Research helps dispel marijuana myths

Sober Talk ^ | Thursday, August 1, 2002 | By BECKY CLARK, MSW, CSW

[Behind Liberal Lines]

As we endeavor toward a more lucid and informed discussion of substance abuse, let's deconstruct the mystique of marijuana and recognize it for the dangerous drug that it is.

Marijuana is a substance that's worthy of our concern. It is the most prevalent of all illicit drugs used in the country. The 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reported that 34 percent of Americans have used marijuana in their lifetime and 5 percent are current users.

[Zon]

True. The point is that a rational judge would never take the case and I seriously doubt a district attorney would prosecute such a case. 99 times out of a hundred an impartial jury would decide that the person minding their own business at home while smoking pot did not harm the person that filed the charge. No lawyer, save for a court appointed lawyer would take on the "victims" case that he had been harmed by the marijuana user.

[Gunslingr3]

>>I don't care if someone calls themself "liberal" or "conservative" - if they believe that "good/bad for you" trumps individual rights, them screw 'em. Freedom rejects this notion all together.

Then why did the Founding Fathers codify our rights in writing? <<

Because people like George Mason were afraid that unless we specifically spelled out what areas the federal government could not tread Article 1, Section 8 could continually be reinterpreted to unhinge the limited aspect of those delineated powers. Some people might try to outlaw a plant for example, and then use the federal goverment to enforce this provision even though there is no authorization of this power in the Constitution. Respect for the Constitution 100 years ago was great enough that in order for the federal government to outlaw alcohol it had to actually be able to point to a clause in the Constitution permitting it to do so.
Arguments against a Bill of Rights (from Madison for example) were based on the fear that if liberties were codified (instead of just the powers of government), that code could serve as basis for limitation. In short, a list of what the Federal government did not have authority to do is unlimited. An attempt to itemize it threatens the unmentioned (and innumerable) freedoms that exist by changing the view of our federal government's charter from one of what it IS allowed to do to what it ISN'T allowed to do. The response to these criticisms are the 9th and 10th amendments.
Even the federal government's anti-marijuana efforts began with modest observation of the limitations on federal power. Marijuana prohibition began in the 1930's as a tax they simply didn't expect people to pay, thus making their possession (in absence of a tax stamp) criminal.
A2J, can you tell me what clause in the Constitution permits the federal government to make any plant illegal? Is there an amendment I'm not aware of? Are the only limits on our federal government's powers those delineated (and constantly re-interpreted) in the Bill of Rights?

[sweet_diane]

"I give credence to a few libertarian concepts, but I am a member of the GOP."

Thanks for the info. So, what do they call those of us who are members of the GOP yet give credence to a few libertarian concepts? To be quite honest, that sentance pretty much describes 80% of the people I know! Who is representing US in Washington?

I think Bush is about the greatest thing since sliced bread... yet he's so hard nosed about even CONSIDERING reformation of drug laws and I find that very frustrating.

[choppersrule]

"So should my gov't throw me in jail for having a beer?

Should my gov't throw me in jail for having a joint?

Should my gov't throw me in jail for a having a cigarette?"

preach it brother!

if anybody needs a drink or a toke it has to be A2J. that guy is wrapped WAY to fng tight and im so glad he isn't the HMFC of the legislature in my state.

it is so silly that our society / govt. vilifies one and regulates the sale of the others.

A2J stepped right out of a Dragnet episode (or at least his paradigms are). the only difference is that the Dragnet guys are funnier.

[robjna]

well then you and your smoking buddies go ahead and keep on doing what you are doing. just telling my story , glad it gave you a chuckle. Wasn't so funny to me

[Wolfie]

So, what do they call those of us who are members of the GOP yet give credence to a few libertarian concepts?

Consistent.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Wahhhhhh, life's not fair.

Is that your response to anti-abortion activists, too?

[knighthawk]

Yes. Maybe a nice addition of the Afroman song:

I amlost got our child killed because I got high
I left it in the car in the heat while I got high
It almost got fried and I know why (why man) yeah hey
'Cos I got high
'Cos I got high
'Cos I got high
'Cos I got high

A police officer rescued it while I got high
They took it to the doctor who saved her life while I got high
I couldn't care for it and I know why (why man) yeah hey
'Cos I got high
'Cos I got high
'Cos I got high
'Cos I got high

Now I will face the judge because I got high
They are going to take away my child because I got high
But I can't care for all that and I know why (why man) yeah hey
'Cos I rather get high
'Cos I rather get high
'Cos I rather get high
'Cos I rather get high

[Virginia-American]

How would you punish the Federal Gov't for lying about MJ? Personally, I'd prefer forbidding them to tax it.

[jayef]

Nobody is asking you to take care of them. By the way, what do you think you're doing with the ones your stupid WoD sends to jail, if not taking care of them? How much do you think that costs? Do you think these people come out of jail all rehabilitated and clean?

WAKE UP!

[Wolfie]

Here in the U.S., mothers leave their kids in cars to die while they get their hair done. We're so much more civilized over here.

[jayef]

As a matter of face, that right is already in the constitution.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

A2J, can you tell me what clause in the Constitution permits the federal government to make any plant illegal?

If the Pastor were honest, he'd have to cite the Commerce Clause, and philosophically, that would put him in league with the greatest conservative of all time, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Wehn your "logic" has been thoroughly debunked, you resort to emotional appeals using pictures?

Spoken by the guy with the little apple in all his posts...

Apparently, marijuana also impairs your sense of humor.

[vin-one]

you can put Dane, Cultural Jihad, Kevin Curry, right in with A2J,

Which I would be the J doesn't stand for Joint.

All of the above could definately stand to take a bong hit,

it might lighten them up a little.

[robjna]

i don't beleive it is the governments position to do anything about my pot smoking. it is not up to them to make sure i get treatment. i dont agree with incarceration for users. i am more of a libertarian than republican in that i beleive in limited government and personal repsonsibilty, so i guess my answer is i don't thikn the governemt has any responsibilty to handle my pot addiction.

[jayef]

A matter of face? Boy these threads get me worked up.

[Dane]

Is that your response to anti-abortion activists, too?

Your putting the right to toke and the rights of the unborn on the same moral plane just shows how whacked out you are in your political priorities, IMHO.

[4Freedom]

For example FC, the Border Patrol and INS say that they let through, at least, 3 or 4 illegal aliens for each one they catch or as many as 9.

A resident of a Southwestern state would have a better 'feel' for what number was closer to the truth than someone from the East coast. Wouldn't you agree?

[Zon]

I'm no socialist; I hate Big Government

You not being a socialist then surely you'd favor this...

If you think you've been harmed by a person because they smoked marijuana file criminal charges against the person (perhaps file an assault or harassment charge). Plead your case before an impartial jury and let them decide if you were harmed by the person.

But you wouldn't do that. Instead, because you believe people shouldn't use recreational drugs you enlist government agents  to initiate force against drug users on your behalf. By implication you advocate initiation of force/violation of individual rights.

The point is that a rational judge would never take the case and I seriously doubt a district attorney would prosecute such a case. 99 times out of a hundred an impartial jury would decide that the person minding their own business at home while smoking pot did not harm the person that filed the charge. No lawyer, save for a court appointed lawyer would take on the "victims" case that he had been harmed by the marijuana user.

I hate Big Government just as much as you do; I simply prefer that people not f### up themselves with happy-weed all their lives so that someday I and other taxpayers will have to take care of them.

Who is going to force you to take care of them? The government. The same government you enlist to insatiate force/violate the rights of others is going to initiate force against you.

When I was a kid a friend's father, Mr. Brown used to jokingly say to us neighborhood kids, "Which do you want, a fat lip or a busted eyebrow?" That was not lost on me. From Democrats you get one, from Republicans you get the other. Voting for the lesser of evils still begets evil.

Stop playing by their rules. Stop playing their Hobson's choice "game". Stop voting against yourself. Politics is not the answer, it's the problem.