Marijuana Deserves Less Stigma and Other Substances Deserve More

Content Warning: This article includes historical quotations that contain offensive racial language. These terms are presented in their original context for accuracy and to critically examine the history of drug policy and propaganda.

Like many other universities near the South, marijuana is often looked down upon at UVA. This might be surprising because the same people who go on and on about how harmful it is and how they could never be “drug addicts” will down a handle in the same breath. Why is that? It’s fascinating that alcohol is so integral to UVA culture, to the point that the legend behind our unofficial mascot, the Wahoo, supposedly comes from reclaiming an insult calling UVA students alcoholics. The story goes that during one fateful football game, Washington and Lee students referred to UVA students as “wahoos,” a type of fish that can drink twice its weight. UVA students then reclaimed this insult and proudly adopted the term. 

I believe people give alcohol too much leeway and misunderstand marijuana. A large factor in the negative public perception of marijuana has to do with racist propaganda in the early to mid-1900s. I’ll dive deeper into that later in this article, but first, let’s lay out some facts.

Marijuana, generally speaking, is significantly less physically harmful than alcohol and tobacco. On average, alcohol takes the lives of 178,000 people annually in the United States, tobacco takes 480,000 lives, and marijuana accounts for zero direct overdose deaths per year. This is not to say marijuana brings no risk, but that the awareness of its harm should put more emphasis on the method of consumption. 

Smoking from a bowl or straight joints can be harmful due to the smoke being inhaled into the lungs. However, mairjuana is unique in that it can be inhaled through a bong which filters out some of the carcinogens, or edibles, which avoid the inhalation altogether. Blunts and spliffs are a separate conversation, as both contain tobacco.

Alcohol is linked to a wide range of violent crimes such as domestic abuse. In comparison, how many times have you heard somebody say, “One joint is all it takes for my dad to beat my mom.” But you hear a similar sentiment linked to alcohol all the time. I want to clarify that I am not trying to excuse the actions of the perpetrator by claiming alcohol as a causation, but rather to encourage thinking critically about the role alcohol plays in enabling and escalating that behavior. 

So why exactly is marijuana so stigmatized? One key aspect is the racist propaganda in the 1900s targeting substance-use. Harry Anslinger, commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics at the time, made statements such as: “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, results from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others.” Anslinger also pushed for the drug to be referred to as “Marihuana,” the Spanish spelling as opposed to “cannabis.” 

Marijuana was widely used by Mexican immigrants both recreationally and medicinally. The medicinal benefits of Marijuana come from a group of chemical compounds known as cannabinoids. When tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) binds to CB1 receptors in the brain, it can reduce muscle tension, provide pain relief, reduce nausea, and help with chronic pain. For those working in laborious jobs, marijuana had the ability to provide a great amount of physical relief. 

One may argue, “It’s still a drug so people deserve to be punished for using it.” But I think that’s hypocritical. Ask yourself why you are most likely comfortable with the idea of a white-collar dad cracking open a beer at happy hour but draw the line at the thought of a Mexican immigrant smoking a little bit of pot after a long day of working in the field?

A few decades later, the Nixon administration also made an effort to criminalize marijuana to create a negative public perception of the anti-war movement as well as making an effort to associate heroin with black people. John Erlichmen, senior advisor for Nixon once stated: “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

The fact of the matter is, our beliefs about drugs have always been largely shaped by propaganda and social biases, beyond biological facts. Another notable example is the public perception of powder cocaine versus crack. Powder cocaine is generally more expensive due its higher purity, causing it to be associated with wealthier demographics. Both substances are generally speaking pharmacologically identical, but the way they are used, smoking crack and snorting powder, produces different amounts of intensity which distinguishes a moderate level of harm. Still, powder cocaine has historically been perceived as a “classy” and “luxury” drug due to its associations with wealth and higher social status. Powder cocaine was associated with social circles in Wall Street in the 70s and 80s, and now allegedly even the wealthier fraternities at UVA, while crack is associated with homelessness and poverty (think of language uses like “crackhead”). 

Ultimately, I hope this article has presented some insights into the drug history and the role race and class play in the public perception of certain substances. Furthermore, I hope this article  helps you understand your “stoner” friends better. You may be inclined to give them less of a side-eye and perhaps redirect that side-eye to your roommate who is about to get wasted at Trin.