OLMES: 40 YEARS OF REEFER MADNESS

Save us from politicians sending messages.

They were at it again this week, debating a bill that would provide
civil fines, instead of criminal records, for those caught
possessing small amounts of marijuana.

"That's the wrong message to send to our kids," Attorney General Tom
Reilly said. "We have to keep them out of drugs."

State Rep. Karyn Polito, R-Shrewsbury, agreed, saying the bill
"sends the wrong message."

Let's get real: Politicians don't send messages, especially to kids,
who couldn't name their state representative if their iPods depended
on it. For 40 years, politicians have been "sending messages" to kids
about the dangers of pot and for 40 years, the kids have been ignoring them.

State legislators and attorneys general don't send messages; they
pass laws and prosecute people caught breaking them. The law they
have now says they can send you to prison for six months and fine you
$500 for possession of a single joint -- on top of your lawyer's
fees, of course.

Another law makes anyone convicted of marijuana possession
ineligible for federal college loans or grants. Nice message they
are sending: Anyone who smokes pot shouldn't be able to go to college.

Reilly is worried about sending messages to kids, but the law he
supports applies to adults as well. A federal study released last
year found that 12 percent of adults in the greater Boston area had
smoked marijuana in the previous month. Twelve percent broke the law
by choosing this relatively benign alternative to a cocktail.

What message are the politicians sending to millions of adults? That
they can't decide for themselves which mild intoxicant to enjoy.
That their government believes they must be treated like children --
or criminals.

The adults aren't listening to the politicians'message any more than
the kids are. Some of them have been laughing at "reefer madness"
propaganda for 40 years, and the passage of time hasn't made it any
more convincing.

In fact, the aging of the baby boomers has given science its first
opportunity to measure the impact of long-term drug use. In a recent
review of the research, Time magazine reported that, while cocaine
and heroin are as dangerous as originally thought, "the so-called
demon weed turned out to be a lot less devilish than advertised.

"The popular image of the goofy, smoky slacker notwithstanding, a
2003 study in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological
Society found that even among regular users, there is no proof that
pot causes irreversible cognitive damage," Time writes.

Long-term use can affect memory, but those effects fade if the user
stops. Marijuana can be addictive for some, says psychologist Peter
Provet, president of Odyssey House. "But a lot of people who use pot
don't become addicts."

Forty years doesn't seem to have changed the politics of drug laws.
State legislators all seem to have this Nixon-era belief that if
they support any marijuana reform bill the voters will decide they
are hippies and the narcs will search their sock drawers.

But the voters are way ahead of them. Over the last five years,
voters in 26 Massachusetts districts -- including those represented
by Sen. Richard Moore, D-Uxbridge, Rep. Debby Blumer, D-Framingham
and Rep. Jim Vallee, D-Franklin -- have been asked in ballot
questions whether they support a reform bill similar to the one now
before the Legislature. In every case, voters supported the reforms
by a healthy margin.

Moore, Blumer and Vallee all promptly said they would ignore the
wishes of the voters in their districts. Something about sending a
message, if I recall. Vallee, who was then chairman of the criminal
justice committee, said it probably didn't have the votes to pass, so
he wouldn't allow his committee to consider it.

But something has changed. Vallee's criminal justice committee was
eliminated and a new committee on mental health and substance abuse
was created. The new committee is concerned with getting effective
treatment to people who are addicted and ill. It approaches substance
abuse as an issue of public health, not public morality. It's more
interested in helping people than in sending messages by locking them up.

That committee this week endorsed the decriminalization bill, but
given the wimpishness of the other legislators, it may go no
further. Asked about the bill, Rep. David Linsky, D-Natick,
declined to take a position. "I'm not sure the bill will get to the
floor," he said hopefully.

Even this bill, which would change the penalty for possession of
less than an ounce of marijuana to a $250 fine, is a weak compromise
with common sense.

The common sense approach would recognize that, by almost any
measure, marijuana is no worse than beer. And the
legitimate concerns about pot -- purity, potency and abuse by
children -- could most easily be addressed by treating it exactly like beer.

Kids have told me it's easier to get hold of pot than alcohol.
There's a reason for that: Alcohol is sold by liquor store owners
who face heavy fines and lost business if they are caught selling to
anyone under 21.

There's also a reason why the jump to hard drugs is easier for
pot-smokers than drinkers: The man at the liquor store might want to
talk you into a finer wine or fancier brew, but he doesn't stock
cocaine or crystal meth. Why not let him put some regulated, taxed
marijuana in his humidor along with the cigars?

But common sense and sound public policy go out the window when
politicians fall under the sway of reefer madness. They are too busy
sending messages no one is listening to and locking up otherwise
responsible citizens.