Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

A Gateway to a better place

It is difficult to write this without seeming like a "pothead," but, hopefully, Hawaii's imminent passage of a medical marijuana law signals a trend away from the prohibition of marijuana use. Though the entire "War on Drugs" policy may be flawed, state-level action seems to indicate that one aspect of the policy is particularly amenable to change: the prohibition of marijuana.

Tuesday, Hawaii's Senate passed a bill that would legalize marijuana cultivation and use for those who can prove, by doctor's prescription, a medical need. The bill is now headed for the desk of Gov. Ben Cayetano, who has already said he would sign it into law.

In and of itself, the impending passage of the law is not noteworthy. Six other states, Arizona, California, Washington, Nevada, Oregon and Maine, and the District of Columbia, have all passed medical marijuana laws. Hawaii is the only state to do so without being forced by a referendum, but even this does not make the bill exceptional. Hawaii's action is important because it illustrates growing dissatisfaction with a misguided federal drug policy. Along with those six states and Washington, D.C., Hawaii takes the first, small steps towards changing this flawed policy.

Dr. Donald Topping, president of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, articulately expressed this sentiment when speaking to The Associated Press. "It is my hope that Hawaii's example will encourage other state legislatures to follow suit and send a message to the federal government that its intractable position on this issue is wrong," he said.

Topping raises a point that is often taken for granted on both sides of the medical marijuana debate: the federal government is wrong. The issue would have long been resolved if it were as simple as pinpointing the error and then rectifying it. The federal government clings so tenaciously to its dubious assumptions because the assumptions are rooted in legitimate fears. One problem with medical marijuana is that it complicates the strategy for reducing the flow of recreational marijuana and other illegal narcotics. Also, it may open a "gateway," to use some Drug War jargon, to the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes.

However, the legitimacy of these fears does not render them implacable. Medical marijuana laws sharply delineate who is allowed to posses marijuana. In Hawaii's case, those who may cultivate and use marijuana must get written certification from a medical doctor and must register annually with the state public safety department. It is not difficult to know who may posses marijuana and who may not. Under this law, it is no easier to obtain medical marijuana than it is to obtain other controlled prescription narcotics; there is no reason that it should not be treated, with respect to the law, the same as codeine (cough suppressant) or diazepam (Valium) or methylphenidate (Ritalin).

Marijuana for recreational purposes, the second concern, is a large can of worms. There are issues of whether or not recreational marijuana usage leads to permanent physical or mental impairment; whether it hurts only the individual user or the entire community. Is it, in fact, a "gateway drug"? These issues, and there are many others, are not without a solution. Undoubtedly, the resolution of the issue marijuana usage, medical or otherwise, is only hindered by untenable, inflexible federal policy.

Some of Hawaii's senators, still, are uncomfortable with passing a state law that is in direct contradiction to federal law, and the Justice Department is challenging the currently standing medical marijuana laws. Displaying praiseworthy respect for the law, some senators voted against the medical marijuana bill. One such person, Sen. Norman Sakamoto, D-Moanalua-Salt Lake, argued, "We're approving something that the federal government says is illegal."

This is true, but ceases to be an ethical problem when one dismisses the naive assumption that what the federal government does and says is always right. On the medical marijuana issue, seven states and the District of Columbia have rightly come to this conclusion. Would that 43 other states, or the three branches of the federal government, do the same.