Posted on 07/23/2004 7:55:29 AM PDT by cryptical
Marijuana Prohibition: Who Does It Protect?
By Henry Koch
Is marijuana illegal in the United States to protect Americans or to protect a handful of well-connected industries that believe ending prohibition would affect their profits?
Every study, whether privately or government sponsored, has declared the penalties against cannabis far out of line with the substance. Every study has illustrated how tobacco and alcohol do far more damage to individuals and society than marijuana. The draconian laws against this naturally occurring herb have ruined millions of lives. These laws have done far more damage during the current 66-year period of prohibition than the plant has done since its first recorded use and cultivation nearly 6,000 years ago.
Yet today, a cadre of individuals and industries is spending billions of dollars to keep marijuana illegal. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Office of National Drug Control Policy contribute to these private efforts by refusing to acknowledge the validity of reports whose results run contrary to current drug policy. The DEA and the ONDCP even reject studies commissioned by the Congress and other U.S. government agencies.
When the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed there was no scientific evidence as to the effects marijuana had on consumers. (The psychoactive component of cannabis, THC, was not isolated until 1965.) The congressional hearings leading to the passage of the Tax Act were held in secret and considered no scientific evidence. Harry Anslinger, director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962, presented popular fabrications about marijuana as fact to the congressional committees investigating the substance.
Here are a few of Anslinger's more memorable quotes about marijuana:
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"Marijuana is taken by ... musicians. And I'm not speaking about good musicians, but the jazz type."
"Marijuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing."
Industries that have a high interest in keeping marijuana illegal include the tobacco industry, the alcoholic beverage industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the petrochemical industry, the pulp and paper industry, the prison-building industry, the prison guard unions and organizations, and law enforcement organizations.
The tobacco and alcohol industries realize that when people smoke marijuana, they use less tobacco and alcohol. Nicotine and alcohol are both highly addictive. Current research has not shown marijuana to cause physical dependency.
The pharmaceutical industry knows of the medical benefits of the Cannabis sativa plant and does not want individuals cultivating their own medications.
The petrochemical industry knows that industrial hemp and its myriad products could replace 98 percent of our hydrocarbon-based petroleum. Instead of pumping an exhaustible resource out of the ground, we could produce enough hemp seed to provide nearly all the petrochemical raw materials we need.
The pulp and paper industry knows that hemp can provide more fiber for pulp per acre than trees. Plus, hemp fiber can be converted to pulp without the pollutants created by the sulfuric acid process currently used to turn trees into paper. Converting to hemp for fiber would cost millions up front but would save billions in the long run, with the added bonus of greatly improving the environment.
The American prison system is the largest in the world, with more than 2.1 million prisoners at the end of 2003. This has made the prison-building industry one of the fastest growing industries in the country. The major growth of prison population in the United States is due mainly to the war on drugs. Marijuana arrests account for almost 80 percent of all drug arrests. Having the largest prison system also requires the largest prison guard industry, and this industry depends on the current drug policy for its members' job security.
Many law enforcement organizations receive more funding from the war on drugs budget than they do from their respective municipal budgets. If the laws against marijuana were changed to eliminate arrest for possession, almost every law enforcement organization in the United States would be required to eliminate personnel.
Prohibition has never worked, and it isn't working for marijuana. According to a nationwide poll conducted by Time magazine and CNN in October 2000, 80 percent of Americans support the medicinal use of marijuana and 72 percent say that adults who use marijuana recreationally should be fined, but not jailed. Only 19 percent of respondents favored jailing recreational pot smokers. In addition, 40 percent of respondents also said that they favored the legalization of small amounts of marijuana.
Who is marijuana prohibition really protecting? Is it the American public and our way of life or is it protecting the interests of the giants of industry who have friends in high government positions?
Henry Koch is president of the Midlands chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). For more information on Midlands NORML, visit www.midlands-norml.org.
Here's my answer: Marijuana laws protect a very lucrative business for lawyers, and cops.
You are referring to laws as government telling people what to do.
I look at the reasons for some laws as being there because some thick headed idiots don't know the boundaries of safe behavior or reasonable use and the boundaries are spelled out in laws.
This isn't the 1700s and the closer we live next to others, the more likely there will be laws you have to live by.
Do yourself a favor and don't admit to your own self-righeous past, it tends to lead to people disregarding anything you have to say on the drug or conservative issues.
So you are an anarchist perhaps wanting the furthest extent of freedom? Sure sounds like it!
Branded Radical placemarker.
;^)
Do you propose that we also legalized cocaine?
"Marijuana Prohibition: Who Does It Protect?"
NORMAL people who don't need drugs to cloud reality. People on drugs hide from reality. There's a reason why Home Depot and other employers do NOT want druggies working for them. Drugs alter their mind and they can be dangerous to NORMAL people in society.
Only a dope would want to do drugs.
Seems more a drug lust trying to use the constitution as a shield.
I would imagine that pedophiles, bigamists and other similar oddities could use your arguments in their slants on ways to force their way into the mainstream society as well.
Hey, that's exactly the way we handle alcohol -- each state decides. I propose that we vote on an amendment which contains similar wording to that of the 21st amendment (which gave the alcohol legalization power back to the states). Agree?
I mean, if we don't, we could end up with California being the only state to legalize pot which may cause problems in the surrounding states -- it's only fair to give those states a say-so in the legalization process.
But are you saying that the legalization decision for all drugs, including prescription drugs, be turned over to the states or just marijuana?
BTW, save the namecalling for someone else. I didn't call you any names.
Are you a federal jackboot or just an uptight AR cop wannabe?
So, I can safely conclude that you essentially agree with the propaganda of the almighty State and despise the Creation of God, at their command.
That's a very odd position for someone with your tagline.
I propose you go to prison for your crimes, just like you advocate for others who have committed the same crimes as you. That is the first thing I propose. In lieu of that, I propose you stay off these threads because you have no standing or credibility on the issue.
Yes. The only provision is that states would have to allow the shipping of pot grown in, say, NY to, say, CA through Indiana, even if Indiana bans the sale of pot.
But are you saying that the legalization decision for all drugs, including prescription drugs, be turned over to the states or just marijuana?
Interesting question, actually. I see drugs prescribed for a medicinal purpose to be in a different category than recreational drugs, so I would leave regulation of prescription drugs to the FDA.
I'm also not in favor of going whole-hog with this proposed experiment. I recognize that a lot of other drugs, like cocaine and heroin, are dangerous, while marijuana is not. So, let's try this experiment for a couple of decades with the least dangerous drug and see what happens. If it's a disaster, at least legal marijuana would do less damage than legal cocaine.
More great logic. Pick and choose at what shall be free and what shall not be...just like the liberals. And then go on to say that FR is not worthy this issue. Censorship is favored then eh? Who are YOU to say what is discussed on FR and what is not?
Calling the WOD only a liberal issue is ignorant, and intended only to vilify it by name-calling. It's all you socialists can do when you have no logical argument.
I also oppose hypocrisy on the issue.
---
If that is the case, then the best response would be to legalize and regulate it so it won't get into the hands of children.
---
This is too funny. So, all your arguments about how drug-related crime would go away if drugs were legalized is just so much hooey because keeping drugs illegal for the largest group of users (minors) would fix all the problems of drug-related crime.
I just have to laugh at the mental abilities of the proponents of legalizing drugs. Of course, I shouldn't be surprised. They're called pot-heads for a reason.
Once again you make up things. But, I guess, truth is not really that important to you, demonization is your game.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.