Anonymous asked this question on 8/7/2000:
I'd like to hear your views on why the politicians will not offer anything but stock answers on the issue of legalizing marijuana for terminally ill patients.
It has been proven conclusively that marijuana has numerous benefits for terminally ill patients, yet (with the exception of California), no other states have legalized it.
In addition, eligible Californians are being hounded, fined, incarcerated and harassed for exercising their state-given rights.
The idea that marijuana is a "gateway drug" is ludicrous. It's no more addictive than alcohol, Motrin, codeine or any other mid-altering legal substance.
It's time to force our "leaders" to ANSWER questions, rather than offering up a lot of double-speak and popular "we need to deal with this issue" aversions.
Sound off!
morrisonhimself gave this response on 8/7/2000:
You are right except in one point: I believe nine states have actually voted to legalize medical marijuana.
Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey claimed at least once that the federal government has never accepted the premise that marijuana has medical benefits; he is, of course, wrong.
At least eight people are as I write still getting marijuana from the federal government, I believe all for reasons of glaucoma.
Marijuana has been shown to be of immense benefit to people suffering from chemotherapy and from the nausea of massive doses of medication.
Because he was deprived of his medical marijuana, author and publisher Peter McWilliams recently died, choked to death by his vomit caused by his medication.
More people who use heroin or cocaine formerly used milk than used marijuana. Is milk a "gateway drug"?
There really is no answer as to why the politicians don't yet understand what the people want: legalized medical marijuana.
Or perhaps there is one reason: Anyone caught with marijuana can have his property stolen, confiscated by the arresting agency.
So there is the economic incentive for various agencies, including the jack-booted thugs of BATF and DEA, to keep marijuana illegal.
Perhaps a concerted effort by all freedom-minded people, writing and phoning the "leaders," will eventually pay off.
Good question.
Michael Morrison
JesseGordon gave this response on 8/7/2000:
Isn't the reason obvious? Politicians won't offer a strong view on medical marijuana because they fear losing votes as a result, which means they don't think the American public is ready to hear what you have to say (even if there are benefits and studies to prove it).
Al Gore DID support medical marijuana for a while, but then "backed off" (meaning, he needed more votes in anti-drug areas). His headlines:
* Loosen restrictions on medical marijuana. (Mar 5)
* Science doesn't say medical marijuana is proper. (May 12)
* Details: http://www.issues2000.org/Al_Gore_Drugs.htm
Ralph Nader DOES support a form of legalization -- to decriminalize "industrial hemp." I guess that's all he thinks the country is ready for. His headlines:
* Supports legalization of industrial hemp. (May 16)
* Remove industrial hemp from DEA drug list. (Jun 25)
* Details: http://www.issues2000.org/Ralph_Nader_Drugs.htm
George W. Bush & Pat Buchanan are for stronger penalties for drugs in general and would certainly disagree with you and say that marijuana IS a "gateway drug", that it's some sort of danger even for the terminally ill, and for that matter, it's "evil." (Sort of like "demon rum" during Prohibition). If you want to be cynical, you can say that they are playing to a conservative constituency. But I think they actually BELIEVE that marijuana is evil (at least Buchanan does), and hence medical marijuana should be banned.
The Libertarian candidate (Harry Browne) and the Natural Law candidate (John Hagelin) for president DO support legalizing medical marijuana. Their headlines:
* BROWNE: Marijuana is not unconditionally evil; allow medical use. (Jul 1995)
* HAGELIN: Legalize medical marijuana; educate for prevention. (Jan 13)
Details: http://www.issues2000.org/Drugs.htm
In the bigger picture, I'd say that the politicians are right in surmising that the American public isn't ready for legalizing pot in any form. But why is that? I'd say the primary reason is the "War on Drugs" and in particular the propaganda demonizing marijuana. Americans have been subjected to heavy advertising and other forms of "information" for two decades now telling us that our brains will be fried if we touch marijuana or anything else. Is it surprising then that people have come to believe that it's true?
In other words, the path to legalizing medical marijuana has a lot of steps:
1) End the Drug War's propaganda campaign against marijuana (paid for with your tax dollars!)
2) Let people judge rationally about medical marijuana's benefits and risks (yes, the studies are out there now; but people can't judge rationally while there's an irrational level of Drug War going on)
3) Let politicians believe that people won't vote them out of office for taking anything but the hardest line on drugs.
4) Then medical marijuana will become legal, because of course it makes sense!
madpol gave this response on 8/7/2000:
The road to Hell may be paved with good intentions, but the onramp is marked by a sign that says, "The ends justify the means."
The most common justification for continuing the ban is that free medical use would result in legalization of all drugs. Unfortunately, this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
When former Drug Czar William "The Moral Compass" Bennet moved marijuana to DEA Schedule I, he ignored the advice of the DEA medical staff and overruled the DEA's own administrative law judge. He did so in the belief that the resulting deaths were outweighed by the need to maintain public support for the Drug War. Anyone who has supported the Drug War since 1983, is at least an accessory in these deaths.
250,000 premature Cancer and AIDS deaths later, the morally bankrupt "Partnership for a Drug Free America" continues to push this line. They simply can't afford Medical Marijuana. Changing the law now would lead to calls for an investigation. The results of that investigation would lead to an investigation of all Drug War practices. Prosecutions would result. Thousands of people would be discredited. It would make the Nuremburg trials look like "Judge Judy."
The effects of medical marijuana may not be as valuable as we currently believe. But a Big Lie always fears even the smallest of truths.
Anonymous asked this question on 8/7/2000:
I'd like to hear your views on why the politicians will not offer anything but stock answers on the issue of legalizing marijuana for terminally ill patients.
It has been proven conclusively that marijuana has numerous benefits for terminally ill patients, yet (with the exception of California), no other states have legalized it.
In addition, eligible Californians are being hounded, fined, incarcerated and harassed for exercising their state-given rights.
The idea that marijuana is a "gateway drug" is ludicrous. It's no more addictive than alcohol, Motrin, codeine or any other mid-altering legal substance.
It's time to force our "leaders" to ANSWER questions, rather than offering up a lot of double-speak and popular "we need to deal with this issue" aversions.
Sound off!
stevehaddock gave this response on 8/7/2000:
I don't think it is votes. The majority of Americans favour the use of marijuana for medical use, and a majority also favour decriminalization. Moreover, the association of police chiefs also favours decriminalization. So where's the controversy.
Enter the money - let's start tracking it.
First, just who funds "Americans for a Drug Free America"? No surprise there, it's the pharmaceutical, tobacco and alcohol industries. Until the 1930's cannabis was legal all over the United States. However, when hemp threatened to become a major cash crop, replacing pulp as a paper making substance, everyone came out guns a blazing and had it banned practically overnight. Cannabis, a substance with proven medical benefits overnight became marijuana, the killer Mexican weed! In fact, the word "marijuana" was practically never used outside the Spanish speaking world of that time. Why? Why if I wanted to ban the drinking of bottled water you would laugh. But if I told you I wanted to ban hydrocarbon encased dihydrogen oxide, you would have to be a chemistry major to know I was talking about the same thing.
And while the police are doing a good job of trying to do away with these laws, simultaneously, they are making huge amounts of money from "drug busts". Do you know if you're found growing pot on your property, in many states, the property can be seized and the proceeds go to the police? How else to you figure they bought all that neat stuff. Without drug enforcement, many police forces would be impoverished. In fact, the financial pressure from tax cuts make it impossible for the cops to give up drug money. Why do you think they haven't done anything to stop "speeding traps" - in many places they pay for the police force.
Any politician who supports decriminalization first gets it from his donors (who are usually drug, tobacco and alcohol companies, lets face it), then by their lobbyists, then from local police forces. That's a tough uphill battle for the most seasoned politician. Mind you, it happened once before, and FDR didn't suffer at all from the repeal of Prohibition. Let's hope someone else has the same cajones (that's a Spanish word too!)