Newsgroups: rec.drugs.cannabis From: Jon Gettman <[Gettman J] at [mediasoft.net]> Subject: CyberSense(1) On Marijuana Laws by Jon Gettman Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 18:53:14 +0000 CyberSense(1) On Marijuana Laws, by Jon Gettman (The CyberSense series of articles represents what I think individuals ought to know to be able to work together to reform the marijuana laws. These articles represent my argument for reform, and this argument is based on recent scientific discoveries and existing U.S. law. There are four CyberSense articles: 1) Marijuana Laws, 2) Successful Advocacy, 3) Marijuana and Controlled Substances Act, and 4) The Relative Dependence Liability of Drugs. Please read and share them with others.) (Reasonable people will agree and disagree with different ideas expressed in these articles. I hope, though, that these articles will be useful in focusing attention on what is relevant to accomplishing something, and what is relevant only to invigorating debate among ourselves.) On Marijuana Laws. The unresolved persistence of marijuana use in American society creates tremendous uncertainty. Parents are uncertain about the risk readily available marijuana presents to their school-age children. Teachers are uncertain about how to respond to marijuana use by students or their parents, and when it is appropriate to involve the police. Doctors and nurses are uncertain about the legal and medical ramifications of their patients' therapeutic use of marijuana. Police are uncertain about how much of their shrinking budgets to allocate to marijuana offenses. Parents and family members of adult marijuana users are uncertain about the reliability of government claims that there is no such thing as controlled, responsible use of marijuana. The only thing that is certain under current laws and policies is that adult access to marijuana will remain unregulated and for this reason marijuana will remain widely available to school-age children. Advocates of prohibition offer the public a false choice between increased adult arrests or increased teenage use of marijuana and other drugs. Yet until just recently scientists did not know how marijuana caused its characteristic effects and commentators were allowed to present research hypotheses as likely fact. This wide spread ignorance allowed many officials to mislead the public and create considerable confusion over whether or not marijuana has a high potential for abuse and is consequently too dangerous for responsible use. The discovery of a unique receptor system in the brain and body responsible for marijuana's effects put an end to speculation about marijuana once and for all. Scientists at the National Institute of Mental Health have determined how marijuana causes its characteristic effects, why these effects have a relatively low potential for abuse, and how the brain self-regulates its exposure to THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. These new discoveries discredited prior claims that marijuana produced dangers because its active ingredient lodged in fatty tissues and desensitized their ability to function. One discarded hypothesis claimed that when marijuana had sufficiently worn out brain cells, users moved on to stronger and more dangerous drugs to get the same kick once received from marijuana use. In fact, many drugs of abuse affect the production of a powerful chemical within the brain named dopamine; this neurotransmitter provides a sense of pleasure and reward that complements such important activities as work, eating, and reproduction. Heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, alcohol and nicotine all affect dopamine production, and users of these drugs feel a dopamine-related craving after frequent use. The cannabinoid receptor system activated by marijuana does not affect dopamine production, and this explains why marijuana's potential for abuse is significantly lower than drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines. While there is considerable public debate over whether or not marijuana should be legalized, provisions to regulate marijuana were enacted by Congress in 1970 and the implementation of these provisions is a function of law rather than policy. The legislation is written such that prohibition must end if science proves that marijuana does not have a severe dependency liability compared to other drugs. The Controlled Substances Act mandates that only drugs and substances with the highest potential for abuse can be subject to a complete prohibition. Without a finding of sufficient abuse potential to justify schedule I, completely prohibited, status, the availability of the drug or substance must be regulated. The new discoveries about marijuana make it impossible to sustain marijuana's complete prohibition under existing U.S. law, and NORML is supporting a new legal challenge to marijuana’s schedule I status. The clarification of marijuana's low dependence liability challenges the assertion that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, and that therefore criminal penalties are justified. Meanwhile, more attention is being given to tobacco's status as an addictive substance. While there is no talk of a tobacco prohibition, support is growing for regulating tobacco in a manner more consistent with other drug regulation, particularly to restrict teenage access. An end to marijuana prohibition is compatible with existing policy and the developing trend to treat licit and illicit drugs in a consistent fashion. This will provide the public with several options to consider for appropriate laws to regulate marijuana. The Controlled Substances Act has two schedules for drugs with less abuse potential than amphetamines. Schedule IV drugs include many popular tranquilizers, and require a doctor's prescription for purchase. The manufacture of schedule V drugs is regulated by law, but they are sold over-the-counter. Alcohol and tobacco are exempted from the Controlled Substances Act and regulated through the tax code and other legislation. One of the simplest policy options is to treat alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco as a special class of over-the-counter drugs whose manufacture, sale, and promotion is regulated by law. An end to marijuana prohibition would end a great deal of uncertainty in our society. The consequences would be anticipated, direct, and desirable. They would include: Justice. Equal treatment under the law strengthens our democratic society. If marijuana is not more addictive than alcohol or tobacco, adults who use marijuana should not be treated differently under the law. Justice has many benefits, especially for those using marijuana for therapeutic reasons. Consistent Social Norms. Without consistency our social institutions and norms lose credibility with the young. We should take effective steps to delay the age of first use of drugs such as alcohol, marijuana, or tobacco. An end to marijuana prohibition creates a clear separation between adult and adolescent norms for all three substances, and grounds for increased public support for severe measures for individuals that make any drug available to school-aged youths. Harm Reduction Policies. An end to marijuana prohibition will make it possible to encourage more responsible adult use of marijuana, and allow efforts to reduce the harm associated with marijuana smoke by encouraging the use of waterpipes and cigarette filters to reduce tar intake. Economic Development. An end to marijuana prohibition would accelerate development of the marijuana plant as a source of industrial raw materials such as fiber, fuel, and chemical feedstocks, and also expedite a new generation of effective pharmaceutical products for the 21st century. If we don’t change our marijuana laws, we will be faced with continued uncertainty. However if we end marijuana prohibition, the nation will realize relative advantages that are simple to understand, compatible with our existing social norms and laws, and which will contribute to the prevention of teenage use of alcohol, marijuana, or tobacco.