Pubdate: Thu, 25 Aug 2016
Source: Tucson Weekly (AZ)
Copyright: 2016 Tucson Weekly
Contact:  http://www.tucsonweekly.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/462
Author: Nick Meyers

LEGALIZATION PROPS

Prop 205 Moves Forward Despite Effort to Challenge Initiatives

Prop 205 appears to be safe for the moment as Maricopa County 
Superior Court Judge Jo Lynn Gentry dismissed charges against its 
campaign last week.

Maricopa and Yavapai county attorneys Bill Montgomery and Sheila Polk 
were two of the major plaintiffs to file the lawsuit but were joined 
by the chairman of Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, Seth 
Leibsohn and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

To nobody's surprise the plaintiffs intend to appeal the judge's 
decision. However, the ruling decided that not only did the 
opposition fail to support their claim, but that the state 
legislature effectively eliminated citizens' ability to legally 
challenge ballot initiatives, which may not bode well for the lawsuit's future.

In any case, part of the defense's argument was that the plaintiffs 
raised the lawsuit based on their personal ideologies. With 
Montgomery as an avid anti-marijuana proponent and Polk as co-chair 
of the ARDP, they make good case.

On its website, the ARDP has a variety of facts used to dissuade the 
general public against allowing marijuana to infiltrate our fragile 
society. They paint a pretty scary picture.

But since conventional knowledge tells us that marijuana isn't as bad 
as its made out to be, then there must be more to the story than what 
the ARDP is telling us. Let's take a look at a few of their "facts" 
and see how the hold up.

The ARDP website says that 30 percent of regular marijuana users 
suffer from "use disorder," which affects users' ability to "fulfill 
major role obligations at work, school or home as a result of 
marijuana use" according to a study by the National Institutes of Health.

While this may be true, and the dangers of such a disorder shouldn't 
be underestimated, what the ARDP conveniently omitted is that the 
same study found that marijuana use disorder has decreased from 35.6 
to 30.6 percent between 2001-2002 and 2012-2013.

Ironically, marijuana use has nearly doubled in that time.

On a tangential note, according to a National Survey on Drug Use and 
Health study, underage drinking has decreased in that same time 
period, though there is no causal link.

One of the ARDP's favorite points is that teen marijuana use in 
Colorado is now highest in the nation. However, this was true even 
before it became the first state to legalize recreational marijuana.

In fact, since legalization teen use has either stagnated or declined 
based on a handful of studies.

Several of the points made by the ARDP are common sense knowledge 
packaged in a frightening context.

For example, despite a declining opinion of marijuana as a dangerous 
drug, the ARDP is right that marijuana is still an addictive drug. 
However, a study published in the British Medical Journal found that 
marijuana is less addictive than tobacco and alcohol.

Among users who begin use in their teen years, 32 percent developed a 
tobacco addiction, 15 percent developed an addiction to alcohol and 
only 9 percent became addicted to marijuana.

Statistics and data are often used to manipulate perspectives. 
However, the point that the ARDP misses isn't that marijuana can't be 
harmful, but that that's not a reason for it to remain illegal.

The truth in the ARDP's statements lie in the potential dangers of 
heavy marijuana use. Of course being constantly stoned is as 
dangerous as being constantly drunk. This is reflected in the groups 
use of statistics pertaining to workplace accidents and driving under 
the influence.

Never mind the fact that instances of accident are higher under the 
influence of alcohol in the workplace and driving, but the trick with 
these studies is that it is much more difficult to detect when 
someone is high than when someone is drunk.

Since THC has a higher longevity in the body than alcohol, statistics 
containing language like "accidents related to marijuana" can often 
be misleading since the THC detected may be attributed to use that 
took place several days prior.

Though we typically don't like to equate marijuana and alcohol, it is 
useful to compare alcohol's societal effects with the potential 
effects of marijuana.

That makes the ARDP's mission a bit trickier since proponents of 
marijuana legalization don't necessarily have to prove that marijuana 
isn't dangerous, just that it isn't as dangerous as alcohol and other 
controlled substances.

Just as alcoholics make up the vast minority of alcohol users, those 
who pose the dangers raised by the ARDP are the vast minority of 
marijuana users.

However, the beauty of living in a free country is that if someone 
aspires to a dysfunctional life characterized by substance abuse, 
that's their prerogative. We don't let the minority of abusers of 
alcohol, cars and religion ruin it for the rest of us, so why should 
marijuana be any different?

If they were to take their mission as protectors of societal purity 
to its philosophical conclusion, then they'd be campaigning against 
alcohol and tobacco use as much as they do against marijuana.

However, since they are advocating a "responsible" drug policy, 
perhaps their efforts would be better spent towards helping create a 
system of responsible use rather than prohibition.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom