LEGALIZE IT? YES OR NO?

Our Failing Marijuana Policies Need Reform

by Allen St. Pierre

Cannabis prohibition, in 2009, is an abject failure as a public policy
fostered and created by the federal government in 1937. In a country
where alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical products are lawful,
controlled and taxed commerce for adult use - despite the addicting,
dangerous and deadly nature of them; annually killing an approximate
25,000, 400,000 and 100,000 Americans respectively - it makes no sense
at all to criminalize the responsible use of the non-lethal cannabis
plant by adults.

Cannabis is not harmless; no drug is, including aspirin. However, with
no measured "lethal dose" and no fatalities on record, cannabis, as
compared to alcohol, pharmacologically speaking, is a remarkably safe
and non-toxic recreant.

Federal bureaucracies maintaining the status quo regarding the war on
cannabis consumers, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, when confronted by the
tens of millions of Americans who seek logical and effective
alternatives to cannabis prohibition laws, claim that they are
"winning the war against marijuana." However, when asked to provide
any credible proof that 70 years of cannabis prohibition has yielded
any stated government goals to justify the policy, they put forth
seven criteria as measure of their "successes."

1) Driving cannabis use rates down; 2) increasing risk perception of
cannabis use by high school seniors; 3) decreasing availability of
cannabis among high school seniors; 4) deterring new users; reducing
the number of cannabis admissions to treatment; 5) reducing emergency
room mentions for cannabis; 6) reducing the potency of cannabis; and
7) increasing the price of cannabis.

But, guess what? Few will be surprised to discover that the
government's policy is a total failure on all fronts and in every
single category. In fact, the federal government's own management
watchdog agency, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), recently
presented the DEA with a grade of "F" for its inability to achieve any
of its stated goals, and by extension, any real rationale for the
continuance of cannabis prohibition for responsible adult use.

Too often, proponents of cannabis prohibition, who almost exclusively
come from five distinctly self-interested subgroups of Americans (law
enforcement; so-called anti-drug government agencies like DEA, ONDCP
or NIDA; companies that make legal "drugs" like alcohol, tobacco and
pharmaceutical products; the drug "rehab" industry and drug testing
companies) insist that their main justification for continuing with
cannabis prohibition is, in effect, "to save the children."

If this is truly the case, why will they not take heed from the years
of government reports indicating that youth in America admit on drug
use surveys that they have access to cannabis more than they do to
taxed and regulated products like alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical
products?

Why won't American prohibitionists accept the success of the
Netherlands' 35-year-old, quasi-legal cannabis distribution system as
proof positive that separating cannabis sales and uses from so-called
hard drugs (i.e., heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.) removes any discernable
"gateway effect"?

During these tough, recessionary economic times shouldn't we discuss
whether arresting more than 20 million citizens since 1965 for
cannabis, 90 percent for possession only, has been an effective public
policy? Does continuing the arrest of 900,000 citizens this year on
cannabis charges make any sense? Why should taxpayers be paying for
the incarceration of approximately 85,000 cannabis-only offenders? Why
should our international borders, with Mexico for example, rife with
illegal trafficking channels created by cannabis prohibition,
compromise the general public's safety in America, notably from
foreign terrorists and violence-prone criminal syndicates?

Ultimately, why are adult cannabis consumers discriminated against and
relegated to second-class citizen status when they, as rational
consumers, are in fact making a safer choice to consume cannabis
rather than alcohol (or tobacco) products?

Since my birth in 1965, the first year public health professionals
started aggressively warning the public about the serious health
concerns associated with long-term tobacco use, society has seen a 50
percent reduction in tobacco use. How did the government and society
achieve the laudable public health goal of a substantial reduction in
the consumption of tobacco products?

Did we threaten workers' employment based on invasive urine tests? Did
we pass mandatory minimum sentencing? Did we deny students college
loans or evict them from their dorms, or take away their drivers
licenses? Did we retard the banking system and the free flow of
commerce? Did we de-stabilize our crucial international borders with
Canada and Mexico? Did government create rank propaganda campaigns
like the public school's ineffective DARE program or the Partnership
For a Drug-Free America's ubiquitous and unpersuasive multimedia ad
campaign?

The simple answer is "no," and that we achieved the stated and
important public health goal of reducing tobacco consumption in
America by employing verifiable and credible health-related
information to deter use - along with "progressive" taxation that has
kept the black market in check - not the expensive and ineffective
criminal justice system. Further, and maybe most importantly, we did
not have to bend the Constitution into a pretzel to reduce tobacco
smoking or deter the masses from driving while under the influence of
alcohol.

Counter-intuitive as it may sound to some, especially to some of our
elected policymakers, if the federal government (or for that matter,
Colorado's government) were really serious about actually reducing
cannabis use in the country, we should employ society's ever-evolving
mores and values for tobacco and alcohol products - not criminal
sanctions and prohibition laws - as the commonsense, moral and
constitutional way to move forward with a rational cannabis policy.
Yes we cannabis.

Allen St. Pierre is executive director of the National Organization
for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) in Washington, D.C.

Decriminalizing Marijuana Won't Help Society

by John J. Coleman

While alcohol and tobacco are indeed harmful drugs, this alone should
not persuade us to add yet another harmful drug to our repertoire of
harmful drugs. Perhaps we instead might learn from our experiences
with alcohol and tobacco, and keep the marijuana genie in the bottle.
Marijuana is a potent neurotoxin that if used excessively may lead to
severe and lasting psychosis. Marijuana use frequently accompanies and
exacerbates other co-morbid behavioral disorders. As for its physical
effects, smoking anything, including marijuana, is harmful to the
smoker as well as those around him or her.

Marijuana has medicinal uses, and at least 13 states already have
recognized this by making it lawful for people with certain illnesses
to grow and possess marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Many medicines, including important cancer drugs, trace their origins
to plants, so it is no surprise that the cannabis plant contains
molecules that are therapeutically beneficial. Many potent analgesics
trace their structural origin to opium, the gum of the poppy plant.
But, just as doctors would not advise patients to smoke opium to dull
pain, they should not recommend smoking crude marijuana for
therapeutic purposes. During Prohibition, only doctors could prescribe
whiskey, wine or beer and only for "medicinal purposes." Intoxication,
as a form of medical treatment, has no place in modern medicine. For
more than 100 years we have relied on the FDA to protect our food and
drug supply. We defeat this when we "approve" a toxic substance like
marijuana through the political process rather than through scientific
examination. Even though most states that have approved medical
marijuana restrict it for patients with serious illnesses, we find
that the regulations often include ambiguous language allowing its use
for almost any reason.

A recent poll in California showed that 54 percent of voters believe
that marijuana should be legalized and taxed to make up for the
current fiscal problems besetting that state.

This approach was already tried and it failed. Seventy-two years ago,
Congress enacted the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. It required physicians
wishing to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes to pay an annual
registration fee of one dollar. It also required a small tax on every
transaction. In 1969, the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of
the 1937 law. In its review, the Court noted that during its 32-year
history, the Act had generated little tax revenue. When it comes to
marijuana, it is unlikely that the government could ever compete
successfully with the private sector as the nation's drug dealer.
Taxes seem to work best for things that cannot easily be made at home,
like tires, gasoline, whiskey and cigarettes.

The arrest and incarceration of non-violent marijuana offenders gives
the U.S. a per capita incarceration rate that is the highest in the
world and the fiscal and social costs of this are excessive.

We first need to recognize that the U.S. is the world's largest
importer of crime, including drug crime, and that much of the
marijuana found in our nation comes from beyond our borders. Almost
one-third of all federal prisoners, including those doing time for
drug violations, are non-citizens, and while we do not have statistics
for state prisons, it is likely that the percentage of non-citizens is
just as high, if not higher, in state prisons. The U.S. also is one of
only a handful of nations that incarcerates non-citizens for drug law
violations and will extradite and prosecute foreign-based drug
kingpins. Most defendants imprisoned for marijuana violations have
pled guilty to reduced charges, and this often makes it appear that
they are serving time for simple "possession," although, in most of
these cases, the original charges were more serious. And, contrary to
popular thinking, marijuana trafficking accounts for a good deal of
violence, much of it aimed at innocent persons in the form of child
abuse, spouse abuse and elder abuse, to cite just a few notable
examples. Finally, the cost of drug control, while not insignificant,
is not as onerous as one may think. For example, President Obama has
requested $14.1 billion for drug control in fiscal year 2009. This
represents one-tenth of one percent of our annual GDP (approximately
$13.84 trillion). The potential saving of lives and productivity that
otherwise might be lost to drugs makes this a modest investment in the
public health and safety of our fellow citizens.

I am master of my body and the government has no right to tell me what
to do or not to do with my own body.

In 1962, the Supreme Court in Robinson v. California declared that
just being an alcoholic, drug addict, prostitute or vagrant did not in
itself constitute a crime. Thus, one indeed may be free to do whatever
he or she wants to do with his or her own body, but the government, in
its role of protecting the public, may exercise a corresponding right
to regulate certain behavior and things, including drugs, that are
deemed threats to public health or safety.

These are some of the more frequently heard pros and cons in this
debate. This year, like the three prior years, the Drug Enforcement
Administration will approve the use of almost five tons of marijuana
by authorized registrants, many of whom are researching the
therapeutic uses of marijuana. In the laboratory, chemists have been
able to isolate and remove the specific particles responsible for the
psychic effect or "high" associated with marijuana use. This, they
believe, will enable them to synthesize the truly beneficial molecules
and concentrate them in higher dosage strengths for more effective
medical use. Two cannabinoid drugs have been approved by the FDA, thus
far, and more potent ones without the psychic side effect may be on
the way.

Dr. Coleman is the President of Drug Watch International and a retired
Assistant Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration. For information can be found at www.drugwatch.org.

The following is an April 15, 2009, letter issued from the CU-Boulder
Office of the Chancellor to all CU students:

Dear Students:

As another April 20 approaches, we are faced with concerns from
students, parents, alumni, Regents and community members about a
repeat of last year's 4/20 "event."

Let us start by saying that we share their concerns. A gathering of
thousands on our campus for the sole purpose of engaging in unlawful
activity is contrary to everything that CU-Boulder stands for and is
in no way condoned. This event only serves to harm the reputation of
this great university and is comprised in large part of individuals
with no investment in the university at all.

The increasingly large crowds that have gathered in recent years
present safety risks for participants, whether students or people not
affiliated with the campus. This activity violates a number of campus
regulations designed to provide for the well-being of our campus and
neighboring community.

On April 20, 2009, we hope that you will choose not to participate in
unlawful activity that debases the reputation of your University and
degree, and will encourage your fellow Buffs to act with pride and
remember who they really are - part of a dynamic environment of
teaching, research, learning and service, nationally recognized for
its unique and stellar academic programs, outstanding faculty and
proud students and alumni.

Sincerely, Phil DiStefano, Interim Chancellor; Julie Wong, Vice
Chancellor of Student Affairs; Deb Coffin, Dean of Students