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.

[MrLeRoy]

Adverse effects of cannabis

Less harmful than alcohol. Do you support banning alcohol? If not, why not?

[dyed_in_the_wool]

we have the freedom to govern.

What we? Where exactly is the right to dictate a person's habits indicated in the Constitution???
In fact, based on the Reserved Powers Clause, NOBODY has the right to dictate what another person does with their body. With alcohol, drugs or leather whips.
And, to address your constant assertion, how exactly would decriminalizing (not even legalizing, just decriminalizing) marijuana lead to a dope filled society. Percentage wise, use/abuse is LOWER during legal times than prohibition.
Remember when alcohol was outlawed? Where are all of the drunks and what happened to the bootlegger's violence?
Think carefully, not emotionally.

[Khepera]

100% of all folks in this country who are addicted to drugs breath air. Ban air breathing!

[Sender]

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.

As some others have pointed out, opium is not pot. Let's consider where pot comes from and whether pot money supports terrorism there:

MEXICO - I doubt it, although black market money probably lines politicians and police pockets
CANADA - unless Muslims are selling BC bud, probably not
US HOMEGROWN - terror cells? nope

Now, opium/heroin/cocaine is another matter, and some of that money may indeed go to build bombs in Afghanistan, Colombia and other places. But just for the sake of argument, let's allow the presumption that part of the pot money is going to terrorists. Now how can we stop that?

Legalization would end the black market, thereby eliminating any funding for criminals, terrorists or oppressive governments.

Of course, not using any kind of drugs is the smartest option, but one which I'm afraid is not a popular option. So, even as a conservative, I'm for letting potheads out of jail, and ending the WOsD.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

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

Who owns your body, you or the state?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I am opposed to pot however because it provides the neccesary funds for terrorists to purchase weapons of OUR destruction.

What terrorists are those---the evil British Columbian terrorists from western Canada?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Contrary to what some Libertarians say, there is no "Right to be Stoned," hanging around somewhere.

It's right there with your right to eat tomatoes.

[steve50]

However, we have the freedom to govern.

Twice with the "freedom to govern" line? The goobermint is only free to govern within the limits of the Constitution, that's something we better relearn soon.

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way in which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. " Washington's Farewell Address 9-19-1796

We got legal medical in 8(?) states and polls are showing most Americans no longer support the laws as written on cannabis. Time to address this problem in the manner the Constitution says the government is " free to govern". The same way we did alcohol.

[unspun]

What we? Where exactly is the right to dictate a person's habits indicated in the Constitution??? In fact, based on the Reserved Powers Clause, NOBODY has the right to dictate what another person does with their body. With alcohol, drugs or leather whips. And, to address your constant assertion, how exactly would decriminalizing (not even legalizing, just decriminalizing) marijuana lead to a dope filled society. Percentage wise, use/abuse is LOWER during legal times than prohibition. Remember when alcohol was outlawed? Where are all of the drunks and what happened to the bootlegger's violence? Think carefully, not emotionally.

Use and abuse of alcohol is clearly much higher, post prohibition. There are more deaths caused by alcohol now (though alcohol is commonly accepted as being used without having an actually narcotic effect and is different than chemicals ingested to do so).

Also see the legalizing of abortion.

I'm not for prison sentences for owning a bit of cannabis, but I am for keeping it illegal, thank you for asking.

[unspun]

I have title to my body, to answer your question, and a responsibility to society not to do violence with it (or even to it). Doing narcotics supports an enconomy that does violence to society.

When people blow their minds (or their brains out) it imposes upon the rest of society to take care of the mess.

[TBall]

Yeah, but I was watching football the other day and there was this commercial where these two kids were getting high and then one of the kids picked up a gun and shot his friend. Its bad bad stuff.

[unspun]

Contrary to what some Libertarians say, there is no "Right to be Stoned," hanging around somewhere.

It's right there with your right to eat tomatoes.

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.

[tacticalogic]

(though alcohol is commonly accepted as being used without having an actually narcotic effect and is different than chemicals ingested to do so)

And what do you consider the correct response if it is found that what is "commonly accepted" is found to be wrong?

[unspun]

Legalization would end the black market, thereby eliminating any funding for criminals, terrorists or oppressive governments.

Legalization would make a very grimly black market mainstream (or I might say "mainline.")

[Wolfie]

If the "commonly accepted" is true, then the folks getting busted in Virginia bars for public drunkeness should quit their whining.

[Sender]

Yeah well I saw this commercial where these two guys smoked pot, then spent all afternoon in front of a Playstation 2 with Tony Hawk 4, then ate up all the pizza and Oreos in the house, and laughed about it. It's vey series bad stuff.

[unspun]

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?

Depends upon what the phrase "among the states" means. It doesn't say "solely between one state and another." If I talk among people, I talk to any number of them at once, including one.

[tacticalogic]

An interesting little tidbit.

[vin-one]

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.

Give me a break, Pot does not supply money to terrorist.
Most of it is grown locally, or in Canada.

[Sender]

Legalization would make a very grimly black market mainstream (or I might say "mainline.")

If we were talking about cocaine or meth or heroin, I would agree. But truthfully, if pot were decriminalized, most people would just grow a few plants in their back yards and there would be no market at all. If the government insists on selling it at liquor stores and thus reaping the tax money, well frankly I'd rather contribute to my own government than to criminals. Pot should not be under the exclusive control of criminals. Let's take it away from them. End the WosD and free up thousands of prison cells for those who truly do wish our destruction.