Marijuana Prohibition Is Unscientific, Unconstitutional, And Unjust

Marijuana Prohibition Is Unscientific, Unconstitutional, And Unjust

Ok so to start off, I wasn't really sure where to put this thread. It covers three different topics that each could have been put in a different forum so I just put it here in the General Conspiracies section. Also, to anyone who is familiar with the reasons why marijuana is illegal, none of this should come as any surprise to you, but this article has links to sources and really drives home the point of why marijuana should be legal. The author breaks down his points into three categories and I'll touch on each of the briefly. I highly suggest reading the whole article though despite its 4 page length (don't worry Forbes uses a large font so it really isn't as long as you'd think).

Marijuana Prohibition Is Unscientific

A few days before the House of Representatives passed a federal ban on marijuana in June 1937, the Republican minority leader, Bertrand Snell of New York, confessed, “I do not know anything about the bill.” The Democratic majority leader, Sam Rayburn of Texas, educated him. “It has something to do with something that is called marihuana,” Rayburn said. “I believe it is a narcotic of some kind.”

Congress passing laws without properly informing themselves about what they are doing? What a surprise there... If our current members of Congress were actually Congressional historians, they'd actually know this and there wouldn't be a debate anymore. Marijuana would be legal. HOWEVER, we all know that Congress is just as underinformed on their legislation as they were in yesteryears. THEN it is the reasons that notorious asshole Harry Anslinger used to ban marijuana that should enrage you even more:

That exchange gives you a sense of how much thought Congress gave marijuana prohibition before approving it. Legislators who had heard of the plant knew it as the “killer weed” described by Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger, who claimed marijuana turned people into homicidal maniacs and called it “the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.” Anslinger warned that “marihuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes” and estimated that half the violent crimes in areas occupied by “Mexicans, Greeks, Turks, Filipinos, Spaniards, Latin Americans, and Negroes may be traced to the use of marihuana.”

Yes, racism. Marijuana was made illegal because Harry Anslinger was a raging racist and it has stayed that way because no one wants to question this account. Instead prohibitionists invent science to describe it as bad for you or latch onto any flimsy study they can to paint it in a bad light to further justify why marijuana should remain illegal. Except that the scientific reasons for illegality are supported by a VERY flimsy base. Keep in mind, marijuana was made illegal FOUR years after alcohol was legalized, and we all know how bad alcohol is compared to marijuana (if you don't know this, then read the article because Mr. Sullum, the article author, goes into detail about this).

The comparison of alcohol and marijuana presents an obvious challenge to anyone who thinks the government bans drugs because they are unacceptably dangerous. If anything, that rationale suggests marijuana should be legal while alcohol should be banned, rather than the reverse. Judging from this example, the distinctions drawn by our drug laws have little, if anything, to do with what science tells us about the relative hazards of different intoxicants.

Marijuana Prohibition is Unconstitutional

When dry activists sought to ban alcoholic beverages, they went through the arduous process of changing the Constitution, which prior to the ratification of the 18th amendment in 1919 did not authorize Congress to prohibit the production and sale of “intoxicating liquors.” When Congress banned marijuana in 1937, it did so in the guise of the Marihuana Tax Act , a revenue measure that authorized onerous regulations ostensibly aimed at collecting taxes on production and distribution, with severe penalties for noncompliance. But by the time marijuana prohibition was incorporated into the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, there was no need for such subterfuge. Instead Congress relied on its constitutional authority to “regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.”

This is a good point to consider. Alcohol was made illegal due to an Amendment to the Constitution. Marijuana was made illegal due to shady legislation that was said to be for one thing, but was secretly designed to prohibit access to it.

The Commerce Clause, which was part of the original Constitution, did not change between 1937 and 1970. But beginning with a series of New Deal cases, the Supreme Court stretched its meaning to accommodate pretty much anything Congress wanted to do. In the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, for example, the Court said the Commerce Clause authorized punishment of an Ohio farmer for exceeding his government-imposed wheat quota, even though the extra grain never left his farm, let alone the state.

