Even such respected periodicals as the American Journal of Medicine went along with this strategy, publishing such warnings as: "Marijuana users will suddenly turn with murderous violence upon whoever is nearest to them. They will run amuck with a knife, axe, gun, or anything else that is close at hand, and will kill or maim without reason". F.T. Merrill of the Opium Research Committee wrote: "While numerous crimes [have been] traced to its abuse, its peculiar virulent effect, leading sometimes to insanity, makes its use dangerous to the individuals and to society in general . . . [it] leads to uncontrollable irritability and violent rages, which in most forms cause assault and murder" (Grinspoon, 1971, p.17). .
It appears that the current attitude toward marijuana prohibition is based on the belief that relaxed policies lead to greater use. Statistics argue otherwise: nationwide, marijuana use in 1984 was measured at 26.3%, and in the eleven states that decriminalized marijuana, it was 27.3%. In 1988, the percentages were 15.4 and 16.1, respectively. In those eleven states, decriminalization meant that individuals were no longer arrested for simple possession. In ten of those states there is a $0-100 fine for possession-the result of a threat by the federal government to withhold highway money for states that did not have minimum punishment standards (Thies and Register, 1993, p.387). Going outside the country for another example of how legalization does not lead to greater use, Holland has witnessed a 40% decrease in marijuana use since the Dutch government legalized it in 1976 (Grinspoon, L. 1971, p.94). During the same time period, marijuana use has decreased in the United States, so it cannot be definitively argued that either stronger penalties or decriminalization is better at affecting the number of people who use marijuana. It seems clear that social policy, and not legal policy, had the greater effect in Holland.
