In the name of freedom for adults, marijuana should be made legal.

Recent studies have established that marijuana is more dangerous than anyone suspected. The case against legalizing it is far stronger today than it has ever been before.

Good evening, and welcome to The Advocates. I'm Michael Dukakis. Tonight our debate is on legalizing marijuana. Despite the fact that it is illegal in every state in this country, the National Council on Drug Abuse estimates that some 15 million Americans are regular users of marijuana, and some 43 million of our fellow citizens have tried it at least once. Thousands of people make millions or billions of dollars obtaining and selling the drug at considerable legal risk, and some 400,000 Americans are arrested every year for some offense connected with marijuana.

In the face of the clear desire of so many people to use marijuana, our question tonight is whether they should not simply be allowed to use it, without the fear or threat of arrest or fine or imprisonment. The argument hinges on whether the drug is safe and whether our society has any interest and any right in banning its use. Should we legalize marijuana? Advocate Avi Nelson says, "Yes."

Yes, marijuana should be legalized; and to help me make this case tonight I have two outstanding witnesses—first, Mr. Peter Meyers, who is the Chief Counsel for NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and also Dr. Lester Grinspoon, who is Professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School.

Now, let's establish at the outset—we are talking about legalizing marijuana for adults, those over 18 or 21. It would be in the category somewhat similar to alcohol. As a matter of fact, marijuana is less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco and considerably less harmful than amphetamines or barbiturates or even something like aspirin. Second, we have followed over the last few years a prescription of trying to stamp out marijuana. We arrest over 450,000 people a year at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars each year. What have we gotten to show for it? We've alienated our young people. We have stimulated a 48 billion dollar a year industry for the underworld, and we certainly haven't stopped marijuana. Third, and most important, the question of individual rights: it is simply true that people ought to be able to do in the privacy of their own homes whatever they want. They ought to be able to smoke what they want and drink what they want. They should be able to do these things so long as they do not violate the rights of others. Unfortunately, in this society we've drifted away from the recognition of individual liberty. I think we ought to come back to it and recognize that at least in this area alone, we ought to legalize marijuana and let adults make their own decisions.

Advocate William Rusher says, "No.

At a time when drugs like saccharin are disappearing from the market because they're supposed to give rise to various remote and speculative dangers, marijuana has enjoyed an almost unresisted vogue sweeping over our society in less than 20 years. It has become the symbol not only of the counterculture, but of the whole younger generation. Their elders have generally granted that its effects are certainly no worse than alcohol, and the more broad-minded among them have endorsed it as a legitimate newcomer on the social scene. On the other side, opponents of marijuana have all too often sought to stamp it out by harsh laws, sending youngsters off to prison for long terms. If I accomplish nothing else tonight, I hope to make you understand that we do not endorse such disproportionate penalties. If there is a case against legal, against legalizing marijuana, and there is, it depends upon appealing to your reason. And for that purpose, I must ask you first to open your minds.

Within the past three years, there have been published new studies of the biological effects of marijuana; and they show beyond the possibility of contradiction that this drug is more harmful than almost anybody had realized. Our two witnesses are not Alabama sheriffs. They are earnest and responsible men, Dr. Robert DuPont, Founding Director of the National institute and Drug Abuse, and former U.S. Senator, James L. Buckley. I ask you to hear them out before you vote to legalize and thereby to encourage a drug that is harming our country and especially our young more than we knew.

Thank you, gentlemen. We'll be back to your cases in a moment, but first a word about tonight's debate. The current legal status of marijuana varies widely among the states in this country. Though legal in none, possession of a small amount can result in a felony conviction and from five to ten years in prison in states like Nevada, in Arizona, and Florida. Other states make possession of a small amount a misdemeanor, meaning a fine and probation in most cases. And ten states have gone further, decriminalizing minor offenses. In those states minor violations are treated much like traffic citations and result in a fine but not in a criminal proceeding or, of course, in a criminal record. And now to the arguments. Mr. Nelson, would you call your first witness please.

I call Mr. Peter Meyers.

Welcome to The Advocates, Mr. Meyers. Nice to have you with us.

Thank you.

Mr. Meyers is Chief Counsel for NORML and editor of the Drug Law Journal.

Mr. Meyers, let's begin with the question: What is legalization?

Well, we generally mean by that that an adult could possess and use marijuana without being treated as a criminal and in addition, the adult would have a place to legally buy and sell marijuana. You wouldn't have to get it through the illicit markets.

Why should we legalize?

Well, I think there's three main reasons why I favor it: medical, social, and philosophical.

All right. Let's develop them in order; first, the medical reason.

Well, the point is that marijuana is not the killer weed which the federal government told us it was for so many years, and that each and every justification the government has used to outlaw marijuana has been proven to be a myth with no basis in fact. Marijuana is not a narcotic or a physically addicting drug. It doesn't lead to crime. It doesn't lead to insanity. It doesn't lead to all of the horrible things which the government told us it would cause when the laws were first passed. Now, there's no such a thing as a harmless drug; but marijuana, government studies year after year have told us is a drug which is less harmful, much less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, two drugs which are legal in this society.

What about the social reason?

Well, that's based on, look at the waste from the current criminal penalties with over 450,000 Americans arrested every year, 90 percent for simple possession of small amounts; over 600 million dollars we spend in enforcing the marijuana law, money and effort and resources which we could be spending chasing serious criminals. In addition, the marijuana laws on the books encourage a variety of problems. They encourage illegal search and seizure techniques, the use of entrapment, the use of informants. We know that the marijuana laws are more harshly applied against blacks and other minorities; and finally, the social context of education. How can we expect children to believe us if we are totally hypocritical about marijuana?

So, it leads to a great deal of cynicism in society as well,

And lack of respect for the law and education. How are the kids going to believe us about PCP and dangerous drugs if we have no credibility cause we've lied to them about marijuana.

What about on the philosophical side?

Well, that's based, I think, on the fundamental American value that an individual should have the greatest amount of freedom; and we should have the most limited role for government, and make the government have some good reason before it comes in and makes what you do a crime. I believe that an adult should have the right to do something, even if it's dangerous. That's what freedom means in America. And I think that's a tradition which is shared by both liberals and conservatives. And you have groups such as the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, individuals such as James J. Kilpatrick, William F. Buckley, the National Review, all coming out and in favor, at least, of marijuana decriminalization.

By the way, for the record, that's a different Buckley from the one that's on the program tonight. Are there other medical benefits that derive from marijuana and would derive if it were legalized?

Well, that's another point that there are many people today who suffer from glaucoma, cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, and other illnesses, who could benefit from marijuana's medical potential. But these people, with a handful of exceptions, are being denied access to a legal supply and have to purchase it in the illegal market with all of the uncertainties that applies because the government won't legalize it. So the medical use is another strong advantage to doing so.

If we were to legalize, will this increase the use among children? We're talking about legalization for adults, but what about those who are under 18? There's a problem there, too, as it is now. Will that problem be aggravated by legalization?

I do not believe so. If you look at the current criminal laws on the books, obviously, they have been a gigantic failure. They have not deterred children from using marijuana or really deterred anyone, I believe. And, I think if you look at marijuana as the outlaw drug, as it's classified today, I don't think you can underestimate the attraction of young children using marijuana because it's illegal, because they've been told it's wrong. And I think if you legalize marijuana, it's not impossible that it would lose some of this mystique; and the use of marijuana might even go down.

All right, gentlemen. Let me interrupt at this point. Mr. Meyers, Mr. Nelson will have an opportunity to ask you another question or two; but let's go to some cross-examination now with Mr. Rusher.

Mr. Meyers, I assume that in the process of legalizing marijuana you would permit advertising of it?

No, my own preference—

No?

—would be to ban promotion or advertising of it.

Why?

Well, we don't want the media to encourage people to use marijuana or any drugs.

Why not?

Well that—. Because that's the problem—that media presents a glamorous image of drugs, and we need an accurate and honest statement of drugs' dangers.

Oh yes? And you would have such a statement in the case—, if you had a statement of marijuana's actual dangers, would you permit advertising?

No, because we do not want—

Why not?

—the media to encourage people to use marijuana or other drugs. I would prohibit it.

This suggests to me there is something about marijuana then that is harmful.

Any drug—, I do not want the media urging us to use aspirin, barbiturates, or any of these.

Yes, but we're talking about marijuana tonight; and you are the head of a national organization to legalize marijuana. So let's stick with that and not with aspirin.

But I would be against the prohibition of any of that.

I was wondering—. What is—. I appreciate that. But what is the harm with marijuana in your opinion?

Okay. I think the greatest dangers from marijuana today are people who would use it while driving a motor vehicle, for one, and certainly legalization of marijuana would not do anything, in my judgment, to take off the books the laws prohibiting driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. I'm also concerned about the use of marijuana by pregnant women, especially in the early months of their pregnancy.

Would you ban that?

Pardon me?

Would you make that illegal?

I would not make that illegal, but I would inform these women and through education that this has especial risks which we advise you not to take. That's the whole point here. We want to advise people not to use marijuana or other drugs; but if they don't listen to us, we don't want to treat them as criminals.

Right. Let's see how much legalizing might increase the use, though, with marijuana. Let's take the analogy of alcohol. In 1935, two years after repeal of prohibition, liquor sales in this country, beer, wine, and spirits, was $698 million. Would you care to guess what they were in 1939—just four years later?

No. I have no idea.

Well, I'll tell you. They were one billion, two hundred and forty nine million dollars. Does that suggest to you that the repeal of the laws against it had something to do with that increase?

It, it could have. But you do not know in terms of when—, when alcohol was illegal, we really have no good idea in terms of the volume of alcohol consumed, whether there were contaminants in the alcohol.

Precisely. I'm talking 1935 was when it was legal, you understand. I'm asking you about a time when it was legal, but just legalized and how much the sale increased within four years after it had been legalized.

Well, as I say, I don't know the statistics; but I would say that what's obvious to me is that with marijuana, we're repeating all of the same mistakes we made during alcohol prohibition.

We certainly would be if we went ahead and repealed the prohibition against marijuana. I'd agree to that. Let me ask you this. Has speeding, has speeding or murder or anything else been eliminated because it has been illegal?

No.

Are we breeding disrespect for law by keeping these laws on the books even though they're violated every day?

I do not believe so.

Then, what is—. Why are we breeding disrespect by keeping on the books a law in one case that is disobeyed and not in other cases?

Well, I think there's two good reasons for that. First, the difference between the danger to others and harm of others through murder, driving on the road and hitting somebody, and marijuana, which does not have any—

Yes, but I said spitting on the sidewalk, I think, too, or speeding—as far as that goes.

Well, now that's a classic example. I think we need that for the protection of society. We do not need marijuana laws, in my judgment in criminal laws for the protection of society.

Well, certainly, then, the fact in any case that a law is violated, even though it's on the books, is not an argument that it shouldn't be on the books, is it?

Except if you have the third most popular drug in America so widely used, and we try to tell people honestly about drugs, I think that the hypocrisy between legalized alcohol and tobacco on the one hand, and illegal marijuana, I think it undercuts any honest educational effort—

It's not necessarily, with due respect, a case of hypocrisy. Alcohol can be a very serious problem but a different problem. It has to be coped with in a different way.

Well, different in the sense that everybody agrees today that the regular use of alcohol is damaging to the body and a whole variety—

And also different in the length of time it has been endemic in the society. You mentioned the great problem of not being able to get marijuana for your what—glaucoma, if you had it. Would you say--. My understanding is quite different. The reason that marijuana can't be gotten for glaucoma is not just because it's illegal as a drug. Opium, or a derivative of opium can be gotten in the United States. And it is certainly illegal as a drug for private use. What marijuana's trouble is as a drug for glaucoma is that it hasn't been certified as effective for the purpose.

The problem is that the federal government has not allowed this research to go forward through their own limitations and then they come back and say therefore we don't have the evidence to do it.

Mr. Rusher, I'm sorry. I'm going to have to interrupt at this point. We've run out of time. We're going to have to go back to Mr. Nelson for another question or two.

Mr. Meyers, I want to pursue a moment the difference in the kinds of laws. It is true that there are murders and there are robberies; but in the one case where there are violations of the rights of others, it's an obligation for us to continue to pursue to try to stamp out these violations. And even if the law is not obeyed a hundred percent of the time, we continue to try; whereas, when we're talking about categories where there are no violations of the rights of others, aren't there considerable differences in our approach to the laws, or shouldn't there be?

Right. And I think that's the essential response to the question—that the use of marijuana, according to all of the evidence we have today, does not present any real danger to the public health, safety, and welfare; and there's no good justification for the laws to remain on the books.

One last question, to pursue also the metaphor with prohibition. We're talking about a fair amount of money, aren't we, with regard to the marijuana industry in the course of a year?

That's right. You're clearly talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. The estimate is that if everybody who is illegally trafficking in marijuana worked for one company, it'd be the third largest business in the United States.

This is the underworld.

That's right.

That might raise an unemployment problem; but on that note, Mr. Meyers, thank you very much for being with us on The Advocates.

All right. We're going to go now to Mr. Rusher; and he, too, will present his first witness.

I call as my first witness, Dr. Robert DuPont.

Welcome to The Advocates, Dr. DuPont. Nice to have you with us.

Thank you.

Dr. DuPont was the founding director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and is Chairman of the Drug Dependent Section of the World Psychiatric Association, a psychiatrist in private practice, I believe, at the moment.

Yes.

Dr. DuPont, how big is this problem of marijuana? How many people smoke it, and how much do they smoke?

Forty-three million Americans have smoked it at least once; 16 million are current users. But that doesn't begin to tell the story. Marijuana use is concentrated among America's youth. Four million of the current users are 12 to 17 years of age. Among American high school seniors, one out of nine, or 11 percent smokes marijuana every day. That figure has doubled in the last three years. Many Americans who are over the age of 35 are unaware of this because the use rates among the po—, the adult population is so much lower. Only 1 percent of Americans over 35 are current users of marijuana.

Well why—. How serious is this? Why should we care if this is true?

Marijuana smoke is a very complex substance made up of over three hundred separate chemicals, 57 of which are unique to the cannabis plant. These substances are distributed throughout the entire body after the marijuana is smoked. And one of them, the major active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is a fat soluble substance like DDT, that rests in the body's fatty tissues. Now that doesn't mean just around your waist, but it includes your brain and your reproductive organs, as well. From a single dose of marijuana, the THC lasts for more than 30 days.

Is it reversible if you stop?

It appears that the effects appear to be reversible for most tissues, although there are some evidence in nervous tissue which it does not regenerate that some of the effects may be irreversible.

Would you give us some examples of specific effects of marijuana on various organs?

Yes. There are a number of them. We’re particularly concerned about the effects on the lungs. Marijuana regularly produces emphysema and bronchitis effects. In fact, in one study it was found that a single marijuana joint produces more airway obstruction than 16 tobacco cigarettes. Marijuana, in laboratory studies, the smoke condensate has been shown to be carcinogenic. When painted on the skins of mice, it produces tumors. And in laboratory studies, human lung tissue that is exposed to marijuana smoke shows changes that suggest the likelihood of the development of cancers. You might know that in terms of after the introduction of cigarettes in 1914 as a mass produced substance, it took 50 years to identify the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. I think we've got plenty of laboratory evidence to suggest that this is a very serious concern right now with marijuana. In addition, we have the effect on the reproductive organs, which is also serious. Marijuana reduces the testosterone level in males. It reduces sperm count. It increases the abnormal sperm.

Doctor, excuse me. What is testosterone?

Testosterone is the male sex hormone, and it's the substance that produces the beard and the masculine musculature, for example, and also increased assertiveness or aggressiveness associated with the male, the expression of females, also, but in lower levels. It also—. It's interesting in females, along this line, that the testosterone levels seem to be increased, rather than decreased in females. And in a recent study of women who were using only what—, three times a week, that there was a three-fold increase in abnormal menstrual cycles. So, our particular concern in these hormone studies is the effect on young people who are just developing their maturity. And there, there is some evidence, and certainly many observations, including my own, suggest that boys are less masculine, if you will, and girls are less feminine as a result of the hormonal influences of marijuana smoking, particularly heavy smoking.

Even so, Doctor, what about the argument that everybody's entitled to go to Hell in his own way? Is there some social harm involved, some social harm as distinguished from individual harm?

Yes, in several areas; one is driving, which was alluded to earlier. There's no e—, no question that marijuana smoking is very harmful to driving. A study in Massachusetts found that 17 percent of the drivers responsible for fatal accidents were stoned on marijuana at the time. A similar study in California suggested 15 percent of the drivers were responsible. In addition, we have the health costs that are borne by all of us. No one can be sick in the United States and not affect the cost of everybody. And finally, we have the effects on young people of a drug that causes them to care less about everything, from their studies to the extracurricular activities to other kinds of things. And I think that we can't afford to let that go on.

Gentlemen, let me interrupt at this point. Mr. Rusher, we're going to be back to you for some additional questions. But, Doctor, we're going to go now to Mr. Nelson who will be cross-examining you.

Thank you. I'm going to leave some of the contradiction of the medical aspects of the testimony to Dr. Grinspoon. But I'd like to quote something to you and ask you whether you agree with it. "I would say today at our current use levels at our state of knowledge that there is no question that alcohol and tobacco are causing as far more health problems than marijuana does. There is no question on that point." Do you know the famous personality who uttered those words not too long ago?

In 1975. I do.

In 1975. That's right. They are your words. Do you still believe them?

Well, I have serious question about those words. That was true of my opinion in 1975; and the use levels, as I mentioned, since 1975 among youth in the United States has doubled. I did not expect that in 1975, and the evidence of serious health harm has also increased substantially. I think now that marijuana possesses many of the negative effects of smoking in terms of the effect on the lungs and the potential cancer effects. And it produces many of the negative effects of alcohol in terms of intoxication. It shares the negative effects of both drugs, I would say.

In 1977, you were in favor of decriminalizing even what you called "personal cultivation in the home," cultivation of the marijuana plant.

Well, I think the decriminalization has been a very, has had a very sad effect on the nation; and I no longer support that position, see, because I think it has been perceived by the public as being in favor of marijuana use. And you'll know in that statement that I made in 1974 at the NORML Convention and later, I always opposed legalization. At no point have I ever favored legalization.

I see. Let's talk for a moment about alcohol and tobacco. You would grant that they are health hazards.

Absolutely, very serious health hazards.

Are you in favor of them making them illegal?

No, I'm not.

Why not?

Because they are so widespread in our society that I think making them completely illegal would be undesirable.

I see. In other words, if the users of marijuana can hang on for a little bit and make it widespread enough, then you will come to the conclusion that you would be in favor of making marijuana legal also.

I, I would oppose any movement with any of the drugs that would make them more accessible. I would oppose anything that would make tobacco more accessible, for example, reducing the tax on it. Anything that increases the, the population's access to dangerous substance; it costs us 45 billion dollars a year to let each citizen set his level of alcohol consumption, about 20 billion to set the levels of tobacco. And I don't think it's—, we can afford to have them set the levels on marijuana.

I don't know whether we can afford, but you don't want to let them make the decision. In other words, you're saying we're going to draw the line here. We've got the evils of alcohol and the evils of tobacco; but that does it— no more vices allowed in society.

Where does it come down to that somebody ought to be able to make the choice himself? If somebody wants to drink in the privacy of his home, if he wants to smoke a cigarette with or without marijuana in the privacy of his own home; he's not going to drive the car; shouldn't it be his right to do that?

Well, if you could have it only restricted to adults who use it occasionally in their homes, it might be one argument. But the fact of the matter is that is not the case. And any movement in our society to reduce the penalties and increase the access would be interpreted as a signal in this society that this is an approved activity, and I don't think there's any avoidance of that. And that signal would go to kids and to people who would use more heavily.

I think there has to be a differentiation between making something legal and condoning something. For example, we condone free speech. We allow people to advocate obnoxious doctrines, people can be Nazis in the United States. Do you think because we say that we condone free speech that somehow we are condoning Nazism?

No, I don't. But I think that if we legalize marijuana, we would be giving a signal to all American citizens, particularly young, that we thought that there was something okay about this drug.

And what kind of a signal do we give now? What about the enforcement problems? What about the four hundred and fifty plus thousand people, most of them young people, who are arrested every year at a cost of 600 million dollars, and the alienation of young people and the disrespect for the law and, indeed, the contradictions inherent in the hypocrisy of saying that alcohol is okay; marijuana is not okay? Doesn't that lead to social problems?

Yes, it does. There are costs associated with any activity that we have, but I think the costs associated with what we're doing now are much less than the costs would be if we legalized it.

It strikes me as a bit curious that you find that the cost of freedom is something that you're unwilling to tolerate; but the cost of regulation of government control, which, Lord knows, abounds in this society, if you want to draw a line, why not draw it there? It seems to me the cost overall would be borne more easily if we were allowed to be a freer group of people.

One brief response please, Doctor.

I think if you drew the line there with marijuana, it would be very hard to stop at the point of not doing the same with hashish and cocaine; and we would have a whole long litany of other drugs that would be going through that same door.

All right, Doctor, we're going to go back to Mr. Rusher. Don't go away— just a question or two from your own advocate.

Doctor, two quick questions. I didn't get a chance to ask you before about the effect of present levels on memory, particularly in the young.

Yes. The marijuana definitely affects memory, particularly a change in storage of long-term memory; and it affects learning while the individual is stoned; and we are very concerned about young people who are stoned in school—absolutely.

And second and last—what would be the effect of legalizing marijuana as Mr. Nelson suggests?

We have 60 million drinkers in this country. We have 40 million tobacco smokers, 16 million marijuana smokers now. I would say that 16 million figure would double or perhaps triple within a decade if we legalize the drug.

Thank you.

Dr. DuPont, thank you very much for being with us. Appreciate it. For those of you who may have joined us late. We're debating the question of the legalization of marijuana this evening. Advocate Avi Nelson has presented his first witness, Mr. Peter Meyers, who is counsel to a national organization seeking the reform of marijuana laws, who argues that our present enforcement of the laws and, in fact, our effort to declare and determine that it's illegal is counter-productive; and denial of equal liberty. On the other hand, Mr. Rusher has presented his first witness, Dr. Robert DuPont, who has argued very strongly that we should not legalize marijuana, that to do so would be a signal to our society, and particularly to our young people, that marijuana will, in fact, and is, in fact, a perfectly acceptable practice. Now, we're going to go back to Mr. Rusher; and he will be presenting another witness.

I call as my second witness the Honorable James L. Buckley.

Welcome to The Advocates, Senator Buckley.

Mr. Buckley was from 1970 to 1976 a member of the United States Senate. Senator Buckley, I was going to take you through some of the territory Mr. Nelson spent working with Mr.—, Dr. DuPont. You're against legalizing marijuana but aren't Conservatives against unnecessary government control over individuals?

Yes, they are, as a matter of general principle. But we also understand that if individual action can threaten social harm, then the step, the state has a, not only a responsibility to move in, it has to. Take heroin, for example, as a classic example in the same field. Now, as Dr. DuPont pointed out, in very recent years, and in the last three or four years, a tremendous amount of new information has come out underscoring that unlike the assumptions of most people, particularly the users, that this is really a relatively harmless drug, it is, in accordance with this test—, evidence, a very dangerous drug. This has been established. What we do not yet know is how dangerous. Let me go through some of these aspects. For example, as Dr. DuPont testified, the principle ingredient is fat-soluble. It concentrates in the reproductive organs, in the brain. Therefore, someone using just one, two, or three marijuana cigarettes a week will be exposed continuously to this damaging substance. And this will have a long-range, and some believe, irreversible effect on the ability to concentrate, to study, to do all of these things that enables someone to function as a human being. Secondly, we have the genetic aspects of this. We all are concerned over nuclear waste, over radiation. Why? In part because of cancer, but also in part because of our fear of putting into the bloodstream of humanity mutations that can be dangerous down stream. We have the obligation to project—, protect future generations from the potential damage done by present users.

There's been a lot of talk this evening about the young. Dr. DuPont mentioned them as particularly in peril, why not legalize marijuana as Mr. Nelson, I take it, would propose, just for people above 18 or something like that as we do alcohol?

Well, first of all, my concerns aren't limited to the very young. But I would say this—that anyone who is fatuous enough to really believe that you can legally sell marijuana to an 18 year-old high school senior and some won't find itself into the hands of a 17 year-old junior, simply doesn't know how the world operates. You can easily smuggle marijuana in. It's much easier than taking a six-pack of beer. And even that has proven to be a problem. And look at pornography.

Speaking of alcohol, speaking of alcohol, and for that matter, tobacco, the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco are at least as well established as the harmful effects of marijuana; yet we don't make their use a crime. Isn't that an analogy?

Well, I would say in the case of tobacco, my libertarian instincts come pretty much to the fore. The principal effect of tobacco, and incidentally, this is remote in time from the time the habit is undertaken, and also statistically small; people are talking about incurring emphysema 20, 30, 40 years later, dying of cancer, that time span; and you are affecting most directly the individual himself. In the case of alcohol—clearly a social impact; and I would say that if this were a new drug seeking entry into our society today, I would be opposing its legalization. But we have had this one in western civilization for 2,000 years, and it is—

Alcohol.

—alcohol—simply—, and it is simply too late. In the case of marijuana, it's been around about 20 years. Yes, it's beginning to spread like wild fire among the young. But I believe that in part, it is spreading because people assume it is harmless; and that once aware of the facts, we will see the tide turn. At least we have the chance to turn that tide, and it is our obligation to do so.

Lastly and briefly, Senator, wouldn't legalizing marijuana be one way to bring it under control? As matters stand, its sale and distribution is in the hands of hoodlums now.

The problem is that if you legalize something, it is automatically assumed that you condone it. And we would be condoning it just at the time when evidence is finally coming to the fore illustrating how dangerous it is, evidence that we need to pursue 'til we grow the full dimensions of the dangers. No, this is not what we need for this country at this time.

All right, Senator, let's go over to Mr. Nelson; and he will ask you some questions also.

Thank you. Senator, I was glad to hear that there are some libertarian instincts still alive. I would ask you the question, appealing to those libertarian instincts—would you say that somebody has a right to take something even if that something is harmful, even if you and I would adjudge it to be the wrong thing to do for that individual?

If there were no collateral effects that impinged on other people, generally speaking, I would say, "Yes." I do believe in the laws against suicide, however.

When you say "collateral effects," are we back to future generations? Should I raise the specter of perhaps we will find out that smoking has genetic questions or raises genetic questions, that alcohol may have genetic problems? What do you mean by "collateral effects"?

Well, first of all, it's the genetic one. This is not pure speculation. There is hard evidence to suggest that this may very well be a problem, and it would be irresponsible for us to allow the marijuana habit get totally out of hand so we could not reverse it during the period in which we pursue this one. Secondly, we have the fact that we are talking about a younger generation. You cannot say that legalizing something at the college level and the senior high school level is not going to impinge on younger people who simply aren't able to make value judgments; and so I'm saying*--

Senator—

—that my 15 year-old child is threatened by the legalization of marijuana for adults.

Your 15 year-old child, and in fact, all, indeed, all minors may be threatened by your refusal to legalize. As a matter of fact, we have in this society now prescription, legal prescription against legalization, against marijuana; and the fact is that we have perhaps an epidemic of drug abuse, especially marijuana abuse among young people. Indeed, one might cite that the forbidden fruit syndrome is applying here, that forbidden fruit is all the more tempting. I don't see that your way has worked to guard young people.

No, because my way hasn't been tried. I think the fundamental issue here is not whether you're a libertarian and I'm not, but whether or not this substance is harmful or not harmful. If it is not harmful, then why should the kids pay attention to their parents? Then it's a silly law to outlaw it. On the other hand, if this new evidence, if these new studies do point to very serious dangers, then I believe we should advertise those. We should not give the wrong signals by legalization so that the youngsters have a chance to evaluate the facts as they are today, not as they were thought to be, believed to be yesterday.

But certainly in terms of harmful substances, I come back to smoking cigarettes, tobacco, alcohol. I can even go to the next step and talk about obesity, which is obviously going to cause greater concern with you—, if you go visit your doctor, he'll tell you that you have a greater chance of incurring serious illness if you're overweight, than if you're smoking or drinking or smoking marijuana. Should we make obesity illegal? I mean, should the government get in and regulate people's diet, how much sleep they get?

What you're talking about is things that individuals shouldn't do because it's bad for their health. I'm talking about things that A) impinge on an age group; and number 2—there's another aspect of this. If, in fact, one out of nine people are taking—, high school students—, are smoking marijuana every day, then we are going to see a significant percentage of that growing generation simply not being able to cope with life; and that will affect us all.

I contend that what you see is people, young people, who look at their elders and see the hypocrisy and the contradiction and, therefore, it's not so much that they can't cope with life but that they reject the value system of their elders as being inconsistent. But let me, Senator—

No. You're wrong there.

—bear with me for a moment. I wanted to ask you to go take your genetic argument—would you say that people who sign a pledge that they're not going to have children or people who are sterile or beyond child-rearing or child-bearing age, should they be allowed to have marijuana?

I'm saying you're not going to distort the validity of our genetic pool and throw in mutations that could be damaging to future generations.

And I would suggest that that sounds like—

Sterility does not take that risk, I assure you.

Sterility does not.

To sterilize yourself does not impose this risk on the future generation.

So, people who are sterile, you would say, could take marijuana.

No, because I also say you're not able to isolate these cases out. If you have glaucoma, and if the F.D.A. says this is an appropriate drug to relieve the pressures, then I say, "Go ahead and prescribe it."

I would like to get to another point you raised, and that is that if we were to legalize this, we will somehow implicitly condone it. And again, I would like your response to the differentiation between legalizing something and condoning it. Isn't it true that we do legalize free speech, overeating and not getting enough sleep; but we don't condone any of those things? Can't we make that separation—that mental leap?

In a society that will not allow you to take one saccharin because it might conceivably give you cancer 40 years from now, if at the same time you say on the other hand, in the case of marijuana, where we have all of this evidence that it does some very serious things, not 30 years from now but next month, next year, the year after that, it just isn't plausible to young people coming up. And by the time they've figured out what's plausible and implausible, it's too late.

Senator, do you agree with the saccharin decision?

Do I?

Yes.

I haven't seen the evidence. I suspect I don't.

I would suspect so, also. Thank you.

On that note we're going to go back to Mr. Rusher for another question or two.

I'd like to continue with Mr. Nelson's point about the disrespect for law that we are breeding among the young by banning something which then they can probably get anyway, if they tried, at any rate. Is this a valid point? Are we really in fact simply breeding disrespect among our young people?

Again, we're getting down to what I believe to be the fundamental issue here: what are the facts as to the state of research on what marijuana does and does not do to an individual. Under the present understanding that is common in the young generation, the understanding that this is relatively harmless, much less harmful than cigarettes or tobacco, then the existing law is wrong; it is hypocritical; and yes, it breeds disrespect. Of course, it does. On the other hand, if we change that basic perception, if we are able to persuade youngsters that the analogy to heroin, for example, is a more accurate one in terms of the quality of damage, in terms of the long-range effects on that individual, then I believe that you will find that the law is respected, even if disobeyed. You referred earlier to speeding violations. I'm sure many millions of people are arrested for speeding and people don't like being caught, but they're not asking for those laws to be abolished.

Senator, I'm afraid I'm going to have to interrupt. Thank you for being with us. Let's go back now to Mr. Nelson with his final witness.

Thank you. I call Dr. Lester Grinspoon.

Welcome to The Advocates, Doctor. Nice to have you with us.

We've heard a lot of testimony about medical effects. Dr. Grinspoon is a professor at the Harvard Medical School and is the author of the book entitled Marijuana Revisited. Dr. Grinspoon—

Reconsidered.

Reconsidered, I'm sorry. Dr. Grinspoon, perhaps we ought to begin with the question of genetics. Now, a lot has been made by the other side about implicit genetic damage if you smoke marijuana. Is this true?

Well, I, I think that what they may be referring to is the so-called threat to the chromosome that marijuana was once thought to pose. This was first proposed in 1972 by a man by the name of Stenchever. It caused a lot of fuss in the newspapers. To make it very short, since that time, a number of good prospect of studies which are methodologically much more sound than those of Stenchever have completely demolished that-possibility and in fact at a conference on that very subject, when the conference chairman concluded that there was no convincing evidence that marijuana was any more important with respect to chromosome damage than aspirin or Valium, Dr. Stenchever himself was willing to go along with that.

Now, you're in favor of legalizing marijuana.

Yes, I am.

Have you always held that position?

No I have not.

What made you change your mind?

Well, I began to learn something about it. In 1967, I began to study marijuana and found that I was appalled at how much I had been brainwashed, I think is the best word, by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics into believing such things that marijuana was addicting, that it led to the commission of crimes, that it led to sexual excess, whatever that is, etc., etc.; and as I learned more about it, I had to reconsider my position.

Well, we've heard a lot of testimony on the other side, especially from Dr. DuPont. Let's take some of them in order, if we might. What about THC ending up in the fatty tissues?

Well, THC does end up in the fatty tissues, but as Axelrod and Limburger showed, it has a half-life of about 28 days. And this means that it's excreted from the body like this. Now, it's perfectly true there will be minute amounts of THC in the fatty tissues for some days after the marijuana is smoked; but what's important is not whether the THC is there or not. What's important is whether it's harmful, and there is no evidence that the fact that THC resides in fat tissue for a period of time, leads to any kind of harmfulness.

Doctor, the half-life is 28—

Twenty-eight days.

Twenty-eight days—okay. What about the respiratory system?

Well, there again, one could say a lot about that except that I think that the only thing that's been established for sure is that, by and his group is that respiratory—, there is some degree—, mild degree of obstruction. This led to the erroneous comment that one marijuana cigarette is equal to 16 cigarettes. That was made by a subject of Tashkin and Tashkin himself was embarrassed that NBC used that five cigarettes verses a hun—, five marijuana cigarettes verses 116 tobacco cigarettes on their program—

What about—

—I would say that the biggest threat to the pulmonary system right now, although, according to the New York Times that has ended, has been what the U.S. government has done, namely sprayed marijuana in Mexico with paraquat an herbicide which clearly causes pulmonary disease.

A brief question and a brief answer, please.

What about any danger to the brain? Is there any?

No. The—. None that has been established. That was all started by a paper by the—, a man by the name of Campbell; and again, a brief answer is that the—, when attempts were made to replicate Campbell's findings, it was impossible to do so.

Doctor, let's turn now to Mr. Rusher for some questions. Mr. Rusher—

Has the Surgeon General, Doctor, in your knowledge, made any statements about the dangers of marijuana?

Yes.

What did he say?

The Surgeon General has—. Do you mean the Secretary of H.E.W.?

I thought I was talking about the Surgeon General.

I don't know what the Surgeon General has to say about marijuana. I know that the Secretary of H.E.W. just released the seventh annual report on marijuana and health.

I suggest to you that the Surgeon General has suggested that marijuana is in certain respects harmful. You're not familiar with that in any case.

Well, I'm not familiar with the particular report that you're talking about. The latest report from the government is the seventh annual report Marijuana and Health.

Let's take some of the things you are familiar with. You mentioned that there is a mild degree, I believe you said, of obstruction, what—, of the airways of the lungs?

Yes.

Suppose a person said that he was cutting down on the use of marijuana because he had a cough. Would that be a medically sensible statement to make?

That would be a medically sensible statement to make.

And as a matter of fact, it was made by the National Chairman of NORML himself, the boss at that time was Mr. Meyers over here when he was on NBC just six months ago, right?

Yes.

So we know there is some, as you say, mild degree of obstruction of the airways of the lungs.

I don't believe that he cut down because of obstruction—

I don't believe he cut down either, but that's what he said he was doing. Let's get into the matter of testosterone. Did I understand you to say that there is absolutely no effect from marijuana on the level of testosterone in men?

No. There is an effect on testosterone.

Oh, there is? Now, why did you say, then, that it has absolutely no effect on the reproductive organs?

I don't believe that I did say that.

You did. In any case, you don't say it now.

No. I, I —

What effect does it have?

Wait a minute. Would you let me finish?

Sure.

You see, there is an effect on testosterone. That was first established in 1974 by Dr. Kolodny.

What is it?

It is a diminution in the level of testosterone but as Kolodny himself was careful to point out, it does not get into any subnormal range. And there is no clinical evidence that it has any significance.

Right. In other words, what happens is that the level of testosterone drops within what might be called a normal range to the lower levels of the normal range but not outside, as I understand it.

It's within normal range, and in fact—

But it drops.

It does drop—

It does drop.

—for a while. Now—

For a while. Yeah, and if he smokes some more, it drops some more.

No.

And continues.

No,

Well, no. It stays at the lower level; it doesn't necessarily continue.

No it doesn't. No it doesn't.

I see.

It's been demonstrated by Satz and Fletcher that in fact in the Costa Rican study that men who have smoked marijuana for a long period of time, and their subjects had smoked it for a mean of 17.1 years, have no drop in the level of testosterone.

How many people were involved as subjects in that Costa Rican study?

In the Costa Rican study, I believe there were 41.

Forty-one people. Would that be sufficient to have established this?

Did you know how many there were in the Kolodny study?

How many were there? How many were there in the Kolodny study?

Just a few.

Just a few?

Much fewer than 41.

How many?

Oh, I think about 20.

Twenty! Now then in the Kolodny study, or in the Costa Rican study, were there in either ca—, would there have been enough people involved to establish, say, that you get cancer, can get cancer from smoking tobacco?

Well now, that's a different question all together.

Yes.

Neither—, neither one, neither one would be able to pick that up. There's no question about that.

All right. And in the case of brain damage, you say no brain damage has been established.

Uh-huh.

Will you go the crucial extra step and say that there is no brain damage?

There is no evidence of brain damage,

No evidence of brain damage. Will you then take that—, has there been sufficient testing so that we can say with confidence that there is none?

One can say that about no drug.

One can say that about no drug. So that we're just going to have to take whatever chance is involved in this particular case with regard to, brain damage is your point?

Well, we take that chance with an awful lot of drugs.

Right. And you want to take it with this. Would you favor legalizing cocaine, Doctor?

No, I'm not in favor of legalizing cocaine.

Why not?

Because I don't feel that we know enough about cocaine at this point to be able to say.

But you do feel we know enough about marijuana. No problem with that.

I think we know enough about marijuana in adults to be able to say that the most sensible way to approach it is to legalize it.

Would you recommend that a pregnant woman smoke marijuana?

No. But I wouldn't recommend that a pregnant women use any drug whatsoever.

Exactly. But the point is that you wouldn't because in this case, it would be harmful or potentially harmful.

No.—

No, no

No. It's simply a question of conservatism. I do not recommend that pregnant women use even aspirin.

No. I understand that any drug beyond—, or other than just simply healthy nutrition is bad for a pregnant woman. We're trying to establish that marijuana, like other things, including—. I've never said—, I certainly don't argue that marijuana is the only dangerous drug in the world. I am simply establishing that it's in the category. That's all, Doctor. And it seems to me, that with all that you don't know about marijuana, it would be nice if you would at least agree to wait to establish some of these questions a little more firmly before you attempt to inflict it in terms of legalizing it in the United States.

Now, Mr. Rusher—

Mr. Rusher, we have time for a response from Dr. Grinspoon and then we're going to have to close this line of questioning.

Sure. Sure,

As Mr. Goddard, Dr. Goddard, who is the former head of the F.D.A. said in reviewing my book in 1971 that he wished that there were as much known about many of the drugs, most of the drugs that we prescribe and that are over the counter as is known, as was known then about marijuana.

And look all that's happened to learn about marijuana since 1971,

And everything that has happened that has made it seem a less harmful drug than when—

No, not a—

Gentlemen, I'm sorry I have to interrupt. Let's go back to Mr. Nelson for another question or two.

Dr. Grinspoon, let's make a comparison between alcohol, tobacco, marijuana. Of those three, which would you say is the least dangerous?

All of them have a potential for harmfulness, but marijuana has the least potential; and there's no question it wins it hands down.

Now, what about the question—can we just keep it illegal and educate the young people not to use it?

No. If we continue to keep it illegal, young people will continue to find us not credible as drug educators.

And one last question, to go back for a moment to the study you began to cite. What about the long-term use of marijuana? There have been studies on people who have been using it for a considerable period of time. What have they shown?

Those studies have failed, and there have been three. I mean the United States went to countries where people have used it. The Greek study, people had used it at a mean age, a mean length of time of 23 years. The mean age of onset in the Costa Rican study was 15.2 year. The youngest was a boy 9 year. None of them have been able to develop any clinically convincing evidence in comparing these with carefully matched controls that there is a great harmfulness to—, or any harmfulness that they could generate, to the long-term use of marijuana.

Thank you.

Dr. Grinspoon, thank you very much for being with us. Appreciate it. I must say I've learned something. It's the first time I learned that the Hellenic culture involved marijuana—new one on me. Now we're going to go to closing arguments from our advocates, and we're going to begin for one minute with Mr. Nelson.

I recommend that you not smoke marijuana. I don't recommend that you become an alcoholic, can't recommend tobacco cigarettes, recommend obesity or too little sleep. Matter of fact, I don't recommend any of the abuses to the body that we might call a moral violation to the person him or herself. But my recommendation and your agreement with it is not grounds for putting these prohibitions in a legal code. There's a serious question here about children. But the current method has not worked, and we certainly are not in better stead with our children if we are hypocritical and active with duplicity by making alcohol and tobacco legal on the one hand and making marijuana illegal on the other. And fundamental, we come back to it again. We have concern for children. We also have to concern ourselves about individual rights. The fact still remains that adult human beings in a free society ought to be able to live in a lifestyle which is of their choosing and not necessarily one which is mandated from above by other elements in society or by government. Social harm is always the catch phrase, the justification for government intrusion. We have too much of it. In this area, let's recognize individual rights. Let's legalize marijuana for adults.

Mr. Rusher, you, too, have one minute.

You've heard the medical evidence. And if your mind has been truly open, I don't think you will doubt any longer that marijuana is harmful. The real question is what to do about it. The other side's curious answer is legalize it. Accept it. Control it, if at all, by embracing it. I yield to no one in my respect for the principles of responsible libertarianism. But legalizing marijuana won't truly serve those principles. It's a far more insidious drug than anyone realized until very lately and its ill effects are not recognized by users until too late, in fact, if they are ever recognized at all. If it's true that 43 million Americans have tried marijuana at least once, it is also true that 170 million haven't. It is bidding to become endemic in our society, but it hasn't reached that point yet; and it needn't unless we open the doors ourselves. No law ever stamped out anything completely, but intelligent laws can and do proclaim a society's policy. It must not become the policy of this society to encourage marijuana. I ask you to vote No!

Thank you, Mr. Rusher. Now, we turn to you in our audience and ask us what you think. What do you believe? Should we legalize marijuana? Send us your "Yes" or "No" vote with your comments on a postcard and mail it to The Advocates, Box 1979, Boston, 02134.

On May 20, The Advocates debated the question "Should your state assume financial control of its public schools?" Our audience responded this way: 34 percent said, "Yes": 66 percent said, "No."

On May 27, The Advocates debated the question "Should we give our support to the new government of Zimbabwe -Rhodesia?" And our audience responded this way: 69 percent said, "Yes," and 31 percent said, "No."

On June 3, The Advocates debated the question "Should we have mandatory wage and price controls?" And our audience responded this way: 23 percent said, "Yes," and 77 percent said, "No."

Our thanks to Mr. Nelson, to Mr. Rusher, to their very distinguished witnesses for a very fine and lively debate. This will be our final show of our ADVOCATES season this year. Over the next six weeks or so, you'll be seeing some of the shows that we've done earlier in the season. And I personally, as moderator, and on behalf of all of us at The Advocates, want to thank a fine staff, our wonderful advocates and very, very distinguished witnesses, and all of the people who have made it possible for us to be with you this season. We thank you, too, as our audience, and a special thanks to the Kennedy School of Government here at Harvard University, our host. Thank you very much and good night.