Posted on 10/22/2017 9:47:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
The war on drugs has been going on since 1971, and we have a winner: marijuana. Back then, possession of pot carried heavy penalties in many states -- even life imprisonment. Today, 29 states sanction medical use of cannabis, and eight allow recreational use. Legal weed has become about as controversial as Powerball.
One sign of the shift came in Wednesday's debate among the Democrats running for governor of Illinois. The state didn't get its first medical marijuana dispensary until 2015, and it decriminalized possession of small amounts of pot only last year. But most of the candidates endorsed legalization of recreational weed, and one supported "full decriminalization."
Those positions are not politically risky, in Illinois or most places. They're mainstream.
In 2016, Gallup Poll found that 60 percent of Americans supported full legalization -- up from 36 percent in 2005. Given the choice, voters generally favor it. Nine states had cannabis initiatives on the ballot last year. Medical marijuana won in four states, and recreational pot won in another four. Only Arizona's recreational pot measure failed.
Next year should further erode pot prohibition. "Campaigns are underway in at least five states to legalize either medical or recreational cannabis," reports Marijuana Business Daily. It also notes that New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont could get recreational cannabis through legislative action.
All this progress has occurred even though federal law bars possession and use -- impeding normal commerce in states that permit dispensaries. Under President Barack Obama, the Justice Department chose to defer to states that allowed cannabis. But banks generally are leery of doing business with pot dispensaries, forcing many to operate on cash alone.
s a candidate, Donald Trump indicated he would follow more or less the same course as Obama. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, however, has been an implacable opponent of liberalization. He once joked -- well, I assume he was joking -- that he had no problem with the Ku Klux Klan until he "found out they smoked pot."
He appointed a task force on crime, hoping it would confirm his preposterous claim that Obama's laissez-faire policy was to blame for rising violence. But the panel report, which has not been made public, recommended sticking with that approach.
The case for full legalization becomes stronger all the time. One reason is that the disproportionate impact on African-Americans has gained more attention. Blacks are nearly four times likelier to be arrested for pot possession than whites even though there is no racial difference in usage.
Drug enforcement has been a major motive for stop-and-frisk tactics that have fostered resentment of cops among black men. Treating cannabis like beer or cigarettes would greatly curtail such encounters.
For years, opponents said legalization would lead to disaster. But as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. noted, "A page of history is worth a volume of logic." We no longer have to rely on ominous forecasts. We now have actual experience in states that have taken the leap, and the results refute the fears.
Studies show that after Colorado permitted recreational pot, there was no increase in adolescent use or traffic fatalities. In Washington, which voted for legalization in 2012, crime rates proceeded to decline. California found that when medical dispensaries closed, neighborhood crime didn't fall; it rose.
This year, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found "substantial evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults." That helps explain why states that allow cannabis have far lower rates of opioid overdoses. The simple reality is that marijuana eases suffering and saves lives.
States with fiscal problems -- Illinois being a prominent example -- also stand to gain from allowing recreational pot. First, they don't have to spend so much money arresting, trying and incarcerating users and sellers. Second, they get a windfall from taxing a product that previously sold only on the black market. Washington's cannabis taxes bring in about $250 million a year.
State governments can also expect savings in Medicaid and other health care programs as some patients opt for inexpensive cannabis over pricey prescription drugs. There are also financial savings for ambulances, hospitals and morgues when fewer people overdose with opioids -- not to mention a lower toll in human misery and heartache.
It's too late to undo all the harm produced by the war on drugs. But Americans are realizing it's never too late to enjoy the benefits of peace.
“...experiment with legalization...”
LOL! Cannabis was legal for all of human history - until the Progressive Era. Some “experiment”.
That is strange; I must have made a mistake while making the link in html.
The website I was trying to link is www.pubmed.gov, which, when you use that address to go to the site, actually takes you to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/. Since it is easiest to just type "www.pubmed.gov", that is the address I usually link.
PubMed is the primary medical research database used in the world (I'm testing if it links correctly here). It contains citations and abstracts for most quality medical research that occurs worldwide. If you want to know the status of the medical research on *any* topic, PubMed is the primary source that researchers (such as myself) use. It is also open to the public, although some journals are behind pay walls.
Your 2nd link merely states what anyone with a lick of sense knows: Smoking ANYTHING while pregnant is a bad idea.
The article linked specifically says that pregnant women perceive that it is perfectly safe to use marijuana. No doubt, they have this belief because of years of propaganda from NORML. We are about to see a wave of marijuana babies, to join the cocaine babies, alcohol babies, etc., that we already have.
Your 3rd link ... In reality this article says there needs to be more research.
*Every* article will state that more research is needed.
I pointed out that this article is behind a paywall, meaning that I could not read it to see what it actually says about cardiac damage. And the abstract quite clearly states that there is some evidence that marijuana causes cardiac damage/adverse events.
Your 4th link says what we’ve known for a long time: Kids shouldn’t use cannabis. Nothing new there.
Kids are using marijuana at alarming levels. Plus, kids have a sense of being invulnerable, which only makes them more likely to experiment with the stuff. Making it "legal" only leads to more of that use. Furthermore, in terms of brain development, they remain kids until about age 25--legal adulthood, but still susceptible to certain kinds of the brain damage that marijuana causes.
Your 5th try at the apple is hilarious. Of course people with thought disorders will behave badly if given cannabis.
Look at the abstract again: it says that it is difficult to determine whether marijuana is the cause of those disorders, or if those disorders make it more likely for people to use marijuana. There is some research that shows that marijuana actually precipitates psychotic disorders.
It would be great if Fedzilla pulled it’s head out of the sand and allowed real unbiased research on the subject.
I'm not certain what you think I've been linking here. This *is* the actual research on the subject, published by real medical researchers. The fact that it does not align with NORML propaganda does not invalidate it.
The same pattern as the Looming Ice Age/Global Warming/Climate Change hoax that has been going on since at least the 19th Century. When one scare tactic loses its grip they switch to another for two or three decades.
sorry, that’s nonsense...because...
‘Marijuana users are infamous for not being able to do anything, for being content to sit around and contemplate the world.’
The fact that marijuana suppresses initiative and motivation in a majority of users does not preclude its effect of precipitating psychotic disorders in a certain subset of the population.
The actual historical record is incredibly hard to discern, given that we've had half a century of propaganda to obscure the actual facts. I know what the propaganda claims to be the reasons that marijuana was made illegal, but I have no idea of the real reasons. As I said, there are certain facts about the effects of medical use which are only now beginning to be documented in a systematic fashion. And it is because of these effects, which I am certain our ancestors observed, that I think we are about to learn the real reasons it was banned in the first place.
On the contrary, kids were reporting for years before marijuana was legal in any state that they could get marijuana more easily than (legal for adults) beer or cigarettes.
The NORML organization. That is more than three people who deny any harmful effects of marijuana, right there. In fact, not only does NORML have a history of denying harmful effects, it has pushed the narrative that marijuana is a wonder drug that has been suppressed, for...reasons.
Plus, I have come across many FReepers who make the same claim. Sorry, I'm not keeping a list of their names, but it seems there are a few posting in this very thread.
Seldom have I seen a faster backpedal.
The states should decide.
It also seems to cause even moderate users to abandon their ability to discern logic and reason from folly and foolishness.
There may be a correlation vs. causation mix-up involved here. Look up the "self-medication hypothesis" (or variants). It posits that many people, with pre-existing psychotic tendencies, are self-medicating with marijuana. IOW, the psychosis is the cause, not the effect of the marijuana usage. Pot might actually be reducing the incidences of psychotic episodes.
More fake facts from prohibiitonists - here's the truth: "Use of cannabis, to the extent that it impairs health, personal development or achievement, is abuse, to be resisted by responsible cannabis users." - http://norml.org/marijuana/personal/item/principles-of-responsible-use
Backpedal, in what way? I specified in detail exactly what I said before. That is hardly a backpedal.
And in most of human history, was there a subcomponent of the population that was drug addicted to the point where they could perform no useful work and became burdens on society? I think a lot of drug abuse laws must have come into being because society itself was changing. That would be because the factors in a relatively modern society that allow the existence of freeloaders who exist only to get high did not exist before industrialization.
Seldom have I seen a faster backpedal.
Backpedal, in what way?
See the highlighting I've added above. If that doesn't make it clear, I can't help you.
I don’t know if it’s a “libertarian” view, but I just don’t see it as the government’s place to constantly protect people from their own stupidity.
That said, the government is going to do whatever it pleases. I think that once Colorado showed how profitable legalization could be, a whole lot of qualms went by the wayside.
I lost all my motivation to vote. Do you think someone has been slipping me a pot laced mickey finns?
Your highlighting does not make anything more clear. The fact is that I communicated a hypothesis, based on the facts that I know, and some assumptions about the intellect and observation powers of our ancestors.
Based on the fact that you believe that spelling out some of the facts and assumptions that go into formulating a hypothesis is "backpedalling," I must assume that you know very little of the scientific process, which is based on the process of hypothesis formulation.
But here, let me spell it out for you:
1) The history of marijuana delegalization as promulgated by groups like NORML is highly suspect. The fact that it consists chiefly of conspiracies makes any part of it unreliable. Hence, I do not (and perhaps cannot) know the real reasoning behind the laws making it illegal.
2) The effects of marijuana use were not studied when it was uniformly illegal; most researchers did not think that getting the DEA licenses to conduct research on marijuana was worth the time and effort. However, since many states have decided to "legalize" marijuana, the urgency of such research has become paramount. Hence, researchers are now studying every aspect of marijuana use, and what they are finding and publishing is that marijuana use is quite deleterious.
3) Our ancestors were not stupid. They would have been able to see the effects of long-term drug abuse (marijuana, opium, whatever), even if they did not have the extensive medical documentation that we are now collecting.
Hence, my hypothesis is a logical assumption based on the facts listed above that our ancestors made marijuana use illegal because of its harmful effects.
“We are about to see a wave of marijuana babies, to join the cocaine babies, alcohol babies, etc., that we already have.”
Wow, do you tell fortunes regularly or just in cannabis threads?
“Kids are using marijuana at alarming levels”
Again, that’s nothing new since kids shouldn’t be using alcohol or cannabis or tobacco, etc. Any use by kids is alarming. I give you an “h” for hysterical.
“There is some research that shows that marijuana actually precipitates psychotic disorders.”
Until you actually have evidence of any thing of the sort you’re just making stuff up again.
“The fact that it does not align with NORML propaganda does not invalidate it. “
Loving the logical fallacy. Only person talking about NORML is you lololol. You might want to stick your head out of your prohibitionist box. 74% of voters here in Florida decided medical marijuana should be legal. Do you honestly think all of them were either NORML members or just drinking NORML’s Kool-aid?
Truly hilarious.
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.