Pubdate: Sun, 06 Nov 2011
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 2011 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.signonsandiego.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/386
Note: Seldom prints LTEs from outside it's circulation area.
Author: Aaron J. Byzak
Note: Byzak is the president of the North Coastal Prevention
Coalition, a Vista-based organization that seeks to reduce the harm
of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and other drugs.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

THE CASE AGAINST LEGALIZATION

As a leader of a nationally prominent anti-drug coalition in San 
Diego County, I was thoroughly disappointed with the California 
Medical Association's recent report endorsing marijuana legalization 
as a way to speed research into medical marijuana. Unfortunately, the 
CMA conflated those two very different issues by recklessly 
supporting the risky proposition of legalization.

First, it is important to discuss the disastrous impact marijuana 
legalization would have on our state. Marijuana is illegal because it 
is dangerous  not dangerous because it's illegal. Recent studies link 
the drug with cognitive impairment (think memory loss and other brain 
dysfunction), motor skills impairment (think drugged driving 
accidents), and mental illness (like psychosis and schizophrenia). 
Indeed, marijuana negatively impacts the development of the 
adolescent brain, which is still maturing until about age 25.

We also know, according to a recent RAND report, that the price of 
marijuana would fall dramatically if it were legalized. Our 
experience with alcohol and tobacco tells us that lower price means 
greater use and addiction rates. And while about 1 in 10 adults who 
ever start marijuana will become dependent on it, according to the 
National Institutes of Health, that number jumps to between 1 in 4 
and 1 in 2 when the drug is initiated in adolescence. Calling for 
legalization for adults only and thinking it will prevent drug use 
among kids is naive and dangerous  just ask any kid who has easy 
access to alcohol and tobacco today, despite age limits.

Finally, marijuana tax revenues would pale in comparison to the 
social costs of the increased use of the drug. Again, our two legal 
drugs, alcohol and tobacco, can be used as a reference point  they 
bring in about one-tenth of the social costs they produce.

That one opposes legalization does not mean that one has to be all 
for the status quo. Indeed, we need to invest more into prevention 
programs to stop marijuana use before it starts, intervene on early 
use, and treat marijuana addiction.

Nor does opposition to legalization signal acrimony toward increased 
medical research into the individual components of marijuana. This is 
where CMA makes its mistake. The organization reasoned that 
legalization is the only way to achieve this kind of research. And it is wrong.

Research into the active ingredients of marijuana  and there are 
hundreds of them  is an important area of science that should be 
explored. Indeed, today we have two such drugs derived from marijuana 
and the FDA is currently exploring others, like Sativex. Sativex is a 
tongue spray that is comprised of the active ingredient in marijuana 
THC  and another ingredient called CBD. The THC in marijuana is what 
gets someone "high," and the CBD counteracts that so that the drug is 
not dangerous or dependence-inducing. Late-stage trials of the drug 
show promise for spasticity related to multiple sclerosis and pain 
related to cancer. It has been approved in other countries for these 
purposes, too.

The bottom line is that one of CMA's core arguments is a myth  that 
the government's prohibition of marijuana prevents proper 
investigation into the drug's therapeutic properties. The National 
Institute on Drug Abuse grows marijuana, in several different strains 
and varieties, for this exact purpose. According to the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, which issues licenses to deal with 
marijuana for research purposes, over 200 researchers have access to the drug.

So it is unfortunate that the California Medical Association 
representing only a small number of their doctors who pushed a 
legalization position from the start  is now mixing politics with 
science. Advocating for legalization as the only route to research 
not only displays an ignorance of the drug-approval process, but it 
also represents a platform that will have untold consequences from a 
profession that should, first and foremost, "do no harm."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom