Marijuana law reform?

[Terryw]

yea, right. I think it's only retarded because You didn't comprehend what was wrote.

Fine, we save a couple bucks by not having to lock-up and house the many wacked out intoxicated idiots along side the very responsible pot-heads (we know they all are very resposible) who just seem to get caught up in a perverse system of mis-justice

wtf, I'm sure they all, as are all jellies, otherwise incrediably productive members of society

It is the hardest thing we do to try and look beyond the stereotypes we all have regarding the various segments of our society. That is why it is so important to have discussions like this to help educate and show the evidence that often contradicts commonly held beliefs. This particular subject is even more difficult than most due to the constant propaganda being released by the government. Are all users of pot responsible? No. But it is a shame that all users are judged by the few who cant hold their liquor as it were. But try this as a mental exercise, for every objection or negative belief you have about the use of pot, just substitute alcohol in the sentence and see how illogical the belief sounds. If we judged that any one who imbibes alcohol in any amount was an alcoholic s.o.b who fought constantly and beat his family and then went out to bars drives home drunk and kills bystanders on the way, that would be reasonable since we know that many drinkers do just that. Do you drink at all? Would you be offended and dismayed if you were arrested and forced into a rehab facility at your own expense because you had an unopened beer in your car? And heaven help you if you had a six-pack because that would mean that you obviously had the intent to sell the other beers and now you are considered a pusher subject to a felony arrest and mandatory sentencing. Lets suppose further that some 800,000 of your friendly drinking buddies were arrested with you to the tune of 7.6 billion dollars last year. That is a little more than just a few bucks. I would definitely call that perverse and a terrible waste of resources.

Here's another one. How about you like to make your own home brew. You make a few bucks selling your brew to friends. One day you get a call from a friend of a friend who would like to buy from you. So you meet this guy and offer to sell a gallon for 500.00. Probably not an unreasonable amount for the risk you are taking to produce and transport such a dangerous and "illegal" drug. Instead of money, you get shot and killed for your effort. All we read about in the paper is how an evil drug dealer got his just deserts in a deal gone bad. All for a little beer you brewed in your basement. Now, was it the beer that killed you, or was it the law that made it ridiculously expensive and worth your life?

And lest you think that it is just a few people, according to recent government statistics, 80 million Americans admitted to using pot. Of that number 20 million admit to use in the last year. That is how many were actually willing to indicate yes on a government survey. You have to wonder how many were too afraid to even answer yes.

[Petrol]

you've got to do better, two right make a left, but two wrongs don't make a 'Right'

[Petrol]

so I take it that no one should be able to have a gun either?

You're talking the same line the people who think that no one should be able have a gun for any reason talk.

They say people are not responsible enough and talk about people having accidents.

Want to ban cars too?

Nope, again you're missing the point. Folks in general are not responsible. Just look at all of them demanding that DC make them whole for the losses they incure, give them what others have earned, punish success, etc.

let alone the stereotypical slacker who lost his job due to lack of ambition, tardiness & attendance issues.

[KingCrimson]

It is the hardest thing we do to try and look beyond the stereotypes we all have regarding the various segments of our society. That is why it is so important to have discussions like this to help educate and show the evidence that often contradicts commonly held beliefs. This particular subject is even more difficult than most due to the constant propaganda being released by the government. Are all users of pot responsible? No. But it is a shame that all users are judged by the few who cant hold their liquor as it were. But try this as a mental exercise, for every objection or negative belief you have about the use of pot, just substitute alcohol in the sentence and see how illogical the belief sounds. If we judged that any one who imbibes alcohol in any amount was an alcoholic s.o.b who fought constantly and beat his family and then went out to bars drives home drunk and kills bystanders on the way, that would be reasonable since we know that many drinkers do just that. Do you drink at all? Would you be offended and dismayed if you were arrested and forced into a rehab facility at your own expense because you had an unopened beer in your car? And heaven help you if you had a six-pack because that would mean that you obviously had the intent to sell the other beers and now you are considered a pusher subject to a felony arrest and mandatory sentencing. Lets suppose further that some 800,000 of your friendly drinking buddies were arrested with you to the tune of 7.6 billion dollars last year. That is a little more than just a few bucks. I would definitely call that perverse and a terrible waste of resources.

Here's another one. How about you like to make your own home brew. You make a few bucks selling your brew to friends. One day you get a call from a friend of a friend who would like to buy from you. So you meet this guy and offer to sell a gallon for 500.00. Probably not an unreasonable amount for the risk you are taking to produce and transport such a dangerous and "illegal" drug. Instead of money, you get shot and killed for your effort. All we read about in the paper is how an evil drug dealer got his just deserts in a deal gone bad. All for a little beer you brewed in your basement. Now, was it the beer that killed you, or was it the law that made it ridiculously expensive and worth your life?

And lest you think that it is just a few people, according to recent government statistics, 80 million Americans admitted to using pot. Of that number 20 million admit to use in the last year. That is how many were actually willing to indicate yes on a government survey. You have to wonder how many were too afraid to even answer yes.

Despite the fact that I said I wouldn't post anymore, I have to make this one. After following this thread and especially reading this post, and doing some research on the side, I've gone 180* on this topic.

Thanks Terry!

[bobdea]

Nope, again you're missing the point. Folks in general are not responsible. Just look at all of them demanding that DC make them whole for the losses they incure, give them what others have earned, punish success, etc.

let alone the stereotypical slacker who lost his job due to lack of ambition, tardiness & attendance issues.

wow, you're doing good on the dumb statements.

why do you hate the idea of a free market? Thats what you'd get if drug law was to be undone and overseen as a legal market.

Punishing success is exactly what happens when you bust a coke dealer or a large grow op.

Why would you want to do that?

[Petrol]

wow, you're doing good on the dumb statements.

why do you hate the idea of a free market? Thats what you'd get if drug law was to be undone and overseen as a legal market.

Punishing success is exactly what happens when you bust a coke dealer or a large grow op.

Why would you want to do that?

they're only "dumb" to folks who do not comprehend them. I'm sorry for not being an excellent wordsmith, able to overcome the handicaps resultant of these forums (time constraints, no ablity to convey voice inflections, facial expressions, body languge, free flowing vocabulary unhendered by typing skill, spelling, grammer, etc.)

1. I do not "hate-the-idea-of-a-free-market".

By the way, can you not understand the fact that we do NOT have a "Free-Market"?

You should also try to understand that the example you submit of getting the drug law "undone" and having the sale of Recreational drugs "overseen-as-a-legal-market", is also NOT a "Free-Market"?

2. I want to bust & punish the coke dealer and large grow op because they are participating in illegal activities, one, that harm society ingeneral, two. While it might be easy for some to say that drug "use", not Abuse, is a "victimless-crime", that is clearly BS when you become honest with yourself and reflect upon things like:

money, health issues, anxiety, fatigue, depression, motor control, acute desire for more, withdrawal symptoms if more is not readily availible, effects on mood and performance, can lead to marital problems and poor work performance or dismissal. Drug use can disrupt family life and create destructive patterns of codependency, that is, the spouse or whole family, out of love or fear of consequences, inadvertently enables the user to continue using drugs by covering up, supplying money, or denying there is a problem. Pregnant drug users, because of the drugs themselves or poor self-care in general, bear a much higher rate of low birth-weight babies than the average. Many drugs cross the placental barrier, resulting in addicted babies who go through withdrawal soon after birth, and can affect children of mothers who consume drugs during pregnancy.

Drug abuse affects society in many ways. In the workplace it is costly in terms of lost work time and inefficiency. Drug users are more likely than nonusers to have occupational accidents, endangering themselves and those around them, even when not under the "effects" of immediate use. Over half of the highway deaths in the United States involve alcohol & recreational drug use. The great majority of homeless people have either a drug or alcohol problem or a mental illness—many have all three.

3. clearly there exists plenty of pot heads. some think of themselves as "responsible" users because they are able to moderate their intake, hold (and maybe even excell at) a job and otherwise manage to be overall "productive" members of society. Others exist closer to the fringes, while some dip quite a bit below....

And they all want to get "Big-Gov" of their back (at least in regards to their drug-o-choice) and that is a good thing.

But this political enviroment where so many folks invite, no, DEMAND, a nanny-state where in "Big-Gov" is the provider is a great place to entertain heaping further personal resposibility on folks who can not handle and are fleeing from said same, but I don't expect good results.

[bobdea]

Wow man, you seriously need to change your view of who exactly is smoking pot in this country. I know many, many professionals, business owners, respected members of this community that smoke pot. I don't think you understand that it is not addictive, and that the majority of its users are fully functional, healthy members of society. With over 20 million people having smoked it in the past year, you need to replace the stereotyoes in your head with fact and reason.

no jim, he said SOME of them are homeless.

the "vast majority" of homeless people usually sited around 40 to 50% do have drug issues but the same ones are also mentally I'll in most cases and it can not be solely attributed to their drug use. The other half of that group are people fleeing domestic abuse, recently divorced, experiencing financial difficulty (lost job) or are what's classified as the working poor people who often live on minimum wage. the exception to the 40 to 50% are vets, the VA claims that 70% of homeless vets suffer from mental illness and are also addicts.

I understand our market, it's not completely free.

You should read the wealth of nations, you might gain something instead of being neocon parrot.

So, you want to bust dealers because they supply people with things that people who don't use them right might do damage to something or someone. You want the nanny state to step in. I hope you want to prosecute clergy and soft drink companies they distribute reading material that makes people do stupid things and product that make people fat.

Same faulty logic is applied in your way of thinking.

[KingCrimson]

Wow man, you seriously need to change your view of who exactly is smoking pot in this country. I know many, many professionals, business owners, respected members of this community that smoke pot. I don't think you understand that it is not addictive, and that the majority of its users are fully functional, healthy members of society. With over 20 million people having smoked it in the past year, you need to replace the stereotyoes in your head with fact and reason.

Complete agree with Mr. Callen here. This is the VERY ignorant mistake I was previously making. It's not just your stereotypical Tommy Chong. It's people in all walks of life.

[Terryw]

you've got to do better, two right make a left, but two wrongs don't make a 'Right'

Petrol, I appreciate that you are willing to discuss this and take the contrary position. There is probably no other single issue that touches so many different aspects of our society. I think that with this quote we come to the basis of your belief, which is that the use of mj or alcohol is just morally wrong. So of course anything which increases use would be be bad.

I don't mean to put words into your mouth, but if I understand your position, you believe that legalization of mj would result in an increase of usage of pot especially in a large segment of our society that will be unable to function due to this increased usage. This makes an assumption I would disagree with. It assumes that there is a current law abiding segment of our society that is just waiting for legalization to begin using pot. I would say that every one who wants pot allready has it (remember the 20 million users from the government survey?). We can't even keep it out of max security prisons. Because of its illegal status we have approximately 1 million dealers under the age of 21. It is easiser to score a dime bag in the high school then it is to get a six-pack of beer.

Our real world evidence shows that in every instance where mj law has been relaxed, usage actually decreases, partiocularly in teens. This includes the Netherlands, Portugual, and all 13 states where medical marijuana laws are in effect. So in a round about way, your position of leave the law alone and let them arrest the users is resulting in more use, not less. And since anything that increases use is a bad idea, we should pay attention to the real world data we have at our finger tips, and eliminate the laws that are increasing usage especially in our highl schools.

By supporting the law of the land you have actually helped to increase the very usage you wanted to limit. These are obviously unintended consequences. No one really wants use among our children. So help us decrease over all usage and get on board with laws that do what we want them to do.

It is the definition of insanity to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. I would like to believe that we as a society are not insane, but I do wonder sometimes.....

[D-Sub]

Despite the fact that I said I wouldn't post anymore, I have to make this one. After following this thread and especially reading this post, and doing some research on the side, I've gone 180* on this topic.

Thanks Terry!

Without having read the rest of the thread after your post yet, if you are sincere and did what you say you did, I just wanted to give you "props" for taking the time, doing some research, and being open minded about a rather difficult topic.

[D-Sub]

Wow man, you seriously need to change your view of who exactly is smoking pot in this country. I know many, many professionals, business owners, respected members of this community that smoke pot. I don't think you understand that it is not addictive, and that the majority of its users are fully functional, healthy members of society. With over 20 million people having smoked it in the past year, you need to replace the stereotyoes in your head with fact and reason.

quoted Jim because it's easier, but want to address petrol

YES, hard drugs cause problems, or rather the users of them who allow it to get out of control do, but

if the only thing a user does is use, not factoring in anything else, just USE....should they go to jail for that?

[KingCrimson]

Without having read the rest of the thread after your post yet, if you are sincere and did what you say you did, I just wanted to give you "props" for taking the time, doing some research, and being open minded about a rather difficult topic.

Thanks D.

Proud to say I wasn't so hard headed that I didn't entertain the thought, so I buckled down and did some googling. Definitely had many, relatively baseless, preconceived notions about users in general. Ignorant, stupid, and embarassing of me.

On another note, I've not had a terribly great experience with the stuff, but that's likely more because of the people I was with at the time, who fed the whole stereotypical gateway drug thought process.

Even just asking around at school I've found there are lots of people who just stick with pot in moderation, most saying it's just irresponsible (and way too expensive) to be high all the time, restricting themselves to smoking on the weekend. Personally I can't get over the carcinogenic properties of smoke, but that's unrelated.

If there are some laws put in place regarding motor vehicle use, use in public, sales and everything else that applies to alcohol, I say legalize today.

[Terryw]

Despite the fact that I said I wouldn't post anymore, I have to make this one. After following this thread and especially reading this post, and doing some research on the side, I've gone 180* on this topic.

Thanks Terry!

You are so welcome Theo! My goal is to educate and illuminate. For many people this is a non issue because they simply believe what they are spoon fed from authority figures and never question the underlying premise. And in all fairness, if a law has not caused you personal grief, most people don't care one way or the other. My brother contracted and died from AIDs. This was prior to the medical use now allowed in Ca. Pot was one of the only things that made his life bearable as the disease progressed. He was in constant fear of being arrested for his use. When it hits this close to you, you sit up and take notice.

Some thing else to consider on the subject of "Why should it matter to me?" It is common for police to 'hit' a suspected drug dealer/user's house in the middle of the night using para military units with no visible designation. In other words a swat type team all dressed in black. They do not usually knock politely prior to forcing entry in the residence. Obviously if the druggies have any warning they will try to remove any evidence if possible. Unfortunately, they sometimes make mistakes on addresses. Protesting that you are innocent does you little good as everyone says that. If you have a dog he will be shot. If you fight back with the strangers suddenly breaking into your house, you will likely be shot. It could happen to anyone, at any time. Just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Terryw]

Thanks D.

Proud to say I wasn't so hard headed that I didn't entertain the thought, so I buckled down and did some googling. Definitely had many, relatively baseless, preconceived notions about users in general. Ignorant, stupid, and embarassing of me.

On another note, I've not had a terribly great experience with the stuff, but that's likely more because of the people I was with at the time, who fed the whole stereotypical gateway drug thought process.

Even just asking around at school I've found there are lots of people who just stick with pot in moderation, most saying it's just irresponsible (and way too expensive) to be high all the time, restricting themselves to smoking on the weekend. Personally I can't get over the carcinogenic properties of smoke, but that's unrelated.

It is never a good idea to breath in smoke. However one of the interesting results of scientific studies is that canibus smoking does not increase cancer risks in spite of the carcinogens present in smoke. This is what has led to the interest in the cancer fighting ability of the other naturally occurring cannabinoids (THC is only one of the approximately 62 cancabinoids present).

But smoking is not the only way to usse mj. A far superior method, and one reccommended by the doctors advocating use of mj, is to use a device called a vaporizer. A vaporizer is a device that uses a stream of air to heat the mj to a temp that allows the cannabinoids to seperate from the plant matter prior to the plant matter ignition point. This mist is considerably cooler and contains none of the carcinogens. It is also a much more economical use of the pot. Burning the pot wastes about 40% of it. Literally up in smoke .

Another way to use the weed is to use it in food. It was used this way in China as an additional herb for thousands of years. It tends to give a signifigently lower high. but it lasts longer. Good for pain control over a longer period of time.

[bobdea]

My issue was with his negative connotation of pot smokers. I'm not sure how the homeless aspect came into what I said, but ok.

And I trust the last paragraph of your post wasn't directed at me, correct?

sorry, I was making fun of him, over implying the negative image of stoners.

[D-Sub]

Proud to say I wasn't so hard headed that I didn't entertain the thought, so I buckled down and did some googling.

and I respect you immensely for that!

Definitely had many, relatively baseless, preconceived notions about users in general. Ignorant, stupid, and embarassing of me.

We all do it. Every one of us on some topic or other. Being able to recognize and change it is what matters.

On another note, I've not had a terribly great experience with the stuff, but that's likely more because of the people I was with at the time, who fed the whole stereotypical gateway drug thought process.

There's no reason you "should" smoke pot. It's not necessary or vital, but...my sole argument is that it is ethically wrong to jail people for doing so. Even for using other, admittedly harder drugs.

Even just asking around at school I've found there are lots of people who just stick with pot in moderation, most saying it's just irresponsible (and way too expensive) to be high all the time, restricting themselves to smoking on the weekend. Personally I can't get over the carcinogenic properties of smoke, but that's unrelated.

I honestly don't know if there's any proof that smoke itself is carcinogenic. Maybe, but...we inhale carcinogens all day every day. Exhaust from cars, industrial waste, etc. Inhaling smoke is not "good" for us, but again...that does not justify making something illegal or jailing people. The State is not our protector. Our choices are our protector.

If there are some laws put in place regarding motor vehicle use, use in public, sales and everything else that applies to alcohol, I say legalize today.

I'm not a huge fan of busting people for DUI, either. DUI in and of itself is not a crime. DUI busts are nothing but revenue for the State, but I can see your point, and if we were to legalize pot I'm sure most people would be fine with moderate regulation regarding places of use, etc.

[utahcarver]

Along with cannabis sativa, many plants are considered useful for medicine and practical uses. For instance, the mullein plant and indian hemp. Both grow wild and are largely undisturbed by beast or man. Both plants have useful properties which are said to benefit man. I've used mullein in a suspension of olive oil to alleviate pain from earaches. Perhaps, some would say that the olive oil was the remedy. I've smoked dried mullein flowers to help with bronchitis. It was a temporary help and I can say that I would do it again if I did not have access to other anti-fungals.

The point here is that the plant world has long aided mankind in our search for pain relief. For heaven's sake, the lowly aspirin pill, acetyl-salicylic acid, is originally derived from willow bark. Pau d'Arco, is another natural remedy. From South America, the bark of this tree is steeped, tinctured, and boiled into remedies for fungal infections and cancers. I'm not suggesting that PDA cures cancers, I'm simply stating that these are remedies (with limited success) that mankind has used for many years before the AMA and the pharmaceutical companies came along. Other anti-fungals?

The lowly cannabis is a weed which grows naturally without anyone one earth trying to breed, cultivate, farm, enterprise, or profit from it. How in the hell do you morally legislate against the usage of something which will exist long after mankind is gone from earth? Explain, in simple terms, how it is morally reasonable for a government to say that a plant (weed) which grows spontaneously if left alone by man, that it's use by man can be legislated. If you choose to use the green leaf tobacco argument, remember to include the fact that American tobacco companies 'flavor' their dried leaves with sugar. Why? To satisfy the American smoker who cannot abide smoking leaves that are bitter (That's why I never want cannabis legalized so that Corpo-Man can get his grubby hands on it).

Oh, you didn't know that? What happens when you burn sugar with a flame, like when you make a topping for Creme Brulee'? It turns to a goo-ey black mess that's mostly carbon. Hmmmm, what is it that doctors find in the lungs of most smokers when x-rays are taken? A goo-ey black mess that is blocking the alveoli (air sacs) from being able to ventilate the lungs. Have you ever seen the lung x-rays of a pot-smoker? They're almost always clear unless they smoke American cigarettes. So, why smoke weeds?

One of the greatest things about cannabis sativa is its anti-fungal properties. Until we Americans wake up to the fact that a large part of our medical problems are being mis-diagnosed as bacterial and viral infections we are screwed. Why? Because you can trademark the remedies for those infections. You cannot trademark cannabis, well not yet. Google 'sinus infections' and find out what the Mayo Clinic knew a few years back. Find out what Johns-Hopkins knew in the mid-1950's when antibiotics (specifically, penicillin) hit the doctors' offices. Penicillin is grown from MOLD. Hello! McFly? Penicillin kills bacteria. Bacteria is what Mother Nature put in our guts to protect us from infections. We also have yeast in our guts and our bodies normally maintain a balance of both. Antibiotics upset that balance and kill the good bacteria. The body then experiences an overgrowth of yeast. Hello, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, skin rashes, IBS, MS, MD, on and on. What makes bread rise? How many of you males out there have a distended gut? Beer-gut, that is? Are you sure it's the beer? Your wife/girlfriend gets yeast infections, why don't you? Yep, your right, YOU DO get a yeast infection from her and it lodges in your prostate, colon and or stomach where it grows until something happens to stop it. You're 50, bored, stagnant, and you start smoking pot to relive your youth. Suddenly, you're dropping a few pounds (no pun here), feeling less lethargic after lunch, and you think you're ready to start working out. Any chance you may have inadverdantly stumbled onto a cure for your male yeast infection? Any chance you may have stupidly been correcting years of antibiotic overdose? All thanks to a weed that is illegal.

The belief that cannabis is an illegal drug is a red-herring argument dredged up by our own government to GROW government and an attendant police state. It (pot) was legal for many years and has been on earth for even longer, as with other natural remedies for mankind's health. The real debate should be: when will the AMA and it's henchmen, the FDA stop telling Congress that marijuana is not a legal drug for Americans to consume. When will Congress stop the war against natural remedies for health? I'm not against the pharmaceutical companies making their money as long as they aren't allowed to legally dispense with their competition, the lowly weed, by way of the US government.

Mark

[D-Sub]

utahcarver rant FTW!

I urge any and all to watch this:

American Drug War

Mark...I, too, cringe at the idea of "legalization" which is why I simply argue for decriminalization ie stop making me a criminal for personal choices! If a user oversteps his bounds, causes injury, then there's a problem but until then...

[Terryw]

This is exactly why we must pick and choose our battles. It is why we should try our best to educate and inform, not criticize those who don't agree with us. The only change we will get is the change we force on the feds. That has to start at the state level with (forgive the pun, it is unintended) grass roots reform movements. We need to remember that most people have been fed a load of crap their whole lives. It is incredibly difficult to shake those views. They need time to adjust their world view once the evidence is put before them. Some may never change. But some do. Look at Theo. He is a perfect example of what can happen when people are not ridiculed but instead involved in a reasonable exchange of ideas that make sense.

Medical marijuana has been incredibly important for the simple reason that it puts a crack in that wall of lies so carefully constructed since 1937 when Harry Anslinger first managed to scare a nation into making the use of mj a crime. When people actually see that patients are dramatically improved and do not become drug addicted monsters, then people begin to doubt the other lies they have been told. People need direct experience to help them to over come the prejudices they don't even know they have. A lifetime of belief will not die in a two minute arguement or rant.

But here is a two minute try!!

<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfiaC-2K1LM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

[b0ardski]

Great link D, thanks for posting that eye opener.

[D-Sub]

Great link D, thanks for posting that eye opener.

If I had the power, I'd have done the docu a little differently, but it gets the point across effectively

you might want to watch "why we fight" too. Demonstrates the power of the Military Industrial Complex.

These things all tie together.

oh, by the way...

here's the American Drug War official site, just to do things right:

http://americandrugwar.com/

[Petrol]

sorry, I was making fun of him, over implying the negative image of stoners.

:lol: Hello Goose

kids

[Terryw]

Just in case you think there is unanimous agreement at the highest levels of the DEA, I found this little tidbit.

Twenty years ago today, the Drug Enforcement Administration's chief administrative law judge issued a landmark ruling on marijuana — but our government has ignored this historic decision since the day it was issued.

"Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care ... The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record."

— DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young, September 6, 1988

Judge Young had just finished holding extensive hearings, in response to a petition asking for marijuana to be moved from Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act, which bars medical use, to a lower schedule that would permit physician prescriptions. He heard from an array of expert witnesses, generating thousands of pages of documentation.

Young — the chief administrative law judge in the top federal agency responsible for enforcing our drug laws — laid out his findings in a detailed, 69-page ruling, walking readers through the scientific evidence in detail. He concluded that the law didn't just permit moving marijuana to Schedule II, but required it.

The response? Six years after top DEA officials rejected Judge Young's recommendation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the agency did had the right to ignore its own administrative law judge.

And as a result, seriously ill medical marijuana patients continue to be arrested, terrorized, and even have their children taken away — cancer patients living in fear of arrest for using marijuana to quell their nausea and help them keep food down ... AIDS patients using medical marijuana to ease the pain and nausea that too often are side effects of the drugs that keep them alive, terrified of losing their homes if caught ... tens of thousands of people turned into criminals simply for following their own doctors' advice.

[Terryw]

From the Cato Institute comes this interactive map that shows botched paramilitary police raids.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

It is much more widespread than you might realize.

[Bullwings]

wait, but it's the law, and they're never wrong. that website of yours must be a lie :rolleyes: haha

Problem is, that even with all the evidence, research, etc. etc. out there, no politician would willingly support it if he wants to be taken seriously.

as soon as a politician supports it, everyone will jump on the band wagon and accuse him/her of being a stoner that gets high all the time.

Even Obama, dismissed the notion as fast as possible without giving any sort of rational rhetoric, because he doesn't want attention taken off of the real issue at hand - the economy. It would get blown out of proportion on such a massive negative scale.

As much as I'd like to see something as little as decriminalization, i doubt there'll be any politician willing to commit career suicide in that fashion.