cannabisnews.com: COLUMN: Drug Laws Necessary and Logical 





COLUMN: Drug Laws Necessary and Logical 
Posted by FoM on September 30, 2000 at 07:24:37 PT
By Daniel Longest, The Collegiate Times
Source: U-WIRE
It's been said marijuana is less harmful then alcohol and cigarettes and nowhere near as addictive. Proponents of legalization make lots of different arguments about the benefits of the drug and the "uselessness" of punishing users, but all of these are dangerous and erroneous beliefs. The effects of marijuana are well-documented in many studies. Some effects include dizziness, trouble walking, bloodshot eyes, and trouble judging distances and colors. 
http://www.drugfreeamerica.org/It's also been reported that smoking five marijuana cigarettes in a week does the same damage to your lungs as does smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for the same period http://www.drugfreeamerica.org/Denise Kandel, an addiction epidemiologist at Columbia University, analyzed data from the U.S. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and concluded about 15 percent of teenagers report three or more symptoms of dependence from a list of six possible symptoms; anything from "feeling dependent" to being unable to quit to needing more and more of the drug each time ("Marijuana Special Report: http://www.newscientist.com/ Feb. 21, 1998). Since all of these symptomatic elements also apply to alcohol, it shows marijuana is just as addictive as alcohol. Alcohol already causes one fatality every 32 minutes -- do we really want to take a chance with adding marijuana to the mix (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) Legalizing marijuana is a no-brainer: it is a horrible idea that would cause an unending amount of problems. Alcohol alone causes an enormous number of traffic accidents -- do you really want that number increased? The November Coalition, an interest group for the legalization of marijuana, states on its Web site that marriages suffer because of absent spouses who are incarcerated because of drug use. The judicial system, it claims, has no respect for families during prosecution. That's marvelous -- we should stop prosecuting all criminals that have families to keep things fair. In that case, serial killer Ted Bundy shouldn't have been given the death penalty for butchering young women, he should still be free. He has family. Brilliant idea. Some proponents of legalization say the U.S. government is violating citizens' rights to choose by not legalizing drugs. I could turn around and say, "My constitutional right to own dangerous assault weapons is being infringed upon," and it will sound just about as stupid and dangerous. Assault weapons are banned for a good reason -- they are far too dangerous and unnecessary. Marijuana, likewise, is banned because it is far too dangerous. The November Coalition goes so far as to say due to the "politics of prohibition" regarding marijuana, marijuana prices are up to $2500 per pound , cocaine is five times more valuable than gold per ounce and "it is folly for government to defy human nature" http://www.november.org/It's also human nature to get into fist fights over disagreements, to lie, cheat and steal to get what we want. Let's go ahead and make fraud and assault legal, while we're at it, since those things are human nature, too. What truly frightens me are the people for legalization who don't realize their arguments can be applied across the board to a variety of topics no one in their right mind would legalize. A lot of people claim marijuana is useful for medicinal purposes, for example treating glaucoma, and it should be legal so more people could get it. The FDA has stringent guidelines regarding drugs on the market. Each one goes through rigorous testing to ensure usefulness and no harmful side effects. Introducing a drug before it's ready is dangerous. You wouldn't risk that with Viagra or Prozac so don't risk it with marijuana. Even Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne got into the act saying, "It is not the government's business to tell people what they should or should not put in their bodies" http://www.norml.org/ . He also claims he would pardon every non-violent drug offender to make room for rapists, murderers and the like who got out on early release and parole. This says a great deal about how a lot of marijuana advocates feel that marijuana use is not a crime and should not be punished. There is nothing wrong with imprisoning people for using marijuana, as it is still a crime. If something must be changed, reform the parole and probation laws, but don't let criminals off. As long as it is the law, it should and must be enforced. What advocates fail to realize is marijuana use is harmful, dangerous and still a crime, and just like murder, it must not be swayed by popular votes. It must be punished. Updated 12:00 PM ET September 29, 2000 (U-WIRE) Blacksburg, Va. (C) 2000 The Collegiate Times via U-WIRE Related Articles:Don't Do Drug Legalization http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7192.shtmlMaking The Case Against Legalization http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7142.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #22 posted by john on January 31, 2001 at 09:00:13 PT:
Marijuana legalization
Good point. Just because something is legal, that doesn't mean it's right. Likewise, just because something is illegal, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Consider the following:1. Abortion is legal, but it's morally wrong to have one, at least to most people.2. Marijuana smoking is illegal, but it's not morally wrong to smoke it. I don't find it wrong for someone to smoke MJ, and therefore I will not rat on pot smokers because snitching is morally wrong.I advocate the legalization of marijuana even though I don't use it or other currently illegal drugs. I don't smoke cigarettes either and almost never drink alcohol, but I advocate keeping them legal because crminilalizing them would cause more problems than it would solve. Consumption, along with death rates, of both would actually INCREASE if made illegal because people will suddenly have a rebel incentive to use both just to defy the law. The reason why death rates would increase is because when something is made illegal, there's no purity and quality controls on it. If tobacco was banned, we could count on the death rate from tobacco usage on at least doubling, if not tripling. Ditto with alcohol. Drunk driving would skyrocket under a new alcohol prohobition. This happened in Prohobition in the 1920's. More people drank during prohobition than before or after. There was also more drunk driving then. Of course drunk driving was not a crime back then like now. Likewise, if marijuana is legalized, usage would drop by over 50 percent because many pot users are only doing it to break the law, which is what happened in Holland when marijuana was decriminalized. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by MaRy JaNe on December 06, 2000 at 03:24:11 PT:
ShUt ThE Fu*k Up
gimme a home among the mull trees, pass a bong please, a cone for you n a cone for me, plantation out tha back, copperz out tha front n we're all fu*kin stoned!!!My biggest dream is to be high 24/7
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by Doc-Hawk on October 04, 2000 at 16:40:19 PT:
Published letter!
Subject: US VA: PUB LTE: Column Fails To Address Rights Of All Free CitizensNewshawk: MAP - Making A Difference With Your HelpPubdate: Wed, 04 Oct 2000Source: Collegiate Times (VA)Copyright: 2000 Collegiate TimesContact: opinion collegiatetimes.comFax: (540)231-5057Address: 363 Squires Student Center, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0546Website: http://www.collegiatetimes.com Author: Alan RandellReferenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1461/a10.htmlCOLUMN FAILS TO ADDRESS RIGHTS OF ALL FREE CITIZENSThe author of "Drug laws necessary and logical" would do well to reread the Declaration of Independence so he can understand that human beings are endowed with certain inalienable rights (CT, Sept. 29). To summarize, people should be left alone by government to engage in "the pursuit of happiness" unless they harm someone else, not just emotional pain, but physical harm. Punishing people for what they ingest is a gross violation of their right to ingest any substance, whether or not the nanny state says they are harmful. There is no justification for punishing drug users and distributors today than there was in the past for hanging witches, lynching blacks or gassing Jews. The column says, "Alcohol already causes one fatality every 32 minutes -- do we really want to take a chance with adding marijuana to the mix?" Putting aside for the moment that, as I mentioned before, the state does not have the right to prevent its citizens from harming themselves, why, then, does the author not call for alcohol to be prohibited too, so the harm it does can be reduced? Perhaps he recognizes the pitfalls of that approach. Most of harm done by illegal drugs is a direct consequence of the fact they are illegal. Thousands of boozers were poisoned by adulterated booze during Prohibition, and thousands of drug users are being poisoned by adulterated drugs today. If alcohol were banned, the harm done by black market hooch would be greater than that done by legal alcohol today. The author says, "As long as it (drug prohibition) is the law, it should and must be enforced." Yes, just as the laws supporting slavery and denying the vote to women were enforced. The author must realize it is the civic duty of all citizens to oppose unjust laws.Alan Randell, Victoria, Canada
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by Doc-Hawk on October 02, 2000 at 17:31:54 PT:
Rebuttal
Good Job CongressmanSuet!I sent the editor "observer's" entire rebuttal (cleaned up, giving proper credit to observer, and also cannabisnews.com) and got back a note that it was too long to publish and they did not print material from anonymous sources.I then asked that it just be delivered to Mr. Longest. They told me it had. I also recommended that anyone interested in the truth go to the link below.Sophomore - perfect!
MAP: Drug Policy Links
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by CongressmanSuet on October 02, 2000 at 10:48:46 PT:
Hey Kap...
I took your advice and sent a rebuttal. Guess what? The editor sent me an e-mail asking if they would be allowed to publish my letter. Im giddier than a cop who just found 10 plants behind a 5 million dollar estate!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by nl5x on October 01, 2000 at 16:09:07 PT
always know your sources/pdfa
The US magazine of investigative journalism "The Nation", has delved into the people behind the Partnership for a Drug Free America, the supposed, non profit organisation. A probe by The Nation (18) revealed that the Partnership had accepted $5.4 million in contributions from legal drug manufacturers, while producing ads that overlooked the dangers of tobacco, alcohol and pills. This "drug free" crusade is actually a silent partner to the drug industry, condoning the use of ‘good drugs’ by targeting only the ‘bad’ones.The Partnership’s funders are usually kept secret, but investigation by The Nation revealed that from 1988 - 1991, pharmaceutical companies and their beneficiaries contributed as follows:. The J Steward Johnson, Sr Charitable Trusts ($1 1000 000). Du Pont ($150 000). The Procter & Gamble Fund ($120 000). The Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation ($110 000). Johnson & Johnson ($11 000). Smith Kline Beecham ($100 000). The Merck Foundation ($75 000). And Hoffman-La Roche ($30 000)Also $150 000 each from Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and RJR Renyolds plus $100 000 from American Brands (Jim Beam and Lucky Strike).
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by kaptinemo on October 01, 2000 at 09:07:57 PT:
Time to paddle this pup for making a mess 
on the intellectual carpet.Here is the link to the Collegiate Times:http://www.collegiatetimes.com/ctonline/edition.php3?currentThey say they welcome opinions concering the articles they post. The address is opinions collegiatetimes.comAnd yes, from all indications, this *is* a student. Shall we provide him with a lesson?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by Ed Carpenter on October 01, 2000 at 08:07:06 PT
COLUMN: Drug Laws Necessary and Logical 
I would say that Daniel Longest must be a sophmore--a wise fool. From reading the of comments to his article, I think I'm right. I was told by another redneck that we have to have these laws, else the dopers will take over. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by asfdnkamsd on September 30, 2000 at 18:44:47 PT
Re: rebuttal
This rebuttal is really good. Please send it in!Good luck
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by Rainbow on September 30, 2000 at 16:33:51 PT
Colege Kid
Remember this kid is only in college and has not seen the street life. He is probably a Jr or Sr still very wet behind th ears and parroting what he mom dad and maybe the Dare officer told him.He has not done a bit of research and has only dug skin deep. Maybe when he reads a little of what we get at this website and others he might become enlightenned at least I hope so.Rainbow
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by Occassional Pot User on September 30, 2000 at 16:17:19 PT
Typical prohibitionist argument
Alcohol alone causes an enormous number of traffic accidents -- do you really want that number increased?First of all, there have been recent studies which prove pot makes drivers safer. Second of all, anyone with a clue will wait until theyre sober to drive.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by MikeEEEEE on September 30, 2000 at 14:15:45 PT
Read No Further
The following sentence reads.What advocates fail to realize is marijuana use is harmful, dangerous and still a crime, and just like murder, it must not be swayed by popular votes. This person is putting murder in the same sentence, now I know it's BS.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by observer on September 30, 2000 at 11:23:53 PT
rebuttal 1/3
It's been said marijuana is less harmful then alcohol and cigarettes and nowhere near as addictive.Not only said, but repeatedly demonstrated time after time. While nothing is harmless, including gravity, air, and water, study after study indicates that the harms of cannabis rank far below those of other things, showing those who persecute pot smokers while enjoying alcohol to be utter hypocrites. Proponents of legalization make lots of different arguments about the benefits of the drug and the "uselessness" of punishing users, For all Mr Longest's worming and squirming here, we must give him due credit for mentioning that marijuana smokers are imprisoned. This is a somewhat of a novelty for prohibitionists attacks on the idea of returning adult's traditional freedoms over their own persons, freedoms they once retained but lost only recently.but all of these are dangerous and erroneous beliefs. Note Mr Longest's technique: repeated assertion. Adults "must" be imprisoned for using marijuana because it is the "law". The fact that people are discussing changing the law somehow doensn't register with prohibitionists; this fact is met with the repeated assertion, "but marijuana is illegal so we need to lock 'em up". The effects of marijuana are well-documented in many studies. I see ... that must be why Mr Longest tells us that marijuana needs more study, below."Introducing a drug before it's ready is dangerous. You wouldn't risk that with Viagra or Prozac so don't risk it with marijuana. Some effects include dizziness, trouble walking, bloodshot eyes, and trouble judging distances and colors. I think I understand, now. Only the beneficial effects of cannabis need more study ("introducing a drug before it's ready is dangerous"), whereas, any time any government Official of drug Authority alleges that cannabis has any detrimental effect, well, then, that's because, "the effects of marijuana are well-documented in many studies."  And who ever said one can't have one's cake and eat it too! http://www.drugfreeamerica.org/ Ah yes ... that fountain of accurate information and "concern" for "The Children", the (tobacco, alcohol, drug -industry sponsored) "Partnership for a Drug-Free America". A national coordinator of anti-drug user rhetoric emerged, an organization called Partnership for a Drug-Free America. Its propaganda helped convince the public that drug users are not ordinary people, that instead they are dangerous enemies who must be eliminated. Partnership rhetoric promoted a climate making brutalization of ordinary people not only acceptable but virtuous. In 1990 almost $1 million a day in free advertizing was being donated to Partnership.144Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch, RJR Reynolds, American Brands, DuPont, Johnson & Johnson, SmithKline Beecham, Hoffman-LaRoche, the Proctor & Gamble Fund, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and the Merck Foundation have all been important sources of money for Partnership propaganda.145 Those groups are manufacturers (and affiliated foundations) of tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceuticals. As one student of Partnership activity notes, "Partnership advertises, in effect, against having chemical competitors to alcohol and tobacco.146 Nor does Partnership propaganda discuss the competition that could provide to expensive medical pharmaceuticals.Partnership's goal is not drug education but drug propaganda. The group states forthrightly that its purpose "is to reduce demand for illegal drugs by using media communication to help bring about public intolerance of illegal drugs, their use and users."147 In describing publicity, drug czar William Bennett's office said, "One laudable example is the Partnership for a drug-Free America's campaign to encourage negative attitudes toward drugs and to label drug users as unpopular losers."148 Deputy drug czar Herbert Kleber declared, "The Partnership has changed the attitude of the whole country towards drugs."149Said an observer in 1933, "I would say that Nazi propaganda is much too transparent to work were it not for the fact that it very often does work."150 A Partnership ad declared, "Boys and girls used to use straws to sip sodas at the drug store. Now they cut straws in half and use them to snort drugs deep into their nostrils. Times have changed. Our children need our help."151 The typical American child does not snort cocaine. The headline of another Partnership ad said, "The last thing an addict needs from you is understanding,"152 implying addicts need intolerance and hatred, so we need feel no guilt about nurturing such attitudes. Over a picture of a line of cocaine powder, a Partnership headline declared, "to millions of American workers, it's considered a lunch line."153 In reality, few workers use cocaine during the workday. Errors and distortions in Partnership propaganda have been widely noted by drug policy experts, but the public knows little of these deceptions. A Partnership ad stated that marijuana users showed the same brain wave pattern as someone in a coma. That statement was incorrect. When challenged, a Partnership spokesperson acknowledged, "We kind of got left standing bare naked on the ice with that one."154 The huge headline of another shouted, "Cocaine can make you blind," but only at the end of many lines of small print anti-drug rhetoric did Partnership reveal the seemingly factual headline as a metaphor: "Cocaine really does make you blind to reality."155 The ad's headline deceived anyone who failed to read all the way through. When asked about a Partnership ad claiming that crack will kill anyone who lacks the enzyme pseudocholinesterase, a scientific consultant to the group admitted that "we have no evidence to support that."156 Nor did the consultant even know how many people lacked the enzyme. A 1990 Partnership ad claimed, "Last year, 15 million Americans used cocaine."157 The ad, however, was designed in 1987;158 thus it could not have been refering to 1989. The latest authoritative figures available when the was run were from a 1988 National Institute on Drug Abuse estimate showing 8.5 million cocaine users, about half the number that the Partnership claimed.159 The ad also claimed that in 1989 "5 million of those who survived required medical help." The actual number of cocaine emergencies treated nationwide was closer to 62,000.160 Partnership exaggerated the problem by a factor of eighty. When challenged on these numbers, a Partnership spokesperson admitted the number were "plain wrong" and suggested they were "extrapolated from a Newsweek article or something."161 Partnership refuses to run ads correcting or retracting factual inaccuracies, so the general public remains unaware of the distortions.162 Aside from errors and distortions, Partnership's campaign ignores truths long known to serious researchers, such as roles that poverty, joblessness, lack of love, and lack of hope play in drug abuse. If a persuasion campaign relies upon emotion and inaccurate data, questions must arise about the campaign's message.Describing the Partnership's campaign as "some of the best advertising I've seen," a Partnership spokesperson declared, "The ads really stick in your mind and get straight to the point."163A distinguished student of Nazi ways noted, "Propaganda is not a substitute for violence, but it is one of its aspects. The two have the identical purpose of making men amenable to control from above."164 Partnership's orchestrated campaign of fear propaganda was important in that respect because many persons find fear unbearable, and transform fear into the more comfortable emotion of anger. Promoting fear promotes hatred. And hatred promotes brutality.(Richard L Miller, Drug Warriors and their Prey, 1996, pgs.27-28)http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275950425 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by observer on September 30, 2000 at 11:23:25 PT
rebuttal 1.5 / 3
 It's also been reported that smoking five marijuana cigarettes in a week does the same damage to your lungs as does smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for the same period http://www.drugfreeamerica.org/ Heavy Long-Term Marijuana Use Does Not Impair Lung Function, Says New StudyApril 3, 1997, Los Angeles, CA: Habitual marijuana smokers do not experience a greater annual rate of decline in lung function than nonsmokers, according to the latest findings by researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine. The results of the eight-year study appear in Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Donald P. Tashkin, who headed the study, is one of America's foremost experts on marijuana smoking and lung function. "Findings from the present long-term, follow-up study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant risk factor for the development of [chronic lung disease]," concluded the UCLA study. "Neither the continuing nor the intermittent marijuana smokers exhibited any significantly different rates of decline in [lung function]" as compared with those individuals who never smoked marijuana. Researchers added: "No differences were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and nonsmoking of marijuana." These findings starkly contrasted those experienced by tobacco-only smokers who suffered a significant rate of decline in lung function. . .http://members.aol.com/lvnorml420/lungdam.html Denise Kandel, an addiction epidemiologist at Columbia University, analyzed data from the U.S. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and concluded about 15 percent of teenagers report three or more symptoms of dependence from a list of six possible symptoms; anything from "feeling dependent" to being unable to quit to needing more and more of the drug each time ("Marijuana Special Report: http://www.newscientist.com/ Feb. 21, 1998). 1 = Most serious 6 = Least seriousHENNINGFIELD RATINGSSubstance  Withdrawal Reinforcemt Tolerance Dependnce Intoxictn----------- ---------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------Nicotine    3      4     2      1     5Heroin     2      2     1      2     2Cocaine     4      1     4      3     3Alcohol     1      3     3      4     1Caffeine    5      6     5      5     6Marijuana    6      5     6      6     4BENOWITZ RATINGSSubstance  Withdrawal Reinforcemt Tolerance Dependnce Intoxictn----------- ---------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------Nicotine    3*     4     4      1     6Heroin     2      2     2      2     2Cocaine     3*     1     1      3     3Alcohol     1      3     4      4     1Caffeine    4      5     3      5     5Marijuana    5      6     5      6     4*equal ratingsRelative Addictiveness of Drugs http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/addictvn.htmsee also:Relative Addictiveness of Various Substances http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/addictiv.htmThe Relative Addictiveness of Drugs According to NIDA's Own Researcher http://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/relative_addictiveness_of_drugs_.htmetc. Since all of these symptomatic elements also apply to alcohol, it shows marijuana is just as addictive as alcohol. Wrong. As we can see from NIDA's very own. It is less "addictive" than caffeine. We could just as easily say, "Since all of these symptomatic elements also apply to alcohol, it shows caffeine is just as addictive as alcohol", couldn't we? Would be as meaningful, just as false.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by observer on September 30, 2000 at 11:21:22 PT
rebuttal 2/3
Alcohol already causes one fatality every 32 minutes -- do we really want to take a chance with adding marijuana to the mix (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) Now he's confusing impariment with addictiveness... Mr Longest is skidding all over the road now.When we compare impairment for various mental states (including "no drugs" at all), we find that cannabis users are underrepresented: they are safer than drivers with no drugs in their blood.see:U. Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not a Hazard! (3/1999)http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread986.shtmlCannabis May Make You a Safer Driver (8/2000)http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread6717.shtmlAustralia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998)http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n945/a08.htmlAustralia: Study Goes to Pot (1998)http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n947/a06.html --Drug-free drivers caused the accidents in 53.5 per cent of cases. Injured drivers with a blood-alcohol concentration of more than 0.05 per cent were culpable in nearly 90 per cent of accidents they were involved in. Drivers with cannabis in their blood were less likely to cause an accident, with a culpability rate of 50.6 per cent.etc.So the "drug-crazed drivers" on "all the highways" causing "murder and mayhem" for "Our Children" is simply another myth: another false excuse in the any-excuse-will-do world of prohibitionism. Legalizing marijuana is a no-brainer: it is a horrible idea that would cause an unending amount of problems. Alcohol alone causes an enormous number of traffic accidents -- do you really want that number increased? From every indication presented so for (conveniently dismissed and forgotten by prohibitionists), if people smoked marijuana instead of drinking, the highways would be safer. The November Coalition, an interest group for the legalization of marijuana, Whoa, Nellie! He's wrong there too. Do we detect a pattern here? The November Coalition is not "an interest group for the legalization of marijuana" as Mr Longest falsely states. They are,... a growing body of citizens whose lives have been gravely affected by our government's present drug policy. We are drug war prisoners, their loved ones and others who believe that our present course of war in America has a price that we cannot afford to pay.Our goal is to make our voice heard, expose the folly of America's War on Drugs, and demand change. We are encouraged by the scores of Federal Judges, physicians, law enforcement officers, lawyers, mayors, governors, educators and legislators who have become outspoken critics of our country's current policy.http://www.november.org/ states on its Web site that marriages suffer because of absent spouses who are incarcerated because of drug use. That's right: people are jailed for the moral "crime" of using marijuana. That's wrong. It is wrong to lock up people for using drugs; and wrong to threaten them with it also. The judicial system, it claims, has no respect for families during prosecution. That's marvelous -- we should stop prosecuting all criminals that have families to keep things fair. In that case, serial killer Ted Bundy shouldn't have been given the death penalty for butchering young women, he should still be free. He has family. Brilliant idea. A sarcastic and silly leap. What Mr Longest and other prohibitionists fail to mention is that marijuana smoking is not murder, and it never was. Rather, we should demand prohibitionists explain to us why using marijuana wasn't like murder when Queen Victoria used it, but became like murder when jazz musicians began to use it in the 30's. What changed? Murder has always been a serious crime in all cultures. Although they lust after the power to do so, government politicians can't credibly declare something that was never a crime before, to suddenly be a crime worse than murder one year. It won't work. It hasn't worked for marijuana, and it will fail wherever else this totalitarian strategy is applied. Some proponents of legalization say the U.S. government is violating citizens' rights to choose by not legalizing drugs. Suddenly deciding one year (1937) to thow adults in jail for using cannabis is most certainly violating citizens' rights. Why did the government require a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol? For the same reason, and many others, it is a fundamental violation of rights to persecute cannabis smokers.I could turn around and say, "My constitutional right to own dangerous assault weapons is being infringed upon," and it will sound just about as stupid and dangerous. Only to people who don't know, read or care about the constitution. We can safely assume Mr Longest is confortably in that category. Assault weapons are banned for a good reason -- they are far too dangerous and unnecessary. Marijuana, likewise, is banned because it is far too dangerous. A specious comparison. Assault weapons are designed to kill other people. Marijuana has never killed anyone. People don't use assault weapons for their health. They do use herbs like cannabis for their health. Assault weapons cannot be eaten, cannabis seeds are the perfect human food. And so on. The November Coalition goes so far as to say due to the "politics of prohibition" regarding marijuana, marijuana prices are up to $2500 per pound , cocaine is five times more valuable than gold per ounce and "it is folly for government to defy human nature" http://www.november.org/ Yes, they make an excellent point, a point that Mr Longest can't engage but can only mock. The "drug problem" is a "problem" created by the laws, not the drugs. When people are allowed to expiriment with not locking up cannabis smokers (or drug users in general), the problems are greatly lessened. This is why prohibitionists are deathly afraid of allowing people to try things other than jail for dealing with "drugs". Proihibitionists know the game will be up. Prohibitionists seek to justify themselves and their horrible mistreatment of others in the name of drugs. That's human nature I suppose. One makes a mistake, and instead of owning up to it, and admitting the mistake, the mistake is reveled in as truth, justice, and righteousness. It kept us burning witches, heretics and Jews for centuries; it is keeping us shooting and incarcerating marijuana smokers (and lots who just say no, too). It's also human nature to get into fist fights over disagreements, to lie, cheat and steal to get what we want. Let's go ahead and make fraud and assault legal, while we're at it, since those things are human nature, too. Another silly slipery slope attempt at claiming that marijuana use is the same as murder. An entirely circular argument, for this would apply to anything that is currently illegal. The debate is over whether or not something that was made illegal in 1937 (for cannabis, say), using racist falsehoods, should remain illegal. Again, the debate is not over whether illegal things are illegal.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by observer on September 30, 2000 at 11:19:07 PT
rebuttal, 3/3
 What truly frightens me (scaremongering...)are the people for legalization who don't realize their arguments can be applied across the board to a variety of topics no one in their right mind would legalize. Longest hasn't demonstrated that claim either. He tried to say that marijuana must be kept illegal because murder is illegal. A lot of people claim marijuana is useful for medicinal purposes, for example treating glaucoma, and it should be legal so more people could get it. The US government, at this very moment, grows marijuana for a handful of research subjects (some in this program for over 20 years), that have glaucoma.Dr. Wilson: Paul, what do you tell your patients about vitamins, gingko, marijuana, etc.?Dr. Palmberg: Dr. Wilson asked me to visit tonight to share what is known about the use of alternative therapies, especially marijuana, in the treatment of glaucoma. Marijuana certainly is an "alternative treatment" since it is not presently a legal drug in most states. But there are some patients in a Federal program, with marijuana cigarettes grown by the government at the University of Mississippi, processed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and shipped under FDA approval to a few patients in experimental protocols, including one of my patients.Alternative Glaucoma Treatments February 23, 2000http://www.wills-glaucoma.org/digichat/altchat2_23_00.html etc. The FDA has stringent guidelines regarding drugs on the market. Each one goes through rigorous testing to ensure usefulness and no harmful side effects. On September 6, 1988, after hearing two years of testimony, the Drug Enforcement Administration's chief administrative law judge, Francis Young, ruled: "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known. ... It would be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance. . ."In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," DEA Docket No. 86-22, September 6, 1988. Introducing a drug before it's ready is dangerous. You wouldn't risk that with Viagra or Prozac so don't risk it with marijuana. Can't have it both ways, Mr Longest. You told us above, "The effects of marijuana are well-documented in many studies." Looks to me like many people are firmly in any-excuse-will-do mode: any excuse (and I mean anything) will be fine for continuing to imprison adults who use marijuana. Even Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne got into the act saying, Harry Browne didn't just "get into the act": this has been his and the Libertarian Party's position since its inception.."It is not the government's business to tell people what they should or should not put in their bodies" http://www.norml.org/ . He also claims he would pardon every non-violent drug offender to make room for rapists, murderers and the like who got out on early release and parole. seehttp://harrybrowne.org/stands/drugs.htmYes! That's right. Rape and murder have always been crimes, since ancient times. There's a victim with those crimes. Marijuana smoking, on the other hand, was declared a "crime", and using deceit and racism, was declared to be a sin and made illegal in the US in the 30's. This says a great deal about how a lot of marijuana advocates feel that marijuana use is not a crime and should not be punished. Amen. Well, there's one fact, at least, Mr Longest got right. There is nothing wrong with imprisoning people for using marijuana, as it is still a crime. It was "a crime" for Jews to not be imprisoned in camps in certain times and cultures, too. That didn't make it right. It was a "crime" for black people to eat at "whites only" lunch-counters, but that didn't make that law right, either. Again, Mr Longest forgets, we're discussing changing the law. For people to respond, "it is still a crime" is merely restating the premise. Yes, it is a crime, that's why we're talking about changing the law. To respond "it is a crime" to someone one arguing for changing the law is not to respond at all. It is like arguing to someone who is sweating in an 85 degree room that the thermometer mustn't be lowered for, "it is 85 degrees." If something must be changed, reform the parole and probation laws, but don't let criminals off. Oh, nobody is arguing to "let criminals off", they are arguing that cannabis use simply be returned to the legal status it retained from the founding of this nation until 1937, namely, that people aren't jailed for using it.That's not "letting criminals off", except in the same sense as ex-Nazis ruefully complained in 1950s Germany about "Letting criminals off", because Jews were no longer officially and legally persecuted, or that old communists in Russia complain that allowing private shopkeepers to sell things is "letting criminals off." As long as it is the law, it should and must be enforced. Circular argument again, because people are talking about changing the law. To assert "Well, that's the law" in the face of people arguing that that law should be changed, is a non-response; it is simply restating the premise. What advocates fail to realize is marijuana use is harmful, dangerous Maybe so, but Longest hasn't come close to demonstrating his repeated assertion. Simply repeating an assertion won't make it true, no matter how may times Longest restates it. and still a crime, and just like murder, Cannabis use isn't "just like murder", as is quite obvious. Once something is prohibitied by a government, that something doesn't automatically become "just like murder", despite the best attempts of propagandists and prohibition apologists. People see the difference, they know using cannabis isn't "like murder" by any stretch of the imagination.it must not be swayed by popular votes. Would Mr Longest have a problem with "popular votes" increasing the punishments for marijuana use? I bet not. The only kind of "popular votes" that seem to worry prohibitions, are popular votes that would return to Americans traditional freedoms that all Americans once shared. It must be punished. That's the premise and conclusion of Mr Longest's merry round of tail-chasing and circular argument. "Marijuana is illegal because it is illegal", says Mr Longest, and that's good enough for him (to throw you in jail).
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on September 30, 2000 at 11:01:53 PT:
Logic and "logic".
There is a kind of logic called syllogistic logic. It goes like this: All birds are white. That is a bird. Therefore, that bird is white. Never mind the fact the bird is a raven, or a technicolored parrot; by the steel-trap logic used, it *must* be white. This is the reasoning process used by antis in their crowing that that their failures a successes. ("They had the biggest bust ever! X number of tons of drugs seized this time. Bigger than the last seizure of last week! And the one week before that! And the week before before that! And the on- er, uh, well they've seized lot of drugs! They have seized so much, they must be winning the war! Give them more money!".)Mr. Longest, in an attempt to impress us with his Spock-like attributes, has chosen the tremendously shaky foundation of syllogistic logic upon which to base his argument. You might as well try to build a castle in quicksand.'The effects of marijuana are well-documented in many studies. (Which studies, please?) Some effects include dizziness, trouble walking, bloodshot eyes, and trouble judging distances and colors.'Then he states:'Denise Kandel, an addiction epidemiologist at Columbia University, analyzed data from the U.S. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and concluded about 15 percent of teenagers report three or more symptoms of dependence from a list of six possible symptoms; anything from "feeling dependent" to being unable to quit to needing more and more of the drug each time ("Marijuana Special Report: http://www.newscientist.com/ Feb. 21, 1998). "Feeling". He demands logic, and proclaims his diatribe is shored up by logic, then bases his arguments upon feelings of adolescents? What about empirical evidence? What about physically observable symptoms of addiction? No mention of them are made, for obvious reasons; there simply are none. Yet he graces his polemic not with factual information, but with only...feelings.He errs further in his attempt to use flawed logic:'Since all of these symptomatic elements also apply to alcohol, it shows marijuana is just as addictive as alcohol. Alcohol already causes one fatality every 32 minutes -- do we really want to take a chance with adding marijuana to the mix (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) So symptoms exhibited by cannabis users equal symptoms exhibited by alcohol users? Alcohol is addictive. If cannabis has the same symptoms as alcohol, then cannabis *must* be addictive, too! (Pray this guy never gets his hands on your checkbook. With the extraordinary lack of reasoning ability he is showing, he's just the sort of clown con men love. A genuine mark; an honest-to-God sucker. I could probably sell him that bridge I have up in Brooklyn, easily.)But he really demomstrates his lack of teleological acumen by the following conflation (Antis just love to conflate. Or is it flatulate? I get confused; it seems both ends of them emit the same kind of noise. Oh, well...):'The November Coalition, an interest group for the legalization of marijuana, states on its Web site that marriages suffer because of absent spouses who are incarcerated because of drug use. The judicial system, it claims, has no respect for families during prosecution. That's marvelous -- we should stop prosecuting all criminals that have families to keep things fair. In that case, serial killer Ted Bundy shouldn't have been given the death penalty for butchering young women, he should still be free. He has family. Brilliant idea.'See? Cannabis use equalls murder. Up is down. Left is right. Birds black as space are white as Antarctic ice.But the last bit is truly a work of art:'There is nothing wrong with imprisoning people for using marijuana, as it is still a crime.'My friends, the only organized religion I subscribe to is the Constitution. But even in the Constitution is an ugly fact: Slavery was condoned. In fact, in the section dealing with the census, slaves were considered only 60% human (Slaves counted as only 3/5th of a person). By the reckoning of this rube, slavery was okay...because it was the law. And a man or woman who wished to break free from this onerous law? It would be just fine with this clotbrain to cause them to suffer and die as many did for running away. Because it was the law. Period. (I wonder how he would have felt in Nazi Germany, had he been a Jew? The Nazis passed dozens of increasingly restrictive laws, each with the ultrimate end, plainly acknowledged by the Nazis, of either driving out the Jewish population from Germany...or destroying them. Would Mr. Longest have meekly submitted? Because it was the law?) Some laws, on their face, are such an offense to reason and justice that they cannot be endured. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died to change the slavery laws. How many have to die to change the drugs laws? Especially when we could END IT ALL with the stroke of a pen wielded by such men as Nader or Browne? How's that for logic?' 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Phaedrus on September 30, 2000 at 10:37:04 PT
Refraining from Profanity, but Just Barely
Where to start? Fom, you're right. If this is the best argument they can muster, then maybe we're looking at better days ahead. But how much of the populace listens to this sort of thing and thinks it's a reasonable argument? A month after I turned 18 (I'm 31 now), I had myself a nice little 5-car accident after drinking all night. Luckily, no one was hurt, but that's hardly the point. I've driven stoned lots and lots of times since then (hypothetically, of course, just as an illustration) and never ever have I come close to wrecking as a result. But I'm willing to be magnanimous and agree that as a part of legalization, driving while high could carry the same penalties as DWI. This guy's comments about judging distances and colors reminds me of my ex-mother-in-law, who was forever railing about "these kids smoking acid" and so on. This guy, apparently, has never smoked pot and has bought into someone's propaganda about reefer madness. Well, I'm off to smoke a marijuana cigarette and hopefully smell some colors and see some cool sounds. I sure hope my kids don't end up with corkscrew tails or something as a result. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by i_rule_ on September 30, 2000 at 09:43:00 PT
Why are they so scared?
*The effects of marijuana are well documented in many studies. Some effects include dizziness, trouble walking, bloodshot eyes, and trouble judging distances and colors.* Boy, someone in this state of mind just scares the hell out of me! Especially the part about colors!*Legalizing marijuana is a no brainer: it is a horrible idea that would cause an unending amount of problems. Alcohol alone causes an enormous amount of traffic accidents--do you really want that number increased?*Guess he hasn't read this one: http://www.healthscout.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Af?id=102971&ap=52[*Since all these symtomatic elemnts apply to alcohol, it shows marijuana is just as addictive as alcohol. Alcohol already causes one fatality every 32 minutes--do we really want to take a chance with adding marijuana to the mix?*Marijuana is slightly more addictive than caffiene, way less than alcohol or tobacco. And yes, I would love to add marijuana to the mix, seeing there has never been a recorded death due to it's use.*Introducing a drug before it is ready is dangerous. You wouldn't risk that with Viagra or Prozac so don't risk it with marijuana.*Marijuana is way more than ready. There have been tests conducted on human beings since pre-history, though they were all voluntary and unrecorded. No deaths, no side-effects. Only healing and euphoria. It's ready. Are Viagra and Prozac his choice of drugs? *There is nothing wrong with imprisoning people for using marijuana, as it is still a crime.*You are right, it is a crime for imprisoning people for using marijuana, but it is wrong.There are so many just like her at Ann Coulter's fan club. They hate the truth, there, as well.Peace and keep up the fight, because we are winning. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by FoM on September 30, 2000 at 09:13:54 PT:
Question
I have just one question. If this is the best they can do ( and I had to fix the links ) why is Marijuana illegal?I mean that too!Have a great weekend!Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by dankhank on September 30, 2000 at 08:52:20 PT:
Damn
What's dangerous and erroneous is the crap leaking from this guy's mouth.A favorite tactice by these so-called anti-pot idiots when confronted with the idea that smoking pot is a choice is to compare the sipping of the doobie with some kind of horrendous crime and pretend that there is anyone alive who demands that freeson of choice should apply to a violent crime.Hey, doofus, smoking pot is not a violent act ... duh ...Last weekend there was a stabbing of a high school student im my city, late night at a pasture east of town following the homecoming game.Sherrifs deputies were at the party, noting some empty beer cans and a cup containing beer at the scene of the impending incident.Their response? The son-in-law of the owner of the pasture said he would take care of the problem, and the deputies left.45 minutes later, a boy was dying after a fight, the alledged killer supposedly bragged that he had "cut" the boy, and questions still linger about the role of the deputies in the killing.If the deputies had noticed a hash pipe, crack pipe or a syringe on the ground would they have acted different?When was the last time you heard of a bunch of pot smokers standing around fighting and stabbing?Then we have to listen to the asshole here say how dangerous pot is ... sheesh ... will the perfidy of the human animal never cease to amaze me?? Guess not ...Peace ...
HEMP n STUFF
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by jon on September 30, 2000 at 08:10:45 PT:
DUH!!!!!!!!!!!
 All I can do after reading this crap, is shake my head. You know, that stunned look of disbelief at what we just absorbed from the latest version of arrested development:-)
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: