The American Medical Association recently reversed its long-standing position and urged the federal government to loosen the classification of Marijuana and clear the path for more medical marijuana use and clinical research.

OK–great–but for real: why isn’t pot entirely legal already?

Likely because of a Puritanical law-and-order ethos that pervades the generations of policymakers who have curried favor with frightened and uninteresting voters by creating a make-believe issue out of cannabis, is my theory.

Lumping pot in with other Schedule I drugs (the highest classification for a controlled substance)  like heroin and LSD is so completely absurd that it’s like lumping alcohol in with setting your face on fire.

Setting your face on fire is clearly the more dangerous high between the two.

In fact, based on my completely anecdotal observations, I would posit that alcohol is absolutely, positively a worse drug than marijuana.

In my line of work (i.e. writer), I’ve known a ton of potheads (i.e. writers) and alcoholics (i.e. other writers). No one gets in fights when they’re high. They don’t hurt anyone, they don’t do anything. They sit on the couch, eat Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and giggle at infomercials for four hours. “Normal” people like tax accountants and nurses are more dangerous.

The Obama administration has already said that it will not concern the justice department with chasing down potheads, which makes it that much easier in states where weed is quickly becoming de facto legal.

The next step will likely come from California, which is drawing ever closer to legalization and taxation of pot–cutting it out of the business portfolio of Mexican drug cartels and raising $1.4 billion for the cash-strapped state in the bargain.

The entire ill-conceived war on drugs is an experiment in legislating morality that borders on outright farce. As Chris Rock–probably one of the great thinkers of our time if you get right down to it–once pointed out, people will do anything to get high.

You wanna make drugs illegal? Well, people will just let their excrement ferment in the sun and then take a big whiff.

I am not making that up.

And what are parents or the government or the D.A.R.E. officers supposed to tell kids now?

That if you smoke weed, you’ll never amount to anything? You’ll never be a record-breaking Olympic swimmer? The President of the United States (”I inhaled. That was the point.”)? A published author?

Please. Somebody get me some Ben & Jerry’s.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/off-the-markley/2009/11/how-is-marijuana-still-illegal.html

           

The British came to DePauw Wednesday night. They weren’t opposing independence - just the legalization of marijuana.

DePauw’s Debate Society took on the British National Debate team at the public debate in Watson Forum. DePauw senior Aaron Dicker and junior Kevin Milne supported the resolution to legalize marijuana. Graduate students from the British team, Dan Bradley from the University of Manchester and Andrew Tuffin of King’s College London, took the opposition. Geoff Klinger, professor of communication and theatre, moderated the debate.

Dicker began by stating legalizing marijuana would contribute to ending the war on drugs.

“If legalized, it would be easier to focus on hard drugs, not just marijuana,” he said. “Brands could safely regulate marijuana and gangs and drug cartels will not be able to operate as much, because marijuana is the greatest cash flow.”

Bradley spoke next on the dangers of marijuana, saying its legalization would be detrimental to the health of the nation.

“Marijuana is more dangerous these days as compared to the 1960s,” he said. “Marijuana legalization could cause an increase in cancer. Being stoned is not a good state of mind to be in, and it would increase drug use and involvement in drug culture.”

DePauw’s representatives responded by arguing the legalization of prostitution, which is prohibited in Britain and the United States, has been successful in places like Holland. They also maintained people can keep a drug use a secret even if marijuana is legalized.

“Holland has legalized prostitution and prostitutes are living a better life,” Milne said. “It does not necessarily mean that executives’ secret lifestyles will be discovered.”

Milne and Dicker also said the use of marijuana is less dangerous than hard drugs, making it easier to regulate.

The British debaters countered, saying marijuana users typically don’t have the means of escaping the cycle they are caught in.

“Marijuana is less bad than heroin, but so is jaywalking,” Tuffin said. “People use drugs, alcohol and the like to escape. Many drug users are not lucky enough to have the opportunity to escape their life.”

After audience members asked questions of both teams, Bradley delivered the opposition’s closing argument, directly addressing a point made by DePauw’s team.

He said the legalization of marijuana would “not make drug empires collapse. Instead, they will take advantage by selling dangerous drugs. We don’t make dangerous things legal, do we?”

DePauw closed with a strong argument by Dicker, but in the end, a standing vote declared the British National Debate Team the winner, with 35 voting in favor of the British National Debate team and 15 in favor of DePauw’s team.

Bradley said the British team defeated Wabash Tuesday night in a landslide vote.

“We beat Wabash 55 to nil last night,” he said.

The four participants said, regardless of the outcome, the debate went well. Bradley said he thought the debate members from DePauw did a good job, and the audience was fully engaged.

“The competition was very good. The audience was watching and thinking at the same time,” he said.

Government arguments

Legalizing marijuana will not increase the number of people smoking because the U.S. already has one of the highest percentages of pot use

It will refocus the drug war to harder drugs like cocaine and heroin.

Legalizing marijuana will eliminate the drug cartels who traffic it.

Opposition arguments

Legalizing marijuana will increase the number of people using it, which has been shown to either make them non-productive or increase risks of paranoid schizophrenia.

It won’t stop the drug trade (just switch to more drugs).

It leads to dangerous, high doses of tetrahydrocannabinol.

http://media.www.thedepauw.com/media/storage/paper912/news/2009/11/20/News/Legalization.Of.Marijuana.Debated.Across.Cultures-3838516.shtml

           

Since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, cannabis, also known as marijuana, has been federally classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no legally accepted medical use and has the same classification as, for example, heroin. Over the last couple of decades, however, that classification has started to be challenged, especially at the state level.

Currently, 13 states have passed some form of legislation allowing the use of medical marijuana. California was the first, passing the Compassionate Use Act in 1996 that legalized medical marijuana and ostensibly set regulations for the production and distribution of the drug. In recent months, New Mexico has begun “breathing life,” to quote an Associated Press report, into its own 2007 legislation that legalized medical marijuana. That New Mexico has taken so long to formalize the systemization of medical marijuana is indicative of a larger national resistance to the notion of legal weed in the United States.

Before further discussion, the fact that marijuana does indeed have undeniable and considerable medical benefits must be made clear. Marijuana is unparalleled in its propensity for alleviating the side effects endured by chemotherapy patients, and in general the drug has well-chronicled benefits for chronic pain relief such as combating migraines and nerve pain in HIV patients. As Dr. Donald Abrams, a cancer specialist at San Francisco General Hospital, said, “I can recommend [this] one drug for all those [pains], instead of writing five different prescriptions.”

In fact, even the American Medical Association, or AMA, agrees with the need to reclassify marijuana. The current classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug puts it on par with drugs like heroin and LSD, which clearly have no medical use. On November 10, the AMA called for a federal review of marijuana’s status under the Controlled Substances Act, stating its hope for “the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, and alternate delivery methods.” The AMA was promptly ignored by the relevant federal authorities.

This dismissal speaks again to the long-standing unwillingness of our nation to enter proper dialogue concerning medical marijuana. The recreational and cultural use of marijuana, most prominently associated with the flowery 70s, has stigmatized the drug to the point where, it can be argued, many are unable to delineate between supporting the legalization of medical marijuana and supporting the legalization of marijuana for, simply put, getting high.

Nevertheless, there is indeed a distinction. Marijuana has scientifically supported medical benefits, ones that are so persuasive that even the AMA felt compelled to call for its reclassification. But marijuana seems doomed by its negative connotations.

To resist the legalization of such a positive social good for reasons extraneous to its inherent medical benefits is simply a fundamentally flawed approach to enacting progress.

Detractors say that there is a high probability that the legalization of marijuana for medical use will lead to rampant abuse. And a Sept. 23, 2007, “60 Minutes” special on California’s notorious “pot shops” seemed to confirm this worry. Essentially, as long as a patient — and this term is used in the loosest fashion imaginable — can convince the doctor that marijuana is necessary to relieve his pain (“You know, all I can do is take my patients’ statements as factual,” said one doctor), he can easily gain access to marijuana.

But this lack of discipline can be partly attributed to the incoherence of medical marijuana’s legalization. The aforementioned “60 Minutes” feature highlighted the blatant conflict between marijuana’s legal status as a medical drug and the virtually arbitrary raids that federal authorities conducted on California’s pot shops. This summer, furthermore, New Hampshire’s governor vetoed medical marijuana legalization, citing its inconsistency with federal regulation. But clearly, the evidence says the current federal regulations are wrong.

Unless the government — and this country — are willing to approach marijuana reasonably, we will not even get the chance to attempt proper systemization of medical marijuana. California’s marijuana policy, the state’s doctors readily admit, is of course not stringent enough, but that does not mean the law needs to swing back to the other extreme.

In New Mexico, then, cautious steps are being taken to define a template for the production and distribution of legal medical marijuana. There are 15 qualifying conditions for medical use of the drug and there are five nonprofit organizations permitted to produce it. Each producer is limited to 95 plants. The success of New Mexico’s scheme is far from guaranteed, but it represents a willingness to at least explore the potential and limitations of a properly regulated system of medical marijuana.

Nobody is denying that marijuana, as a product, has its downsides. Science is not yet sure of its lung cancer-inducing properties as well as its addictive properties. But these risks are analogous to (which, to pre-empt the decriers, does not mean “are equal to”) the risks of other drugs that the federal authorities seem willing to condone — Vicodin and Valium come to mind. Why should marijuana be treated any differently?

What is needed is a paradigm shift, one that allows us to look at marijuana not as some taboo indulgence but as a legitimate medical product. Condoning medical marijuana is not the same as condoning marijuana for other purposes.

To use the words of one of New Mexico’s approved marijuana producers, “The faster we move away from a paranoid drug dealer model to a normal business model, the better it’s going to be [for medical marijuana].” Fortunately for its proponents, medical marijuana seems to have a strong ally in the current administration. Obama’s stance on state legalization, as of February, is that the federal government will no longer interfere in the form of raids and other similar attacks.

But for real change to be enacted, there still needs to be a fundamental rethinking of whether it remains appropriate to oppose medical marijuana based on concerns peripheral to its merit as a medical drug. Until then, the question of how best to maximize its medical usefulness through regulation and systemization remains a theoretical one.

http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/2009/11/19/opinions/legalize-medical-marijuana

           

By Jim Sanders

The Sacramento Bee

           

Whenever matters of marijuana policy make their way into the national spotlight, you can count on coming across some really ridiculous analysis from folks who haven’t exactly been paying attention. There are many ways to misunderstand the marijuana debate, my favorite of which might be the theory that — even though it’s all over the news — it’s actually part of a secret conspiracy.

Here, we have the editorial board of The Washington Post speculating that Obama’s recent medical marijuana announcement could be part of a plan to legalize marijuana without anyone noticing:

Yet this policy shift leaves significant questions unaddressed, including whether the Justice Department’s decision essentially constitutes a first step toward legalizing marijuana. Such an immense policy decision should not be ushered in surreptitiously, but should be tackled head-on, with a full-throated public debate about the possible benefits and consequences.

This is just completely delusional on multiple levels:

1. The administration leaked the story to the AP on a Sunday night, which is the opposite of secretive. That’s what you do when you want a week’s worth of intensive media coverage.
2. Telling the DEA not to arrest sick people is a far cry from supporting legalization for everyone. It’s very possible – and very common – for people to support the former and not the latter. For example…
3. The Obama Administration is opposed to legalization. They’ve said so before and after last week’s medical marijuana announcement. That question is not “unaddressed” even remotely.
4. There’s a “full-throated public debate” about marijuana legalization going on right now. And The Washington Post has been participating in it with numerous recent stories and editorials. You want us to send more op-eds?

I can’t even begin to fathom how The Post came up with this craziness, but if they want more debate, I’m ready to rock. I’ll show up at your office tomorrow morning with 15 awesome ideas for marijuana stories that I guarantee you The New York Times hasn’t thought of yet. And I ask for nothing in return, except some acknowledgement that marijuana legalization is not a secret conspiracy, but rather a defining issue at this moment in American politics.

Update: Pete Guither has more.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2009/oct/27/obama_isnt_plotting_to_legalize_

           

Two new reader opions today. Thanks you both. If you’d like to have your opinion posted on our website, please send  us your thoughts on our “contact us” page. - Admin

“I believe marijuana should be legalized. Consider the fact that alachol kills, cigarettes kill, but have you ever heard of or seen of a death from marijuana? You can’t overdose, or anything. America needs money. Leglization of marijuana is the best for this problem. Sure medical marijuana is a step forward, but what about us who do it to relax? Such as myself. Marijuana eases pain, cigarettes cause future pain. Cancer, and even death. Over…well a lot of damn deaths from marijuana. Im smokin whether its legalized or not. But god forbid it should be legalized. God made it, “the all healing plant”  Man made beer, god made Pot, who do you trust?” - Michael

“I think that the government should legalize marijuana for many reasons. There is no way that weed can kill you, the amount it would take to overdose is impossible to smoke, literally. There are also no long term effects, if anything its helping everyone with their eyes and to feel better! I mean smoking may make you a little more forgetful and lazy but people do that on their own. If the government would sell weed first off they could make a shit load of money,because of taxes, they would put a lot of dealers out of business, make them get REAL jobs…I mean the list goes on and on however im in class and must go! Thanks for reading “- Delia

           

Marijuana smokers might be breathing a little easier thanks to a policy switch by the U.S. Justice Department. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that federal prosecutors would not spend limited time and resources on people who use or sell medical marijuana “in strict compliance with state law.” Thirteen states have medical marijuana laws, which are controversial because federal narcotics laws trump state statutes.

Of course, the new federal policy doesn’t prevent local prosecutors from cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries. Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley has vowed to shutter the city’s dispensaries, which he says cater to people who do not have legitimate medical reasons for using marijuana.

Is the Justice Department paving the way for legalizing marijuana? And is it crazy to think the Obama administration is more federalist — that is, respectful of state and local government decision-making — than the supposedly federalism-loving Republicans? Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, attempt to cut through the haze.

BEN BOYCHUK

All things being equal, the states are probably better arbiters than federal officials of whether marijuana should be illegal. The fact that the Obama Justice Department believes federal resources are better spent elsewhere speaks volumes. But marijuana remains outlawed under the federal Narcotics Act, .

But whether marijuana should be legalized raises a whole host of questions. Here’s one: Should medical marijuana use be protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act? The ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities, including ailments such as alcoholism and drug addiction. (See the U.S. government’s frequently asked questions about the ADA here: http://www.ada.gov/employmt.htm)

The ADA has been a boon for trial lawyers and irresponsible users and abusers. A former sheriff’s deputy in Sarasota, Fla., last month sued his employer for discrimination under the ADA because he was let go for excessive alcohol use. Earlier this year, former NBA player Ray Tarpley settled an ADA lawsuit against the pro basketball league and the Dallas Mavericks that stemmed from his cocaine addiction. Two alcoholic NFL players filed similar lawsuits in 2007.

Without question, marijuana helps thousands of people suffering chronic illnesses. The rub is that many critics of medical marijuana, including most district attorneys, say the laws are widely abused; that it’s too easy for stoners to get a doctor’s note for pot; and that many of the “illnesses” that marijuana treats are bogus. It isn’t hard to imagine a raft of lawsuits against employers by potheads claiming phony disabilities.

If Americans want to ease the prohibitions on marijuana, Congress will need to act and legislators will need to debate what’s right for their states. But if the trend is toward decriminalization, it should come with a hefty dose of personal responsibility and protections for employers from unscrupulous users.

JOEL MATHIS

Actually, Americans do want ease prohibitions on medical marijuana. They’ve wanted it for a long time.

The website of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws has a page featuring a slew of polls — going back to 1995 — showing that clear majorities of Americans believe it should be legal for doctors to prescribe and patients to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. NORML admittedly has a bias, but the polls come from a variety of outlets: Gallup, AARP, CBS, ABC, Time magazine and more.

Yet Congress has refused to act; despite those clear majorities, politicians at the federal level are too fearful about their re-election prospects to ever support legislation that might later be used to portray them as “soft on crime” or “soft on drugs.”

So activists took their case to the state level — and that’s entirely appropriate. The states have long been considered “laboratories of democracy” where different approaches to similar issues could be tried. And that’s exactly what happened: Thirteen states now permit medical marijuana. That means, of course, that 37 states do not. Nothing in the Obama administration’s new approach will force those more restrictive states to take the relaxed approach.

You can argue the Obama administration should continue to rigorously enforce federal drug laws. But given that citizens in those 13 states have made their preferences clear, the administration is probably wise to give them deference.

“What about the ADA?” my conservative friend asks. Well, what about it? The Americans with Disabilities Act is a federal law; as long as actual legalization of medical marijuana is done at the state level, federal lawsuits by a few stoned chuckleheads seeking to enrich themselves through the legal system are unlikely to be successful. When weighing the balance between real freedom and a hypothetical fear of lawsuits, freedom should win.

Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis blog at http://www.infinitemonkeysblog.com and http://politics.pwblogs.com.

(Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis blog daily at www.infinitemonkeysblog.com and joelmathis.blogspot.com.)