cannabisnews.com: Medical Marijuana Debate Won't Blow Over 





Medical Marijuana Debate Won't Blow Over 
Posted by FoM on September 28, 1999 at 08:49:25 PT
By Philip Terzian 
Source: New Haven Register
There has been a curious wrestling match here between the government of the District of Columbia and Congress. The District government won the latest round; but Congress, which has the ultimate authority on laws in the nation's capital, will prevail in the end. The question is whether it ought to prevail.
The subject, of all things, is marijuana. A year ago, voters were asked to consider legalizing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The referendum went to a vote on Election Day 1998, but before the tally could be publicized, Congress stepped in to prevent release of the results. The subsequent tug-of-war between Congress and advocates of what is called medical marijuana - who include the mayor of Washington, Anthony Williams - was resolved recently by a federal judge, who ruled the vote should be public knowledge. As expected, the marijuana referendum was endorsed by 69 percent of those who bothered to cast ballots (75,536 voters).This is not the only place where such votes have been cast: In four states - California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska - medical-marijuana laws are already in effect, and more are doubtless on the way. The District of Columbia, however, faces an immovable object. Congress is overwhelmingly opposed to the law, and under the District's home-rule charter, that ends the argument.This has led to a furious debate about the status of the District as a creature of Congress and the rights of District residents to make their own laws. The trouble with this argument is that the District of Columbia was created by Congress in 1787 as a 'federal enclave.' Ironically, while Congress has endorsed statehood for the District in past years, it is the 50 states that have generally resisted amending the Constitution. Of course, no one is forced at gunpoint to live in Washington, and so Congress has the final word on the subject.It should be said that members of Congress oppose the medical-marijuana law on principle: They are not determined to make District residents miserable; they believe any relaxation of the laws governing marijuana sends the wrong message in the war on drugs. It also would make enforcement of existing laws difficult in the nation's capital, where the previous mayor was once imprisoned for using crack cocaine. Even some supporters of the law admit that voting for the medicinal use of marijuana would yield '30-second ads claiming they voted to legalize drugs,' in the words of one congressman. Appealing to the pot-smoking residents of Washington, D.C., does you little good back home in Iowa.Yet it is a difficult issue. Advocates of medicinal marijuana claim it relieves the symptoms of AIDS, cancer and other illnesses, as well as the side effects of chemotherapy. Much of the medical evidence for this is dubious, and opponents point out that other drugs exist for such contingencies. There is also the slippery-slope argument: If marijuana were to be legalized in the District of Columbia for medicinal purposes, you can imagine the fun-loving physicians who would write prescriptions for their 'suffering' friends. During Prohibition, after all, medicinal brandy and whiskey were popular tonics for thirsty patients.Which is precisely the point: In contemplating the war on drugs, we are led to the memory of Prohibition - another historic failure of government policy. By coincidence, in the very week that results of the medical-marijuana vote were released, it was announced that the United States would dispatch unprecedented assistance - including weapons, ammunition and personnel - to Colombia to fight that country's ever-growing cocaine and heroin trade.As with any war where things aren't going so well, it is a good idea to step back and calculate losses and gains. Any objective evaluation of the war on drugs would reach an obvious conclusion: Not only has it failed to prevent the import of illegal drugs from foreign lands, it has done little to reduce the appetite for drugs here in America. This is a market-driven phenomenon, and the market is thumbing its nose at the war on drugs.The sincerity of the combatants is not at issue: It is perfectly understandable that some people would wish to discourage other people from behavior that can be self-destructive. But as our recent hysteria about smoking reminds us, there is a lot of self-destructive behavior - tobacco, alcohol, sugar, cholesterol, sexual promiscuity - that is legal and impervious to taboos and restrictions. By all means, the use of drugs should be discouraged; but how long can a war against their use be sustained? We are considerably more tolerant of, say, reckless drivers than we are of wretches who crave marijuana, who face stiff legal sanctions and imprisonment. And yet, who is more dangerous to encounter on the street?Pubdate: Tue, Sep 28, 1999 Philip Terzian is the associate editor of the Providence Journal. Write to him at: Providence Journal, 1325 G Street NW, Suite 250,Washington, D.C., 20005.Related Article:In Washington, The Majority May Not Always Rule - 9/27/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3039.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by Dankhank on September 29, 1999 at 13:35:55 PT:
??????
"Wretches who crave marijuana?"I'm most afraid of wretches who ignore sanity as applied to the drug war and medical marijuana.Sheeeeeeeeeeeshhhhhhhhhhhh ...........
Hemp n Stuff
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: