TREATMENT FOR 'POT' USERS -- AN IMPRACTICAL PROPOSAL

Arkansas' drug czar, Bill Hardin, agrees that it would be wasteful of
the state's resources to try to imprison "small-time marijuana users,"
but instead, he argues, they "should be placed in treatment." It is
hard to believe that this opinion would be held by anyone who had
given more than a moment's thought to the idea. If Hardin believes
that law enforcement and prisons are starving for money now, then
imagine the starvation if more than 7,000 individuals per year
arrested for marijuana possession were forced into treatment programs
at taxpayer expense! This is not to say that treatment instead of jail
is a bad idea in all cases. But Arkansas treatment slots are available
to less than half of those who voluntarily seek treatment. People in
treatment find themselves limited to 12-step programs, most of which
are faith-based. Improvement is desperately needed in the quantity and
quality of Arkansas substance abuse treatment. Gov. Mike Huckabee has
stated his support for drug court, a system that provides treatment
instead of jail for certain types of offenders. Those of us working
for drug policy reform also support drug court in special cases. But
for marijuana possession?

Hardin has offered an impractical proposal. Not only are large numbers
of hard-working, otherwise law-abiding people involved in this minor
offense, but there is no "treatment" for the use of marijuana.
Marijuana is not considered an addictive drug. People do not commit
crimes because they "crave" or are "high" on marijuana. And the
long-touted problem of marijuana's "gateway" effect, leading to the
use of harder drugs, has been refuted by the National Academy of Sciences.

This is unlike situations involving people who abuse methamphetamine
or heroin or crack cocaine, drugs that are physically addictive and
which drive some addicts to commit crimes to obtain adequate supplies.
There is, of course, another dangerous drug involved in the majority
of incidents of antisocial behavior today, and that is alcohol.
Unfortunately, the lessons alcoholism has taught us about addiction,
treatment and prohibition have not been remembered in the war on
(certain) drugs. In any case, when a person's crime is committed out
of the force of addiction, whether forgery, burglary or theft, it
makes sense to look at the root cause and devote the state's precious
resources to that root cause. This is the promise of drug court and
its mandated treatment option, and here I would certainly agree with
Hardin. By assisting a person to gain control of substance abuse and
obtain tools for a better life, we can eliminate their need to commit
crime.

But if the crime is simply the possession of the drug itself, the
question becomes murkier. Not all substance use is substance abuse. If
it were, a glass of wine with dinner would be as dangerous as a
half-pint of vodka before lunch.

I would argue that whether the drug of choice is marijuana, alcohol,
Valium or methamphetamine, some people will struggle with lives of
less than ideal circumstances. I believe we must re-establish a clear
province in American society in which a man's private life is his own.
To do otherwise is to abandon the promise of our Founding Fathers'
highest ideals of self-determination and freedom.

When we have assured ourselves that public policy offers every
possible aid and intervention available through families, communities
and institutions, we must then be willing to allow others the freedom
to live dissolute lives--providing, of course, that they do not
violate the rights of others. A man should be free to be a drunk. He
should not be free if found to be drunk while driving.

Finally, Hardin's position is most unreasonable when considering the
thousands of Arkansas residents who use marijuana as medicine. So far
nine states have legalized such use. Marijuana can be effective in
pain relief; nausea and other digestive disorders; multiple sclerosis
and other muscle disorders; seizures; and a variety of other ailments,
including glaucoma, migraines and insomnia.

No doubt many Arkansans arrested for marijuana are using it for
medical purposes. In some cases, arresting officers or prosecutors may
choose not to pursue a marijuana case when they find that the person
is a legitimate medical user. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to
provide such users with an identification card so that they could save
themselves and law enforcement the trouble? Wouldn't it be reasonable
and compassionate for us to grant people who are sick, disabled or
dying the right to use marijuana if it helps them?

At the very least, can we not at least agree that to force medical
marijuana patients into "treatment" for marijuana use is an amazingly
unreasonable idea?