MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS NOTHING TO HUFF AND PUFF ABOUT

Since President Richard Nixon declared an "all-out offensive" to curb
the use of illegal drugs in the United States, the War on Drugs has
mostly failed. Even though drug busts seem to be getting bigger each
year, few today would agree that drug use is "America's public enemy
No. 1," a statement Nixon made in 1971.

However, vilification of even the most harmless drugs, including
marijuana, was quite effective and has lead to marijuana also being
withheld from medical uses that would benefit patients. It also has
made an objective debate about legalization almost impossible.

While many states have passed laws that make marijuana accessible to
those carrying a prescription, the federal government continues to
stonewall, stubbornly sticking to its story: Pot is bad. Period.

The New York Times reported Thursday that the Food and Drug
Administration had issued a statement saying "no sound scientific
studies" supported the medical use of marijuana. It is hard to fathom
how the FDA can make statements like this while patients in California
as well as other countries such as Canada and the Netherlands give
daily proof that it improves their standard of living. It is even
harder to understand why the U.S. government would be so adamant about
withholding drugs even from terminally ill patients. After all, even
the most cold-hearted person should wonder why it is acceptable to
literally nuke a cancer patient's body, but prescribing a plant that
would readily grow in most gardens and has been used for thousands of
years is deemed illegal.

The reason behind this decision has to do with how drugs are
classified in most countries. In the United States, the Controlled
Substance Act classifies all drugs in one of five groups, ranging from
Schedule I to Schedule V. "Abuse" of Schedule I drugs - meaning
illegal use - is penalized worse than those in the other groups.
Schedule I includes not only hard drugs such as heroin that are
addictive often even after their first use, but puzzlingly also
marijuana, a substance that has no proven properties that cause
physical addiction.

Interestingly, Schedule I drugs are, by definition, drugs that do not
have an "accepted medical use," while Schedule II drugs have "a
currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions," according to
the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. This explains why the FDA statement
was made in the first place: It was an attempt to further undermine
the increasing calls to reclassify marijuana. If it can't be used
medically, it can't be reclassified as a Schedule II drug.

This occurred last year in Great Britain. Possession of marijuana is
still technically illegal there, but since marijuana has been
reclassified, mere possession does not bear any actual penalty as long
as it is apparent the drug is for personal use and not meant for resale.

In the United States, calls for reclassification of marijuana are
usually brushed aside because it would "undermine" efforts of keeping
the drug off the street.

It's hard to imagine any way pot could be more readily available, as
even now almost anyone can procure it through the trusted
"friend-of-a-friend" method. And since marijuana has been legalized in
the Netherlands for years and drug use there has decreased rather than
increased, that's an argument that simply won't fly.

What's true, though, is the business with the drug is booming. This
weekend, for example, the BBC reported lobster fishers in the Maldives
stumbled upon 1.6 tons of marijuana in what is likely one of the
largest, if not the largest, pot bust ever. (For the smokers among
you: 1.6 metric tons is about 56,438 ounces or 1.6 million grams)

Smuggling marijuana into the Maldives is punishable by death, yet
someone thought the endeavor lucrative enough to risk smuggling marijuana.

What is true for most markets is also true for the drug market: As
long as someone is willing to buy, someone is going to find a way to
supply. America's drug policy encourages dealing with the drugs by
pushing its prices up to heights they would not reach otherwise.

What decriminalization would almost instantly do, though, is get rid
of an entire sector of organized crime that deals with the drugs. A
few months after the attacks of Sept. 11, the U.S. government ran
high-profile commercials during the Super Bowl that told viewers if
they smoke pot, they "help the terrorists."

This is only partially true. Yes, organizations often make money
through drug trading to finance other ventures that could possibly
also include acts of terrorism. But if pot was legalized, organized
crime would no longer be the only supplier; prices - and with it
profit margins - would diminish.

The problem is not the sale of the drug but the legal status that
makes the trade so lucrative and pushes it entirely into the black
market.

Maybe a group should buy a counter-spot commercial that says, "If you
don't legalize it, you're helping the terrorists."