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.
All that proves is that some people do a lot of different drugs. If marijuana didn't exist, those people would still do other illegal drugs.
Are you arguing that if marijuana ceased to exist tomorrrow, no more people would become junkies?
The difference is that the Libertarian Party has the cojones to spell out, in their party platform, the method of implementing the libertarian philosophy. Of course, no libertarian will agree to be pinned down in such a fashion.
It's much easier to be for the legalization of porn and drugs and prostitution, and smaller government, and no taxes, etc. without having to go into the messy details of exactly what that means.
Yeah, there's a difference, all right.
Yes I will get personal. Your argument is moronic and ignorant. Here in Texas, nearly EVRY violent offender locked up in jail are regular alcohol and tobacco users.
I don't object to folks arguing against drugs, I only object to them using illogical arguments. LOL
Yes I will get personal. Your argument is moronic and ignorant. Here in Texas, nearly EVERY violent offender locked up in jail are regular alcohol and tobacco users.
I don't object to folks arguing against drugs, I only object to them using illogical arguments. LOL
To: Labyrinthos
That is certainly not my experiendce after self medicating with reefer since the late 1970's.
I used to "self-medicate" with reefers but I grew out of that phase.
16 posted on 07/21/2004 8:44:33 AM CDT by cinFLA [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1175354/posts
…and nylon is far superior as a rope (hemp rope rots)…
Nearly every violent offender also probably comes from a broken home or was abused as a child or had a parent who was a criminal etc. etc. There are a lot of things that influence whether a person decides to become a criminal. However, it is difficult to see how a drug that is primarily a depressent (i.e., it calms people down) could be a factor in making people violent.
Heavy pot users are generally incredibly docile and sedentary.
Aren't they also regular marijuana users?
"Boring" and "Overused" can be used to describe many of the comments on the drug threads, but not VaBthang4's graphics. I like 'em.
I suppose you object to the hiring of police officers who have ever broken a law, even a drug law, right? [It would follow since if one has no right, in your world, to argue for something they have engaged in, then it follows that a cop could not arrest for something they've done themselves]
That's what I thought. Hope you can handle a whole city by yourself.
Marijuana Associated with Violent Crime
Friedman AS, Glassman K, Terras. Violent Behavior as Related to Use of Marijuana and Other Drugs. Journal of Addictive Diseases 2001;20:49-70 [Frequency of use of marijuana was found to be associated with greater likelihood to commit weapons offenses
Well, at the end of the day, that's what laws are. In some instances, that is perfectly acceptable. So long as the laws exist to prevent people from harming the person or property of another, they're fine.
Drug laws, on the other hand, tell people what they can and cannot do without any reference to the rights of others.
Only a dope who did not use alcohol or tobacco could make that statement without the stench of hypocrisy.
BWAHAHAHAHA! Like legal alcohol?
In every survey, teens say that marijuana is easier to get than alcohol, yet teens use alcohol 2:1 over marijuana. Wanna guess why?
Jump to the Navigation Bar
Marijuana and Crime: Is there a Connection Beyond Prohibition? Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Beau Kilmer
NBER Working Paper No. w10046
Issued in October 2003
---- Abstract -----
We examine the relationship between marijuana use and non-drug related crime using data on arrests from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program and Uniform Crime Reports. There is a positive association between self-reported use at the time of the offence and non-drug related violent, property and income-producing crime even after accounting for other substance use in the ADAM data. Reduced form equations using both data sets only provide evidence supporting a causal mechanism for property and income-producing crime. In the case of violent crime, we find a statistically significant association with arrests but not reported crime, suggesting that marijuana use may just influence the likelihood of getting caught committing these crimes.
You miss the point entirely. If but it were only the growers then marijuana could cease to be illegal.
The peoples who benefit from its illegality are the growers, the distributors, and the retail sellers of course. However, others who benefit monetarily are the police, the city fathers, the mayors, your political representatives, and anyone else who is corrupted by being paid off. When the government unconstitutionally prohibits the citizen from something they want the profits must be adequate to pay for the people corrupted by its illegality.
If you should ever doubt this, pay careful attention to those who oppose its legality and seek to understand their correct agenda. Would the bootlegger preach the evils of alcohol or its benefits to the church?
Drug laws are the best ones. They need the greatest restrictions and consequences because they cause the most harm to others as well as the user.
In addition, these days the liability to an employer who's illegally drugged employee hurts someone or themselves can close a business down.
Do you propose that we also legalized cocaine?
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.