Stephanie S.

Sunday, October 10, 2004
JOSHUA MARQUIS
Source.

In the War on Drugs, as in most wars, there's a little truth on each side of the battle. Oregonians will vote Nov. 2 on what's being called "Medical Marijuana 2." It's the Measure 33 sequel, if you will, to an existing law that, sort of, allows the use of Marijuana if someone can get a doctor to write a note saying the drug would help the patient's condition. Contrary to popular belief, the law did not legalize Marijuana -- and the law is now being abused by recreational dopers.

At the same time the Bush administration furiously denies Marijuana has any medical value whatsoever. Amid this chatter there's been a deafening silence from the administration -- until last week, that is -- when it comes to a drug that's destroying families, lives and communities: methamphetamine.

We need to reprioritize our fight against dangerous drugs and raise the bar on methamphetamine while reducing the legal stigma of Marijuana, recognizing it has limited medical use.

The Oregonian's devastating expose of the federal government's failures to limit the spread of methamphetamine ("Unnecessary Epidemic," Oct. 3-7) shows how we failed to slow what is clearly the most dangerous drug on the street.

Gov. Ted Kulongoski has proposed a bold, if controversial, rule change making it harder to access the base component of meth, pseudoephedrine, by putting cold medications behind the counter. And President Bush's drug czar endorsed the idea during a visit to Oregon last week.

It's a program that's worked in Oklahomanot true, and Kulongoski gets credit for doing something concrete and right now.

It's time we start thinking outside the box on drug control. There's something in my proposal -- let doctors prescribe Marijuana but lock up meth -- to make both sides in the drug war hopping mad. Oregon has been sensible.

In an effort to meet the president's goal of reducing illegal drug consumption by 10 percent during his first term, the administration has gone for volume. Since Marijuana is used by a far greater number of people than the so-called "hard drugs" (methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine), it's much easier to reduce overall statistical drug use by achieving even a small decrease in Marijuana users.

But opponents of the Drug War are even better funded, albeit privately, than the government. Billionaire financier George Soros, through a vast interconnecting network of foundations, has undertaken a systematic campaign to eliminate drug laws or, failing that, prevent their enforcement.

Not content with the amount the law currently specifies, the pro-Marijuana lobby wants to increase the amount to 6 pounds a year for patients. This isn't the Marijuana most baby boomers smoked in high school or college at $10 a "lid." Through generations of genetic breeding, today's Marijuana is often 10 times as potent, determined by measuring the amount of THC, tetrahydrocannabinol, in a plant.

In the '70s most Marijuana contained about a 2 percent THC content. Now it can test at more than 25 percent.

Oregon has maintained a sensible approach toward Marijuana use since 1973, when it became the first state to remove criminal penalties for possessing less than an ounce. Possession became a violation similar to a speeding ticket, punishable by a fine. Many states followed suit. A more rational approach

Equating Marijuana with methamphetamine is folly. By lumping all drugs into the same category we risk losing our credibility with young people. Teens will likely experiment with Marijuana and, when they don't become dope fiends out of "Reefer Madness," assume there's no harm in "chasing the dragon" every once in a while by smoking heroin.

In 1970 the federal government adopted the Controlled Substances Act, which put all potentially addictive drugs in a range of schedules. Schedule 1 drugs with no legitimate medical use and very high risk of abuse include LSD -- and Marijuana.

Schedule 2 drugs with some medical use but also with a high risk of abuse include OxyContin, and, currently, methamphetamine. Other schedules list drugs like Vicodin, Valium and, at the bottom, cough syrup, with its small amounts of codeine.

Licensed doctors can prescribe drugs in categories 2 through 5, with much stricter regulations attached to schedule 2 drugs, such as cocaine, which is a valuable anesthetic in certain kinds of surgeries. Methamphetamine gets the same listing only because it can help treat narcolepsy, a relatively rare disorder.

It's time we rescheduled Marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, notacknowledging the limited but very real medical value of the drug. Methamphetamine -- also known as "crank" -- should be bumped up to Schedule 1, no legitimate use. Other drugs like amphetamine and Ritalin can be used to treat narcolepsy. Methamphetamine is easy to manufacture, lasts up to 12 hours and can provoke psychotic episodes.

By requiring a written prescription, rather than a doctor's note suggesting that Marijuana might be useful, the number of real Marijuana patients would plummet. Doctors would be much more careful about who they gave a Marijuana prescription to.

Those two controlled substances changes wouldn't win the War on Drugs, but they'd signal a more rational approach, recognizing the real risks posed by Marijuana and methamphetamine. Most criminal justice professionals would agree that 75 percent of all the serious crimes they handle involve substance abuse.

That doesn't mean drugs are the only cause. But just as alcoholism is devastating physically, emotionally and financially, so is illegal drug abuse. What's wrong with including a little common sense in this debate? Yeah, what's wrong with common sense? Like, researching before you write an article like this!

How they can compare Vicodin, Valium and cough syrup with Marijuana is beyond me. Is this a small step toward ending prohibition or just another way to repress people under the guise of a different law?

__________________
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Listen to audio)

kevstermon

In the '70s most Marijuana contained about a 2 percent THC content. Now it can test at more than 25 percent.

Why is this propaganda seen in an otherwise sensible article? This lie has been repeated so often that its now accepted as truth? I don't think so. If you smoked Sensimilla, Hawaiin, or Thai Stick in the Seventies, it had as much THC as hydroponic bud grown today. If you're smoking ditchweed with 2percent THC in the seventies, that same ditchweed has 2 percent THC today. The only thing that has changed is the quality of confiscated marijuana, which is the direct result of its prohibition.

Higher Logic

Oh so true. And if you have ever read stories from hashish eaters back in the 1800s, even then they were still getting quality products.

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

sheraGurl

i agree totally with that phrase. i sold meth with a man for two years who is now in prison for it. we sold on a regular basis to head of the combat squad in local kc area! combat is against meth if ur not in the know. marijuana is safer, healthier, safer.... ive seen meth do some crazy stuff to some crazy people . ! i agree yeay.

Puffer

When you stop to think about it, any legitimate drug can be said to have limited medical use. Aspirin may cure a headache, but it won't cure brain damage. Pepto-Bismol may cure diarrhea, but it won't cure hemorrhoids, Tylenol may help mitigate pain, but it won't fix a broken arm. Why hang the limitations on marijuana only?

__________________
Just say "know" to marijuana!

Buzzby

How many of you believe that large-scale manufacturers of meth are getting their raw materials by buying little packets of pseudoephedrine at drugstores? Where I vacation in AZ, they keep it behind the counter because kids are abusing it directly. It's a kind of poor man's speed.


Are opponents of the drug war spending upwards of $40B/yr for their cause? Besides, private individuals have a legitimate interest in campaigning for initiatives. It's supposed to be illegal for officials spending public funds to do so.


Where can I get some of that 25% weed? Comparing an average to a maximum is comparing apples to oranges. The contemporary average is something like 5.7%, dragged upwards by the occasional capture of a batch of superweed. Since you only smoke as much as you need to get as high as you want, potency is largely irrelevant except that fewer tokes is better for the lungs.


I'm a narcoleptic and sometimes need amphetamines to remain a functioning member of society. Do you suppose this columnist is medically qualified to tell me what I do or do not need? That's between me and my doctor. I'm tired of people with no qualifications (especially politicians) trying to limit what medical professionals can prescribe. "Other drugs" are sometimes appropriate. In some cases anything other than methamphetamine is like treating cancer pain with aspirin.


Why? In either case the physician has gone on record recommending Marijuana for the treatment of an illness. Does he want to create the same situation attending painkillers today? A majority of people with severe pain are under-prescribed because doctors are afraid of harassment by the DEA for prescribing opiates.


If you want to classify drugs by risk, tobacco should be on schedule I (400,000 deaths/yr.). Alcohol should be on Schedule II (150,000 deaths/yr.) because it has legitimate uses. Marijuana should be classified somewhere below aspirin and ibuprofen, which cause many deaths per year. No one has ever died of a Marijuana overdose or the complications brought on by long-term use.


85% of all crimes are committed by people under the influence of alcohol. The vast majority of crimes involving other drugs are caused by prohibition and its attendant black market.


Right. Like noticing the difference between use and abuse. With legal substances, no one gets criticized unless they're abusing them. With illegal drugs you can be locked up just for having them. Drinking is a pastime, a recreation, a "social lubricant". Alcoholism is a disease. Smokers of cannabis are much less likely to have problems than drinkers of alcohol.


The latter. Putting Marijuana on Schedule II is equating it to drugs like morphine and cocaine. It would have no effect on the black market and would subject doctors to the same kind of DEA harassment they're getting for prescribing other Schedule II drugs.

__________________

pothead420_2

Anti-Marijuana people fill the heads of parents and kids with lies because it works. Most non-users won't spent the time to find the truth, or they are living in a box. I argue about marijuana being safer than alcohol and almost nobody believes me. Non-user education about the matter is needed since we want it legal.
Meth is a major problem in the part of our country that I live in. I would never try the crap and I have seen people that have. All of the people that I know that have tried it, have a variety of mental problems.

__________________
God made weed man made alcohol. Who do you trust?

AlucardOrange3

Buzzby has a hell of a lot more common sense than most other people I know. Of COURSE no serious meth lab gets its pseudoephedrine from over-priced cough syrup bottles, or they'd all be bankrupt. But guess what guys: it doesn't matter if you toughen up on 'meth'. People will do it as long as A. they are ignorant of the dangers; or B. they don't trust the authorities who try to tell them about the dangers.

No matter how bad it is (meth can be pretty horrific), the solution is NOT more bans on more sh*t. If bans were succesful in eliminating the banned object then THIS WEBSITE WOULD NOT EXIST. The key to reducing meth usage (because the most you can hope to do is reduce it, not 'eradicate' it, 'combat' it, or any other of the dumbass catchphrases that politicians use to describe the drug "war") is education and risk reduction (ensuring purity and dosage, changing the main methods of ingestion from smoking/snorting/injecting to oral use, etc.).

Think about it like this: You could ban bike-riding to reduce head injuries, OR you could educate people about the risks they take while riding a bike and better prepare them for those risks (helmets, reflective clothing, etc.). Which idea sounds more American to you?

AO3

__________________
"When a true genius appears in the world, you shall know him by this sign; that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." Jonathan Swift

Bluee

What a horribly written article, and Kulongoski is a douche. He does NOT support Measure 33 either. I hope there's someone better to vote for then him

__________________
Pessimism is being content when things go bad, while enjoying life when proven wrong.