Pubdate: Thu, 23 Mar 2006
Source: Herald News (NJ)
Copyright: 2007 North Jersey Media Group Inc.
Contact:  http://www.northjersey.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2911
Author: Marta Paczkowska, Herald Teen News Correspondent
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/heroin.htm (Heroin)

SHOULD MARIJUANA BE LEGAL?

When most parents hear the word marijuana they immediately yell "Don't
do drugs!" and change the subject.

Of course, parents are only looking out for the well-being of their
children, but merely discussing drugs does not inject any chemicals
into our veins or shoot smoke into our lungs.

As America's government continues to wage a costly war on drugs, it is
necessary to objectively acknowledge that legalization of marijuana is
an idea that should receive serious consideration, without succumbing to
the subjectivity of propaganda. Therefore, in the interest of opening
our propaganda-blinded eyes to the issues that directly affect
teenagers, here first are the facts from the National Institute on Drug
Abuse: Marijuana is a product of the hemp plant, Cannabis sativa, which
contains some 400 chemicals, including the brain-altering THC.
Researchers have found that THC changes the way in which sensory
information gets into and is acted upon by the hippocampus, the
component of the brain's limbic system that is crucial for learning,
memory and the integration of sensory experiences with emotions and
motivations; as a result, learned behaviors deteriorate.

Another interesting fact, reported in this newspaper in Dr. Robert
Wallace's "Tween 12 and 20" column, is that one marijuana cigarette
can cause as much lung inflammation as seven to 20 cigarettes,
depending on how deeply the smoker inhales.

Advocates against the legalization of marijuana use such evidence to
support their cause; however, they fail to note that cigarette addicts
may smoke around a pack a day, or 20 cigarettes, while marijuana
smokers might smoke one or two joints.

So the question remains, Which is more harmful to a regular, daily
smoker -- illegal marijuana or legal cigarettes?

Wallace also notes the distinction that needs to be made between
psychological and physical addiction.

While regular cigarettes are physically addictive, marijuana is only
psychologically addictive; a cigarette smoker needs and craves
nicotine, whereas a marijuana smoker enjoys the high and is thus drawn
to smoking the drug based on the memory of that experience. The harm
that smoking marijuana poses, therefore, depends partially on one's
self-control. Can the smoker resist "high" temptations?

And could they resist temptation if marijuana were
legal?

Well, consider the Netherlands, which decriminalizes possession of
less than 30 grams of marijuana and sale of up to 5 grams per person
per day (both are technically illegal but not prosecuted), and permits
smoking it in public places or where the owner of the property does
not object.

The Dutch drug policy, which states an anti-drug message but supports
nearly 1,000 marijuana coffee shops, has accomplished at least one
thing that the United States is still striving toward: separating the
markets for hard and soft drugs.

Freed up resources once used to chase marijuana are now used by the
Dutch government to combat the production and smuggling of hard drugs,
such as heroin and cocaine.

And although the coffee shop system is looked upon with skepticism by
anti-marijuana activists, studies by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, and the Netherlands Institute for Mental Health and
Addiction illustrate obvious success for the Dutch government in its
anti-drug ventures.

Recent surveys found that 3.6 percent of people aged 12 years and
older in the Netherlands said they used cocaine at some point in their
lives, compared to 11 percent in the United States. The numbers for
heroin were 0.4 percent in the Netherlands compared with 0.9 percent
in the United States. But most ironic of all, these agencies' surveys
put the "drug state's" use of marijuana at 17 percent while abstinent
America registered 36.9 percent.

Even if you look only at the people who said they had used marijuana
in the month preceding the survey -- which as the Netherlands Ministry
of Foreign Affairs noted is far smaller number than have ever tried it
- -- the Dutch still come in much lower at 3 percent, compared to 5.4
percent in the United States.

Considering these statistics, one may question the effectiveness of
America's approach toward lowering its drug use and why such extensive
measures are being taken here to keep marijuana illegal?

Is it violence?

The U.S. murder rate dwarfs that of the Dutch, even with recent
declines.

Could it be the prospect of more school dropouts?

While 10.9 percent of the 16-to-24-year-old population in the United
States had not completed high school in October 2000, the Netherlands
had almost no drop-out problem.

The Netherlands must convey the popular anti-drug message "Don't Get
High. Aim High" a little more effectively than we do.

This is not America's first battle over legalization. For another
comparison that's closer to home, we can look to our own history when
attempts were made to obliterate the use of alcohol during the
Prohibition Era of the 1920s. "Although consumption of alcohol fell at
the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased," Mark
Thornton, a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute,
states in his article "Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure." Contrary to
hopeful expectations, "no measurable gains were made in productivity
or reduced absenteeism," he adds. And while underground businesses met
the forbidden demands of the public, "Prohibition removed a
significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government
spending."

Images of federal agents emptying casks of alcohol have been replaced
today by police and the Drug Enforcement Administration targeting
marijuana crops.

The efforts are considerable: According to an article in The Record
last October, the New Jersey DEA reported that its agents seized
17,076 pounds of marijuana in the state in 2005, more than the agency
seized in 2002, 2003 and 2004 combined.

Again the issue arises of allocating limited policing
resources.

Michael Pasterchick, who heads the New Jersey DEA was quoted as
saying: "We are an import state. ... We don't go after marijuana
smokers, we go after marijuana traffickers." But what about securing
our ports against terrorist threats and harder drugs, such as heroin?

"In New Jersey, the DEA, along with other law enforcement and
emergency rooms, know that we have the best and cheapest heroin in the
country," Carolann Kane-Cavaiola, assistant commissioner for the
state's Division on Addiction Services, told the Herald News in
September. With the deadly drug at their fingertips, New Jerseyans
between the ages of 18 and 25 use heroin at more than twice the
national average, 5 percent statewide compared to 2.5 percent
nationally, the article reported.

At a time of serious security concerns and government deficits, a hard
look needs to be given to ensuring that public funds are spent
effectively. The government must also learn from its past and meet its
people's demands, or else time eventually will. Although the demand
for alcohol is now satisfied, as is the demand for cigarettes,
marijuana is still lagging behind in its own Prohibition Era. No one
can deny that alcohol and cigarettes lack any significant benefit for
our society, but these commodities have been made legal.

We live in a country where freedom of choice takes priority and,
ultimately, cannot be denied. Consider the words of former President
Woodrow Wilson, a New Jersey native: "Liberty has never come from the
government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The
history of liberty is a history of resistance." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: SHeath(DPF Florida)