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."

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 says 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, says 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 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. In Salem in 2004 voters approved decriminalizing
marijuana by a margin of about 2 to 1. Same with Lynn where 16,500
votes were cast to decriminalize pot while 8, 411 people voted in
favor of the current laws. Peabody voters also supported a question
to decriminalize pot with 13, 644 resident voting yes and 8,671
voting no. In Swampscott, the same question passed 4,850 to 2,213.
But no one embraced the idea quite like Beverly where the 14,989
votes were cast in favor of decriminalizing marijuana while only 2,
588 voters opposed the measure. The legislators in those communities
typically declare that they will ignore the wishes of the voters in
their districts.

Something about sending a message, if I recall.

Rep. Jim Vallee, D-Franklin, who was chairman of the criminal
justice committee when his district supported reform, 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. 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.