A physician’s argument for Question 2

First, does marijuana pose a risk to the user? Well, yes, but this must be considered in context. Compared with other, currently legal substances, marijuana is quite safe. Alcohol ... is closely associated with liver failure, liver cancer and many other m

Approval of Question 2 on the November ballot would permit the private use of marijuana by adults in Nevada. The subject is emotionally charged, and the discussion around it has been filled with hyperbole.

I’m not in that business. As a board-certified pediatrician, a medical educator and a former legislator, my background is in calmly, rationally and dispassionately assessing information and formulating a plan in the best interest of those I serve. I serve Nevada’s children and have done so my entire adult life. With that, here is my consideration of two of the key arguments around Question 2:

First, does marijuana pose a risk to the user? Well, yes, but this must be considered in context. Compared with other, currently legal substances, marijuana is quite safe. Alcohol contributes to violence and is closely associated with liver failure, liver cancer and many other medical conditions. Tobacco smoke directly causes lung cancer, even in those only exposed secondhand. Opiate narcotics are to blame for an increasing number of deaths in this country every year. There are no documented deaths from marijuana and no cases of overdose from smoked or inhaled marijuana.

While marijuana smoke may contribute to pulmonary diseases when used in excess, typical amounts of marijuana used are considerably safer than typical amounts of processed tobacco cigarettes. Further, a legal system would ensure that marijuana has been tested, and sellers would provide — as is the case now with medical marijuana — detailed descriptions of the specific contents of each batch. Currently, nothing ensures that dangerous chemicals are not mixed in with marijuana sold illegally.

As far as the “gateway” theory is concerned, there is no evidence to support that the use of marijuana leads to other drug use in people who otherwise would not have used those other substances. Simply put, no one who is not interested in heroin use suddenly becomes interested in it after using marijuana. Suggesting so is sensationalist and unfounded.

Second, how would legalizing marijuana affect teens and children? There are data to suggest marijuana harms the developing brain and, although such harm is far less than the damage caused by alcohol, for example, children clearly should not use marijuana recreationally. That said, legalizing marijuana would not make it more accessible to children.

For starters, anyone who has talked to an adolescent knows marijuana couldn’t possibly be more accessible than it is now. Regulating the sale to adults would, in fact, drive illicit dealers out of business. If adults could go to a legal retail store to purchase marijuana, there would be no reason for them to support a black-market source. As the demand for illegal sales decreases, those sources for minors dry up.

Lastly, I share the concerns about marijuana sold in forms that would either be appealing to children or could be mistaken by children as candy or treats. Question 2 provides flexibility to both the Legislature and regulators to develop laws and regulations around this industry. Among those restrictions should be prohibitions on the sales of marijuana products that look like candy, cartoon characters, people or the like. If we keep sales of recreational marijuana in the shadows, there’s no way to control this.

Whether you support recreational use of marijuana, the responsible, reasonable thing to do is get this industry out of back alleys, schoolyards and parks. Instead, we should bring it into the light, where it can be controlled, regulated, taxed and made safer.

I encourage all Nevadans to consider the data and come to the same rational conclusion I have. Please join me in supporting Question 2.