OF MAGIC HERBS

The Dreaming

What would happen if the "mad" cooks catering a high-level diplomatic
dinner reception mischievously mixed in cannabis into the ambassadors'
desserts? I always like to imagine that joyous revelry would ensue, that
foreign languages would melt into melodious tones - into an orchestra of
the earth and that any visions of melting clocks would be nothing more than
the representation of a fluid, symbiotic existence and not of the world's
agony or imminent unhappy fate. I call it "pot diplomacy," in which leaders
are calm thinkers and truth-seekers whose hearts carry the dying embers of
war and evergreen hopes for the life of the earth.

That is but a modest dream, though, and I doubt not that some would be
swift to dismiss it as lunacy.

But I remain firm and convinced, even under a full moon, that my reverie
will not go unheeded by future generations. For in good time, science,
practicality and social realities will come to banish our fears and doubts
of cannabis, commonly known as dope, hemp, pot and marijuana, and the day
will come when that controversial plant will be legal and will cost just as
much as tea.

Nonetheless, such dread is not at all unfounded because the legalization of
cannabis would, without question, lead to a rise in its use. If it were
brought up to par with alcohol and tobacco, it would inevitably decrease in
price and be made very accessible. The stigma appended to marijuana would
also be cast out, leading more people to experiment with it without fear of
imprisonment or shame.

But really, why does American society deem cannabis so loathsome?

After all, it is an old occupant of the earth - very old, indeed.

It has been known in China for about 6,000 years and was used in the fifth
century by necromancers to set forward time and reveal future destinies.

Throughout much of the history of agriculture, the plant has served five
purposes: as food, for its seeds, for its oil, for hemp fibers and for its
narcotic qualities. And like other fashions, the demand for it comes and
goes, depending on a society.

Even in the Netherlands, where it is widely available, the Dutch are
moderate users by European standards.

Here in America, the government's so-called war on drugs has not driven
cannabis out of the streets. (And why should a timeless plant that has
mastered its own existence for endless years let itself be cast into
oblivion so easily?) Its zero-tolerance policy on marijuana is a miserable
repeat of its efforts to prohibit the sale of alcohol.

In a society that outlaws cannabis, it is only natural that underground
markets proliferate. The absence of regulations and restrictions due to
marijuana's illegal nature has actually been more detrimental and has
precipitated a reality that is dismally remote from the aspirations for a
decent society.

One must only look at the alarming state of our prison system to see that a
century of stigmatizing cannabis has more than boomeranged. In a wealthy
country, those afflicted most by its inconsistent drug policy are
minorities and those mired in poverty.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics puts the proportion of drug offenders in
federal supervision in 1998 as 59 percent of all inmates, a quarter of
which are imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses.

There are also a disproportionate number of minorities in federal, state
and local prisons.

In Wisconsin alone, blacks make up 63 percent of all drug offenders.

And why is this so? While drug use may not be so lopsided across the gamut
of American demographics, drug enforcement in affluent, middle-class
suburban neighborhoods is minimal because the market is far less visible in
those places than in urban areas.

Then, there is matter of legalization in order to regulate.

Because cannabis is illegal, the federal government cannot regulate the
drug market, for doing so would be short of condoning its use. For that
reason, drugs suppliers are equal opportunity sellers who might have little
interest in distinguishing between accessibility of the supply by children
and adults.

This government paralysis to set restrictions also applies to other drugs
such as ecstasy and cocaine as well as other matters to be considered such
as the concentration of ingredients in the drugs. Legalization, therefore,
would correct the problem by compelling the population to educate itself on
cannabis, with much aid from the government, doubtless, much like education
erased the perceived threat of gin.

Finally, the case for the legalization of cannabis lies on a question of
principle. The British liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill declared, "Over
himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." It is a
contentious pronouncement, of course, as it implies the absence of
protection even from one's own body. But the government does not prohibit
one from bungee jumping or skydiving, and such activities are evidently
dangerous. When cannabis becomes legal, what is essential is that
individual users recognize their own well-being and respect the difference
and freedom of others present.

It must be acknowledged that legalization is a grand step for America. A
Senate panel in neighboring Canada has already proposed such legislation,
but it is unlikely that it will become law in the near future as the United
States vehemently opposes such a move and has threatened to slow trade
between the two countries.

Whether or not the Canadians really do not consider themselves the 51st
state remains to be seen. In the meantime, bless their tolerant northern
hearts.

Legalization, beyond question, involves significant risks.

But after a century of demonizing cannabis, let us ask ourselves where we
stand now. Changing social attitudes and opinions must be consistent with
our laws, and edification will bring us out of the doldrums of ineffective
drug policy. For the time being, we can only dream about a pot-laden
diplomatic bacchanalia.

Arden A. de la Cruz is a Rutgers College senior majoring in political
science. His column, "The Dreaming," runs on alternating Tuesdays.