LET'S BE BLUNT

There's a subcultural holiday of sorts this week and, whether you're a
part of it or not, you know you know what it is. Only the second-most
common joke involving numbers (um, behind those involving 69), April
20 is 4/20, a day when countless folk worldwide celebrate the use of
marijuana by using marijuana. To acknowledge this holiday, the Phoenix
Editorial Board has deemed this a most opportune time (no, not for us
to zone out) for the medical and non-medical cannabis debate to be,
ahem, stimulated.

Let's begin with some background: Through the Controlled Substances
Act of 1970, marijuana was categorized as a Schedule I substance -
pinning it as having high potential for abuse and no medical value.

Since then, petitions from numerous national organizations have been
submitted for the reconsideration of cannabis' medical value, but the
FDA has not yet responded.

As of today, 12 states have legalized the use of medical marijuana
but, due to a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, prescribed patients are still
liable for government prosecution because of the federal act. Such
precariousness has prompted the debate that rages onward over the
legalization of marijuana. Proponents of the legalization say
marijuana is a safe and effective treatment for a broad range of
conditions, including cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy,
migraines, glaucoma and general pain and anxiety.

They stress that the drug's benefits outweigh its risks and that its
medical use is already accepted by dependable, established figures,
editorial boards and organizations throughout the U.S. Opponents argue
that marijuana is unnecessary, saying it is more dangerous than other
available prescription drugs and declaring it an addictive "gateway
drug" that is harmful to one's lungs, immune system, brain, fertility
and driving ability.

There is also concern over the message legalization could send to kids
and the tendency that people will claim medical necessity when really
abusing it for recreational purposes.

Who's telling the truth?

It's easy to see that both sides have extreme potential for bias, so
check these cold, hard facts first: In small to medium doses - about
the equivalent of or less than a joint - marijuana causes relaxation,
sleepiness, an altered sense of time and space and reduced
coordination, attention and blood pressure; this tends to be the
recommended medical dosage for many ailments.

In high doses, it can cause hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory
and disorientation. Most importantly, however, cannabis cannot kill
you. Even the Drug Enforcement Administration - one of the biggest
opponents of legalization - has concluded that, "marijuana is far
safer than many foods we commonly consume. . It is physically
impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death."

Oh, wait - but alcohol can. How many Loyola freshmen this year alone
have been rushed to the hospital for a routine stomach-pumping? Let's
get this straight: You can drink yourself to death on something that's
legal, but consumption of something that cannot kill you, even in the
largest possible quantities, is illegal?

Yet no one in his or her right mind would readily return to the days
of U.S. Prohibition because we saw how much it backfired - a black
market that resulted in violent crime, racketeering, the high expense
of legal enforcement, the drop in government funds by not taxing
alcohol, poor products, seedy underground operations and, well, the
fact that people continued to drink anyway.

The illegality of marijuana has produced similar results -
drug-related gang crime, shady but accessible drug dealers, not to
mention unregulated and often-tainted strains of the drug - but you
can bet that someone on this campus is probably lighting up as you
read this. Control and regulation of the drug could potentially
eliminate these negative effects.

While we're at it, we can't help but be a hell of a lot more
concerned, too, about the use of meth or heroin as opposed to pot.
Marijuana is widely considered to be a "gateway" to these harder drugs
because of its possibly "addictive" tendencies. But cannabis has
actually been prescribed in treating alcoholism and heroin addiction.

A 2001 University of Oxford study pronounced that marijuana is, in
fact, not chemically addictive, but incites psychological dependence
in "as many as 10 percent [of users, as] there is no clearly defined
withdrawal syndrome" - about as likely an obsessive-compulsive
patients' excessive teeth-brushing or light-switching. How many of us
"need" our caffeine fix multiple times a day (lest we be reduced to an
angry walking migraine)? Marijuana's impacts differ from user to user,
and there's a big difference between occasional and habitual activity.
Legal or not, a drug is a drug, and users must be responsible and
conscientious in their decision-making.

This is not about jumping on or off the weedwagon because it's
"trendy." We really can't deny that cannabis culture has become
glamorous - HBO's Weeds isn't the first to make light of it. The
legalization of marijuana just might make it less cool, meaning
parents could worry less about their children toking up. Police
officer and detective Howard Wooldridge of Lansing, Mich., offers this
nugget of information: "32 years after [the Dutch] legalized and
regulated [marijuana] sales to adults, their 15-29-year-olds smoke
half as much as American youth.

Even better, Dutch youth no longer come in contact with pot dealers
who also offer heroin for sale. Thus, far fewer Dutch teens try heroin
for the first time; a win-win situation."

Even our very own Ed Board is divided on this issue, but we're
certainly not promoting the use, abuse or non-use of marijuana.

Rather, we are advocating the choice - and we all agree that this
choice would be a much safer one if it were regulated and controlled.