Marijuana.com

Fuzz E L0g1c

It is my belief that the decision made by the Supreme Court about medical marijuana will be an indicator of things to come. Should the court decide against Oakland, medical marijuana will all but disappear. If medical marijuana disappears, its going to take with it the possibility of legalization, at least for the near future.

Why? because this case is actually about whether or not STATES will be able to set and enforce their own drug laws.
Whether or not as Waxman said, STATES will be given the power to "override those determinations [congressional ruling from 1970 regulating drug distribution] by reweighing the scientific and medical data and social policies considered by Congress, the attorney general and the secretary of health and human services, and concluding that the public interest supports the illegal distribution of marijuana"

If Oakland loses this case, then the states will have no right to set their own laws regarding medical weed. It follows that they will not be able to debate, investigate, and make any new decisions on non-medical weed either. So any push for legalization, or decriminalization will have to occur on the national level. This situation would send the legalization front striaght back to square one. It would be a near lethal blow.

Joe Schmoke, in a recent high times interview said that he thought removing criminal sanctions against weed is a battle that has to be fought on the state level and I agree with him. The federal government simply isn't going to open up the floor even for the mere discussion of this issue any time soon. The president has said he against medical marijuana, and although I don't have all of Congress' opinions on the subject at my fingertips, I suspect the majority lean twords the President's side. Getting any meaningful work done on the national level would require resources that far exceed those now possessed by the movement.

Its also my belief that the Supreme Court will rule AGAINST Oakland, based on the limited information I have been able to find on the ‘net. The attorney for Oakland said he is trying to circumvent, in a way, the minefield of marijuana legalization and making this a States Rights case. That’s a very wise move. That’s exactly what it is. But its not going to work. Everyone thinks they know what this case is really about: Dope fiends trying to make everyone else a dope fiend just like them, and using AIDS's and cancer patients to do it. That is the perception of the Supreme Court, that is the perception of Congress and that is the perception of most folks who are in a position to do anything about the law.

Nothing is going to change.

(I am not a newbie, I just didn’t feel like posting under my usual name because of all the flack that I am going to get for this post)

_________________________________________

What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public.

 

shadefoot

"nothing is going to change." -this is plainly false. change is the only constant.

Part of me agrees with your analysis, but then I realized that I'm a dip**** who doesn't know anything. I think if medical marijuana loses in the Supreme Court, a lot of people will be angered. I think a lot of people have a little bit of heart, and they will eventually look at the situation and say: 'These people are sick. If they feel like smacking a board against their head because it makes them feel better, so? Let them have their weed, they're not going to be around long.' Especially if the Supreme Court rejects our side, a lot of people might look at that and say, 'What a bunch of heartless fogies...maybe I should join the movement.' Or something like that.

I should point out that the Supreme is constituted of elder people. People who are on medication. Some (if not all) of the justices will probably take this into consideration and perhaps think they may have use for the weed in the future. And I think most of the justices are pretty smart people, they didn't get the job by being complete jackasses. The argument that medical weed is a screen for stoners isn't going to fly with them, I don't think. That is such a cruel position to argue, I wonder how the state attorneys can live with themselves. I think the justices are intelligent enough to differentiate between MJ for medical use and full legalization. If they're on meds, they know the system could work.

My final point will be that the smartest minds we have to offer are in court for us. Logic and kindheartedness are on our side. These things don't always count in the real world, I know, but the Supreme Court isn't the real world. Empathy and sympathy will help us out.

The justices also will probably also consider that the world has its eye on us, as always, and we'll sure look like a bunch of backwards halfwitted hardasses if we turn our backs on the sick and the dying. Wait, so that means the world won't change its opinion of us...

Finally, I think if the med MJ movement is hindered, there is no necessary connection or hinderance to the full legalization movement. Personally I think the full legal movement isn't even off the ground yet. As soon as it is, as soon as healthy people get off their asses and stop letting the weak fight their fights, this'll all be a bad memory.

Well, I guess this ends my optimistic post. Hope it wasn't too naively idealistic. Better an optimist and wrong than a pessimist and right...I'm told.

iMac Bondi Bong

It's even more sad to see a family member suffering from the effects of Chemotherapy (persistant nausea) and not being able to get marijuana legally for them.

By keeping down medical-marijuana efforts, state and federal governments are forcing people to use "black-market" sources for marijuana. Sad, but true…

BTW, if I had to get mj on the street to help a cancer-ridden loved one, I wouldn't hesitate to do so. I would be willing to take the legal risks necessary.

Cheers!

Maggie

I'm no legal analyst but how can the government continue to justify the criminalization of pot use when there are literally millions of people using it and overwhelming support for the prohibition to stop? Teens are using pot left and right. Very mainstream flicks like "Scary Movie" and "HalfBaked" which target the younger generation just show that illegal or not the general idea is that there isn't anything wrong with getting stoned. The older closed minded officials making these decisions are on the way out. I think things will change....... besides once the government realizes the money to be made in legalizing then being able to tax marijauna they will reconsider, just like with alcohol.

Maggie

shadefoot

Not to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but don't you think our government makes more money off illegal drug sales than they could if it were legal? There was an article in the SanJose Mercury News awhile ago about the CIA making hella $$ off cocaine. I have to say that marijuana tax is peanuts to completely untracable underworld cash. Make no mistake folks, governments the world over know how much money is at stake in the legalization battle. Since the British foisted opium on China in the 19th century, governments have been making bank off illegal drugs. Why would this have changed? Weeds don't cost money. Only if they are illegal can they be profitted from. I think it is naive to think legalization will give the government more money or even equal money to what they can make now. Furthermore, the fact that some movies are mainstream and targeted at kids does not in any way suggest that the dry old bastards will change their minds. Adults think kids are crazy (please don't take this stereotype too literally, there are plenty of acceptions). But if our country changed policy because of Hollywood, we'd be far worse off than we are now.

end babble.

 

tennstash

When did we lose the right to self medicate? When did the gov. take that right from us? We ( cannabis tokers ) are accused of taking drugs but we only partake in a herb of the earth. A drug is something manufactured ( like Ridalin,Celexa, Soma, Valium and the likes). The supreme court doesn't belong in this discussion, nor do the politicians, police or the government. The usage limits should be similiar to alcohol (age, driving, etc) but the government should stay out of it. We, the people, can change the laws but it's going to take a concentrated effort and from what we see on this site, there are only a handfull of people interested enough to communicate with other. How do we get the others involved? I see other countries leading the way while our elected unofficials and supreme dorks try to legislate morality( which will never work). Overgrow the government this year!

Slightly Stoopid

With all of these courts recently striking down on even Medical Marijuana, i am worried that it is going to be a very long time before we see decriminalization or legalization.

Man this sucks!

__________________
Slightly Stoopid
"Before you knock it, try it first. You will learn that it is a blessing and not a curse"
-Ben Harper

Maggie

shadefoot I definately see your point about the profits of the black market underworld. How they are actually making money off this I don't know but you can be certain nobody is talking about it with the general public. Taxation is legit, and it would be a favorable arguement for the legalization of pot that you could present to the public.

My point about mainstream movies is that when something is that mainstream (what teen hasn't seen Scary Movie) it is an indicator of what is acceptable behavior. Todays teens are tomorrows leaders. The attitude of acceptance will eventually make its way into office. Hopefully.

Cheers,
Maggie

Fuzz E L0g1c

Personally, I don't buy into the conspiracy theories about the schedule one status of weed. Everything I've read and heard tells me that enforcement of marijuana laws COSTS mega-bucks, time, manpower, and sucks up resources. The argument that its all a big money conspiracy is baseless.

If you ask me, there are a few closely related reasons why marijuana is illegal, and will probably stay illegal for a long time to come.

1. The first is GROSS misinformation about marijuana. Ask anyone on the street who is not for legalization, what do they say? Gateway drug, cancer, addictive, works like cocaine and morphine, blah blah blah.
My brother (who smokes an 1/8 a day) tried to tell me once that weed can make a man grow boobs and make him sterile! Sheesh! If a daily smoker believes this crap, what do you think people against weed believe?

A lot of folks on the board think that attitudes are changing, and that people, especially young people, don't believe this stuff. THINK AGAIN. Anti-drug propaganda is ubiquitous in this society. Its taught in school (not just DARE either) its on TV, Radio, Billboards, magazines, you name it. I think more importantly it's on the lips of many people these kids love and respect. That's a powerful force that influences these kids and it should not be underestimated.

Lets just say for the sake of argument that the general public is either for weed, or at least indifferent, will that alone change the law?
HELL NO!!!!!!!

Its has to be changed by those people who are in a position to do something about the law directly. Now, of course there are exceptions, like putting medical weed on the ballot. But in general, the public DOES NOT change the law; Congress does. And these guys are just as misinformed as the rest of the population. The same arguments that the average person on the street uses, people in congress use too ( I'm talking about for the most part, I know about the Gary Johnson's of the world).
Sorry to burst the bubble, but people actually DO believe what see on the news.

2. In addition to this, weed has a serious Public Relations problem. People who smoke weed are afraid of coming out and saying it. I can't say that I blame them. You can lose your job, go to jail, lose respect in the eyes of your peers, or worse for admitting that you smoke weed. Not necessarily people on this board, but people in general are afraid to go public about using weed.

I think these two factors, misinformation and bad PR, account for weed's status. I also think this is a vicious cycle from which there is no immediate escape.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public.

shadefoot

Fuzz, I like your signature. I don't know how I feel about the money conspiracy. Maybe conspiracy is a bad choice of words. But let me do some hypothetical math to see if more money can be made by legal or illegal weed.

Let's say decent weed costs $100 per ounce, illegal street price. That figure is totally made up.
Now figure weed is legal. I can grow my own and the cost is: time, and little of that. Let's suppose that I cannot grow my own, just for arg's sake. So I go to the store to buy it. How is it priced there? Perhaps somewhat akin to cigarettes. The average pack of cigarettes is $4. I don't know if this is true or not, I don't smoke and I probably don't live near you, so prices may vary. How much is that tobacco marked up? Does anyone believe it costs $4 to produce a pack of cigarettes? How much does that pack weigh? Lets say it weighs 1/5 of an ounce so that I can easily multiply the cost of cigarettes to be $20 an ounce ($4 per pack times 5 packs per ounce). The price of marked up tobacco is still 1/5 the price of illegal weed. Profits from the illegal drug trade stand to collapse according to my fictious calculations. Anyone making money off weed or illegal drugs is making mad bank by their being illegal and stands to lose out big time under legalization.

Now the questions are, is $100 per ounce a good figure? I think it's a conservative figure.
Does a pack of cigs cost $4 and weigh 1/5 of an ounce? I just weighed a quarter to approximately 5 grams. A pack of smokes weighs more than a quarter. So I think this is a conservative figure because I underestimated the weight of the smokes and really 5 packs weigh more than an ounce.

I say these figures are somewhat arbitrary, but somewhat realistic. I think they illustrate that even by conservative estimates the legalization of drugs would crush their prices. This argument is made by many people who want to legalize drugs to take the profits away from the underworld. I think William F. Buckley is a proponent of this position.

Now take the fact that our government has classified branches like the CIA who's business is secret for national security reasons. I have no problem with the CIA or any other secret institution, they are a part of running a country. But is it unreasonable to think that they could engage in drug dealings? Are they immune to the huge profits and minimal risk requisite to them taking part in the drug trade? For them, the black market is like free money. If they get caught, they can say they were doing a sting. If they don't get caught, they make bank. Am I paranoid? Is this a conspiracy or simple logical deduction, albeit based upon some unfounded premises?

Weed does have a PR problem. But people like Maggie who actively confront stereotypes are changing this. I think it's akin to standing up to racism. I think MJ prohibition is a form of racism, or species centrism, which can and will be and is addressed. Change is often slow, but it is unavoidable. Perhaps we on this board should set up a basic logical response to negative weed PR. Sort of like the suggestion that we hand LEO's cards when we get pulled over (which I think is a bad idea). So why did I suggest a bad idea? I didn't! I said "sort of like," not just like If we could develope a fairly simple, straighforward and logically sound argument against the illegal status of weed that even non-smokers could present, would that help people? I'm willing to work on it if there is a demand. It could be like a decoder ring! Or a philosopher's stone. It could be contagious so that anyone who hears it is persuaded by its rigerous logic and would be too embarassed to ever argue against it.