40 YEARS OF REEFER MADNESS

Save us from politicians sending messages.

They were at it again last week, debating a bill that would provide
civil fines, instead of criminal records, for those caught
possessing small amounts of marijuana.

"That's the wrong message to send to our kids," Attorney General Tom
Reilly said. "We have to keep them out of drugs."

State Rep. Karyn Polito, R-Shrewsbury, agreed, saying the bill
"sends the wrong message."

Let's get real: Politicians don't send messages, especially to kids,
who couldn't name their state representative if their iPods depended
on it. For 40 years, politicians have been "sending messages" to
kids about the dangers of pot and for 40 years, the kids have been
ignoring them. State legislators and attorneys general don't send
messages; they pass laws and prosecute people caught breaking them.
The law they have now said they can send you to prison for six
months and fine you $500 for possession of a single joint - on top of
your lawyer's fees, of course. Another law makes anyone convicted
of marijuana possession ineligible for federal college loans
or grants. Nice message they are sending: Anyone who smokes pot
shouldn't be able to go to college.

Reilly is worried about sending messages to kids, but the law he
supports applies to adults as well. A federal study released last
year found that 12 percent of adults in the greater Boston area had
smoked marijuana in the previous month. Twelve percent broke the law
by choosing this relatively benign alternative to a cocktail.

What message are the politicians sending to millions of adults? That
they can't decide for themselves which mild intoxicant to enjoy.
That their government believes they must be treated like children -
or criminals. The adults aren't listening to the politicians'
message any more than the kids are. Some of them have been laughing
at "reefer madness" propaganda for 40 years, and the passage of time
hasn't made it any more convincing. In fact, the aging of the baby
boomers has given science its first opportunity to measure
the impact of long-term drug use. In a recent review of the
research, Time magazine reported that, while cocaine and heroin are
as dangerous as originally thought, "the so-called demon weed turned
out to be a lot less devilish than advertised.

"The popular image of the goofy, smoky slacker notwithstanding, a
2003 study in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological
Society found that even among regular users, there is no proof that
pot causes irreversible cognitive damage," Time writes.

Long-term use can affect memory, but those effects fade if the user
stops. Marijuana can be addictive for some, said psychologist Peter
Provet, president of Odyssey House. "But a lot of people who use pot
don't become addicts."

Forty years doesn't seem to have changed the politics of drug laws.
State legislators all seem to have this Nixon-era belief that if
they support any marijuana reform bill the voters will decide they
are hippies and the narcs will search their sock drawers.

But the voters are way ahead of them. Over the last five years,
voters in 26 Massachusetts districts, including those represented by
Sen. Richard Moore, D-Uxbridge, Rep. Debby Blumer, D-Framingham, and
Rep. Jim Vallee, D-Franklin, have been asked in ballot questions
whether they support a reform bill similar to the one now before the
Legislature. In every case, voters supported the reforms by a healthy margin.

Moore, Blumer and Vallee all promptly said they would ignore the
wishes of the voters in their districts. Something about sending a
message, if I recall. Vallee, who was then chairman of the criminal
justice committee, said it probably didn't have the votes to pass,
so he wouldn't allow his committee to consider it.

But something has changed. Vallee's criminal justice committee was
eliminated and a new committee on mental health and substance abuse
was created. The new committee is concerned with getting effective
treatment to people who are addicted and ill. It approaches
substance abuse as an issue of public health, not public
morality. It's more interested in helping people than in sending
messages by locking them up.

That committee last week endorsed the decriminalization bill, but
given the wimpishness of the other legislators, it may go no
further. Asked about the bill, Rep. David Linsky, D-Natick, declined
to take a position. "I'm not sure the bill will get to the floor,"
he said hopefully. Even this bill, which would change the penalty
for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana to a $250 fine, is
a weak compromise with common sense. The common-sense approach would
recognize that, by almost any measure, marijuana is no worse than
beer. And the legitimate concerns about pot - purity, potency and
abuse by children - could most easily be addressed by treating it
exactly like beer.

Kids have told me it's easier to get hold of pot than alcohol.
There's a reason for that: Alcohol is sold by liquor store owners
who face heavy fines and lost business if they are caught selling to
anyone under 21. There's also a reason why the jump to hard drugs is
easier for pot-smokers than drinkers: The man at the liquor store
might want to talk you into a finer wine or fancier brew, but he
doesn't stock cocaine or crystal meth. Why not let him put some
regulated, taxed marijuana in his humidor along with the cigars? But
common sense and sound public policy go out the window when
politicians fall under the sway of reefer madness. They are too busy
sending messages no one is listening to and locking up otherwise
responsible citizens.