[Mr 5 0]

Chris:

Your defense of marijuana as a benign substance is somewhat debatable, especially when compared to caffeine (which is toxic only in massive amounts or when mixed with other substances/drugs) but lets's face it; everything is toxic in large enough doses or when ingested with some other drug. Playing 'my drug is safer than your drug' loses the point, which is that mind-altering substances are not good for us and need some sort of control, just as we have speed limits on our highways and we license bars and liquor stores, etc.

Yes, I do believe that fully legalized marijuana could be a gateway drug, as it's been in the past. We can trade personal observations back and forth - and I have mine; teenaged friends who started with 'just doing a little pot on weekends' and ended up hopelessly addicted to crack two years later, as well as some friends who lived on pot but are now married, parents and productive citizens who never touch drugs. Anecdotes are interesting but not conclusive.

Beer is legal, sometimes leads to stronger stuff, and eventually alcoholism for some. Although the fact that drugs are illegal may be an attraction (the 'forbidden fruit' sydrome) the claim that making them legal and easily accessible by government fiat will deter anyone is not credible and I firmly believe it would lead to greater use.

All these arguments and claims would be rendered moot if we went back to a constitutional government and permitted the states to vote on the legalization of drugs or even just marijuana with no interference from the federal government (that pesky Tenth Amendment again). By the way, although marijuana may have been 'more acceptable' in the '60's and '70's, I think you give Nancy Reagan way too much credit for making it a felony in some cases. Those laws were proposed by Congressmen and Senators who ursurped the states rights to make their own laws regarding drug use and layered on federal statutes that often override the state laws. State politicians were reacting to the spread of drugs and made the laws tougher to look like they were 'doing something' about drugs and by linkage, crime. Typical political posturing that often makes for bad law.

Frankly, if the vast majority of citizens really, truly wanted easy, legal access to marijuana I believe we would have it. NORML and a host of other pro-drug legalization groups spend millions and never stop promoting this cause and yet we still don't see a groundswell of public opinion that demands legal drugs. It isn't there because many people simply don't see the need for more legal drugs. Parents - especially - are generally scared to death of little Susie or Johnny 'getting into' drug use and wrecking their lives. Ask a parent if we need easy access to drugs. Ask a drug treatment director. Ask a cop who patrols around the crack houses every night and see's the human misery drugs bring. Yeah, gimme more of that. Sorry for the sarcasm but the pro-drug arguments pale when you see the devestation they can cause, as does alcohol and prescription drugs, granted, but why make access even easier? I just cannot accept the argument when balanced with the sometimes tragic results.

That said, as you suggest, I'm quite willing to see the marijuana legalization issue go to a public referendum on a state-by-state basis. Democracy in action. I love it!
I know a lot of states would say 'no' but some, like California would probably say 'yes'. Works for me. At least it's a decision made by citizens, not judges or some special-interest group buying votes from Congressmen with campaign contributions. I accept the fact that everyone does not agree on this issue (like us) but I respect democracy enough that I'm willing to see a law that I may possibly disapprove of put into effect when the majority of voters agree to it. That's democracy. We may disagree, but I respect our mutual right and duty to vote our conscience on sensitive issues. I just wish we each had that right on both abortion and drug legalization. We should.