Pubdate: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 Source: Huntsville Times (AL) Copyright: 2004 The Huntsville Times Contact: http://www.htimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/730 Author: David Prather Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/meth.htm (Methamphetamine) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/drug+epidemic A DRUG EPIDEMIC THAT SHOULD SCARE EVERYONE You've probably seen the billboard in the photoe at the end of this column, or one like it. The Partnership for a Drug-Free Community has 11 anti-marijuana signs in Madison County, thanks to a federal grant. It's a good idea because marijuana is illegal. It is (at least) psychologically addictive. It can damage your brain. It contains, Deborah Soule, the director of the Partnership says, 400-plus carcinogens. It's a gateway drug. Or.... It's a bad idea because marijuana is no worse, and it some ways better (less likely to produce violence, for example), than alcohol. It's continued criminalization ruins people's lives unnecessarily; it promotes a criminal entrepreneurial culture. And, as a former Harvard University professor said on TV the other night, there has never been a documented case of death because of marijuana toxicity. Some doctors even say marijuana has legitimate medical uses. But I'm not here to argue that our marijuana laws are right or wrong, good or bad. Or that those who favor decriminalization - or at least giving its use a a nod and a wink, which most advanced nations, do - is correct. What I'm trying to say is that reasonable people can disagree on the issue. It's legitimately debatable. Whereas, I have never seen, read or heard anyone say that methamphetamines are in any way safe, socially acceptable or in need of decriminalization. I would guess that the only person who has anything good to say about the drug is the person trying to sell it to you. Let's put it another way, the way a Huntsville police officer put it to me: "We may have a marijuana problem, but we've got a meth epidemic." He told me that last week, when U.S. Rep. Bud Cramer and a horde of law enforcement officers from this area were discussing how best to try to inoculate us from the meth disease. So why have Soule and the Partnership put up the anti-marijuana billboards and ignored the methamphetamine issue. First, the billboards are up because the Partnership got a federal grant to put them up. If you ran an anti-drug agency, would you have turned the money down? Second, it's not true that the Partnership has ignored the methamphetamine problem. They've held town meetings. They've distributed literature. They are planning more anti-meth programs, including updating local merchants on what to look for in terms of purchases that ersatz chemists use to make methamphetamine. Still, the question remains: With meth such a growth industry, and its customers so prone to violence under its spell, and so ready to beg, borrow or steal to support a psychological and physiological need, why not focus most resources on it? Soule agrees methamphetamine presents us with a clear and present danger, but says that the Partnership can't ignore the marijuana problem, which she says every high school in this city faces. "You have to take a stand," she says. I applaud Soule for doing that. I don't doubt her sincerity, hard work and concern for young lives. But there are lesser and greater evils in the world. I will wager that sometime - probably not in my lifetime - marijuana will be regulated the same way alcohol is regulated. The winds of change inexorably blow that way. That will be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your point of view and on the consequences of such actions. But I'll also wager that meth will never be legalized. Nor should it. The big question is whether we can control it. So far, we're failing miserably. Maybe a more concentrated focus on it would help. David Prather's column appears each Wednesday on the Commentary page. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin