(2 of 2)
Old-Fashioned. Available medical knowledge, argues Oteri, makes such a lack of distinction hopelessly oldfashioned. For one thing, LSD, which was not around when pot was banned, will earn the user or seller far less of a sentence than marijuana, though LSD is known to produce dangerous and long-range effects and pot is not. Furthermore, said Oteri, pot is not really dangerous at all, and he introduced a series of expert witnesses to back up his contention. Almost everyone is now agreed that marijuana is neither a true narcotic nor addictive, but Oteri's experts went further. They absolved pot of causing practically any harm.
Dr. Joel Fort, a San Francisco psychiatrist and frequent marijuana defender, stated that the drug causes no basic personality change, does not lead to sexual excess, and does not lead to progression to other drugs. Dr. Nicholas Malle-son, member of Britain's advisory commission on drug dependence and currently a visiting professor at M.I.T., agreed and added that it is not even psychologically addictive, "unless you would call my desire to go home after a day's work to have a gin and talk to my wife a psychologically dependent habit."
Reform, Not a Wipeout. Rebutting such pro-pot statements, Dr. Donald Louria, chairman of the New York State Council on Drug Addiction, testified that marijuana can induce various psychoses, undermine already unstable personalities, and cause acute intoxication. He also directly contradicted Dr. Fort and contended that pot does tend to lead to use of other drugs. Both sides plan to field at least a dozen more experts before the hearing is over. Only then will the judge decide on Oteri's motion to declare the Massachusetts marijuana law unconstitutional on grounds that it is "irrational and arbitrary," and that it goes beyond the regulatory power of the state. Oteri also contends that it infringes on the individual's right to privacy and that it violates equal protection of the laws since alcohol, tobacco and other similarly dangerous drugs are not similarly barred. Finally, he feels that it subjects citizens to "cruel and unusual and excessive punishment."
Whatever the finding on Oteri's motion, antimarijuana laws will almost certainly not be wiped out by the current attack. In fact, only a few of marijuana's lawyer supporters favor untrammeled availability of pot. Most simply want to ease what they regard as Draconian penalties. Some reform does seem inevitable since even Food and Drug Administration Chief James Goddard agrees that the penalties for users are too severe.