News (Media Awareness Project) - US NC: Edu: OPED: We Need an Honest, Rational Drug Policy |
Title: | US NC: Edu: OPED: We Need an Honest, Rational Drug Policy |
Published On: | 2007-02-02 |
Source: | Technician, The (NC State U, NC Edu) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-12 16:24:19 |
WE NEED AN HONEST, RATIONAL DRUG POLICY
Most students are aware of which substances are illegal, but not
aware of the federal classifications known as "Schedules." Schedules
are used to group together substances by severity; the lower the
number of the Schedule, the more severe the punishment is for possession.
I argue that the implementation of this system is deeply flawed, and
that our government is far from honest in the practice of these
policies. The grouping of substances according to these Schedules is
not practiced conforming to any measure of rational inquiry or
scientific method. In order to investigate this matter, I will focus
on three substances of interest to most students: marijuana, tobacco
and alcohol.
Marijuana is considered a "Schedule I" substance. Substances
classified as Schedule I include those that: (1) have a high
potential for abuse, (2) have no acceptable medical use in treatment
in the U.S. and (3) are dangerous without medical supervision.
Marijuana does not fit into this definition - not by a long shot. It
certainly has a potential for abuse, but not in the sense of physical
addiction. It's hard to interpret the spirit of that rule, but
marijuana can be emotionally addictive. Each time people use
marijuana it's their choice - no physical withdrawal is there to
tempt them back.
In terms of medical use, marijuana does have an acceptable medical
use in the U.S. The federal government is issuing medical marijuana
to a select few people, for example George McMahon. These people
aren't criminals - they're receiving the marijuana directly from the
federal government for medical purposes.
As far as marijuana's severity is concerned, it is by far one of the
least dangerous substances. Nobody in the world literature has ever
overdosed on marijuana. While it may impair the ability to operate
heavy machinery or perform other dangerous activities, so does
everything from allergy medicines to alcohol. The fact is those who
use it responsibly (even with copious dosages) are not in danger.
It's hard to see why marijuana should be a Schedule I substance,
given the definition and the reality of the situation. Given this
knowledge, the Schedules might be more aptly named "Agendas,"
especially when one considers two widely popular unscheduled
substances: alcohol and tobacco.
Let's run the Schedule I test. Both substances have a high potential
for abuse, as they are both physically addictive. Any alcoholic or
smoker would tell you that. In terms of medical use, alcohol hasn't
had an accepted role in medicine since around the Civil War, and
tobacco has a marked negative effect on human health.
For the third stipulation, it's clear that alcohol and tobacco are
dangerous without medical supervision. No doctors in their right mind
would administer tobacco to a patient, and any doctor would tell you
the wrong dosage of alcohol can kill you. Extended use of both of
these substances can lead to nasty conditions such as cirrhosis of
the liver and lung cancer, which are clearly dangerous.
Given all this, it becomes difficult to answer why alcohol and
tobacco are unscheduled, yet marijuana is Schedule I. It's even more
difficult to answer why marijuana would be grouped alongside LSD, a
powerful psychedelic and fellow Schedule I substance. While we could
speculate on why this might be, it's safe to say that we're not being
told the real reasons.
We deserve honest policies from our government. Whenever our liberty
is curtailed in any way whatsoever, there should be a firm reason
with intellectually honest argumentation to back it up. Anything less
is purely degrading to the public, whose liberty the government is
supposed to revere and protect.
Our policies need to be rational, reasonable and free of
contradictions. Regardless of whether these substances should be
illegal, our policies should reflect a categorical statement - a
consistent position. Never should we use lies to justify the removal
of liberty - if there be good reason, then let it be known.
If we want dangerous, addictive substances to be illegal, then let's
do it - I hope you won't miss that post-exam beer as much as I will.
If we want to make "Schedules," then let's do it.
But, let's do it without a thinly veiled social agenda; let's do it
with honesty.
Most students are aware of which substances are illegal, but not
aware of the federal classifications known as "Schedules." Schedules
are used to group together substances by severity; the lower the
number of the Schedule, the more severe the punishment is for possession.
I argue that the implementation of this system is deeply flawed, and
that our government is far from honest in the practice of these
policies. The grouping of substances according to these Schedules is
not practiced conforming to any measure of rational inquiry or
scientific method. In order to investigate this matter, I will focus
on three substances of interest to most students: marijuana, tobacco
and alcohol.
Marijuana is considered a "Schedule I" substance. Substances
classified as Schedule I include those that: (1) have a high
potential for abuse, (2) have no acceptable medical use in treatment
in the U.S. and (3) are dangerous without medical supervision.
Marijuana does not fit into this definition - not by a long shot. It
certainly has a potential for abuse, but not in the sense of physical
addiction. It's hard to interpret the spirit of that rule, but
marijuana can be emotionally addictive. Each time people use
marijuana it's their choice - no physical withdrawal is there to
tempt them back.
In terms of medical use, marijuana does have an acceptable medical
use in the U.S. The federal government is issuing medical marijuana
to a select few people, for example George McMahon. These people
aren't criminals - they're receiving the marijuana directly from the
federal government for medical purposes.
As far as marijuana's severity is concerned, it is by far one of the
least dangerous substances. Nobody in the world literature has ever
overdosed on marijuana. While it may impair the ability to operate
heavy machinery or perform other dangerous activities, so does
everything from allergy medicines to alcohol. The fact is those who
use it responsibly (even with copious dosages) are not in danger.
It's hard to see why marijuana should be a Schedule I substance,
given the definition and the reality of the situation. Given this
knowledge, the Schedules might be more aptly named "Agendas,"
especially when one considers two widely popular unscheduled
substances: alcohol and tobacco.
Let's run the Schedule I test. Both substances have a high potential
for abuse, as they are both physically addictive. Any alcoholic or
smoker would tell you that. In terms of medical use, alcohol hasn't
had an accepted role in medicine since around the Civil War, and
tobacco has a marked negative effect on human health.
For the third stipulation, it's clear that alcohol and tobacco are
dangerous without medical supervision. No doctors in their right mind
would administer tobacco to a patient, and any doctor would tell you
the wrong dosage of alcohol can kill you. Extended use of both of
these substances can lead to nasty conditions such as cirrhosis of
the liver and lung cancer, which are clearly dangerous.
Given all this, it becomes difficult to answer why alcohol and
tobacco are unscheduled, yet marijuana is Schedule I. It's even more
difficult to answer why marijuana would be grouped alongside LSD, a
powerful psychedelic and fellow Schedule I substance. While we could
speculate on why this might be, it's safe to say that we're not being
told the real reasons.
We deserve honest policies from our government. Whenever our liberty
is curtailed in any way whatsoever, there should be a firm reason
with intellectually honest argumentation to back it up. Anything less
is purely degrading to the public, whose liberty the government is
supposed to revere and protect.
Our policies need to be rational, reasonable and free of
contradictions. Regardless of whether these substances should be
illegal, our policies should reflect a categorical statement - a
consistent position. Never should we use lies to justify the removal
of liberty - if there be good reason, then let it be known.
If we want dangerous, addictive substances to be illegal, then let's
do it - I hope you won't miss that post-exam beer as much as I will.
If we want to make "Schedules," then let's do it.
But, let's do it without a thinly veiled social agenda; let's do it
with honesty.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...