PASS THE POT

When a heckler interrupted a question-and-answer session held in Montpelier
Tuesday between state lawmakers and Dr. Andrea Barthwell, the deputy
director of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, he highlighted
the depth of emotion that surrounds the issue of legalizing the use of
marijuana for sanctioned medical purposes.

Legislators are grappling with a bill that has already passed the state
senate which would allow for physicians to prescribe marijuana to patients
when they feel it is an appropriate treatment. Right now those doctors would
be breaking the law here, although not in British Columbia, Canada and nine
other states - Arkansas, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon
and Washington - where such use has been legalized for medical purposes.

Advocates for the passage of such legislation argue marijuana - one of the
more potent symbols of the rebellious 1960s when many present lawmakers were
in college or high school - would relieve pain for sufferers of cancer,
multiple sclerosis, and AIDS-related diseases. Critics of the proposed bill
strike back by saying the scientific evidence for such claims is lacking and
becomes at best a "cruel hoax" in Barthwell's words, for those sufferers.

The most recent and most respected research done on medical marijuana comes
from the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine's study written
in 1999, which concluded that there was reason to believe that marijuana, if
controlled correctly, could have a therapeutic value for patients in search
of pain relief and control of nausea, and also showed signs of improving
appetites. The study also found there was no conclusive evidence to support
the notion that opening the door to marijuana use this way would lead to a
widespread use by the general population.

Well, perhaps. Those who want to use marijuana - or pot, Mary Jane, weed,
herb, reefer or whatever else you want to call it - are already finding it
from other places. Whether those who might be inclined to experiment with
the drug for recreational use would do so more frequently if it were
legalized in certain circumstances is impossible to say for sure.

What message it sends to youngsters is another tricky question, although the
popular culture already sends so many mixed messages to kids that this one
may be irrelevant.

Why do we decry tobacco use at every opportunity, yet the state cheerfully
continues to collect tax revenue from it? Why is alcohol legal, when every
study under the sun has shown alcohol kills far more people - young and old
- - than marijuana or other drugs?

There may be a case to be made that marijuana is a so-called "gateway drug"
that seems benign in comparison to more vicious drugs like speed or heroin.
But if the experience of many "baby boomers" who came of age during the
1960s when pot and other drugs burst onto the mainstream of society is any
clue, there can be no doubt that there is some merit to that warning. But
the weight of scientific evidence and the simple humanitarian impulse to
relieve suffering argue for a more tolerant approach, and we hope the House
passes the bill, even though it faces a strong likelihood of a veto by Gov.
James Douglas. In an era of outrageous pharmaceutical drug prices, and a
health-care system straining under skyrocketing costs and insurance
premiums, this seems like something worth a try, with proper safeguards
built in.

Who knows, in time maybe the federal government might get around to it, and
see marijuana, like cigarettes, alcohol - oops did we forget gambling? -
that could be a splendid source of tax revenue and put the drug lords out of
business.

If we didn't have to worry about the war on drugs, maybe we could find more
resources for the war on terror.