Pubdate: Fri, 15 Jan 2010
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Page: A19
Copyright: 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.wsj.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/487
Author: David L. Nathan
Note: Dr. Nathan, a psychiatrist in Princeton, N.J., is a clinical 
assistant professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.

A DOCTOR'S CASE FOR LEGAL POT

Most Americans are paying too much for marijuana.

I'm not referring to people who smoke it--using the drug generally 
costs about as much as using alcohol. Marijuana is unaffordable for 
the rest of America because billions are wasted on misdirected drug 
education and distracted law enforcement, and we also fail to tax the 
large underground economy that supplies cannabis. On Monday, the New 
Jersey legislature passed a bill legalizing marijuana for a short 
list of medical uses. Outgoing Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine says he 
will sign it into law. This is a positive step, as cannabis has 
several unique medical applications. But the debate over medical 
marijuana has obscured the larger issue of pot prohibition.

As a psychiatrist, I treat individuals who often suffer from 
devastating substance abuse.

Over many years of dealing with my patients' problems, I have come to 
realize that we are wasting precious resources on the fight against 
marijuana, which more closely resembles legal recreational drugs than 
illegal ones. My conscience compels me to support a comprehensive and 
nationwide decriminalization of marijuana.

Prohibition did decrease alcoholism and alcohol consumption in the 
1920s. However, the resulting rise of violent organized crime and the 
loss of tax revenue were untenable and led to the repeal of 
Prohibition. By analogy, while the broad decriminalization of 
marijuana will likely reduce the societal and economic costs of pot 
prohibition, it could lead to more use and abuse. The risks of 
marijuana use are mild compared to those of heroin, ecstasy and other 
illegal drugs, but the drug is not harmless.

A small number of my patients cannot tolerate any use without serious 
impact on underlying disorders. Others become daily, heavy smokers, 
manifesting psychological if not physiological dependence. While most 
of my patients appear to suffer no ill effects from occasional use, 
the drug makes my work more difficult with certain individuals.

So why do I support decriminalization? First, marijuana prohibition 
doesn't prevent widespread use of the drug, although it does clog our 
legal system with a small percentage of users and dealers unlucky 
enough to be prosecuted. More to the point, legal cannabis would 
never become the societal problem that alcohol already is.

In most of my substance-abuse patients, I am far more concerned about 
their consumption of booze than pot. Alcohol frequently induces 
violent or dangerous behavior and often-irreversible physiological 
dependence; marijuana does neither.

Chronic use of cannabis raises the risk of lung cancer, weight gain, 
and lingering cognitive changes--but chronic use of alcohol can cause 
pancreatitis, cirrhosis and permanent dementia.

In healthy but reckless teens and young adults, it is frighteningly 
easy to consume a lethal dose of alcohol, but it is almost impossible 
to do so with marijuana. Further, compared with cannabis, alcohol can 
cause severe impairment of judgment, which results in greater 
concurrent use of hard drugs. Many believe marijuana is a gateway 
drug--perhaps not so harmful in itself but one that leads to the use 
of more serious drugs.

That is not borne out in practice, except that the illegal purchase 
of cannabis often exposes consumers to profit-minded dealers who push 
the hard stuff.

In this way, the gateway argument is one in favor of 
decriminalization. If marijuana were purchased at liquor stores 
rather than on street corners where heroin and crack are also sold, 
there would likely be a decrease in the use of more serious drugs.

The nation badly needs the revenue of a "sin tax" on marijuana, akin 
to alcohol and tobacco taxes.

Our government could also save money by ending its battle against 
marijuana in the drug war and redirecting funds to proactive drug 
education and substance-abuse treatment.

Hyperbolic rants about the evils of marijuana could give way to 
realistic public education about the drug's true risks, such as 
driving under the influence. Our nation can acknowledge the dangers 
of cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana while still permitting their 
use. The only logically and morally consistent argument for marijuana 
prohibition necessitates the criminalization of all harmful 
recreational drugs, including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine.

We can agree that such an infringement on personal freedoms is as 
impractical as it is un-American. The time has come to accept that 
our nation's attitude toward marijuana has been misguided for 
generations and that the only rational approach to cannabis is to 
legalize, regulate and tax it.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake