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.

[unspun]

"(and would also be, if legal)." -- much more so.

Many more deaths due to alcohol since prohibition.
Enormous burgeoning of abortion since its legalization.
Just imagine the American market in legal narcotics....

[UnBlinkingEye]

So basically, the government forces people to seek treatment they don't need, and then cite the number of people in treatment as evidence of a problem.

What is wrong with you? You make government sound like a collection of power mad control freaks. Everyone knows that the Constitution protects us from a criminal ruling class.

And it is evidence of a problem - the problem is the war on drugs.

I suggest the WOSD is only a symptom, the problem is out of control governance.

[Cultural Jihad]

Next step-hard drugs, courtesy of the drug warriors.

Liberals think like that, too. They also claim that people are all hapless victims of an oppressive, unjust society, and are bereft of personal responsibility for their actions. But we conservatives disagree with you.

[motzman]

M, I don't mean to cast personal insults, please pardon if I have

I didn't think you were--no need to apologize; it's not like you're VaAdvogado or something...(lol)

A bit of cannabis possession shouldn't bring a prison sentence, but it clearly should be penalized, since it is concomitant with supporting an economy in impairing, intoxicating and debilitating people accross the spectrum and society as a whole (and would also be, if legal).

Then how can alcohol possibly be legal? It does all of the things you describe, only much, much, worse. Prohibition was a disaster. Drug prohibition is even worse. Prohibition is the only way to ensure that everyone suffers due to the vices of a few.

Why are so many people in FreeRepublic.com so interested in augmenting the use of narcotics? Incredible.

Because it is a violation of personal rights. It is also a tremendous waste of resources (personnel and money). And it is a catalyst for corruption.

Seems to me your arguement is against the bad behavior that some drug abusers (include alcohol in that) engage in. I have no tolerance for drunken driving or public intoxication, but I'm not looking to re-enact prohibition.

And we'd probably agree that the welfare state contributes to drug abuse by giving the irresponsible a means to avoid the consequences of their bad behavior. It's no coincedence that the "Drug Laws" started around the time of the New Deal, and that the "War on Drugs" was accelerated when "The Great Society" was enacted.

Notice, there was no "Drug Problem" prior to the welfare state...there's a connection there that most miss.

Good thread!

[Hobo anonymous]

Im currently a Sophomore in High School. And the kids I hang out with are "burnouts/hoodlums". And I can tell you now that quite a few kids have tried pot. It is bad for you, DARE tried to get that through our heads. It worked with me, but not some of the others. I think its safe to say that everyone, including kids have experimented with pot. Been like that for years. My old man did back in the day of KISS and AC/DC and whatnot... It'll just run in circles.


I am opposed to pot however because it provides the neccesary funds for terrorists to purchase weapons of OUR destruction. Dont forget that Afghanistan NOW is the one of the biggest (If not THE biggest) supplier of Opium in the world.

In the end, if you support anti-prohibition rights, you'll just be another victim of terrorism, dragging other "innocents" down with you as well.

I'm not tryin to come off as a jerk or nothin, but.. I dont like giving Bin Laden money so he can build palaces and buy plutonium

[motzman]

Many more deaths due to alcohol since prohibition. Enormous burgeoning of abortion since its legalization. Just imagine the American market in legal narcotics....

These are interesting points; let's examine them...

1) Many more deaths due to alcohol since prohibition

But far fewer deaths due to "bad moonshine" and "bathtub gin". And I'd suspect that much of the increase since prohibition has been due to the incredible increase in automobiles and miles driven. But would you advocate alcohol Prohibition?

2)Enormous burgeoning of abortion since its legalization

I agree with you there, but I don't think that there were all these women who wanted to get abortions but didn't because it was against the law. The murderous boom in abortions was due to our media culture glorifying it, and fooling women into believing that murdering their unborn children was some sort of statement of "liberation".

3)Just imagine the American market in legal narcotics.

