10-29-2009, 07:37 AM
Quote:The Feds under the Obama administration have signaled a cease fire in the War on Drugs, at least when it comes to fighting against medicinal use of Mary Jane. I view this as both a good thing, and a bad thing.
It would be best if the Feds actually came out and said that Wickard v. Filburn was decided wrongly, and the federal government really doesn't have the right (through the Interstate Commerce Clause) to tell a person they may or may not grow wheat sufficient to feed their own chickens. Similarly, the federal government should have no right to tell adult citizens what they can smoke. That is, I guess, until the government controls and pays for your health care. Then they will tell you what to eat, and when to exercise as well I'd guess. I'm glad to see that States are fighting back against this Federal power grab that should have been undone decades ago.
I agree, and with what Pete added.
Quote:It is bad, in that what the Fed is actually saying is that while they still consider it illegal, they aren't going to bother prosecuting it anymore. This is the highest form of capriciousness and opens the federal system to abuse by selective prosecution. It also means that for the time being, people can enjoy their Cannabis, however, the next administration may again decide to prosecute the now profligate industry.
So is it possible that the under the Federal prescription drug act that the government would buy people their medicinal marijuana? Amazing. Imagine taking your time machine back to 1968 and telling the hippies that in 2009 the government will be buying you your weed.
I still find the old dutch system the best in the world, and it could still have been made better.
I say old because the new government (yes high on christian democrats....sorry there I go again, please don't mind me) is trying to move back some of the rules and the tolerance of using hard drugs.
Of course in discussions as emotional as this the facts that show that our system works better usually don't matter. Conservatives and the French usually have a stronger voice.
What our system misses is what you suggested, legal growing of mariuana. I see this as an excellent opportunity for the government to control the 'produce' and to make some money on tax.
In Holland there are legal shops that can sell mariuana to people in small amounts, but officially they are not allowed to buy there merches from somebody (of course this is tolerated with some restrictions). For the dutch it would be a small step to change this for the better but actually the last few years it seems to be going the other way.
My thoughts (you can call it a conspiracy theory but it isn't) is that there are too many people (with enough power) that make money because drugs are illegal. (and now I am just talking about in a country like Holland, the US or Italy). Often the people that scream loudest against something are the ones that are breaking these rules (examples; the more then 50 % drug using parliament members in Italy, or the large amounts of pedofiles among priests).
Soft drugs, and especially hard drugs are financing terrorist organizations all over the world (colombia, afghanistan, the mafia in italy) and of course the dealers in the countries were the stuff is used.
That said, I can also state that I have never used drugs in my life, but I also now that making drugs illegal doesn't create more addicts or users. My foreign experiences told me that in most countries more teenagers use drugs than in Holland.