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.