Should Drug Reformers Give up on Medical Marijuana Laws? NORML Says Yes

With 2012 shoring up to have at least two well-funded state-level medical marijuana initiatives, is now the time for drug reforms to abandon medical marijuana as a legislative deadend? In a column for CelebStoner, Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, says yes: 

If this were the 1920s, advocacy of today's "medical" cannabis industry would sound like a lawyer back then fronting for the legal sellers of "prescription" alcohol during Prohibition. The med-pot industry, of course, opposes actual legalization, such as last year's Prop 19, which was also opposed by the profiteering communities in the state's northern "grow" counties.

Prescriptive alcohol was a sham then, and the "medical" cannabis industry (not medical cannabis itself) is largely a sham now. Is this news? NORML, and lawyers like Bill Panzer, have been warning ganjapreneurs and their legal counsel at our seminars and conferences about this political and legal box canyon since at least 2002.

Cannabis consumers, who NORML represents, want good, affordable cannabis products without having to go through the insult and expense of "qualifying" as a "medical" patient by paying physicians and/or the state for some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card. How intellectually honest is all of this?

NORML prefers to take a more transparent approach, advocating that cannabis should be legal for all adult consumers, including healthy ones.

St. Pierre doesn't deny that marijuana has proven medical value, or that it's improved the lives of patients who suffer from chronic pain and terminal illness. He does, however, cite a litany of recent federal attacks on current medical marijuana laws (all of them under President Obama), and asks, "What more re-assertion of primacy will we get from the Feds today?" 

As a counterpoint, medical marijuana laws are arguably the only way to shield people from SWAT-raid insanity in the interim between now and a prohibition-free future. Or, as MPP's Morgan Fox said to me some time ago, "Medical marijuana is a way to get the sick and dying off the battlefield of the war on drugs." 

Comments

[Ain't Nobody's Business]

the "medical" cannabis industry (not medical cannabis itself) is largely a sham

"Self medication" FTW.

[Eduard van Haalen]

"Medical marijuana is a way to get the sick and dying off the battlefield of the war on drugs."

Excellent summary of the case.

The 1920s argument goes both ways. Even the Prohibitionists of old were willing to allow the medical and sacramental use of alcohol - yet the modern prohibitionists won't allow the medical and sacramental use of pot. Does this mean that pot is worse than booze, or does it mean that modern prohibitionists are even crazier than the prohibitionists of the Twenties?

[03]

it means pot is native american in origin, while booze is european...just like jesus.

[Eduard van Haalen]

Jesus is as popular among Native Americans as among other parts of the country - perhaps more popular than in the Northeast. Certainly more popular than the "Native American" peyote religions.

Booze is also, I think, more popular than pot in that population.

[jester]

Sorry, it is not. It is one of those Columbian Exchange crops. But who cares? This is about control by control freaks. See it for what it is. I've advocated here in the comments section for years to end the medical distinction and flat out legalize it. Maybe more people will agree with me now.

[Zeb]

"Indian Hemp" means from India, not from native Americans.

[dunphy]

the prohibitionists, at least in the de jure sense, allowed pretty much ALL uses of alcohol

it was the SALE that was illegal

possession was not

[BruceM]

It would be nice if Americans could be mature enough to have this debate without letting anyone say the words "child" or "children" -- anyone using either of those words should be slapped in the face and fined $500 for misdemeanor insincerity.

This should apply to all public policy debates, but especially the ones regarding substance prohibition.

[dunphy]

this is such perfect ideological purity nonsense. and so typical.

the effects of medical MJ are legion, and they are mostly positive.

we have people who would NEVER be exposed to MJ (older generation who used to think it was evil) now taking it for various maladies and finding out it's pretty benign AND an effective med for many problems, with far less risks and problems than many costly pharmaceuticals

also, medical MJ IS a slippery slope to legalization. the anti-s are RIGHT, in that regards. and that's a good thing

ultimately, it normalizes MJ for many antis who see that once a state passes medical MJ, the sky does NOT fall, and tons of people use it responsibly w/o society collapsing

it also keeps people out of penal jeopardy. heck, i've pulled over people with mj and medical MJ cards. it's an EASY out, and better than relying on the fact the cop MIGHT give you a warning, or you might get a small fine from the court for possession. with medical MJ you get a complete pass

frankly, in the seattle area, anybody who smokes MJ who doesn't have a medical MJ card is a blithering idiot. simply walking into a clinic and coming up with any easy excuse e.g. "i have migraines and it helps" is all they need to get LEGAL access to MJ

medical MJ also substantially lowers cops search and seizure card. numerous cases establish (which is common sense), that smelling mj coming from a residence is PC of **nothing** because w/o proof it is NOT medical MJ, it is NOT evidence of contraband possession

this is the kind of stupid, ideological purity shit that drives me nuts

fortunately, most people realize it's complete fringe nonsense.

medical MJ is a GREAT stepping stone to full legalization and EVEN if it wasn't, it is still better than outright illegality

plus, people with actual medical conditions that need it, are FAR better off in many cases taking MJ than opioids, or many other drugs

[R C Dean]

I agreed a lot more with the medical MJ approach up until last year's referendum, when the medpot industry executed a self-interested stab in the back to legalization.

Baptists and bootleggers, all over again.

frankly, in the seattle area, anybody who smokes MJ who doesn't have a medical MJ card is a blithering idiot.

So, it is a sham, as long as you were are willing to pay a licensing fee to get some quack to debase his medical license.

[dunphy]

for SOME people it's a sham

so fucking what?

again, this only matters to the ideological purists

the REALITY, the pragmatic reality is that in my state, MJ is effectively legalized already, you just have to jump through a minor hoop

it will be BETTER when its outright legalized

but that doesn't mean it's not better NOW than it was before medical MJ

and again, who gives a flying fuck if some people in the industry want to protect their monopoly?

welcome to capitalism.

[T]

and again, who gives a flying fuck if some people in the industry want to protect their monopoly?

We're kind of opposed to government-granted monopolies around here, dunphy. Surely you've picked up on that by now...

[Comment Tater]

Marijuana's medicinal properties, however real or beneficial, are beside the point. They are irrelevant. Marijuana could have no medicinal properties whatsoever, and individuals would still have the inherent right to use it. Medical marijuana is a compromise, a halfway measure, which is why it keeps failing as a strategy.

[Profesional Critic]

And now we're seeing the MM "community" start to turn against the entire legalization market, since they have a quasi-legal monopoly right now.

Watch that Weed Wars show, which focuses on the Harborside dispensary in Oakland. In the 2nd episode or so, they get upset with the demonstrations on April 20 (4/20, get it?) because there were too many people "getting high" and not "medicating."

Fuck them, and fuck their protected monopoly.

[Episiarch]

Yes. We're creating a whole new class of prohibitionist with medical MJ, which is the last thing we need.

I used to think that incremental steps were good, but more and more it just entrenches new special interests who never want to see prohibition go away entirely.

[dunphy]

we are creating capitalists with a niche market who want to maintain that niche market.

so what?

the benefits of medical MJ still vastly outweigh the status quo BEFORE medical MJ

people who need MJ for medical conditions can get it, and frankly, in states with medical MJ like mine, ANYbody can get a medical MJ card. frankly, epi, if you smoke MJ, and you DON'T have one you ARE an idiot

it's fucking easy.

[Profesional Critic]

I know that as a cop you like having everyone have to follow your bullshit rules, but we normals just want to be left alone.

[dunphy]

it's not my bullshit rules, moron

MY bullshit rules would be that MJ would be 100% legal

i don't get to make the fucking rules, though

medical MJ is far better than NO legal mj

and part of the reason people are now sympatico with legalization is the success of medical MJ, which the ideological purists tend to ignore (how utterly nonshocking)

[Profesional Critic]

Did you even read my comment? It's the MM folks who are AGAINST full legalization.

It's not about ideological purity, the MM crowd isn't fighting legalization based on ideology, but on their own protected semi-legal status.

The MM'ers would love nothing more than a rapproachment with the feds so that they can make their millions while keeping the byzantine regulations in place to make it impossible for others to compete.

You'd love it too, since then you'd have more fucking laws to trap people with.

[dunphy]

again, you are an idiot. first of all, of course SOME MM industry folks don't support legalization

duh

that's a necesasrily aspect of capitalism. people in a niche industry want to continue to make money

duh. otter scrubbers may not have supported double hulled ships either 🙂

regardless, it is not the MM industry that will get MJ legalized.

for every ONE person in the MM *industry* who opposes legalization, there are TONS of MM *users* who support this

the #'s explain your misunderstanding

so fucking what if johnny who runs the MM clinic doesn't support legalization?

he gets ONE vote

[dunphy]

oh, and i don't want "more laws to trap people with".

i want less laws.

eliminating the WOD and many aspects of the WODV would please me immensely

[dunphy]

actually, such demonstrations are often injurious to the legalization cause, in the same way some gay pride parades hurt gay rights, by highlighting the fringe

at nearly every such demonstration, we overwhelmingly see "dirty hippies' and other such smoking pot. that is NOT the way to gain sympathy or get people to change their minds about MJ, in the same way that cruising around in assless chaps or having some guy in a leash is going to make soccer moms more comfortable with gay rights and gay marriage.

and of course some businesspeople in the medical MJ industry are going to fight against outright legalization

it should be no shock, especially for a libertarian, that ANY group tends to want to increase its power, exclusivity, etc. whether its SWAT cops, medical MJ clinics, etc. same syndrome.

heck, just like some MJ dealers would HATE to see MJ legalized, since they make so much bank off its illegal status

regardless, that is not a criticism of MEDICAL MJ. it's a criticism of people who do this shit, which of course some are going to do - because the bottom line matters more to them than ideological purity. that's what we shoudl EXPECT from good capitalists, for pete's sake

[Carmen Senz]

we overwhelmingly see "dirty hippies' and other such smoking pot. that is NOT the way to gain sympathy or get people to change their minds about MJ

What if it were "clean, articulate Blacks" and such?

If you don't like marijuana, then don't use it.

[dunphy]

i think MJ should be legal.
that's completely tangential to the fact that the average PUBLIC FACE of mj legalization seen at the average rally is detrimental to the cause

contrarily, seeing 60 yr old conservative family men types smoking medical MJ and supporting it HELPS the cause of legalization

hth

[Carmen Senz]

The problem is that the PUBLIC does not understand that this issue is not really about marijuana.

[dunphy]

the fact is that public attitude is changing. and cultural shifts precede legislative shifts.

[Carmen Senz]

Hence the lift on phoning-while-driving bans.

/sarc

[dunphy]

what do polls say about that?

or are you just spouting nonsense?

[Tonio]

"assless chaps" - there's not any other sort. But thanks for reviving that meme.

[T]

Try using 'assless pants'.

[Zeb]

It just means no pants under the chaps. But "assless" still makes no sense since the point is to display one's ass.

[Whahappan?]

While I'm sympathetic to your position, and I expect support for barriers to entry from entrenched interests, I don't expect it from "good capitalists." A minor quibble I know.

[Hugh Akston]

As a counterpoint, medical marijuana laws are arguably the only way to shield people from SWAT-raid insanity in the interim between now and a prohibition-free future. Or, as MPP's Morgan Fox said to me some time ago, "Medical marijuana is a way to get the sick and dying off the battlefield of the war on drugs."

Except that dispensaries are routinely targeted by the DEA goon squads, and having a medical pot card doesn't always prevent the local SWATs from busting down you door and killing your dog (or your neighbors, for that matter).

I would agree that medical pot as a legal wedge is turning out to be a major failure, except that would require me to admit that Paul was right about something. And I will never ever sink that low.

[dunphy]

nothing ALWAYS works, but it is a fact that in states with medical MJ laws, it substantially reduces search and seizure power of local cops.

that's because IF a state has legal medical MJ, odor of MJ coming from a house is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT PC of a crime

that is a HUGE factor

[applestooranges]

In a MM state: you are saying the police cannot use the odor of MJ as PC? MJ is still illegal in an MJ state, so I don't think that will follow in every instance.

[applestooranges]

*correction: MJ still illegal in a MM state

[Res Publica Americana]

Not a big Ron Paul fan, eh?

[Hugh Akston]

No, our local commenter Paul. He has been saying for years that using medical marijuana as a wedge is the wrong strategy.

[Paul]

Whenever Ron Paul runs for President, the threads become extremely confusing for me.

Everyone either keeps praising or insulting "Paul" and I spend several weeks thinking I'm popular.

Then he loses the nomination and with that, I become Forgettable Paul.

[Hugh Akston]

I have the same problem when literary analysis of Ayn rand goes beyond rape jokes and the evils of selfishness.

[Brandon]

Um, count me among the ones who had absolutely no recollection of you ever saying anything memorable, or at least memorable enough to associate it with your name. So you can stop the emotional roller coaster, and rest easy. You're completely insignificant.

[Paul]

Sort of like that feminist that we all agreed that we would definitely not try to fuck?

[applestooranges]

I'm a big fan of the drug, but I don't use it. It saps the motivation and ambition out of you in no time. It should be a choice for everyone though.

[Lars O'Leffs]

It saps the motivation and ambition out of you in no time.

Only if you exhale.

[Brandon]

Speak for yourself.

[Jeremy]

I work 3 jobs, two of them highly time and labor intensive (radio production and web site authoring/management). I had much less ambition and motivation before I found out that cannabis worked on PTSD.

Cannabis makes lazy people lazy, and unproductive people unproductive. The idea that it somehow makes people less motivated or ambitious is proven a lie by the scores and scores and scores of cannabis users at the forefront of their particular fields of work.

[applestooranges]

I guess MJ has some "different" effect on you, but I'm referencing an average human being here, and on average, I have to agree to disagree. Hopefully we don't have to pull actual studies proving its effects on the average person. Of course, you're right (sarcasm)so many of the world's great leaders were daily smokers...

[Jeremy]

Our current President smoked while earning his education. As did the last one. And the one before.

Many of the founding fathers ingested cannabis, as well. The overwhelming majority of successful artists in music and film in America today, I would guess also partake. As do many, if not most, major athletes.

I personally know judges, attornies, and CEO's who use, and I'm just a dumb Arkansas hick. And in the radio/tv reporting world? Well, it's the large majority of us.

So the obvious question becomes - why didn't all of these people (and myself) become burned out and lazy? How are we all able to successfully integrate use into our busy daily lives, if it is actually such a demotivator and killer of ambition?

[applestooranges]

they weren't chronic smokers, I can tell you that much, which is the difference. Smoking it a few times is much different than an everyday smoker.

[Jeremy]

Many of them absolutely were chronic smokers. The overwhelming majority, actually.

Again, athletes and professions in the arts are highly populated with chronic, daily smokers, ESPECIALLY at the top of those fields. Athletes are probably the biggest refutation to your charge, in that the average athlete puts MUCH more time and sweat into his job than the average worker (or even the truly ambitious worker), and regular marijuana use is ridiculously common amongst professional athletes, especially in basketball and football.

And you're still avoiding the important question here - how is that so many hard-working, wealthy, successful people manage to work hard, make money and be successful while using cannabis, if cannabis makes you less motivated and ambitious?

My girlfriend and I both work full jobs, and both smoke daily. As does my boss. And my attorney. And everyone I work with in radio. And I could go on. And none of us have trouble working, staying motivated, or being ambitious. Boggles the mind, it does.

By the way, the stuff I buy is $100 for a 1/4-ounce of dried vegetable matter. What kind of unmotivated, unambitious burn-out has the money to speand almost half a grand a month on an ounce of dried vegetable matter?

[Duncan20903]

applestooranges, what in the world makes you believe there are only two speeds when it comes to cannabis? Regardless of jeremy's unsupported assertion the vast majority of people who enjoy cannabis don't overdo it. Your problem is that you only see those who fit your stereotype as potheads. I'll bet the farm that most of your potheads are also heavy drinkers. That's something else most of us don't do.

[Duncan20903]

Since there are no such studies, yes, you have to present them if you want to sell anyone that amotivational syndrome bullshit.

[NL_]

A licensing system creates lots of supporters and incumbents for maintaining the licensing system. There are some signs that dispensaries seem likely to voluntarily unionize, creating another strong ally for medical marijuana but a strong opponent to later efforts to deregulate marijuana distribution.

Medical marijuana is a worthy effort and one that solves a real problem. But the public is ready for full legalization arguments, and legalization sidesteps the public-choice problems of a medical licensing regime.

[dunphy]

PART of the reason the public is ready for full legalization arguments is the fact that medical MJ has worked in several states for years - iow, the sky has not fallen and literally hundreds of thousands of people are exposed to friends etc. or even themselves using a drug they were never exposed to before and/or would never consider legalizing

it's ridiculous to ignore that part of the reason we ARE where we are vis a vis legalization is due to the overwhelming success of medical MJ

[NL_]

I agree, medical pot has pushed the ball forward. And it's time to abandon that phase of the strategy and move forward to full legalization. Tactics that still made sense five years ago aren't applicable now.

Energy going into medical marijuana is energy that could be spent pushing the ball forward on straight legalization. Prop 19 was only a few percentage points from passage, and at times was polling ahead of defeat.

Legalization is also more honest, because medical marijuana is widely gamed and everybody knows it. If we tolerate that massive open dishonesty for too long, it risks some politicians coming in to "reform" the system to kick out "cheaters."

[dunphy]

i disagree. incrementalism will work, just like it did for medical MJ

at some point, a state will legalize MJ period (not just medical). it may or may not be a state that already has medical MJ

and the incrementalism will proceed.

medical MJ still has its place. and it's still overwhelmingly a net good. let's be pragmatic and not throw away something that is helping millions of people AND helping the cause of legalization

[wylie]

at some point, a state will legalize MJ period (not just medical). it may or may not be a state that already has medical MJ

C'mon Maryland, do it.

[Hon in Balmer]

Details, please.

[wylie]

I guess it would start with me figuring out who even is my local State Delegate. Then, like, communicating with them. Repeatedly. Till they fucking get it.

Or else, I'll just have to get myself elected.

[applestooranges]

No state will do this. They risk losing all sorts of funds from the FEDs, not to mention the FEDs trying to prosecute in lieu of state prosecutions...

[Duncan20903]

Yet another baseless assertion. applestooranges, citation please.

Did you know that there isn't a single State in which evasion of Federal income tax is criminalized?

[juanita]

So the dopers are finally getting it through their burned-out brain cells that "good" sometimes is the enemy of the "perfect".

[Duncan20903]

...and vice versa.

[JohnJ]

Booze is legal. You never see a drive-by or mugging done by a Bud truck driver. No shoot-outs or petty robberies either. Legalize drugs and stop the crime spree. Let the pharma cos. make pure heroine, cocaine & farmers grow marijuana. Apply taxes that go exclusively to medical care & re-hab for users aa well as research into addiction issues. Cut the cost of crime/prisons/mayhem. Add several legal industries + jobs and go to work on curing the downside of addiction.

[wylie]

No shoot-outs or petty robberies either.

people rob liquor stores. of course, they rob 7-11's that don't sell booze too. so, what was my point? oh yeah, robbery has nothing to do with prohibition, except for the robberies that the police wont investigate because someone stole your contraband.

[dunphy]

people robbing 7-11's for MJ money is unheard of. junkies commit crime all the time for heroin, meth, etc.

if it happens for MJ, i am not aware of it, and that's based on 20+ yrs of police work

[wylie]

JohnJ was pointing out how there's no petty robbery associated with alcohol. I was just pointing out that there sort-of-is, except it's not actually caused by alcohol, and is just plain-ole-robbery that happens to involve a liquor store.

