SENSATIONALISM, DISTORTIONS CLOUD MARIJUANA DEBATE

This November, California voters could make California the first
state in the union to decriminalize the recreational use of
marijuana, a landmark in the drug's history in this country.
Currently, fourteen states have legalized the use of marijuana for
medical purposes. In October of last year, the Obama administration
declared that the federal government would discontinue the practice
of prosecuting marijuana offenders, as long as they complied with state laws.

For many advocates of marijuana decriminalization, Obama's departure
from the Bush-era prosecution of the drug, coupled with the growing
number of states allowing its use for medical reasons, is evidence of
the nation's desire to end the ancient prohibition. Opponents of this
measure-known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of
2010-are stepping up to stress the detriments that this act will have
on overall public health and safety.

We, the Editorial Board, want to make it clear that we believe that
marijuana, like any drug, poses potential dangers to society.
Regrettably, a clear analysis of the dangers and benefits of
marijuana decriminalization has been clouded for decades, mainly
because personal preferences have rendered those involved in this
debate unable to provide unbiased research on the subject.

Proponents of the decriminalization of marijuana have capitalized on
California's current financial situation and sold the drug as a part
of the solution to the state's budget woes.

Regardless of the legitimacy of this claim, California voters cannot
make this decision for the shortsighted goal of alleviating the
deficit, but must consider the long-term societal changes that this
act will cause.

The facts about marijuana are difficult to determine from the
numerous conflicting studies, but a few facts are clear-the number of
sentences for the possession of marijuana has increased dramatically
over the last 20 years, yet the use of the drug has remained
relatively steady, according to most available surveys. Fears that
decriminalization will increase use of marijuana seem as unfounded as
hopes that increased prosecution would decrease the drug's use.

Opponents of marijuana today use scare tactics similar to those used
by Harry Anslinger and the creators of exploitation films such as
"Reefer Madness" in the 1930s, relying on anecdotal evidence and
unsubstantiated claims of the negative effects of the drug. This is a
danger to the democratic process.

It is for this reason that advocates of marijuana decriminalization
have avoided engaging in conversation on the social costs of the
drug, and instead focus their efforts towards illuminating the
medical and fiscal benefits of legalization. In the process, the
American public has been shortchanged of what is the most important
question to be answered in November: Does the legalization of
marijuana pose significant dangers to our communities? We implore
those on both sides of the fence to return to this question and
provide honest evidence so that we, as citizens, can make an informed decision.

Recent opinion polls show that this proposition has a good chance of
passing. If, in November, the people of California decide to
decriminalize marijuana, the ancient practices of sensationalism and
misinformation must cease. It is the responsibility of advocates and
opponents alike to put their prejudices aside and work together in
ensuring the safety and health of California residents. And come
November, both sides will have to respect the outcome of the election.