cannabisnews.com: No Surrender The Drug War Saves Lives










  No Surrender The Drug War Saves Lives

Posted by CN Staff on September 14, 2004 at 14:35:59 PT
By Ethan Nadelmann and John P. Walters 
Source: National Review  

The prospect of a drug-control policy that includes regulated legalization has enticed intelligent commentators for years, no doubt because it offers, on the surface, a simple solution to a complex problem. Reasoned debate about the real consequences usually dampens enthusiasm, leaving many erstwhile proponents feeling mugged by reality; not so Ethan Nadelmann, whose version of marijuana legalization ("An End to Marijuana Prohibition," NR, July 12) fronts for a worldwide political movement, funded by billionaire George Soros, to embed the use of all drugs as acceptable policy. Unfortunately for Nadelmann, his is not a serious argument. Nor is it attached to the facts.
To take but one example, Nadelmann's article alleges the therapeutic value of smoked marijuana by claiming: "Marijuana's medical efficacy is no longer in serious dispute." But he never substantiates this sweeping claim. In fact, smoked marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance (Schedule I is the government's most restrictive category), has no medical value and a high risk of abuse. The Food and Drug Administration notes that marijuana has not been approved for any indication, that scientific studies do not support claims of marijuana's usefulness as a medication, and that there is a lack of accepted safety standards for the use of smoked marijuana. The FDA has also expressed concern that marijuana use may worsen the condition of those for whom it is prescribed. Legalization advocates such as Nadelmann simply ignore these facts and continue their promotion, the outcome of which will undermine drug-prevention and treatment efforts, and put genuinely sick patients at risk. The legalization scheme is also unworkable. A government-sanctioned program to produce, distribute, and tax an addictive intoxicant creates more problems than it solves. First, drug use would increase. No student of supply-and-demand curves can doubt that marijuana would become cheaper, more readily available, and more widespread than it currently is when all legal risk is removed and demand is increased by marketing. Second, legalization will not eliminate marijuana use among young people any more than legalizing alcohol eliminated underage drinking. If you think we can tax marijuana to where it costs more than the average teenager can afford, think again. Marijuana is a plant that can be readily grown by anyone. If law enforcement is unable to distinguish "legal" marijuana from illegal, growing marijuana at home becomes a low-cost (and low-risk) way to supply your neighborhood and friends. "Official marijuana" will not drive out the black market, nor will it eliminate the need for tough law enforcement. It will only make the task more difficult. In debating legalization, the burden is to consider the costs and benefits both of keeping strict control over dangerous substances and of making them more accessible. The Soros position consistently overstates the benefits of legalizing marijuana and understates the risks. At the same time, drug promoters ignore the current benefits of criminalization while dramatically overstating the costs. Government-sanctioned marijuana would be a bonanza for trial lawyers (the government may wake up to find that it has a liability for the stoned trucker who plows into a school bus). Health-care and employment-benefits costs will increase (there is plenty of evidence that drug-using employees are less productive, and less healthy), while more marijuana use will further burden our education system. The truth is, there are laws against marijuana because marijuana is harmful. With every year that passes, medical research discovers greater dangers from smoking it, from links to serious mental illness to the risk of cancer, and even dangers from in utero exposure. In fact, given the new levels of potency and the sheer prevalence of marijuana (the number of users contrasted with the number of those using cocaine or heroin), a case can be made that marijuana does the most social harm of any illegal drug. Marijuana is currently the leading cause of treatment need: Nearly two-thirds of those who meet the psychiatric criteria for needing substance-abuse treatment do so because of marijuana use. For youth, the harmful effects of marijuana use now exceed those of all other drugs combined. Remarkably, over 40 percent of youths who are current marijuana smokers meet the criteria for abuse or dependency. In several states, marijuana smoking exceeds tobacco smoking among young people, while marijuana has become more important than alcohol as a factor in treatment for teenagers. Legalizers assert that the justice system arrests 700,000 marijuana users a year, suggesting that an oppressive system is persecuting the innocent. This charge is a fraud. Less than 1 percent of those in prison for drug violations are low-level marijuana offenders, and many of these have "pled down" to the marijuana violation in the face of other crimes. The vast majority of those in prison on drug convictions are true criminals involved in drug trafficking, repeat offenses, or violent crime. The value of legal control is that it enables judicial discretion over offenders, diverting minor offenders who need it into treatment while retaining the authority to guard against the violent and incorrigible. Further, where the sanction and supervision of a court are present, the likelihood of recovery is greatly increased. Removing legal sanction endangers the public and fails to help the offender. Proponents of legalization argue that because approximately half of the referrals for treatment are from the criminal-justice system, it is the law and not marijuana that is the problem. Yet nearly half of all referrals for alcohol treatment likewise derive from judicial intervention, and nobody argues that drunk drivers do not really have a substance-abuse problem, or that it is the courts that are creating the perception of alcoholism. Marijuana's role in emergency-room cases has tripled in the past decade. Yet no judge is sending people to emergency rooms. They are there because of the dangers of the drug, which have greatly increased because of soaring potency. Legalization advocates suggest that youth will reduce their smoking because of this new potency. But when tobacco companies were accused of deliberately "spiking" their product with nicotine, no one saw this as a public-health gesture intended to reduce cigarette consumption. The deliberate effort to increase marijuana potency (and market it to younger initiates) should be seen for what it is - a steeply increased threat of addiction. Proponents of legalization argue that the fact that 100 million Americans admit on surveys that they have tried marijuana in their lifetime demonstrates the public's acceptance of the drug. But the pertinent number tells a different story. There are approximately 15 million Americans, mostly young people, who report using marijuana on a monthly basis. That is, only about 6 percent of the population age twelve and over use marijuana on a regular basis. To grasp the impact of legal control, contrast that figure with the number of current alcohol users (approximately 120 million). Regular alcohol use is eight times that of marijuana, and a large part of the difference is a function of laws against marijuana use. Under legalization, which would decrease the cost (now a little-noticed impediment to the young) and eliminate the legal risk, it is certain that the number of users would increase. Can anyone seriously argue that American democracy would be strengthened by more marijuana smoking? The law itself is our safeguard, and it works. Far from being a hopeless battle, the drug-control tide is turning against marijuana. We have witnessed an 11 percent reduction in youth marijuana use over the last two years, while perceptions of risk have soared. Make no mistake about what is going on here: Drug legalization is a worldwide movement, the goal of which is to make drug consumption - including heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine - an acceptable practice. Using the discourse of rights without responsibilities, the effort strives to establish an entitlement to addictive substances. The impact will be devastating. Drug legalizers will not be satisfied with a limited distribution of medical marijuana, nor will they stop at legal marijuana for sale in convenience stores. Their goal is clearly identifiable: tolerated addiction. It is a travesty to suggest, as Ethan Nadelmann has done, that it is consistent with conservative principles to abandon those who could be treated for their addiction, to create a situation in which government both condones and is the agent of drug distribution, and to place in the hands of the state the power to grant or not grant access to an addictive substance. This is not a conservative vision. But it is the goal of George Soros. Mr. Walters is director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.The Future of An Illusion On The Drug War, Believe Your Own EyesEthan A. NadelmannI am grateful for John Walters's ill-considered rejoinder to my article, mostly because it demonstrates so well the disregard for science, lack of intellectual rigor, and passion for partisan insult that characterize the drug czar and his failure of a drug-control policy. My original article, with extensive footnotes, can be found at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/NR Let's start with Walters's paragraph on medical marijuana, which might best be summarized as "Who are you going to believe: me or your own lying eyes?" Dozens of scientific studies now confirm the medical utility of marijuana. (Interested readers can go to the National Library of Medicine site: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter the search term "therapeutic cannabis.") Thousands of doctors have recommended marijuana to tens of thousands of patients in the ten states whose laws allow such recommendations. A pharmaceutical product containing marijuana's essential ingredient, THC, is FDA-approved and widely prescribed - but scientific studies as well as thousands of doctor and patient reports indicate that most patients find it less effective than marijuana itself. In Canada, marijuana for medicinal purposes is provided by the government. And, as I noted in my original article, the same is true in this country, with a handful of patients still receiving a monthly supply of joints from the government's marijuana-production facility in Mississippi. Marijuana remains in Schedule I for reasons that are entirely political, not scientific. In 1988, the DEA's administrative-law judge, Francis Young, recommended after extensive hearings that marijuana be placed in Schedule II, noting both its medicinal value and its relatively low potential for abuse compared with other drugs. That recommendation was rejected by the agency's director on political grounds. Consider that Schedule II, a less restrictive category, includes cocaine, amphetamine, and various opioid drugs responsible for thousands of overdose fatalities each year. No overdose fatality has ever been attributed to marijuana. One might say that Walters's views on medical marijuana are still stuck in the Dark Ages - except that evidence keeps emerging of marijuana's having been used for medicinal purposes in the so-called Dark Ages and even earlier. With respect to the broader issue of marijuana policy, Walters's broadside essentially amounts to a hodgepodge of mistakes, distortions, and crude attacks. He ignores overwhelming evidence that most people who smoke marijuana do no harm to their health. He implies that alcohol's greater popularity relative to marijuana is mostly a function of marijuana prohibition, ignoring historical and other evidence to the contrary. He slips back and forth between claims about marijuana and claims about more dangerous illicit drugs, presumably hoping to score a few cheap debating points. He analogizes simple possession of a marijuana joint to drunk driving. "The truth is," Walters says, "there are laws against marijuana because marijuana is harmful." Consider the implications of this statement. Does he mean to imply that anything that is harmful - or as harmful as marijuana - should be prohibited? The list would be endless given the relative safety margin of marijuana compared with thousands of legal drugs, food products, sports activities, and means of transportation. His criteria for prohibition, applied more broadly, represent not a conservative vision but a potentially totalitarian one, in which the nanny state criminalizes whatever offends its tastes and prejudices. "A case can be made," Walters says, "that marijuana does the most social harm of any illegal drug." That is an extraordinary claim. Misuse of cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and illegally diverted pharmaceutical drugs results in tens of thousands of deaths each year. Many people addicted to these drugs steal to support their habits and some become violent while under the influence. Hundreds of thousands have contracted HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and other infectious diseases. Keep in mind, too, that alcohol is an illegal drug for people under the age of 21; its misuse is powerfully associated with injuries and fatalities on the roads as well as violent and reckless sexual behavior. Marijuana can be harmful in all sorts of ways, as I noted in my article, but it is absurd to equate its harms with those of other illegal drugs. "In several states," Walters notes, "marijuana smoking exceeds tobacco smoking among young people." This may be the ultimate indictment of marijuana prohibition. Young people have better access to marijuana than anyone else, notwithstanding decades of criminal enforcement, and many are tempted by its status as a "forbidden fruit." But consumption of cigarettes, which remains legal for adults, has dropped dramatically among young people over the past few decades. If ever a case could be made for preferring a policy of honest education and high taxation over zero tolerance and criminal prohibition, this is it. (Keep in mind that criminal prohibition represents the ultimate high-tax policy, except that the bloated "prohibition tax" benefits black-market entrepreneurs rather than the public treasury.) The real question here is not what one thinks of marijuana, or whether one wishes it could be eradicated from our society, but rather what the government should do about it. Even as Walters grossly exaggerates marijuana's harms, he ignores entirely the harms occasioned by marijuana prohibition: billions of taxpayer dollars down the drain each year; 700,000 people arrested annually; private properties confiscated; and other basic freedoms violated by government agents futilely trying to enforce paternalistic laws. Millions of Americans who don't like marijuana nonetheless support an end to marijuana prohibition for precisely these reasons. When a government prohibition proves ineffective, unreasonably costly, and substantially more harmful than the supposed evil it was intended to cure, that prohibition merits repeal - just as alcohol prohibition did 70 years ago. Let me offer, finally, a few words regarding Walters's style of argumentation and repeated attacks on George Soros. It seems a cheap shot to target George Soros in the pages of National Review for supporting me and the growing drug-policy reform movement. Walters might just as well have insulted William F. Buckley Jr., Richard Brookhiser, Milton Friedman, George Shultz, Grover Norquist, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and dozens of other prominent Republicans and conservatives who have criticized the war on drugs and supported alternative policies, including an end to marijuana prohibition. The principled conservative believes in restricting the reach of government into the lives and homes of its citizens. He respects the rights of states and local communities to regulate their own affairs free from federal overreach. He rejects wasteful government expenditures. And he requires intellectual rigor in refuting the arguments of opponents and advancing his own views. It should therefore come as no surprise that so many principled conservatives oppose the war on drugs. But there's another point worth making about George Soros. There is probably no private individual who played a greater role than George Soros in hastening the downfall of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe, and in trying to assist the subsequent transformation of those states into democratic, capitalist open societies. He has contributed close to $2 billion over the past two decades toward this end. His commitment to this goal was motivated by many of the same principles that readers of National Review hold dear. Soros saw in America's drug war many of the same political and intellectual traits that had made him hate Communism and fascism: political indoctrination substituted for education; bureaucratic apparatchiks disfiguring scientific evidence to serve the state's agenda; massive deployment of police agents and their informants in ever more intrusive ways; politicians mouthing stupid clichés without the slightest hint of embarrassment; official spokesmen responding to substantive criticisms of government policy not in kind but instead by impugning the motivations and characters of their critics; and the arrest and incarceration of millions for engaging in personal tastes and vices, as well as capitalist transactions, prohibited by the state for reasons it can no longer clearly recall. John Walters needs to get out of his drug-war bunker and venture beyond the closed venues in which he attacks his critics without ever daring to engage us directly. The vitality of our democracy depends in part on the willingness of government officials to defend their policies in open and honest debate, but Walters has fled from one opportunity after another. If the federal government's drug policy is defensible, he should dare to defend it, and defend it honestly. And if he's unable or unwilling to defend it against informed critics, it's time for him to resign or be replaced.Source: National Review (US) Author:  Ethan Nadelmann and John P. WaltersPublished: September 27, 2004Copyright: 2004 National Review Contact: letters nationalreview.com Website: http://www.nationalreview.com/ Related Articles:It's Time To Rethink and Reform Drug Laws http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19445.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 #33 posted by The GCW on September 16, 2004 at 19:56:54 PT
I finally just made time to read the 2nd half...
What a blow to John PeeWhoah!That is not only saying the emperer wears no clothes; that is saying the emperor-is-pissing-on-Himself. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by FoM on September 16, 2004 at 15:34:02 PT
Ethan Nadelmann
I just realized I didn't say anything about what Ethan Nadelmann said. He did a really good job. I wish that John Walters would do an open debate with Ethan Nadelmann. Most people know that when someone doesn't want to debate an issue it is because they really don't know how to defend what they say. Thank you Mr. Nadelmann!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by dongenero on September 16, 2004 at 13:52:38 PT
Nadelmann is awesome in his rebuttal!
I was getting very angry reading John walter's diatribe on how the world is actually flat. I was beginning to formulate some comments to put here. Then, I read Ethan Nadelmann's rebuttal.He is awesome at debating this issue. Far more eloquent than anything I was preparing to say so, I'll simply say thank you Ethan Nadelmann. I don't believe it could have been said any better. It was also stated in such a way that it should speak directly to the ideology of the National Review.
Thank you again Mr. Nadelmann!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by afterburner on September 16, 2004 at 06:37:39 PT
Freedom of Medicine.
The federal government has no right deciding who is sick. Freedom of medicine.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by Critto on September 16, 2004 at 05:56:50 PT
Conservatism?!?
So spake John Walters --
"It is a travesty to suggest, as Ethan Nadelmann has done, that it is consistent with conservative principles to abandon those who could be treated for their addiction, to create a situation in which government both condones and is the agent of drug distribution, and to place in the hands of the state the power to grant or not grant access to an addictive substance. This is not a conservative vision. "Uh? 
and would you, Mr. John Walters, have to say about one of the most conservative countries: Victorian England? Under the rule of Queen Victoria, England was one of the most conservative countries ever. Yet, the use of ALL drugs, including hashish (I don't know whether they smoked joints in those times, or just the traditional water pipes) and EVEN OPIUM (which was publicly sold and could be smoked in the special facilities), was PERFECTLY LEGAL. It's your vision that is unconservative. It's a vision shared with the statist do-gooders, whom conservatives have always shunned. A REAL conservative may denounce DRUGS, yet he (or she) would not denounce their legality, which derive from the _principle of self-responsibility_, ie. that an adult person is responsible for his/her own actions, and that 'no harm happens to the willing one' (ie, to the one who wants it happened to him/her).In Liberty,
Critto
LIBERTARYZM=LIBERTARIANISM
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by Jose Melendez on September 15, 2004 at 09:36:48 PT
ACTUAL DOCUMENT: Washington sold hemp.
"It appears pretty evident to me from the prices I have generally got for my Tobacco in London, and from some other concomitant Circumstances, that it only suits the Interest of a few particular Gentlemen to continue their consignments of this commodity to that place, while others shoud endeavour to substitute some other Article in place of Tobacco, and try their success there with: In order thereto you woud do me a singular favour in advising of the general price one might expect for good Hemp in your Port watered and prepared according to Act of Parliament, with an estimate of the freight, and all other Incident charges pr. Tonn that I may form some Idea of the profits resulting from the growth. I shoud be very glad to know at the sametime how rough and undressd Flax has generally, and may probably sell; for this year I have made an Essay in both, and altho I suffer pretty considerably by the attempt, owing principally to the severity of the Drougth, and my inexperience in the management I am not altogether discouraged from a further prosecution of the Scheme provided I find the Sales with you are not clogd with too much difficulty and expence." - George Washingtonsee: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw5&fileName=gwpage003.db&recNum=193http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw5&fileName=gwpage003.db&recNum=194close up image: http://memory.loc.gov/mss/mgw/mgw5/116/0100/0196.jpg
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by Hope on September 15, 2004 at 08:07:38 PT
Press Democrat and stinky pot story
This information could be used in a printable and possibly, delightful letter to the Press Democrat. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by Hope on September 15, 2004 at 08:02:56 PT
he enjoyed the fragrance of hemp flowers. 
Thanks, Jose.Please post this little factoid over on the stinky pot thread!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by goneposthole on September 15, 2004 at 07:57:40 PT
Freedom is Slavery
Truth is lies War is PeaceWho said that? George OrwellThe cows are home. Time to feed them; they're making a heckuva racket out there.Now more than ever... freedom is slavery.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by Jose Melendez on September 15, 2004 at 06:20:49 PT
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe.
"Can anyone seriously argue that American democracy would be strengthened by more marijuana smoking?"from: http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/180/highsociety.html - Washington & Jefferson were said to exchange smoking blends as personal gifts. - Washington reportedly preferred a pipe full of "the  leaves of hemp" to alcohol, & wrote in his diaries that he enjoyed the fragrance  of hemp flowers. - Madison once remarked that hemp gave him insight to create a new & democratic nation. 
 
 - Monroe, creator of the Monroe Doctrine, began smoking it as Ambassador to France & continued to the age of 73. (Burke. "Pot & Presidents." in Green Egg. CA. June 21, 1975) 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by Lehder on September 15, 2004 at 05:29:54 PT
Cleis
" Can anyone seriously argue that American democracy would be strengthened by more marijuana smoking?"I have no doubt of it, and while I dispute the presumption that our highest purpose on this planet is to strengthen democracy, I am certain too that democracy would be immeasureably enriched and strengthened by an end to Prohibition."Freedom is one of my favorite words. Freedom how nice it sounds" fre'-dem: listen, it's the sound of a flour sack dropped to the floor, or a severed head to a basket. Now *treason* - here is a soothing, pretty word, like a girl's fragrant whisper. Can you hear its caress?Sleep, darlingI have a smalldaughter Trea-son who islike a goldenflowerI wouldn'ttake all Croesus'kingdom with lovethrown in, for herhttp://www.geocities.com/queenguinevere.geo/sapphoo.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by The GCW on September 15, 2004 at 04:13:39 PT
The Beatitudes
9:15:4I AM only to the 2nd paragraph and I AM thinking: *Luke 6:43-44, For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. 
44  "For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. 
45  "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.http://www.biblegateway.org/bible?passage=LUKE+6&language=english&version=NASBSubtitled: "The Beatitudes"Where both sides are represented; Biblically.Also, notice on the very 1st page of the Bible, it says all the seed bearing plants are good... and God, says that.For those who wonder about "Do not judge..."Luke 6:38, indicates what has been already going on; to notice it, observe it etc. is not doing it, but simply seeing it occur, which is in fact Biblical in itself. Do not condemn, but know who is condemning. Do not judge but know the world has already been judged and there are the “self-condemned” and they are already judged; You don’t have to create a new judgement… it is already complete. The “deluding influence” has been given as written and that is it… We don’t have to label the condemned, they do it themselves.Through metamorphosis, the condemned become the self-condemned. And that is Biblical.The Green Collar Worker
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #20 posted by FoM on September 14, 2004 at 19:06:22 PT

Truth
Freedom is one of my favorite words. Freedom how nice it sounds. I believe in an individuals freedom to follow their own dreams. Peter, Paul and Mary:How many years can a people exist until they're allowed to be free?
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #19 posted by Truth on September 14, 2004 at 18:53:31 PT

freedom
Chalk me up on the side of it's all about freedom, or lack of. A nation that locks up more of it's own citizen's then any other country in the world has no right calling itself the land of the free.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #18 posted by mayan on September 14, 2004 at 17:59:40 PT

Truth & Lies
It would seem that Walters and Nadelemann are from two different planets.One man is saying what his boss tells him to say and the other is simply pursuing the truth for the sake of truth itself. Any individual with a working brain can see it clear as day. I agree with Nicholas when he says it all comes down to freedom.Are we free, or are we not?The way out is the way in... 9/11 Truth Movement Marches On:
http://www.truthforpresident.org/alerts/091304.html9/11 and the "War on Terrorism":
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/c8/61/200409131403.e3d05963.htmlTranscript: Alex Jones Interviews Stanley Hilton: 
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/130904hiltontranscript.htmMichael Ruppert Accuses Cheney of Mass Murders:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2248Confronting the Evidence - Report/Review:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/e7/b4/200409141145.19f823f1.htmlBOOK REVIEW - COVER UP: What the Government Is Still Hiding About the War on Terror:
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=401&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #17 posted by Virgil on September 14, 2004 at 17:41:44 PT

What is going on in Canada?
Turmel has not yet posted anything. He had this go up at 3:45 Am this morning- http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/MedPot/message/1392 What happened today should be the next message.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #16 posted by FoM on September 14, 2004 at 17:41:27 PT

Is It Yes or No?
I have a simple way of thinking. The more complicated an issue becomes the more I don't understand. We have plenty of spin on the tv news. It makes me dizzy. Sometimes I think that they feel the world will go mad if cannabis was legalized. You know a vision of people totally offending others in many assorted ways. Common sense is very important. Making an issue complex is exhausting to sort thru. Cannabis prohibition causes way more harm then Cannabis could ever cause. That's the bottom line. Jail or no jail. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #15 posted by Nicholas Thimmesch on September 14, 2004 at 17:12:29 PT:

There...
...we figured it out:Thank you very much. Thank you very much as Elvis always said!I was using the Canadian decriminalization model as a basis for my post. The Canadian government's idea of decriminalization is ticketing people for simple possession and increased prison sentences for selling and growing.Who needs long winded articles written by academics, bureaucrats, and other assorted meglamaniacs: all the think tanks & foundations (except, naturally, the NORML Foundation), all the law enforcement agencies, all the "treatment centers", all the politicians, and all the dealers don't amount to a hill of beans compared to good old common sense, personal responsibility and FREEDOM!
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #14 posted by Jose Melendez on September 14, 2004 at 17:09:38 PT

thank you all
Nicholas' description sounds more like full legalization than decriminalization:http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Decriminalization Decriminalization is the process of making an action no longer a criminal act in the relevant jurisdiction. Such decriminalizations are the result of changing moral values, where a society feels that the act once considered to be criminal in nature is not as harmful to society as before. Some activities to be decriminalized in the past, by various societies and governments, include: homosexuality prostitution the possession or use of marijuana While decriminalized acts are no longer crimes, they may still be the subject of regulation; for example, the licensing and regular medical testing of prostitutes, or a monetary penalty in place of a criminal charge for the posession of a soft drug. compare this definition to . . . from: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=legalization&r=67 le·gal·ize   To make legal or lawful; authorize or sanction by law. 
le gal·i·za tion (-g -l -z sh n) n. Source :The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition 
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. 
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. legalization \Le`gal*i*za"tion\ n. The act of making legal. Source :Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. legalization n : the act of making lawful [syn: legalisation ,legitimation ]Source :WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University As for the claim: " . . . when tobacco companies were accused of deliberately "spiking" their product with nicotine, no one saw this as a public-health gesture intended to reduce cigarette consumption."It may be true that no one saw it that way, however:from: http://no-smoking.org/jan98/01-24-98-1.html A California company has admitted violating federal export law by shipping genetically altered tobacco seeds to South America and elsewhere to grow a special, high-nicotine tobacco. DNA Plant Technology Corp. made the admission in a Washington courtroom as a jury was seated in Minnesota to hear that state's claims that America's major cigarette makers defrauded consumers. DNA's plea on Friday was the first criminal admission in the government's long-running investigation of the tobacco industry. The company's chief financial officer, Arthur Finnel, admitted conspiring with Brown & Williamson, the nation's third largest cigarette maker, to smuggle the ''Y-1'' tobacco seeds to Brazil and elsewhere between 1984 and 1991. The resulting plants were dubbed ''fumo loco,'' or ''crazy smoke,'' because they contained twice the nicotine content of American cigarettes. The major tobacco companies have denied trying to manipulate nicotine levels in cigarettes. Brown & Williamson has said the Y-1 tobacco was developed to try to create a safer, low-tar cigarette.Also, the suggestion that stoned drivers plow into buses ignores research proving that cannabis users are less likely to do so:see: http://www.ccguide.org.uk/driving.htmlhttp://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving3.shtmlhttp://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/s16p2.htmFor great answers to drug warrior propaganda and excellent debating points, see also: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/ACTIVIST/showstop.htm http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/ACTIVIST/answers.htm
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #13 posted by yippierevolutionary on September 14, 2004 at 17:01:29 PT

Being hip to youth culture I can say
"That is, only about 6 percent of the population age twelve and over use marijuana on a regular basis."BULLSHIT
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #12 posted by BGreen on September 14, 2004 at 16:41:21 PT

Sorry, Nicholas
I was using the Canadian decriminalization model as a basis for my post.The Canadian government's idea of decriminalization is ticketing people for simple possession and increased prison sentences for selling and growing.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #11 posted by FoM on September 14, 2004 at 16:40:52 PT

Thank You Nicholas!
Thank you very much. Thank you very much as Elvis always said!
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #10 posted by Jose Melendez on September 14, 2004 at 16:31:29 PT

Professor Nadelmann proved correct
Nadelmann's link to the search for "therapeutic cannabis" on PubMed yields 65 results, here are the first two:from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15340387 The endocannabinoid system and its therapeutic exploitation. Marzo VD, Bifulco M, Petrocellis LD. Endocannabinoid Research Group, Institutes of Biomolecular Chemistry, National Research Council, Via Campi Flegrei 34, Comprensorio Olivetti, 80078 Pozzuoli, Napoli, Italy. The term 'endocannabinoid' - originally coined in the mid-1990s after the discovery of membrane receptors for the psychoactive principle in Cannabis, Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol and their endogenous ligands - now indicates a whole signalling system that comprises cannabinoid receptors, endogenous ligands and enzymes for ligand biosynthesis and inactivation. This system seems to be involved in an ever-increasing number of pathological conditions. With novel products already being aimed at the pharmaceutical market little more than a decade since the discovery of cannabinoid receptors, the endocannabinoid system seems to hold even more promise for the future development of therapeutic drugs. We explore the conditions under which the potential of targeting the endocannabinoid system might be realized in the years to come. from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15325960Role of endocannabinoid system in mental diseases. Manzanares J, Uriguen L, Rubio G, Palomo T. Servicio de Psiquiatria y Unidad de Investigacion, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Edificio Materno-Infantil, Planta 6a, 613-A, Avenida de Cordoba s/n. 28041 Madrid, Spain. jorgemr h12o.es In the last decade, a large number of studies using Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active principle derivative of the marijuana plant, or cannabinoid synthetic derivatives have substantially contributed to advance the understanding of the pharmacology and neurobiological mechanisms produced by cannabinoid receptor activation. Cannabis has been historically used to relieve some of the symptoms associated with central nervous system disorders. Nowadays, there are anecdotal evidences for the use of cannabis in many patients suffering from multiple sclerosis or chronic pain. Following the historical reports of the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes, recent research has highlighted the potential of cannabinoids to treat a wide variety of clinical disorders. Some of these disorders that are being investigated are pain, motor dysfunctions or psychiatric illness. On the other hand, cannabis abuse has been related to several psychiatric disorders such as dependence, anxiety, depression, cognitive impairment, and psychosis. Considering that cannabis or cannabinoid pharmaceutical preparations may no longer be exclusively recreational drugs but may also present potential therapeutic uses, it has become of great interest to analyze the neurobiological and behavioral consequences of their administration. This review attempts to link current understanding of the basic neurobiology of the endocannabinoid system to novel opportunities for therapeutic intervention and its effects on the central nervous system. 

