Comments on: End the Federal Government’s War Against Medical Marijuana

By: Nick Rivera

Nick Rivera — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:38:46 +0000

Better put your water-pipes away. Wednesday's medical marijuana amendment was defeated in U.S. House by a vote of 262 to 165.

By: kritter

kritter — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:28:34 +0000

You can thank the values voters. The evangelistas still froth at the mouth when they think of free love, gay marriage, and flag-burning, pot-smoking hippies. They are convinced that only tough eradication of what’s left of the counterculture will save the sanctity of marriage and Christian family values.

Medical marijuana may have a lot of value to chronic pain sufferers, but I don’t expect it to be legalized in my lifetime. Unless we elect someone like Kinky Friedman for POTUS, lol.

By: Lynx

Lynx — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:21:25 +0000

Prohibiting pot while you allow alcohol and tobacco (the last far more addictive and lethal than pot) is pure hypocrisy, but it’s also expensive and ineffectual.

The quantity of money that goes into fighting against marijuana is monstrous. Just the money spent to incarcerate a host of non-violent offenders who will enter mild criminals and leave hardened ones is insane. With that money you could afford to help, oh I don’t know, TREAT all the cancers medical marijuana is supposed to help with. In addition, not allowing for legal marijuana cuts the government out of what would be staggering quantities in terms of taxes.

In addition to moral grand-standing against something almost no one REALLY thinks is that bad (when was the last time someone under 80 gasped in horror knowing that you once smoked pot?) I see something more sinister. Mafias love that pot’s illegal, keeps the business brutal and therefore not as competitive, they don’t pay taxes or have to follow any rules, and prices stay high. And they have money, lots and lots of it. And what language do politicians speak?

By: Davebo

Davebo — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:42:10 +0000

This amendment has no chance. Todays political environment is still quite conservative.

Rather ironic considering how many conservatives believe the question of abortion should be left up to the individual states.

Medical Ganja? Not so much..

By: Rudi

Rudi — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:03:36 +0000

This amendment has no chance. Todays political environment is still quite conservative. The “War on Drugs” and “War on Crime” became a conservative rallying cry. To challenge these wars means you support the enemy. I hear rumblings that Republicans may use these issues to deflect from Iraq. Being tough on crime/drugs is like supporting babies and puppies.

The war is on legal drugs. Prescription drugs, alcohol and tobacco kill more people than the organic drugs. Why not a war on steroids, Xanax and Valium.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:58:08 +0000

Hear, hear!

Let’s all smoke a doobie in honor of this great article.

By: Shaun Mullen

Shaun Mullen — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:55:21 +0000

Thank you for this most important post. There may be no greater hypocrisy than the government’s tactic endorsement of a dizzying variety of licit drugs that are abused by millions of Americans and its ongoing draconian prosecution of pot smokers and refusal to sanction the use of medical marijuana.

By: ryan

ryan — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:59:01 +0000

I believe that there are two problems due to drugs: health risks and associated crime. Health risks will always be a problem whether drugs are legal or illegal, but at least if drugs were legalized the government could offer some assurance of quality, and that would help to limit overdoses. The crime problem associated with drugs could be mostly eliminated through legalization – when drugs are available inside the local corner store no one has to be shot over a turf war, and the resulting profits would leave the hands of gangs and go instead to businesses.

The arguments against legalization seem to boil down to “drugs are bad” and “we don’t want to make it easier for kids to get them”. However, alcohol, cigarettes, guns, and other legal items are also “bad”, and kids are going to get drugs whether they’re legal or not, so those arguments may not carry much weight. Legalizing drugs would help reduce crime, provide a new revenue stream in the form of taxes, and allow some quality assurance. It may not be a perfect option, but it strikes me as the lesser of two evils.

That said, in today’s climate any politician probably couldn’t propose legalization without paying a cost, but it might be possible to change the law to make this a state issue. Nevada (which has already legalized gambling and prostitution) would likely lead the charge towards drug legalization, and other states could then look to their model to determine a future direction.