Pot in America

[kandrathe]

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.

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.

[ShadowHM]

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.

It is my impression that, for the time being, people who have medical signatures to back up their purchases can enjoy their Cannabis. Not quite the same thing. ;) Now you may argue that your medical profession is all-too-easily persuaded to sign those scripts, but I have my own doubts about how easy it may be.

However, to the latter point: it is my expectation that any future administrations will find that they wish, instead to tax this lucrative thing (kinda like the taxes on legal booze) rather than start to prosecute it again. You know...that age-old slippery slope argument. :P

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.

Unfortunately, even here, those who have such prescriptions still don't have their purchases covered by O.H.I.P. :) And I rather expect it to be a chilly day when it happens. There are a lot of other priorities for coverage.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The Feds under the Obama administration have signaled a cease fire in the War on Drugs, . . .

Wish that were true. At most, this is but a minor victory in a war against insanity. But that's OK. Mexico, Columbia, and Afghanistan have nothing to fear. The drug lords will continue to make their millions.

--Pete

[Thecla]

I don't think you have to worry about wheat and chickens for this one.

The death knell for the feds prosecuting medical marijuana cases in California was the Rosenthal case in 2003: he was (and is) a marijuana activist and I dare say has his own agenda, but whatever one's opinion on that, he was convicted in a district court in San Francisco of violating federal drug laws. The judge refused to admit any evidence to the effect that Rosenthal had been licensed by the City of Oakland to sell marijuana under the terms of the California 1996 Proposition legalizing the cultivation and use of "medical marijuana", which I suppose was logical since he was being prosecuted by the Feds. After the Jury had convicted Rosenthal, they found out the actual facts of the case and were mostly horrified. Five of them showed up in public to repudiate their decision and apologize to Rosenthal. The judge ended up sentencing Rosenthal to 1 day in prison (which he'd already served) instead of the following the federal guidelines of 10 badzillion years in prison for the dealing and possession of drugs. I guess Rosenthal is still appealing to erase the conviction -- not sure what the status is.

Anyway, you don't have to analyze the horribly thorny issues of federal vs. state governance to see that federal prosecution of medical marijuana cases makes no sense in California or other states where it's legalized.

[DeeBye]

Imagine taking your time machine back to 1968 and telling the hippies that in 2009 the government will be buying you your weed.

"Wow man, I just had the greatest vision. This dude from the future totally spoke to me. I think he said something about free ... uhh ... hey man, where's the pizza?"

"Huh, did you say something?"

"Wow, this is really good pizza."

"Dude from the future?"

"It has extra cheese."

[--Pete]

Hi,

"Wow man, I just had the greatest vision. This dude from the future totally spoke to me. I think he said something about free ... uhh ... hey man, where's the pizza?"

"Huh, did you say something?"

"Wow, this is really good pizza."

"Dude from the future?"

"It has extra cheese."

And is that your expert opinion? :D

--Pete

[eppie]

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.

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.

[kandrathe]

Conservatives and the French usually have a stronger voice.

This is where liberal and conservative both go so far that they end up on the same side. The problem that I see in both cases is where "compassion" over rides governance. Or, actually, any time government is ruled with emotions rather than the rule of law, that blind statue of Justice with her sword and scales. It's when those in government feel they should "take care of" citizens whether they like it or not, that we end up with laws which are fundamentally unjust and rob us of our freedoms. Conservatives tend to come from the morality side, and liberals from the social costs point of view.

So, whether you or I believe that Californians or San Franciscans should be allowed to smoke Cannabis is a moral decision, rather than one which jeopardizes the operation of the State. I'm not sold on all drugs being legal yet. Meth labs, for example, result in huge ecological contamination, then, I think the State does have a duty to protect neighbors from those who engage in dangerous activities or cause ecological damage to even their own property.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm not sold on all drugs being legal yet. Meth labs, for example, result in huge ecological contamination, then, I think the State does have a duty to protect neighbors from those who engage in dangerous activities or cause ecological damage to even their own property.

There are all sorts of plants that manufacture explosives, fertilizers, industrial chemicals, etc. The population is safe (well, relatively safe) from these plants because they are legal and can be controlled. If you outlawed, for instance, peroxide, then the people who made illegal peroxide would hardly follow EPA guidelines or zoning restrictions. I don't accept that argument.

--Pete

[Maitre]

Hi,
There are all sorts of plants that manufacture explosives, fertilizers, industrial chemicals, etc. The population is safe (well, relatively safe) from these plants because they are legal and can be controlled. If you outlawed, for instance, peroxide, then the people who made illegal peroxide would hardly follow EPA guidelines or zoning restrictions. I don't accept that argument.

--Pete

I would argue that regulation/control arguments are irelovant as well, but for a different reason: many manufacturing facilities, though regulated, are far from being controlled.

The owners of such facilities don't regularly follow the discharge guidelines as it is, even if they bother to get the appropriate permits before beginning to make and sell their products (as my wife could tell you being an emplyoee of the local department of environmental quality). Commonly, it will cost them less in penalties than it would to follow the process correctly, at least here in the "business friendly" commonwealth.

And regardless of research findings (on either side of the issue), there's no way I'd buy property on Lake Anna. There's just something wrong with a warm lake.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I would argue that regulation/control arguments are irelovant as well, but for a different reason: many manufacturing facilities, though regulated, are far from being controlled.

Yes, you are right. The rules aren't always followed. However, in the production of illegal substances, the rules are probably *never* followed. So, I maintain that legalizing the manufacture of drugs will make the public safer, even if it doesn't make the public completely safe.

--Pete

[Rhydderch Hael]

... Imagine taking your time machine back to 1968 and telling the hippies that in 2009 the government will be buying you your weed.

"Wow man, I just had the greatest vision. This dude from the future totally spoke to me. I think he said something about free ... uhh ... hey man, where's the pizza?"

"Huh, did you say something?"

"Wow, this is really good pizza."

"Dude from the future?"

"It has extra cheese."

Of course, if my time machine succesfully sent me back to 1968, the first thing I'd be doing is to buy a Shelby GT-500 with what scarce 2009 dollars that I do have to my name, then coming back.

[Zingydex]

Yes, you are right. The rules aren't always followed. However, in the production of illegal substances, the rules are probably *never* followed.

That's because there are no rules to follow, other than the one prohibiting the manufacture of said substance in the first place.

The problem with legalizing drug production is twofold. First of all, most of these concoctions have no demonstrable benefit other than getting the subject "high" and quite a few have potentially deadly side effects. You're basically not getting anything out of legalization except making it easier to create even more addicts. Secondly, people do things while high on drugs that they likely would never do were they in a sober state, some of which are potentially deadly not only to themselves but to those around them. There's a damn good reason drunk driving is a crime, and it's that the casualty is frequently not the drunk driver. The same thing applies to every other altered-mental-state substance.

There's nothing "safe" about allowing the production of non-medicinal drugs. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

[Zingydex]

I'm glad to see that States are fighting back against this Federal power grab that should have been undone decades ago.

If the federal government's authority can't/doesn't override that of a state/province/territory, what is the point in having a federal government at all?

[eppie]

That's because there are no rules to follow, other than the one prohibiting the manufacture of said substance in the first place.

The problem with legalizing drug production is twofold. First of all, most of these concoctions have no demonstrable benefit other than getting the subject "high" and quite a few have potentially deadly side effects. You're basically not getting anything out of legalization except making it easier to create even more addicts. Secondly, people do things while high on drugs that they likely would never do were they in a sober state, some of which are potentially deadly not only to themselves but to those around them. There's a damn good reason drunk driving is a crime, and it's that the casualty is frequently not the drunk driver. The same thing applies to every other altered-mental-state substance.

There's nothing "safe" about allowing the production of non-medicinal drugs. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

You are right if legalization of drugs would lead to more addicts. We are not discussing if drugs are good or bad.
I would say bad even though you can lead a perfectly normal life when your using cocaine or cannabis (probably better than when addicted to alcohol).
I think legalization does not increase the amount of users significantly, while it makes many of the secondary effects better managable.

[--Pete]

Hi,

First of all, most of these concoctions have no demonstrable benefit other than getting the subject "high" and quite a few have potentially deadly side effects.

Thank you, nanny. The same is true of tobacco, alcohol, rich deserts, and fatty foods. Who died and made you the arbiter of what the rest of the population should or should not do. Take care of yourself and let others go to hell in their own way.

You're basically not getting anything out of legalization except making it easier to create even more addicts.

Are you ignorant or a hypocrite? Because the fact is that nations having more relaxed laws about the use of drugs (including alcohol) have less addicts (per capita, of course) and fewer problems with the addicts they have.

Secondly, people do things while high on drugs that they likely would never do were they in a sober state, some of which are potentially deadly not only to themselves but to those around them.

I'm much more likely to break a law awake than I am asleep. Should being awake then be made a crime? If driving under the influence is bad (and it is), then outlaw that. Do not outlaw being under the influence. Or driving.

There's nothing "safe" about allowing the production of non-medicinal drugs. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Then you have a damned tiny imagination. And a mightily tightly closed mind.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

If the federal government's authority can't/doesn't override that of a state/province/territory, what is the point in having a federal government at all?

If there's no tension between the federal government and the state government, what is the use of having states at all?

--Pete

[Delc]

There's nothing "safe" about allowing the production of non-medicinal drugs. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Its not safe, but its safer than the alternative, which is the illegal drug trade and the war on drugs.

[Jester]

Its not safe, but its safer than the alternative, which is the illegal drug trade and the war on drugs.

Ah, but the illegal drug trade kills Colombians, Afghans, Thais, Mexicans, and other assorted poor, "ethnic" people. So nobody spends much time worrying about it.

Now, if it killed that many rich white people, it'd be stopped in a heartbeat. But when you can shuffle off the externalities onto someone else, why worry?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Now, if it killed that many rich white people, it'd be stopped in a heartbeat. But when you can shuffle off the externalities onto someone else, why worry?

The war on drugs is killing US citizens, mostly in law enforcement. While they are not "rich", I don't consider them expendable either.