MARIJUANA SHOULD BE DECRIMINALIZED; HERE'S WHY

I expect many people will disagree with my position on marijuana. After
all, we have been conditioned to a sequence of propositions which lead
inexorably to resisting any attempts at loosening state and federal
restrictions on all Schedule 1 drugs, and it is difficult to back away from
such commitment. Quite the contrary, in fact. We seem bent on adding more
and more items to the list. Still, I dare to suggest that the government
change its course. Not only is the "war on drugs" in general an
inappropriate and ineffective solution to a problem of human motivation, but
there is also some logic in specifically decriminalizing marijuana.

Our official attitude toward illegal drugs is highly contradictory. There
are some among us who insist that "drugs" are "bad" even as they down
Valium, smoke cigarettes, or socialize with those who do. There are others
who insist that drugs are dangerous but who also keep loaded handguns in
their closets. There are some who believe that drugs pave the road to hell,
and they pay no heed to the twin facts that (a) in a free country hell is a
legitimate destination and (b) those intent on going there will always find
a path. There are others who wilt in fright at the thought of having "them"
living next door - however we may describe "them" - with no sure knowledge
that those we love and trust the most are not already "thems." And we wrap
ourselves in the flag whenever someone challenges our freedom to believe
what we want, but we use the flag to beat over the head anyone who believes
something too different from ourselves. Much like I am about to do here.

No wonder some view Americans as both goofy and dangerous.

When I was an instructor at the US Navy Human Resource Management School in
Memphis we taught a week-long segment on drug and alcohol abuse. While I
was researching material for this course I came across a study commissioned
by the Navy and performed by independent civilian academics which ranked
both legal and illegal drugs on the basis of (a) their damage to the
individual and (b) their costs to society. At the top of this list was
"glue-sniffing." It was found to be the most damaging to those who did it,
and since it quickly, directly and irreversibly kills brain cells it creates
a long-term and expensive problem for society. As I read down the list I
discovered among other things, that smoking marijuana is far less damaging
to the individual and society than using alcohol. Yet it is legal today to
own glue, alcohol and tobacco, but we make war against marijuana, those who
use it, and, lately, those who prescribe it.

We live in a free country. In a free country it isn't necessary for all of
us to exercise all our freedoms all the time in order to be concerned about
government's impulses to restrict some of them. For example, we have a
constitutional amendment that guarantees us the freedom to use alcohol, but
we are just as free to remain sober. We are free to own firearms, but we
are also protected by law and custom from having anyone wave a loaded gun in
our face. We are free to speak our minds, but we are not compelled to use
words or to express thoughts we feel are offensive.

We are also free to believe what we want. Some people among us sincerely
believe that smoking marijuana is beneficial. They no more need to "prove"
the validity of this belief to a skeptical government than those of us who
believe in God need to prove his existence in order to worship. We are also
free to endanger ourselves in all kinds of ways, and it isn't the job of the
collective - as represented by government - to save us from ourselves. And
we are free to learn, to adapt, and to evolve, and this is impossible where
certain kinds of learning are denied by the action of law. It isn't the
responsibility of the individual to prove that smoking pot is okay, it is
the responsibility of the government to prove that the dangers of pot are
sufficiently huge, within the context of other dangers we are free to
accept, as to justify such paternal tyranny.

There is a natural alliance to be formed among us, an alliance of those with
restricted but nonetheless fiercely held views of personal freedoms. These
groups are those who favor the private ownership of firearms, those who
favor the use of alcohol and tobacco, those who favor freedom of belief,
those who favor limiting government's size and restraining its actions, the
entire medical community, and those who favor the decriminalizing of
marijuana. This natural alliance exists because the logic by which anyone
is prosecuted for possessing or using marijuana can easily and quickly be
applied to all the other members of the alliance. And in any society, the
members are only as free as the most tyrannized among them.

The latest knee-jerk of our government against those physicians who
prescribe marijuana is a huge step in the wrong direction. We have an
opportunity here to seriously study the proposition that marijuana may,
indeed, have curative benefits at least equal to, say, radium, and we have
the opportunity to step back from the strident demands to punish those who
favor the wrong chemicals. In taking such a step, we may even meet some
people we know.

Greg Sagan, Amarillo, TX