State-federal battle over marijuana laws inevitable

There are three initiatives on next Tuesday’s statewide ballot, and recent polls show all three will likely pass.

Question 1 would require auto manufacturers to share now-confidential repair information with independent repair shops, and Question 2 would allow terminally-ill patients access to lethal drugs to allow them to die “with dignity” if doctors say they have less than six months to live.

But Question 3, allowing the use of medical marijuana in Massachusetts, may have the most far-reaching effects if passed and will signify one more step to a more tolerant attitude toward this herb.

And if recreational use ballot questions in three other states pass, it will help set up what seems like an inevitable clash between the states and the federal government about recreational and medicinal use of the drug.

Marijuana was first criminalized at the federal level by the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.  An American Medical Association publication at the time described the weed as an “inciter of sex crimes, murder and insanity,” and a lurid 1936 movie called Reefer Madness (later remade as a musical satire in 2008) portrayed pot users as drug-crazed maniacs.

Notwithstanding the federal law, 17 states and Washington D. C. have passed medical marijuana laws in recent years, and Massachusetts voters in 2008 strongly supported an initiative that decriminalized possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.

Both sides speak out

At dueling press conferences at the State House last week, doctors and lawmakers from both sides of the medical marijuana issue made their case. 

Opponents of Question 3 said there will be no restrictions on medical marijuana treatment centers, passage will send the wrong message to children and the substance is a gateway to harder, more dangerous drugs.

Proponents of the law pointed out that the Department of Public Health would regulate where treatment centers can locate and how long a treatment card can be used by a patient. Further, according to Dr. Karen Munkacy of Newton,  “There’s no property of medical marijuana that causes people to die.”

Indeed, the proposed law places few restrictions on the (up to) 35 treatment centers it would allow. They must be non-profit, secure and register with the DPH, but not too much else. 

Do these laws send the wrong message to children? Yes, but so do all the alcohol and prescription drug advertisements filling the airwaves every day, as do many other cultural inducements, ranging from promos for high-sugar foods and drinks to the violent images pervasive in our media.

Is marijuana a gateway to harder, more dangerous drugs? Sometimes, but certainly not always. There are millions of marijuana smokers who have never moved on to more harmful drugs.

Can marijuana kill you?

Does marijuana kill? Apparently not. The National Institute of Drug Abuse estimates that one would have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana in about 15 minutes to induce a lethal response, a physical impossibility.

And Dr. Jocelyn Elders, former U.S. Surgeon General, has pointed out, “Unlike many of the drugs we prescribe every day, marijuana has never been proven to cause a fatal overdose.”

These arguments likely aren’t going to be settled with finality any time soon, but a growing conflict between the states and the federal government over marijuana possession laws could soon come to a head. Three of the states allowing medical marijuana (Colorado, Oregon and Washington) have initiatives on their ballots permitting the use of marijuana for recreational purposes.

As Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the national Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said recently, “One of these states crossing the Rubicon will immediately set up a challenge to the federal government.”

People have smoked marijuana for about 12,000 years, and it’s been outlawed federally for 75 years. Even if one of these three states doesn’t pass a recreational use law, state medical marijuana laws still conflict with federal law, and the feds have already conducted raids on dispensaries in California and Colorado. 

Federal authorities have been mum lately on their response to the passage of recreational use laws, probably because of the upcoming election and their fear of alienating young voters. President Barack Obama is an admitted former marijuana smoker, and his attitude about legalization may differ from Mitt Romney’s, who’s never smoked a joint or even a cigarette to anyone’s knowledge.

But something has to give. And the fireworks may begin on election day.

Correction: Last week’s Spotlight misstated Lee Scott Laugenour’s party affiliation in his 2010 run for state representative. Laugenour ran as a member of the Green-Rainbow Party. The Spotlight regrets the error.

Posted by Bruce Garlow on November 1, 2012. Filed under Berkshire Beacon Hill Spotlight,Columns,Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry