One Reporter's Opinion – Never Legalize Pot!

Newmax ^ | Friday, June 10, 2005 | Gearge Putnam

[Nachum]

It is this reporter's opinion that each generation in turn takes a new look at the marijuana question. Now it's this generation's turn. In a 6-to-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal anti-marijuana statutes overrule the laws in ten states that allow the use of marijuana plants to ease pain or nausea.

Fifty years ago, as a much younger television reporter, I did a series of interviews with Dr. Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics and Physiology at the University of California Berkeley. Dr. Jones, in his thorough study, raised disturbing questions about marijuana's effects on the vital systems of the body, on the brain and mind, on immunity and resistance, and on sex reproduction.

Dr. Jones addressed such problems of society as the hazards to non-smokers, crime, the law, and the effect of widespread smoking among the military – including atomic weapons personnel. And he didn't stop there. The good doctor included telling comments from interviews conducted with scores of marijuana users and ex-users.

I concluded, after this exhaustive study, that the very idea of legalizing marijuana is to follow a senseless, immoral, perilous path – a slippery slope, that the use of marijuana is dangerous on many fronts, that it impairs memory, alters time perception, reduces coordination, damages the immune system, is psychologically habit-forming and creates a wide range of effects on moods and behavior.

Dr. Jones offered an open letter to parents. Following are the main points discussed in his letter:

Marijuana is not a benign drug. Use of this drug impairs learning and judgment and may lead to the development of mental health problems.

Smoking marijuana can injure or destroy lung tissue.

Teens who are high on marijuana are less able to make safe, smart decisions about sex, including knowing when to say "no."

Marijuana can impair perception and reaction time, putting young drivers and others in danger.

Marijuana use may trigger panic attacks, paranoia, and even psychoses.

Marijuana can impair concentration and the ability to retain information during a teen's peak learning years.

Recent research indicates a correlation between frequent marijuana use and aggressive or violent behavior.

Dr. Jones concludes: MARIJUANA IS ADDICTIVE, and says that more teens are in treatment with a primary diagnosis of marijuana dependence than for all other illicit drugs combined.

Personally, I recall one visitation to a rehabilitation center where we interviewed recovering heroin addicts. We had to interview 25 hard-core drug users before we found a single one who had not started with marijuana!

As for those who say they must rely on marijuana to treat their pain, Dr. Jones cited a Washington University School of Medicine study on the subject: the experiment on twenty young men who were experienced marijuana smokers. Before and after they smoked reefers, electric impulses of different strengths were applied to their fingers and pain thresholds recorded. It was a method that earlier had verified the pain-killing effects of morphine, aspirin and codeine. MARIJUANA NOT ONLY FAILED TO LESSEN PAIN, IT ACTUALLY INCREASED IT! That finding casts doubt on the usefulness of marijuana as an analgesic.

The same facts and conclusions are repeated generation after generation with the same conclusion: DON'T EVER LEGALIZE POT!

[GoLightly]

A broken clock is correct twice per day.

[A CA Guy]

I said the death of dealers and traffickers would not be morned by me if they all died because of all the innocent young lives that would be spared by their absence.

It would be good if this very minute all the dealers and traffickers dropped where they stand. They serve no good and their absense in this world would prevent lots of misery.

[GoLightly]

I said the death of dealers and traffickers would not be morned by me if they all died because of all the innocent young lives that would be spared by their absence.

You tried to tone down what you said earlier in this part of your response here, by slipping into passive voice. Deep down you know that wishing death on people is wrong.

It would be good if this very minute all the dealers and traffickers dropped where they stand. They serve no good and their absense in this world would prevent lots of misery.

Then this... You can not seem to help yourself & it is a sign that your heart is hard. Our Father does not throw us away so easily. Wouldn't it be ever so much better if they turned away from their evil ways & repented? Would you not welcome their voices, if they were speaking out against the demon that once had a hold over their lives?

[robertpaulsen]

"The larger question here is why you think the federal government should be the final arbiter of the marijuana question -- when it is not for drinking and driving. Each state has its own laws regarding the latter, why not the former?"

Since this is a republic, we live under the laws of our state. Gun laws are an excellent example. In some states, you can carry a concealed weapon. In others, you can't. There is no one set of rules when it comes to guns.

But, according to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Section 2), if a state law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law prevails.

If Congress had not chosen to regulate drugs, then this would indeed be a state issue.

[lainie]

RP: No. Congress cannot choose to regulate just any old thing it wants. The Supremacy Clause applies in the way you said, as long as the subject matter is already within the federal congress' ability to regulate; AKA its jurisdiction. That clause is NOT a shoehorn for the federal congress to be able to interject itself into any subject of its choosing, anywhere, any time; any more than the so-called Interstate Commerce Clause or the Welfare Clause is a shoehorn for same. Think about what you're saying.

Golightly: excellent read on the Thomas Sowell article. Clarence Thomas says it simply and correctly.

As for me, I'm extremely sorry I ever said one word on this bizarre thread.

[robertpaulsen]

"Congress cannot choose to regulate just any old thing it wants."

According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states. If Congress chooses to regulate commerce among the states, you damn well bet it has the power.

[robertpaulsen]

In the article, Mr. Sowell says, "It is not the court's job to be for or against any policy but to apply the law."

Now who would disagree with that, huh? Justice Thomas, it appears, when he is quoted in the same article as saying, "use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana."

Hmmmmm. Congress has a finding that it does have a substantial effect on the national market, and would interfere with their regulatory efforts.

I ask you -- where did Justice Thomas get his information? Is the USSC now to do market research and set policy for this country?

Thomas Sowell is worried about a Congress out of control -- hell, we can always vote the bastards out of office! But what about a USSC out of control? What about these "activist" courts and judges?

What then, Mr. Sowell?

[philman_36]

Fifty years ago, as a much younger television reporter, I did a series of interviews with Dr. Hardin B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics and Physiology at the University of California Berkeley. Dr. Jones, in his thorough study, raised disturbing questions about marijuana's effects on the vital systems of the body, on the brain and mind, on immunity and resistance, and on sex reproduction.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Hardin Blair Jones, Medical Physics; Physiology/Anatomy: Berkeley
As a staunch defender of academic freedom, Jones resisted those encroachments on that freedom that accompanied the disorders on the Berkeley campus in the mid 1960s. he was a man of high integrity and he held fast to his principles throughout those troubled times.
In his contacts with students Jones became aware of an increasing indulgence in hallucinatory drugs. The contradiction between scholarly pursuits and mental abuse by drugs troubled him and led to an exhaustive study of the drug question and the characteristics of users of sensual drugs worldwide. A course of instruction he developed on the use and abuse of drugs proved extremely popular. His publications and lectures on this subject culminated in a book, Sensual Drugs: Deprivation and Rehabilitation of the Mind, coauthored by his wife, Helen Cook Jones. Jones's scientific bibliography totaled 140 publications.

Jones's public service activities were extensive. On several occasions he made scientific presentations on radiation hazards to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and on drug abuse to subcommittees of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. He was chairman of the Biological Science Section of the White House Conference on Aging in 1961. In 1973, at the request of the Department of Defense, he undertook a wide scale study on drug abuse and its prevention in the U.S. armed forces throughout the world.
Please, give me a break. Look up "hardin jones" testimony and see some of the wacked out things this "DR." believed. Go ahead, George, just believe in your dotage what the good DR promulgated. I'll go with a little more recent information like this...Health Risks of Marijuana Use
The preponderance of evidence clearly indicates that THC is one of the least toxic chemicals that humans ingest. At doses achieved by heavy marijuana users, there is no evidence of genetic damage or effects on fertility, pregnancy, or offspring. Similarly, there is no evidence of damage to the hormonal or immune systems.
Research that finds damaging effects of THC generally falls into one of two categories: 1) studies that are not replicated by later research using more appropriate experimental designs; and 2) studies that use massive quantities of THC, far beyond the doses employed by heavy marijuana users.

As Dr. Jones himself stated..."The principal Psychoactive ingredient in Cannabis was only isolated in 1965. Modern research has just begun, yet since 1965, we have already discovered much about the toxic effects of THC on cells.
Undoubtedly, additional research will further establish that other chemical constituents in Cannabis, beside THC also affect the biological system. Such research takes time". (even though it is substantially stymied in the US)

He sure needed to spend some more time studying the matter before making such absurd claims or just stuck to cancer.

[philman_36]

BTW, I do believe if one considers the various writings on this subject by this author one might be able to concisely conclude what his FReeper name actually is.
I'll withhold my own conclusions as to who I believe it to be as it would probably bring about denials even if I were to be correct.

[Nachum]

BTW, I do believe if one considers the various writings on this subject by this author one might be able to concisely conclude what his FReeper name actually is.

Well, if George is actually reading our comments I sure would like him to know that I think he is morally obtuse here. IMHO it is cruel to deny a cancer sufferer any possible relief.

[GoLightly]

If you do not mind that it took a full 180 degree reversal from the intent of the tenth amendment, who am I to argue with you? In the case cited for this ruling, the potential for harm to the wheat market was the justification to put wheat into the realm of national interest, via the commerce clause. Think about it. We now have our federal government ruling as though they fear harm to the MJ industry if some citizens grow their own.

Congress has a finding that it does have a substantial effect on the national market, and would interfere with their regulatory efforts.

Not all findings of fact are equal. If they didn't have a full line up of those involved in the industry testifying that their business interests are or would be harmed by private individuals growing their own, I would challenge any fact finding in that area on its merits. OTOH, if it was just regulators testifying, claiming that their regulating efforts would be made more difficult by lack of federal power, it would be like putting the horse before the cart & the horse complaining about the cart getting in it's way. Did Congress drag in a bunch of drug dealers to testify or not?

[Know your rights]

the use of illegal drugs raised the chances of schizophrenia in people already disposed

That assumes that psychologists know completely who is or is not predisposed. If you think they really know that, you have far more faith in psychology than I do.

[Know your rights]

punishing adults for non-rights-violating acts is quite bad.

Punishing adults is good, they need to be responsible for their illegal actions.

So if the law says, for example, that you can't criticize the government, punishing those who criticize the government is then good? Or must the law be within the proper authority of government?

[Sloth]

Dr. Jones, in his thorough study, raised disturbing questions about marijuana's effects on the vital systems of the body, on the brain and mind, on immunity and resistance, and on sex reproduction.

That's great. But what does it have to do with the Constitutionality of federal drug laws?

[Know your rights]

From your statement, it logically follow that it would be better to make access to alcohol as restricted as access to marijuana currently is.

Alcohol is restricted legally, you may not be intoxicated behind the wheel, you know you can't be disorderly in public or go to work intoxicated because of the danger and liability, nor can you care legally for kids while drunk.

Which part of "as restricted as access to marijuana currently is" did you not understand? (Or are you now saying that you support only those restrictions on marijuana that also apply to alcohol? If so, you and I agree.)

[Know your rights]

Congress has a finding that it does have a substantial effect on the national market [...] What about these "activist" courts and judges?

So a judge who thinks he should rule on law and facts, not law and Congressionally-invented pseudofacts, is "activist"?

[Know your rights]

It would be rediculous to say, "heck we all think recreational illegal drug use is bad, but by golly, the goverment stepping in to uphold the laws surrounding them is being pure evil..."

You're completely wrong. Tobacco use is bad, but the goverment stepping in to make laws against it is evil. Same holds true for other drugs.

[A CA Guy]

Tobacco use is pretty bad, I agree, since most of them cause cancers.
We know that drinking alcohol to excess is bad and can easily become addictive.
We also know all the illegal drugs are bad, and are also addictive.

We see the real problems of tobacco and alcohol for some regarding health.
No way we want to have more bad things released into society just because managed to let a couple of bad things go out there already.

Best thing to do, is to leave the stigma attached to illegal drugs and to get on with your life.

Thanks, MrLeroy.

[A CA Guy]

There was the typical drugy argument that alcohol and pot are similar.
They are not, and there are laws in place when the use of alcohol gets abusive.

With the drug pot which you worship, it is illegal all the time under all conditions.
But, if you have a real sick person using or growing a bit for their own use, nobody for the most part will bother them unless they get political about it, brag, sell or distribute it to others IMO.

[Know your rights]

No way we want to have more bad things released into society just because managed to let a couple of bad things go out there already.

So making alcohol and tobacco legal was a mistake? Then why not correct that mistake by banning them? The answer, of course, is that banning alcohol was tried and created more problems than it solved... just as the marijuana ban is creating more problems than it solves.