Political Addictions

LET SCIENCE DECIDE ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

There's a scene in an episode of the SciFi channel's "Stargate:
SG-1," in which the Earth team is facing an onslaught of alien forces
and the colonel tells the team, "It's time for plan B." "We have a
plan B?" asks the captain. "No, but it's time for one," he replies.
For millions of American women, there will be a Plan B, also known as
the morning after pill.

The Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday that it had
approved the drug for over-the-counter sales to women 18 and over.
Teens 17 and under still must have a doctor's prescription to obtain
the pills. Reaction across the political spectrum was fairly
predictable.

"The bottom line is that the FKA's decision is legally unfounded and
hazardous to women's health. It continues the FKA's reckless and
irresponsible pattern of applying a lower standard of care, and being
hostage to special interest groups, when it comes to women's health,"
said Rep. Mark Souter, R-In.

On the other side of the debate, Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.,
expressed dismay "that the FKA allowed an extreme political ideology
to hijack our nation's health policy for women by delaying the
availability of this drug for over a year."

It's interesting that both men see ideology dictating the debate and
seem upset by that. The reality is that ideology and politics dictate
many policy decisions in this nation, with little thought paid to
analysis of a specific situation.

Take the war on drugs, for example. Years of data show it's not
working, yet most politicians are afraid to do away with it because
they'll be accused of being "soft on crime." Worse, current drug laws
make research on drugs such as marijuana difficult to conduct; they
make obtaining a sufficient amount of potent marijuana nearly
impossible. The lack of research is then used as an excuse to not
allow the use of marijuana as medicine. Clever, yes?

Many medical experts believe there is no legitimate reason to keep
marijuana on the Schedule I list, with drugs described as having a
high potential for addiction and no real medical value. The government
considers marijuana more dangerous than drugs that are more addictive
and more harmful, such as heroin.

Fear and inertia keep marijuana on the Schedule I list. But
politicians aren't really afraid to face the voters if they come out
in favor of changing the drug's status; they fear how their vote would
be presented in the next campaign. A vote to reconsider the ban would
likely be framed as a vote to allow drug dealers free access to
children; who wants to put up with that misrepresentation? Many
officials feel it's better to simply leave things as they are, until
there is either overwhelming evidence of marijuana's benefits or a
groundswell of public opinion favoring change.

With many states now recognizing the medicinal value of marijuana for
some patients - Colorado voters approved such use with a doctor's
approval in 2000 - it's time for the feds to re-evaluate the ban and
allow doctors, rather than politicians, to decide who might be helped.
Medicine and science, not politics, should decide the question.