I've never met anyone who didn't use "drugs" because they were illegal. I know people that don't use "drugs" out of fear of being incarcerated, losing their jobs, or both. Laws are not meant to control our behavior, they're meant to protect our rights. If drugs were legal, you would not have to use them. No harm to you. But since they are illegal, not personally using them is not the only protection you have from them--people steal, rob, and shoot each other over "drugs" because they are illegal, and hence, extremely profitable. This puts even non-drug users at risk. Plus, deaths due to "bad drugs" would practically dissappear overnight.

If you're worried about a nation of non-working zombies due to drug legalization, you're really arguing against Socialism, the real culprit. In fact I only support mj legalization for that very reason. Legalizing the rest while still having a welfare state could be disasterous.

There's no easy answer to this, but I sure know that what we're doing now isn't working, and is immoral...


...and you didn't think I was a Republican..(LOL)

[dark_lord]

I am opposed to pot however because it provides the neccesary funds for terrorists to purchase weapons of OUR destruction. Dont forget that Afghanistan NOW is the one of the biggest (If not THE biggest) supplier of Opium in the world.

Hmmm. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but Marijuana is not the same thing as Opium. Two completely different plants.

Fact: Opium is used to produce heroin. Yes, the Taliban (and through them, Al Queda) did make quite a bit of money from heroin. So have many terrorist groups in southeast Asia.

Fact: Marijuana is not used to make heroin. Or crack (that's made from Cocaine.) Are there any terrorist groups that make money from Marijuana? Not really. There are some South American left wing revolutionary groups that have some farmers growing some...but they can make so much more from Cocaine, so that is the crop of choice.

Don't believe every commercial you see on TV. Or maybe you think SUV's support terrorists: (See the man buy an SUV. See him fill it at the gas station. See the gas come from an oil company. See the oil company buy the oil from Saudi Arabia. See the Saudis take the money from the oil company and use it to pay off Al Queda.) Same logic. If you buy the one, you ought to be a sucker for the other.

[motzman]

Your hearts in the right place but Bin Laden and his friends have nothing to do with pot, the vast majority of that is made in the good 'ol USA now. You should be more concerned with oil if you're worried about funding terrorists.

I'm not interested in changing our lifestyles at all. I am interested in killing every single terrorist scumbag infecting the world today. I had the personal displeasure of watching those towers fall from my perch here in Northern NJ. Yet, there are many so-called "Americans" that are using our current situation to advance there devious agendas. Be very aware of this, at all times!.

Terrorists will always find money for there evil plans. The point is to wipe them out, and leave clear message to any others who might think of attacking us.

Study hard and keep active!

[TigersEye]

Smart potheads.

[TigersEye]

I dont like giving Bin Laden money so he can build palaces and buy plutonium.

bin Laden made his money in construction in Saudi Arabia. Most U.S. consumed pot is now U.S. grown.

[Ken H]

The People have the freedom to legislate against narcotics, says the Tenth Amendment.

Where in the Constitution do you see the authorization for Federal involvement in drug policies in State territory?

Doesn't the Tenth Amendment reserve that power to the States?

[unspun]

Doesn't the Tenth Amendment reserve that power to the States?

Yes, for such things as possession and use, and well me must. Feds can regulate commerce, though.

I'm not for every bit of our current WOD. I'm for sane prohibition of narcotics. Contrary to what some Libertarians say, there is no "Right to be Stoned," hanging around somewhere.

[Ken H]

The fact is that Federal bureaucracies are calling the shots in just about every domestic social issue in the United States.

The Feds take the lion's share of the taxes and dole it out as they damn well please. How much do we pay in Federal Taxes, FICA taxes, Federal gas taxes, Federal airline taxes, etc.?

It has bought us federally controlled education, leftist environmental policies, a hugely expensive health care system, and 3 generations of welfare dependency.

The Federal WOD is cut from the same cloth as all of the above mentioned debacles.

Jim Robinson, in his postings and his "mission statement" on FR homepage, says they are all unconstitutional, and that they all must go.

[nicmarlo]

Adverse effects of cannabis
Wayne Hall, Nadia Solowij
Lancet 1998; 352: 1611­16

The Lancet

[Note: you must register to view any/all articles]

* * *

In many western societies, cannabis has been used by a substantial minority, and in some a majority, of young adults, even though its use is prohibited by law. Debate about the justification for continuing to prohibit cannabis use has polarised opinion about the seriousness of its adverse health effects. In addition, the possible therapeutic effects of cannabinoids have become entangled in the debate about prohibition of recreational cannabis use (see Further reading). The health effects of cannabis use, especially of long-term use, remain uncertain because there is very little epidemiological research and because of disagreements about the interpretation of the limited epidemiological and laboratory evidence. Here we summarise the evidence on the most probable adverse health effects of cannabis use acknowledging where appropriate the uncertainty that remains.

* * *

Acute effects of cannabis

Cannabis produces euphoria and relaxation, perceptual alterations, time distortion, and the intensification of ordinary sensory experiences, such as eating, watching films, and listening to music.2 When used in a social setting it may produce infectious laughter and talkativeness. Short-term memory and attention, motor skills, reaction time, and skilled activities are impaired while a person is intoxicated.2

* * *

Summary of adverse effects of cannabis

Acute effects

* Anxiety and panic, especially in naïve users.

* Impaired attention, memory, and psychomotor performance while intoxicated.

* Possibly an increased risk of accident if a person drives a motor vehicle while intoxicated with cannabis, especially if cannabis is used with alcohol.

* Increased risk of psychotic symptoms among those who are vulnerable because of personal or family history of psychosis.

Chronic effects (uncertain but most probable)

* Chronic bronchitis and histopathological changes that may be precursors to the developmentof malignant disease.

* A cannabis dependence syndrome characterised by an inability to abstain from or to control cannabis use.

* Subtle impairments of attention and memory that persist while the user remains chronically intoxicated, and that may or may not be reversible after prolonged abstinence.

Possible adverse effects (to be confirmed)

* Increased risk of cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, and oesophagus; leukaemia among offspring exposed in utero.

* Impaired educational attainment in adolescents and underachievement in adults in occupations requiring high-level cognitive skills.

Groups at higher risk of experiencing these adverse effects

* Adolescents with a history of poor school performance, who initiate cannabis use in the early teens, are at increased risk of using other illicit drugs and of becoming dependent on cannabis.

* Women who continue to smoke cannabis during pregnancy may increase their risk of having a low-birthweight baby.

* People with asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, schizophrenia, and alcohol and other drug dependence, whose illnesses may be exacerbated by cannabis use.

[ravinson]

I'm for sane prohibition of narcotics.

That's an oxymoron. Drug prohibition promotes violent crime and dangerous drug usage. The only people who benefit from drug prohibition are criminals and corrupt bureaucrats. Why are you their friend?

[S.O.S121.500]

"I'm not tryin to come off as a jerk or nothin, but.. I dont like giving Bin Laden money so he can build palaces and buy plutonium"

Obviously a need to "Buy American", Kalifornica's largest agricultural product is BUD. Support America.

[MrLeRoy]

Libertarians launch “spoiler strategy” to unseat five of Congress’ worst drug warriors

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Libertarian Party has targeted five of the worst drug warriors in Congress for defeat in November to prove that the public is turning against the War on Drugs. [etc.]

None of that supports your claim that "Libertarians' goal [is to] transform the USA into the NSA, the Narcotic State of America."

[MrLeRoy]

Many more deaths due to alcohol since prohibition.

Do you support banning alcohol? If not, why not?

[MrLeRoy]

Liberals [...] also claim that people [...] are bereft of personal responsibility for their actions. But we conservatives disagree with you.

He was talking about KIDS. Do you think kids ought to be treated like adults when it comes to personal responsibility for their actions?

[MrLeRoy]

Feds can regulate commerce

Only INTERSTATE commerce. They have no Constitutional authority to regulate the intrastate making, distirbuting, selling, buying, or using of any drugs.