MassNews Had Debate about Marijuana

MassNews had a Serious Debate in 2000 Between Those who Endorse the Government's Battle Against Drugs and the Libertarians who Oppose it.

We pointed out in an introduction to the debate that there are two issues to discuss and we must talk about each one separately or the debate will be contaminated: 1) Is marijuana "harmless" like caffeine, nicotine and alcohol, which are allowed by the government? 2) If it's harmful, should a citizen be denied the right to use it, like cocaine, heroin or other drugs?

It was pointed out in the original article by George Biernson in our January 2000 issue that 40% of the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, is stored in the body fat and then slowly released into the blood over many weeks. When a person smokes regularly, the THC in his blood is sufficient to sedate him all the time. This is not true with alcohol.

This was answered in February 2000 by libertarian Jeffrey A. Miron, a Boston University professor who founded the Bastiat Institute. He opined that while the drug is not harmless, Biernson had overstated the problem. "A balanced review of the evidence, therefore, suggests a far more nuanced picture of marijuana than suggested by Biernson."

And Miron concluded, "The relevant question for consumers of any commodity, therefore, is whether the benefits outweigh the potential harms. Biernson's characterization of marijuana's effects is meant to suggest that the harms from marijuana are so great that no person who understood these harms would ever voluntarily consume marijuana. That characterization is not consistent with an objective assessment of the evidence."

Biernson responded in March 2000 that one reason for some of the conflicting research was that the drug-runners know that marijuana is the stepping stone to heroin and cocaine, from which they make big money. Therefore, they fund many of these researchers.

Janet D. Lapey, M.D. also responded in the March issue against Prof. Miron's article.

All of these articles plus many more references to marijuana are available free-of-charge on massnews.com.

But Carla Howell disagrees that she is out of the mainstream. "The War on Drugs lacks any credibility. It has failed. It encourages drug use," she says.

"When we go to schools and ask kids, 'If we asked one of you to go out and come back with some alcohol, and another to come back with drugs, which one do you think would get back faster?' They always answer, 'The one with the drugs.' It's easier to get drugs with prohibition."

Howell hastens to add: "It's a crime either way, to sell drugs to children; but when it's legal, you know who's selling it, you can more easily prevent it, and you can teach kids to be responsible."

Howell contends that drug prohibition "undermines our Constitutional rights, our right against search and seizure. It leads to racial profiling and violence. It encourages gun grabbers to regulate guns."

Howell tells MassNews that she has reached her conclusions "using data that results from the War on Drugs. If you're interested in minimizing the damage caused by harmful drugs, you must get behind ending the War on Drugs. It makes things worse."

You destroy the "natural market regulation forces" by keeping drugs illegal, Howell says. She believes that these natural forces would make it more difficult for minors to obtain drugs.

Howell says you could buy heroin in a pharmacy in 1910, but that there were far fewer cases of heroin addiction then than there are today. She insists that prohibition causes more trouble than it prevents. She says that the most flagrant cases of people dying from alcohol abuse were during prohibition. Ten thousand people died of alcohol overdoses during prohibition, she maintains.

One person who disagrees with Howell on this subject is a retired naval officer and grandmother, Lea Cox, who founded Concerned Citizens for Drug Prevention, which is affiliated with Drug Watch International. She is at P.O. Box 2078, Hanover, MA 02339 or 781-826-5598.