"Well, I am here to apologize.
I apologize because I didn't look hard enough, until now. I didn't look far enough. I didn't review papers from smaller labs in other countries doing some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the loud chorus of legitimate patients whose symptoms improved on cannabis."
Gupta essentially admits his apathy towards the scholarship studying the positive benefits of marijuana. This is further discussed in the article where he mentions that there are studies dating back to the 1800s which promote such benefits. Basically, the data has always been there, but many like Gupta, due to societal norms, preconceived notions, or other reasons, just chose to ignore it. However this is not a sharp critique of Gupta, as he goes on to explain in detail the issues with the drug war, including the DEA's lack of scientific data and and some eye-popping stats on the role of pharmaceutical drugs in regards to prohibition. The piece is an astounding, all-encompassing discussion and a must-read.
While the economic benefits of ending the prohibition have been explored on this blog, the question to ask is, if highly talented, successful doctors and academics such as Gupta can be mislead on this issue, what about the rest of the country? More importantly, our politicians? If people in academia, who make a living from analyzing facts and data can be hoodwinked so easily, does the rest of the country stand a chance? As Gupta mentioned in his piece, the reasoning behind marijuana's prohibition is not grounded in fact:
"Not because of sound science, but because of its absence, marijuana was classified as a schedule 1 substance"
Looking at the history of marijuana prohibition, the doctor is dead on. The man who led the charge against marijuana was a certain Harry J. Anslinger. This was a man who used sensationalist headlines describing all manner of unsubstantiated ways that marijuana was ruining society, all-the-while emphasizing its abuse by minorities. If that is not enough for you, do not forget the great Reefer Madness videos:
So we have a law based in pure rhetoric and propaganda, with a sprinkle of racism to boot. Would you be surprised that, this was merely the same formula used to ban another substance in America? As described by Grace-Elizabeth Hale, in an New York Times Op-Ed about Coca-Cola and cocaine:
"Middle-class whites worried that soft drinks were contributing to what they saw as exploding cocaine use among African-Americans. Southern newspapers reported that “negro cocaine fiends” were raping white women, the police powerless to stop them. By 1903, Candler had bowed to white fears (and a wave of anti-narcotics legislation), removing the cocaine and adding more sugar and caffeine."
Again, more rhetoric and propaganda, this time with a heaping dose of racism. To think, the advocates of such an approach were doing so with a straight face, despite the fact that this was at a time when Jim Crow laws and Ku Klux Klan activities were in full swing. A third drug also faced similar unsubstantiated persecution during this era. We know it as The Green Fairy or simply, absinthe. To quote a Salon piece from 2007 (when absinthe became legal in the US once more):
"1890, the book “Wormwood: A Drama of Paris” vilified absinthe, portraying the downward spiral that inevitably follows a drink. (Think “Reefer Madness” for fin-de-siècle Paris.) In 1905, a disturbed Swiss man, drunk on absinthe, murdered his entire family. Absinthe didn't make him do it — any more than a bipolar who hacks up his neighbor after drinking Jamesons has been deranged by Irish whiskey. But the tide of public opinion had shifted, spurred on by negative digs from prohibitionists and the wine industry, not interested in the competition. European countries began banning absinthe in 1906. Six years later, America followed suit."
A third substance essentially suffered the same fate: banned due to mere rhetoric, propaganda, and fanaticism. No facts, no studies cited. Make no mistake, this activism is not a coincidence, as the temperance movement was sweeping the United States and Europe. A more damning observation is the prohibition behind cocaine and marijuana was deeply rooted in racism, which is also an indictment on the DEA's current logic to still keep these drugs banned.
Three of the most vilified drugs in the twentieth century were essentially banned without any real evidence or scientific data presented against them. Two of which remain banned in most Western countries today. Gupta's marijuana odyssey is so profound as it illustrates, that despite our moral inclinations or misgivings on a subject, we must ensure our policies and regulations are rooted in facts and scientific data. We shouldn't assume others will look at it for us, either. Furthermore, we then demand our politicians to cite such data before we allow them to tell us why our rights must be restricted, lest we become Learned Ignoramus.
References:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/index.html
http://themiddlethirty.blogspot.com/2013/04/peter-wehner-has-blood-on-his-hands.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54xWo7ITFbg
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/opinion/when-jim-crow-drank-coke.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
http://www.salon.com/2007/12/21/absinthe/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement
