Pubdate: Thu, 07 Nov 2013
Source: Gazette, The (Colorado Springs, CO)
Copyright: 2013 The Gazette
Contact: http://www.gazette.com/sections/opinion/submitletter/
Website: http://www.gazette.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/165
Author: Barry Fagin

FUTURE DRUG POLICY SHOULD INCLUDE MORE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE

It's a warm and wonderful feeling to read The Gazette's story about 
6-year-old Charlotte Figi and "Charlotte's Web," the marijuana oil 
that appears to be safely and effectively controlling her Dravet's 
Syndrome epilepsy. Her progress toward a normal, healthy childhood is 
a small but important victory for the forces of good.

But as heartwarming as the story is, it shouldn't stop us from asking 
deeper, harder questions with much more disturbing answers. What 
about all the children with Dravet's who died young these past 50 
years? Why wasn't an effective treatment available to any of them? 
Even as we cry tears of joy for the Figi family, shouldn't we also 
weep for those whom our laws condemned to needless suffering and death?

Of course we should, and yet we don't. That's because we don't know 
them. No novelist will set their lives in prose. No journalist will 
tell their story, and no screenwriter will pitch a movie about them. 
They can't, because no one knows who they are. People who die because 
what they need to live hasn't been invented yet are society's lost 
victims. A silent, human tragedy.

This isn't just about marijuana. It's about the other side, the 
hidden cost, of banning any drug or any medical treatment. The 
distinction between the two, after all, is murky at best. Medicine is 
something you take to make you feel better, which is exactly why drug 
users take drugs. The distinction, presumably, is that medicine cures 
disease, or at least relieves symptoms, while drugs give you 
pleasure. But what about marijuana, which does both? That's why we 
put the word "medical" in front of it. That means you're not taking 
it just to get high, which means it's OK.

We all know the cost of imperfect medical knowledge. In the late 
1950s, it was discovered that the tranquilizer thalidomide, if taken 
during pregnancy, could and did produce children with malformed limbs 
(I went to school with one). The resulting outcry led to the 
Kefauver-Harris amendments of 1962, which gave the power for the FDA 
to make all drugs illegal until they were proved "safe and effective."

The war on drugs and the "safe and effective" standard are a form of 
prohibition. One forbids the use of chemicals that give pleasure but 
are believed to be "dangerous" and "addictive" (with notable 
exceptions of caffeine, nicotine and alcohol); the other forbids the 
use of chemicals that are not designated "safe and effective" by a 
government agency. Ultimately, both of them rely on visceral, 
emotional responses to maintain legitimacy.

There just isn't any substance we know, including booze, crystal 
meth, crack and heroin, that is guaranteed to turn anyone who takes 
it into a mindless carjacking maniac who will do anything for a high. 
The best evidence we have is that the effect of hallucinogenic drugs 
is a highly variable, complex interaction of genetics, chemistry and 
environment.

Similarly, the whole idea of "safety" and "efficacy" means something 
very different if you are dying of AIDS. Or suffering from Dravet's. 
It may break our hearts to see desperate people try desperate things. 
But we are not helping them by making unproven drugs illegal. In 
fact, as Colorado's legalizing of pot has shown, we can often help 
sufferers like Charlotte Figi best by adding a little freedom to the mix.

What would a sane American drug policy look like? I don't have all 
the answers, and I know that the case of children is always 
problematic. But I think a brighter drug future has to include more 
freedom and personal choice. More warning labels, and fewer threats 
of jail. More legalization, and less prohibition. More focus on 
preventing harm to others, and less moralizing about people harming themselves.

For all our talk of respecting freedom in America, I'd submit that 
doesn't mean much without the freedom to choose what we put in our 
bodies. That includes drugs that relieve symptoms or medicine that 
gives you a buzz.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom