DEBATE ON MARIJUANA IS DOUBLE-EDGED

Is it about the effects of pot or civil libertarianism?

Since the Herald-Tribune ran a front-page story and subsequent feature
material outlining the proliferation of the illicit street drug known as
crystal meth in Grande Prairie, the specifics of the drug itself and the
terrible effects it can have on the user and the family, a debate has
ensued on the letters section of this page with respect to that drug's
relationship to marijuana use.

One letter writer, once a user of many drugs and alcohol, who now - six
clean years later - works in drug rehab and counselling - made reference to
a "gateway" theory and that reference has touched off a maelstrom of
response from across North America seeking to debunk that theory.

Essentially, in the context of loosening Canadian marijuana legislation and
the potential fallout from that, the theory suggests users of marijuana,
for any number of reasons, will almost certainly go on to try harder, more
addictive drugs like cocaine, heroine and crystal meth.

The basis for this theory varies: Some suggest it has more to do with the
crowd and contacts pot users meet in the every day business of getting high
that eventually takes them to easier access to harder drugs. Others suggest
the high from the marijuana can make users yearn for a different and more
powerful high. And there are varying combinations of both.

In short, the theory suggests the marijuana user is on an inevitable
slippery slope to junkiedom and the best way to stop the abuse of hard
drugs is to limit access to soft ones, or at least, raise a public
awareness campaign that attempts to ward off young users from ever getting
started.

This editorial is not to support or dismantle the "gateway" theory: There
isn't enough space and we would certainly be inundated with a raft of
letters rehashing the same debate over and over again.

But the message could be in the debate itself.

Those who believe in freer access to marijuana, who advocate at least its
decriminalization, seem to be a loosely affiliated, organized and eloquent
bunch that feel compelled to publicly respond to advocates of
anti-marijuana policy and/or the "gateway" theory. Letters arrive en masse
from across North America, particularly from the United States.

It is from those writers that the debate begins to shift and be more about
the freedom of choice and the unwillingness to give government more power
to protect us from ourselves than it does with the medical and social
fallout from drug use.

It seems likely that some time this year, laws governing marijuana use in
this country will be radically changed. And in this process the debate will
certainly continue and predictably, the debate will be divided pro and con,
but it will also be divided by two base issues: Whether or not small
amounts of marijuana will have a negative effect on our society and its
individuals and/or the notion that our Big Brother government knows what's
best for us.