Illinois is one House vote away from becoming the 15th state to legalize medical marijuana.

But Rep. Lou Lang, the sponsor of the measure that would enact legalization, is playing it safe. With a subject as sensitive as medical marijuana, he realizes that timing is everything.

“Many members will vote for this,” Lang told the Chicago Reader, “but they’ll only do it once. They’ll go out on a limb once.”

A new report from WBBM shows how tantalizingly close the state truly is to passing the bill. It squeaked out of the Illinois Senate almost a year ago; now, Lang says, more than 90 of the 118 members of the House of Representatives have told him they support the bill. And “he has been promised a vote by Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) if he can muster the needed votes,” the report reads.

The trouble for Lang is that private statements of support may not translate into votes. Nearly 40 of the representatives who support the bill in private say they fear the political fallout of casting an “aye” vote for it in the harsh light of day.

And the clock is ticking on passage of the bill. On January 12, 2011, a new General Assembly will be sworn in. If by that time the bill hasn’t passed the House, the Senate’s vote won’t matter any more; it will be back to square one.

The Chicago Reader’s feature on the issue points out that medical marijuana has been technically legal in Illinois since 1978. But the law passed over 30 years ago, the Cannabis Control Act, required the Department of Human Services and the Illinois State Police to enact new policies on pot before it could be legally distributed. Neither agency has.

The Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, the bill Lang is bringing to the House, would change all that. From the Reader:

It says that with a physician’s written permission, someone diagnosed with a “debilitating medical condition,” and also his or her primary caregiver, can have up to six cannabis plants, only three of which can be “mature,” or in the budding stage, when the levels of active chemicals are highest. The Illinois Department of Public Health would determine procedural specifics, and the law would expire three years after taking effect unless renewed by the legislature.

Marijuana would be used for the treatment of chronic pain. It would serve as a replacement for drugs like Vicodin and Oxycontin, both of which are addictive and can be lethal if overdosed. No tests have shown that either is the case for marijuana.

“The medical profession has no controversy on this, to speak of,” Illinois Public Health Advocate Dr. Quentin Young told WBBM.

The political profession, however, is a different matter. In that line of work, Lou Lang is still operating behind the scenes, trying to put controversy to bed before he calls for the decisive vote.

           

Legislation to permit marijuana use by people with severe chronic pain sparked heated Senate debate Thursday between a two-time cancer survivor who supports the bill and a physician who fears doctors would “over-prescribe” the illegal drug.

Sen. David R. Brinkley, who survived Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 1989 and melanoma in 1995, said marijuana provides the best and safest relief for people living with constant pain. But Sen. Andrew P. Harris, an anesthesiologist, expressed deep concern that the legislation could be abused by treating physicians or lead unethical doctors to exploit the law by starting a side business of growing marijuana for medicinal use.

The Senate is scheduled to continue its consideration of the measure Friday morning.

If the legislation is enacted, Maryland would become the 15th state that permits medicinal marijuana use without penalty. Maryland currently allows medicinal use to be asserted as an affirmative defense to a marijuana-possession charge. But the defense, if successful, merely reduces the penalty to a $100 fine.

“Whether we like it or not,” thousands of desperate Marylanders in severe chronic pain are getting marijuana illegally from drug dealers, said Brinkley, R-Carroll and Frederick. Brinkley, who said he did not use marijuana when he had cancer, would prefer that these patients receive the treatment legally and under the care of their physician rather than illicitly through the “black market.”

Harris, though expressing sympathy for those in severe pain, countered that the legislation does not place sufficient constraints on physicians. The measure also does not bar doctors from growing the drug and then recommending it to patients, he said.

“This will solve our physician shortage problem in Maryland,” said Harris, R-Harford and Baltimore counties. “Where is the oversight of the physician?”

But Sen. Jamin B. “Jamie” Raskin, a co-sponsor of the bill, defended the legislation as creating “a carefully controlled and regulated system” in which both patients and would-be growers of marijuana would have to receive prior permission from the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

“It [the legislation] is about getting the drug dealers out of the medical marijuana business and the doctors into it,” Raskin said.

Doctors would remain subject to their professional obligations, as enforced by the Maryland Board of Physicians, added Raskin, D-Montgomery.

