Still Controversial After All These Years

Like many other Americans, my stance on the issue of drugs has changed a lot over time. I tended to support existing drug laws when I was younger because I thought of them as guardians of public health; I've softened my stance as I've come to realize criminalizing drugs punishes self-abusers more than it protects society or helps individuals. Indeed, a good argument can be made that society is actually very much hurt by drug laws in that they ensure that drug users, who are not always a danger to anyone but themselves, occupy prison space while dangerous criminals like rapists, child abusers, and burglars seem to frequently be set free prematurely in the name of prison overpopulation and often go on to recommit the same sort of antisocial crimes again and ruin more lives. I'm still not sure that all-out legalization is the way to go -- many illegal drugs really are dangerous, more dangerous than would generally be accepted for food and drink products, so it's possible total legalization might send the message that they are safer than they really are (of course a counterargument to that is that the very illegality of drugs makes them even more dangerous than they need to be because of the lack of legal means to hold narcotics manufacturers accountable for their products) -- but I do think a thorough rethink on the issue of drugs is definitely in order across the board.

With that said, it continues to surprise me how controversial every little aspect of drug policy is and how difficult it is for changes to be implemented. Take the issue of medical marijuana, for instance. Marijuana isn't exactly a health product across the board...it certainly doesn't seem to be good for your lungs or heart...but it is more readily comparable to tobacco and alcohol in its negative effects than to, say, crystal meth. Of course, a lot of people would like to make tobacco and alcohol illegal so that's not necessarily a winning argument for legalizing marijuana in itself! However, the use of marijuana or its constituent products for medical purposes is no joke -- it has serious potential as a pain reliever, for instance, and can help AIDS and cancer patients recover from the side effects of the aggressive drugs they use to treat their conditions. Indeed, the medical value of cannabinoids is acknowledged even by American regulators who have approved Marinol and Cesamet as prescription drugs. The clamor for legalized medical marijuana has continued, however, with critics contending that Marinol and Cesamet are not as effective or as convenient as the "real stuff" because they do not contain the same mix of healthful cannabinoids and are more expensive, among other issues. Even if you do think Marinol-type products ought to be enough for anyone, it should still be easy to acknowledge there is a difference between a sick person using marijuana to treat their condition or soothe their pain and a purely recreational user; isn't the whole theoretical basis for drug laws that they protect society from dangerous substances that cause harm? If the substance is clearly helping rather than harming in some cases, doesn't that suggest a clear legal distinction might be in order? Yet it still seems an uphill battle: Attorney General Eric Holder last year suggested that federal medical marijuana raids in states allowing the use of medical marijuana might be coming to an end, with the seeming implication that state laws would determine medical marijuana's legality in the future and state law enforcement would take over more of the burden of enforcing the laws, but the DEA so far has continued to raid and assuredly will continue to do so unless more significant policy changes occur at the federal level. This is why I say everything about drug policy is difficult...even what seems like it should be the least controversial drug-related matter cannot be resolved.

That said, marijuana remains controversial among the public as well. Though support for full legalization continues to tick up, a majority still want marijuana to remain illegal. However, when it comes to medical marijuana the story changes dramatically: a whopping 81% think it should be legal according to a recent ABC News poll! If we accept these numbers as even remotely close to the truth, then there is a definite disconnect between citizens and their governments both on a state and federal level. Part of the issue is that the wheels of the government roll slowly -- just think of some of the currently serving legislators who have served for decades. When they were originally elected, the public stance on marijuana was much harsher and medical marijuana had not yet been legitimized by mainstream science. The views of the public have now changed, but these legislators are the same and may understandably reflect a different viewpoint on the issue more common to their demographic (polls indicate that senior citizens are among the most skeptical of any form of marijuana legalization). Another issue is that many who support the legalization of medical marijuana don't care about it enough to vote on the basis of that issue alone. They won't go for Candidate B who agrees with them on legalization rather than Candidate A who doesn't if they like A better in most other respects. I've noticed that many of those who vigorously advocate for the legalization of marijuana have never used the stuff once in their lives -- they may sound passionate in their arguments, but at the end of the day the issue doesn't affect them that much directly. Frankly, I'm one of those people...I wouldn't ever use marijuana unless I was in great pain and the laws of the time permitted my use of it unambiguously. I doubt it will be people like me who end up changing the laws: it'll instead be the sick who are fighting for the dignity of a life with less pain and the doctors, nurses, and caregivers who see the medical benefits of cannabis firsthand. They've got a lot of work to do in Washington and many state capitals; I'll cheer them on from afar.