It was mid-July of 2006 in all its sticky, sweaty glory. The air was perfumed with sweat and incense alloyed with fleeting, pungent wafts of burning marijuana, and I was being enlightened on the decriminalization of pot by various men and women of questionable bathing habits. It was awesome. I was at ComFest, a Columbus, Ohio festival that celebrates peace and all things of a politically liberal nature. I know, right? Red-state Ohioans getting down with their progressive selves? Unbelievable. And for someone like me, it's heaven. Give me free live music, gay rights t-shirts, and pro-choice bumper stickers, and I'm orgasmic. This "party with a purpose" is held three glorious days each summer, when what look to be average middle-class families and suburban teenagers converge with dreadlocked men and women who look--and smell--like they haven't washed themselves or their tie-dyed hemp shirts since, I don't know, last year's ComFest? It's beautiful. So while reveling in this liberal nirvana this past summer, I maneuvered through the jungle of vendors' booths fighting for gay marriage, gay adoption, women’s reproductive rights, and workers’ unions until one booth in particular caught my eye: a booth supporting the reform of marijuana laws. It's a topic that resonates with a great number of Northwestern students, and not just because we all want to get blazed after killing a few kegs. Well, that could be part of it for some of us. We, as a generation, are absolutely inundated with government propaganda that tells us smoking weed is morally reprehensible, insidiously harmful, and ultimately a much bigger problem than it actually is. While methamphetamine use is sweeping the country, the government has shifted the focus of its War on Drugs from hard drugs to marijuana, paying upwards of $4 billion dollars a year just to fuel the war against weed. The slew of anti-marijuana ads plaguing today's television channels comes to mind: turn on MTV or any other youth-geared network, and you're basically guaranteed a commercial break that features around thirty seconds of drivel from organizations called the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and Above the Influence, which is commissioned by Office of National Drug Control Policy. The majority of these commercials feature plot lines that are more amusing than prohibitory. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but the girl in one commercial who got knocked up when she was high didn't get pregnant from smoking chronic, she got sperminated because whatever abstinence-preaching school she attended didn't teach her how to use a Trojan. Recently, the commercials have taken a more realistic spin, showing that the most typical effect of marijuana use is the tendency for users to do nothing at all. Yet unconvincing scare tactics are still being used in these propaganda pieces: the latest Above the Influence commercial I saw was ludicrous. It featured a fictional school where the pressure for students to put blood-sucking leeches on their skin—called slomming, short for “Sticking Leeches On My Skin”—had become an epidemic akin to pot smoking. This is apparently meant to insinuate that if you succumb to the pressure to use marijuana, you could very well be coerced into applying leeches to your skin. Does this add up to anyone else? Because I must not be getting the equation. And let's ignore the fact that I basically sobbed out of horror upon viewing the commercial because, I mean, leeches? Are you fucking serious? Don't even get me started on the Above the Influence website, which uses these foul globs of slime as part of their web design. Cute. The shocker: these expensive, taxpayer-funded ads have been shown to actually reduce negative opinions of marijuana use, according to a study conducted by the Association for Psychological Science. When shown four anti-marijuana ads, college students had as many negative responses to the ads as positive reactions. Only one ad produced more desirable viewer responses than undesirable ones. Huh? You mean implausible, melodramatic stories about kids getting chased by dogs or shooting their friends in the head because they don't have an “anti-drug” aren't effective? Stop the reefer madness. The hard facts on marijuana use and its effects are out there, and they show what these commercials don't. Marijuana has been vilified since the 1920s, when racism, fear, and protection of corporate profits prompted ill-educated legislators to condemn what was for years completely legal. A glance at the reality of marijuana use reveals why this is wrong. Yes, weed can make people lazy, irresponsible, and prone to choose relaxing with a joint over pulling an all-nighter. Users may find themselves having to purchase more Visine and Altoids than non-smokers, and they will experience slower reaction time and poor physical coordination and mental concentration after, say, smoking a bowl. Still, these consequences are no worse than those of drinking a few beers, which is, of course, legal for those over twenty-one. Pot's long-term physical side effects are also akin to those of tobacco, according to a report by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. It is also evidently non-addictive: according to the U.S. Institute of Medicine, less than one in ten pot users become regular smokers, and most voluntarily quit after 34 years of age. On the other hand, 15 percent of alcohol users and 32 percent of tobacco smokers show symptoms of drug dependence. Marijuana is also not a fatal substance; according to drugwarfacts.org, statistics report that smoking bud has never been shown to induce death. About how many alcohol-related deaths are there in the United States each year? 85,000. How many from tobacco-related causes? 435,000. And how many from marijuana? Zero. In fact, marijuana has been proven significantly beneficial in the medical field, a feat legal drugs alcohol and tobacco fail to perform. According to NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, therapeutic cannabis can be used for Alzheimer's disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, incontinence, osteoporosis, and Tourette's syndrome, among other medical conditions. Compounds in cannabis are currently being studied and shown to actually alter disease progression in addition to alleviating symptoms of diseases and their treatments, such as nausea caused by chemotherapy. Yet in June of 2005, the Supreme Court upheld Congress' power to prosecute the possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes, even in the 11 states that permit it. What is wrong with this picture? The government's preoccupation with marijuana has reached ridiculous proportions. Just look at the resources the feds could and should be using to combat more dangerous drugs. In 2005, police arrested an estimated 786,545 people for marijuana violations. This is the highest total ever recorded by the FBI, and it comprised 42.6 percent of all drug arrests in the country. A recent analysis of federal crime statistics by the Sentencing Project says that this number has spiked since 1992, when arrests for marijuana totaled just 300,000 a year. These arrests rack up a pretty high bill for the feds: an estimated $4 billion a year is spent by the government to arrest and prosecute marijuana crimes, with an increasing number of the arrests for possession rather than dealing. Interestingly, the government spends less each year to fund addiction treatment for all drugs. Something's not right here. To quote President Jimmy Carter, "Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use." And since it has been shown that the majority of pot smokers are otherwise law-abiding citizens, is lighting a bowl, melting into a couch, and listening to Sigur Ros going to harm anyone? Not really, save for lung damage roughly equivalent to tobacco use for the user—which, again, is legal for those eighteen and over. Pot is not making us go out and commit violent crimes; it's making us sit on our couches and do, well, nothing. Maybe giggle at an episode of “South Park” or eat a few unwarranted slices of last night's pizza. Perhaps do a little introspection or simply fall asleep. On the other hand, lighting a rock of crystal meth and tweaking out is harming more people than ever before. Catch any episode of A&E's “Intervention” and you'll see how meth ruins lives. Not only is meth giving users fugly teeth, scabs, and about twenty years worth of premature aging, it has more critically been linked to domestic abuse, violent crime, severe health issues, and explosions in meth labs. Most crucially, this physically and psychologically addictive drug has proven fatal. So why is the government wasting resources to thwart pot use when harder, more dangerous drugs like meth are ruining lives by the thousands? While feds continue to focus on weed and fill our jails with minor drug offenders, millions of Americans are participating in a dangerous wave of methamphetamine use. According to federal estimates, over 12 million Americans have tried the "poor man's cocaine," and upwards of one million are regular users. But as this number spikes, especially in rural areas, the White House has proposed slashing federal aid for rural narcotics teams by half. Interesting, given how meth use has reached almost epidemic status. In 2005, a survey by the National Association of Counties said that over the last three years, 88 percent of counties in the US have experienced an increase in meth-related crime. And this shit has some serious consequences. It can cause permanent brain damage: according to PBS.org, meth causes the body to release abundant amounts of dopamine, a neurotransmitter, giving the user intense pleasure that can heighten the sensation of sex, among other activities. With repeated use, meth depletes the level of dopamine in the brain and devastates the wiring of the dopamine receptors, thus causing addiction. Dopamine receptors can grow back over time, but studies have suggested that chronic meth use can cause other permanent brain damage: examples include declines in reasoning, judgment and motor skills. Since marijuana does not cause such physical addiction, it is clear that the feds are doing something wrong by keeping criminalizing pot on the top of their to-do list. It's not to say that steps haven't been taken to halt meth production: in 2005, Congress passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 to regulate the sale of pseudoephedrine, which can be combined with chemicals and cooked to form meth. Likewise, in 2004, the DEA increased its meth budget from $127.5 million in fiscal 2001 to $151.4 million in fiscal 2004. Still, these numbers pale in comparison to what is spent on weed. By decriminalizing marijuana, the federal government could free up resources to even better combat meth production and abuse. I'm not trying to rally for full-out legalization; that's simply not going to happen anytime soon. What needs to happen immediately is the DEA's shift from a focus on weed to crystal meth and other similarly devastating drugs. Then maybe we can put the $4 billion being dumped into criminalizing pot to better use, getting meth users out of dangerous labs and into jails or treatment facilities. Legalization can come later. In the meantime, those who support marijuana law reform can join the Northwestern chapter of NORML and live by the words of Ben Harper: “My choice is what I choose to do, and if I'm causing no harm, it shouldn't bother you...If you don't like my fire, then don't come around, cause I'm gonna burn one down.” Just try not to get caught. Here in Illinois, getting busted with less than 2.5 grams of weed can lock you up for 30 days with a $1,500 fine. So don't say I didn't warn you. Feel like getting some jail time w/ Devonie? E-mail her at devoniem@gmail.com