WHAT TEENS HEAR IN MARIJUANA DEBATE

For parents and others concerned about teen drug use, this is a time
for extra vigilance, say analysts.

The intensifying debate over the medical value of marijuana is, in
many respects, a loud clanging over a relatively minor issue. In the
world of medicine and drugs, marijuana as a treatment is a peripheral
topic, way down the list of pressing national health concerns.

But the decibel level of the debate and its content, rich with mixed
messages, make it especially dangerous, analysts add. The argument,
they point out, is well within earshot of the nation's teens, who
could find it confusing at best or, at worst, justification for
experimentation.

A report last week by the Institute of Medicine found marijuana
"potentially effective" in treating certain symptoms of illnesses,
including AIDS, a message that ran counter to the Clinton
administration policy of staunchly opposing any medical use of the
drug. While the administration's own Office of National Drug Control
Policy requested the study, it's unclear what, if any changes in
policy will result.

Yet the message to teens could well be "first, marijuana is sort of
healthy, and second, the government is stupid and doesn't get it,"
says Mark Kleiman, a specialist in drug policy at the University of
California at Los Angeles.

What Mr. Kleiman and other experts worry is that the medical-marijuana
debate is, for teens, morphing into questions about marijuana itself,
and even drugs in general. And because the issue of marijuana's
medicinal value is not clear-cut, it could muddy unequivocal warnings
against marijuana, and drugs, overall.

Indeed, Joseph Califano, chairman of the National Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse (NCASA) at Columbia University in New York, warned
in a statement following the release of the government report: "It is
imperative to distinguish between the issue of medical marijuana and
marijuana as a threat to America's kids."

Propelling the debate has been a rebellion of sorts from seven Western
states where voters in recent years have passed ballot measures
legalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Since California
did that in 1996, marijuana club owners and state and federal
law-enforcement officials have engaged in an cat-and-mouse game of
closures and legal appeals.

Vaguely worded ballot initiatives have provoked some of the legal
wrangling. They didn't clearly spell out how the process - from
cultivation to use - was to work. But the federal government says
state laws can't supercede federal law outlawing the drug.

Beyond the state actions and legal maneuvers, though, are deeper
reasons explaining the intensity of the medical marijuana wars. In
many respects, marijuana sits on a fault line of American culture, an
emblem of the 1960s social revolution that continues to ripple across
the political landscape today.

"In many respects, this issue eludes analysis on a scientific basis
and quickly descends to passionately held positions," says Eric
Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation in Washington.

On one hand, there is the position that allowing marijuana as medicine
will encourage recreational marijuana use, which, in turn, will lead

to use of other drugs. On the other, many fighting for medicinal
marijuana believe the marijuana laws in general are too heavy-handed
and inconsistent with the status of other drugs, like alcohol.

Some groups pushing for medicinal marijuana clearly would like to go
further. Chuck Thomas of the Marijuana Policy Project says: "It's
possible that legalization might bring a net harm. But there is a
whole range of policies, including permitting adults to grow their
own, that might be a net positive," compared with the
blanket-criminalization approach used now.

There are indications the teen-drug picture is improving. While
illicit drug use by teenagers has risen during the 1990s, there has
been a modest decline in the last two years, according to surveys by
the University of Michigan. Still, the problem is seen as large - so
large that some dismiss the notion that allowing controlled medical
use of marijuana will have any measurable impact on the overall
problem. Kleiman says there is no evidence to support the notion of
"leakage" from one type of use to another.

On the question of whether marijuana is a "gateway" to other drug use,
there is disagreement. For his part, Robert MacCoun, a professor of
public policy at UC Berkeley, wrote in a recent report: "In the
absence of causal evidence, a strong allegiance to any particular
gateway theory would seem to reflect ideology or politics, rather than
science."

Whatever the linkages to other drugs, NCASA says parents should talk
more to their children about drugs and be watchful when they turn 13,
a "critical turning point" when access and exposure to drugs skyrocket.

Exposure to the arguments about medical marijuana has also
skyrocketed, and that holds its own risk. As Kleiman puts it, "the
argument about medicinal marijuana carries a greater threat to
changing juvenile attitudes than any policy that's adopted."