Marijuana Prohibition Is Unscientific, Unconstitutional And Unjust

[Logical]

By Jacob Sullum

Next Thursday I am scheduled to debate Robert White, co-author (with Bill Bennett) of Going to Pot: Why the Rush to Legalize Marijuana Is Harming America, on Glenn Beck’s radio show. Each of us will get half an hour or so to make his case before taking questions from Beck and each other. Here is what I plan to say:

A few days before the House of Representatives passed a federal ban on marijuana in June 1937, the Republican minority leader, Bertrand Snell of New York, confessed, “I do not know anything about the bill.” The Democratic majority leader, Sam Rayburn of Texas, educated him. “It has something to do with something that is called marihuana,” Rayburn said. “I believe it is a narcotic of some kind.”

That exchange gives you a sense of how much thought Congress gave marijuana prohibition before approving it. Legislators who had heard of the plant knew it as the “killer weed” described by Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger, who claimed marijuana turned people into homicidal maniacs and called it “the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.” Anslinger warned that “marihuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes” and estimated that half the violent crimes in areas occupied by “Mexicans, Greeks, Turks, Filipinos, Spaniards, Latin Americans, and Negroes may be traced to the use of marihuana.”

Given this background, no one should pretend that marijuana prohibition was carefully considered or that it was driven by science, as opposed to ignorance and blind prejudice. It is hard to rationally explain why Congress, less than four years after Americans had emphatically rejected alcohol prohibition, thought it was a good idea to ban a recreational intoxicant that is considerably less dangerous.

It is relatively easy, for example, to die from acute alcohol poisoning, since the ratio of the lethal dose to the dose that gives you a nice buzz is about 10 to 1. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 2,200 Americans die from alcohol overdoses each year. By contrast, there has never been a documented human death from a marijuana overdose. Based on extrapolations from animal studies, the ratio of the drug’s lethal dose to its effective dose is something like 40,000 to 1.

Much more and worth the read at:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2015/05/14/marijuana-prohibition-is-unscientific-unconstitutional-and-unjust/

[AgingAmerican]

1. It is taboo

The 'old boy system' is deeply entrenched.

[zappaman]

2. Kick and rec!

[DanTex]

3. My opinion on marijuana would basically be the most restrictive of alcohol and tobacco laws.

Which means, no smoking weed in public places, including bars and restaurants. Just in the privacy or your own home. No laws against possession. Distribution requires a license. No driving while high. No selling to minors. And so on.

I'm not in favor of legalizing all drugs. But people doing long prison sentences for weed is counterproductive and wasteful for a lot of reasons.

[Logical]

5. I agree with your laws! I hope we get there some day! nt

[Tsiyu]

16. Cannabis has been used as medicine for over 3000 years

It was legal in the US, and doctors prescribed it regularly, until the 1940s.

Doctors knew it as cannabis, but when the greedy fuckers in charge started the "marihuana scare" doctors thought it was a new substance and were initially all for banning it.

Once they realized the propaganda had misled them, the American Medical Association counseled against making it illegal in the late 30's because they said many sick people would suffer.

They were absolutely right.

It's only been around 70 years that it's been illegal in this country. because GREED.

Will a few people misuse it? Sure. But look how many people misuse alcohol, food and prescription painkillers. We don't ban those things.

When the DEA says that meth has medical value, but cannabis doesn't, it ought to make any wise person go "wait a minute."

But our drug enforcement agency is all about snorting blow off hookers' asses. They haven't got time to worry about how disgusting they are in not accepting legalization and getting over it.

They want to fuck hookers and fuck this country's people over, too.

[RandallBurns]

4. Historical Origination of Cannabis Prohibition

i would look into the role the WCTU played in banning prohibition of Cannabis. The problems with national prohibition of alcohol are now widely accepted.

What is less widely understood are how bad the policies of criminalization of drugs and prostitution that originated from the same source have been.

My personal view is that Cannabis is a strong medication that needs to be used carefully. There is a scientific debate going on around how Cannabis affects motivation and cognition in teenage Cannabis users. Those effects do not seem to exist among older users, and the use of Cannabis to prevent Alzheimers and obesity needs more serious investigation.

I voted for legalization here in Washington. Private businesses here can still legally request clean drug tests from employees as can certain categories of landlords.i would suggest that is a better form of regulation than criminalization. I would personally favor warning labels for cannabis like we have on tobacco products. I would accept drug testing requirements for cannabis for auto insurance as long as alcohol use was also tested for (tests of average consumption of alcohol over a 3 month period now exist) and there were regulation that ment rates reflected the costs to the insurance company from specific classes of users.

[Logical]

8. I agree, I think the frequent use by people under 21 is an issue and some studies.....

show it is a real issue. But adults over 21-24 seem to not be impacted.

[Major Nikon]

19. The only successful way of controlling any vice is to put a tax stamp on it

[Punx]

11. I agree up to a point

I have no problem with testing for influence at work under suspicion, or as part of pre-employment screening, or reasonable safety concerns. But given the time the metabolites stay in the body, it doesn't prove intoxication at the time. Based on current science and studies I think the 5ng/ml of active THC in the blood that the Washington State Police use for intoxication while driving is quite reasonable for being under the influence. I would say for employment any active THC without medical permission should not be permitted if the employer wants it that way. And I'm not talking about safety related jobs like truck driver or pilot.

Here's the hypocrisy with alcohol. I could drink myself silly, beat my wife, my dog, and kick the kitty silly. (DUers don't get upset! I wouldn't!), and show up to work the next morning hungover and useless for much of the day, but by then would be sober and wouldn't test for any alcohol. But relax on Friday night and watch a movie with a couple hits on a bowl of cannabis and should something happen that put me under suspicion I could very well test positive a week or two later. I have a problem with this.

Schedule I needs to end as well. Pure BS.

[Logical]

26. Great points! nt

[F4lconF16]

12. I strongly disagree.

Drug tests are NOT good enough. They are a racist employment policy that affects huge numbers of people, and is primarily used with the rest of this bullshit War on Drugs to harm low-income and predominately black communities.

They can wreck havoc with people's lives when chemical evidence of cannabis usage can last for months. Case in point: I had one of my summers spent picking up odd jobs, rather than working an okay temp job. Didn't pay nearly as well, and though I'm doing alright, that hurts most people far more.

Don't stand for them. They are every bit part of a system of policies hammering the poor and minorities disproportionately. We can't trade one system of racist policies for another. Pre-employment screening is not good enough.

I don't even know about on-the-job tests. In case of an accident at work and injury to self or others, maybe. But even those I feel like could that could still be used to discriminate. Unfortunately, hate tends to snake into our justice system. Just punish for the crime or violation that occurs and don't give them the tools to discriminate. I say punish, because the problem needs to be solved through an entirely different manner, with available social services and support throughout.

Of course, this ignores the discrimination against the lower-class workers, when in reality upper-class workers, especially the wealthy, kill unconscionable numbers with their policies and decisions. But that's a discussion for another day. I might agree with on the spot checks for high safety risk jobs, but don't know what labor unions think. But another time.

As for the rest of your post:

I somewhat agree about effects of cannabis on younger users. However, cannabis can be used effectively and safely for a wide variety of issues more safely than other medications. We need serious research on this, but that requires federal rescheduling. And in the meantime, I hate to punish any of it, because we know it just hurts communities, and of course it ends up being racist as hell because America.

I also support complete deregulation of the amount of cannabis someone can grow. This cannot be used by the state and corporations to control and profit off of, as they do with the alcohol industry and those laws. And, of course, completely destroys the cartel's trade.

And, of course, the way our entire financial system is aimed entirely against the poor: our insurance system is lawful theft for the most part. I can use responsibly--don't be testing me.

In the meantime, I want to get rid of yet another of the many harmful policies still brought about by our current politicians on both the extreme right and liberal sides of our corrupt justice and political systems.

[The Wizard]

14. Drug testing for marijuana

proves nothing regarding its effects on the user at the time of the test. Marijuana stays in the system for a month after its euphoric effects have subsided, therefore making test results moot. Drug testing for marijuana is a bludgeon used to harass users and is only used as a threat for the purpose if inflicting punitive measures.
Texting and driving is far more dangerous than drinking and driving and smoking reefer and driving. Do I think driving stoned is a good idea? No. But to attach marijuana testing to driving safety is a straw man argument. There are tests that can determine whether a driver is impaired, and that kind of testing would go a long way to making us safer.
How many drivers of over the road large vehicles drive while fatigued? That I can't answer, but I was hit from behind by one and seriously injured. My guess is he could pass a marijuana urine test but failed a driving while fatigued test.
The root of marijuana demonization goes back to William Randolph Hearst who wanted to protect his wood pulp based newsprint monopoly. His only threat came from hemp based newsprint and he used his media dominance to launch a campaign to criminalize marijuana. He found a willing accomplice in Anslinger who feared his own daughter was going to be victimized by Negro marijuana users.
The whole marijuana criminalization is rooted in fear, bigotry, myth, superstition and greed. It's time for America to grow up. We've squandered enough resources and ruined far too many lives on this witch hunt.

[Enthusiast]

6. I can't imagine Glenn Beck’s radio show being entirely fair to Jacob Sullum.

I mean, this is Glenn Beck after all.

[Logical]

7. I agree with you, seems like a terrible place to hold the debate. nt

[Enthusiast]

17. I wouldn't like Glenn Beck if he was a crusader for legal pot and LSD.

That guy has a screw loose. It's ready to fall out. Maybe that's what Jesus will do to some people. The fake GOP austerity Jesus, anyway.

[Enthusiast]

23. I understood that. I just never want to miss an opportunity to bad mouth Glenn Beck.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Major Nikon]

20. Among other things

He seems as if he's only given up the weed and perhaps the booze. Evidently he chalks it up to a "mystery illness" that doctors just can't figure out.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. I believe the latin name for the mystery illness is "Pleni Stercore"

[Major Nikon]

25. That too

[WDIM]

9. Focus on the natural right to grow plants.

Glenn Beck pretends or believes himself to be small gov and for natural rights. There is no right more fundamental then an individuals right to grow their own food and medicine. Gov has no place regulating the plants grown by individuals. Keep the government out of my garden!

[jtuck004]

10. I'll bet 5% of Beck's listeners grow in their own or their parent's home. About 25% are users of

this mild intoxicant, and at least 80% of them are "libertarian enough&quot ?) to insist that people who want to grow at home and use on their own should be left alone to do so.

[Tsiyu]

15. Tn just legalized CBD oil, but only for epilepsy

Which is good for my friend with the condition, and for all the babies and kids with seizure disorders. But there's still no legal way for parents to get the oil without breaking the law.

The evidence is overwhelming that it gives these kids an entire new chance at life, and cannabis truly is a miracle for them, so the legislators knew they'd look like heartless jerks (not that they usually care) if they said no to sick babies

You would think that the assholes in the TN legislature would realize that if it works for kids, it works for grownups. There are so many conditions helped by cannabis, but the TN legislature is gonna make sick people beg and crawl on their hands and knees for it, because our politicians in TN think they are all little gods, and they love that power.

It makes me so angry sometimes. I am doing okay right now without it, but that can change in a heartbeat if I have a setback. I can't wait to move to a place where people have open minds and open hearts. The South is run by mobsters and goons who love to see the weakest and the poorest suffer.

Okay, I better stop now, before I get more upset about this.

[Doctor_J]

18. But PHARMA make a fortune on oxy and similar drugs, and the prison industry needs customers

so the prohibition continues

[Logical]

27. So true, which kills 1000s of people. nt

[JonLP24]

24. Yeah, its illogical

I remember when DU used to have keep MJ illegal debates. Reminds we used to have posters who have claimed to be cops about 2 or 3 of them, all of them eventually banned. Always hung around the Gun forums.