Columnist accused of overstating the harm caused by marijuana

How could you even print Scott Winokur's ridiculous essay ( "Con: Pot
causes harm," Opinion Page, Oct. 7)? People like him, totally ignorant and
in a position to "educate" the masses about the truth, make it difficult
for this country to come to a reasonable consensus about a costly
prohibition.

He resorts to cliches such as "the evil weed." Does he need to resort to
namecalling to make his case?

He talks about "bad trips." Hello? You don't "trip" on pot you relax and
maybe laugh a little. Psychosis? Suicide? I would challenge him to find
people who have smoked and had "bad trips" lasting five or six hours,
leading them to "dive into deep water" never to return.

He blows his whole argument with the hypocrisy of his statement that "an
excellent Cabernet will serve almost as well." He endorses alcohol
consumption, which leads to thousands of documented deaths a year, but
spreads myths about pot, which has never in all of recorded history led to
a single death in and of itself.

Dan Melmed,
Saratoga

I was flattered by Scott Winokur's kind words about my work. I hope it's
true that Winokur and I are each "unusually cleareyed" in our thinking
about drug policy, but I think we may see a few points differently.

He colorfully suggests that marijuana use is "like diving into deep water:
There's no guarantee you'll resurface with your wits intact, or at all.
Besides, an excellent Cabernet will serve almost as well."

This is memorable writing, but surely overstates the risks of cannabis and
understates those of Cabernet. And while my recent study with Peter Reuter
did document recent increases in Dutch cannabis use, we believe that their
policy of allowing commercial sales in coffeehouses is only a partial
explanation.

In recent years, levels of use have also grown steeply in other countries
with very different policies, including our own. Furthermore, we argued
that data from both the Netherlands and the United States suggest that it
is possible to stop imprisoning cannabis users without producing detectable
increases in cannabis use.

I think Winokur and I agree that the drug policy debate has not been well
served by an exclusive focus on two extremes: Our heavily punitive war on
drug users versus a hypothetical libertarian free market.

Robert MacCoun,
Associate professor of public policy,
UCBerkeley

Scott Winokur in his diatribe against the legalization of marijuana seems
to have forgotten what he was writing about. Bad trips lasting six hours
would doubtless be no fun, but Winokur was writing about marijuana, not PCP
or LSD. Marijuana is no more likely to cause a bad trip than Winokur's
trusty Cabernet.

I guess he was desperate because he couldn't imagine any other way legal
marijuana would be "a surefire prescription for societal disaster."

Matthew S. Reid,
San Francisco

Scott Winokur seems to be confusing marijuana with LSD. Either that or he
actually believes the tall tales told by D.A.R.E. speakers.

I have yet to hear (from a reliable source) of a single "bad trip" or
suicide induced by marijuana.

Opponents of legalization need to come up with more facts and fewer lies if
they expect to win this fight. M.P. Faust San Francisco

Scott Winokur's piece is chock full of poor reasoning and speculation
that's presented as fact, and his conclusion doesn't even support his
premise: that pot should be kept illegal. Legalization and improved
treatment are not mutually exclusive.

I'm especially amused by his reference to "garden variety bad trips."
Perhaps Winokur doesn't appreciate that there are several varieties of
illicit drugs out there, and that you really can't expect them all to have
the same side effects.

I've known many people who smoked pot regularly excessively, even and
not one has had a "bad trip."

Laziness? Sometimes. Confusion? Sometimes. Psychosis? People laughed at me
when I asked.

Winokur tries to tack his personal speculation onto the work of a respected
scientist. Science magazine did publish a study by Robert MacCoun showing
that pot use rose in the Netherlands when it was legalized. But to then
speculate that teen suicides rose in that same time frame (did they?) and
for that specific cause, and to use that as the basis to oppose
legalization?

It's not completely impossible, but if you're going to write an argument
based on such leaps, you have to provide some support.

I'm beginning to wonder if Winokur isn't a prolegalization activist trying
to discredit the antilegalization cause.

Brooks Talley,
San Mateo

I was surprised to see Scott Winokur, who is usually the voice of reason,
trot out so many tired and disproved arguments against marijuana
legalization. Winokur makes the same mistake as D.A.R.E. and most other
drugawareness programs aimed at teens, calling all drugs uniformly evil.

When authority figures lump in something as mild as marijuana with drugs as
addictive and physically destructive as cocaine and heroin, they lose all
credibility with the kids they are trying to reach. Any high school kid
knows that smoking a joint is nowhere near as harmful as jamming a needle
full of heroin in your arm, but by making blanket antidrug condemnations,
educators and lawenforcement officials fail to get the more important
distinctions across.

Winokur himself quotes a university psychologist on the danger of a
onesizefitsalldrugs message, and yet he persists pushing a simplistic
"you never know what can happen with dope" approach to drug education and
prevention.

Winokur's suggestion that that "an excellent Cabernet" is a better
alternative than recreational use of cannabis is nothing short of
outrageous. Alcohol is physically addictive ask any alcoholic. No study
has ever shown a similar physical addiction mechanism for cannabis.

Drink too much and you can die, as evidenced by the tragedy at MIT. Smoke
too much pot, and the most severe effects you can expect are a headache and
a bad case of the munchies. Even tobacco has more severe side effects (as
well as a physical addiction component) than cannabis.

I would like to see a more realistic message that acknowledges that while
abstinence is fine in theory, moderation and information are key components
to an adult approach to recreational substances.

Ron S. Phillips,
San Francisco

What is with the neo "Reefer Madness" hysteria? Scott Winokur's
speculative ranting about "youths leaping into murky canals" and "five to
six hours of anxiety, paranoia and psychosis" is outrageous.

This is pot we're talking about, not LSD. Yes, occasionally some people
have bad trips on marijuana, but it's usually an inexperienced user taking
too large a dose. Drinking three bottles of Cabernet would make you pretty
much out of it too.

Exaggerating in a newspaper column is just as pointless as D.A.R.E cops
doing it in a classroom.

Eric Pederson,
Walnut Creek