Pubdate: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 Source: Scotsman (UK) Copyright: The Scotsman Publications Ltd Contact: http://www.scotsman.com/ Forum: http://www.scotsman.com/ Author: Jonathan Aiken In Washington REEFER MADNESS A MORAL DILEMMA FOR PARENTS The Results Of A Scientific Study Of Marijuana Could Wreak Havoc With The US Government's Drugs Policy IT'S A scene repeated in thousands of American homes. Parents, worried about the potential for mischief, or alarmed by the discovery of contraband in a pair of jeans or a dresser drawer, face their kids to talk about marijuana. They talk about the damage it does to the lungs and the short-term memory toss it causes. They warn of lower grades, bad elements and the dangers of pot as the first step down a road of self-destruction. That's when the teenager retorts: "You tried it. Did it ruin your life?" When it comes to marijuana, the generation that made instant gratification a way of life 30 years ago is pretty conflicted today As many as 70 million Americans have smoked it at some point in their lives. Many of those former users are now parents, and as their kids are quick to point out - the overwhelming majority of them are not addled by heroin or cocaine addictions. Into the middle of this daily argument, comes an authoritative two-year study by a branch of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences on the potential medical benefits of marijuana. Requested and paid for by the Clinton administration's Office of Drug Control Policy, the study was designed to separate fact from fiction when it comes to the reputed benefits of cannabis for cancer and AIDS patients and people diagnosed with glaucoma and multiple sclerosis. In its findings, the institute reported there are medical benefits that can be derived from some of marijuana's active ingredients, though the benefits aren't as numerous or as far-reaching as first thought. Marijuana can indeed treat the pain and reduce the nausea associated with cancer and chemotherapy. It does stimulate the appetites of AIDS patients, and it can help control some of the spastic activity linked to MS. But the report found pot's much-touted benefit for glaucoma patients is short-lived. It also warned that the damage done to the respiratory system through smoking marijuana over the long term, negates many of its benefits. It wants to see cannabinoids dispensed into the body through a safer delivery system such as patches or inhalers. Both sides in the drug debate seized the report as their own. General Barry McCaffrey, the nation's "drug tsar" said the report proves the Clinton administration's contention that "there is little future in smoked marijuana". Supporters said the report vindicates their belief that "medical marijuana" is not a contradiction in terms. What startled both sides however, was the reports conclusive finding that there was no evidence marijuana is a "gateway" drug, that leads its users to more dangerous narcotics. While that conclusion undermines many a parent's kitchen-table rationale, it also has the potential to wreak havoc on the US government's drugs policy, which regards marijuana to be as dangerous as heroin. It's that thinking that has made marijuana the linchpin of the US drug-interdiction effort. It's an effort without much to show for itself. The government's own figures show marijuana is used by ten million people on a regular basis. Most of those users are middle-class and not criminal. Figures compiled both by law enforcement and organisations that chart the industry find marijuana is highly profitable for those who grow it. It ranked fourth among all US cash crops in 1997 -below corn, soybeans and hay, but more profitable than tobacco, wheat or cotton. In 1991, marijuana crops had a wholesale value of more than $15 billion (UKP9.3 billion). The street take was far higher: an estimated $25 2 billion. Figures like these suggest a comparison with prohibition, when under pressure from the temperance groups, Congress decreed liquor to be illegal. The end result is common knowledge: people drank anyway, and the bathtub gin they poured down their gullets was impure. A general disregard for the authority of federal law was enshrined in social behaviour, and organised crime flourished. The conflicted thinking about marijuana starts at the top. Bill Clinton is one of those 70 million Americans who have smoked marijuana; look what came of him. Most Americans never believed Bill Clinton when he said he smoked at Oxford but didn't inhale. (He may be a liar, but the president of the United States is no junkie.) But when Mr Clinton waxes about the need for individual responsibility on this issue he has no credibility and the governments policy of arresting terminally ill users of cannabis serves only to antagonise voters who may otherwise agree with an anti-drug stand. With growing numbers voters approving medical marijuana initiatives at the state level, the White House was hoping the gravitas of the institute's report would aid in its efforts to stem a changing tide of public opinion changes about marijuana. Instead, the Clinton administration has been handed another one of life's little lessons: one millions of parents at thousands of kitchen tables learned a long time ago: You can't always get what you want. For thousands of medically needy people on the other side of the issue, the other half of that pop philosophy equally applies: if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake