THE CASE AGAINST LEGALIZATION

As a leader of a nationally prominent anti-drug coalition in San
Diego County, I was thoroughly disappointed with the California
Medical Association's recent report endorsing marijuana legalization
as a way to speed research into medical marijuana. Unfortunately, the
CMA conflated those two very different issues by recklessly
supporting the risky proposition of legalization.

First, it is important to discuss the disastrous impact marijuana
legalization would have on our state. Marijuana is illegal because it
is dangerous not dangerous because it's illegal. Recent studies link
the drug with cognitive impairment (think memory loss and other brain
dysfunction), motor skills impairment (think drugged driving
accidents), and mental illness (like psychosis and schizophrenia).
Indeed, marijuana negatively impacts the development of the
adolescent brain, which is still maturing until about age 25.

We also know, according to a recent RAND report, that the price of
marijuana would fall dramatically if it were legalized. Our
experience with alcohol and tobacco tells us that lower price means
greater use and addiction rates. And while about 1 in 10 adults who
ever start marijuana will become dependent on it, according to the
National Institutes of Health, that number jumps to between 1 in 4
and 1 in 2 when the drug is initiated in adolescence. Calling for
legalization for adults only and thinking it will prevent drug use
among kids is naive and dangerous just ask any kid who has easy
access to alcohol and tobacco today, despite age limits.

Finally, marijuana tax revenues would pale in comparison to the
social costs of the increased use of the drug. Again, our two legal
drugs, alcohol and tobacco, can be used as a reference point they
bring in about one-tenth of the social costs they produce.

That one opposes legalization does not mean that one has to be all
for the status quo. Indeed, we need to invest more into prevention
programs to stop marijuana use before it starts, intervene on early
use, and treat marijuana addiction.

Nor does opposition to legalization signal acrimony toward increased
medical research into the individual components of marijuana. This is
where CMA makes its mistake. The organization reasoned that
legalization is the only way to achieve this kind of research. And it is wrong.

Research into the active ingredients of marijuana and there are
hundreds of them is an important area of science that should be
explored. Indeed, today we have two such drugs derived from marijuana
and the FDA is currently exploring others, like Sativex. Sativex is a
tongue spray that is comprised of the active ingredient in marijuana
THC and another ingredient called CBD. The THC in marijuana is what
gets someone "high," and the CBD counteracts that so that the drug is
not dangerous or dependence-inducing. Late-stage trials of the drug
show promise for spasticity related to multiple sclerosis and pain
related to cancer. It has been approved in other countries for these
purposes, too.

The bottom line is that one of CMA's core arguments is a myth that
the government's prohibition of marijuana prevents proper
investigation into the drug's therapeutic properties. The National
Institute on Drug Abuse grows marijuana, in several different strains
and varieties, for this exact purpose. According to the Drug
Enforcement Administration, which issues licenses to deal with
marijuana for research purposes, over 200 researchers have access to the drug.

So it is unfortunate that the California Medical Association
representing only a small number of their doctors who pushed a
legalization position from the start is now mixing politics with
science. Advocating for legalization as the only route to research
not only displays an ignorance of the drug-approval process, but it
also represents a platform that will have untold consequences from a
profession that should, first and foremost, "do no harm."