POT BAN REVIEW IS LONG OVERDUE

Assuming that enough signatures turn out to be valid, we'll vote this
fall on expanding the law on medical marijuana. In preparation for the
expected arguments against this idea, it's recommended you look up
"Going to Pot," an article in the July 12 National Review.

In this conservative magazine, Ethan Nadelman, founder and executive
director of the Drug Policy Alliance, argues persuasively for an end
to the national prohibition of marijuana. And he touches on all the
arguments used in Oregon against the further legalization of medical
marijuana.

For example, we have been told often that marijuana is a gateway drug,
that it leads users to more harmful substances. It is true for some,
the author says, but no, most Americans who have tried marijuana at
least once -- and that's estimated to be close to 100 million -- have
never tried other drugs, and most of them have not even become regular
pot smokers.

Attacking illegal drug use by prohibiting marijuana has been likened
to combating motorcycle fatalities by cracking down on bicycle riding,
as the article notes.

We've been told that marijuana today is much more potent than it used
to be. Nadelman counters that potent pot used to be around 30 years
ago, too, and in any case, with greater potency the desired effect can
be had with only a few puffs, leading to less potential damage to the
lungs.

Before the election we will be warned, as we were before voters
legalized medical marijuana in 1998, that marijuana is addictive. It
can be, the author admits, but it's less so than a lot of legal
substances, and withdrawal symptoms "pale compared with those from
other drugs."

The article quotes from the 1988 findings of one Francis Young, then an
administrative law judge for the Drug Enforcement Administration: "Marijuana
in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances
known to man."

If that's so, then it is not surprising that no one has ever died from
an overdose of marijuana.

With this as background, it is hard to defend the federal government's
preoccupation with combating marijuana use, a drive that has caused
the government to confiscate the pot that states such as Oregon and
California have allowed some medically eligible people to have.

The most potent argument for keeping the restrictions has been to
protect children. But it hasn't worked. Nadelman states the obvious:
Teens have easier access to pot than anyone else. The result: Many
young people know from experience that the government position on this
substance is overstated, causing them to doubt other, more justified
warnings.

The new Oregon initiative will likely lead to a robust debate about
pot prohibition, and as the article shows, a fundamental review of the
wisdom of that policy is way overdue.