Pubdate: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA) Author: Michael Sussman It is a sign of the times that the Opinion Page of The Examiner on Dec. 27 featured opposing viewpoints on the subject of medical marijuana. For years, we've read opinions like those of Gen. Barry McCaffrey ( "Con: Why legal pot is bad policy" ), the spokesperson of drug war orthodoxy, updating the reefer madness theory with a litany of shaky pseudo-science. But after the November election, there is reason to believe voters are becoming disenchanted with the old simplifications. The Examiner, which has done a good job of covering new directions in the public debate about drug policy, should be commended for allowing a dissenting opinion by Ethan Nadelmann ( "Pro: The case for medical marijuana" ). Reading the opposing viewpoints, we can see how impoverished the drug debate has been for the past 20 years. For every scientific claim McCaffrey trots out to demonstrate marijuana's danger, Nadelmann has a competing proof of its relative safety and efficacy as a medicine. Nadelmann shows the difficulties doctors have had in demonstrating the legitimacy of medical marijuana in the climate of hysteria created by sound-bite politicians. In defending Clinton's drug war credentials, McCaffrey proposes to arrest doctors who recommend marijuana under the terms of the new California law. This only goes to show how heedless the ever-escalating drug war has become. It's a good thing we have voices like those of Ethan Nadelmann to challenge the failed dogma of the war on drugs. Michael Sussman San Francisco