Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011'

[wkmac]

Ron Paul and Barney Frank or as Lew Rockwell said it "Ron and Barn, The Doobie Brothers" have introduced HR 2306 which doesn't legalize marijuana but it does remove the plant from the federal controlled substances list which then allows states and local jurisdictions to treat the plant as their own cultural and community standards dictate. Which is as it should be!

Here's a piece on the bill.

 

[trplnkl]

Why was marijuana ever placed on the feds list to begin with? What were the motives in such a ban? Having no personal experience with the loco weed, I don't know if it is addictive and/or leads to more powerful and potential life threatening substances. Common sense would indicate that the health implications would be about the same as tobacco. I do know some people will go through some pretty extreme measures to obtain marijuana, including illegal activates. I also know that changing the laws will not make me start smoking the stuff. I am a firm believer that many federal laws infringe on the individual states rights to govern.

 

[wkmac]

Why was marijuana ever placed on the feds list to begin with? What were the motives in such a ban? Having no personal experience with the loco weed, I don't know if it is addictive and/or leads to more powerful and potential life threatening substances. Common sense would indicate that the health implications would be about the same as tobacco. I do know some people will go through some pretty extreme measures to obtain marijuana, including illegal activates. I also know that changing the laws will not make me start smoking the stuff. I am a firm believer that many federal laws infringe on the individual states rights to govern.

Your first question, "why was marijuana made illegal to begin with?" is very hard to answer because there was a multiplicity to the entire issue. You could say and with equal correctness that the issue was:

1) Protect the alcohol industry
2) Protect the pulp industry in regards to paper products
3) Protect textiles (Egypt banned cannabis in the 1890's to protect it's cotton industry)
4) illegal aliens eg Mexicans in the Southwest US
5) temperance movement (fear of sex and violence)
6) other racial strawmen
7) even using it to grow the state and protect one's job or a means of self importance advancement

and I'm sure I left off more.

One you start really looking at the history of it and the people involved, the reasons are so many (major and minor) it can become a bit overwhelming at times. History Channel some time ago had a program on the subject and it's on YouTube broken up into 10 minute segments. It's a good overview and by no means complete or covering all aspects but it is a good place just to consider many of the high (no pun) points of the issue.

Go to YouTube and type in the search box "History Channel-Hooked:Marijuana" and then watch starting at Part 1. (5 parts or a 3 parter in 15 minute segments)

As to it being addictive, not in the true physical sense but I do believe for certain types of people a potential for a psychological addiction to develop is possible. A Gateway Drug? Sure but only if we also agree that beer is a gateway to liquor or normal sex is a gateway to deviant or malicious sex.

 

[trplnkl]

Your first question, "why was marijuana made illegal to begin with?" is very hard to answer because there was a multiplicity to the entire issue. You could say and with equal correctness that the issue was:

1) Protect the alcohol industry
2) Protect the pulp industry in regards to paper products
3) Protect textiles (Egypt banned cannabis in the 1890's to protect it's cotton industry)
4) illegal aliens eg Mexicans in the Southwest US
5) temperance movement (fear of sex and violence)
6) other racial strawmen
7) even using it to grow the state and protect one's job or a means of self importance advancement

and I'm sure I left off more.

One you start really looking at the history of it and the people involved, the reasons are so many (major and minor) it can become a bit overwhelming at times. History Channel some time ago had a program on the subject and it's on YouTube broken up into 10 minute segments. It's a good overview and by no means complete or covering all aspects but it is a good place just to consider many of the high (no pun) points of the issue.

Go to YouTube and type in the search box "History Channel-Hooked:Marijuana" and then watch starting at Part 1. (5 parts or a 3 parter in 15 minute segments)

As to it being addictive, not in the true physical sense but I do believe for certain types of people a potential for a psychological addiction to develop is possible. A Gateway Drug? Sure but only if we also agree that beer is a gateway to liquor or normal sex is a gateway to deviant or malicious sex.

I do know that a couple of my friends in the past(way before my UPS days) seemed to be addicted, I say seemed to be because that was about all the ever talked about. They couldn't wait to get off work so they could get their next high. In fact one of them didn't wait, two to three times a day he would slip out to his car and have a smoke. This guy rolled his with one of those "Laredo" cigarette machines and usually had a half dozen on hand all the time. As far as I know neither of these two ever moved on to harder drugs although I haven't seen or talked to either of them in 10-15 years. Both of these friends were pretty strange people but I have no way of knowing it they were that way due to smoking weed or if they smoked weed because they were strange. I'm guessing now that that was merely coincidence, LOL.
As I said, not having direct personal experience there is a lot I don't know. Over the years my position was based on the legality and the uncertainty of the unknown, but have softened my view point to an extent. I suspect that this new proposed legislation will fail because of the overall fear of retribution that law makers will face.

 

[menotyou]

Alcohol leads to many more problems than pot. God gave us the plant to use. And, use it we should. The uses are endless. Hemp oil for one. Clothing. Rope. As wkmac says, there are more. Actually, hemp and Marijuana are different, in that, the THC(the ingredient that induces the 'high') has been removed. You can't get high off hemp, yet, that is illegal, too. Not to mention, the movies from the Depression that scared the bejesus out of our great grandparents.

 

[UnconTROLLed]

Growing hemp is not illegal. It is much like driving, you need a license to grow it, but it is not illegal.

 

[Babagounj]

anyone care to list the benefits of decriminalizing ?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

anyone care to list the benefits of decriminalizing ?

Do you mean other than the tax revenue? None that I can think of off-hand.

 

[Babagounj]

YES, other than tax revenue.

 

[tourists24]

anyone care to list the benefits of decriminalizing ?

the snack food industry would be elated

 

[Babagounj]

except the flotus.

 

[toonertoo]

I think the advantages of de criminalizing it are, the spaces in jail for people caught with it, would open up for people who need to be there.

I know that it gives relief to people with MS, Chronic back pain, and people nauseous from chemotherapy. Any people who live in the states where it is legal for medicinal reasons can get it, people living on the border of theses states, must use other more noxious potions to get relief.

I think any time our court spends prosecuting a guy caught with a joint, or a plant is time wasted, and could be a factor as to why they take years to prosecute killers, etc.

While I do not use it, and have not for many years, it did used to be my only relief from migraine headaches. Find a joint, it was gone, and could procede with my day. Go to ER get a shot, done doing anything productive for at least one day.
get caught trying to buy it, court costs, fines, upheaval of your life.

As for alcohol vs pot. Try working next to someone who drank too much the night before. They reek, they are sick, they are worthless, they are whining.
Next to someone who had a joint, they are just really hungry, happy, smiling, productive.
Ever see a guy who had one too many joints, racing through traffic, speeding, driving recklessly? Nope. No bar brawls, no fighting.
I think many people associate it with drugs such as cocaine or LSD, which are not the same in the effects, or the way the people use them affect society.
This is of course just my opinion of living on the earth for 50 some yrs, and I have no documetation to support any of it.
Does it lead to harder drugs? My opinion no. When I was a teen smoking once in a while did not make me want to try heroin. And the people I know my age have had no ill effects, unless they were prone to be a loser any way. There is a difference. Some I know have been successful with jobs families, and still have their morals. They just use it to take the edge off, relax, unwind and socially use it. IMO far less dangerous than the use of alcohol.

 

[trplnkl]

anyone care to list the benefits of decriminalizing ?

One of the claims made by the proponents of decriminalization is that it will reduce the amount of drug trafficking. If it is legal, the demand of drug catels should decrease.

 

[soberups]

anyone care to list the benefits of decriminalizing ?

Do you mean "decriminalizing" or do you mean "legalization"? They are two completely different things.

Marijuana was "decriminalized" in Oregon in 1972, meaning that posession of less than one ounce is a civil infraction with a maximum $500 fine and no jail time. It is the same category of infraction as littering, getting a noise complaint in an urban neighborhood, or not having a license for your dog. A conviction does not appear on your criminal record. My understanding is that almost all states have "decriminalized" the posession of small amounts of marijuana in a similar fashion.

The benefits include not overwhelming the criminal justice system, and not saddling otherwise law-abiding people with criminal convictions that will follow them around for the rest of their lives just because they got caught smoking a joint.

 

[soberups]

One of the claims made by the proponents of decriminalization is that it will reduce the amount of drug trafficking. If it is legal, the demand of drug catels should decrease.

I have a personal and intimate involvement in the so-called "war on drugs".

Over the last 20 yrs I have been an enemy soldier, a casualty, a stretcher-bearer, a chaplain, a civilian non-combatant and a war-widower. I have lost family and friends. I nearly died myself. It is not some abstract thing that I look at from behind a desk in some Federal office building.

I can state with absolute certainty that the "war on drugs" is causing far more damage to our society as a whole than the drugs themselves are. It is a classic example of a cure that kills more people than the disease it is trying to eradicate. The war is a failure. It was already lost before we even decided to start "fighting" it, and the casualties will continue piling up until we quit trying to fight a war that we cannot win and start looking for a better way to deal with the medical issue of chemical dependency.

 

[ajblakejr]

I have a personal and intimate involvement in the so-called "war on drugs".

Over the last 20 yrs I have been an enemy soldier, a casualty, a stretcher-bearer, a chaplain, a civilian non-combatant and a war-widower. I have lost family and friends. I nearly died myself. It is not some abstract thing that I look at from behind a desk in some Federal office building.

I can state with absolute certainty that the "war on drugs" is causing far more damage to our society as a whole than the drugs themselves are. It is a classic example of a cure that kills more people than the disease it is trying to eradicate. The war is a failure. It was already lost before we even decided to start "fighting" it, and the casualties will continue piling up until we quit trying to fight a war that we cannot win and start looking for a better way to deal with the medical issue of chemical dependency.

soberups, the candidness of your post hits home.
I so much appreciate the openness and honesty of your words.

 

[trplnkl]

I have a personal and intimate involvement in the so-called "war on drugs".

Over the last 20 yrs I have been an enemy soldier, a casualty, a stretcher-bearer, a chaplain, a civilian non-combatant and a war-widower. I have lost family and friends. I nearly died myself. It is not some abstract thing that I look at from behind a desk in some Federal office building.

I can state with absolute certainty that the "war on drugs" is causing far more damage to our society as a whole than the drugs themselves are. It is a classic example of a cure that kills more people than the disease it is trying to eradicate. The war is a failure. It was already lost before we even decided to start "fighting" it, and the casualties will continue piling up until we quit trying to fight a war that we cannot win and start looking for a better way to deal with the medical issue of chemical dependency.

I understand what you are saying and I also appreciate the struggle you have faced. I respect your efforts and your opinion.
If passed, this bill will not put an end to the war on drugs, just one banned substance.

 

[toonertoo]

Yes soberups, I appreciate it also, and sounds like you have been through the mill.
Think about it, if it became legal, who would use it that does not now? One thing of many I side with Ron Paul on, and probably the only thing I will ever agree with Barney Frank on.

No more border guards busting guys with truckloads of weed, and being imprisoned or killed. And then the govt can regulate it and tax the heck out of it. Then the people who pay no taxes will pay dearly, and those who need it for a little relief from pain, or whatever, can buy it without putting their lives in danger to buy it illegally.
I just think it is a no brainer. And if it doesnt work, it can go back on the prohib list.

 

[soberups]

I am at heart a libertarian; I believe that, for the most part, people should be free to choose for themselves what substances they want to put into their bodies, even if those substances are moderately harmful and/or moderately habit forming. I would put tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and mild, natural hallucingens such as peyote or psylocibin mushrooms in this category. These substances are organic, they are found in nature, and they should be regulated, taxed, and legally available to adults who wish to purchase them.

I also recognize the fact that there are certain drugs that are so addictive and so toxic that there really isnt any such thing as "freedom of choice" when it comes to these substances. I would put cocaine, crack, ecstasy, methamphetamine, LSD and opiates in this category. These substances should not be "legalized" per se, but those who are addicted to them should be able to register as addicts and obtain these substances by prescription only, with the stipulation that at some point they will need to be medically detoxed and weaned off of them by a doctor who specializes in addiction treatment. The goal would be to (a) get these people off of the street and under some sort of medical supervision, and (b)to undercut the criminal black market for these substances by allowing these addicts to obtain pharmaceutical-grade versions of whatever they are addicted to at affordable prices.

Think about what this would accomplish. If the addict who now has to resort to criminal behavior (prostitution, theft etc.) in order to support a $200+ per day drug habit could go to a pharmacy and obtain those same drugs for $5 per day, he/she would no longer need to buy from the black market. The black market would dry up, since the majority of its former "customers" would be unwilling to pay the prices that made the risk of drug dealing worth taking. In one stroke, we would flush hundreds of thousands of addicts out of an overburdened criminal justuce system and into the supervised medical system where they belong. The billions of dollars that are currently funding narco-terrorism down in Mexico would dry up and remain in our country.

Is it a perfect solution? Hell no. There is no "perfect" solution. But it would be a far sight better than what we are currently doing, which pretty much consists of beating our head against a brick wall while being oblivious to the fact that it isnt the wall that is bleeding.

 

[moreluck]

I'm not saying don't make it legal......BUT, which drug will be next? someone else will want ice legal, then crack, then heroin, then what?