REASONED DEBATE NEEDED ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Passion in politics is generally a good thing.

But the renewed debate in New Hampshire over whether to legalize
marijuana for medical use would benefit from a little less passion
and a bit more rational discussion.

A new bill pending in the Legislature calling for legalization is
similar to one that was narrowly rejected in 2007. But its chances
may be better this time - it has new legislative sponsors, it has the
leadership and organization of a nonprofit group called the New
Hampshire Coalition for Common Sense Marijuana Policy and more
patients seeking medical marijuana use who are willing to speak out.

The arguments over legalizing pot, for any reason, tend to generate
plenty of sound and fury but not much reason. On one side are those
who portray it as the gateway into an irreversible slide into heroin
addiction. On the other are those who say there is no substantive
difference between smoking a joint and drinking a glass of wine,
since both are drugs that can alter consciousness.

Those on both sides should be willing to admit that there are
elements of truth to both. While most of those addicted to hard drugs
did start with less harmful ones like marijuana, many marijuana
smokers have not gone on to harder drugs. Those on the "they're both
drugs" side should admit that smoke can affect lungs as well as
consciousness, and that being under the influence of any drug is not
a good thing.

What should not be a matter of dispute is that there are already many
drugs prescribed for pain that are more dangerous than marijuana and
that are widely abused.

The focus of the debate for legislators should first be about whether
there is a real medical or palliative benefit to be gained from
marijuana. There is considerable evidence that there is.

Just as important is the issue of how to control it if it is
legalized. Here, the experience of other states that have already
passed such laws may be instructive, including neighboring Maine and
Vermont. Do they want pharmacies to dispense it, or just let those
with a prescription grow their own? There is clearly less control
with the ad hoc method.

They probably don't want to emulate California, where "prescriptions"
for medical marijuana use are easy to acquire.

Whatever the outcome of the debate, it will more likely yield what is
best for New Hampshire if it is based on facts, not emotion and
political agendas.