REEFER MADNESS A MORAL DILEMMA FOR PARENTS

The Results Of A Scientific Study Of Marijuana Could Wreak Havoc With
The US Government's Drugs Policy

IT'S A scene repeated in thousands of American homes. Parents, worried
about the potential for mischief, or alarmed by the discovery of
contraband in a pair of jeans or a dresser drawer, face their kids to
talk about marijuana.

They talk about the damage it does to the lungs and the short-term
memory toss it causes. They warn of lower grades, bad elements and the
dangers of pot as the first step down a road of self-destruction.
That's when the teenager retorts: "You tried it. Did it ruin your life?"

When it comes to marijuana, the generation that made instant
gratification a way of life 30 years ago is pretty conflicted today As
many as 70 million Americans have smoked it at some point in their
lives. Many of those former users are now parents, and as their kids
are quick to point out - the overwhelming majority of them are not
addled by heroin or cocaine addictions.

Into the middle of this daily argument, comes an authoritative
two-year study by a branch of the prestigious National Academy of
Sciences on the potential medical benefits of marijuana. Requested and
paid for by the Clinton administration's Office of Drug Control
Policy, the study was designed to separate fact from fiction when it
comes to the reputed benefits of cannabis for cancer and AIDS patients
and people diagnosed with glaucoma and multiple sclerosis.

In its findings, the institute reported there are medical benefits
that can be derived from some of marijuana's active ingredients,
though the benefits aren't as numerous or as far-reaching as first
thought. Marijuana can indeed treat the pain and reduce the nausea
associated with cancer and chemotherapy. It does stimulate the
appetites of AIDS patients, and it can help control some of the
spastic activity linked to MS.

But the report found pot's much-touted benefit for glaucoma patients
is short-lived. It also warned that the damage done to the respiratory
system through smoking marijuana over the long term, negates many of
its benefits. It wants to see cannabinoids dispensed into the body
through a safer delivery system such as patches or inhalers.

Both sides in the drug debate seized the report as their own. General
Barry McCaffrey, the nation's "drug tsar" said the report proves the
Clinton administration's contention that "there is little future in
smoked marijuana". Supporters said the report vindicates their belief
that "medical marijuana" is not a contradiction in terms.

What startled both sides however, was the reports conclusive finding
that there was no evidence marijuana is a "gateway" drug, that leads
its users to more dangerous narcotics. While that conclusion
undermines many a parent's kitchen-table rationale, it also has the
potential to wreak havoc on the US government's drugs policy, which
regards marijuana to be as dangerous as heroin. It's that thinking
that has made marijuana the linchpin of the US drug-interdiction
effort. It's an effort without much to show for itself. The
government's own figures show marijuana is used by ten million people
on a regular basis. Most of those users are middle-class and not criminal.

Figures compiled both by law enforcement and organisations that chart
the industry find marijuana is highly profitable for those who grow
it. It ranked fourth among all US cash crops in 1997 -below corn,
soybeans and hay, but more profitable than tobacco, wheat or cotton.
In 1991, marijuana crops had a wholesale value of more than $15
billion (UKP9.3 billion). The street take was far higher: an estimated
$25 2 billion. Figures like these suggest a comparison with
prohibition, when under pressure from the temperance groups, Congress
decreed liquor to be illegal. The end result is common knowledge:
people drank anyway, and the bathtub gin they poured down their
gullets was impure. A general disregard for the authority of federal
law was enshrined in social behaviour, and organised crime flourished.

The conflicted thinking about marijuana starts at the top. Bill
Clinton is one of those 70 million Americans who have smoked
marijuana; look what came of him. Most Americans never believed Bill
Clinton when he said he smoked at Oxford but didn't inhale. (He may be
a liar, but the president of the United States is no junkie.) But when
Mr Clinton waxes about the need for individual responsibility on this
issue he has no credibility and the governments policy of arresting
terminally ill users of cannabis serves only to antagonise voters who
may otherwise agree with an anti-drug stand.

With growing numbers voters approving medical marijuana initiatives at
the state level, the White House was hoping the gravitas of the
institute's report would aid in its efforts to stem a changing tide of
public opinion changes about marijuana. Instead, the Clinton
administration has been handed another one of life's little lessons:
one millions of parents at thousands of kitchen tables learned a long
time ago: You can't always get what you want.

For thousands of medically needy people on the other side of the
issue, the other half of that pop philosophy equally applies: if you
try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.