Pot for Patients--A Dishonest Debate

I find the medical marijuana debate fascinating. Last night, the substitute host of Larry King Live on CNN moderated a good-natured debate on medical marijuana between Montel Williams and Steven Baldwin, with Williams pro and Baldwin con. If you were neutral on the issue and watched it, I suspect neither of them would have persuaded you to their position.

Williams, who has struggled with multiple sclerosis for over a decade, ingests marijuana for neurological pain, although he doesn't admit to smoking it. Whenever discussing the issue, he always brings up some program at the University of Mississippi where the US Government has been growing marijuana and dispensing it in "joint" form to a dozen or so people for 25 years. This, coupled with the illegality of marijuana, is a high hypocrisy to Williams but also evidence that such a program can work. He is genuine and sincere given his personal stake in the issue.

Baldwin is a recovering drug addict and former marijuana user who opposes legalizing pot for patients. He relies on his past experiences to argue that marijuana is a "gateway drug" to much harder and addictive stuff. He is concerned that widespread pot availability, even for medical purposes, will make it much more accessible for casual use. He is genuine and sincere given his experiences and long term sobriety.

Williams' argument seems disingenuous. You can't take an arguably successful program with about 10 people, in an extremely controlled environment, and expect to replicate it across a nation of 300,000,000 people and [voila!] everything's solved. On the other hand, if you Google "medical marijuana" and "Steven Baldwin" you'll find hundreds of references to an earlier Larry King debate between the actor and Republican Representative, former presidential candidate, and medical doctor Ron Paul. All the pro-marijuana sites predictably hammer Baldwin for being a boob, a Christian fundamentalist, and for getting taken to the woodshed. In fairness, and meaning no offense to Baldwin, his debate with Dr. Paul was unfair--the equivalent a debate about the interpretation of some clause in the US Constitution between a Federal Circuit Court judge and a celebrity who has been to small claims court a couple of times.

Who's right? Who knows?

Of course, Pres. Obama has been all over the place on the marijuana issue, shifting again most recently to oppose changing our drug laws. What makes me currently an opponent of medical marijuana is not Obama's endless flip-flopping. It's the fact that we don't have honest debates on the issue.

Marijuana might have some medicinal benefit to some people suffering with certain conditions/diseases. But, let's be honest. A lot of Americans simply want to smoke some doobage without getting arrested. Thousands of "medical" marijuana supporters want it approved so that they can take the next step: legalize pot for personal use. And it is this fact that completely clouds the issue. On websites and message boards for pot-heads, it couldn't be clearer that this is the true motivation for many. Hippies and health advocates make strange bedfellows.

Ever been to a "hemp festival"? You see lots of posters and t-shirts with Bob Marley, Che Guavara and the Jamaican flag on them. People set up booths showing all the great industrial uses for hemp, and selling their homemade hemp clothes, indigenous musical instruments, and reggae CDs. Sure, you can make some great things with hemp. And, yes, hemp was grown and used legally in our nation for scores of years. But, honestly, these people simply want to get high. The fact that you can make a purse out of a pot plant is nice, but it's a diversion.

That's how it will always be until we put all the issues on the table. I'm a "small government, low tax, 'originalist' Constitution" type of conservative, so I almost always prefer less regulation to more. Especially at the federal level. But I don't trust the pot-heads either.

The debate should not be over whether marijuana should be legalized for medical use. Rather, the debate should be whether marijuana should be legalized for any and all purposes. The pot-heads, hippies, medical marijuana supporters, and college professors can legitimately square off against the former and recovering addicts, the medical establishment, religious and children's advocates, and general opponents of drugs. We'll hear all sides and make a democratic decision. Regardless of the outcome, people will still study the benefits of pot legally or illegally and, over time, the debate and support may shift.

Until and unless that honest debate happens, I won't be persuaded to support medical marijuana.

That's just the way it is, Dude.