I would be interseted in knowing the time frame for legalization and what drugs were legal at that time. ---- The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug in the United States was a San Francisco ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875. The Marijuana Tax Act passed in 1937 quickly and with little debate and no opposition in Congress. The anti-marihuana law of 1937 was largely the federal government's response to political pressure from enforcement agencies and other alarmed groups who feared the use and spread of marihuana by "Mexicans." Recent evidence also suggests that the Federal Bureau of Narcotics resisted the enforcement burden of the antimarihuana law until mounting pressure on the Treasury Department led to a departmental decision, probably in 1935, to appease this fear, mostly in the Southwest and West, by federal legislation.
critical hearing: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/canncon.htm On Jun 15, 10:01 pm, Sharon Fuentes <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark to address what you write-I would be interseted in knowing the time > frame for legalization and what drugs were legal at that time. I think tha > they argue fewee addicts because of the legal ramifications. But that is > like those that argue that more crimes are prevented because there are > concealed weapon laws. > > I have not kept up with the literature for medical marijuana use and if > there has been a surge of pot smoking in states that now have this. I know > that the main problem I was seeing in my training was not the increase in > illegal drugs but rather young teens getting their hands on prescription > medication. Many who argue the legalization of drugs state that crime would > decrease due to this: sellers/buyers-not in prison, less drug wars in > countries that have the crops because there would be regulated farms that > produce the crop etc. I can buy this argument and see the logic in that-but > I also wonder about the genetics of addiction and those who have the > tendency to become addicted once they try the drug. If it is in the free > market and legalization allows a person to buy the product-then what? The > one possible deterent to keep the potential addict away from the source is > the fact that it is illegal and there are consequences to obtaining it and > therefore they may avoid addiction. Alcohol is a drug and has destroyed > many lives, families and people. Illegal drugs have done the same for those > who get their hands on it and I wonder what addiction psychiatrists think > about this? > I don't like the idea of paying so much for a futile effort but I question > the potential outcome of legalization? The pot of today is genetically > engineered to produce much higher levels of THC. Do we really want to just > open the flood gates to this? The middle ground calls for strict regulation > more big brother etc. I believe that since you can not buy psuedophed > without a DL and not longer purchase mass doses the number of meth houses > have dropped. So one can imagine that this would call for more governent > control and we know how well centralized governent is percieved. > > One of the reasons I went into pathology was because I found out early on, > you can't save people from themselves. they will do as they please and you > can tell them until you are blue in the face but it may not phase them. I > think that human nature will prevail- those who want it will consume it. > Like drunk driving there wil be risks to the innocent and families may be > adversely affected. So then if we save 40 billion on a futile effort, what > are the medical costs for traumatic injuries secondary to DUI, what are the > costs for dealing with the addicts when social services of these types are > cut, what is the cost to families that lose money trying to save their > addicted relative? Is that more than 40 billion? Every autopsy I did on > victims of DUIs still reverberate in my mind. All of the drunk driver > survived. All addictions come with a price-emotional, financial and > societal. > > In principal I agree with legalization but I am concerned about it the > potential outcome. > > s > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Actually from everything I've read over the years drug addiction was > > not a big problem when the stuff was legal. The crime associated with > > it was also minuscule by comparison. Just how does one equate fewer > > addicts, and less crime with the expenditures made by the multitude of > > agencies, charities and victims of this "war" and the laws of the > > early 20th century that were passed solely to please the Puritanical > > sensibilities that permeate the USA ?? > > > On Jun 15, 3:08 pm, Sharon Fuentes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I always love this argument....I would much rather be smoking pot and > > paying > > > taxes on it than pissing away billions of dollars to keep up this futile > > > effort. Can you see the coffee houses all set up like Starbucks? They > > > could be called "CannibusHuts" and equipped with drive thrus. Then we > > can > > > be the United States of Americadam and follow the lead of the Dutch. The > > > redlight district can be placed in Weiner's district so we will have > > Vegas > > > on the West, and Weinerworld on the East. Everyone will be a little > > calmer > > > and the men that like to venture out can get the fixes legally rather > > than > > > compromising thier politcal stature and sending photos to strange women. > > > > S > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > *"The war on drugs costs American taxpayers over $40 billion a year. > > For > > > > the first half of our nation’s history there were no prohibitions > > against > > > > any drug. The war on drugs is not authorized by the Constitution. > > Tobacco > > > > kills more people every year than all of the people killed by all > > illegal > > > > drugs in the twentieth century. The war on drugs has done nothing to > > reduce > > > > the demand for illicit drugs. Numerous studies have shown that smoking > > > > marijuana is less dangerous than drinking alcohol. The war on drugs is > > the > > > > cause of our unnecessarily swelled prison populations. Alcohol abuse, > > not > > > > drug abuse, is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the > > United > > > > States. The war on drugs has ruined more lives than drugs themselves. > > More > > > > people in America die every year from drugs prescribed and administered > > by > > > > physicians than from illegal drugs." > > > > > **The 40-Year War on Freedom > > > > *by Laurence M. Vance, June 15, 2011 > > > > > Although the U.S. government’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken > > > > center stage for the better part of the last ten years, there is > > another > > > > failed war that has been waged by the federal government for the past > > forty > > > > years. > > > > > The war on drugs was declared by President Richard Nixon on June 17, > > 1971. > > > > > Speaking at a press conference< > >http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=3047&st=&st1=>in the > > Briefing Room at the White House, Nixon announced his plan: > > > > > I would like to summarize for you the meeting that I have just had > > with > > > > the bipartisan leaders which began at 8 o’clock and was completed 2 > > hours > > > > later. I began the meeting by making this statement, which I think > > needs to > > > > be made to the Nation: America’s public enemy number one in the United > > > > States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is > > > > necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive. > > > > > Nixon left no doubt as to the scope of his offensive: > > > > > This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of > > sources > > > > of supply, as well as Americans who may be stationed abroad, wherever > > they > > > > are in the world. It will be government wide, pulling together the nine > > > > different fragmented areas within the government in which this problem > > is > > > > now being handled, and it will be nationwide in terms of a new > > educational > > > > program that we trust will result from the discussions that we have > > had. > > > > > He went on to say how “essential it was for the American people to be > > > > alerted to this danger.” > > > > > In a special message <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3048> to > > the > > > > Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control on the same day, Nixon > > > > declared drug use to be a “menace,” an “increasing grave threat,” and a > > > > “national emergency.” > > > > > He also continued his military rhetoric: > > > > > I am transmitting legislation to the Congress to consolidate at the > > > > highest level a full-scale attack on the problem of drug abuse in > > America. > > > > The problems of drug abuse must be faced on many fronts. > > > > To wage an effective war against heroin addiction, we must have > > > > international cooperation. In order to secure such cooperation, I am > > > > initiating a worldwide escalation in our existing programs for the > > control > > > > of narcotics traffic, and I am proposing a number of new steps for this > > > > purpose. > > > > The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 > > provides a > > > > sound base for the attack on the problem of the availability of > > narcotics in > > > > America. > > > > > Nixon then issued Executive Order No. 11599 establishing the Special > > Action > > > > Office of Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP) in the Executive Office of the > > > > President. He also appointed the first drug czar, Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe, > > as > > > > Special Consultant to the President for Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. > > > > > Nixon’s war on drugs really took off after the formation of the Drug > > > > Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 1973 and the declaration of an “all-out > > global > > > > war on the drug menace.” > > > > > This does not mean that the federal government didn’t fight against > > drugs > > > > before Nixon declared his war. To the contrary, the feds have waged war > > on > > > > personal freedom via the drug war since the passage in 1905 of the > > first > > > > federal anti-narcotics law aimed at ending the opium trade in the > > > > Philippines. > > > > > This was followed by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the Opium > > > > Exclusion Act of 1909, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, the > > Marijuana > > > > Tax Act of 1937, the Narcotic Control Act of 1956, and the > > Comprehensive > > > > Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. > > > > > And since the beginning of Nixon’s war, we have had the Anti-Drug Abuse > > Act > > > > of 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the Chemical Diversion and > > > > Trafficking Act of 1988, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of > > 2003, > > > > and the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005. > > > > > And who can forget the D.A.R.E. school-lecture program, “Just Say No” > > > > clubs, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America’s television ad > > featuring > > > > a hot skillet, an egg, and the phrase, “This is your brain on drugs.” > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
