Pubdate: Mon, 21 May 2001
Source: Tampa Tribune (FL)
Copyright: 2001, The Tribune Co.
Contact:  http://www.tampatrib.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/446
Author:  Philip Terzian, assoc editor of the Providence Journal

WAITING TO INHALE

WASHINGTON - I am perfectly happy to accept the Supreme Court's
unanimous ruling that illness is no defense against federal
prosecution for consuming marijuana. According to the court "Congress
has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy
of an exception" to the laws against controlled substances.

This is certainly plausible. The argument for so-called medical
marijuana claims that smoking pot, at most, alleviates some of the
symptoms of pain and nausea associated with cancer, chemotherapy and
AIDS. It is entirely possible that the therapeutic properties of
marijuana are illusory, a placebo, with no basis in scientific
evidence. Certainly the "cannabis clubs" that have emerged in those
states that have sanctioned the medical use of marijuana

I am blessed by the fact that my own drug of choice, bourbon, is not
only legal but, like marijuana, comparatively safe when consumed in
moderation.

- -Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon
and Washington - show very little evidence of humanitarian intent.
They seem more like , thumb-in-the-eye gestures to circumvent state
and federal laws prohibiting pot.

But if we are to accept the argument that the medical virtues of
marijuana are overstated, or even nonexistent, it is only fair to
point out that the arguments for a federal ban on marijuana are
equally exaggerated.

When federal laws to control pot were first enacted, early in the 20th
century, marijuana was widely believed to cause all manner of mental
and physical harm. Who among the baby boom generation has not guffawed
at a late-night screening of "Reefer Madness" (1933), with its scenes
of debauchery and fatal indulgence? The fact that marijuana swiftly
acquired a vogue among jazz musicians, Hollywood types and bohemians
of all creeds and races scarcely  enhanced its image.

In time, of course, the conventional wisdom evolved: By the 1960s,
marijuana was seen as not so harmful in itself - no more harmful, that
is, than innumerable legal substances - but the gateway to stronger,
more destructive drugs. Using the language later adopted by gun
control and anti-smoking advocates, the federal government argued that
a child who smokes marijuana will soon graduate to hallucinogens,
cocaine, amphetamines, heroin, whatever. And of course, there are
plenty of people who have experienced that sad trajectory.

But the scientific evidence is, yet again, equivocal. A social
historian might argue that the widespread use of marijuana, leading to
harder drugs, coincided with that period in our recent history (circa
1965-1980) when drug use exploded in the general population.
Adolescents graduated from pot to LSD to crystal meth because the
culture encouraged experimentation. Was it the marijuana that prompted
Jason to sample the stronger stuff, or the environment in which Jason
subsisted?

It now appears obvious that social and cultural factors are to blame.
Indeed, according to federal statistics, the United States seems to
have a permanent pot-smoking contingent which constitutes a little
less than 9 percent of the population. For these people, marijuana is
not an introductory phase on the path to damnation, but a "drug of
choice." I wouldn't argue that what they are doing is good for them,
or that parents and teachers are wrong to discourage interest in pot.
But these people have freely chosen to indulge in a drug which - for
reasons considerably more political than scientific - is illegal.

For the record, I should point out that 1, like former President Bill
Clinton, sampled marijuana in my youth and instantly disliked it.
Unlike President Clinton, however, I did inhale - and have ever since
loathed the odor of the stuff and its particular effect, deplored the
attendant "culture" (if that's the word for it) and avoided the
company of potheads in general. I am blessed by the fact that my own
drug of choice, bourbon, is not only legal but, like marijuana,
comparatively safe when consumed in moderation.

This is not to say that children should be steered toward alcohol: Its
benefits and dangers are evenly distributed, and abstinence is
healthy, thrifty and wise. But why tolerate the drunk or lament the
alcoholic while throwing the smoker of marijuana in jail? It is not
science which informs our resistance to pot, or even common sense, but
politics, habit and the natural instinct to enact into law the deeply
held conviction that Father knows best.

In a free society, you shouldn't need arguments to make something
legal, but instead, demand good reasons to make it illegal. Congress
and the Supreme Court have both determined that marijuana has no
medical properties. Fair enough. But neither do gin, sex, tobacco or
chocolate, all of which can lead to excess and disaster.

The drug war has failed not because drugs are irresistibly attractive
or efforts to indoctrinate the young are doomed to fail. It is,
instead, a peculiar double standard that has earned a certain cynicism
and contempt.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Andrew