Subj: US: Reefer madness a moral dilemma for parents



Date: Wed 24 Mar, 1999



Source: The Scotsman





ubject: 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



Jonathan Aiken

In Washington



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.