The Court went even further in the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich, ruling that the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce extends even to homegrown marijuana used for medical purposes by a California patient in compliance with state law. That decision, unlike Wickard, applied not just to production but to mere possession. According to the Court, the Commerce Clause encompasses the tiniest trace of marijuana in a cancer patient’s drawer. “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause,” observed dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas, “then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

Now THAT is shady. I scoff at any conservative who says that marijuana should remain illegal. You are supporting a larger federal government, and the shady actions associated with keeping the plant illegal. Any conservative that is a prohibitionist isn't really for smaller government. They just want smaller government for the things they don't support. It should be a no brainer that Congress has no authority to make this plant illegal.

Marijuana Prohibition is Unjust

Even if marijuana prohibition were consistent with science and the Constitution, it would be inconsistent with basic principles of morality. It is patently unfair to treat marijuana merchants like criminals while treating liquor dealers like legitimate businessmen, especially in light of the two drugs’ relative hazards. It is equally perverse to arrest cannabis consumers while leaving drinkers unmolested.

This is really just the cherry on top of the article. Anyone with any sort of common sense should recognize that Marijuana Prohibition laws are VERY unjust and wrong, but there is also a CLEAR hypocrisy between marijuana and alcohol. Especially since alcohol is likely the most harmful drug you can imbibe. Though by no means do I want alcohol made illegal, please don't read that into my posts here.

[cont]

a reply to: Krazysh0t

[cont]

Peaceful activities such as growing a plant or selling its produce cannot justify the violence that is required to enforce prohibition. In the name of stopping people from getting high, police officers routinely commit acts that would be universally recognized as assault, burglary, theft, kidnapping, and even murder were it not for laws that draw arbitrary lines between psychoactive substances.

The main justification for those laws is protecting people from their own bad decisions. The hope is that prohibition will deter a certain number of people who otherwise would not only try marijuana but become self-destructively attached to it. Toward that end, police in the United States arrest hundreds of thousands of people on marijuana charges each year—nearly 700,000 in 2013, the vast majority for simple possession. While most of those marijuana offenders do not spend much time behind bars, about 40,000 people are serving sentences as long as life for growing or distributing cannabis. And even if marijuana offenders do not go to jail or prison, they still suffer public humiliation, legal costs, inconvenience, lost jobs, and all the lasting ancillary penalties of a criminal arrest.

This is made all the worse by this fact:

Note that the people bearing these costs are not, by and large, the people who receive the purported benefits of prohibition. The person who, thanks to prohibition, never becomes a pathetic pothead goes about his life undisturbed while other people—people who never hurt him or anyone else—pay for the mistakes he avoids. Even paternalists should be troubled by the distribution of these burdens.

Basically, what I put into my body has ZERO baring on you and yours. So leave me and mine alone and we'll all be happy. Stop being so nosy! Legalize freedom!

I agree 100% that what you put in your body is your business, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. That said.....What the Hell are we doing? Our Constitutional Rights are being trampled left and right, but lately, the Right to get high is the only thing I've seen people come together over. Seriously, if people were as passionate about all our Constitutional Rights, TPTB would not dare step over the line,. But here we are, head up our ass as usual, fighting over the petty crap, while they screw us on everything else.

[snip] I have always seen the lunacy of the governments prohibition on it.
I 100% support and defend your position.

Thanks for the post!

a reply to: DAVID64

Think of it like this. Marijuana is the front runner of the war on drugs. The war on drugs and it's brother the war on terrorism (which really just supports the war on drugs) are responsible for the majority of our rights being trampled. All the police escalation and usage of military technology is due to the war on drugs. It is LITERALLY the elephant in the room that needs to be addressed before we can get the government back on track and our rights restored.

Correct, agreed and Amen to that brother.

I honestly want hemp to come back and kill the synthetic market - textiles, oils, clothing.....and for me personally = my business, I want hemp rope back - absolutely beautiful to splice and work with, Oh and super strong too............and save me big $$$ on my vessels.

Keep fighting the good fight.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Couldn't agree more with your OP.
Wrong on so many levels. It could only be the result of a partnership between government and corporations.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I'm becoming a BIG fan of hemp too. I really want to do a thread on its benefits. For one, hemp oil could go a long way towards reversing man-made climate change. Plus in general, hemp production could literally revitalize our manufacturing base with all the things it can be used for. Unfortunately, there just isn't much news released on that end.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Please, and PM when you do get the thread up as I do not want to miss it.

Here, I've got to post this, obsessive? Maybe, but this is beautiful to handle and use, even to behold and just look at, you'd chose it over most, before even realising it's hemp. deltaropes.com...

That's the mooring line coiled in the back, SUPER strong, I simply cannot emphasise enough.

*** REMINDER ***

16e.) Illicit Activity: Discussion of illicit activities, specifically the use of mind-altering drugs & substances, engaging in computer hacking, promoting criminal hate, discussing sexual relations with minors, and furtherance of financial schemes and scams are strictly forbidden. You will also not link to sites or online content that contains discussion or advocacy of such material. Any Post mentioning or advocating personal use of illicit mind-altering drugs will result in immediate account termination.

i) Narcotics and illicit mind-altering substances, legal or otherwise: discussing personal use or personal experiences as the result of such substances is not allowed in any form.

Terms and Conditions

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Will do. If it weren't for this thread I just wrote, the hemp one was the one I was planning on doing next. I should just stop whining about the extra research I'd need to do to write it and just get it over with already lol.

Im not sure you can cure the worlds energy and textile problems with anything that you can grow. You would just need so much fertile land to grow it in. Its just not doable. Plus you would need to use so much oil based fertilizer to re-nurish the land every few years.

Yes hemp can be used for a lot of stuff but growing cant replace everything.

As for ending prohibition i dont think its ever going to happen the way it should. What might happen is it will be state controlled so it will become yet another thing the government will have control over for the sake of lining their own pockets. People will settle for that deal thinking they have won the war.

Great research Krazysh0t. As always, I couldn't agree more in regards to this topic and how you address it. You brought many great points. S & F, this needs much attention IMO.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

SNIP

ATTENTION:

16e.) Illicit Activity: Discussion of illicit activities, specifically the use of mind-altering drugs & substances, engaging in computer hacking, promoting criminal hate, discussing sexual relations with minors, and furtherance of financial schemes and scams are strictly forbidden. You will also not link to sites or online content that contains discussion or advocacy of such material. Any Post mentioning or advocating personal use of illicit mind-altering drugs will result in immediate account termination.

i) Narcotics and illicit mind-altering substances, legal or otherwise: discussing personal use or personal experiences as the result of such substances is not allowed in any form.

But please, pharmaceutical companies and Govt., please keep telling me how wonderful all these treatments and steroids are that I keep taking and am now dependent on.... God I hate my country so much at times....

From the article,

The person who, thanks to prohibition, never becomes a pathetic pothead goes about his life undisturbed while other people—people who never hurt him or anyone else—pay for the mistakes he avoids.

When they have to resort to such dishonest spin doctoring it becomes almost comical.
The offenders are not in jail because putting them there prevented someone from smoking pot, they are in jail because they facilitated others to smoke pot while making illegal gains. They were doing commerce in a controlled substance illegally. No different than Al Capone getting tossed in the slammer for tax evasion instead of murder. They couldn't get a murder charge to stick because of public sympathy and bribery combined with intimidation but he ended up rotting in prison anyway.

GOODMORNING ABOVE TOP SECRET!! THIS IS THREE DOGG...AAAAWOOOOOOOOOOO. COMING TO YOU FROM MY FORTIFIED BUNKER IN THE D.C. HELLHOLE.
Ok children. I been hearing of this Krazyshot guy who is fighting the good fight in his own way. Exposing the lies and deceit shoveled onto his fellow man by these government bastards.Good job my man!keep on fighting the Good fight when and where you can. Makes the ole three dogg proud.

Now for some music...heres billy holliday with "crazy he calls me"

Now THAT is shady. I scoff at any conservative who says that marijuana should remain illegal.

FYI- there are plenty of conservatives who want it legalized also.

Who's the major jackass('s) who keeps derailing any progress of making it fully legal? I would like to give them an ear full...

a reply to: TinfoilTP

No YOU missed the point. How does doing that commerce hurt you, a non-participant in the commerce, exactly? It doesn't. THAT was the point of that passage.

originally posted by: CharlieAtTheGap

Now THAT is shady. I scoff at any conservative who says that marijuana should remain illegal.

FYI- there are plenty of conservatives who want it legalized also.

I didn't say that all conservatives don't want it legalized. I said that "any conservative who says that marijuana should remain illegal." So if that doesn't apply to you, then I wasn't talking about you. The thing is that, if you are FOR prohibition, you are likely a conservative. That's why I said that.