[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #9 posted by Nicholas Thimmesch on September 14, 2004 at 16:29:11 PT:

Whoaaa...
...when I use the term "decriminalization" I mean total, unadultrated, unhindered, grow it as a crop (on YOUR property) or grow it in your coffee can type decriminalization. No prison terms, no special taxes, no nothing. Okie dokie? Now I totally support prosecuting people for BEHAVIOR that threatens, endangers or harasses anyone. So if your marijuana consumption or growth does any of those things, let our numerous long standing laws protecting property, prosecuting people for assault, reckless driving or other forms of violence (especially toward children), or otherwise violating the peace be fully enforced (no more probation or parole, either: you get five years, you do five years, period).
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #8 posted by JustGetnBy on September 14, 2004 at 16:26:20 PT

Walters is Very Afraid
How could any sane person with a IQ above room temp, have any doubt who the liar is here. Walters agenda involves his mortage payment, NOT THE TRUTH, his continuing in a lucrative do nothing job, NOT THE TRUTH,ad infinitum.... I think you all know where I stand, so I'll sign off before I embarress myself.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #7 posted by BGreen on September 14, 2004 at 16:13:48 PT

I can tell you what the other half is
...what is the other "half" of "the problem" that you speak of?It's called monetary fines and prison.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #6 posted by FoM on September 14, 2004 at 16:11:34 PT

You're Welcome Nicholas
Cannabis is a plant. It needs to be grown. If people would be allowed to grow their own the price would drop. If growing isn't allowed the price will continue to rise. The more it costs the more chance of violence entering into it. Money can trigger violence. If the money issue is done away with crime will disappear. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #5 posted by Nicholas Thimmesch on September 14, 2004 at 16:03:49 PT:

FoM...
...what is the other "half" of "the problem" that you speak of? Thanks for posting this National Review material so quickly.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #4 posted by FoM on September 14, 2004 at 15:53:04 PT

Decriminalization 
Nicholas decriminalization only solves half of the problem. How can a half measure work for the good of society?
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #3 posted by Nicholas Thimmesch on September 14, 2004 at 15:41:28 PT:

First glance...
...of the header would make one think Ethan and John Walters wrote the material that follows together (now THAT would have been interesting). While I respect Ethan for all his good work and I question Walters for what I'm certain he considers his good work, too, there are simply -- as some complained about Mozart having too many notes in his music -- too many words here for an issue that only needs one word: freedom. While Walters would and will tell you all about statistics, "drug abuse" horror stories, and the hazards to society as a whole that "drugged" or drunk driving poses, just as Ethan and others espouse "harm reduction", the real issue here is quite simply freedom. Not the freedom to do the aforementioned, that is, endanger others with your behavior: the freedom to conduct your life in private within the confines of your property or on like minded peoples' property. Prohibition, harm reduction, and government run "legalization" just won't do: decriminalization alone will. Then and only then will people be free to choose or NOT choose to use, possess or tolerate the highly benign substance that marijuana, in reality, has been and always will be. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #2 posted by global_warming on September 14, 2004 at 15:36:45 PT

Forever Nadelmann
" Can anyone seriously argue that American democracy would be strengthened by more marijuana smoking?" -WaltersNor can it be argued that caging a human being for having some plant material commonly known as marijuana would strengthen democracy.In matters of health, lets get the judges, police and the courts out of our faces, out of our lives, end this insane prohibition.gw
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #1 posted by FoM on September 14, 2004 at 14:43:49 PT

Here's The National Review Debate
I haven't read it all because I was busy setting it up to post. Here it is!
[ Post Comment ]






  Post Comment