according to the federal government, using marijuana is no different than using heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy). And using marijuana is worse than using morphine, methamphetamine, or cocaine, which are only classified as Schedule II drugs. --- ignorance at it's finest!
the war on drugs, like the war on terrorism, is a failure. On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 7:53:56 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote: > > *"It is true that libertarians point out “the government’s exaggerated > claims” about the dangers of marijuana and “the racial disparities in who > gets busted for drug possession.” And it is true that libertarians believe > that “legalizing pot is better, less costly and more humane than the last > 75 years of prohibition.” But to focus just on those things, as the authors > do, is to miss the point. It is marijuana freedom for freedom’s sake that > we “pot crusaders” are after. Libertarian opponents of marijuana > prohibition don’t argue for pot legalization because they want to get high, > end the violence associated with the drug war, treat debilitating medical > conditions, correct racial disparities, or revamp marijuana’s falsely > tarnished image even if they want to do all these things. The issue is > drug freedom. We are freedom crusaders, not pot crusaders." > > **Pot Crusaders or Freedom Crusaders? > *by Laurence M. Vance <http://fff.org/author/laurence-m-vance/> September > 16, 2013 > > The states of New Hampshire and Illinois recently legalized marijuana for > medical use. > > New Hampshire’s governor, Maggie Hassan, signed House Bill 573 into law on > July 23. The bill allows patients to purchase up to two ounces of marijuana > from four regional dispensaries. To qualify for the program, a person must > have “both a debilitating disease such as cancer, glaucoma, AIDS or > hepatitis C, and conditions such as significant weight loss, severe pain or > wasting syndrome.” The bill requires qualifying patients to have had the > same physician for more than three months. The law took effect upon passage. > > Illinois’s governor, Pat Quinn, signed House Bill 1 into law on August 1. > The bill sets up a four-year pilot program for state-regulated dispensaries > and 22 cultivation centers. Qualifying patients with “serious illnesses or > diseases” such as cancer, muscular dystrophy, or lupus will be allowed to > obtain 2.5 ounces of medical marijuana every two weeks. Patients must have > “established relationships with a doctor.” The new law takes effect on > January 1, 2014. > > Medical marijuana is now legal -- albeit with very heavy regulation -- in > 20 states and the District of Columbia. The other 18 states are Alaska, > Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, > Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, > Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. There are efforts under way in > Arkansas, Florida, and Ohio to put a medical marijuana initiative on the > ballot in 2014. > > Moreover, some states have decriminalized the possession of certain > amounts of marijuana, most recently Rhode Island. And the states of > Colorado and Washington have legalized marijuana for recreational use. > Voters in Portland, Maine, the state’s largest city, will vote this > November to legalize possessing up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana. > > But even if all 50 states legalized medical marijuana, that would not > change federal law. > > The federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled > substance under the Controlled Substances Act. As a Schedule I drug, > marijuana supposedly meets the following criteria: > > A. The drug has a high potential for abuse. B. The drug has no currently > accepted medical use in treatment in the United States > > C. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical > supervision. > > Thus, according to the federal government, using marijuana is no different > than using heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), or > 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy). And using marijuana is worse > than using morphine, methamphetamine, or cocaine, which are only classified > as Schedule II drugs. > > After a number of states had legalized marijuana for medical use, the > Justice Department in 2009 issued a memorandum concerning “Investigations > and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana,” which > stated, > > The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the > Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that > marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of > marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue > to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. > > But just recently, and because the states of Colorado and Washington > legalized the recreational use of marijuana, the Justice Department issued > another memorandum concerning “Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement.” > The press release announcing the memorandum, which refers to it as an > “update to marijuana enforcement policy,” says in part, > > For states such as Colorado and Washington that have enacted laws to > authorize the production, distribution and possession of marijuana, the > Department expects these states to establish strict regulatory schemes that > protect the eight federal interests identified in the Department’s > guidance. These schemes must be tough in practice, not just on paper, and > include strong, state-based enforcement efforts, backed by adequate > funding. Based on assurances that those states will impose an appropriately > strict regulatory system, the Department has informed the governors of both > states that it is deferring its right to challenge their legalization laws > at this time. But if any of the stated harms do materialize either > despite a strict regulatory scheme or because of the lack of one federal > prosecutors will act aggressively to bring individual prosecutions focused > on federal enforcement priorities and the Department may challenge the > regulatory scheme themselves in these states. > > This signals a significant change in the enforcement of federal marijuana > laws even though the laws themselves remain the same and even though the > manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana is still a federal > crime. > > In an Associated Press story about the Justice Department’s new memorandum > that appeared in a wide variety of news outlets including conservative > ones the authors, Gene Johnson and Pete Yost, begin with these two loaded > paragraphs: > > For generations, pot crusaders have called for an end to the nation’s > prohibition of marijuana, citing everything from what they say are the > government’s exaggerated claims about its dangers to the racial disparities > in who gets busted for drug possession. Now, they will get their chance > in Colorado and Washington state to show that legalizing pot is better, > less costly and more humane than the last 75 years of prohibition all > with the federal government’s blessing. > > Are those of us who believe there should be no laws regarding the buying, > selling, possessing, using, growing, or processing of marijuana pot > crusaders or freedom crusaders? > > The libertarian case against marijuana prohibition is a simple and > consistent one: Because it is not the business of government to be > concerned with the medical, consumption, or recreational habits of > Americans, there should be no laws whatsoever prohibiting or regulating > marijuana or any other drug for any reason. > > It is true that libertarians point out “the government’s exaggerated > claims” about the dangers of marijuana and “the racial disparities in who > gets busted for drug possession.” And it is true that libertarians believe > that “legalizing pot is better, less costly and more humane than the last > 75 years of prohibition.” But to focus just on those things, as the authors > do, is to miss the point. It is marijuana freedom for freedom’s sake that > we “pot crusaders” are after. Libertarian opponents of marijuana > prohibition don’t argue for pot legalization because they want to get high, > end the violence associated with the drug war, treat debilitating medical > conditions, correct racial disparities, or revamp marijuana’s falsely > tarnished image even if they want to do all these things. The issue is > drug freedom. We are freedom crusaders, not pot crusaders. > > The other misleading statement by Johnson and Yost concerns the “federal > government’s blessing.” That the federal government is not enforcing > federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized marijuana for > recreational use has nothing to do with the federal government’s blessing. > As libertarians have also pointed out for years about the Constitution, > with surprisingly little support from conservatives who claim to revere it, > because the Constitution nowhere grants any authority to the federal > government to have anything to do with marijuana or any other drug, the > federal government’s attitude should be one of total and complete > neutrality. In our federal system of government, any laws concerning the > prohibition or regulation of drugs are entirely up to the states. > > A writer for Mademan.com recently chronicled the 15 dumbest laws in > America. Included were dumb laws like North Dakota’s law that beer and > pretzels cannot be served at the same time in any bar or restaurant, and > the Nebraska law that says parents can be arrested if their offspring is > unable to hold back a burp during a church service. We can only hope that > in the not-too-distant future the day comes when laws regarding marijuana > prohibition are not only unenforced, but also looked upon and laughed at > for the dumb laws that they are. > > http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/pot-crusaders-or-freedom-crusaders/ > -- -- 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. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
