Pubdate: Sun, 18 Nov 2012
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright: 2012 Globe Newspaper Company
Contact: http://services.bostonglobe.com/news/opeds/letter.aspx?id=6340
Website: http://bostonglobe.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/52
Author: Tom Keane

NEXT UP IN MASS.: MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION

Ever feel like you're one step behind? Massachusetts voted earlier 
this month to approve the use of so-called "medical marijuana." 
Meanwhile, voters in Colorado and Washington state one-upped us, 
deciding simply to legalize pot altogether. No more games about 
decriminalization or having to manufacture fake diseases so one could 
get a fake prescription from a fake doctor. It's just legal - like 
beer, wine, or (except in New York City) big sodas.

Coming soon, one suspects, to a future Bay State ballot initiative: 
full-blown legalization. And in all likelihood, that too will pass. 
There are, in fact, some risks to pot, especially for kids. So if 
government officials are truly worried about the consequences of 
legalization, then the time to start rethinking is now.

Today, pot is "regulated" through the criminal justice system. Under 
federal law, possession of any amount is a misdemeanor that carries 
the possibility of one year in prison. And if you're caught again? 
Mandatory jail time of 15 days the second time; 90 days the third or 
subsequent time. Granted, most enforcement of drug laws is handled by 
state and local authorities, and prosecutors exercise a lot of 
discretion about whom they charge. Their goal, they'll say, is to get 
the dealers. Still, about 859,000 people were arrested for 
pot-related offenses in 2010 (the latest FBI numbers available). Of 
those, 750,000 were for possession. That's more arrests than for any 
other kind of crime, by the way - even more than for drunk driving.

So how's criminalization been working? About as well as did 
Prohibition in the 1920s. Back then, people kept drinking. Today, 
they're smoking up. About half of all Americans have tried pot. About 
17.4 million use it currently.

And as with Prohibition, the mounting hypocrisy - are half of us 
really lawbreakers? - is leading to a revolt. While politicians are 
mostly loath to touch the subject, regular voters are not. 
Massachusetts is one of 14 states to have passed ballot questions to 
decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, and one of 18 
to allow medical marijuana. Now, with two states voting for outright 
legalization, it seems pretty obvious where all of this is going. The 
federal government will for a time hold onto its national ban but, 
eventually, will follow the model that felled Prohibition: Leave it 
up to the states.

That will leave state officials, who will have to persuade rather 
than arrest, with a real problem: they have no credibility.

Pro-pot groups such as NORML say that for many users marijuana is a 
harmless pleasure. Pot, they argue, tends not to be addicting and on 
balance is less dangerous than alcohol. On the other hand, the 
official line is that marijuana is terrible for you. Today's rhetoric 
- - such as that from the National Institute of Drug Abuse - is not as 
over-the-top as old time scare films such as "Reefer Madness," but 
it's not that far from it, either. There are, it seems, no redeeming 
qualities to the stuff. Use it and your brain turns to mush.

NORML's argument is probably the more accurate. But in truth, we 
don't know. As many medical marijuana activists have pointed out, one 
downside to the national ban on pot is that research into its 
properties - both pro and con - is largely prohibited. There's 
evidence that pot's effect on the developing adolescent brain is 
harmful. It may well be that further investigation finds smoking 
marijuana as hazardous to one's health as smoking cigarettes. Or it 
could be that adverse effects are rare.

If - when - marijuana is legal, government officials are going to 
have to develop some standing on the matter. That means permitting 
research and being willing to speak honestly about its results. If 
moderate pot use is harmless, then say so. That will make all the 
more convincing warnings about circumstances under which there could be danger.

Right now, though, my guess is that among the general populace - and 
certainly adolescents - groups like NORML are more trusted than is 
government, whose approach to date has been a mixture of 
fear-mongering, finger-wagging, and throwing people in jail. That's 
going to have to change.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom