Third Party & Independents: Archives

This is already posted directly below.

I think there can be more than one post on such an important topic- sorry that you dont agree.

Misha -

Thanks as always for the insightful legal exposition. For us non-legal folks, it’s a boon to have somebody on this board who can inform our political minds of the legal issues at stake here.

I’m proud of Thomas, O’Connor, and Rehnquist; it’s appalling that states rights have been so drastically eroded. Even though I’m of the opinion that marijuana should remain banned, that’s California’s business, not Washington’s, and this seems to be just another signpost on the road to a government of men, not laws.

Misha, I think you’re right that it’s a bad ruling, but I don’t know that you can characterize it as “progressive jurisprudence”.

I mean, if this was a liberal versus conservative issue, I’d think the liberal justices would have supported Raich - and don’t bogart that joint, your Honor.

You’ve brought up the interstate commerce clause before. IIRC it was used for some issues that we could all agree were good and many that were bad - but they all had a doobious (ahem!) connection to the original intent of the law.

What I’m getting at is, can you explain in lay terms why the majority ruled the way they did? With both Kennedy and Scalia on board, I doubt it’s merely some wacky liberal scheme to keep other liberals from smokin the dope.

Ok, I will explain it in laymen’s terms, and the explain why I think it is a liberal scheme (and then say a word about why Scalia wrote a separate opinion).

Back in the 1930s, the Supreme Court put up many roadblocks to what FDR wanted to pass, saying that legislation regulating labor relations ect. was not within Congress’ power over interstate commerce. The S.C. eventually got enough liberals on it where this was overturned, and the New Deal was put in full bore. Ever since then, liberals have seen ANY attempt to enforce federalism limits- be it not allowing the banning of guns in schools zones or EVEN stopping the use of medical pot as a return to that time in the 1930s.

The liberals think it is VERY important for government to never be in the position it was in the 1930s where it wanted to accomplish particular ends, but the constitution did not allow the government to accomplish those ends. Progressive jurisprudence has come to mean not reviewing limits on the federal government in federalism terms!

So along came Ms. Raich. I have no doubt that Justice Stevens would want to allow her to have medical pot, if he were in the legislature. But to him, it is far far more important that Congress have unlimited power- because of the fear of the return of the 1930s. So Stevens, along with the other three liberal justices on the court, always vote against federalism, every single time (in wanting to uphold the federal regulation of guns in schools under the COMMERCE clause in their 4 person dissent in Lopez).

VERY IMPORTANT: Note that not a single one of the four liberal justices has ever voted to strike down any bill because it exceeded the government’s power under the commerce clause. not a single time.

As for Justice Kennedy- is a loose cannon right now. He was the swing vote in the child death penalty case, and has been more ever more left. I think he is moving toward the liberal camp very fast.

As for Scalia- there are a couple of things to say. First, more cynically, he is against drugs, and I am sure that played a part in his decision. More importantly, he says that while he used to laugh at Wickard as a law prof, he feels bound by it now because of Stare Decisis. From that point of view- you can see how he decided the way he did. After all, a farmer growing food for himself on his own farm is not that different from a lady growing pot for herself in her own garden. There is a reason that Scalia did not sign on to the majority opinion- he does not believe in the unlimited federal power that they do, so he wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the decision only.

So there you have it- the liberals are doing nothing different than they did in the school guns zone act or the violence against women act- they want to allow the Congress to have unlimited power over all fields of life (limited only by the bill of rights, 14th amendment ect). They do not believe we have a government of limited POWERS, which is why I started my article with that quote from Thomas.

One irony is that if the [interstate] Commerce [regulation] Clause is invoked as the basis for this decision, it appears the federal government is regulating in order to PROTECT the interstate marijuana smuggling commerce system, by eliminating home-grown (literally) and legal competition.

Misha-

Thank you for your detailed analysis. I’m sure Gen. States Rights Gist rolled in his grave once again.

Misha:

Does Federal Law trump State Law or not?

All this liberal scheme you spew is nonsense. The Supreme Court judges according to the LAW created by CONGRESS. Want to blame someone? Blame the Republican Congress.

Misha, states rights vs. federal is a Constitutional issue. But it is not possible in the affairs of humans to create a rule/law that will not deleteriously affect the rights and privileges of some. Hence, any purist assessment of the law along the lines of state’s rights vs. federal law in favor of one over the other is simple minded to me.

The Constitutionality of any law must be weighed against the overall goals and ideals established in the Constitution as well as its spelled out rules for checks and balances, etc.

If the prescriptions in the Constitution by application run contrary to the Preamble, then the prescription in the Constitution SHOULD NOT BE VALID in that particular instance.

This marijuana issue is a classic example. The Preamble establishes “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” So, it can be argued that this ruling by the S.C. is wrong since it does not promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.

However, in the case of civil rights laws or Roe v. Wade for example, state’s rights were trumped and doing so can be argued as justified by the Preamble. The specific rules established in the Constitution were there to uphold and promote the ideals established in the Preamble. If application of those specific rules runs contrary to the ideals established in the Preamble, then you have a case of purists trying to use the Constitution against itself and its overriding purpose.

Aldous- Your response does not address the point. The question is not really state v. federal law, it is whether federal law has any power over a woman growing pot in her own backyard that she is using for her own medication. My point is that it does not- whether her state has power over her is a completely different issue, and not one in front of the Court in this case.

David- Your post fundamentally misunderstands the structure of our national government. The preamble does not give or take away any power from Congress. Congress gets its ENTIRE power from Article I, Seciton 8 (and a couple of amendments- like section 5 of the 14th amendment). The preamble argument is just a red hearing, which is why no supreme court case I know of has ever cited the preamble as the basis for its decision (Roe had nothing to say about the preamble, for example).

Well, You guys beat me to the punch, I had a nice article all typed up and ready to go when I read the previous posts that addressed most of the issues I have with this HORRIBLE ruling.

Justice Thomas is right, the federal power grab is complete with this ruling, there is nothing that the federal government can’t control.

So, when are we doing away with state lines and governments?

Rhinehold, doing away with them has been going on since 1866, it is a slow and tedious process but, one that will not be stopped by anything less than another Civil War.

Misha, Liberty is in the preamble and it speaks directly to the right of a woman to choose to be a mother or not. That is a liberty issue.

As for the preamble not being the basis of S.C. rulings, hogwash. The preamble is sets the guiding principles and ideals which everything following it attempts to support, and has been cited an enormous number of times in arguments before the S.C. While justices may not cite the Preamble as a basis for overriding more specific prescriptions in the Constitution, most never lose site of the Preamble in their considerations.

Lawyers get lost in their black and white readings of textual precedence, but, it is clear from judicial activism both toward the left and right, that the Preamble is sufficient in its broad statement of goals and ideals to permit Justices to break with precedence in order to fulfill the objectives of the Preamble. It has happened many times.

Misha, you cover the subject pretty well - legally. But the decision itself is atrocious, inhumane and against American principles of fair treatment and compassion.

According to lawyers and judges, there is only 1 question to consider: What is more important: Congress or individual states?

How about the people involved? What does Ms. Raich care about Congress or her state? She grew marijuana for her own use because she felt it helped her in her sickness.

Who are these justices, we the public, or anyone else to say whether she needs this marijuana? If it helps her feel better than it is good. Just as good as taking a pill.

There is still something we can do to change this situation. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment would bar the Justice Department from raiding the homes of patients who use marijuana in states where it’s legal. Let your congressman know you want this passed.

Growing, harvesting, processing, transporting and using marijuana is, at this point in time ILLEGAL. Using it for proclaimed sickness is now illegal by Federal Law.

The upheaval over the Supreme Court ruling by those who are not presently using marijuana for sickness has nothing to do with the rights of the sick, it has to do with States Rights. The same issue arguably that the Cival War was fought over.

I would hazard to say that there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of laws on the book that make no sense. Many of us remember the Blue Laws that made no sense. Years ago in Virginia on Sunday you could buy a package of bologna, a jar of mustard and a package of cheese but, you could not buy a bologna and cheese sandwich.

If your child was congested (Sunday)you could not purchase an atomizer or humidifier. The most incredible was that at any time you could not buy a mixed drink. After decades a law was passed allowing you to buy a mixed drink but, you had to be sitting at the bar to do it (if you were at a table, they had a hot seat at the bar). You could not carry the drink to your table, a waitress had to do it. Once there if you wanted to move to another table you could not take your drink with you, a waitress had to do it.

I digress but to show the ridiculousness of laws that we had to put up with for decades.

With regard to the marijuana issue. Who will determine the individual’s need and, more importantly, the dosage. Who will ensure that the individual doesn’t sell it to someone else?
If this “need” for marijuana is for a large percentage of terminally ill people I will say once more :

What is the difference between marijuana to ease the pain of the terminally ill and Euthanasia for the terminally ill. Please don’t interpret this to mean that I am suggesting euthanasia as a substitute for marijuana but, would you not have to consider the legality of both.

Steve smith- you are incorrect. This is NOT about states’ rights- this is about individual rights against the federal government. Under the FEDERAL constitution, the federal government can only do a limited number of things- and its power over “interstate commerce” is simply not broad enough to encompass coming into the backyard of an individual growing pot for medical purposes.

We are talking about the federal constitution, and if we are going to take it seriously, we have to be willing to admit that the enumerated powers arent just meaningless play-things for the Congress to use to achieve whatever end it wants. Otherwise, we might as well flush the constitution and declare “Congress has the power to enact all legislation for the public wellfare” (which it seems is what David actually wants to do). That is one approach- but that is not our consitution- thats not what it was designed to do.

The liberals think it is VERY important for government to never be in the position it was in the 1930s where it wanted to accomplish particular ends… it is far far more important that Congress have unlimited power- because of the fear of the return of the 1930s.

Yikes! The vast liberal conspiracy is gonna git us! Run!!! Wait! I think it’s hiding behind that tree! Aaaahhhh! :)

Sorry, Misha. That just sounds kooky. Does that mean Scalia and Kennedy are merely unwitting dupes in a shadowy liberal power play?

Again, I think it’s a bad ruling, but I doubt it came about for the reasons you cite. Thanks anyways.

Misha, you misunderstand. I do not want to see the S.C. done away with and leave Congress to ignore the Constitution. I am saying that we are already on that road.

You see, when we walked down that slippery slope of “judicial activism” charges, we essentially began making the S.C. irrelevant unless it rubber stamps the Congressional legislation. That is the future if both liberal and conservatives continue to argue against the relevancy of the Supreme Court on the basis of judicial activism being a curse upon that branch of government.

When I said above, “If the prescriptions in the Constitution by application run contrary to the Preamble, then the prescription in the Constitution SHOULD NOT BE VALID in that particular instance.”, I was pointing out precisely how it was that the Commerce clause obtained the power it has to override the Preamble which set the goal of protecting individual liberty.

Slippery slope, Misha, we have been sliding down it for decades.

It’s not often I have to say this, but I very much liked Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion.

An absolutely bizzare ruling.

Thank goodness Scalia went with the majority - if I’d had to agree with him, too, my head might have exploded. ;-)

A.P., you honestly think its a conspiracy theory becuase you have no studied this in depth. In fact, even most liberal academics would agree with what I said above. Not a single liberal justice in the last 70 years has voted to strike down ANY congressional legislation under the commmerce clause. Seriously, not a single one. In the 1970s, Justice Blackmun stated the proposition that all questions of federalism should be settled by the political process (that is, Congress would judge for itself whether it was ignoring the constitution or not!). Every single liberal justice before Blackmun and after him has basically gone along with this, even if he does not say so many words.

Its plain as day- liberals think the commerce clause gives the federal government unlimited power over every aspect of American life not covered by the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment. There are no cases or decisions where any of them have held otherwise.

Misha Tseytlin:

Since you think this way, why don’t you get your Republican Congress to amend the Commerce Clause and end this evil plot? Unless, ofcourse, you think the Supreme Court has subverted them?

Judges interpret the law. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Misha said: “Its plain as day- liberals think the commerce clause gives the federal government unlimited power over every aspect of American life not covered by the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment. There are no cases or decisions where any of them have held otherwise.”

And this is a good thing in many cases, like Civil Rights and Roe V. Wade. Many interpretations of the Commerce clause by liberals have also been very good since they have permitted the federal government more investigative reach which the states could not afford nor had jurisdiction to pursue and which protected consumers.

Interpretation of the laws passed by Congress and of the Constitutional language had to become flexible, Misha, or our nation would have gone down the tubes many decades ago hamstrung by a narrowly defined and highly restricted interpretation of the role of the S.C. and its powers.

That said, as in this case of marijuana, such broad interpretive power does not always have the results one would hope, namely fulfillment of the promises in the Preamble. But, then, strict constructionist and very limited discretionary power by the S.C. also would have resulted in decisions that would not have fulfilled promises in the Preamble.

Looking for perfection in any form of government or constitution and exercise thereof, will always be an exercise in futility. Our system is failing us in many ways at this time, but, to there simply wasn’t a better system to be had when this country was founded, and any other steps in the progression of the growth and implementation of our Constitution would have also resulted in less than perfection.

The question now is simply, what powers do the people and Congress have to override the Supreme Court’s decision? Amendment? Ain’t going to happen.

Ald- the Republican Congress has about as little respect for federalism as the liberals (notice which column I am writing in). SOME conservatives on the Court, especially Justice Thomas, are still taking their constitutional duty seriously. Too bad there are so few of them.

David- I am not sure why you use Roe v. Wade in TWO context in this very thread that have nothing to do with its holding or reasoning of this case. Roe has nothing to do with the commerce clause, the actions of Congress (it was a state law), or the preamble (since it is based on a faulty reading of the 14th Amendment). I have explained to you repeatedly why Roe is not only constitutionally empty, but wrong as a matter of the first principles our nation is founded upon. Even though you dont accept those arguments, you should at least not use Roe when it has nothing to do with the conversation.

Misha, it has everything to do with my argument that the preamble sets the ultimate guide for most justices, even up to and including overturning previous decisions or departing from precedents.

Roe V. Wade occured. It happened. There is no Constitutional basis for or against abortion. The Courts acted without precedent, and attempted to defend their decision on principles of standing law and precedence, but, in the final analysis, the only part of the Constitution that defended Roe V. Wade was individual liberty in the Preamble.

Here we have a case which could have gone similarly but, didn’t. My point here in this thread continues to be that the Supreme Court and the Constitution no longer stand upon concrete foundations, but, wandered onto quicksand. You want rhyme and reason in black and white to guide and make sense your understanding of the Supreme Court’s actions. My apologies, but, you ain’t going to get it. And the quicksand is only going to get a whole helluva lot looser with Bush’s appointments to the S.C.

We have finally arrived at the era of the politicization of the Supreme Court. We have been on this road since the 50’s (my slippery slope contention). You can continue to demand that the Court’s decisions have a rationale based on black and white text in the Constitution or in their prepared statements of justification for their rulings, but, you are going to be increasingly disappointed.

The mentioning of the commrece clause seems like a smoke screen used to stymie the eventual legalization of marijuana. I think that some of the justices feel that allowing medical marijuana will lead to the leagalization or decriminilization of it; which they definetly do not want. As a result they are willing to create reasons for the federal government to prosecute regardless of past precedent on states rights vs. the federal government - “The court said, for example, that Congress can’t use the clause to legislate against sexual assaults or to regulate gun possession near schools.” These rulings would seem to contradict their current stance since medical marijuana also has nothing to do with the commerce clause. So much for consistency. These people are out of touch with the general populace and I don’t think that they have enough life experience to be making these kinds of decisions for everyone else. I would be willing to bet that none of them have tried marijuana and that they believe some of the irrational myths about it.

This website - http://www.leap.cc/ “law enforcement against prohibition” makes the most credible and persuasive arguements for the legalization of marijuana that I have ever read. I suggest that you check it out.

Misha, the real leap the Court made can be found in the following passage:

Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 127–128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer’s contention that Congress’ admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not au-thorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee’s own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.

That precedent is the root of the evil here. When the Court and Congress reache into people’s private homes and private activities in those homes to usurp their rights to privacy there using the Commerce Clause, the slippery slope of activism became an avalanche in the wrong direction.

But, that is, as I said before, the price one pays for having justices who fail to heed the the goals and ideals set out in the Preamble. Activism such as the precedent above, will yield good and bad for the nation, depending upon the motives of the Justices. The standards set in the Preamble were all that kept justices, IMO, from deciding in accordance with their own motives.

You are right that the Liberal justices plus a conservative or two in this case, had other agendas in mind that could have been impeded by a reversal of the precedent established in Wickard v. Filburn. But that is a genie out of the bottle that will never return. Now Bush wants to insure similarly activist justices with agendas toward the conservative ideology shape law according to their own ideology without regard for the Preamble goals and ideals.

What I don’t understand is, why you would expect anything more from a politicized Supreme Court?

Phil- the reason I think you are incorrect is that the three justices who dissented in this case explicitely said they would NOT vote for this law (which I think was a rather terrible thing to say- but its right there at the end of the dissent in the link I put up). Meanwhile, I am pretty confident that at least 2 or 3 of the liberal justices would support legalized pot medicinal purposes. So while maybe Scalia’s decision to vote with the majority was driven, in part, by his dislike of legalized pot- I think the ideology of the other 8 justices here is about federal power, not about pot.

p.s. I agree that pot should be legalized

Question for those of you who advocate legalizing pot.

Define legalize.. Do you mean legalize the purchase of it as a prescription drug.
or,
Legalize it to be sold in convenience stores, or in bulk at Sam’s Club, or
Legalize it so that anyone can use it recreationally, or
Legalize it so that you can walk down the street smoking it, etc

Will people who are using it for illness be issued special permits so that they can be identified from the recreational users.

When legalized will pot be sold in a way similar to the way cigarettes are sold now or, will you have to roll your own.

Can pot be advertised in public places when legal. Will it be taxed the same way as other tobacco products?

Finally, if packaged, will there be a warning from the surgeon general about it’s use. If so, I doubt that the sick and/or terminally ill users will care very much.

If someone would ask me what I would like to be when pot is legalized I would say “the first lawyer to act on behalf of the first claimant that the pot usage caused them irreperable damage.

David,
Excellent replies. Every single one.

steve smith:
“If someone would ask me what I would like to be when pot is legalized I would say “the first lawyer to act on behalf of the first claimant that the pot usage caused them irreperable damage.”

I believe you’d be losing that case Mr. Smith, because Marijuana usage cannot possibly cause irreparable damage unless it is seriously *abused*. Therein lies an enormous difference. Drugs prescribed by doctors, painkillers such as Percodan or Vicodan are far more addictive and have many more side affects than MJ. Indeed, I think that’s why so many conservatives hate marijuana — because they can’t get a patent on it or think of a way to make any money out of it — it’s just this perfect, hearty, easily grown, plant that is a gift to mankind direct from Nature — that eases pain and suffering and increases appetite with only a temporary impairment of short term memory as a side affect.

Adrienne,

Your background in medicine, horticulture, and as a naturalist and marketer of nature’s remedy products is impressive.

You failed however to address a single point in my post, the theme of which was legalization of pot.

By your own admission pot can be abused. It increases appetite (is this called the “hungries” by most users) and, has short term memory side affects.

According to a few of my friends in law enforcement and drug rehab they have virtually never come across a user of major narcotics (heroin, cocaine, etc.) that didn’t start with pot.

That said, I would be very interested in your responses to the legalization questions in my post.

Steve,

“According to a few of my friends in law enforcement and drug rehab they have virtually never come across a user of major narcotics (heroin, cocaine, etc.) that didn’t start with pot.”

And most pot users start with alcohol, and most alcoholics start with cigarettes. Should we ban those, too?

I’m not sure I’d advocate legalizing marijuana, but considering that its effects are about on par with those of alcohol, I see little reason why one should be illegal while the other advertised during football games.

steve smith, I love your friends argument about addicts all having started with pot. Now, ask them if all those addicts also started with aspirin, alcohol, or nyquil before graduating to harder drugs. Also, ask how many had had sex prior to doing harder drugs, you know that leads to all kinds of bad things.

Truly a humorous argument.

“Adrienne,
Your background in medicine, horticulture, and as a naturalist and marketer of nature’s remedy products is impressive.”

:^D I know you meant to be sarcastic, but this is actually very funny and weirdly coincidental.
It so happens that I come from a very long descending line of women herbalists/homeopathic healers from the Highlands of Scotland, and since the 1930’s, of America, too — since my Gran practiced here when she came to this country, and my Dad is also a doctor. As for horticulture, I must tell you that one of my earliest memories is learning how to pull weeds with my Gran in her fantastically beautiful garden.
Though I’m not a professional herbalist/healer as she was, or a doctor like my father, I learned quite a bit from both of them about medicine, horticulture, and nature, so you were really not very far off the mark - except for the part where I’m a marketeer of herbal remedies.
Truth is, I can make quite a few of them for myself and others from the old recipes, but I’d never think to sell them. Truly effective herbal treatments don’t have a very long shelf-life, they’re usually better made fresh and to-order for the patient using health, weight and age as the guideline, then carefully taken according to the directions of a skilled herbalist.

“You failed however to address a single point in my post, the theme of which was legalization of pot.”

I’m all for it. So was my Gran when she was alive, who always grew some MJ in her garden for her clients who needed to ease the pain of a degenerative illness, or when they had to undergo radiation treatments or chemotherapy.

“By your own admission pot can be abused.”

Of course. But then, almost anything can be abused. It’s part of human nature to sometimes go overboard with substances, don’t you think? Even Vitamins from A to Zinc can be abused.
Personally, I’m a firm believer in the old adage: Everything in moderation — including moderation.

“It increases appetite (is this called the “hungries” by most users)”

That’d be “the munchies” in my neck o’ the woods.

“and, has short term memory side affects.”

That are merely temporary.

“According to a few of my friends in law enforcement and drug rehab they have virtually never come across a user of major narcotics (heroin, cocaine, etc.) that didn’t start with pot.”

And I’d be willing to bet it didn’t — most likely it began at their parents liquor cabinet when nobody was home. The urge for teens to alter their reality and consciousness is a powerful one. But the truth is usually only kids with serious problems of various sorts or those with addictive personalities travel on until they reach the dead end of hard drugs.

“That said, I would be very interested in your responses to the legalization questions in my post.”

Okay.
“Define legalize.. Do you mean legalize the purchase of it as a prescription drug.”

Yes.

“or,
Legalize it to be sold in convenience stores”

No. In liquor stores, I think. Only twenty-one and older may purchase.

“or in bulk at Sam’s Club,”

Nah. Why make the Walmart Clan any more money than they already have? Besides, they’d probably start growing it in China and paying the growers and pickers the pathetic equivalent of a dollar a day.

“or
Legalize it so that anyone can use it recreationally,”

Why not? But they shouldn’t be allowed to drive while under the influence - just like with drinking.

“or
Legalize it so that you can walk down the street smoking it, etc”

No. But maybe they could do so in a club or something, like they do in Amsterdam.

“Will people who are using it for illness be issued special permits so that they can be identified from the recreational users.”

If legalized across the board, that would be kind of unnecessary, wouldn’t it? If it is legalized for medicinal purposes alone, yes, I suppose that might be a good idea to have a permit one could show to law enforcement when and where necessary.

“When legalized will pot be sold in a way similar to the way cigarettes are sold now or, will you have to roll your own.”

Either way. Pre-rolled or loose for those who prefer a pipe, just like tobacco.

“Can pot be advertised in public places when legal.”

If it goes by a name brand, I guess it could, but it would fall under the same restrictions as tobacco and liquor.

“Will it be taxed the same way as other tobacco products?”

Absolutely — unless one grew their own, of course.

“Finally, if packaged, will there be a warning from the surgeon general about it’s use.”

Sure, why not? No opperating of heavy machinery or driving while under the influence. Not a good idea for pregnant women. Potentially cancer causing if smoked in ridiculously humongous quantities.

“If so, I doubt that the sick and/or terminally ill users will care very much.”

Right, instead they’ll feel only an immense amount of gratitude.

>>According to a few of my friends in law enforcement and drug rehab they have virtually never come across a user of major narcotics (heroin, cocaine, etc.) that didn’t start with pot.>>

A very small amount of pot smokers go onto harder drugs. Part of the problem for those who do is that they were lied to in DARE about marijuana. When they try it they realize that it didn’t ruin their life and that they were lied to. So naturally they believe that if they were lied to about marijuana then they also must have been lied to about cocaine, heroin, and other hard drugs so they are more willing to try it. If programs like DARE were more honest from the start there would be less people who use marijuana as a “gateway” drug.

Adrienne, great replies above, very common sensical IMO.

I would debate you however, on one point. Back in the 60’s and 70’s, I smoked pot a couple times per week. Then I got to college. Having been an all A student previously, I was perplexed for two semesters as to why some particular courses like calculus and managerial accounting were giving me such fits and getting me a D and a C.

At the end of the 2nd semester, a friend I confided in said look at those two courses. They require so much rule memorization and formula memorization which is a different learning strategy than reasoning with language like my philosophy courses. I immediately recognized that the pot was probably the cause as well as my new penchant for never being able to find my keys.

By the 4th semester I stopped smoking altogether, and found all my problem courses grades improving significantly. I ended up with only B’s in the math oriented courses because of the weakened foundation in my advanced algebra and calc. courses earlier. But with a lot of catch up work, I pulled it out.

I also saw a number of acquaintances back then who smoked almost daily, living lives of maintenance. They maintained their job, but, as long as I knew them they didn’t advance toward any of their goals, and some of them just dropped their goals from consciousness.

Because of these personal experiences I would not advocate legalization of commercial sales of MJ except for Rx prescription use. I would, because I believe in individual liberty, decriminalize personal growing and use in private. I would keep it illegal to transport more than an ounce at a time, as well as keep it illegal to publicly consume it, or sell it without a medical license. I would legalize the sale of seeds by licensed resellers only to those over 21 and only in very small amounts.

To me this is a moderate approach which only moderately infringes upon individual freedom, eliminates obstacles to medical useage, and keeps it difficult and not without consequence for young people and black marketeers from abusing the limited decriminalization.

Phil, if buyers of MJ were not forced by law to buy it from peddlers who also sell the harder much more addictive drugs, the gateway would be closed by something like 90% of its current wide open position.

Adrienne,

Thanks for the background information. Having that helps me understand your advocacy and support of legalizing marijuana. I am very sorry that your Gran is no longer living but I am quite certain that your Dad is very proud of you for taking a strong position on an issue and advocating in it’s favor.

Also I appreciate your opinions regarding the legalization issues I posed. I especially like the idea of using it in clubs like in Amsterdam because then we could begin lobbying for legalizing prostitution nationwide so we can double our pleasure and double our fun.(Like the Doublemint Gum twins).

David Remer,

It is always refreshing to have humor injected into a discussion. I applaud your timing and examples.

Rob Cottrell,

“And most pot users start with alcohol, and most alcoholics start with cigarettes. Should we ban those, too?”

Excellent analagy Rob. My answer would have to be no because I am not opposed to banning things that are already legal. Don’t mis-understand I am not necessarilly taking a position in favor of alchohol or cigarettes, just making a point for my acceptance of rights to use products that are legal.

All I have to say is, “Do what ya gotta do but, BACK THE HELL UP OFF ME ABOUT MY CIGARETTES WOULD YA!!!!”

The large deficit is another reason to legalize it. Think of this as a bake sale for the federal government.

“Ironically, the Supreme Court ruling follows a study by Harvard professor Jeffrey Miron recommending that the U.S. legalize and tax marijuana (prohibitioncosts.org). Endorsed by some 500 economists, including Milton Friedman, the report noted the high cost of marijuana prohibition — about $7.7 billion annually — and the boon to the economy that an estimated $6.2 billion per year in taxes would provide.”

One of my biggest problems with the prohibition of marijuana is that it creates crimes that otherwise would not have existed if it were legal. Lets say a seller fronts $600 worth of marijuana and the buyer decides not to pay the seller back. The buyer could very well be shot or attacked for this, since the seller can’t contact the authorities and take the legal route. If a Budweiser distributer does not get paid he takes the customer to court with a contract and their is no violence. If two inner city drug dealers are trying to sell on the same corner their will likely be violence. I’ve never heard of Miller distributors getting violent with Budweiser distributors over who gets to sell at a particular bar. There are so many other examples of violence that could’ve been avoided if there was no marijuana prohibition.

David: “Having been an all A student previously, I was perplexed for two semesters as to why some particular courses like calculus and managerial accounting were giving me such fits and getting me a D and a C.”

That’s interesting, David. I had the same problem, but I didn’t smoke pot, or drink, or do drugs of any sort (except caffiene). I wonder if that didn’t have something to do with the transition from high school to college more than substance abuse.

phil: “One of my biggest problems with the prohibition of marijuana is that it creates crimes that otherwise would not have existed if it were legal.”

High Demand + Prohibition = Black Market

How much organized crime could we do away with in this country by simply legalizing drugs and prostitution? Sure, we’d have a lot more people dying of overdoses, but a lot fewer dying on the street of bullet wounds.

OK, the Supreme Court has said using marijuana for medicinal purposes is ILLEGAL. Since recreational use of it has always been ILLEGAL this now means using it at all is ILLEGAL.

Currently we seem to have people who are :
(a) in favor of legalizing it with restricted
application
(b) in favor of legalizing with relatively
unrestricted application
(c) against legalizing it at all
(d) whatever else

Debate has taken place as to the relative harmlessness of it when compared with actual prescription drugs, having no worse an impact than alchohol, great need of it for seriously ill people as a pain reliever, econmic infusion through taxing it, and so on.

Now, unless I am badly mistaken legalizing it now requires Supreme Court intervention and approval. They probably will have to look at it in two segments ; 1) for medicinal purposes and 2) for recreational use. In any case, they have to overturn a decision they just made and, overturn one that has existed forever.

Understandably nobody who is presently using it is going to stop. For all those who wish to make honest people out of themselves so to speak and legalize it, what is your next step. What action do you propose and, how long do you think it will take.

Steve, or Congress can pass a law that fully or partially legalizes for any purposes it deems fit. The S.C.’s only basis for upholding its illegal status is personal/political motives AND the Drug Laws passed by Congress. If Congress reverses, then Court has no legal basis for objecting.

Steve,

The Supreme Court simply ruled that the Federal law trumps state laws in this case. Changing things would be as simple as changing the federal law.

Rob said: ” I wonder if that didn’t have something to do with the transition from high school to college more than substance abuse.”

No, I had already made that transition in junior college for a year with A’s. It was indeed impaired ability to retain memorized formulas. I was trying to reason through calculus because I couldn’t hang on to the parameters of application for the many various calculus formulas. Later on, it was a piece of cake. Also, in high school, while smoking, I had trouble with German and Latin. In my last two years of college, I got through 3 semesters of Spanish without any problem. Pero, ahora, mi Espanol es muy mal. But that’s from gray hair, not substance use. :-)

David and Rob,

It’s a relief to know that it is a simple matter of changing the Federal law.

Once again I am uninformed, I did not realize the simplicity of changing Federal law. Also I was unaware that “The Supreme Court’s only basis for upholding its illegal status is personal/political motives AND the Drug Laws passed by Congress. If Congress reverses then Court has no legal basis for objecting.” The irony in all of this is it’s simplicity. I suggest that you advocates start the process immediately.

David:
“I would debate you however, on one point. Back in the 60’s and 70’s, I smoked pot a couple times per week. Then I got to college. Having been an all A student previously, I was perplexed for two semesters as to why some particular courses like calculus and managerial accounting were giving me such fits and getting me a D and a C.”

I know exactly what you mean — pot has always made me overly stupid too. I myself avoided smoking it almost completely (summers only) while in college because it impaired my ability to retain the necessary info being covered in some of my more challenging classes. However, it seems very obvious to me that some people are much more sensitive to the effects of marijuana when it comes to short term memory and overall brain functioning than others are.
I say this because I had some friends who smoked tons of the stuff daily, and yet, still aced all of their math and math-involved science classes.
I believe that like other mind and mood altering substances, response to MJ varies from individual to individual and that people should try to be cognizant of what happens to them personally when they use it (just as you and I did), especially when they’re trying their hardest to retain knowledge while in school — or anywhere else.

You make very good points in the rest of your post, but I’m afraid I have to say, I still think MJ should be entirely legal for adult useage, because I’ve never gone along with the idea that our government can outlaw such a completely non-addictive and medicinally beneficial plant that grows naturally everywhere simply because they wish to dictate morality to Americans.

BTW, our founding fathers grew tons of hemp because it is an excellently useful crop, and I strongly suspect that some of them may well have smoked MJ too, since both are very closely related varieties of the Cannabis sativa plant. And let’s face it, many of those guys were known for being brilliant and open-minded free thinkers (and sometimes envelope-pushers, as well) in their Age of Enlightenment! ;^)

Steve Smith:
“I am very sorry that your Gran is no longer living but I am quite certain that your Dad is very proud of you for taking a strong position on an issue and advocating in it’s favor.”

Yes. Both of them were/are proud that they managed to raise a child that has the ability to question authority, the intelligence to reason, and the gumption to speak her mind without fear — just as they did/do.

“I especially like the idea of using it in clubs like in Amsterdam because then we could begin lobbying for legalizing prostitution nationwide so we can double our pleasure and double our fun.(Like the Doublemint Gum twins).”

Well Steve, while you’re busy day-dreaming of all the fun you might have with a couple of minty-scented lookalikes, I’d like to point out that the numbers of people spreading AIDS and other sexually communicable diseases could be easily lowered by the mandatory testing that would surely be involved in the process of legalizing prostitution.

>>>High Demand + Prohibition = Black Market

How much organized crime could we do away with in this country by simply legalizing drugs and prostitution? Sure, we’d have a lot more people dying of overdoses, but a lot fewer dying on the street of bullet wounds.>>>

I dont think that all drugs should be legalized. Marijuana should though. Drugs like cocaine and heroin are a real danger. Marijuana is not. A person can’t overdose from smoking marijuana. It is more harmless than alchohol. One night of binge drinking can lead to death if the person vomits in their sleep. You can smoke marijuana all night long and you wont even have a hangover in the morning.

“The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 701 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by Russia (606), Belarus (554), Kazakhstan and the Virgin Islands (both 522), the Cayman Islands (501), Turkmenistan (489), Belize (459), Bermuda (447), Suriname (437), Dominica (420) and Ukraine (415).”

“The BJS report provides data from the 1997 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities.[3] According to the report, 12.9% of the drug prisoners in state prison and 18.9% of those in federal prison were incarcerated for marijuana/hashish offenses. The report uses the numbers 216,254 and 55,069 as the total numbers of state and federal inmates, respectively, for all drug offenses. Using these numbers, the total number of people incarcerated for marijuana offenses would be 27,900 in state prison and 10,400 in federal prison, for a total of 38,300 marijuana prisoners.”

With all these people in jail for marijuana offenses it is no wonder that the US has the highest prison population in the world. Peoples lives are being ruined because of prohibition.

Nixon was the one who started “the war on drugs”. He is nothing more than a rabble-rouser. He played on peoples fears, who believed the myhts and distorions, in order to get elected. As part of the war on drugs the federal government offered more funds to local and state agencies in return for an increase in arrests. Many police agencies go through budget crises so this was enticing for them even if they didnt necessarilly agree with it since they could now afford to hire more people and purchase equipment that they needed.

http://www.leap.cc/
go to audio/video section of this website and listen to what former officers have to say about the war on drugs.

Adrienne,

I have only two points with respect to legalizing prostitution :

[1] the taxes generated would probably far exceed
those generated from legalized pot
[2] the mandatory testing would be a simple
matter to address [note]

[note] “simple” is now an acceptable term to describe the ease of accomplishing change, even at the Congressional and Supreme Court levels.

BTW, one would expect far more enjoyment for “minty scented lookalikes”.

Adrienne, excellent point you make about the differing effects THC has on people. Probably follows a bell curve, where most people react similarly but smaller numbers react differently, with even a few whose performance on all measures is enhanced, depending on doseage of course.

I simply worry about the research that demonstrates more potent and deleterious effects on maturing brains. If it were entirely legal, its prevalence in society would make it a virtual hurdleless recreation for teens and preteens. Research of late has discovered, contrary to previous popular belief, that the human brain continues to develop and mature well into the early 20’s.

Those years from birth to mid 20’s are in more need of the sharpest and most acute faculties than probably any other stage of life, due to inexperience, trial and error, and bravado that comes from the false sense of immortality. Teens have far too disproportionately their share of car accidents without easy access to pot. I fear such consequences would be compounded if pot were easily, affordably, and readily available.

Of course, when I was 16 you would not have heard such a sacreligious argument from me. But, now that I have a 14 year old daughter, the hypocrite has got the best of me. :-)

>>>Those years from birth to mid 20’s are in more need of the sharpest and most acute faculties than probably any other stage of life, due to inexperience, trial and error, and bravado that comes from the false sense of immortality. Teens have far too disproportionately their share of car accidents without easy access to pot. I fear such consequences would be compounded if pot were easily, affordably, and readily available.>>>

Most teens will tell you that it is easier to get marijuana than alchohol. If marijuana were regualted and sold to adults of legal age it would be more difficult for teenagers to get their hands on it since there would be fewer dealers and the profit motive for dealers would be eliminated. Marijuana has almost no value on its own, but when it becomes illegal its price skrockets - a gram of good marijuana is worth twice as much as a gram of gold! It would be the same as an adult who buys alchohol for teens for profit; no one does this because it is not profitable.

Steve Smith:
“I have only two points with respect to legalizing prostitution :”

Hmm. I am very tempted say something very funny but rather crude — but I won’t! Instead, I’ll be lady-like and demure and say nothing…

“[1] the taxes generated would probably far exceed
those generated from legalized pot”

I believe you’re right there.

“[2] the mandatory testing would be a simple
matter to address [note]
[note] “simple” is now an acceptable term to describe the ease of accomplishing change, even at the Congressional and Supreme Court levels.”

Well, it might not be simple task getting every prostitute in the country to go for mandatory health testing, but if even half would do so, it’d be a really positive thing, yes?
Also with legalization there is always the chance that it would cut drastically down on the creepy incidence of seeing bizarre, clownishly dressed prostitutes teetering around on five inch heels in the pitch darkness of run-down urban neighborhoods. Maybe instead, the vast majority would actually choose to ply their trade off the street.

“BTW, one would expect far more enjoyment for “minty scented lookalikes”.”

You mean more than Double? ;^)

David,

I agree with what phil said. I believe it is already extremely easy for kids to buy marijuana whenever they want to, just like it was when we were teens.

“Of course, when I was 16 you would not have heard such a sacreligious argument from me. But, now that I have a 14 year old daughter, the hypocrite has got the best of me. :-)”

:^) I believe most people are forced to become a little bit hypocritical if they want to be good parents.

Phil and Adrienne, excellent point! And the logic of it is inescapeable. Legalizing it would make it harder for teens to acquire. Who wants to face a year in prison for 2 bucks?

Adrienne,

Also there are indicators that legalizing marijuana and prostitution for that matter will cut down on certain crimes.

Lest us not forget that for every commodity of this nature that is legal, a secondary source of acquiring it is always lurking and operating in the shadows.

Phil and David,

Legalizing pot will not make it any more difficult for teens to get, just more expensive.

>>Lest us not forget that for every commodity of this nature that is legal, a secondary source of acquiring it is always lurking and operating in the shadows.

Phil and David,

Legalizing pot will not make it any more difficult for teens to get, just more expensive.>>

How would it be more expensive and easier for teenagers to get? Could you please elaborate.

It is illegal right now and it easier for them to get it than it is for them to get alchohol. If it was sold through stores I dont think that people would continue to buy from dealers and as a result the only people who would be able to supply a teenager with marijuana would be an older brother or sister. If it became legal the drop in price would make it not very profitable from a dealers standpoint. Right now it has an artificially high price because the dealer bears a risk by selling it to a user.

This is offtopic, but still needs to be considered - it would be safer if it were sold in a store. You wouldn’t have to worry about getting robbed, having a confrontation over a short bag, or buying a bag that is laced with a more dangerous drug. If it was sold through stores you would know exactly what you were getting.

steve smith, you are missing the supply and demand dynamics of legalization. Currently with all the busts the feds are so proud of releasing to the press, 500 lbs. here, 1500 lbs. there, there is an artificial constraint on supply. Demand is a little trickier to measure, but considering that in the ‘60’s a $10 bag was one ounce, and today an ounce goes for what? $140 or so. That is 1400% inflation since the ‘60’s. So demand exceeds supply as evidenced by the inflationary pressure on price.

Now, legalize it and what happens? Supply becomes a non-issue, but access becomes a huge issue, since the penalties for selling pot to minors would certainly be stiffer than buying them alcohol in most states. So, there won’t be very many adults willing to go down for 5 at the pen for a few bucks profit. Demand would not increase significantly since employers would retain the right to test and fire employees for showing up under the influence.

In addition, the black marketeers are deprived of a product that once reaped huge profit margins in a virtual oligopoly of price fixing. The production and distribution price drops like a rock, but the feds and states tax the hell out of it like they do all “sinful” activities, therefore the price remains up near levels it is currently at.

So, the net result of legalization is that the price does not change much, access is regulated and buyers are disconnected from dealers of more addictive and harmful substances. Kids will be more likely to obtain pot from their parent’s stash than from a stranger, because the pedaling penalties to minors will be steep. Hence, less availability of pot to minors in the long run as parents and family will become the primary source for youth and the number of parents and family taking the risk will be far less than the number of dealers on the streets today who don’t have a vested interest in the health and welfare of their underage buyers.

Lastly, there is the revenue from taxation which will more than pay for rigid policing of legalization laws, plus some significant reduction in our prison and jail populations.

At worst it looks like an outcome no worse than what exists today, and at best, it could result in much tighter access by youth, increased sin tax revenues, and possibly an overall reduction in the number of people who use MJ on a regular basis.

I am not in favor of general legalization, all in favor of decriminalizing its use for adults, but, having considered Phil’s and Adrienne’s comments, I am no longer as concerned about the downside of legalization.

Phil,

You have mis-stated my quote. I did not say it would be easier to get, I said it would be no more difficult to get.

Selling legalized marijuana through stores will carry with it age compliance (just as alchohol). Anytime you have something legal that exempts a group (teens being an enormous group) you create a network of secondary source suppliers. Since many if not most of this network already exists and is comprised of individuals who for a variety of reasons do not wish to call law enforcements attention to themselves, they will carry on as before.

The point that marijuana would be legal, it would still be illegal to sell it to those not meeting the requirement. This makes the “street dealer” a huge part of the equation.

David,

Supply is an issue. Access to the inventory will be by licensed dealers only. The “street dealers” will create their own supply chain. And, trust me, marijuana will never be in short supply. Since throngs of people will not be able to buy it through legal means, the street dealers will set prices high (maybe lower at the outset to set the hook).

You grossly underestimate the devious mind and method of the “criminal” entepreneur. In my opinion you who advocate for legalization are looking at this through rose colored glasses.

I realize that you are not going to change your position on this issue (nor will I) but with all due respect I encourage you to revisit your stated reasons for legalization advocacy.

steve, there will always be a black market. But, it will shrink for MJ if MJ is legalized. And the gov’t. can adjust the taxes to insure that black market sales of MJ are not profitable, hence, virtually ending the black market supply and distribution.

steve smith:
“Selling legalized marijuana through stores will carry with it age compliance (just as alchohol). Anytime you have something legal that exempts a group (teens being an enormous group) you create a network of secondary source suppliers. Since many if not most of this network already exists and is comprised of individuals who for a variety of reasons do not wish to call law enforcements attention to themselves, they will carry on as before.”

I don’t agree, steve. I think it would be much as phil said earlier — that there would be far fewer marijuana dealers and that the profit motive for dealers that currently get rich off of selling an illegal substance would be almost completely eliminated.
For instance, look what happened during Prohibition - those taking the chance of selling illegal alcohol were making a fortune off of everyone (it also helped to usher in a violent era of organized gangsters). But after they repealed it, most of those people disappeared, while the really evil guys of course, immediately turned to other illegal ways of making their fortunes — just as they always do and always will.
Also, I don’t think you’re quite grasping a very important cultural and societal aspect of this issue. For a large numbers of people, the very idea of MJ being illegal is a huge part of the excitement of using it - this is especially true of the immature teenager.
How exciting is marijuana going to seem if a kids Grandfather can score some whenever he wants to? Or if they begin to view it as an altruistic, legally approved substance - medicine for people who have serious degenerative illnesses, cancer, or AIDS? Honestly, I think those kind of things will make MJ a lot less sexy to those who view smoking it as a hip and rebellious act.
And I am speaking from experience here. Because I grew up seeing my Gran giving MJ away practically for free to sick people to use as a pain medication, sneaking around to smoke it was never the big deal it seemed to be to so many of my kidhood friends.

“You grossly underestimate the devious mind and method of the “criminal” entepreneur. In my opinion you who advocate for legalization are looking at this through rose colored glasses.”

Wrong. There is the fact that people are going to jail for no bloody good reason simply because of cheap, easily grown and virtually harmless substance that has the power to help sick people stay off pharmaceutical painkillers and lead a better quality of life. The folks who go to jail aren’t generally criminal-types, they have their lives ruined for nothing, and all our taxes have gone up as a result.
I consider this sheer idiocy of the highest order.

Any literate person with a closet, dirt, and electricity (for grow-lamps) can grow pot. The problem for the gov’t is that it can’t be taxed any differently than moonshine and dealers won’t make any real profit on it. Nobody but the consumer would “win.” As far as being dangerous: as George Carlin put it, it’s a self limiting drug. You either grow out of it, or it’s just part of your addictive personality.
True story: 30+ years ago I dumped a roach out the back of my parents house. Imagine my surprise when a little while later there were plants in my back yard. “What’s this weed” my Mom asked as she pulled it. Hard not to laugh then, but phew, her not knowing saved my ass. I could have gone to jail (if the cops found it), and I didn’t have to deal with Dad (not an easy choice between the 2). But it is that easy to grow and I’m no worse off because of my short time with it.

It’s actually safer to drive under the influence of marijuana than under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol makes you drive erratically; pot just makes you drive reeeaaaallllyyyy, reeeeaaaalllyyy sssslllooowwwww…. :-)

(My brother once got pulled over for doing 25 in a 65 zone while stoned.)

Rob,
Your brother??? It is amazing how fast trees can move …

The underlying issue of states and federal rights is important, and the medicinal benefits of marijuana is important too, but we could probably choose our battles a bit better.

Once, when I lived in the country in Illinios (1972), there several acres growing in a field right across the street. We didn’t even know it until we saw different cars stopping occassionally and carrying away some stalks (about 7 feet high). The police found out, and came out, and burned it down.

d.a.n.

You’re something of a libertarian. Do you think fighting these battles would detract enough from BushCo’s energies to help defeat some of their other nefarious schemes?

Was that field a legitimate farm where someone dumped some seeds at the edge? What right would the police have had to burn down someones crops (properties) legal or otherwise without due process?

Dave,

Nope. d.a.n may be something, but not a libertarian, or belonging to any party. Used to be Republican, but not anymore. It finally occurred to me that the two main parties are a big part of the problem in this country. In fact, from now on, I’m voting only for non-incumbents and non-main-party-candidates. Labels and parties are now just another of the many things used to distract voters from the fact that government is failing us (i.e. partisan politics, parties, platforms, religion, wealth, race, affirmative action, gender, etc.). Democrats and Republicans, mostly just take turns at office doing nothing mostly, because they don’t want to risk re-election by addressing any serious problems. Too often, Congress and the Executive Branch are occupied with irritating each other and voting against each other’s bill, just for spite (regardless of the merit of a bill…unless it’s got a lot of pork-barrel and graft in it, or it’s time to vote themselves a raise).

What proof is there of this? The proof is that these many pressing problems are not being addressed, haven’t been for a long time, and they’re growing worse as government grows bigger and bigger.

Anyway, I’m not belittling the topic, but, yes (to your question), this battle may indeed detract from some more important battles and pressing issues.

About that farm…I worked on the farm of the guy that owned the field. He said he didn’t know pot was growing in the field either. No one was charged with any crime. The police burned it because it was illegal. The owner had no problem with it.

David and Adrienne,

You and I disagree. Each of our positions (at least those aired in this thread)are opinions. Hard Facts (what few might be ferreted out) cannot really be substantiated since the recordkeeping does not include everyone who may be involved in the growth, cultivation, processing, transport, consumption, sale, use and derived benefit or harm as a result of use.

Adrienne,

You are reaching deep when you start coming up with stuff like the excitement and illegality of MJ is an inticement for it’s use, kids being excited that their Grandfathers are scoring it and, it being idiotic to prosecute lawbreakers.

This is a total impasse.

I believe your argument/example referencing Prohibition is not applicable for a variety of reasons since that deals with a product that was legal had it’s legal network of supply and demand established prior to the ban.

Also, before Prohibition, there was not a vast network of teenagers buying alchohol on the black market, people needing alchohol for medicinal purposes, etc. It is a bogus example.

Most people are unaware of this, but states expect individuals to pay taxes for marijuana even though it is illegal.

http://marijuanastamps.com/state-stamps.htm

To look at different stamps go to the bottom of the page where there is a drop down menu. Utah’s stamp also has a 5 or 6 page explanation of the tax law that you can zoom in and view. Supposably you are able to purchase these anonomyously so that you won’t be targeted. This is another one of those laws that leaves you scratching your head. Why would a person choose to pay taxes on it when they can be arrested for it? Also how illegal can it really be if you are able to pay taxes for it?

Legalizing Cannabis (a.k.a. marijuana) solves this whole problem…

I agree 100%.

I don’t know the exact process for legalizing it but I am assuming that some Congressman would have to sponsor a bill. Finding one who is willing to have his name associated with such a groundbreaking effort should be very simple.

If MJ is legalized would you be able to smoke it just anywhere, or would cigarette bans apply to that also?

steve smith:
“Each of our positions (at least those aired in this thread)are opinions. Hard Facts (what few might be ferreted out) cannot really be substantiated since the recordkeeping does not include everyone who may be involved in the growth, cultivation, processing, transport, consumption, sale, use and derived benefit or harm as a result of use.”

My opinion on the medicinal useage of marijuana by sick people and it’s relatively benign affects on adult recreational users isn’t based merely upon what my grandmother has told me, or what I have experienced, or what I have witnessed with my own eyes — but upon SOLID FACTS.
I have no idea whatsoever what your opinion might be based upon, other than the belief that it’s an oh-so-terrible thing for people to break “the law” — even when that law is based upon outright idiocy, and an unreasonable prejudice against a harmless, naturally growing plant.

Furthermore, my opinions on the medicinal use of marijuana are well backed-up by groups and organizations such as:
The Institute of Medicine,
The American Academy of Family Physicians
The American Public Health Association
The American Society of Addiction Medicine
The AIDS Action Council
Kaiser Permanente
The Lymphoma Foundation of America
The Multiple Sclerosis Action Network
The National Association of People with AIDS
The National Nurses Society on Addictions
The New England Journal of Medicine
The American Bar Association
The National Association of Attorneys General
Many other State organizations
And various health organizations all around the World.

Many others have stated favorable positions, and have unimpeded research on medical marijuana.
These include:
The Institute of Medicine
The American Cancer Society
The American Medical Association
The Federation of American Scientists
And The National Academy of Sciences

When you throw out a statement like “harm as a result of use” you do nothing more than demonstrate your complete ignorance of this topic.
Marijuana is NOT HARMFUL.
That this is true and actual fact was backed up very eloquently and completely in 1988 by the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young, who said:
“Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known. The provisions of the Controlled Substances Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance.”
And:
“In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.”

Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, “In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition,” [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988) p. 57.

As for the rest of your post — Whatever.

Adrienne,

I commend you on your listing of the groups and organizations who backup your point on the medicinal use of marijuana by sick people.

You are using tunnel vision when you say :

“When you throw out a statement like “harm as a result of use” you do nothing more than demonstrate your complete ignorance of this topic.
Marijuana is NOT HARMFUL.”

You have assumed my reference to “harm” meant only physical harm when in fact my point all along has focused on the potential criminal aspects of legalization. NOT ONCE HAVE I SAID MARIJUANA IS BAD FOR YOU. I HAVE SAID IT IS ILLEGAL.

“Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.”

I think the key phrase here is “can be safely used within the supervised routine of MEDICAL CARE.

“I have no idea whatsoever what your opinion might be based upon, other than the belief that it’s an oh-so-terrible thing for people to break “the law” — even when that law is based upon outright idiocy, and an unreasonable prejudice against a harmless, naturally growing plant.”

Congratulations, here you show your disdain for the law.

“As for the rest of your post — Whatever”

You only responded to only a very minor part of my post which was not even mentioned (but alluded to as an issue)that had appeared elsewhere which is the LEGALIZATION of marijuana.
I would like to see your responses to the balance of my “whatever” post.

It would seem that you have selected the only part of the marijuana issue that you know something about and/or are concerned with and that is whether or not sick people should be able to use it which to me is your back door way of advocating it for everyone.

BTW if you had bothered to read a few other posts you would see that I agreed 100% with zeek that it should be legalized.

Here is that post so you don’t have to look for it.

“I agree 100%.

I don’t know the exact process for legalizing it but I am assuming that some Congressman would have to sponsor a bill. Finding one who is willing to have his name associated with such a groundbreaking effort should be very simple.”

Posted by: steve smith at June 9, 2005 06:13 PM

Traci,

If MJ is legalized would you be able to smoke it just anywhere, or would cigarette bans apply to that also?

Second hand smoke from marijuana is not hazardous to the health of others… so it probably wouldn’t apply.

Adrienne,

Marijuana is NOT HARMFUL.

For the most part, this is true. However, marijuana users have a tendency to acquire psychosis and have a risk of getting schizophrenia 7 times that of your average person. Also, prolonged usage eats away at the euphoric effects of THC and eventually causes more depression than happiness.

But hey, if alchol and tobacco are legal, why not cannabis, eh?

steve smith:
“You have assumed my reference to “harm” meant only physical harm when in fact my point all along has focused on the potential criminal aspects of legalization. NOT ONCE HAVE I SAID MARIJUANA IS BAD FOR YOU. I HAVE SAID IT IS ILLEGAL.”

You said that “hard facts could not be substantiated from”:
“use and derived benefit or harm as a result of use.”

Now excuse me if I’m missing whatever point it was you were actually trying to get at, but to me that sounded like you were still debating whether or not marijuana should be considered a substance that is harmful to humans.
I was pointing out that BECAUSE it isn’t harmful, it makes not a single solitary shred of sense for it to be illegal to use, grow, buy, or sell.
If you are throwing this out as a question regarding general usage by the population as recreational drug, the facts have shown that many people find an enormous benefit in marijuana’s ability to relax, de-stress, or calm them, and, as with it’s usage as a medicinal treatment for the sick, use by healthy people does no permanent harm and has few temporary side effects — as long as someone doesn’t go overboard abusing it. In other words, it should be viewed in a way very similar to alcohol useage.

As for the harm from the potential criminal aspects of legalization — why should they be any different from any other product, such as liquor or tobacco, that are currently sold under careful restrictions?
Aside from the benefit and use, you were also concerned about the growth, cultivation, processing, transport, consumption and sale, but no one here seemed to be implying that legalized marijuana should be exempt from any of the laws meant to ensure health and safety, or any other legal stipulations involved in it’s sale — unless and except they grew it at home for their own use, of course.
Surely legalization can’t be any worse than the criminal aspects that surround it’s current sale and use as an illegal substance, can it now?
Especially since it’s so easy to grow, buy, and sell while burdened with an illegal status. And since so many people are going to jail needlessly over buying or selling it, and being treated exactly as if the crime they committed was somehow on a par with those who buy or sell heroin, crack, or methamphetamines. And since the taxpayers have to pay for those people to be in jail for many years. And since they and their families lives are often ruined by it.

“I think the key phrase here is “can be safely used within the supervised routine of MEDICAL CARE.”

Yes, it’s always a good idea if sick people get medical care, but even if they don’t, marijuana isn’t capable of killing anyone.
But what do you think, maybe everyone should have to get a prescription before buying raw potatoes, since they’re more lethally toxic?

“Congratulations, here you show your disdain for the law.”

Thank you. I’ve always been very pleased with my ability to spot utter stupidity — even when it carries a heavy coating of authority and the treacherous threat of an unwarranted penalty.
Fortunately, there are a lot of other American’s who share that kind of spirit, because without people like us, no doubt this country would quickly cease to be the “Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave”.

“I would like to see your responses to the balance of my “whatever” post.”

“Whatever” was my reply to rest of that post. That’s my usual response to when all I get is that I was digging deep, that I had reached a total impasse, that my argument was not applicable for a variety of vague reasons, and that the example I had given was considered bogus.

“It would seem that you have selected the only part of the marijuana issue that you know something about and/or are concerned with and that is whether or not sick people should be able to use it which to me is your back door way of advocating it for everyone.”

No, I never use the backdoor if I don’t have to. I stated unequivocally that I was all for full legalization of marijuana previously.

Zeek:
“For the most part, this is true. However, marijuana users have a tendency to acquire psychosis and have a risk of getting schizophrenia 7 times that of your average person. Also, prolonged usage eats away at the euphoric effects of THC and eventually causes more depression than happiness.”

Yeah, but I’d suspect that someone would have to be a pretty heavy dope smoker for all that to happen. Btw, got a link that study?

“But hey, if alchol and tobacco are legal, why not cannabis, eh?”

Definitely.

Zeek, I would like you to reference that study as well. I don’t believe it for a N.Y. minute as stated. It has been many years since I worked in a state psychiatric facility, but, I sure don’t remember any of the people with schizophrenia having a MJ history. A few had histories of sqeeze, alcohol, glue and syphillis, yes. MJ, nope!

Come to think of it, I never met a schizophrenic patient with a history of LSD use either. I had some friends who experienced psychotic episodes, but, they were fine after a good night’s sleep, or a shot of thorazine.

Reefer Madness still lurks behind every communist socialist plot. I love it.! They even made a musical called Reefer Madness which is airing on DirecTV at this time. Dumb movie, but consider the source! The US Government!

David;

What is “sqeeze”?
I think that the “schizophrenia” reference has to do with the feeling of nervousness users can get under some circumstances. Not a permanent condition, like you said “a good nights sleep.” If they needed thorazine, something else was probably wrong, don’t you think?

Zeek~

My opinion is neither for or against.

But I can say with authority that no-one has gotten cancer from being in a resturaunt with a smoker for an hour or two.(as far as I know there isn’t even a documented case of someone getting cancer secondhand anywhere…..alot of things are genetic which is why people that do not smoke sometimes get cancer and those that smoke their whole lives may not).

With that said I use to live with two girls that smoked pot quite heavily and when I would come home, it would make me dizzy, and light-headed(otherwise known as a contact buzz). So I really think that would go over like a lead balloon in a public forum.

Anyways…thanks for the response!:)

It would appear that with the unparralled enthusiasm indicated by the supporters of legalizing marajuana in this thread alone, combined with the supporting research data at their disposal there is an excellent foundation to launch a campaign to lobby for legalization.

Waiting a minute longer to begin would be an injustice to your zeal.

I will keep a watchful eye as the progress unfolds.

When I see throngs of people wearing Cheech and Chong lapel buttons I will know you are well on your way.

BTW Adrienne, I have enjoyed our spirited debate on this issue. Good Luck on this project.

To all the advocates of legalization: Great comments! Especially Adrienne.

I think the medical marijuana argument is silly. The main fight is to end prohibition. Plain and simple. I think the Controlled Substances Act needs to be repealed. So what if cocaine and heroin have deliterious effects when abused? So does alcohol. You can overdose on heroin, true. But I can legally purchase enough alcohol to fatally overdose me and my dog. There is no justification for prohibition.

I believe your argument/example referencing Prohibition is not applicable for a variety of reasons since that deals with a product that was legal had it’s legal network of supply and demand established prior to the ban.

Do you mean to say marjuana has been illegal since Hammurabi? Or are you trying to point out that marijuana, before it was criminalized, didn’t have any commercial exploiters?

BTW, Misha, great article and arguments.

Hm, the best link I can find right now is here.

In any event, I support legalization of cannabis so there was really no point in me bringing that up…

Zeek,

All that study tells me is that a much, much larger study needs to be done — since it and all others they previously referenced seem to have been riddled with the standard epidemiological problem of needing to measure many other possible confounding factors in order to get a clearer picture and a more solidly reliable statistical analysis.
That said, it also tells me that it is no doubt a very bad idea for children to use marijuana, or for teens to smoke a lot of marijuana (which is something I would never think to advocate), and that people with a family history of psycosis or schizophrenia should probably stay well away from it — unless of course they are dying, and the need for it’s ability as a pain reducer and appetite stimulant would completely override any future risk.
Btw, thanks for providing that link - being the undercover nerd I’ve always been, I really enjoyed reading it!

steve smith:
“BTW Adrienne, I have enjoyed our spirited debate on this issue.”

Yes Steve, I have too.

“Good Luck on this project.”

:^) Where I make my home (Oakland, CA.), medicinal marijuana has been approved by state voters, there are a lot of medicinal marijuana clinics, and the local police very rarely bust anyone for possession — in fact, it is officially considered of lowest priority. So it hasn’t actually needed to be a project of mine — yet. But if things change with the new SC ruling and the feds start harrassing and jailing fatally sick people, or those who might otherwise have to live in chronic and excruciating pain, I may find my conscience will force me to become an activist on this front.

PS. I don’t think I’ve earned my Cheech and Chong merit badge - I’ve never been a big pothead, and the last time I smoked a joint was something like twelve or more years ago.

dave, squeeze is Sterno. Those little cans of fuel you buy for camping trips to heat up food. The petroleum fumes give a very rapid onset high while destroying millions upon millions of brain cells (and liver cells if I recall correctly). It turns 35 year olds into senile dimentia in as little as a year of frequent mis-useage and can cause to onset of a host of other mental illnesses depending upon what parts of the brain are destroyed and in what combination.

Thorazine was the standard treatment for LSD users who were brought to the hospital on bad trips. Worked real fast to end the hallucinations and paranoia.