Pubdate: Fri, 10 Jan 2003
Source: Daily Herald-Tribune (CN AB)
Copyright: 2003 Daily Herald -Tribune
Contact:  http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1840

DEBATE ON MARIJUANA IS DOUBLE-EDGED

Is it about the effects of pot or civil libertarianism?

Since the Herald-Tribune ran a front-page story and subsequent feature 
material outlining the proliferation of the illicit street drug known as 
crystal meth in Grande Prairie, the specifics of the drug itself and the 
terrible effects it can have on the user and the family, a debate has 
ensued on the letters section of this page with respect to that drug's 
relationship to marijuana use.

One letter writer, once a user of many drugs and alcohol, who now - six 
clean years later - works in drug rehab and counselling - made reference to 
a "gateway" theory and that reference has touched off a maelstrom of 
response from across North America seeking to debunk that theory.

Essentially, in the context of loosening Canadian marijuana legislation and 
the potential fallout from that, the theory suggests users of marijuana, 
for any number of reasons, will almost certainly go on to try harder, more 
addictive drugs like cocaine, heroine and crystal meth.

The basis for this theory varies: Some suggest it has more to do with the 
crowd and contacts pot users meet in the every day business of getting high 
that eventually takes them to easier access to harder drugs. Others suggest 
the high from the marijuana can make users yearn for a different and more 
powerful high. And there are varying combinations of both.

In short, the theory suggests the marijuana user is on an inevitable 
slippery slope to junkiedom and the best way to stop the abuse of hard 
drugs is to limit access to soft ones, or at least, raise a public 
awareness campaign that attempts to ward off young users from ever getting 
started.

This editorial is not to support or dismantle the "gateway" theory: There 
isn't enough space and we would certainly be inundated with a raft of 
letters rehashing the same debate over and over again.

But the message could be in the debate itself.

Those who believe in freer access to marijuana, who advocate at least its 
decriminalization, seem to be a loosely affiliated, organized and eloquent 
bunch that feel compelled to publicly respond to advocates of 
anti-marijuana policy and/or the "gateway" theory. Letters arrive en masse 
from across North America, particularly from the United States.

It is from those writers that the debate begins to shift and be more about 
the freedom of choice and the unwillingness to give government more power 
to protect us from ourselves than it does with the medical and social 
fallout from drug use.

It seems likely that some time this year, laws governing marijuana use in 
this country will be radically changed. And in this process the debate will 
certainly continue and predictably, the debate will be divided pro and con, 
but it will also be divided by two base issues: Whether or not small 
amounts of marijuana will have a negative effect on our society and its 
individuals and/or the notion that our Big Brother government knows what's 
best for us.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Alex