cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Prohibition: Who Does It Protect? 





Marijuana Prohibition: Who Does It Protect? 
Posted by CN Staff on July 22, 2004 at 20:44:34 PT
By Henry Koch 
Source: Free Times 
Is marijuana illegal in the United States to protect Americans or to protect a handful of well-connected industries that believe ending prohibition would affect their profits? Every study, whether privately or government sponsored, has declared the penalties against cannabis far out of line with the substance. Every study has illustrated how tobacco and alcohol do far more damage to individuals and society than marijuana. The draconian laws against this naturally occurring herb have ruined millions of lives. These laws have done far more damage during the current 66-year period of prohibition than the plant has done since its first recorded use and cultivation nearly 6,000 years ago.
Yet today, a cadre of individuals and industries is spending billions of dollars to keep marijuana illegal. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Office of National Drug Control Policy contribute to these private efforts by refusing to acknowledge the validity of reports whose results run contrary to current drug policy. The DEA and the ONDCP even reject studies commissioned by the Congress and other U.S. government agencies. When the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed there was no scientific evidence as to the effects marijuana had on consumers. (The psychoactive component of cannabis, THC, was not isolated until 1965.) The congressional hearings leading to the passage of the Tax Act were held in secret and considered no scientific evidence. Harry Anslinger, director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962, presented popular fabrications about marijuana as fact to the congressional committees investigating the substance. Here are a few of Anslinger's more memorable quotes about marijuana: * "Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men." * "Marijuana is taken by ... musicians. And I'm not speaking about good musicians, but the jazz type." * "Marijuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing." Industries that have a high interest in keeping marijuana illegal include the tobacco industry, the alcoholic beverage industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the petrochemical industry, the pulp and paper industry, the prison-building industry, the prison guard unions and organizations, and law enforcement organizations. The tobacco and alcohol industries realize that when people smoke marijuana, they use less tobacco and alcohol. Nicotine and alcohol are both highly addictive. Current research has not shown marijuana to cause physical dependency. The pharmaceutical industry knows of the medical benefits of the Cannabis sativa plant and does not want individuals cultivating their own medications. The petrochemical industry knows that industrial hemp and its myriad products could replace 98 percent of our hydrocarbon-based petroleum. Instead of pumping an exhaustible resource out of the ground, we could produce enough hemp seed to provide nearly all the petrochemical raw materials we need. The pulp and paper industry knows that hemp can provide more fiber for pulp per acre than trees. Plus, hemp fiber can be converted to pulp without the pollutants created by the sulfuric acid process currently used to turn trees into paper. Converting to hemp for fiber would cost millions up front but would save billions in the long run, with the added bonus of greatly improving the environment. The American prison system is the largest in the world, with more than 2.1 million prisoners at the end of 2003. This has made the prison-building industry one of the fastest growing industries in the country. The major growth of prison population in the United States is due mainly to the war on drugs. Marijuana arrests account for almost 80 percent of all drug arrests. Having the largest prison system also requires the largest prison guard industry, and this industry depends on the current drug policy for its members' job security. Many law enforcement organizations receive more funding from the war on drugs budget than they do from their respective municipal budgets. If the laws against marijuana were changed to eliminate arrest for possession, almost every law enforcement organization in the United States would be required to eliminate personnel. Prohibition has never worked, and it isn't working for marijuana. According to a nationwide poll conducted by Time magazine and CNN in October 2000, 80 percent of Americans support the medicinal use of marijuana and 72 percent say that adults who use marijuana recreationally should be fined, but not jailed. Only 19 percent of respondents favored jailing recreational pot smokers. In addition, 40 percent of respondents also said that they favored the legalization of small amounts of marijuana. Who is marijuana prohibition really protecting? Is it the American public and our way of life or is it protecting the interests of the giants of industry who have friends in high government positions? Henry Koch is president of the Midlands chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). For more information on Midlands NORML, visit: http://www.midlands-norml.org/The purpose of the guest column My Turn is to add different voices to the pages of Free Times in a discussion of important public issues. This column is not for the promotion of events, products or services. If you are interested in contributing to My Turn, please e-mail: news free-times.com or editor free-times.com or call (803) 765-0707 ext. 133 or 136. Please limit submissions to 750 words. Views expressed in My Turn do not necessarily reflect those of Free Times. Source: Free Times (SC)Author: Henry Koch Published: July 21, 2004Copyright: 2004 Portico Publications, Ltd.Contact: editor free-times.comWebsite: http://www.free-times.com/Related Articles:Pot Ban Review is Long Overduehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19200.shtmlHigh Time To Eliminate Drug Laws?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19118.shtmlAn End To Marijuana Prohibition http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19112.shtmlFree Weeds: The Marijuana Debatehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19103.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #17 posted by ElPatricio on July 23, 2004 at 22:08:24 PT:
LEAP of Faith
Congratulations to Jose Melendez on his commitment to reforming this nation's misguided drug laws. Good luck with the documentary film, Jose.As I told Jack Cole of LEAP the first time we talked, we can make the exact same points, but his words have a thousand times the impact that mine do.America's homicide rate in 1900, when Bayer's Heroin was available without a prescription, was one-eighth of what it is today. The homicide rate soared in the 1910's and 1920's, as Congress passed the Harrison Act and then the Volstead Act to ban the manufacturing and sale of alcohol. (But, significantly, not criminalizing possession and use of alcohol.)When alcohol prohibition was repealed in 1933, the nation's homicide rate dropped 10 straight years, to half the rate at the peak of Prohibition crime.I wonder how many years in a row today's homicide rate would drop if there were no black market in drugs and prostitution. Hmmm.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Cannabis Enthusiast on July 23, 2004 at 20:19:52 PT
Minneapolis bans smoking (tobacco)!
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4891250.htmlAll I can say is "yippy!". Although I'm not sure if this will be a good thing for pot smokers as they won't be able to smoke joints conspicuously anymore inside bars/restaurants.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by rchandar on July 23, 2004 at 20:03:01 PT:
etc
now that i'm thinking--i think the best we can do, aside from the medical MJ ballots, is get marijuana decriminalized in the states themeselves, eliminating criminal penalties on the state books. i believe this will work as there is sympathy among many state representatives for such a move. Those laws were enacted 50, 60 years ago, before the explosion of drugs use among middle-class citizens. i'm guessing it will take longer for Congress to hear our cry, but pressing for change on the state level would probably mean the most--and eliminate all those stupid jail sentences which only turn good citizens bad.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by rchandar on July 23, 2004 at 19:59:40 PT:
potpal
hmm. I wish WE could spend billions of dollars on legalizing marijuana. Oh, I almost forgot, that's our tax money, so we're doing that.end marijuana prohibition.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by ron on July 23, 2004 at 17:31:01 PT
Way to go, Jose
As kapt said, "You had him when he tried to appear annoyed".I had the same experience when I confronted an RCMP drug warrior after his two hour lecture full of anacronyms, innuendoes, street slang   and tearful, fearful anecdotes about the horrors they were stopping our kids from going through. After a few comments, the brave warrior transformed himself, quickly becoming a busy official. He looked annoyed at being interrupted while he was folding up his propaganda gear.They don't like hostile questions because they don't have answers. They know that.I confront LEO's wherever possible, especially when they're out of uniform. None have ever made any attempt to defend the persecution, but some wanted me to know they never sent anyone up for cannabis.Keep up the good work, Jose.My fantasy is that one morning everyone will start ragging them about this immoral idiocy and the ignorance that defends it. Then they'll all take a look in the mirror - and feel ashamed.Maybe then we can start trusting them again. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by kaptinemo on July 23, 2004 at 15:46:45 PT:
I figured as much :)
I know the breed too well. Lazy and smart. Some are too lazy to get a real job, so they decide to work for Uncle. Smart enough to have an almost 6th sense to avoid traps that might hurt their careers politically - such as engaging us in a real debate. You had him when he tried to appear annoyed. He wanted OUT, AWAY from you in the worst way, but couldn't beat the retreat he wanted to without questions about his 'bravery' in facing the 'enemy' being raised. But the ignorance displayed by the agents is nothing less than astonishing; these are supposed to be specialists, and they know NOTHING of the history of the War on (Some) Drugs? Crack is a recent invention, not an ancient one. As just about everyone of you reformers out there reading this could have told them. Most of us can give whole chronologies and biographies, if asked. And we PAY these guys? I want my money back...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by BGreen on July 23, 2004 at 15:28:07 PT
Law Enforcement Agent vs. Officer
I use the word 'agent' in regards to the cannabis persecutors as in 'agent provocateur,' meaning:A person employed to associate with suspected individuals or groups with the purpose of inciting them to commit acts that will make them liable to punishment.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by BGreen on July 23, 2004 at 15:15:27 PT
Do These LEA's Jose Mentions Know They're Lying?!
Could it be that they are even more like the Nazi's who believed the propaganda even though they knew they were lies put out by the Nazi party?The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Jose Melendez on July 23, 2004 at 15:03:02 PT
oops
"Can spoke?" Apologies for the cut and paste induced grammatical error.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Jose Melendez on July 23, 2004 at 15:01:52 PT
it was as comical as it is criminal
In fact, kapt is EXACTLY correct. There were lots of uncomfortable silences on the part of the serving LEOs as they realized the politically dangerous ground they were treading. The retired ones can spoke the truth without fear, while the serving ones would only parrot their approved spiel.Were it not unethical to do so, I would indeed have shot hidden video, and posted the files for you all.One particular special agent denied that moonshine's increased popularity during prohibition had to do with it's smaller per dose size, suggested that there were different types of THC. He went further, to state that stronger drugs were the result of marketing techniques, and that sales of those stronger drugs had nothing to do with the prohibition against those substances. He rolled his eyes and stared at his watch as I explained that in fact, smaller sizes were easier to conceal, and that fact, not market share, was responsible for the increased availability of these substances.Big DEA guy also advised his buddy to ask us where we got our money, then explained about George Soros' millions, although he could not remember the name of that particular "immigrant". Never mind of course, that DEA's own funding source outspends us nearly 1,000 to 1, violating human rights, constitutional law and regulations against federal spending on political advertising. The next day, when I pressed his coworker on these issues, he claimed he felt sure that crack existed long before prohibition, and even that such technologies as space travel likely existed long ago, but that the people that used such transportation technologies simply kept them to themselves.(yawn) Whatever. Maybe I should have recorded them. Regardless, they ignore and dismiss these points at their own peril. I will criminalize prohibition, using existing law. It is time we used our collective voice to speak truth to power.By the way, they refer to wiretap subjects as "targets".
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Max Flowers on July 23, 2004 at 10:48:04 PT
Jose Melendez
Would you follow up and tell us all about a few of those exchanges with DEA agents? I'm sure we'd all love to hear about it. I know I would.I agree whole-heartedly with you that one of the most frustrating aspects of this fight is the fact that in a nation ostensibly run by the rule of law, several Constitutional laws are routinely broken by these traitors, and this fact is never acknowledged, effectively negating all rule of law in this country--leading us to the conclusion that we are not, when it actually counts, really protected by Constitutional Law AT ALL in this country.If agents of the federal government don't have to follow federal law, then we are being ruled by arbitrary, capricious, malicious and UNLAWFUL activity.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on July 23, 2004 at 10:00:02 PT:
Now, THAT I'd like to see
Former LEO's of LEAP debating with serving LEOs. I'll bet there were lots of uncomfortable silences on the part of the serving LEOs as they realized the politically dangerous ground they were treading. The retired ones can speak the truth without fear, while the serving ones can only parrot their approved spiel. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Jose Melendez on July 23, 2004 at 09:25:24 PT
consistently asked, yet unanswered
I've just returned from Jacksonville where leap.cc had a booth at the National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice show, where we were directly next to the Drug Enforcement Administration booth and had some very interesting debates with several special agents.I'm trying to write a book about all this, including my documentary film experiences and have decided I need to go back to UMASS.Jack Cole (the executive director for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) has agreed to help me get film grants and even is springing for a cell phone, to assist with my documentary and leap activism work.In my documentary video, entitled Drug War IS Crime, I am going to point out that existing U.S. law specifically deems illegal any war waged on Americans (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3), and that the Clayton and Sherman Antitrust acts specifically state that restraints of interstate trade and restrictions of foreign commerce, or the creation of a monopoly are unlawful.Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. 844(i) (Supp. IV 1998), prohibits the destruction by fire of a building or other property "used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce,"LEO's do regularly dismiss out of hand or ignore these points, despite the fact that they are all sworn to uphold and defend the laws and Constitution of this country.Here again I must state for the record that I find it particularly disingenuous of LEO's and prohibitionists that they so consistently dismiss these ideas, and in every case so far, without actually addressing those points. Yet consistently, the majority of said law enforcement pros, including former and current narcotics agents and corrections professionals, have conceded privately that they agree that drug war is at least disproportionately waged on minorities.Certainly and nearly without exception, almost all current LEO's agree that legal substances are far more harmful, yet refuse to state those opinions publicly, for whatever reason.It is a fact that statistics provided by our government consistently point to a doubling or more of the homicide rate during periods of alcohol and "illicit" drug prohibitions, even as inferior manufactured products, when used legally and as advertised and suggested by the makers and distributors of those foods, medications, intoxicants and additives, do kill more than one million Americans each and every year.For those who would ask or express concern: YES, the title is intended to promote controversy, partly because that is what sells in our society. But if I report a crime, as I have to dozens of law enforcement professionals, and they consistently ignore those reports, yet continue to support this illegal war on us, what else can I do?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Hope on July 23, 2004 at 07:31:59 PT
Potpal
"Sadly, it seems protecting the interests of the the giants of industry who have friends in high government positions is our way of life here in the good ole' USA."You know what they tell us. They are giving us that old "trickle down" effect.There seems to be a lot of stuff "trickling down" from our leaders that has a mighty foul odor to it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by potpal on July 23, 2004 at 06:37:55 PT
way of life
>Is it the American public and our way of life or is it protecting the interests of the giants of industry who have friends in high government positions? Sadly, it seems protecting the interests of the the giants of industry who have friends in high government positions is our way of life here in the good ole' USA.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by dididadadidit on July 23, 2004 at 05:01:06 PT
Prison Stocks Outperform with Bush
Since appointed preznit (war or peace?/flip floppin' mofo) in December 2000, Bush has been at the helm through losses of about 20% for the DOW and 40% for the NASDAQ. In the same time frame, Cornell and Corrections Corp of America, as prison stocks, are up about 150% on average.Surprise, surprise!?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Dave in Florida on July 23, 2004 at 04:42:03 PT
Another great article
that sums up the real problem.. greed, by corpoate America.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment