Marijuana - Legalise It

[Osborn F Enready]

Ack, sometimes the mentality of people really irritates me.

Some of you act like a law is no big deal if it doesn't directly affect you. WHAT is the deal with this? Does everyone actually have to have it happen to themselves before they understand an injustice? Do you understand what is even being discussed?

The issue of drug illegalization is EXACTLY like the issue of prohibition. It is a case of the federal government UN-SUCCESSFULLY trying to regulate a desire, a craving, a PERSONAL choice. What is a personal choice? A choice that only you can make, that only affects you, physically. You can't be held responsible for what someone else "feels" or "thinks" because of an action.

Marijuana is no more/less harmful than smoking any other vegetable(No, I don't know the tar content of all vegetables, and that is a vague and general statement since smoking ANYTHING is harmful to the lungs among other things). Its harm on the body is irrelevant, since people ARE THEIR OWN MASTERS and have the RIGHT to consume what they wish as long as it does not physically harm another.(during the act of consumption. I don't want to hear about people being hurt as a "result" of someone using a drug or alchohol since there ARE laws in place to deal with people who break laws of that manner. Whether or not they are under the influence has no bearing on the fact that the individual exercised poor judgement, and critical flaws in thinking to cause the life of another.)

How many of you would stop eating corn, if the government made a federal law that said you could no longer eat corn?

How many of you would stop drinking, if the federal government made a federal law that said you could no longer drink?

Marijuana is used for an effect that it provides. For some, relaxation. For some, appetite. For some, focus. For some, beliefs. For some, enjoyment. For some, medical benefits.(glaucoma)

Alchohol, is also used for an effect that it provides. For some, relaxation. For some, social anxiety relief. For some, focus. For some, beliefs. For some, enjoyment. For some, medical benefits.(good heart health, and whatever other crap the F.D.A. and the medical journals are saying this month.)

Marijuana, is a derivative of cannibus, such as hemp. I would think most of you know the Constitution is written on hemp parchment? Hemp has thousands of industrial and everyday uses, and there are even engines designed to run on hemp oil. All of the United States Navy used to use Hemp rope, and still do in some cases.

SO, here we have the federal government, trying to regulate a personal choice(which is a pandoras box to open at ANY instance), which is directly affecting a relatively harmless drug(compared to the average of available legal drugs, including over the counter) that is a by product of an extremely useful, cheap, easyily grown and harvested plant.

Does this sound like rational thought processes at work?

Harry Anslinger enters the picture.
http://www.erowid.org/culture/charac...er_harry.shtml

You have to understand that marijuana was demonized by Harry Anslinger and his corporate, political friends for three reasons.

#1 It shifted the focus from a tax on alchohol, which was being talked about at the time, and alchohol was Harrys stress reliever.

#2 It greatly eased, and secured the profit of Harrys good friends, the Hearsts, Duponts and others in industry.

#3 It was a way in Harrys mind to lash out against his racial enemies, and the people who did not believe as he did.
http://www.ukcia.org/potculture/20/lies.html


People should not be asking IF marijuana should be illegal, they SHOULD be asking WHY marijuana is NOT legal!


Gateway drug theory is just that, a theory, which is faulted in concept.

There is the initial theory, which says that taking marijuana itself is a gateway drug in a physical sense. Why is this? Is it because the person who trys it says, "gee, this isn't what everyone made it out to be. I don't feel evil, or like killing. I feel relaxed, and hungry. I wonder if all the other drugs are as mis-represented as marijuana?" Could this be the dreaded gateway theory? Well we will probably never know, since this kind of theory verges un-provable due to abilty to accurately test desire or intrest.

People learn about marijuana the SAME WAY they learn about other illegal drugs. It is naturally a gateway to the black market, NOT to other drugs.

Once a person sees how easily the black market can be tapped for whatever product the legal market cannot provide, the question is naturally presented as to whether or not one should obtain other products for consumption, or otherwise. It is the black market, that is the gateway to crime. The black market EXISTS only because laws are RESTRICTING COMMONLY DESIRED ITEMS, which in turn allows quantity to provide profit.

When did we first have a black market on a national scale in the United States? The beginning of prohibition of alchohol.

As an interesting side note....

What is a famous political family that has its family wealth obtained by bootlegging alchohol that is currently still active and using that same wealth?

THE KENNEDYS!

Speaking of criminals, has anyone read the criminal records of their political officials? We all know how strongly these people feel about crime, and punishment right? Surely these must be people who lead by EXAMPLE, right?

http://www.issues2000.org/askme/spousal_abuse.htm

Victimless crimes, do we understand their impact?

Well, having tried to say this in my own words shortly and sweetly, I couldn't so I had to reflect back to the words of Alan W. Bock from his book on Ruby Ridge.

"Consideration of law enforcement abuses would lead honest people to consider whether there are some laws that simply cannot be enforced- even ineffectively- without abuse. Most people want government to try to protect them from those of their fellow citizens who seek to do them harm. But when the very possesion of certain items, like guns or drugs, is made illegal, without the necessity of any harm having been done to innocent people, thereby, law enforcement agencies are forced to use increasingly intrusive means to try to enforce such laws."
"Such laws, creat victimless crimes in the special legalistic sense, since there is no complaining victim to go to the police,offer to cooperate, and demand the perpetrators be brought to justice, as is usually the case with a robbery or mugging. Instead, enforcement agencies must penetrate private places to gather evidence of law breaking, or use undercover agents to set up provable crimes by people they suspect of being inclined toward law breaking. Whether or not one believes such tactics to be inherently abusive, there is little question that they hold more potential for abuse than more straigtforward tactics against crimes with clearly identifiable victims."

What this tries to put in context is, that law enforcement is being asked to enforce laws that go beyond the clarifications of the Constitutions stated goals. The constitution is the basis for all law in this land, and is the supreme law of the land.

In order to enforce drug laws for example, one must first change the constitution to reflect the nations urgency to a "war on drugs" by creating an amendment outlawing drugs, and this was not done as it was for prohibition. This creates a gray area, as there is no constitutional argument for the use of "dogs, mechanical devices(sniffers, x-rays, FLIR) to search an OTHERWISE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AREA OF PRIVACY.

Prohibition was wrong, and based on the same concepts as the war on drugs. Flawed logic, inconclusive, rigged evidence, and a lack of citizen support.

It is also unconstitutional for the Fed to ignore the State rights of California, to legalize medical marijuana, and then claim they support the Constitution and all of its graces.

Could you show me, where the police derive the authority TO USE DRUG DOGS, and the devices I listed above in the Constitution? How about sobriety checkpoints? How about random search of your vehicle at traffic stops?

Could anyone show me how victimless crimes prevention outweighs the loss of rights to those WRONGLY accused? What compensation should be made to those who lost those rights, for whatever time and dignity was lost?

Moreover, ask yourself one important question. How did unconstitutional laws get on the lawbooks in the first place? Is there no such thing as enforcement of constitutional limitations on government?

I welcome any intelligent debate on this topic.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Ack, sometimes the mentality of people really irritates me. Prohibition was wrong, and based on the same concepts as the war on drugs. Flawed logic, inconclusive, rigged evidence, and a lack of citizen support. It is also unconstitutional for the Fed to ignore the State rights of California, to legalize medical marijuana, and then claim they support the Constitution and all of its graces. Could you show me, where the police derive the authority TO USE DRUG DOGS, and the devices I listed above in the Constitution? How about sobriety checkpoints? How about random search of your vehicle at traffic stops? Could anyone show me how victimless crimes prevention outweighs the loss of rights to those WRONGLY accused? What compensation should be made to those who lost those rights, for whatever time and dignity was lost? Moreover, ask yourself one important question. How did unconstitutional laws get on the lawbooks in the first place? Is there no such thing as enforcement of constitutional limitations on government.

A wise mans words on this subject.


"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded."
-Abraham Lincoln (December 1840)

Another ...


"Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual from his own foolishness, no serious objections can be raised against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.
These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naive advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the cause of censorship, inquisition, intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters."
-Ludwig von Mises, Austrian-born NYU Professor and free market advocate, 1949

www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/

[tinybear]

Why don't we legalise suicide too whilst we're at it? Once suicide is legalised then there'll be no such crime as "aiding and abetting a suicide" and all the debate about legalising euthanasia would disappear too. How's that for a great idea? :)

[Milton Bradley]

That is a wonderful idea. I am all for it. Dr. Kevorkian is loccked up for teying to forward just such an agenda. I fail to see how anybody can define suicise as a crime.

[Milton Bradley]

Tinybear, you are always on the moral tangent. We are talking about the legality of the U.S. government legitamacy to intrude into our lives as "free citizens". Opinions about morality are great, but we are rejecting that concept that our government is empowered to act as our Nanny, or the ultimate authority of ones moral code.

[tinybear]

Very often, though not always, the law enforces the prevailing moral values of the day. It's a fact. And, what's more, it has been accepted by the people (well, the majority of the people anyways).

[Osborn F Enready]

Tinybear said:
Very often, though not always, the law enforces the prevailing moral values of the day. It's a fact. And, what's more, it has been accepted by the people (well, the majority of the people anyways).

I say:
You are WRONG. Moral values of the day? You sound like your in church. Do you even know how laws are made in this country, according to the constitution? Laws are supposed to emanate from the people, not from case lawyers. Congress, is supposed to pick up the fight for the will of the people, when a bill is brought up to be made law. Marijuana legalization has been APPROVED by a majority of people polled, and several states have TRIED to enact legalization laws for medical use! The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILFULLY DENIED CALIFORNIA THEIR STATES RIGHTS! This is open defiance of the will of the people, by congress AND the PRESIDENT.

Tinybear, wake up. This isn't Hong Kong.

[tinybear]

No? Then how come cannibalism, necrophilia, incest and polygamy are illegal?

Hey, wasn't there a time when mixed race marriages and homosexuality was illegal?

Gee, why were these activities outlawed? Could it be that they were/still are considered immoral?

[Matt W]

What goes around, comes around, TB. Go far enough back, they were legal. Now, there's a fair chance some of those activities will become legal again.

These days (at least, in some countries), laws aren't made from a 'morality' standpoint. They're made to ensure the citizens have the best life that they can.

[Orange]

It would be nice to outlaw stupid people. That would take care of our drug problem.

[Osborn F Enready]

Orange, are you saying that all people who take, have taken, drugs are stupid? Maybe the people who are making them illegal are stupid? Who is, stupid? What is stupid?

That is not a comment made to provoke or contribute to debate, it is more like mudslinging, at no particular group or person.

Perhaps people who don't address their negative comments are stupid?

[tinybear]

Yeah, seems like that's what he's saying. there's a grain of truth in it too. If you deliberately smoke/consume stuff that harms your health after being told that it's bad for you and when someone tells you to stop doing you it, you yell at him and say: "It is my right to take it and it's none of your goddamn business", can you think of a better word to describe yourself

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tinybear Yeah, seems like that's what he's saying. there's a grain of truth in it too. If you deliberately smoke/consume stuff that harms your health after being told that it's bad for you and when someone tells you to stop doing you it, you yell at him and say: "It is my right to take it and it's none of your goddamn business", can you think of a better word to describe yourself

Using your own logic...


I'm telling you it is dangerous to your health to mouth off to Osborn, so from now on you absolutely must stop, or be seen as stupid.


Oh, whats that about the source of the information.


Perhaps we had better find out who is telling us that "smoking/consuming stuff" is bad for us to begin with.


I am so sick of people regurgitating bogus media soundbytes. I won't ask you to provide a source for your arguements, because I know there is a whole propaganda database dedicated to infringing on my rights, but I will tell you it can all be debunked at the ACLU.org website.


Please read up about your enemy before bringing up these previously debunked, tired arguement that just waste all of our time.

[tinybear]

Hmmm, seems like I hit a raw nerve there.

It's a proven medical fact that addictive drugs are hazardous to health (and yes that includes tobacco). People who keep on taking them despite warnings from friends, relatives, the media and the government...etc have only themselves to blame.

http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/

[Trotsky]

I have a solution, leglise drugs, tax them as you would any other goo, add a medical tax to that so that people can lay down a deposit on the medical treatment they are going to need at some later stage from their drug use......same should apply to cigarettes

[Osborn F Enready]

Tinybear said:
People who keep on taking them despite warnings from friends, relatives, the media and the government...etc have only themselves to blame.

I say:
EXACTLY, you are CORRECT! Hence, it is THEIR CHOICE, since THEY ONLY HAVE THEMSELVES TO BLAME. What a leap of logic for you there Tinybear. If they have only themselves to blame, it is no business of the government, the family, or anyone else to say a damn word, other than ADVICE.

Trotsky said:
I have a solution, leglise drugs, tax them as you would any other goo, add a medical tax to that so that people can lay down a deposit on the medical treatment they are going to need at some later stage from their drug use......same should apply to cigarettes


I say:
Well, you are obviously not a working man, since you seem to think it is ok for the government to just tax anyone they see fit, for whatever reason.

I being a workingman, who is principled and knowledgable about my rights, would say NO, you can take your illegal, un-representative tax, and shove it, as well as your tax funded healthcare system.

As Tinybear mentioned above. If you don't plan for your future, you have only yourself to blame, UNLESS, the government makes a promise, and creates a contract between the people and the government to provide a service, such as social security was designed. It is socialist inspired programs like this, that give the government the idea they have the ability to decide for people, what is best for them, since they are to a point, SUBSIDIZING THE COSTS, which is inherantly wrong, and against our entire constitutional design.

Also, how would you tax a plant, that can be grown in your own yard? That would be like taxing a homegrown tomato. You could only tax SOLD marijuana, but the return would be minimal since the ability to grow and cultivate is relatively minor for the average smoker, and requires not only little money but also little education with todays modern grow systems and lights. If pot were legal, I could provide myself with marijuana year round with only a small fish tank size terrarium at only the cost of the grow lights, and the soil enrichment which would me minimal at best. You can't directly link any specific illnesses, diseases or disorders to marijuana, or cigarrettes mainly because of the lack of ability to create a "controlled" study. In order to do this, would take a large group of people, living in clean filtered air 24-7 for the entire period of the study, with the ONLY pollutants being from cigarettes and or marijuana. Hasn't been done anywhere to my knowledge. The air quality people breath in outdoor air is getting worse EVERY DAY, due to a non-stop increase in pollutants of all types. This science without controlled testing is quite simply, BUNK!

[tinybear]

If you see an idiot banging his head against the wall, would you:

(1) Do nothing. It's none of your business;

(2) Advise him not to since it'll kill him and if he doesn't listen, just walk away;

(3) Call 911 and/or alert someone else and hope that some else would stop him; or

(4) Stop the idiot from killing himself

Now change the facts a little. You're the local governor/leader of the community in which this idiot lives and where this idiotic act occurs. What do you do?

[Gregory]

Whether or not it's bad for you, the country would simply be better off if it was legal.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tinybear If you see an idiot banging his head against the wall, would you: (1) Do nothing. It's none of your business; (2) Advise him not to since it'll kill him and if he doesn't listen, just walk away; (3) Call 911 and/or alert someone else and hope that some else would stop him; or (4) Stop the idiot from killing himself Now change the facts a little. You're the local governor/leader of the community in which this idiot lives and where this idiotic act occurs. What do you do?

I would do nothing, and mind my own business.


If I was the Governor, or whatever, I would do the same thing until public outcry forced me to address the issue. Even if there was a public call for something to be done, I would still not support a Federal ban on self mutilation. Its a free country.

[Milton Bradley]

Ask yourself why there are no bans on eating concrete, or drinking paint thinner.


I hope the comclusion that you came to was that the government cannot have laws on the books to cover every single action a mna can make, or every idea a man can have. That is why we want the constitution to limit the governments power. Otherwise it is likely (hahahaha) to get out of hand, and become the uncontrolable beast that oppresses its constituents, and its neighbors.


Much like my government is acting right now.


I take it you support limits for nearly everything, so what is your beef with limited government anyway?