Behavior: Pop Drugs: The High as a Way of Life

(8 of 10)

and punishment. "Most parents won't defend a drug user—until he's their son," says Stanford University Psychologist Jean Paul Smith. However, the experts have become increasingly concerned over excessive drug penalties. Dr. Roger Egeberg, the Nixon-appointed Assistant Secretary of HEW for Health and Scientific Affairs, says that the laws governing marijuana "are completely out of proportion" to the dangers of the drug. Declared the Mental Health Institute's Dr. Yolles in his testimony last week: "I know of no clearer instance in which the punishment for an infraction of the law is more harmful than the crime."

Would the ideal solution be to legalize pot? No, say most authorities. Long-term use of marijuana may hold yet unknown health hazards, and might conceivably induce in America the passive, fatalistic outlook common in many Asian and Middle Eastern nations, where marijuana-like preparations are traditional and ubiquitous. (Some experts disagree, suspecting that the problems of Eastern drug-using societies are more a result of religious attitudes and chronic malnutrition than a product of chemistry.) The opponents of legalization argue that even if marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, one chemical escape valve is enough for any society. As Beverly Hills Judge Leonard Wolf puts it: "It would not be a particularly healthy situation to unleash upon the public a second intoxicant that would rival alcohol. Alcohol is tremendously dangerous to society, but it has become part of our culture. Is that any reason to invite in a second, equally dangerous substance?"

However, the time for a choice is already past, argues a growing band of responsible advocates of legalization, among them Psychiatrist Mikuriya and Stanford Law Professor John Kaplan. They do not argue that marijuana is harmless, and they are seriously concerned that the open sale of pot would almost certainly increase its use and abuse, producing greater numbers of "pot lushes" and even pot skid rows. They defend ultimate legalization only because they believe that its probable costs to society are outweighed by the disadvantages of continued prohibition. They point out that as long as marijuana is forbidden it will continue to have the appeal of the illicit.

Even the proponents of legalization favor tight regulation of marijuana: no sales to children under 18, no advertising, laws against driving under its influence, federal quality controls, severe penalties for illegal pushing, and excise taxes to further discourage impecunious youthful purchasers. Such a policy would roughly parallel the nation's present attitude toward alcohol and tobacco, and one tobacco company executive confides: "A cigarette concern would have to be pretty stupid if it weren't looking into marijuana."

Unfortunately, neither side in the legalization dispute can produce conclusive arguments, for although much has been learned about marijuana in recent years much more is still unknown. Years of exaggerated and oversimplified speculation have created a vicious circle that still hampers the growth of real knowledge. Researchers Norman Zin-berg and Andrew Weil, who last year did the first truly scientific study of marijuana's effect on the human organism, maintain: "Administrators of scientific and government institutions feel