Should the U.S. Legalize Marijuana?

Recommend (3) Comments (1)

NORML shares Mr. Sabet's concerns regarding cannabis use and mental illness.

There is limited data suggesting an association, albeit a minor one between chronic cannabis and increased symptoms of depression, psychotic symptoms, and/or schizophrenia. However, interpretation of this data is not well understood. Identified as well as unidentified confounding factors (such as poverty, family history, polydrug use, etc.) make it difficult, if not impossible, for researchers to adequately determine whether any cause-and-effect relationship exists between cannabis use and mental illness. Also, many experts point out that this association may be due to patients' self-medicating with cannabis, as survey data and anecdotal reports of individuals finding therapeutic relief from both clinical depression and schizotypal behavior are common within medical lore, and clinical testing on the use of cannabinoids to treat certain symptoms of mental illness has been recommended.
 
Most recently, a large-scale study by investigators at London's Institute of Psychiatry reported that those patients diagnosed with schizophrenia who had previously used cannabis did not demonstrate exacerbated symptoms of the illness compared to age-adjusted controls who had not used cannabis.  "This [finding] argues against a distinct schizophrenia-like psychosis caused by cannabis," they concluded.

Nevertheless, until this association is better understood, there may be some merit to government warnings that adolescents (particularly pre and early teens) and/or adults with pre-existing symptoms of mental illness refrain from using cannabis (and/or other psychoactive substances), particularly in large quantities. This statement, however, is hardly an indictment of cannabis' relative safety when used in moderation by adults or an endorsement of the federal government's efforts to criminally prohibit its use for all Americans. If anything, just the opposite is true.

Health risks connected with drug use -- when scientifically documented -- should not be seen as legitimate reasons for criminal prohibition, but instead, as reasons for legal regulation. Specific to cannabis, if studies demonstrate that those "who first used marijuana before age 12 [are] twice as likely as adults who first used marijuana at age 18 or older to be classified as having serious mental illness," then this is an argument in favor of legally regulating cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol, so that better safeguards may be enacted restricting adolescents from legal access to it. These concerns, however, do not support criminally prohibiting the responsible use of the cannabis by adults any more than fears regarding the abuse of alcohol by a minority of teenagers support a blanket prohibition on the use of beer by adults.

To draw a real world comparison, millions of Americans safely use ibuprofen as an effective pain reliever. However, among a minority of the population who suffer from liver and kidney problems, ibuprofen presents a legitimate and substantial health risk. However, this fact no more calls for the criminalization of ibuprofen among adults than do these latest allegations, even if true, call for the current prohibition of cannabis.

Finally, there lies the fact that cannabis prohibition has forever undermined the federal government's ability to educate its citizens, particularly young people, to the potential risks of marijuana when and where they present themselves. Ending prohibition and enacting a legal, regulated cannabis market would likely restore this lost credibility, as evidenced by the fact that science-based, federal education campaigns regarding the health risks of tobacco and drunk driving have greatly reduced smoking and driving under the influence among teenagers. Conversely, similar rhetorically-based campaigns regarding teen pot use have fostered increased levels of illicit drug use among their target audience.
 
As concluded by the Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation, cannabis' "health risks are remarkably limited, but cannabis is not completely harmless." As a result, the Foundation determined: "There ought to be a special legal regulatory system for cannabis because its use definitely does entail health risks. If cannabis was completely harmless, the same rules could be applied as to tea. Cannabis should not be made freely available, but the rules on cannabis can be very general and lenient." Placed in this context, Mr. Sabet's concerns does little to advance the government's position in favor of tightening prohibition, and provides ample ammunition to wage for its repeal.