I have to admit to becoming somewhat infuriated upon reading “There’s no hope with dope” (ODE, 10/15). The column in question paints a very inaccurate and unfair picture of marijuana and its users.
First, the vast majority of users of marijuana do not become the heavy users that the columnist discusses. In fact, marijuana has been found (by the National Institute of Drug Abuse of all people) to be one of the least addictive recreational substances — only psychedelic drugs are less addictive. Yes, even alcohol induces states of chemical dependence more often than marijuana.
Furthermore, the negative effects Debenham associates with smoking weed — principally problems with short-term memory, coordination, intake of carcinogens and changes in diet due to the “munchies” — are really only a problem with habitual users.
Marijuana can be looked at as a recreational activity like any other. Sure, it can distract the user from life’s stresses, but doesn’t television do this as well? If one were to watch TV for several hours per day (as many do), would life not seem to lose some of its worth? Would this avid TV-watcher’s mind not atrophy from lack of exercise? Would this “couch potato” not miss out on other valuable activities because of time spent in front of the “tube”? Despite this, millions worldwide are able to juggle both TV and otherwise fulfilling lives.
Additionally, other substances — alcohol and opiates in particular — are much more apt to numb the mind and serve as an escape from one’s problems.
Use of marijuana and recreational drugs in general are of far more significance and value than simple diversions. The issue here is one of civil liberty. People should have the right to control their own processes of cognition and the internal metabolic activities of their own bodies
If a musician thinks marijuana allows her to gain a different perspective, coming up with a different set of ideas from those she would encounter while sober, then she should have the right to pursue her art. If a philosopher believes LSD gives him a unique cognitive perspective, allowing for processes of abstract reasoning differing greatly from that of sober reality, then he should be able to pursue the truth as he deems fit.
Finally, I find the author’s correlation of drug use and unpatriotic or terrorist-friendly activity to be both factually incorrect and a “blow below the belt.” The Taliban is, in fact, a regime that is rather unfriendly toward the use of recreational drugs (among other civil liberties). The United States recently gave $43 million to the Taliban in reward for declaring the production of opium illegal. The result is hardship for the peasants who depend on this cash crop to survive, and little or no change in the availability of heroin on the streets of America.
Perhaps some day the United States’ drug policy will have some semblance of sanity and practicality. Until then, freedom lovers everywhere will need to push for change.