Pro-Pot Group Challenges Bush Marijuana Policy (BARF ALERT)

Focus On The Family | January 9, 2003 | David Brody

[Sparta]

A pot-legalization group is taking on the White House over marijuana.

A group that wants to see marijuana legalized is angry with the Bush administration because they say the government is being too critical of pot.

The issue all started with a letter from Scott Burns, the deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control. In the letter, Burns told district attorneys across the country that they must better educate the public about marijuana use.

Keith Stroup, who heads up the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), claims the administration is going over the top suggesting that marijuana is the biggest drug threat in America.

"We're simply going to call them on this lie," Stroup said. "The Bush administration, for some reason, is in the process of ignoring the real drug problems we face and instead focusing their entire anti-drug apparatus on responsible marijuana smokers."

But Burns said it's time to get serious about the problem.

"It's something that the administration, I believe, has an obligation to talk about," Burns said.

He added that in some parts of the country heroin is the biggest problem. In other parts, it's cocaine. But the common thread is marijuana.

"We can't ignore marijuana," Burns said. "Sixty percent of the folks addicted to drugs in this country are using marijuana. If we don't talk about it and talk about it loudly, we're ignoring two-thirds of the problem."

As for his letter to prosecutors to raise awareness about marijuana, he said the response has been sobering.

"I've received calls from prosecutors all across the country who have said, 'I didn't know,' " Burns said.

That is precisely the reason for the letter: to make sure everyone knows that the problem is getting worse every day.

[Mike4Freedom]

Distinction w/o difference. They're both feds.

And therefore neither has the authority to ban MJ (see that pesky tenth amendment).

At least the FDA will claim that they haven't tested it yet for medical effectiveness, and they don't plan to. They might not like the results. The DEA has no such half excuse, they are just JBTs committing crimes against innocent users and sellers of MJ and other selected substances.

[TigersEye]

Remember Fred25...

You're darn tootin' I remember Fred25. He was all right...for a statist. ; ) What a hoot. Do you know what happened to him? Was he banned or did he just close his account?

[dcwusmc]

C4 has many uses aside from causing harm. Plus it's fun to play with! We used to use it as an ignition source for heating C-rations in the field. Works great. So don't lump C4 with ricin or smallpox. Plutonium is useful, too, if you're a nuke. Just be very sure that you keep it stored in a safe and ISOLATED spot, well away from your neighbors.

[Sparta]

Tell that to Mr.Spun.

What's the word he invented, libertotalatarian?

[dcwusmc]

Actually, I do believe ANB is on the side of the angels on this one. He's taking nicmarlo to task. THAT side will always lose on the merits of the argument.

[motzman]

If you have to legislate "Common Sense", it 'aint common sense anymore.

[Gianni]

I leave for a couple of days and look what you guys get into.

The notion that anyone who is against the WOsD is a drug addict or even a casual user is lunacy. For the most part, the people who bash the War Against the American Citizens are interested primarily in stopping government jackboot tactics before they come after something that we truly do care about, like guns, etc.

The reason that we stick pretty much solely to WOsD threads is because what makes this place interesting is diversity of opinion. Try finding some on a gun control thread. Try finding the people here who are staunchly defending Tom Daschle. If you want a break from the cheerleading mob, the WOsD and Animal Rights threads are pretty much the extent of it; not coincidentally that's also where you'll find me posting.

I limit drug intake to those that are currently legal, and I don't torture animals. I just don't approve of men in ninja suits killing off those who do.

[unspun]

And the FDA has been given the authority to decide what is safe to market and not to market, in the way of food and drugs.

Contrary to the Constitution.

It would seem so; and if so, we need to shore up the Constitution to reflect greater national capabilities in our governance.

[unspun]

"it imposes upon the rest of society to take care of the mess" (of narcotics users).

It takes a village right, you and Hillary should get along very well.

I'm saying that impaired and/or freaked out people impose upon us all, to clean up ther messes, whether we accept it or not. I wouldn't accept it, if I were you. I choose to be free of it, in whatever ways we may, with our counstitution in its present or revised form.

[unspun]

That post does not establish that cannabis acts in a significantly different way than alcohol. And even if that was true, you have not responded to the point that alcohol and opiates (such as heroin) act in the same way, so your attempt to distinguish alcohol from all narcotics fails.

Surely you're not saying, "all chemicals work alike on the human brain?"

[Ken H]

Here's what is needed to shore up the Constitution.

1. Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.

2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.

3. Have government officials obey the clear, simple language of the Constitution with as much precision and zeal as they do with complicated laws and bureaRATtic regulations.

[unspun]

"Apples and oranges---abortions are much harder to conceal (and take much more skill to provide) than drugs."

Thank you for your patience, MLR.

My response to this is....

Doesn't matter.

There, now you have it, my good man. By your logic, since we now have abortion drugs, that fact means they should be legal and the drugs openly provided on the "free" market.

[unspun]

Tell me, then, how the feds can prohibit pot cultivation for personal use.

Actually, I should hope that Scully and Mudler have better things to do.

[unspun]

Distinction w/o difference. They're both feds.

That's it, after reading through this whole thread, I've determined that you're cracked.

Point is, o distinguisher of the cracked, that in the context of Constitutional law, federal powers are federal powers (or not).

[unspun]

yadayadayada---And by the way, marijuana's not a narcotic. Look up the definition of "narcotic" and see nicmarlo's post (52? 54?). That's pretty funny, coming from you and your claims that alcohol does not have narcotic qualities, when tacticalogic demonstrated just the opposite yesterday. You're acting like a Democrat - use the facts when they are convenient for your position, and ignore the exact same facts when they aren't.

The People and our Republic have the authority and means to distinguish between one chemical which may be used for impairment, and another. It's as basic as that. We have the freedom to legislate about such things. We really do. Really. No, really. That's what we do in politics. We make decisions.

[unspun]

That's where you're wrong. Narcotics are pain-relieving, sleep-inducing, physologically addictive drugs that come from opium, opium derivatives, or the laboratory. Narcotics include opium, morphine, codeine, thebaine, heroin, hydromorphone, meperidine or Pethidine, methadone, Darvon, or Lomotil.

narcotic

adj 1: of or relating to or designating narcotics; "narcotic addicts"; "narcotic stupor" 2: inducing stupor or narcosis; "narcotic drugs" [syn: narcotizing] 3: inducing mental lethargy; "a narcotic speech" [syn: soporiferous, soporific] n : a drug that produces numbness or stupor; often taken for pleasure or to reduce pain; extensive use can lead to addiction

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[unspun]

("Constitutional right to own ricin, C4, smallpox & plutonium." - Libertotalitarianism)

The difference between the three substances and weed is that those three substances have no other purpose but to harm others. Weed smokers only harm themselves.

Marijuana use degrades us all. Plutonium may be used for generating electricity.

BTW, I'm for no prison for owning a bit of the former.

[unspun]

The price of heroin, however, a compact substance easy to smuggle, has dropped, and its purity risen. So congratulations. Your approach has resulted in making heroin accessible and affordable around the country. Hope you're happy.

Better legalize heroin, then!

[unspun]

Considering your natural paranoia (about evil Libertarians using this forum as a "retruiting station"), I'd say it's just as well that you don't smoke ganja. You see, THC tends to exaggerate whatever innate (or even learned) tendencies you already have, and your paranoia could very easily spiral out of control to the point where a straight-jacket and heavy narcotics might be necessary to keep you under control. I repeat, for the benefit of us all: Don't smoke pot. ....and it goes without saying that you should stay away from drugs like shrooms, peyote, or acid. Leave the ganja smoking the the more mentally stable among us. ...the folks who could handle it.

Hmmm.... Maybe I'm more sensitive to THC. Maybe it was second hand smoke, then. Interesting. I think I'll discuss this with my favorite tort lawyer....

[Mr. Mojo]

420 Times

Some interesting stuff. Check out the article "Jesus healed using Cannabis."