Regulating the players

The measure, Senate Bill 627, would enable a patient’s regular treating physician to recommend marijuana for “a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition” that causes severe or chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, severe or persistent muscle spasms or “any other condition that is severe and resistant to conventional medicine.” Patients with these conditions would have to receive an “identification card” from the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene affirming they are qualified for marijuana treatment.

The application for the card would have to include a statement from the regularly treating physician that the patent has “a debilitating medical condition for which recognized drugs or treatments would not be effective.” The doctor would also have to state that “the potential benefits of the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks for the patient.”

Growers of medical marijuana would also have to be certified by the department.

To get certification, the grower would have to cultivate the marijuana in Maryland, meet security and safety requirements set by the department and pass a criminal background check.

The certified grower, and any pharmacy dispensing marijuana, would be barred from hiring anyone who has been convicted of possessing or selling a controlled dangerous substance. The grower would also have to submit to testing of the marijuana to ensure its consistency and that it has not been adulterated or contaminated.

“I don’t think you can write a more airtight program” to permit the medicinal use of marijuana while preventing its illicit use or sale, Raskin said.

“There are thousands of our constituents” who want the General Assembly to pass this bill, Raskin told his colleagues. “They are suffering.”

But Harris reiterated the need for stricter limits in the bill to prevent doctors from over-prescribing marijuana and prohibit them from seeking the department’s authorization to grow the drug.

If passed by the Senate, the measure would move to the House of Delegates for its consideration.

The 14 states that allow marijuana use for medicinal purposes are Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a Washington, D.C.-based group that lobbies for the drug’s legalization.

The growing national movement to allow marijuana use to treat severe chronic pain received a boost in October, when the Obama administration announced it will not prosecute cases against individuals whose use of marijuana is in compliance with state law.

           

The marijuana legalization measure will be on the Nov. 2 ballot as well.

California Sen. Barbara Boxer has a message for marijuana law reform activists: Just say no.

The liberal senator’s position might come as a surprise, but it’s no surprise to those who follow California politics: Boxer is facing perhaps the toughest reelection race of her career in 2010. She’s neck-and-neck with former GOP Rep. Tom Campbell and slightly ahead of former Hewlett Packard chief Carly Fiorina.

In a statement issued late Friday to liberal blog Talking Points Memo, Boxer’s campaign manager Rose Kapolczynski said the senator opposes a California ballot measure that seeks to legalize and tax marijuana.

“Senator Boxer does not support this initiative because she shares the concerns of police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials that this measure could lead to an increase in crime, vehicle accidents and higher costs for local law enforcement agencies,” Kapolczynski said. “She supports current law in California, which allows for the use of medicinal marijuana with a doctor’s prescription.”

Boxer’s six-year Senate term comes to a close this year. She’ll stand for election Nov. 2 against a yet-to-be-determined Republican challenger

If  California voters approve, it will be the most comprehensive reform of marijuana laws ever undertaken in the United States. While some states, such as Oregon, have relatively lax penalties for possession, no state has attempted to regulate and tax the herb before.

The measure’s chances are good: A poll taken last April found that 56 percent of Californians want to see the herb legalized and taxed.

According to the L.A. Times, the measure would make it legal for anyone over 21 to own an ounce or less of pot, and to grow pot for personal use in a space no larger than 25 square feet. It would also give cities the right to license marijuana growers and sellers, and to collect taxes on the crop.

           

If they aren’t already, elected officials in the District should be keeping close tabs on this year’s election in California.

On Wednesday, advocates for legalizing marijuana officially secured enough signatures to put a referendum on the California ballot this November asking voters to legalize and tax pot.

And, judging by recent legislation in the District, what starts in California often eventually makes it way to the left-leaning District.

San Francisco’s decision in 2007 to ban plastic bags, for example, was one impetus for the District’s recently enacted bag tax. And San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome launched the modern same-sex marriage movement when he issued marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004 — long before the District took up the issue.

And California voters approved a referendum allowing for the medical use of marijuana in 1996 - two years before voters in the District approved a similar referendum. The District’s medical marijuana law is only now being implemented because it was tied up for years on Capitol Hill.

But if California voters approve the legalization of marijuana - which remains an if, because polls show a potentially close election - how long will it be before pro-pot advocates seek to petition a similar measure onto the ballot in the District?

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, estimates it would be six years or less before the marijuana legalization debate makes its way to the District.

“California, like it or not, really pushes American politics and business in one direction or another,” said St. Pierre, noting the issue is also expected to soon land on the ballot in Nevada and Oregon. “I am going to guess four to six years after the citizens of California pass something like this, there is either an initiative here or the city council takes it up.”

Already, D.C. Council member Marion Barry (D-Ward has been grumbling publicly that some of the District’s drug laws need to be reformed because too many residents are being locked up for drug possession. But Council member David A. Catania (I-At large), the chairman of the Committee on Health, and other council members have made it clear they do not want the medical marijuana legislation pending before the council to spiral into a debate over outright legalization.

A Washington Post poll conducted in January found District residents were split on whether they supported legalizing small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Forty-six percent of residents favored the idea, but 48 percent opposed.

But while 60 percent of whites supported legalizing marijuana, only 37 percent of African-Americans felt that way, largely due to strong opposition among older black women.

A debate over marijuana legalization wouldn’t be entirely new terrain for the District. In 1977, the city council approved legislation to decriminalize possession of one ounce or less of the drug. But then Mayor Walter E. Washington vetoed the measure, citing the possible effects the law would have on city youths.

And even if legalization advocates won a referendum over the issue in the District, Congress would ultimately have the power to block it from taking place.

It’s hard to see Congress staying out of that debate. But who would have guessed six years ago that the debate over whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the District would have been such a snooze this year on Capitol Hill?

           

You may have heard there’s a push to legalize marijuana in California. You may not have heard that it’s for real.

Voting ballots in California this November will contain an initiative to legalize, tax, and regulate the sale of marijuana to adults 21 and older, and while this may sound like something that has no chance, whatsoever, of ever becoming law, the thing is: it actually might.

The organized campaign around this initiative is called Tax Cannabis, and it’s the brainchild of marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee. “Marijuana entrepreneur” sounds highly illegal, but, in California, where medical pot is sold unobstructed by the feds, it’s not: Lee founded Oaksterdam University, a school that teaches how to grow marijuana and run a marijuana business, as chronicled by Josh Green in The Atlantic last April.

This was not, mind you, originally an effort of the national marijuana policy establishment, per se. According to conventional wisdom on initiatives like this one, 2012 would be a better year to dedicate resources to a marijuana legalization campaign: it’s a presidential election year, and younger and marginal voters–voters who could be more sympathetic to legalizing pot–will come out to vote, whereas fewer people vote in the midterms. People who vote in midterms are more engaged in the process–if pollsters label respondents as “likely voters,” then the midterm turnout is made up of are even likelier voters than the electorate in presidential years–the type of people who might not, typically, support an initiative like this one. So, much like in California’s gay-marriage movement, there was some hesitation over whether 2010 was the right year to do this.

But Lee went ahead anyway, putting up money from Oaksterdam and another of his groups, marijuana provider S.K. Seymore, LLC, to obtain the 849,000 signatures needed to get on the November 2 ballot, with his donations comprising most of the roughly $1.3 million spent in 2009 on the petition drive.

Lee now has a a team of pros working for him as campaign consultants.

It includes Chris Lehane, the former Bill Clinton communications adviser and press secretary for Al Gore, both as VP and in the 2000 campaign; Dan Newman, whose firm SCN Strategies consults for Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D) reelection campaign and is heading up communications for Level the Playing Field 2010, the independent-expenditure campaign against multimillionaire GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman; and Doug Linney of The Next Generation, a firm that has worked for state and local candidate campaigns, as well as major issue-advocacy drives and marijuana decriminalization/law-enforcement-prioritization efforts in California.

In short, this will be a legitimate campaign operation. Tax Cannabis is already airing a radio ad in the state’s largest and most expensive media markets, L.A. and San Francisco, featuring a former law enforcement official.

“This isn’t some…whim of a couple of hippies,” said SCN’s Dan Newman, who is handling communications for Tax Cannabis. “It’s a serious, well crafted, well funded campaign that was put together very carefully and professionally run and hopes to win.”

The campaign will do “everything that a winning campaign does,” Newman said. That would mean radio ads, TV ads, volunteer and/or robo- phone calls, door-to-door canvasses, and direct mail. Newman would not specifically say which of those Tax Cannabis will do.

Messaging will focus heavily on invoking the support of former law enforcement officials, plus the argument that has driven so much media coverage around this push: estimates that legalizing and taxing marijuana could help California’s crippled state budget to the tune of $1 billion, including tax revenue and less spending on law enforcement.

Where will the money come from to fund this campaign? Lee infused it with cash to get the signatures, but according to state financial disclosures, Tax Cannabis has only $32,000 in the bank. The only state-registered opposition group, called “Opposition to the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2010),” has not filed disclosure paperwork, so it is unclear how much money Tax Cannabis is up against.

The campaign is reaching out to a broad coalition of donors, Newman said, including an online fundraising operation and traditional political donors.

But the elephant in the room is this: Tax Cannabis has the support of the Drug Policy Alliance, one of several major, national-level drug-policy reform groups. On its board sits liberal super-donor George Soros.

Given how expensive it is to buy air time in the Golden State–L.A. is one of the nation’s most expensive media markets–it’s not uncommon for political campaigns to wait until a few weeks before Election Day to blast the radio and TV airwaves with a major media buy. And, because California places no limits on donations and spending on ballot initiatives, it is conceivable that if things look close down the stretch, and he felt so inclined, Soros could inject millions of dollars into this initiative.

Right now, the campaign is working to secure endorsements, and the language of the ballot initiative was crafted, Newman said, with an eye toward garnering a broad base of support. It does not simply legalize pot outright: it allows individual counties to regulate the sale and possession to adults over 21, which would likely create a similar effect as “dry counties,” where alcohol can’t be sold. It does not legalize possession of marijuana on school grounds, or driving while impaired. The entire proposition is posted here.

Reformers claim legalization is popular. A major public poll hasn’t been conducted since April 2009, when Field showed 56% support out of 901 Californians polled. Newman says Tax Cannabis has conducted internal polls that show legalization polling in the mid-50s.

November is a long way off. Marijuana legalization gained significant traction in 2009, mostly because of California’s budget crisis, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s suggestion that it be seriously discussed, the drug war happening in Mexico, and the finding of the Field poll.

Although Tax Cannabis is airing a radio ad, a public messaging campaign has yet to ramp up against legalizing pot. When it does–when both sides are conducting this fight in public–look for opinion to congeal either for the ballot initiative or against it.

Until then, legalized pot remains a possible outcome in November 2010.

           

In case anyone forgot, the U.S. Dept. of Justice is still trying to extradite famous Canadian marijuana activist Marc Emery for selling marijuana seeds to American customers. But they want everyone to know that the case has nothing to do with his political views:

“We’ve been very clear it had nothing to do with Mr. Emery’s political stand,” said Emily Langlie of the U.S. District Attorney’s Office in Seattle. [Forbes] 

Seriously? Then what the hell did former DEA boss Karen Tandy mean when she said this?

“Today’s arrest of Mark (sic) Scott Emery, publisher of Cannabis Culture magazine and the founder of a marijuana legalization group, is a significant blow not only to the marijuana trafficking trade in the U.S. and Canada, but also to the marijuana legalization movement.”
…
“Hundreds of thousands of dollars of Emery’s illicit profits are known to have been channeled to marijuana legalization groups active in the United States and Canada. Drug legalization lobbyists now have one less pot of money to rely on.” [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 

There’s no way to spin it and I can’t imagine why they’d even bother trying. The DEA said it was political, so it’s political. Lying about it now serves no purpose other than to tacitly acknowledge that political prosecutions are a bad thing.

The war on marijuana is considerably less popular than it was even a couple years ago when the crusade against Emery began. Now that the debate over marijuana laws is rapidly gaining acceptance in the political mainstream, the DEA’s petty motivations for targeting Marc Emery have become such an embarrassment that federal prosecutors would rather lie shamelessly than admit what they’re doing.

Under no circumstances will the prosecution of Marc Emery bring glory or even respect to the drug war trophy-hunters that undertook this obscene vendetta. The guy sold goddamn pot seeds on the internet and making a really big deal of out it will serve only to remind everyone that marijuana grows on trees. 

Stopthedrugwar.org

           

When Barack Obama was first elected, he immediately began his straight-to-the-people, end-run-around-the-press style of Q&A by encouraging people to ask questions at Change.gov. One’s fellow citizens could then vote throughout Nov. and the first part of Dec. 2008 on their favorite questions, and Obama’s people would answer the most popular. When the dust settled and the votes were counted, among the most popular was this question:

“Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?”

The incoming Obama administration offered well-reasoned, thought-out answers to a whole host of questions, including controversial ones such as “Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor (ideally Patrick Fitzgerald) to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?”

But when it came time to tackle the oh-so-controversial topic of marijuana legalization, the response was a mere one sentence: “President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.”

No rationale, no justification. Just a blanket statement redolent of a parent smirking, “Because I said so.”

Fast-forward to today’s online town hall, and once again, marijuana legalization proved to be one of the most popular questions, with the most-approved-of pro-pot question being: “Should the U.S. legalize pot as a way to grow jobs and stimulate the economy?”

With all of his usual charisma and endearing jocularity, our president laughed off the question, stating “I don’t know what this says about the online audience, but, no, I don’t think that is a good strategy to grow the economy.” The mewling sycophants in the East Room audience laughed and burst into applause.

Once again, the Obama administration has greeted this question with an out-and-out rejection, with no reasoning underlying their position. Let’s ignore for a moment that Obama’s answer, in and of itself, is deeply wrong and ill-informed; moving from zero taxes on weed to any taxes is obviously an increase in revenue, not to mention the shift of growing and supplying jobs from the black market to legitimacy, which means more revenue in income taxes and more jobs.

Now, couple this with the millions, if not billions, of dollars that would be saved without the government being responsible for the care and feeding of hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders. From 1965 through the election of Barack Obama, our government arrested 20 million people for possession of marijuana. That, folks, is a lot of stoners.

In 2006 alone — the last year for which statistics are available — 829,625 people were arrested on marijuana-related charges, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. Of these, 89 percent were arrested for simple possession.

So, couple the tax revenues, both sales and income, with the savings involved in keeping potheads out on the streets instead of in the pen. Now, put that Everest-sized pile of cash aside for a moment and think about this: Who’s losing money in the deal?

According to Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, fully 75 percent of Mexican drug cartels’ cash comes from the sale of marijuana. Legalizing marijuana would, of course, take away that massive source of income for the cartels, just as ending prohibition cut bootlegging as a source of revenue for La Cosa Nostra.

Combining all of the above effects, the legalization of marijuana means billions of dollars saved or made, the creation of jobs and the curbing of violence along the Mexican border, which in turn means saving thousands of lives.

Barack Obama can certainly be against legalization, but he owes it to nonviolent drug offenders caught in the horror show that is the U.S. prison system, the families of innocent victims of the Mexican drug wars and economically bloodied U.S. taxpayers to explain why. Ganja may cause the giggles, but legalization shouldn’t be a laughing matter. And it certainly shouldn’t be treated as cavalierly as it has by the current administration, especially when it has been proven to be a popular issue every time Obama has tried to go straight to the people.

Dan Sweeney - The Huffington Post

           

President Obama recently responded in the negative to a query on whether it’s time to legalize marijuana. Being a smart, rational guy, I guess he knew better than to rock his political boat by giving credence to such an outside-the-box solution as the decriminalization of marijuana.

By anyone’s standards though, our supposed war on drugs is a massive failure, a colossal waste of taxpayer money, and is actually escalating drug violence on our Mexican border with American guns and money flowing south while drugs come flooding north.

For this very reason, even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently had the good sense to admit that the U.S. bears some responsibility for the escalating drug violence in Mexico. She also admitted that the war on drugs has not been successful. But instead of taking the high road on the issue of her countrymen getting high, she instead offered nothing more than basically more of the same.

Her so-called solution is the very definition of insanity, whereby you keep doing the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result.

She should have noted her predecessor’s philosophy of knowing when to hold them or fold them. Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice related the story of how she wanted to be a major concert pianist and how she studied piano from the tender age of three, even majoring in music for a while. When she went off to a music festival and met 12-year-olds who could play from sight, that had taken her years to learn,  she came to grips with the reality that, although she might play at Nordstroms, she’d never play Carnegie Hall.

Why are Americans so averse to changing course regarding a new approach to our drug problem? Why not entertain the idea of slowly dismantling our archaic drug laws – perhaps as a trial run for a few years – and just see what happens?

We put a man on the moon. Can’t we come up with a safe and sensible way of responsibly selling marijuana? We sell alcohol and cigarettes, two deadly killers, and yet we seem comfortable with their distribution methods, even though it’s easier for kids to buy a six pack or a carton than it is for them to get their hands on Sudafed.

Why are we falling for the fallacy-filled excuse that we don’t want our pilots or bus drivers under the influence of marijuana? Of course we don’t. And we also don’t want them under the influence of legalized drugs either, which have proven deadly when operating a vehicle.

Dangers lurk everywhere in life, but we can be sensible about coping with them. Marijuana is not nearly as scary as violent drug dealers who create mayhem on our streets, who deal with megabucks that further fuel their purchase of more deadly guns. We need to stop and think — really think – about how best to de-escalate the myriad problems that have been created - not solved - by our current war on drugs.

If adults choose to abuse the use of marijuana, we need to allow them the freedom to do so, just as we already do with their freedom to abuse alcohol and tobacco.

We also should be less naive about our children. They are already quite savvy in getting whatever they want whenever they want. But they are getting it in unsavory places from unsavory people, paying outrageous prices. How long would those pushers stay in business if they knew that the dope they sell could be legally undersold at a fraction of their price?

We need to look in another direction if we are to have any hope of addressing drug use in our country. If a non-user grandmother like myself can entertain the possibility of legalizing marijuana, maybe you can too. We just need to be brave in taking the first step toward imagining a world where draconian laws, incarceration, fear and ridicule may not be the only answers out there.

Jill Chapin

Fog City Journal

           

Editor’s note: There are millions of regular pot smokers in America and millions more infrequent smokers. Smoking pot clearly has far fewer dangerous and hazardous effects on society than legal drugs such as alcohol. Here is High Times’s top 10 reasons that marijuana should be legal, part of its 420 Campaign legalization strategy.

10. Prohibition has failed to control the use and domestic production of marijuana. The government has tried to use criminal penalties to prevent marijuana use for over 75 years and yet: marijuana is now used by over 25 million people annually, cannabis is currently the largest cash crop in the United States, and marijuana is grown all over the planet. Claims that marijuana prohibition is a successful policy are ludicrous and unsupported by the facts, and the idea that marijuana will soon be eliminated from America and the rest of the world is a ridiculous fantasy.

9. Arrests for marijuana possession disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics and reinforce the perception that law enforcement is biased and prejudiced against minorities. African-Americans account for approximately 13% of the population of the United States and about 13.5% of annual marijuana users, however, blacks also account for 26% of all marijuana arrests. Recent studies have demonstrated that blacks and Hispanics account for the majority of marijuana possession arrests in New York City, primarily for smoking marijuana in public view. Law enforcement has failed to demonstrate that marijuana laws can be enforced fairly without regard to race; far too often minorities are arrested for marijuana use while white/non-Hispanic Americans face a much lower risk of arrest.

8. A regulated, legal market in marijuana would reduce marijuana sales and use among teenagers, as well as reduce their exposure to other drugs in the illegal market. The illegality of marijuana makes it more valuable than if it were legal, providing opportunities for teenagers to make easy money selling it to their friends. If the excessive profits for marijuana sales were ended through legalization there would be less incentive for teens to sell it to one another. Teenage use of alcohol and tobacco remain serious public health problems even though those drugs are legal for adults, however, the availability of alcohol and tobacco is not made even more widespread by providing kids with economic incentives to sell either one to their friends and peers.

7. Legalized marijuana would reduce the flow of money from the American economy to international criminal gangs. Marijuana’s illegality makes foreign cultivation and smuggling to the United States extremely profitable, sending billions of dollars overseas in an underground economy while diverting funds from productive economic development.

6. Marijuana’s legalization would simplify the development of hemp as a valuable and diverse agricultural crop in the United States, including its development as a new bio-fuel to reduce carbon emissions. Canada and European countries have managed to support legal hemp cultivation without legalizing marijuana, but in the United States opposition to legal marijuana remains the biggest obstacle to development of industrial hemp as a valuable agricultural commodity. As US energy policy continues to embrace and promote the development of bio-fuels as an alternative to oil dependency and a way to reduce carbon emissions, it is all the more important to develop industrial hemp as a bio-fuel source - especially since use of hemp stalks as a fuel source will not increase demand and prices for food, such as corn. Legalization of marijuana will greatly simplify the regulatory burden on prospective hemp cultivation in the United States.

5. Prohibition is based on lies and disinformation. Justification of marijuana’s illegality increasingly requires distortions and selective uses of the scientific record, causing harm to the credibility of teachers, law enforcement officials, and scientists throughout the country. The dangers of marijuana use have been exaggerated for almost a century and the modern scientific record does not support the reefer madness predictions of the past and present. Many claims of marijuana’s danger are based on old 20th century prejudices that originated in a time when science was uncertain how marijuana produced its characteristic effects. Since the cannabinoid receptor system was discovered in the late 1980s these hysterical concerns about marijuana’s dangerousness have not been confirmed with modern research. Everyone agrees that marijuana, or any other drug use such as alcohol or tobacco use, is not for children. Nonetheless, adults have demonstrated over the last several decades that marijuana can be used moderately without harmful impacts to the individual or society.

4. Marijuana is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol. It is established scientific fact that marijuana is not toxic to humans; marijuana overdoses are nearly impossible, and marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco. It is unfair and unjust to treat marijuana users more harshly under the law than the users of alcohol or tobacco.

3. Marijuana is too expensive for our justice system and should instead be taxed to support beneficial government programs. Law enforcement has more important responsibilities than arresting 750,000 individuals a year for marijuana possession, especially given the additional justice costs of disposing of each of these cases. Marijuana arrests make justice more expensive and less efficient in the United States, wasting jail space, clogging up court systems, and diverting time of police, attorneys, judges, and corrections officials away from violent crime, the sexual abuse of children, and terrorism. Furthermore, taxation of marijuana can provide needed and generous funding of many important criminal justice and social programs.

2. Marijuana use has positive attributes, such as its medical value and use as a recreational drug with relatively mild side effects. Many people use marijuana because they have made an informed decision that it is good for them, especially Americans suffering from a variety of serious ailments. Marijuana provides relief from pain, nausea, spasticity, and other symptoms for many individuals who have not been treated successfully with conventional medications. Many American adults prefer marijuana to the use of alcohol as a mild and moderate way to relax. Americans use marijuana because they choose to, and one of the reasons for that choice is their personal observation that the drug has a relatively low dependence liability and easy-to-manage side effects. Most marijuana users develop tolerance to many of marijuana’s side effects, and those who do not, choose to stop using the drug. Marijuana use is the result of informed consent in which individuals have decided that the benefits of use outweigh the risks, especially since, for most Americans, the greatest risk of using marijuana is the relatively low risk of arrest.

1. Marijuana users are determined to stand up to the injustice of marijuana probation and accomplish legalization, no matter how long or what it takes to succeed. Despite the threat of arrests and a variety of other punishments and sanctions marijuana users have persisted in their support for legalization for over a generation. They refuse to give up their long quest for justice because they believe in the fundamental values of American society. Prohibition has failed to silence marijuana users despite its best attempts over the last generation. The issue of marijuana’s legalization is a persistent issue that, like marijuana, will simply not go away. Marijuana will be legalized because marijuana users will continue to fight for it until they succeed.

Alternet.com

           

When the president opened his first Internet town hall Thursday, what he got, amid questions about the economy, health care and education, was a host of queries that could have come from Sean Penn’s pothead-philosopher in the movie ”Fast Times at Ridgemont High.”

Several marijuana legalization questions, including a suggestion from 2007 Quakertown High School grad Ryan McLaughlin, ranked among the most popular submitted to the White House Web site for the live ”Open for Questions” Webcast.

They got so much online support that Obama was forced to acknowledge the budding interest in the topic.