Should Marijuana be legalized

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by malcolmxwarrior View Post
It was only illegal because rockefeller oil saw it as a threat to their oil profits.

Wow, I didn't know that people used to smoke oil back in the day.

Take a look at this from
http://crrh.org/prohibition/

"When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.”

However, when it came to marijuana and hemp prohibition, Rockefeller took a different stance. He was a known supporter of hemp prohibition along with Harry J. Anslinger, the United States First "drug czar" and William Randolph Hearst, well known media mogul. As to be expected, Hearst sympathized with the drug czar in his war against marijuana. Hearst's paper empire, which included hundreds of acres of timber forests, was threatened by the renewable resource of hemp that could be re-grown yearly, unlike Hearst's timber. In his newspapers, Hearst published many of Anslinger’s fabricated stories, aiding the anti-marijuana movement that eventually led to its prohibition in the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act (Wikipedia). Rockefeller had his interests in oil, and after founding Standard Oil in 1870, soared to become the first U.S. dollar billionaire, and Standard Oil was even convicted of monopolistic practices and broken up in 1911. There seems no way that hemp could have had a chance when the media, the government, and the oil industry were swiftly making little room for hemp to survive"

The law against marijauna was a fix!

 

[dafydd]

More about Anslinger

http://www.heartbone.com/no_thugs/hja.htm


Many people believe that Mr. Anslinger collaborated with industry giants to outlaw marijuana. It is known that he was acquainted with both the Hearsts (of Hearst Newspapers) and the DuPonts, of DuPont plastic fame. (Hemp seed oil derivatives could replace DuPont's petroleum derived compounds.)
In the 1930s, Hearst, who owned newspapers all over the country, started publishing sensationalist-type "news" stories about marijuana use. These stories, often written by Hearst or Anslinger himself, talked about "insanity, criminality, and death" caused by smoking marijuana, sometimes after just one joint. This intense propaganda campaign led to anti-marijuana laws in many states.

In 1937, the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act was passed, effectively prohibiting possession or use of marijuana. It was claimed to be needed to oversee and coordinate existing state law concerning marijuana.

The following are excerpts of Mr. Anslinger's testimony before a Senate hearing on marijuana in 1937:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

 

[dafydd]

http://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/anslinger_harry/anslinger_harry.shtml

 

[BPSCG]

I understand the concern that some people have, that dopeheads are just trying to railroad MJ through for "medical" reasons, when they just want access to it for recreational purposes. But I think just about any person would agree that opiates are far more risky (far heavier sedation, death from modest overdoses, well documented and rather quick addictive properties), yet we control them for recreational use and use them all the time for medical treatments. It strikes me as rather insane that MJ is not given the same opportunity. Sure, it may turn out that in the long run there always will be a better drug choice, but perhaps it won't. Why not try to find out? What's so scary about MJ? I know tons of people who used MJ to no ill effect. The few people I know who used heroin ended up dropping off the face of the earth.

I've more or less come around over the years in favor of legalization.

But...

People love to compare pot to alcohol - "Prohibition didn't work, pot is safer, etc. etc."

Fine. Legalize the stuff, just like alcohol. But first put into place laws stating what the maximum level of THC in your blood can be before you are considered to be DUI. Just like with alcohol. Anyone have any idea what that level might be?

Frankly, I do believe that the vast majority of people yammering for legalization want it for recreational use; they're just using the "It has wonderful medicinal properties" claim as an argument they hope will get better reception from an ignorant public than, "We want to get high every Friday night." Because, from what I've read, its medicinal properties are entirely in THC, which is already used in anti-nausea drugs available with your doctor's prescription, in measured, consistent doses.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

But there has been and continues to be medical research into medical use of pot. It just hasn't come up with anything really that special. Besides, in my experience most people who advocate medical pot not only don't know much about its use, but spout stupid pro-pot propaganda that doesn't even make much sense. They want medical pot just for recreational usage. Smoking pot has no plausible medical use that couldn't be done in an atomizer.

Please note that I'm for legalization, but just don't see the medical argument as having legs.

The reason I see the atomizer argument as specious is that apart from coughing and whatnot, there is absolutely no evidence that smoking marijuana causes harm. There are known carcinogens in marijuana smoke, yes, but longitudinal studies of users show no increase in the cancer rate. You can make up your own hypotheses to explain that fact, but it's a fact.

Going to the expense of refining marijuana for pure THC and sticking it an atomizer has no medical benefits whatsoever. It's a drug you can't overdose on by smoking, and the user can regulate their dose sufficiently well as it is. The only benefit to an atomizer is that you can use it in places where smoking would annoy others. People just seem to want to stick it in an atomizer because they have a cargo-cult fetish for medical paraphernalia.

That may all be so, but I have yet to see anyone arguing in favor of marijuana's legalization propose a maximum allowable blood THC level.

I can live with the current level of uncertainty persisting under legalization. There will inevitably be an increase in traffic accidents due to idiots driving under the influence, but it's a small price to pay to end the waste of resources involved in trying to criminalise the stuff.

 

[tyr_13]

The only benefit to an atomizer is that you can use it in places where smoking would annoy others.

That isn't enough of a reason? Besides that, I'm skeptical that smoking pot doesn't increase cancer rates. Got any links?

Apart from that, fire.

 

[roger]

What is the legal level of opiates in your blood for driving? You know, before we legalize it for medical reasons and all.

If you can answer that one, I have questions about inhalants such as gasoline, glue, etc. Not that I have a problem with establishing a blood level, if it is possible.

In reality, you can be arrested and convicted for being under the influence of many chemicals, legal and otherwise. Pop too many Benedryl, start weaving around, get pulled over, expect to be prosecuted.

In my google serach for this thread, I saw suggestions that pure THC does not have the same properties as MJ, because MJ has other active ingredients. I'm honestly not invested in this enough to go re-google that, though.

I can think we all agree that the decision is not being made purely on the facts from both sides, pro and con.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That isn't enough of a reason? Besides that, I'm skeptical that smoking pot doesn't increase cancer rates. Got any links?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Cancer_risk

Was it that hard to look that up yourself?

Apart from that, fire.

Get back to me when you want to ban candles, sparklers, lamps, tobacco, gas stoves... if you're going to present something as a reason for spending millions of dollars on police, courts, lawyers and prisons then it better be a reason that is proportionate to the cost involved.

A major, major problem in drug policy is people failing to make sensible comparisons between the risks of drugs and other risks we comfortably accept as a society, and between the risks of drugs and the costs of criminalisation.

In the case of marijuana it's simply an open-and-shut case. There is absolutely no plausible case that unrestricted marijuana use could ever cause harm comparable to the harm currently being caused by rugby, or horse riding, or mountain climbing. Therefore spending a single dollar trying to stop people getting their hands on it is insanity.

I don't even smoke the stuff, and I never have. I'm just capable of looking at the facts and seeing that criminalisation makes no sense.

 

[tyr_13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Cancer_risk

Was it that hard to look that up yourself?



Get back to me when you want to ban candles, sparklers, lamps, tobacco, gas stoves... if you're going to present something as a reason for spending millions of dollars on police, courts, lawyers and prisons then it better be a reason that is proportionate to the cost involved.

A major, major problem in drug policy is people failing to make sensible comparisons between the risks of drugs and other risks we comfortably accept as a society, and between the risks of drugs and the costs of criminalisation.

In the case of marijuana it's simply an open-and-shut case. There is absolutely no plausible case that unrestricted marijuana use could ever cause harm comparable to the harm currently being caused by rugby, or horse riding, or mountain climbing. Therefore spending a single dollar trying to stop people getting their hands on it is insanity.

I don't even smoke the stuff, and I never have. I'm just capable of looking at the facts and seeing that criminalisation makes no sense.

I was disagreeing with you on the silly claim that people want it in atomizers only because of the 'cargo cult' of medical devices. I never said that the extra reasons alone were enough to justify it, and you probably knew that I didn't say that fire alone was cause enough. Besides, go smoke that strawman you just built yourself because I never said this was justification for, "spending millions of dollars on police, courts, lawyers and prisons". I've said I want legalization.

What I did say was cause enough was the ability to use it in public. You obviously disagree but I'd have to say not being able to take a pain medication outside your home is a significant enough drawback to warrant an atomizer.

EDIT: I already found that link you sent me, but that is only one study on only lung cancer. I assumed you had more to make the claim that it doesn't cause any cancer seeing as all other smoke can.

 

[joobie]

All you've cited is evidence that it can reduce pain, not that it's any better than anything else currently available. As far as its being an analgesic, so is aspirin.

for one, it's not going to constipate you.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

EDIT: I already found that link you sent me, but that is only one study on only lung cancer. I assumed you had more to make the claim that it doesn't cause any cancer seeing as all other smoke can.

Do you have a citation for the claim that all other smoke can cause cancer? Otherwise you're helping yourself to an unfounded assumption and then demanding that everyone else present multiple studies to disprove your assumption. Science doesn't work that way.

Marijuana's been studied to death and despite the political motivations to find a clear link to cancer nobody's managed to find one that stands up to scrutiny except perhaps this recent testicular cancer study, and given the history of this research area I'd wait until the study was replicated before I put too much faith in it.

Also the link I sent you talked about six different studies, not just one. Two of them even showed a correlation between marijuana use and cancer, although the first conflicts with the findings of larger studies and the other can't show any evidence of causation.

 

[Prometheus]

That may all be so, but I have yet to see anyone arguing in favor of marijuana's legalization propose a maximum allowable blood THC level.

I don't think there's a meaningful way to do this. As I understand it, THC is only one of dozens of canabinoid substances of varying effect/potency which can be present to one degree or another in the plant.

 

[arthwollipot]

Pain reduction - as far I know.

It doesn't make it hurt less, but it makes you care less that it hurts.

 

[arthwollipot]

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

I love the way he categorises entertainers with the other minorities.

 

[Georg]

Please elaborate: What medicinal purpose does marijuana serve?

Have a look here, if you are really interested.

 

[dafydd]

The marijauna tax law was introduced via propaganda.If Anslinger had been down on tobacco ,we would be discussing that here.Marijauna and cannabis should be legal,As Baroness Wooton said in her report to the British government in 1967

"The law against cannabis is immoral in theory and unworkable in practice,"

I think that time has proved her right.I would rather see stronger controls on alcohol and tobacco,they do far more damage.

 

[politas]

I'd just like to point out that decriminalisation doesn't do much for reducing the illegal drug trade, with its organised crime links that are the one thing that does give a causation argument for marijuana use leading to stronger drugs.

As long as it is illegal to grow your marijuana, you are risking fines and at the very least, loss of investment of time and effort if the police turn up. Because it's not just a fine; it's a fine and seizure of all plants.

This means that the easiest way to actually get any marijuana at all is through a dealer, one who is usually going to be a criminal, thanks to most "decriminalisation" laws only allowing certain limited quantities.

And once you're a criminal drug dealer, you start being affected by organised crime, and pressured to diversify.

Legalisation is the only answer, and regulate who is allowed to sell it in bulk.

 

[godless dave]

I've more or less come around over the years in favor of legalization.

But...

People love to compare pot to alcohol - "Prohibition didn't work, pot is safer, etc. etc."

Fine. Legalize the stuff, just like alcohol. But first put into place laws stating what the maximum level of THC in your blood can be before you are considered to be DUI. Just like with alcohol. Anyone have any idea what that level might be?

No, because I'm not aware of any studies on how blood THC content relates to ability to drive a motor vehicle. The level set by the law should be based on what those studies, if they are ever done, determine.

 

[Prometheus]

No, because I'm not aware of any studies on how blood THC content relates to ability to drive a motor vehicle. The level set by the law should be based on what those studies, if they are ever done, determine.

I think it would be far better, if possible, to come up with some kind of cognitive-function test that tells you whether a driver is impaired, regardless of which (if any) chemical is responsible for the impairment.

 

[quarky]

I think it would be far better, if possible, to come up with some kind of cognitive-function test that tells you whether a driver is impaired, regardless of which (if any) chemical is responsible for the impairment.

I agree, but it would never fly in a Florida retirement village. The old farts have some clout, and they need to drive to the sunday buffet, after church.