Just Glimpsing A Better Way To Fight Drug Abuse

All Americans are indebted to the voters of Arizona and California. Their
state initiatives last year began, in essence, with the simple request that
medical marijuana be made available under the same terms as morphine and
cocaine. Other, less publicized actions expressed the voters' desire to
focus on violent crime and end the rash of incarceration for mere
possession. The large margins of victory and the remarkable response of
the federal government, replete with lies, character assassination,
contempt for voters' intelligence, and threats against states and doctors,
are allowing the nation to see the rotten core of the federal monopoly on
drug policy and a glimpse of a better way to fight drug abuse.

The potential value of medical marijuana is clear. In 1990, a Harvard
survey of oncologists found that around half of the respondents had already
recommended natural marijuana to at least one patient. In 1994, the
Federation of American Scientists petitioned the president and Congress "to
facilitate and expedite the research necessary to determine whether this
substance [cannabis] should be licensed for medical use by seriously ill
persons.'' In 1995, The American Public Health Association (APHA) passed a
resolution urging lawmakers to make natural marijuana legally available as
a therapeutic agent.

Recently, the prestigious medical journal The Lancet, was joined by its
American counterpart, the New England Journal of Medicine, which said,
"federal policy that prohibits physicians from alleviating suffering by
prescribing marijuana for seriously ill patients is misguided,
heavy-handed, and inhumane. It is also hypocritical ... Eventually,
[physicians] will force the courts to adjudicate between the rights of
those at death's door and the absolute power of bureaucrats whose decisions
are based more on reflexive ideology and political correctness than on
compassion."

A parade of officials appeared on national television to tell the American
people that no such evidence existed. Included was General McCaffrey, who
attacked a respected researcher, Dr. Tod Mikuriya, for suggesting "Cheech
and Chong" medicine. Mikuriya later said that the chart bearing his name
and presented at McCaffrey's press conference was not his and that holding
him up to ridicule was "unfair and dishonest."

Now McCaffrey has announced that $1million will be given to the National
Academy of Science to spend 18 months studying evidence that a week earlier
didn't exist. It is a waste of time and money - a stall to avoid the needed
widespread clinical trials that some 24 states, including Teaxs, have
approved.

While waiting for an independent federal commission to help sort out the
truth, voters may well begin to ponder some of these questions: *Is it
time to end the federal domination of drug policy and allow states to play
their traditional role as the laboratories of democracy? Might health
officials be more appropriate leaders than those from law enforcement?
Here is an intriguing example. In 1919, the leading medical official in
Shreveport,La., opened a clinic to allow morphine and heroin addicts to
purchase their drugs from doctors instead of dealers, even though the drugs
remained illegal. The black market disappeared. Petty crime dropped.
Children could not get drugs from the clinic, which eventually monopolized
the drug supply. Addicts established relationships with professionals who
encouraged them to quit, and many did. Many of those who continued to be
addicted were able to hold regular jobs. There were no overdose deaths in
four years, even though many of the addicts were given two and three days
supply to use at their discretion.

Federal zero tolerance policies led to closure of the clinic in 1923, over
the protests of judges, the sheriff and the medical community. The black
market returned, crime went up and the addicts often lost their jobs and
wound up in jail. Does this imply that under a different system, use and
addiction might actually decrease rather than spread? Would such a clinic
work today? Should some state or city have the opportunity to find out?

* What accounts for federal resistance? Is it the money, as Nixon's
Commission on Marijuana tried to warn us as long ago as 1972? Does an
annual spending figure that is 140 times higher today justify heightened
fears that the narco-bureaucracy puts power and dollars above the health of
the citizens and the rights of voters? Do federal threats against states
and doctors typify a disregard for preservation of our Constitution?

* Voters are intelligent enough to draw distinctions between limited
changes and total "legalization." Can they take seriously the government's
condemnation of those seeking reform when the reformers include so many of
high accomplishment who have often seen the problem from the inside? Have
voters been "duped" by William Buckley, Hugh Downs and Walter Cronkite? By
Barry Goldwater, Dennis DeConcini, George Schultz, and a litany of federal
judges?

The Arizona and California actions have made it clear that it is the
participation of the average voter that is essential to the modification of
policies that have failed us for so many years.

Jerry Epstein is vice president of the Houston-based Drug Policy Forum of
Texas