When I looked up the topic of marijuana legalization on several indexes of editorials online, I found many interesting sources, including: “Arresting the Drug Laws”, by David Silverberg (2005, p.33), “Limited victory for medical cannabis”, by Andy Coghlan (2003, p.13), and “What Do Student Drug Use Surveys Really Mean?”, by Mike A. Males (2005, pp.31-33). In, “Arresting the Drug Laws”, David Silverberg (2005, p.33) talks about an organization called LEAP, or Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. He starts off by mentioning that the group was established three years ago by two ex-cops, and has since grown to over 2,000 members. He also informs the reader that LEAP only consists of individuals with a background in law, such as prison wardens, judges, mayors, and police officers (p.33). Silverberg gives the viewpoints of several members of the organization; Jack Cole, co-founder, says that if marijuana were legalized, “Organized criminals and world terrorists would be monetarily crippled for many years to come.” Bob Owens, a former police chief, makes the analogy that the war on drugs is, “a strawman that can distract people and stir the hysteria that accompanies it. (p.33)” The author then goes on to say that LEAP predicts a $2 billion yearly profit from the taxation of marijuana if it were sold legally. He also points out that if marijuana was controlled by the government, users would know that the product would not be accompanied by any of the dangerous additives used on the streets (p.33). Silverberg concludes with a quote by Howard Woolridge, another member of LEAP, who says that, “Eighty percent of Americans say legalize and tax it today,” and that, “We’re losing focus on public safety as law enforcement chases Willie Nelson and Willie Nelson’s supplier (p.33).” In contrast, Andy Coghlan (2003, p. 13) discusses the, “Limited victory for medical cannabis”. He states that a recent study in London on the medical benefits of marijuana validates the legalization of pharmaceuticals based on the drug. Coghlan first explains how the study was conducted. He says that a group of 630 people was split up equally into three categories: one-third was given delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), one-third was given a marijuana extract, and one-third was given a placebo. He informs readers that the study was mainly performed to establish the effects of marijuana on spasticity associated with Multiple Sclerosis (p.13). The author goes on to elaborate on the reason why his article reflects only a “limited victory” for marijuana’s medicinal legislation. He states that even though more patients that actually received active marijuana ingredients in their pills claimed relief from their symptoms, there was still a fairly high percentage that claimed relief from the placebo (p.13). He concludes with a statement made by Alan Thompson, from the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London: “The major problem with smoking is making sure you know how much active component is in the blood, and the second problem is the cancer risk.” This is why, Coghlan says, that scientists advise against the actual smoking of marijuana, but rather the use of drugs made from the active ingredients inside it (p.13). Conversely, Mike A. Males (2005, pp.31-33) talks about one particular aspect that current drug policies are based on. He discusses the use and misuse of surveys given to high school students and young adults by two government sponsored organizations: Monitoring the Future (MTF) and Parents’ Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE). He explains that anti-drug campaigns for our children are often based on the results from these two surveys. He says that if the outcome of these surveys shows an increase in drug use, that it could put an end the current drug education program, on the other hand if there is a decrease, then accomplishment of the program is acknowledged (p.31). The author goes on to explain that further analysis of results illustrate that drug use is not always related to problems in the individuals’ lives; in fact, MTF studies have shown that the behaviors of casual marijuana users is strikingly akin to students who do not use any drugs at all (p.31). Males later talks about the details of how these surveys are conducted. He says that the surveys ask more about the students’ lives aside from their current and past drug use; they also ask questions regarding how happy they are with their present situation, social lives, safety, what they see themselves doing in the future, misbehavior, and if they are being harassed by others. He explains that the organizations also follow up and give surveys to young adults ages 18-29 to see where people from each generation have ended up (pp.31-32). Next, Males talks about the results of MTF’s and PRIDE’s surveys. He explains that the outcomes are extremely mixed and unexpected. They actually show correlation between generations with a lower percentage of drug use during high school facing many more problems in the future than generations with higher percentages (p.32). Towards the end of the editorial, the author, Mike A. Males, addresses the many problems with surveys conducted by the two groups. He says that there is a chance that the surveys are erroneous since they could very well be portraying the takers’ readiness to admit that they are using drugs, rather than their actual drug use. He suggests that many of the anti-drug campaigns of the past and present could actually be influencing what students put on paper more so than their actions (p.33). He also notes that when the numbers fluctuate between PRIDE’s and MTF’s surveys, organizations will use the conclusion that is beneficial to them. He gives a good example of this: MTF’s surveys showed that drug use dropped in seniors and eighth graders between the years 2001 and 2002, while PRIDE’s reports showed that use had actually increased. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) used MTF’s results, while The Marijuana Policy Project only used PRIDE’s statistics (p.33). Males concludes that there are too many decisions which are made solely on the outcome of these surveys. He asks whether current policies are actually geared towards diminishing drug use or just the statistics (p.33). Each one of the editorials that I have summarized in this paper talked about the topic of marijuana, but almost completely different aspects of the subject. There weren’t any real similarities between the three, but two of them had a one; both, “Arresting the Drug Laws”, by David Silverberg and, “Limited victory for medical cannabis”, by Andy Coghlan talked about how legalized marijuana sale would eliminate the chance of people buying a product that is laced with other dangerous components. Also, unfortunately, not all of the articles that I read can be considered credible. Although, Coghlan’s and Males’s editorials were almost completely based on facts and evidence, Silverberg simply expressed the opinions of others without any support. Even so, there was still a positive effect from reading, “Arresting the Drug Laws”; I am now informed about the organization LEAP and can do further research about them. The strongest argument was made by Mike A. Males. He has a long list of references to backup almost everything that he says; he even has a website where he has posted the results of the surveys he talks about. Additionally, Andy Coghlan’s piece has enlightened me about an interesting study, which will prove useful in my final paper. References

Coghlan, Andy. (2003, November 15-21). Limited victory for medical cannabis. New Scientist. 180(2421), 13.
Males, Mike A. (2005, January). What Do Student Drug Use Surveys Really Mean? Journal of School Health. 75(1), 31-34.
Silverberg, David. (2005, August). Arresting the Drug Laws. Progressive. 63(8), 33.