University of Virginia Library

Letters: Some Comments On Pot Smoking

After a year pause, the authorities
have once again arrested a University
student for possession of
marijuana. There's every reason
to believe it will happen again.
The authorities are probably smug
now, but regret such an "unpleasant
necessity." The student
body is probably marked by ambivalent
feelings. On the whole,
public response is probably exactly
what it was after a good
auto-de-Fe, or a public witch burning,
or after the town had strung
up the convenient "nigger."

The principle is the same. It
is impossible to defend this law by
rational processes. Consider the
customary justifications:

1. Marijuana induces anti-social
behavior:

a) The Medical Society of the
County of New York has stated
flatly that there is no evidence
that marijuana is associated with
crimes of violence.

b) The 1962 report of the President's
Ad Hoc Panel on Drug
Abuse found the evidence inadequate
to substantiate the reputation
of marijuana for inciting people
to anti-social acts.

c) The La Guardia Committee
(1944) did not observe any aggression
in subjects to whom marijuana
was given.

2.) That marijuana is a prelude
to addicting drugs:

The President's Commission on
Law Enforcement (1967) has reported
that "there is no basis"
for the theory that use of marijuana
leads to use of addicting
drugs. This is explicitly affirmed
in Goodman and Gilman, "The
Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics"
(MacMillan 1960).

3) That marijuana is intrinsically
harmful:

a) The President's Commission
stated that there are no lasting
physical effects, and physical dependence
does not develop.

b) Dr. James Goddard of the
FDA has publicly stated that marijuana
is probably "less harmful
than alcohol" and that our society
must "learn to live with both."

The current laws cannot be justified
with the argument that further
research is needed. There is a massive
amount of literature on marijuana
in medical journals and other
periodicals. This includes the experience
of other countries over a
span of centuries.

I do not believe the authorities
can justify the current law en
marijuana in terms which deserve
our respect. They cannot do it
without confusing references to
other drugs. They cannot assert
a proper public purpose to the
law. They cannot assert the support
of intelligent and informed
voters. They cannot assert a
scheme which may be expected to
achieve the desired result. And they
cannot assert that the value of
criminal prosecutions to the community
outweighs the incredible
harm that results to the individual
who is prosecuted.