Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Make Peace With Pot
NY Times ^ | April 26, 2004 | ERIC SCHLOSSER

Posted on 04/26/2004 2:22:46 PM PDT by neverdem

Starting in the fall, pharmacies in British Columbia will sell marijuana for medicinal purposes, without a prescription, under a pilot project devised by Canada's national health service. The plan follows a 2002 report by a Canadian Senate committee that found there were "clear, though not definitive" benefits for using marijuana in the treatment of chronic pain, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and other ailments. Both Prime Minister Paul Martin and Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition conservatives, support the decriminalization of marijuana.

Oddly, the strongest criticism of the Canadian proposal has come from patients already using medical marijuana who think the government, which charges about $110 an ounce, supplies lousy pot. "It is of incredibly poor quality," said one patient. Another said, "It tastes like lumber." A spokesman for Health Canada promised the agency would try to offer a better grade of product.

Needless to say, this is a far cry from the situation in the United States, where marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance, a drug that the government says has a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical uses and no safe level of use.

Under federal law it is illegal to possess any amount of marijuana anywhere in the United States. Penalties for a first marijuana offense range from probation to life without parole. Although 11 states have decriminalized marijuana, most still have tough laws against the drug. In Louisiana, selling one ounce can lead to a 20-year prison sentence. In Washington State, supplying any amount of marijuana brings a recommended prison sentence of five years.

About 700,000 people were arrested in the United States for violating marijuana laws in 2002 (the most recent year for which statistics are available) — more than were arrested for heroin or cocaine. Almost 90 percent of these marijuana arrests were for simple possession, a crime that in most cases is a misdemeanor. But even a misdemeanor conviction can easily lead to time in jail, the suspension of a driver's license, the loss of a job. And in many states possession of an ounce is a felony. Those convicted of a marijuana felony, even if they are disabled, can be prohibited from receiving federal welfare payments or food stamps. Convicted murderers and rapists, however, are still eligible for those benefits.

The Bush administration has escalated the war on marijuana, raiding clinics that offer medical marijuana and staging a nationwide roundup of manufacturers of drug paraphernalia. In November 2002 the Office of National Drug Control Policy circulated an "open letter to America's prosecutors" spelling out the administration's views. "Marijuana is addictive," the letter asserted. "Marijuana and violence are linked . . . no drug matches the threat posed by marijuana."

This tough new stand has generated little protest in Congress. Even though the war on marijuana was begun by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, it has always received strong bipartisan support. Some of the toughest drug war legislation has been backed by liberals, and the number of annual marijuana arrests more than doubled during the Clinton years. In fact, some of the strongest opposition to the arrest and imprisonment of marijuana users has come from conservatives like William F. Buckley, the economist Milton Friedman and Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico.

This year the White House's national antidrug media campaign will spend $170 million, working closely with the nonprofit Partnership for a Drug-Free America. The idea of a "drug-free America" may seem appealing. But it's hard to believe that anyone seriously hopes to achieve that goal in a nation where millions of children are routinely given Ritalin, antidepressants are prescribed to cure shyness, and the pharmaceutical industry aggressively promotes pills to help middle-aged men have sex.

Clearly, some recreational drugs are thought to be O.K. Thus it isn't surprising that the Partnership for a Drug-Free America originally received much of its financing from cigarette, alcohol and pharmaceutical companies like Hoffmann-La Roche, Philip Morris, R. J. Reynolds and Anheuser-Busch.

More than 16,000 Americans die every year after taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like aspirin and ibuprofen. No one in Congress, however, has called for an all-out war on Advil. Perhaps the most dangerous drug widely consumed in the United States is the one that I use three or four times a week: alcohol. It is literally poisonous; you can die after drinking too much. It is directly linked to about one-quarter of the suicides in the United States, almost half the violent crime and two-thirds of domestic abuse. And the level of alcohol use among the young far exceeds the use of marijuana. According to the Justice Department, American children aged 11 to 13 are four times more likely to drink alcohol than to smoke pot.

None of this should play down the seriousness of marijuana use. It is a powerful, mind-altering drug. It should not be smoked by young people, schizophrenics, pregnant women and people with heart conditions. But it is remarkably nontoxic. In more than 5,000 years of recorded use, there is no verified case of anybody dying of an overdose. Indeed, no fatal dose has ever been established.

Over the past two decades billions of dollars have been spent fighting the war on marijuana, millions of Americans have been arrested and tens of thousands have been imprisoned. Has it been worth it? According to the government's National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, in 1982 about 54 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 had smoked marijuana. In 2002 the proportion was . . . about 54 percent.

We seem to pay no attention to what other governments are doing. Spain, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands and Belgium have decriminalized marijuana. This year Britain reduced the penalty for having small amounts. Legislation is pending in Canada to decriminalize possession of about half an ounce (the Bush administration is applying strong pressure on the Canadian government to block that bill). In Ohio, possession of up to three ounces has been decriminalized for years — and yet liberal marijuana laws have not transformed Ohio into a hippy-dippy paradise; conservative Republican governors have been running the state since 1991.

Here's an idea: people who smoke too much marijuana should be treated the same way as people who drink too much alcohol. They need help, not the threat of arrest, imprisonment and unemployment.

More important, denying a relatively safe, potentially useful medicine to patients is irrational and cruel. In 1972 a commission appointed by President Richard Nixon concluded that marijuana should be decriminalized in the United States. The commission's aim was not to encourage the use of marijuana, but to "demythologize it." Although Nixon rejected the commission's findings, they remain no less valid today: "For the vast majority of recreational users," the 2002 Canadian Senate committee found, "cannabis use presents no harmful consequences for physical, psychological or social well-being in either the short or long term."

The current war on marijuana is a monumental waste of money and a source of pointless misery. America's drug warriors, much like its marijuana smokers, seem under the spell of a powerful intoxicant. They are not thinking clearly.

Eric Schlosser is the author of "Fast Food Nation" and "Reefer Madness."


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: peterpufferpaulsen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 981-1,0001,001-1,0201,021-1,040 ... 1,321-1,328 next last
To: robertpaulsen
If a product manufactured and consumed locally is deemed to have an effect on regulated interstate commerce, of course it should be regulated also.

Oh, brother. You are a true believer in a big, powerful, all encompassing federal government. No wonder we're not ever going to see eye to eye.

1,001 posted on 04/29/2004 11:05:40 AM PDT by tdadams (If there were no problems, politicians would have to invent them... wait, they already do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 998 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I was respondent to the question. Just not with the answer that you considered to be correct.
1,002 posted on 04/29/2004 11:05:42 AM PDT by AxelPaulsenJr (Excellence In Posting Since 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 994 | View Replies]

To: AxelPaulsenJr
If you think you did, then I guess we're done.
1,003 posted on 04/29/2004 11:14:42 AM PDT by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1002 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Good enough.
1,004 posted on 04/29/2004 11:18:04 AM PDT by AxelPaulsenJr (Excellence In Posting Since 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1003 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
"And who determines which drug classification it falls under... again, the fedgov."

That was a decision made by the people for all drugs, not just marijuana. Why should marijuana be an exception?

1,005 posted on 04/29/2004 11:23:15 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 999 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Regulate" - to keep in good working order.
-- Source: Merriam-tacticalogic's New Collegiate Dictionary

If Filburn and the other wheat farmers were allowed to grow as much as they wanted, would the federal regulatory effort have been undermined? Forget about a liberal or conservative reading of anything. Just yes or no.

1,006 posted on 04/29/2004 11:31:51 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1000 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Why should marijuana be an exception?

I don't believe I said it should be.

1,007 posted on 04/29/2004 11:32:15 AM PDT by tdadams (If there were no problems, politicians would have to invent them... wait, they already do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1005 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
"You are a true believer in a big, powerful, all encompassing federal government."

Not at all. I'm not a fan of regulation -- I've stated that before.

But IF the government chooses to constitutionally regulate the interstate commerce of a product with the interests of the nation in mind, and with the approval of the people, are you saying that individuals and/or states should be allowed to subvert, undermine, and negate Congress' efforts?

Who's side are you on?

Should Filburn and the rest of the wheat farmers have been allowed to grow as much wheat as they wanted? Bad regulation is not necessarily unconstitutional, you know.

1,008 posted on 04/29/2004 11:42:11 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1001 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Then why point out the obvious? You're pulling a MrLeRoy here.
1,009 posted on 04/29/2004 11:44:06 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1007 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
LOL, not what I hoped to hear. I hoped that you would tell me that all we be ok.
1,010 posted on 04/29/2004 11:50:29 AM PDT by AxelPaulsenJr (Excellence In Posting Since 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 992 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
My point is (as if you didn't get it anyway) that you imply that the the federal government has no choice but to make marijuana illegal because it's a schedule I drug (having a high potential for abuse and no recognized medical benefit).

But who is it that designates marijuana as a schedule I drug, why it's also the federal government.

This in spite of the fact that 35 states have legislation recognizing some medical benefits from marijuana.

1,011 posted on 04/29/2004 11:53:23 AM PDT by tdadams (If there were no problems, politicians would have to invent them... wait, they already do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1009 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Forget about a liberal or conservative reading of anything. Just yes or no.

You don't fool around when you load a question, do you?

1,012 posted on 04/29/2004 11:53:52 AM PDT by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1006 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
But IF the government chooses to constitutionally regulate the interstate commerce of a product with the interests of the nation in mind, and with the approval of the people, are you saying that individuals and/or states should be allowed to subvert, undermine, and negate Congress' efforts?

Yet another loaded question that tries to establish the constitutionality of the New Deal Commerce Clause as a given.

1,013 posted on 04/29/2004 11:55:59 AM PDT by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1008 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen wrote:

But IF the government chooses to constitutionally regulate the interstate commerce of a product with the interests of the nation in mind, and with the approval of the people, are you saying that individuals and/or states should be allowed to subvert, undermine, and negate Congress' efforts?

Who's side are you on?

Should Filburn and the rest of the wheat farmers have been allowed to grow as much wheat as they wanted?

Bad regulation is not necessarily unconstitutional, you know.





Regulating grain markets using the guise of commerce clause 'power' is unconstitutional on its face.

In a free republic with free markets Filburn and the rest of the wheat farmers could grow as much wheat as they wanted, & individuals and/or states should be allowed to subvert, undermine, and negate unconstitutional Congressional efforts to restrain free trade.

Who's side are you on?

1,014 posted on 04/29/2004 12:14:13 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1008 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Maybe you know somebody that knows how to do that.
Sorry, I don't.
1,015 posted on 04/29/2004 12:17:55 PM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 949 | View Replies]

To: AxelPaulsenJr
It didn't take me long to develop it. I used Borland C++Builder. To gather the data I do have to set my page preferences to 250 and page through each poster search and save the pages.

I would like to know how to connect to FR like a common browser and send it a URL and trap the return stream.

1,016 posted on 04/29/2004 12:30:00 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 972 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
"has no choice but to make marijuana illegal because it's a schedule I drug"

No. It is illegal. It is also a Schedule I drug, along with 82 other Schedule I drugs.

If marijuana were moved to Schedule II (or III or IV), it would still be illegal (without a prescription).

8 states, not 35, have legalized medical marijuana. The other 27 offer lip service only.

1,017 posted on 04/29/2004 12:37:33 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1011 | View Replies]

To: AxelPaulsenJr
I hoped that you would tell me that all we be ok.

Bah. We're either getting socialist Hoeffel into the Senate or scumbag (R)len heading up the judicary committee. I'm leaning towards rooting for Hoeffel at this point, as I feel he would do less damage. God, I hate RINOs!

1,018 posted on 04/29/2004 12:41:00 PM PDT by jmc813 (Help save a life - www.marrow.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1010 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"You don't fool around when you load a question, do you?"

Not the way you fool around with an answer. Actually, I didn't expect one.

I'm hoping that tdadams will do me the courtesy of answering the same question.

1,019 posted on 04/29/2004 12:42:45 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1012 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
It didn't take me long to develop it. I used Borland C++Builder. To gather the data I do have to set my page preferences to 250 and page through each poster search and save the pages.

That's pretty awesome. If you don't mind sharing it, I would love to take a look at the source code for it. I can FReepmail you my regular e-mail addy for that if you'd like.

1,020 posted on 04/29/2004 12:43:22 PM PDT by jmc813 (Help save a life - www.marrow.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1016 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 981-1,0001,001-1,0201,021-1,040 ... 1,321-1,328 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson