Marijuana.com

Buzzby

Speaker: Marijuana Smoking Victimless
Charles A. Peterson | Newark Advocate | 03/08/2006

GRANVILLE -- Marijuana is about as harmless as a cup of coffee but far less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, an advocate for changes in marijuana laws told a Denison University audience of about 200 Tuesday night.

Allen F. St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, often used the alcohol analogy to make his points favoring general decriminalization of marijuana.

St. Pierre, 40, drew a curious contrast between the friendly neighborhood bartender pouring a beer and "pushers" who sell marijuana.

"There is no functional difference between a bartender and a drug dealer," he contended.

"Some of the most imprudent decisions you make in your life are made under the influence of alcohol," St. Pierre said, noting that alcohol causes 120,000 deaths per year, compared to essentially zero for marijuana.

"If you abuse alcohol," he said, "you drink when you drive or pee in somebody's front yard. In our society you have to do something to be labeled as an abuser. This (abuse) doesn't happen with marijuana."

NORML, in existence for 35 years, lobbies its agenda chiefly through education, legislation and litigation, but St. Pierre prefers the first two, especially at the state level. It is his hope that change "bubbles" up to the federal level through reforms among the states.

St. Pierre observed that use of tobacco, which still claims 400,000 lives a year, has plummeted in his lifetime through educational efforts, not through the criminal justice system.

"The War on Drugs is really a war on people," he said. "We don't have wars against inanimate objects."

St. Pierre said a debate over changing marijuana laws can be won with four words: "No victim, no crime."

"If you're smoking marijuana, who's the victim?" he questioned.

Marijuana has a lethal-dose toxicity rating of 50, which mean's it's not lethal, period, he said. But despite scientific evidence, he continued, the federal government in 1970 gave the plant "Schedule I" status along with pure forms of heroine and LSD, meaning that these drugs are (1) high in potential for abuse, (2) addictive, and (3) possess no medical utility. St. Pierre maintains that marijuana may be psychologically addictive, but not physically so.

NORML favors changing marijuana to Schedule II status, having been proven to be medically useful in treatment for glaucoma, AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and chronic pain.

For cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, he said marijuana's tendency to give users the "munchies" helps them to keep down food and remain healthy.

Two Denison students lauded St. Pierre's approach to his subject.

"The basis of all this is logic and understanding law," rather than emotion and ideology, said sophomore Mike Kalnins, an English literature/history major. "Honest, intelligent discussion of issues is what we need, rather than ridicule and Anne Coulter."

Junior media technology and arts major Amber Yoder agreed.

"I liked that he approached it from an intelligent and scientific basis," she said.
--
Chuck Peterson can be reached at (740) 587-3397 or cpeterson@ nncogannett.com

__________________

 

dedbr

a schedule two rating for herb. I guess that means that the recreational users are just SOL, huh?

( Dedbr raises the Ohio Department for Legalization flag over the bunker...)

If it can't hurt you, and there's no potential for abuse or addiction, then why, NORML? Why class it as a harmful drug when it's not? Why not take a stance and stick too it instead of waffling so much.

Why not crap in one hand and wish in the other one, see which one fills up first?


Welcome to the world of NORML. Where nothing can ever go wrooooonnnngg........

Ded

__________________
Sometimes you can cut your own throat with your tongue.....
So remember to check out our most wonderful Posting Guidelines!

Buzzby

NORML is in favor of legalization for recreational purposes, ded. I don't know what you're talking about.


They go on to say:


NORML recognizes that marijuana legalization won't happen all at once. The first stage is the general recognition of marijuana as a useful medical drug, followed by decriminalization, followed by full legalization under a tax-and-control system like alcohol.


All psychoactive drugs have a potential for abuse. I know people who get stoned 24/7 and do nothing else with their lives. NORML has a stance they've stuck to for decades. They call it "Responsible Use".

dedbr

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

So he's saying marijuana is a drug and anyone who sells it is a "drug dealer" or simply a "bartender?"



Responsible use? Where'd it say that? I thought he said NORML favored a change to schedule two status? Norml's in favor of legalization for recreational purposes? Did he say that? I must of missed that part....

I know people that smoke 24/7 and have normal,( no pun intended,) lives and are not adversly affected at all. Whats that have to do with anything? Responsible use? Boy, don't that sound politically correct and all.

How much butt are we going to have to kiss before we get legalization for herb? Now after all these years it's medicine? And a class two at that? Only problem is that you can't get a doctor to prescribe it, you can't legally buy it and you can't possess it. Oh joy.

Why do we have dealers? I don't even have to answer that one, but i'll give it a shot. Because we are Americans. We are raised to believe in rebellion. If somethings not right, we say the hell with it and go right ahead and do what we want to do.

Of course there are some who say lets be polite and nice and ease it to them so they can say well, thats OK, we can't b*tch too much about that, but after thirty five years, you begin to wonder if maybe someone at NORML is wondering if they are....

I know, Buzzby, I know....

MrIMStoned

I think that the decriminalization should not be a step towards legalization. What it really does is give larger penalties to those who grow and supply pot. Meanwhile I want to have 2 ounces in the freezer so i dont have to go out and buy pot everyday. According to decrim I would be a criminal and subjected to even worse penalties than if it were illegal.
I don't see any good reason for decrim other than it may sway opinion on pot as being not so bad. For some reason though i think it will just confuse people further and thus it is a redundant step towards legalization.

__________________
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

 

SnowMinion

I'm not sure what he means here, though I took his word. In the medical community they use what is called the therapeutic index, which is defined as the ratio of the toxic dose to the therapeutic dose. Alcohol's lethal dose is 10x that of the therapeutic one, giving it a therapeutic index of 10, along with Morphine. Generally the pharmaceutical companies are looking for something with a therapeutic index of at least 100, although Tylenol and Ibuprofen are only about 25-30.

So what is the therapeutic index of cannabis? Lab rats have been exposed to 40,000 times the therapeutic dose of marijuana and "all they do is go to the corner and sleep it off." So really the therapeutic dose for pot is somewhere above 40,000! Obviously it's from something different, but where the hell does he get the number 50?!

Buzzby

Thanks for clarifying that, ded.


No. He's saying that both alcohol and marijuana are recreational drugs and that the people who sell them have functionally equivalent occupations.


I provided a link to NORML's page about responsible use. You must have missed that... This is a news report, not a transcript of Mr. St. Pierre's speech. The reporter included what he wanted to include. I don't see how you can indict NORML for a reporter's telling only part of the story. Anyone who wants to fully understand NORML's position needs only to go to their website.


You said marijuana has "no potential for abuse or addiction". I was pointing out examples of that not being true.


God forbid we present an image of responsible pot smokers...


Sorry, ded, but it's still a Schedule I.


That's because it's still Schedule I. If it can be changed to Schedule II, as NORML is proposing, then it could be prescribed and purchased in pharmacies and it would be legal to possess it if you had a prescription, just like morphine and methamphetamine.


That's true but has nothing to do with getting marijuana legalized.


Why don't you outline your program that would have had marijuana legalized by now? I'd love to hear it.

dedbr

Oh yeah? I didn't miss the links, I get updates from them all the time, Buzz. Just like you probably.

I disagree.

Especially since we still say marijuana and pot and drugs and all that other crap, why try to present an image of a responsible "pot" smoker when we defeat ourselves with our own choice of words?

Thats the thinking thats going to put herb in a class that will make the possesion of it even more of a crime than it is. You will have to go to a doctor to get a script, and then a pharmacy. It will be a controlled substance. If you get caught with it and don't have a prescription, you could go to prison.
Right now in Ohio, I can get caught with over seven ounces and it's a misdemeanor. A fine and out the door. If the government really latches on to the medical marijuana thing and makes it class two, the possesion laws could return to the freekin' dark ages. It could be like morphine and meth Buzzby, the price could skyrocket and the penalties could be extreme.

That little bottle of pills we carry out of the "drug store" carries a lot worse penalty for misdirection than herb does. I can give herb away in Ohio, and only pay a fine. I definately don't want it in the class of "drugs."

Ded

nornerator

All it says is that NORML FAVORS the change to Schedule II. Presumably the article should read "NORML favors changing marijuana to schedule II status, rather than keeping it at schedule I status."

Anybody looking to legalize Marijuana would rather have MJ schedule II rather than schedule I. It is a step in the right direction. Especially for suffering patients that could use Marijuana medically.

I believe buzzby has already said this, but any group that wants to change marijuana laws needs to recognize that it is a gradual process, and that most people when presented with the truth about marijuana's saftey are not going to "jump ship" on their old beliefs about it being harmful. It will be a slow and steady change over the next few decades, but I strongly believe that NORML and other groups are making slow, but steady progress towards legalization.

Can you imagine how you would react if a bunch of people that liked to light themselves on fire in public started presenting you with a bunch of new *scientific* facts on why lighting yourself on fire is safe, and that it doesn't pose a threat to those around them. They could throw tons and tons of scientific evidence at you, but you wouldn't believe them. But slowly, and gradually after watching people do it repeatedly, and hearing about its saftey constantly, your mind would start letting go of your old phobia against the act.

It is hard to change a persons beliefs, especially when it is purposefully ingrained in their brains by a supposedly trustworthy source.. the government. Not all people are capable of dialectical reasoning.

Buzzby

How would people calling pot/marijuana/cannabis/muggles/etc. "herb" effect a change in the public's attitude toward the substance? "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." Those terms are part of the general culture and everyone knows that they refer to the same thing. To deny that something that alters your consciousness when you use it is a "drug" is just going to make people laugh.

The problem is not the name of the substance or the fact that it's a drug. The problem is the negative image of users of it as social misfits, degenerates, and parasites. The "responsible use" position of NORML is meant to counteract that image.