news-record.com

Imagine a quiet, residential neighborhood in which two dogs are roaming unleashed. One is a 90-pound pit bull that has mauled to death several children and multiple family pets; the other is a 10-pound poodle that, other than violating the leash law, has done no harm. The public policy question is this: Should the local dogcatcher spend his time in pursuit of the pit bull or the poodle?

The dogcatcher's first priority, it seems rational to conclude, is to neutralize the more ominous threat, but public policy is often irrational. The federal government's "War on Drugs" is a conspicuous example. In effect, the government has unleashed the murderous pit bull (alcohol) while dispatching agents by the dozen to chase the poodle (marijuana). This, despite the fact that the harm inflicted upon society by alcohol is exponentially more severe than the collateral damage incurred by marijuana.

Innumerable studies, facts and statistics verify this claim, and we will touch on them below. But equally important are observations derived from common sense. How often do we hear about families being killed in marijuana-related car crashes? How often does a man, after smoking pot, physically assault his wife and kids? Both episodes are virtually unheard of.

Alcohol, on the other hand, is a factor in about 40 percent of fatal car accidents. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 36 people are killed and 700 injured every day in crashes that involve alcohol. In 2000, 85,000 deaths were a direct result of excessive alcohol consumption -- the nation's third-leading cause of preventable deaths. Several studies (and dozens of episodes of "Cops") have demonstrated a powerful link between alcohol abuse and domestic violence.

Meanwhile, the pot smoker harms no one. He sits in his living room, giggling uncontrollably, devouring Doritos and Little Debbie snack cakes. How, then, is it rational to condone alcohol and prohibit marijuana?

In the words of the late William F. Buckley Jr., "Even if we take every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could." How so? Buckley argued that 700,000 marijuana-related arrests are made every year -- most of them for possession of small amounts -- at an annual cost to taxpayers of $15 billion. He brought to our attention a study by the Drug Policy Alliance, which concluded that 100,000 people are behind bars for marijuana-related offenses.

Surely law enforcement resources could be utilized for more urgent needs, such as arresting rapists and killers; prison space occupied by relatively harmless stoners could be made available for housing violent offenders.

Last month, staff writer Lex Alexander's balanced and well-written articles on medicinal marijuana generated a flurry of letters to the editor. Alexander's research reminded readers of the plant's benefits to those diagnosed with AIDS, cancer and other diseases. Citing a 1999 study called "Marijuana and Medicine," Alexander writes that, "In some cases, marijuana worked as well as or better than accepted treatments." The federal government, in denying to the diseased and dying the relief available from marijuana, is engaged in cruel and unusual punishment. Thirteen states have defied the feds and authorized the use of pot for medical reasons.

Critics of medicinal marijuana argue that the long-term objective of proponents is actually an across-the-board decriminalization of marijuana. About this, if little else, the prohibitionists are correct. Many who favor medicinal marijuana also favor the decriminalization of pot, regardless of its purpose. Because the weight of the evidence is in favor of decriminalization, advocates should be forthright about their objectives.

Contrary to the arguments of prohibitionists, marijuana is neither a "gateway drug" nor particularly addictive. (Alcohol and nicotine are not only more addictive, but also much more harmful.) No one has ever died from an overdose of smoked marijuana. There is also no evidence that smoking pot causes lung cancer. Consider this, reported in The Washington Post on May 26, 2006: "The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer."

State Rep. Earl Jones, a Democrat, introduced in the legislature last year a bill to study the medicinal benefits of marijuana. "I've found," said Jones, "the best route to take on something like this is to have a study committee where people can get accurate facts and information and draw their own conclusions. They already have the myths and misinformation."

That Buckley and Jones are kindred spirits on medicinal marijuana demonstrates that, now and then, reason trumps ideology and party affiliation.

Charles Davenport Jr. (daisha99@msn.com) is a freelance columnist who appears alternate Sundays in the News & Record.