University of Virginia Library

Pot: Fact From Fiction

Surprise was expressed in these columns
yesterday over the reaction in Richmond
toward our criticism of marijuana laws.
But it seems Richmond isn't the only area
to take issue with what we have said. While
browsing through Tuesday's Daily Progress,
we came upon an editorial reprinted from
the Staunton Leader entitled "Fighting Drug
Addiction." From the logic used in this
editorial we wonder how marijuana laws
will ever be anything but antiquated.

The argument begins by citing a speech
by the chief pharmacist of Waynesboro
Community Hospital to the Staunton
Rotary Club, who stated that drug
addiction "is second only to the Vietnam
War in its threat to the American people."
We are told that Mr. Anderson gave statistics
"which show those who start smoking
marijuana usually end up as heroin addicts."

The editorial continues, "it is too bad the
editors of the University of Virginia Cavalier
Daily hadn't heard Mr. Anderson or read
some of the many informative articles on
drug addiction in the United States, before
they published the editorial criticizing existing
drug laws and University regulations
prohibiting possession of marijuana." It
claims that we have reacted unrealistically
to arrests of a "UVa student for possession
of 30 pounds of the stuff and of two
UVa employees on 'pushing' charges."

We would like to point out that ten
pounds of marijuana not thirty were involved
in the case mentioned and that of
the three persons arrested in Charlottesville
on marijuana charges one of them was
employed by the University hospital as an
attendant.

As to proponents of the logic used in
stating that marijuana smokers usually end
up as heroin addicts we would refer them
to an address given before the Drug
Education Project of the National Association
of Student Personnel Administrators
last year. The report was given by Dr.
Joel Fort, director of the Center for Special
Problems at the San Fransisco health Department
and part of it is reprinted below.

"Then we come to the terms addict and
narcotic user. A stereotype has been created
of a socially unacceptable criminal (and
also a negative self-image is engendered in
the person who uses a drug which comes
to be defined in this way) so that anybody
using a socially disapproved or condemned
drug is referred to as a dope fiend,
an addict, or words of similar connotation,
to the effect that we come to generalize
about all illicit or non medical drug use or
users as one, using as our image a particular
type of illicit narcotic user which
has never been representative of the general
problems of drug abuse in America and is
becoming less representative of the general
representative all the time.

"We have created a mythology and, in
religious terms, a demonology about the
use of certain drugs and have glorified the
use of other drugs, so that now associated
in people's minds with the use of such
drugs as heroin, marijuana, and more recently
LSD is the idea of forbidden
sexuality, criminality, mental illness, suicide
and brain damage.

"Thus, in one of these erroneous oversimplifications,
if you take drug "X" it will
inevitably lead to drug "Y" which is usually
said to be much more harmful and socially
damaging. This is based on most users of
Y saying that they formerly used X, but
it falsely asserts causality, neglects the massive
numbers of users of X who never went
on to use Y, and ignores the fact that
users of Y all used W before either X
or Y. Substitute alcohol for W, marijuana
or LSD for X, and heroin for Y and you
have the main "evidence" presented to
legislative bodies. Again there is a failure
to use even elementary logic in distinguishing
these things or to think of the broader
population of people who may be using
a particular drug."

We would like to reiterate that there is
a definite need for more public understanding
of drugs through open discussion with
professionals who have had experience in
dealing with this problem. Even these experts
do not always come up with a lucid
picture as evidenced by other speakers at
the same conference in which Dr. Fort
spoke. Matters of semantics and bias can
not help but muddle any discussion of
drugs as illustrated in excerpts from two
papers given at the NASPA conference.

For example, Donald E. Miller, chief
counsel for the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics
"In conclusion, it is clear from the examination
of the great bulk of authoritative
opinion, that the permissive use of marijuana
would result in irreparable damage to
the health and well-being of society..Accordingly,
there is little doubt of the need
to control the dangerous drug, marijuana,
and to control it in the best possible way."

Richard Alpert, a noted author, stated
in a round table discussion on LSD: "Regarding
marijuana, may I suggest you look
the other way. Use is getting ever more
extensive and all of us know that use of
marijuana is not hurting people. I suggest
that through speakers seminars, and so forth,
you bring this search for meaning right
to the surface and encourage students to
talk about the essence of the issues that
are involved with psychedelics. Use confrontation
groups, medical groups, and even
bring the issue in through philosophy and
religion. Explore openly the possibility that
man's consciousness is more than we
westerners have comprehended. It is such
open exploration that is the stamp of a free
society."

The solution, we feel, should come through
a combination of these conflicting viewpoints.
Until extensive research, discussion,
and compromise is made in the confused
area of drugs our present laws and regulations
can only continue to be an
anachronism.

C.A.H.