DEBUNKING POT MYTHS

Re "Got Pot?" [RN&R, Oct. 3, 2002]:

Mr. Burghart lists seven reasons he thinks the war on marijuana should
continue. I believe it is in our best interest as a nation to end this
harassment of our own citizens. Here are seven responses to assertions made
in the story:

1. No one, not the American Medical Association or the courts, has
scientifically proven pot has medicinal benefits.

The debate over its medical value is too highly politicized to go into
here. However, just because something does not have a proven medical usage
is no reason to arrest people who use it. Tobacco has no medicinal benefit,
yet it is legal.

2. Marijuana's addictive.

We could also argue whether it is or not, but so what? Tobacco is
addictive, yet legal.

3. It's a gateway drug.

The old logical fallacy "if before then because." As George Carlin said,
"Mother's milk leads to EVERYTHING." Why are only the illegal drugs
considered gateways? Sugar, beer, and caffeine are never cited as gateways,
even though most people are exposed to them before they get to illegal drugs.

4. Marijuana use and possession would still be illegal on the federal level.

True. But no reason to make state officials complicit in the insanity.

5. Three ounces is not a small amount of marijuana.

There is no legal limit on the amount of alcohol or tobacco you can own, so
why should there be any limit on the amount of cannabis you can own? Well,
to ensure people aren't selling it, of course. But is there really still a
thriving black market for alcohol, or did the 21st Amendment put an end to
that?

6. People aren't being arrested for possessing small amounts of marijuana
anyway.

However, the police still have the power to arrest someone for it. People
who smoke marijuana have a negative attitude towards people in the law
enforcement profession, because they see them as the enemy. If the war on
marijuana was over, the police would have a lot easier time interacting
with the public.

7. It would still cost law enforcement a lot of money for prosecution of
such things as driving under the influence, public use, selling or giving
to children and others.

We ended alcohol prohibition, and the police still have to deal with people
driving under the influence, public drunkenness, minors in possession, etc.
But they no longer have to deal with catching bootleggers and investigating
gangland wars over liquor turf.

Kendall M. Cox

Shorewood, Ill.

via e-mail