|
 t
is a rare thing, indeed, to find myself in disagreement with Rich
Lowry. I must admit, as well, that I sympathize with the central
point of Lowry's
latest magazine article, on marijuana legalization. I have long
thought that a compromise on decriminalization, modeled after the
Dutch system, that allows for personal possession of the drug yet
retains penalties for street-trafficking and mass cultivation, would
be an apt solution for the current nationwide dilemma. Much of Lowry's
piece relies on a 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine, which
is, as he points out, a highly credible source, and I have no quarrel
with the vast majority of figures and statistics that make up the
guts of his argument.
There are,
however, a few important points where Lowry and I part ways — and
I feel they are worth discussing here, considering their illustrative
nature of the broader American political divide over the marijuana
issue.
Lowry terms
the "gateway theory" — the concept that marijuana use
leads to the use of other drugs — as "a kind of drug-war McCarthyism"
that is "dusted off only by the most tendentious of drug warriors."
The form of the gateway theory that he proceeds to lambast certainly
sounds quite ridiculous — but in the process, Lowry ignores an important
logical distinction between the variants of the gateway theory.
Because a
cocaine addict used marijuana first doesn't mean he is on cocaine
because he smoked marijuana (again, as a factual matter
this hypothetical is extremely rare — about one in 100 marijuana
users becomes a regular user of cocaine).
There are a
number of problems with this statement. First, even accepting Lowry's
statistic (and there are other studies that have produced much higher
numbers), one out of 100 marijuana users is a very significant number;
imagine if one out of every 100 hundred coffee drinkers got cancer,
and you'll see what I mean.
Second, Lowry
supplies the wrong statistic for this portion of his argument: The
more appropriate one to offer would be the percentage of cocaine
users who originally started out smoking pot. The likelihood that
a cocaine user smoked marijuana prior to ever using cocaine is actually
quite high: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
has reported percentages higher than 80%.
This is, of
course, merely coincidental data — assuming there is such a thing
as coincidence — and it brings us to my third point. Proving direct
causality between marijuana use and cocaine, heroin, or amphetamine
use is a difficult, if not impossible, goal, considering that it
relies almost completely on anecdotal evidence. The truth remains:
Marijuana users are far more likely than non-marijuana users to
go on to use any and all of the above substances, a fact we should
not rush to ignore.
Lowry then
proceeds to debunk another anti-marijuana claim:
The relationship
between drugs and troubled teens appears to be the opposite of
that posited by drug warriors — the trouble comes first, then
the drugs (or, in other words, it's the kid, not the substance,
who is the problem). The Institute of Medicine reports that 'it
is more likely that conduct disorders generally lead to substance
abuse than the reverse.
Again, the
substance of some of this statement is accurate — marijuana is by
no means the root cause of teenage depression, rebellion, suicide,
etc. But does anyone honestly believe that unlimited access to their
drug of choice would be a help for these teens? That allowing
them to smoke pot more freely, publicly, or often would put them
back on the right track, instead of taking them down a road that
could lead to heavier drug use? Lowry might as well point at a random
hash-smoking denizen of junior high America and declare aloud, "Leave
that child behind."
The final statement
where I am at odds with Lowry comes near the end of the piece:
But it is
important to realize that dependence on marijuana — apparently
a relatively mild psychological phenomenon — is entirely different
from dependence on cocaine and heroin. Marijuana isn't particularly
addictive.
While Lowry
makes several comparisons in his piece between alcohol and marijuana,
as he goes on to do here, that comparison distorts the medical truth
about the differences between the two substances. It also ignores
the plentiful evidence that marijuana, despite on-the-street myths,
can actually be quite addictive.
Alcohol is
a water-soluble chemical — it is metabolized or "washed-out"
of the body relatively quickly. Anyone who drinks too much will
probably get sick and suffer a hangover the next day, as the stomach
and liver process the alcohol, a form of detoxification that is
completed within 12 to 24 hours.
The culprit
chemicals in marijuana consist of THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol)
and other cannabinoids, substances that accumulate in the fatty
linings of the cells in the body, and are therefore metabolized
very slowly — unlike alcohol, THC is not water-soluble, so it is
washed out of the body only over long periods of time. According
to the SMAHSA: "A week after a person smokes one marijuana
cigarette, 30 to 50 percent of the initial fat-soluble chemical
deposited from marijuana smoking remains in their body; it is estimated
that four to six weeks are required to eliminate all marijuana chemicals."
Even if it's
only a weekend habit, marijuana ingestion steadily increases the
level of THC in the human body. Several recent evaluations show
that heavy, long-term use causes serious dependency in users as
they increase their dosage to satisfy higher tolerance levels. The
danger of addiction is heightened for teens, whose changing body
chemistry and physical development makes them more susceptible to
the accumulation of THC and other chemicals than adults. In July,
a survey of more than 75,000 high school and junior high students
found that only 30.2% of teens smoked cigarettes in the previous
six months, while 35.3% used marijuana or other illegal drugs.
Dr. Charles
Schuster, Director of Clinical Research on Substance Abuse at Wayne
State University School of Medicine, has also performed numerous
studies of marijuana users, all indicating a high incidence of the
"abstinence syndrome," one of the chief indicators of
physical dependence:
Physical
dependence, which is what most people mean by addiction, has been
methodically scientifically demonstrated. The abstinence syndrome
can occur when a state of marijuana intoxication is maintained
over a prolonged period of time and then abruptly discontinued.
Anorexia, anxiety, agitation, depression, restlessness, irritability,
tremors, severe insomnia, sweating, exaggerated deep tendon reflexes,
tremulousness of the tongue and extremities, and dysphoria have
all been observed when marijuana use is rapidly withdrawn. It
is important to note that these effects occur after only a few
weeks of constant use and at dosages that are common among users.
To sum up:
Marijuana is an addictive substance. Marijuana, like most other
substances, can cause serious physical harm if ingested in great
amounts for a long enough time. Marijuana users are more likely
to go on to use harder drugs than those who never smoked pot in
the first place.
Do any of these
facts about marijuana, however, mean that we shouldn't decriminalize
it? Of course not. Like alcohol, marijuana use is only significantly
unhealthy if it is ingested irresponsibly or in great amounts, and
it would hardly be consistent to allow tobacco cigarettes and ban
marijuana ones merely on the basis of addictive properties. While
I disagree with him about some of the ramifications of marijuana
use, on this point at least, I couldn't agree with Lowry more.
Some advocates
of decriminalization, however, disregard many of marijuana's serious
side effects in devotion to their cause. Drug use is not a thing
to be taken lightly, whether in the form of alcohol, nicotine or
pot, and with greater freedom will come greater irresponsibility.
It would be foolhardy to ignore the serious problems that marijuana
can and will cause, regardless of which side you take in this political
debate. Legalize it, but do not allow the social consequences to
take you unawares.
|
