ADVOCATE FOR LEGALIZED MARIJUANA RESPONDS TO 'ZERO TOLERANCE HYSTERIA'

As a lifelong advocate for repealing marijuana prohibition, I would
like to express my gratitude to former state Court of Appeals Judge
Bill Schuette and his collaborators, Kent County Sheriff Larry Stelma
and Lapeer County Prosecutor Byron Konschuh, for being so candid with
voters about their views on this important issue in the Mlive column
"Legalizing marijuana remains a bad idea."

It is amusing, if disingenuous, for them to assert that I "admitted"
in a recent television interview that my "goal is to legalize
marijuana use in Detroit and, eventually, all of Michigan" since I
have been absolutely clear on this point for many years.

I first advocated for making a medical exception to marijuana
prohibition for the very reason I named the organization the Detroit
Coalition for Compassionate Care. Their sinister insinuations
notwithstanding, allowing patients access to this mild but effective
treatment for nausea and chronic pain always was "the real purpose"
of that effort. Drug Warriors like Schuette are such zealots that
even cancer and AIDS patients, enduring the crippling side effects of
chemotherapy, were being shown no mercy.

Eventually the people of the entire state agreed -- by a nearly 2-1
margin. As have voters in a dozen other states. The difficulties for
government and employers in accommodating the needs of such patients
are also being greatly exaggerated. The fact that the state has
received 8,000 caregiver applications hardly justifies the assertion
that this is "one of the fastest growing industries in Michigan."

The prospects for actually making this a (much needed) new industry
have in fact been hamstrung largely as a result of fanatical
obstructionists. It is ironic that the authors complain of "a
nightmare for state and local authorities" when it has largely been
one of their own making.

Likewise, it is the very "zero tolerance" hysteria of the Drug War
that has created an issue for employers. The new law specifically
bars both driving and working "under the influence" -- hardly the
same thing as having any scientifically measurable trace in a
person's system. Given such an obvious lack of compassion in even the
most extreme circumstances, it is no surprise that Judge Schuette and
his fellow crusaders feel justified in resorting to shameless
deceptions and blatant distortions.

The careful reader of their screed will notice that the ominous
statistics cited in warning of the dangers of repealing marijuana
prohibition -- the circumstances surrounding criminal activities,
removal of children from neglectful parents into foster homes,
incidents of domestic violence -- are actually associated with
"substance abuse" generally.

In point of fact, the overwhelming number of these cases involve
alcohol. Far fewer involve heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine. Almost
none involve marijuana. What we have here is a perfect example of the
truism that although figures don't lie, we need to be fastidious
about the credibility and motives of the source of the figures.