MARIJUANA 

EVERY major government study for over 50 years has concluded that marijuana should be decriminalized or legalized. 

Introduction: 

The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (the Shafer Commission) had 13 members, most of them hand picked by President Nixon to affirm his view of marijuana as a menace. After long study, they opted for the truth instead. 

It's hard to imagine from today's rhetoric, but their 1972 report (reaffirmed by the National Academy of Sciences in 1982 and also ignored, this time by President Reagan) is as valid today as it was then. Some extracts: 

"We ask the reader to set his preconceptions aside as we have tried to do, and discriminate with us between marihuana, the drug and marihuana, the problem. 

"Recognizing the extensive degree of misinformation about marihuana as a drug we have tried to demythologize it. 

"No valid stereotype of a marihuana user or non-user can be drawn. 

"The most notable statement that can be made about the vast majority of marihuana users - experimenters and intermittent users - is that they are essentially indistinguishable from their non-marihuana using peers by any fundamental criterion other than their marihuana use. 

"Young people who choose to experiment with marihuana are fundamentally the same people, socially and psychologically, as those who use alcohol and tobacco." 

"Most users, young and old, demonstrate an average or above-average degree of social functioning, academic achievement, and job performance. 

"Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety." 

---

 Someone Is Lying 

The public must decide who is lying. The world's leading medical journal, The Lancet, has repeatedly called for legalization and rebuked the government for exaggerated claims about health risks. [1] 

"It would be reasonable to judge cannabis less of a threat to health than alcohol or tobacco. On the medical evidence available, moderate indulgence in cannabis has little ill-effect on health." - Lancet 

"Sooner or later politicians will have to stop running scared and address the evidence: cannabis per se is not a hazard to society but driving it further underground may well be." - Lancet

---

 "As someone acknowledged as a specialist in drug actions on the brain, I know a great deal about cannabis and how it affects its users, and I know that there are simply not the facts to stand up outrageous statements like this. 

" It is headline-grabbing rubbish. 

"When I advised the House of Lords committee five years ago that cannabis was not as damaging as, for instance, regular smoking or drinking, no one wanted to know about our findings.

 "Cannabis is simply not as dangerous as it is being made out to be." 

- Professor Les Iversen, Department of Pharmacology at Oxford University, author of: The Science of Marijuana (extracts from The Evening Standard, May 6, 2003) 

The Basic Facts About Marijuana 

Marijuana is much less dangerous than alcohol. [2] 

Marijuana is not a "gateway" that causes the use of any other drug. Making marijuana illegal may lead to the use of other drugs, the reverse of our intentions. [3] 

Laws and punishment have not deterred the steady spread of marijuana use. Experience with decriminalization both in the US and around the world has shown no significant impact on use or attitudes. [4] 

Government commissions have repeatedly observed that the risk of damage to the user from a prison sentence is much greater than any risk from the drug itself. [5] 

Marijuana laws constitute an enormous drain on the criminal justice system. Almost half of all drug arrests are for marijuana alone and are more than the arrests for murder, rape, robbery and armed assault combined. [6] 

Marijuana is the key to the credibility of all drug education, which, in turn, is a major key to all drug policy. Currently we are destroying our most important tool. [7]

---

 See: Marijuana policy questions for discussion of medical use, industrial use (hemp), and decriminalize vs. legalize 

See: Marijuana FAQs for more information on addiction, cancer, driving, intoxication, and potency

500 Economists Ask President Bush for Open and Honest Debate 

Marijuana: Legalize and Regulate 

Save $10 billion to $14 billion per year 

A group of more than 500 distinguished economists -- led by Nobel Prize-winner Dr. Milton Friedman -- released an open letter to President Bush and other public officials calling for "an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition." 

"Existing evidence ... suggests prohibition has minimal benefits and may itself cause substantial harm." 

"We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods." 

See June 2, 2005 letter at

  http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html

---

Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA] 

Time for a change in marijuana laws? 

Former editor-in-chief says YES! 

Harvard's Dr. George Lundberg, editor-in-chief of JAMA from 1982 to 1999, wrote a Medscape editorial  in August 2005 which said in part: 

"For many decades, marijuana has been the American poster child for how not to deal with a troubling psychoactive substance." 

"Although far from harmless by toxicological or pathologic criteria, marijuana is much less dangerous than many other substances in less restrictive schedules, like morphine and cocaine, not to mention the unscheduled legal mass killers tobacco and alcohol." 

"Of course, marijuana does have proven medical usefulness for some conditions," said Lundberg, citing the New England Journal of Medicine. 

"Kids quickly see through lies. Many kids may discount the proper scare tactics about really dangerous drugs, like heroin and PCP, because the dangers of marijuana have been so overstated." 

"In fact, enforcement of unrealistic laws regarding marijuana has probably caused more harm than marijuana itself. 

"People obey laws they believe to be just; they do not obey the marijuana laws because they know they are unjust, even absurd." 

---

It Is Time for Marijuana to Be Reclassified as Something Other Than a Schedule I Drug 

George D. Lundberg, MD Medscape General Medicine. 2005;7(3) ©2005 Medscape Posted 08/26/2005 

For many decades, marijuana has been the American poster child for how not to deal with a troubling psychoactive substance. 

By US law, a Schedule I substance is one with no recognized medical use and great potential harm to the user. Marijuana has been classified as a Schedule I substance for many decades,[1] along with heroin and LSD. 

Judging from its easy availability, low cost, and widespread current use, such a restrictive classification has failed to retard its use. In fact, enforcement of unrealistic laws regarding marijuana has probably caused more harm than marijuana itself. 

Although far from harmless by toxicological or pathologic criteria, marijuana is much less dangerous than many other substances in less restrictive schedules, like morphine and cocaine, not to mention the unscheduled legal mass killers tobacco and alcohol. Of course, marijuana does have proven medical usefulness for some conditions.[2] 

People obey laws they believe to be just; they do not obey the marijuana laws because they know they are unjust, even absurd. Kids quickly see through lies. Many kids may discount the proper scare tactics about really dangerous drugs, like heroin and PCP, because the dangers of marijuana have been so overstated. Ninety percent of Americans believe that the federal government should not prosecute medical users of marijuana, despite the newest "federal foolishness" of the recent Supreme Court decision against it.[3] 

This commonsense position of the people should give pause to any overzealous prosecutors who might have real trouble finding a jury that would convict a seriously ill user of medical marijuana. The court decision now provides the Congress and the Drug Enforcement Administration with a sterling opportunity to join with the population they are supposed to be serving and with the good science of the 10 states that have authorized the controlled use of medical marijuana and reclassify it at some level other than Schedule I. 

That's my opinion. I'm Dr. George Lundberg, Editor of MedGenMed. 

References 

1. Department of Justice. Drug Enforcement Administration. Marijuana scheduling petition: denial of petition: remand (Pocket No. 86-22). Fed Regist. 1992;57:10489-10508. 

2. Kassirer JP. Federal foolishness and marijuana. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1184-1187. Available at:  http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/336/5/366 Accessed August 19, 2005. 

3. US News - MSNBC.com. Should the federal government prosecute medical marijuana users? Available at:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8118359 

Accessed August 19, 2005. 

George D. Lundberg, MD, Editor-in-Chief, Medscape General Medicine; Adjunct Professor of Health Policy, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 

---

 Readers are encouraged to respond for the editor's eye only or for consideration for publication via email: glundberg@medscape.net . Please include the title of the Webcast Video Editorial that you are responding to in the subject line of your email. 

Disclosure: George D. Lundberg, MD, is an employee of Medscape, LLC. 

---

Ken Wolski, RN, MPA Chief Executive Officer Coalition for Medical Marijuana--New Jersey http://www.cmmnj.org 609.394.2137 

The AMA justifies Lundberg's firing on the grounds that he allowed the journal to stray from "science and medicine" into politics. Newspapers across the US have been quick to point out that the AMA is a political organization. Since 1989 the AMA Political Action Committee has given more than US$14 million to US Senate and House candidates; these donations have favoured Republicans over Democrats by a ratio of 2 to 1.3 It is perhaps idle, but irresistible, to speculate that had the college students taken a view of oral sex that was more convenient to the Republican cause, the AMA might not have objected.