Time to prune the weed laws

Barry Saunders, Staff Writer


James E. Hand, my junior high school football and basketball coach at Leak Street School in Rockingham, would often ask why I hadn't done something anyone with half a brain would've known to do.

As I groped futilely for a fitting response, he'd answer his own question. "Because that would make too much sense, right?"

That's the same response you could give as to why Congress will never pass U.S. Rep. Barney Frank's recently introduced bill to remove federal penalties for possessing small amounts of marijuana.

Even Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, knows his bill has as much chance of surviving as a fatty -- that's a "thick marijuana joint" to us squares -- at a Lollapalooza concert. That's especially true during an election year, when no politician worth his lapel flag pin is going to risk providing his opponent with a sound-bite accusing him of supporting drug use.

They wouldn't be, of course: They'd be supporting common sense.

As a summer camp counselor in high school, I once had to -- and I mean "had to" -- show the 1930s-era anti-pot propaganda movie "Reefer Madness" to a bunch of adolescent kids. In the unintentionally campy movie, one toke of weed led to instant madness, suicide, murder or debauchery. Even in the 1970s, kids were sophisticated enough to see through the smoke being blown at them and to realize that the movie bore only a passing resemblance to the reality they witnessed daily.

Research by the National Institute on Drug Abuse shows that "marijuana users who have taken high doses of the drug may experience acute toxic psychosis, which includes hallucinations, delusions, and depersonalization -- a loss of the sense of personal identity, or self-recognition."

The same symptoms appear in people who use high "doses" of alcohol.

Marijuana has been demonized for decades, as much for what it allegedly makes users do -- go insane, act loony, enjoy Adam Sandler movies while consuming copious amounts of Cheetos -- as for what it leads to. Once the "Reefer Madness" accusations were debunked, marijuana was tagged with being a "gateway" drug, meaning it led smokers to harsher, more debilitating narcotics such as cocaine and heroin.

Regardless of which end of the lighted joint you stand at, there's research on marijuana use to support your view. For instance, studies purporting to show that marijuana use invariably leads to use of harder drugs are frequently cited as one reason to oppose legalizing it. Other studies purporting to debunk that theory have been been popular among proponents of decriminalization.

The findings of a 2002 RAND study -- cited, of course, by NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, dismissed the so-called "gateway theory ... and raised doubts regarding the legitimacy of federal drug policies based upon its premise." Marijuana is usually the first drug used by hard-core drug users simply because it is more accessible, the study concluded.

Regardless of the studies or how politicians feel, few will have the courage to back Frank's common-sense approach to overly harsh marijuana laws that have destroyed lives and crowded prisons. Frank, on television, said, "The notion that you lock people up. for smoking marijuana is pretty silly ... I'm going to call it the 'make room for serious criminals' bill."

As Mr. Hand would say, removing criminal penalties for something that many people view as being at least as benign as alcohol -- and which, among a certain segment, is just as common -- makes too much sense.

Makes you want to say "Bartender, pour me a double."


Barry Saunders' column appears in the City & State section on Tuesdays and Fridays. He can be reached at 836-2811 or through e-mail at barrys@newsobserver.com.


http://www.newsobserver.com/134/story/1189958.html


__._,_.___