(and yeah, 7-11's should be pretty immune to cash-robbery now, with the "no money in safe" proceedures etc. how often they get robbed for cigarettes these days though?)

[Duncan20903]

But do you ever see someone making off with a liquor store's inventory (specifically for resale) as well as their money? I'm sure that occasionally the robbers take a bottle or two.

[BakedPenguin]

I think he meant drug dealers killed over turf wars.

[dunphy]

yea. that is RARE with MJ dealers, but it does happen, just like MJ traffickers can be violent. they'll kill cops or other people ... innocents or other involved

and of course when MJ is legalized, that shit will go away

my bad for missing what he meant

[wylie]

Apply taxes

Standard business taxes, right? Oh, no, you mean Standard Sin taxes.

No. That shit needs to stop too.

[dunphy]

while i agree in principle, i again apply pragmatism

legalizing and taxing mj is still orders of magnitude better than having MJ be illegal

[wylie]

For Now. I gotta tell ya though, with everything becoming more and more instant, my patience is actually diminishing.

I decided to get a kindle today. Amazon said it could get one to me by tomorrow, for only $9 shipping.

Wasn't fast enough. So I walked to BestBuy. It should be just about done charging.

[H man]

Allow people to discriminate against drug users. This way people won't feel they have to put up with a drug user and the drug users will have to take full responsibilites for their actions.

[wylie]

Whoa, it's almost like one should be allowed to discriminate against anyone who doesn't meet their standards...oh, whoops, I'm a racist. Darnit.

[Duncan20903]

I haven't heard anyone bring up the possibility of potheads as a protected class except for prohibitionists who need another straw man to beat up.

Hey, if you don't want to be around potheads that's fine and dandy. Hang up a sign and you'll be doing me a favor by self identifying. I don't want to have anything to do with your stripe of person so it really works out well for both sides.

[dunphy]

fwiw, many of us who support legalized MJ are not potheads

i have ZERO desire to smoke bud. i don't support legalization because i like bud.

heck, just like supporting RKBA does not mean one chooses to carry oneself, or supporting abortion rights means one would personally choose to have one

[P Brooks]

Prescriptive alcohol was a sham then, and the "medical" cannabis industry (not medical cannabis itself) is largely a sham now.

I agree; it also gives the feds and their little shit eating lapdogs in the local jurisdictions cover for running a large theatrical series of raids orchestrated to coincide with the state legislature's vote on a revised medical marijuana law (designed as a big "FUCK YOU" to the people who voted it into being via referendum.

And, after they performed their gangland smash-and-grab, they held press conferences to talk about how the system was out of control and fundamentally unworkable.

Medical marijuana is a dead end.

[dunphy]

again, the more the ideological purist niche absurdity arguments continue here, the more convinced i am of how good medical MJ is as policy.

the legal reality vis a vis MJ has not been better in the US since it was first placed in schedule I

in many states, we have medical MJ , where any idiot can get legal access to MJ

nationwide, we have increased support for full blown legalization, but of course the ideological purists will never admit that part of the reason we are seeing this increased support is BECAUSE medical MJ passed, and the sky didn't fall

JUST like with shall issue laws, we see people become more accepting of ideas, when policy change results in a positive result vs. the negative result predicted by the anti's

thank god, most people are not ideological purists, but support incrementalism. too often, that's how things have to happen

[NL_]

Incrementalism means we have to incrementally move on. Medical marijuana is now SLOWER than many parts of the population are willing to go. Many people are ready for full marijuana legalization, so why should we talk those people backwards?

It's probably still a good strategy to pursue medical marijuana in the South, but in California, Colorado and Alaska they should be pursuing full legalization.

It's time for the next increment in incrementalism.

[dunphy]

of course it is TIME. but that doesn't mean we abandon medical MJ

we phase in FULL BLOWN legalization. which will happen.

once a state passes full blown legalization, then IF they already have medical MJ , those laws will be superseded, since people will no longer need medical MJ cards and scripts

however, dr's will still be able to prescribe it for people who need it for medical reasons, just like they can prescribe OTC drugs now

[NL_]

It seems like full legalization implicitly includes medical prescription, since a doctor can prescribe jogging or lifting weights or bed-rest. I don't see why a state needs to enact them in order when legalization automatically includes medical prescription.

There are limited political resources in the marijuana movement, so they really need to prioritize. I think passing full legalization in a few states will be better evidence to the prohibitionist states than spending energy on yet more medical marijuana laws that the DEA will ignore.

[dunphy]

yes.

my dr can prescribe physical therapy, and does

yet its OTC. i don't need a script for it.

ditto massage

or ibuprofen

again, legalization will just INDCLUDE medical MJ

no need to throw out a system that is benefiting millions AND helping the cause of full blown legalization

[NL_]

I don't see how anything is "thrown out" by legalization. It just means the dispensaries would have competition from openly for-profit sellers distributing to recreational users.

[dunphy]

i meant the laws are essentially thrown out that require proof of medical MJ card, etc.

sure, dispensaries COULD still exist, after legalization, but would have to compete in a more open market

[Dispensaries]

OH NO THEY DIN'T!

[Dispensaries with References]

but would have to compete in a more open market

OH NO THEY DIN'T!

[applestooranges]

It's still illegal under Federal law, so I don't think it will be quit the windfall for a state to go that route..

[pmp]

in many states, we have medical MJ , where any idiot can get legal access to MJ

This may be true in California or Washington.

Lately, states have been getting progressively stricter in controlling the supply and distribution of MMJ. cf., New Jersey. The program is turning into such a narrowly-defined privilege that it only affects the tiniest minority of people.

dunphy, how do you propose we get any semblance of liberalization, say, before the end of the 21st century? After all, my time on Earth is limited...

[R C Dean]

Of course, the perfect is always the enemy of the good. Which sucks, when good is good enough.

Which medpot isn't, IMO.

So now we have not-good-enough medpot sucking the oxygen out of the room, not just for perfect, but for good-enough.

What's good enough? Treating pot exactly like alcohol. Which the ganjapeneurs will oppose. They're the rentseekers now, and will fit like starving badgers to protect their rents. As we have seen.

[NL_]

If they play their cards right, they can get legalization on BETTER terms than alcohol. Most counties and cities have strict alcohol licensing regulations, including protectionist limitations on oversupply, and they have special fingerprinting requirements.

[Res Publica Americana]

Is there anybody here who DOESN'T support complete decriminalization of narcotics? I'm not one, but I'm still curious.

[SIV]

I don't like the idea of decriminalization. I prefer a hands-off free market approach.

[Res Publica Americana]

By that, I meant completely eliminating all penalties, civil and criminal, and regulations. Sorry.

[wayne]

And by that, you mean full legalization?

[NL_]

"I enthusiastically endorse spot execution of poors for using gross street drugs," says my imagined caricature of conservative Republicans.

[wylie]

"I enthusiastically endorse spot execution of poors for using gross street drugs," says Newcular Titties.

[rac]

I can separate my sympathy for those who need MJ for medicinal reasons from my distataste for the MM purveyors who want to keep the monopoly, despite the fact that it is all a hypocritical joke. Everyone knows that the vast majority of MM users don't need MJ for medical reasons. Unless "wanting to wind down after a long day" is a medical condition. So I would say to NORML, keep trying to increase the number of BS MM users until it is virtually legal for everyone. And tell those assholes at Harborside to go fuck themselves. I saw that moron on O'Reilly acting all sanctimonius. Blow me.

[wylie]

Unless "wanting to wind down after a long day" is a medical condition.

Another failure of Obamacare.

[Duncan20903]

Well rac, everybody doesn't know that because it just isn't true. Best estimates from the inside peg legitimate patients at between 40% and 50% and is supported by actual observation nd some supporting evidence.

[dunphy]

that estimate SOUNDS reasonable

ime, a lot of people who COULD get a sham medical MJ card don't

and i am saying they are idiots for not doing it.

in WA. because it gives them a legal way to use mj

[Shoey]

yes, just push for full legalization it's more honest. Also, there should be no drug testing of any kind, it's an invasion of personal privacy. If a workers behavior becomes a problem then fire/counsul that worker for that behavior, what may or may not have lead to that behavior is not an employers business.

[SIV]

An employer should have every right to not hire/fire anyone too dumb or drugged up to pass a drug test.

[Hooters MeGee]

Or too dumb to get decent falsies.

[wylie]

yes. and said employer should also have the right to make that decision without any influence from Big Brother.

[NL_]

Doesn't a right to do drugs also imply a right to not do drugs?

Doesn't a right to not do drugs also imply a right to not hire people who do drugs?

[dunphy]

an employer shouldn't have to wait for a problem to visibly manifest itself

granted, i say that as an employee who is legally protected from random drug testing 🙂

[wylie]

i say that as an employee who is legally protected from random drug testing

Pause.

[dunphy]

:l

[wylie]

just seems like a job where there's a decent probability of handling Illegal Drugs, after depriving others of their property and liberty for involvement with said Illegal Drugs, should probably be testing their employees for Illegal Drugs.

Or are you referring to your moonlighting gig?

[dunphy]

you are speaking normatively. again, i am telling you as a cop in WA state, employers must have RS to do a blood test

full stop. i wasn't speaking as to whether it SHOULD be that way

i am saying that IS the way it is

[H man]

Should I ask what medical condition you have? Or am I getting too personal.

[dunphy]

what are you talking about? if you are referrign to the PT, etc. the medical condition is trauma from a recent collision where i was t-boned in my cruister

[Shoey]

employers should be free to hire whomever they choose, what they shouldn't be free to do is invade your personal business. personal liberty trumps the employers "right to know"

[dunphy]

the point is - if a person has drug X in their bloodstream AT WORK, and especially if it can be shown to increase employers risk exposure (think driving under the influence) etc. they most definitely have a RIGHT TO KNOW.

[Shoey]

no they don't, they have a right to fire an employee once that employee has displayed unsafe behavior, but not before.

[H man]

Actually, under a libertarian legal system the owner of a business can associate or not with whomever he wants and employ whomever he wants. And in the case of drugs I support that.

[Shoey]

that is 100% correct, but that doesn't give them the right to invade an individual citzens privacy.

businesses interview potential employees for a reason, if the interviewer suspects that the person they are interviewing has a drug/alchohol problem they can move right on to the next applicant.

[H man]

There can be all sorts of conditions placed on employment including giving up one's privacy to an employer. I'm not sure where this right you're talking about comes up.

[Shoey]

so you're saying that an individual has no right to privacy?

[Apatheist]

This has nothing to do with a right to privacy in you own home. What you are demanding is a right to a job. You can do whatever you want at home with or without the job. Many places have you sign a form when you are hired giving consent for random drug testing. You are free to look for a job elsewhere if that makes you uncomfortable.

I personally think that employers are making a mistake if they fire someone simply because they test positive if it is clear that they are not coming to work high/drunk. Still in today's litigious culture it is understandable. If drugs were legal I'm betting far fewer employers would test for marijuana, particularly if the equivalent of a Blood Alcohol Test were developed. Currently as far as I know that doesn't exist yet so the employer can't know if you are affected at work.

[Shoey]

no, there is no "right" to be employed, but that doesn't mean that an employer has a "right" require you to give up your privacy.

[dunphy]

it's a bit more complex than that. are you speaking normatively or in regards to the state of the current law?

as usual, people here mix the two without distinguishing

it leads to weird disagreements when what is really happening is people are making assumptions about one or the other

[Shoey]

there is no "right" to be safe from risk, life is risk.

[dunphy]

employers have the authority to use various means to reduce risk

for example, with cop applicants, we do psychological tests, polygraph, background, credit check, etc.

many of the tests that are legal to do for applicants are illegal to apply to current employees.

[Shoey]

A drug test is a search, the 4th Amend. says:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

this makes any random or mandatory drug test unconstitutional, because probable cause is needed to execute a search, a random or mandatory drug test, by definition, has no probable cause. furthermore, the 4th only empowers a search after an offical oath or affirmation has been issued (traditionally by a Judge) this would make any drug test (a search) be authorized by search warrant, your employer has no legal auhtority to search your person (or urine).

so what right does your employer have? - to fire you after you screw up, but not until.

(don't even go there, If I were King there would only be private charities, no government sponsered welfare whatsoever)

[Shoey]

they also have the right to not hire you if you show up at the interview drunk, reeking of pot, or waering your "I Love Crack" T-shirt.

[wayne]

The problem with that analysis is the test is for Cannabis metabolites and mean nothing regarding intoxication.

I support a test that shows current intoxication as a reason to fire somebody. Current tests do not fill that requirement.

[dunphy]

correct. i wasn't speaking to MJ specifically. URINE tests, generally speaking (there are probably exceptions for some drugs, etc.) don't test what is currently in the bloodstream

blood tests do that. or in the case of alcohol, breath can be a proxy for blood levels

[Duncan20903]

Synthetic urine is readily available. No pothead in a safety sensitive position leaves home to go to work without it.

PS please recall that a whiz quiz positive for inert metabolites doesn't mean that a person is stoned or performing his duties while impaired.

[wayne]

I thought cops were subjected to random drug tests?

[dunphy]

again, much like EVERYTHING else in law - it VARIES state to state.

in hawaii, we could get randomly tested

in WA we can't

[dunphy]

there is this false dichotomy here

one can push for full blown legalization. that does not require abandoning medical MJ or the millions of people who benefit for it

when and if a state legalizes it, if that state already has medical MJ, those laws will become irrelevant

[Res Publica Americana]

+1

[Shoey]

true...

[R C Dean]

one can push for full blown legalization. that does not require abandoning medical MJ or the millions of people who benefit for it

True, in theory. As we have seen in practice, though, medpot creates a public choice problem - it creates a new set of rentseekers who will fight to prevent any change.

So, in practice, medpot may actually be inimical to full legalization. As, I note again, we have seen.

[Shoey]

interesting points on both sides

[dunphy]

i disagree we have seen it. imo (opinion) medical MJ has done FAR more to help than harm legalization

and again, whatever those in the power structure say, for every one who is there, there are hundreds who AREN'T

so, at least by citizen initiative, i would argue medical MJ is a complete win for the cause of legalization

medical MJ clinic owner gets one vote

the 200 clients of his ALSO get one vote... each

[R C Dean]

i disagree we have seen it.

The medpotters came out strongly against further legalization in last year's CA initiative. So, yes, we have seen it.

[Duncan20903]

They almost certainly were responsible for the defeat of Prop 19. Let's see them pull it off again with Ron Paul on the ballot.

[dunphy]

which "medpootters?"

was the vote broken down so we know the medical MJ ***users*** voted against further legalization?

i'd find that surprising

i'd find it wholly unsurprising that many involved in the med mj INDUSTRY would vote against it, just like many illicit mj dealers would

[applestooranges]

Again, no state will legalize it. They will lose funds from the FEDs, and the FEDs can prosecute under Fed law even if the state law is changed. Am I missing something?

[Duncan20903]

There you go again...lost in lala land.

[dunphy]

exactly. he's missing a lot.

the feds will roll over on legalized marijuana, because there is nothing they can do. sure, there will be a lot of storm and fury and bla bla for a while, and eventually they will concede, because it's all they can do.

and they well know it.

[P Brooks]

in many states, we have medical MJ , where any idiot can get legal access to MJ

Which leads the usual suspects (rank and file cops, police chiefs, district attorneys and assorted other law-and-order shithead politicians, concerned soccer moms and stakeholders in the addiction/incarceration industry) to band together and call for repeal and harsher penalties.
For the, you know, children.

[dunphy]

and againm, even *if* true. so WHAT?

my state has citizen initiative. it doesn't fucking matter WHAT those in power want. if the majority of the public want something else, we win by initiative.

[John]

The Northern Grow County people are the lowest scum imaginable. Those fuckheads are happy to see people sent to prison for growing so they can keep their monopoly.

[Res Publica Americana]

I'm an absolutist anti-prohibitionist, so fuck anybody that supports those peoples' monopoly-by-law ambitions. Do they ever get called on their hypocrisy?

[Paul]

If this were the 1920s, advocacy of today's "medical" cannabis industry would sound like a lawyer back then fronting for the legal sellers of "prescription" alcohol during Prohibition

Fucking wow. And everyone called me nuts for eschewing the possible in exchange for the perfect.

The whole medical marijuana racket has been a sham from the beginning, and is essentially begging for the worst kind of government intrusion.

Cannabis consumers, who NORML represents, want good, affordable cannabis products without having to go through the insult and expense of "qualifying" as a "medical" patient by paying physicians and/or the state for some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card. How intellectually honest is all of this?

Spectacular. I'm donating money to NORML.

[BakedPenguin]

The whole medical marijuana racket has been a sham from the beginning, and is essentially begging for the worst kind of government intrusion.

I can understand you opposing MMJ, but it definitely wasn't a scam for Peter McWilliams or Steve Kubby.

[Paul]

Not a scam in the sense that medical marijuana has no medicinal properties... and note I used "sham" not "scam", but they're essentially the same.

It's a sham because it creates a dangerous gauntlet for marijuana users and doctors to navigate through. Also, it created an atmosphere where the purveyors of medical marijuana essentially went begging to the government to regulate, tax and look over their shoulders on everything they did, in exchange for a few grains of legal acceptance.

[dunphy]

it's also a sham, to an extent, because a metric assload of medical MJ users are not really patients, they just use the system to get legal medical mj

i just happen to consider that a feature, not a bug

[Hugh Akston]

I don't blame you for skipping my comment above, since someone dunphy'd all over it.

[Paul]

I did miss your comment above... mainly because I started writing my comment earlier and then the cisco 2970 switch on the ground floor took a nosedive and I had to go imbestigate.

However, I do appreciate the kudos, even though you are an absolute artist at the backhanded comment. You're like the Rembrandt of veiled insults.

And I mean that in a good way.

It also means that you've followed my disdain for the MM industry for some time now.

So when a towering figure such as Hugh Akston is following, I take notice of your taking notice of my taking notice. Or something.

[Hugh Akston]

I take it as a point of pride that no one can ever tell if I am being genuine about anything I say.

Also, the comparison to an artist who is remembered chiefly for his penchant for self-mutilation is delicious.

[Paul]

Do you really mean that?

[Hugh Akston]

You'll never know! Hahaha!

[P Brooks]

even *if* true. so WHAT?

It's true, dipshit. As you well know.

Despite your protestations, as long as the Law of the Land allows them to arrest and prosecute people for possessing teh evul scary weed, the Lawz-and-Orderz mob will fight desperately to retain that power.

[dunphy]

again, plenty of lawz and orders people don't support MJ prohibition (at least by that i mean cops etc.) and plenty do

and again, so what?

at least in my state, we have citizen initiative.

they can wank all they want. they can bribe, pay etc. off legislators

again, so what?

i supported citizens united btw

they can spend all their fucking money fighting legalization

so what?

right now, MY law of the land allows almost anybody a get out of arrest free card for MJ. that's a good thing

and if you smoke MJ in WA and you don't have one... you are a MORON

just like if you carry concealed in my state, and out of some ideological purity because you don't want to jump through hoops to get a shall issue permit, you don't get one, you are an idiot (its a misdemeanor to carry w/o a permit concealed in my state)

employ some pragmatism here.

we have initiative

i don't give a flying fuck what some politician or cop-o-crat says about legalizing pot

the CITIZENS have ultimate authority via initiative to make it happen

and imo far more people will be incentivized to legalize it via the success of medical MJ, again especially your white hair types whose mind has been changed by seeing medical MJ for their friends, etc. who have cancer, than will be incentivized to be against it (the clinic owners etc)

medical MJ ftw

[Geotpf]

If you want to truely legalize MJ, it has to be done at the Federal level. That's the main problem with medical MJ laws-they are state laws that conflict with Federal ones.

[applestooranges]

EXACTLY - FINALLY - SOMEONE WHO GETS IT (UNLIKE DUNPHY)

[wayne]

You're the one who doesn't get it. Federal legalization would be a great thing and I am all for it, but there is no reason the states shouldn't go ahead and legalize on their own. That is exactly what the states did during prohibition: they told the feds to go ahead with their drug war, but they (the states) would not participate.

[dunphy]

exactly. i well understand the federal issue. i ALSO understand that if and when a state legalizes marijuana across the board, we know damn well, the feds can't do fuck-all about it.

just like they don't go after individual medical MJ users (i am sure an exception could be found somewhere)... they CAN'T.

it's simply impractical, even if they want to

[Shoey]

yep, the Constitution makes no provision for Federal jurisdication in this area, it's just not there and the Federal government has no legitimate authority to create ANY drug law.

[dunphy]

actually, i would argue the feds at arguably have jurisdiction in interstate commerce of same

they most definitely SHOULD not (contra Raich) have jurisdiction in state medical MJ issues, however as per raich, they unfortunately do

[R C Dean]

Serious question for you, dunphy:

How many people were arrested in Washington last year for possession? Possession with intent to distribute?

[dunphy]

first of all, it depends what you mean by arrest. as i explain, the DOJ counts a criminal citation as an "arrest".

heck, they even count a cop sending case to prosecutors FOR prosecution, even if the prosecution nolle pros' as "an arrest" since charges were preferred

i can tell you, in my agency, we have seen FAR less MJ cases SINCE medical MJ has passed

and again, ANYBODY who possessed MJ in WA who didn't at least try to get a medical MJ pass first (and i would be the success rate is well over 95%... it's not rocket science) is so fucking stupid, reckless, careless, etc. that i really can't gin up a LOT of sympathy for them

the culture has changed

not too long ago, i had a guy walk up to me and literally TURN OVER some MJ he illegally possessed (he saw me scoping out his parked car and figured the proactive approach was best).

i actually wrote a case report NOT FOR PROSECUTION, iow formalized a written warning, and my sgt. approved it.

that would NOT have happened 10 yrs ago. i guarantee it

again, i imagine the stats are out there, look em up. just remember that arrest =/= custodial arrest, so don't fall into that statistical trap

[P Brooks]

at least in my state, we have citizen initiative.

In my state there was a citizen referendum in favor of medical marijuana, and the feds, with the eager assistance of legislators and the "law enforcement establishment", came in and shat all over it. Actually, I think there are some legitimate questions about who really initiated the clampdown; state or feds. Law enforcement at the state level was heavily involved in lobbying the legislature to stop medical marijuana.

But the pigs in Washington (seeing as how they're all so libertarian and stuff) would NEVER thwart the will of the people, just yo maintain the scope of their power.

[dunphy]

law enforcement and "the pigs" usually means cop-o-crats e.g. IACP and other police ADMINISTRATORS

the latter tend to be, have to be if they want to keep their job, highly political.

regardless, so fucking what?

and i never said the cops in WA are libertarian. far from it. what i said is that ime they tend (the majority ime) to support RKBA and a substantial %age think mj a minor nuisance at worst and/or would support decrim.

but again, turn this into a screed against cops, instead of discussing the issue

how typical , from a bigot

for racist bigots, you could be discussing anything, and it invariably turns to dem blacks. for you and your ilk, it's always an excuse to whinge about cops

[P Brooks]

i don't give a flying fuck what some politician or cop-o-crat says about legalizing pot

Har dee fucking har.

[dunphy]

derp derp derp

[Brandon]

You've got my vote. If you move to Colorado.

[me/dwc]

I have long argued that the "medical marijuana" approach was a bad one and would only lead to more government control of our lives.

[Robert]

You can never do controlled experiments to get evidence of what conditions lead to which social changes, but looking at what models there are is better than nothing.

I can think of one vice that over my lifetime has made enormous progress in liberaliz'n in the USA: gambling. When I was a child, in the USA you had very few legal choices: parimutuel at the horse track, bingo for charity, carnie games for small non-cash prizes at the boardwalk, and Nevada. It'd been that way for generations. What seemed to start the trend towards greater freedom were the state lotteries, starting with NH -- in other words, a state monopoly on a narrow kind of game. At the time it was said by detractors that this would pave the way for broader acceptance of legal gambling in the USA -- and they were right.

Now, we don't know what would've happened in the absence of the state lotteries, but the preceding generations seem to be a pretty good historic control. Of course we still don't have laissez faire in gambling, but the legal choices are far broader than they used to be, and despite some recent pushback, the trend is still towards liberaliz'n.

There are also some minor examples that are not in the class of vice, except in some glancing way, but relating to drugs: the drugs that have made a transition from illegal to market at all, thru legal by prescription, to OTC status. Supposedly the principle is that once there's enough experience with the drug that people are assured of its safety, the authorities will allow it as a nonprescription item. So the med-mj-to-recreational-mj advocates are treading an established path.

[SocDoc]

Marijuana is legal for patients in California. They pay $75 an eighth at one of the Bay Area's largest dispensaries. Marijuana is prohibited in Massachusetts, with $100 civil decrim for those in possession of less than 1 ounce. Production and distribution are still crimes. We pay $50 an eighth, for the same stuff that is grown in and for sale in California. How is medicinal making things better for patients? It is definitely making things better for growers & sellers ("the industry"), but patients can save 33% by coming to Massachusetts.

Little green pharma operates under the same principles as big pharma--maximize consumers & maximize profit. So much for being humanitarian.

[Duncan20903]

Why would they go shop in a dispensary if it weren't in their better interests?

$75 in a California dispensary? If that isn't ancient history you can thank the Feds for shutting down so many in the last 6 months. More likely you've been using that number for years and hven't kept up with actual pricing. But again, if the dispensaries have some kind of captive customer base as you seem to think, why not $100, or even $1000? Anybody can put a product up for sale with any price they can dream up. But if a willing buyer wanders in and plunks down the loot it's prima facie evidence that the product was worth the price.

[SocDoc]

Just quoting the price pictured in the show "Weed Wars".

[Muzzylu]

Either marijuana should be legalized, like tobacco and alcohol, or it should be put way down on the drug schedule list. Now it is schedule 1 along with heroin! Very dopey.
Great e-book on medical marijuana: MARIJUANA - Guide to Buying, Growing, Harvesting, and Making Medical Marijuana Oil and Delicious Candies to Treat Pain and Ailments by Mary Bendis, Second Edition. This book has great recipes for easy marijuana oil, delicious Cannabis Chocolates, and tasty Dragon Teeth Mints. goo.gl/iYjPn goo.gl/Jfs61

[wayne]

I have to agree with Dunphy on this thread. MM incremental is better than nothing and probably will lead to legalization ala alcohol.

This is coming from a guy who spent weeks arguing in favor of prop 19 on rollitup.org. The Norcal growers, dispensary operators etc are aligned with the feds with respect to legalization. They are NOT on the side of simple freedom.

[dunphy]

note: currently, police employers require "reasonable suspicion" to conduct a drug test of a cop.

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Random drug tests could become a job requirement for police officers in the state of Washington.

The legislation is being introduced just days after a Seattle police officer took his own life when confronted about cocaine that didn't make it to an evidence locker.

Rep. Mike Hope, an officer with the Seattle Police Department, believes he and his co-workers should be randomly drug-tested on a routine basis.

Hope, R-Lake Stevens, plans to introduce a bill this week to require such tests not only for police, but also firefighters and state troopers as well.

"That way, you're not jeopardizing public safety across Washington state," he said.

Lawmakers have proposed similar bills in past years, but the suicide of Seattle Officer Rick Nelson last week brought it back to the forefront. Nelson was allowed to continue working in patrol even though Seattle police commanders say they suspected he was using drugs.

"Somebody thinks it's appropriate to allow somebody to go back to duty and carry a gun, and wear a badge, and drive a vehicle potentially intoxicated, and I don't think we should allow for that," said Hope.

The House will also consider a second bill by Hope requiring public safety agencies to place employees who use drugs on administrative leave immediately once probable cause is established.

Nelson was arrested after he failed a so-called "integrity test" when he didn't book cocaine into evidence and kept it for himself. He shot himself a few hours after his arrest.

"People could have reached out to that person, and that tragedy may not have happened," Hope said.

Hope says new police recruits must undergo drug testing, and there's no reason to stop there.

"We are a very professional group of people, and we also need to have high standards," he said.

Seattle police declined a request for an on-camera interview, and would only say their job is to enforce the law, not comment on proposals that belong under collective bargaining in union contracts.

[dunphy]

just to clarify here, currently, the cops CAN require a drug test if they have mere reasonable suspicion... that's a lot less than PC

what they can't do is do them randomly OR because they have a weak suspicion (like in the nelson case) that doesn't rise to RS. iow, with NELSON all they had was he was expressing undue interest in drugs, etc. but they didn't see signs of impairment. if they HAD, they could have required a drug test

i think the random testing has merit.

[malcolm kyle]

Maybe many of the early Prohibitionists did not really intend to kill hundreds of thousands worldwide, or put 1 in every 30 American adults under supervision of the correctional system. But similar to our "Great Experiment" of the 1920s, the prohibition of various other drugs has once again spawned rampant off-the-scale criminality & corruption, a bust economy, mass unemployment, a mind-boggling incarceration rate, a civil war in Mexico, an un-winnable war in Afghanistan and an even higher rate of drug-use (both legal & illegal) than in all other countries that have far more sensible policies.

Maybe it's high time we all stood up and told our government that we're pooped at being beaten and jailed in order that unconscionable Transnational Corporations, and their Media Enablers, can continue to abuse, addict and poison us for obscene profits.

And maybe we shouldn't wait for a complete economic collapse to regain our unalienable? rights?

According to the CATO Institute, ending prohibition would save roughly $41 billion of expenditure while generating an estimated $46 billion in tax revenues. - http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpap.....tionWP.pdf

Thanks to Prohibition we now have far more people locked in cages than would normally be the case. Apart from the fact that these extra prisoners are not contributing economically to society, it also costs 50,000 dollars per annum to incarcerate them. Additionally their families often go on government assistance, and it's again the average tax payer who has to pick up the bill. Their kids may be taken into care or raised by foster parents, again with tax payer money. Now add to all this the court costs, jail costs, and the salaries of all those people that have to deal with the enforcement of prohibition, like police officers, judges and public defenders and you'll start to get a fair idea of why "Black Thursday", October 24, 1929 happened during the period of another of our great experiments - Alcohol Prohibition.

* The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
* 743 adults incarcerated per 100,000 population at year-end 2009.
* 2,292,133 adults were incarcerated in federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2009, that's approx. 1% of US adults.
* Additionally, 4,933,667 adults at year-end 2009 were on probation or parole.
* In total, 7,225,800 adults were under correctional supervision (probation,parole, or incarcerated) in 2009 ? about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population.

Prohibition has helped fill our Prisons and Jails to capacity. Violent criminals, murderers, rapists and child molesters are released early to create space for so called 'drug offenders'. Half of court trial time and also a huge chunk of police officers time is pointlessly wasted. Enormous untaxed profits from illegal drugs fund multi-national criminal empires which bribe law enforcement authorities and spread corruption faster than a raging bush fire. Prohibition takes violent criminals and turns them into multi-billionaires whilst corrupting even entire countries, including our own. Our drug laws are also funding the Taliban and al-Qaeda whose illegal opium profits allow them to buy weapons and pay it's fighters more than $300 a month, compared with the $14 paid to an Afghan policemen.

Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare; if you support it you must be either ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, insane or corrupt.

"If the campaign is protracted the resources of the state will not be equal to the strain"
"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare" - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

[momma]

They should just legalize cannabis for anyone over the age of 21 and anyone that is younger than 21 who needs it for medical purposes could get a prescription for it. That would pretty much take care of all of the issues and the what-ifs.

[Charles Patrick Queen]

If the fed gov and FDA have bo poblem with approving the newest pain killer that will hit the strets very soon now,Zohydro,another hydrocodone based pain killer except this one is almost pure hydrocodone or 10 times the amount of hydrocodone versus whats already out there and has been wreaking havoc across the entire nation then why would they have a problem with alllowing medicinal marijuana/It's not deadly like these others are nor is it as addictive physically as they are but only mentally so.Do they realise what they did when they apoved this new pain killer?This is going to prove to be a major disaster and wil cause mre addictions and deaths than all of the other ones put together.It makes absolutely no snes whatsoever at all

[Ted Fox]

the debate over whether or not med MJ is good or bad evades the real issue of this election year, i.e., smaller government vs. a coercive and tyrannical bureaucratic socialist system. I have heard more prominent Republicans than Democrats advocate legalization of MJ in the last decade, based largely on the economic realities of the Drug War. It's a choice between the lesser of two evils, and Ron Paul IS the ONLY
true libertarian on the GOP side.