States.3. Legislation,Drug—United States.4.
Philosophy,Medical—United States. QV 766 S875o 2009]
HV5822.C3S76 2009
362.29'520973—dc22
2008029397
Printed in the United States ofAmerica
(cid:2)™
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements ofAmerican
National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence ofPaper for Printed Library
Materials,ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.
Contents
Introduction:The Two Realities That Dictate the Meaning of
Cannabis Use in the United States vii
Part I: The Scientific Reality on Cannabis Use
1 The Plant-Brain Connection:The Neurological Truth about
Cannabis Use 3
2 Experienced and Therapeutic Effects ofCannabis Use 37
3 The Acute and Chronic Harms Associated with Cannabis Use 87
Part II: The Social Reality on Cannabis Use
4 Western Responses to the Unknown:Foundational Events
Creating the Social Reality ofCannabis Use 145
5 Revealing the Current Social Reality ofCannabis Use in the
United States 195
Part III: AMoral Assessment ofCannabis Use and Law
6 “Utilitarianism,”“On Liberty”and Cannabis Use 207
7 A Kantian Assessment ofCannabis Use and Law 247
8 Aristotle on Cannabis Use and Law:The “Means”of
Temperance and Justice 273
9 Old Testament and Cannabis 293
10 Christian Ethics and Cannabis Use 305
— v—
vi Contents
Conclusion:The Essence ofCannabis Law:Avoiding Change
at All Costs 347
Bibliography 369
Index 381
About the Author 393
Introduction: The Two Realities That
Dictate the Meaning of Cannabis
Use in the United States
THISPROJECTBEGANWITHMYMORALrevulsion at the utter callousness ofar-
resting and criminalizing terminally ill patients because they used
cannabis.In speaking with those who work in palliative care as nurses,social
workers, oncologists, and hospice volunteers, the response is consistent: the
law prohibiting cannabis to these patients is certainly unjust.In talking with
those who use cannabis for various illnesses,including terminal illness,there
is almost always expressed a fear oflegal punishment and criminalization.My
search for the truth about cannabis has been an extensive multidisciplinary at-
tempt to locate credible accounts about the nature of cannabis use and the
cannabis plant.I have come to conclude the essence ofthe current prohibition
ofcannabis use is one ofthe criminalization of“otherwise law-abiding citizens”
in order to stifle social change in the United States.Otherwise law-abiding citi-
zens are regular citizens and community members from all walks of life who
but for using cannabis are law-abiding.
There emerge from the cannabis literature two sets ofbeliefs regarding the
meaning of cannabis. I will throughout refer to these two ways of under-
standing cannabis as “Realities.”I employ the term “Reality”in a sociological
way as articulated in Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s The Social Con-
struction ofReality.“Reality”is “a quality appertaining to phenomena that we
recognize as having a being independent ofour own volition (we cannot ‘wish
them away’).” This quality involves how we understand the phenomena of
cannabis and cannabis use.1One of the two Realities on cannabis use will be
called the “Social Reality on Cannabis Use.” The Social Reality “knows”
— vii—
viii Introduction
cannabis as essentially a Schedule I drug,high abuse potential with no thera-
peutic uses. The other Reality on cannabis use is the “Scientific Reality on
Cannabis Use.”The Scientific Reality “knows”cannabis as 483 chemical com-
ponents,a relatively safe recreational drug with various therapeutic uses.
There are three main benefits derived from a sociological approach to de-
bates about cannabis use and cannabis law.First is the acknowledgement of
social events as relevant to the meaning ofcannabis.This “sociology ofknowl-
edge”as applied to cannabis allows a consideration ofnot only empirical facts
about cannabis (e.g.,its chemical composition,neurological effects) but also
a Social Reality understanding of cannabis as Schedule I,dangerous with no
therapeutic uses.I present historical events and processes by which the body
of“knowledge”of Social Reality on cannabis use has come to be established
as“Reality.”It became readily apparent to me upon my historical research of
cannabis that the meaning of cannabis would not be captured by recording
merely therapeutic effects experienced by terminally ill patients.The twentieth-
century United States created and launched “reefer madness,” intentionally
creating a Social Reality of cannabis. This Social Reality is not based upon
what can be studied neurologically and experientially.
A second benefit of citing two Realities is that it acknowledges the con-
victions of each group before assessing them rationally and morally.In this
way sociology ofknowledge respects strong convictions about cannabis and
its effects.One argument considered several times throughout cannabis lit-
erature is the “gateway argument,”claiming cannabis use leads toheroin use
(or other hard drug use).This argument is held very strongly by the Social
Reality up to the present day.It will be shown upon examination,however,
that the Scientific Reality considers the gateway argument a relic of propa-
ganda from the past,“nonsense,”and a political argument not based on em-
pirical evidence.However,again,the Social Reality “knows”the gateway ar-
gument is a reason against the legalization of cannabis. Berger and
Luckmann explain that in applying sociology of knowledge,“the sociology
of knowledge must concern itself with whatever passes for ‘knowledge’in a
society,regardless ofthe ultimate validity or invalidity (by whatever criteria)
of such ‘knowledge’”(Berger and Luckmann 1966,3).Although there is lit-
tle ofeither scientific or rational validity to major claims made by the Social
Reality on cannabis use this does not make non-existent many Americans
who believe (or at least parrot) these claims. Berger and Luckmann recog-
nize “the sociology ofknowledge is concerned with the analysis ofthe social
construction of reality.”I too have found that in order to capture the mean-
ing ofcannabis use in the United States I had to go beyond the Scientific Re-
ality into the construction of“marijuana”as it has developed historically in
the United States (and more broadly in the West).
Introduction ix
A third benefit of employing a sociology of knowledge is that it invites the
emergence of an interdisciplinary discussion on the meaning of cannabis in
the United States.Getting to the “Truth”about cannabis demands a consider-
ation of different facets and nuances about the meaning of cannabis. Disci-
plines through which I consider the meaning ofcannabis use include neurol-
ogy, sociology, psychology, cultural studies, religious studies, therapy,
Hinduism,Christianity,Judaism,Islam,political science,and others.
The Social Construction of Realityhas three main parts:The Foundations
of Knowledge in Everyday Life, Society as Objective Reality, and Society as
Subjective Reality.In this way,knowledge (e.g.,about cannabis) is built upon
foundations,and is of both an objective social reality and of a subjective ac-
ceptance of this objective social reality.The Social Reality of cannabis use is
foundational in U.S.society,one ofSchedule I status with laws prohibiting its
use and criminalizing users. Foundations start with the “everyday life” as a
“taken for granted”reality by the “ordinary members ofsociety in the subjec-
tively meaningful conduct oftheir lives”(Berger and Luckmann 1966,19–20).
In this ordinary reality we most basically use language to demonstrate our un-
derstanding ofeach other and ourselves in expressing ourselves.This language
includes “objectified institutions.” I propose the current Social Reality on
cannabis use in the United States is such an objectified institution. To have
“objectivity”in this sense means that the Social Reality of cannabis use exists
above and beyond any particular people defending the beliefs. “In other
words, the institutions are now experienced as possessing a reality of their
own,a reality that confronts the individual as an external and coercive fact”
(Berger and Luckmann 1966, 58). Americans simply accept and take for
granted that cannabis (for the Social Reality, “marijuana”) is a dangerous
Schedule I drug.The Social Reality labels cannabis-users deviants,pot heads,
morally bad people with a negative stigma attached solely by virtue of using
cannabis (regardless of motivations involved).Citizens are raised and indoc-
trinated to understand cannabis use as per the Social Reality,being trained to
accept the “institution”ofthe Social Reality on cannabis use and appearing to
the child as all does to a child,“as given,unalterable and self-evident”(Berger
and Luckmann 1966,59).
Today,growing into adolescence and young adulthood in the United States
brings with it ample availability of cannabis,given the rampant black market
ofthis ironically top-grossing cash crop ofthe United States.The natural ma-
turing process has adolescents and young adults wanting reasons and an ex-
planation for the beliefs they have been given as citizens.They want an expla-
nation for the current legal status of cannabis.Given their adolescent way of
thinking, if there is a law to criminalize, punish, and negatively stigmatize
cannabis users,then it stands to reason cannabis must be dangerous.Berger
