Legalize With Caution
Don’t ignore the real effects of marijuana.

By Ben Domenech, NRO
August 7, 2001 9:55 a.m.

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.