Time to Talk About Marijuana

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 06:59:54 PM EST
Tags: marijuana reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

ACLU Washington executive director Kathleen Taylor has an op-ed in today's Seattle Times, Let's Talk About Marijuana. It begins:

A College student loses his financial aid because of a youthful indiscretion. A woman coping with the ravages of ovarian cancer lives in fear of being arrested for using what best eases her suffering. Across town, a front door bursts open and police rush in to handcuff a man relaxing in his living room.

These events have one thing in common: marijuana. Whether it is being kicked out of college for a youthful mistake, being denied relief from pain as a cancer patient, or getting arrested for personal use in one's home, marijuana laws have far-reaching consequences.

The consequences greatly outweigh any danger or risk posed by marijuana. [More...]

Unjust and uneven enforcement is just one of the ramifications of treating marijuana use as a criminal matter. Noted physician and pharmacologist John Morgan has said, "The most dangerous thing about marijuana is to be arrested for its possession or use."

Indeed, the consequences of an arrest for even a small amount of marijuana can haunt someone for the rest of his or her life. We have met and heard from people who lost or were denied jobs, had their homes raided and their property seized, lost child-visitation rights, and had their medical marijuana confiscated.

Unfortunately, it's a discussion no one in politics seems willing to engage in.

< Rep. John Murtha Endorses Hillary Clinton | Chris Dodd Introduces Bill to Stem College Aid Loss for Drug Offenders >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Time to Talk About Marijuana | 33 comments (33 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

As you know, CA has very liberal (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:10:10 PM EST

laws re possession for personal use and medical marijuana recommendations by physicians. But, given marijuana remains a Schedule I substance under federal law, seems like the place to start is the U.S. Congress.

But why punish the one who sells (none / 0) (#13)
by lilybart on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:01:28 PM EST

The "personal use" pot? I get that making possesion barely a crime worth a ticket, but if it's sort of oK that I posses it, why is it a crime for the guy who sold it to me?? It is not enought that CA law is lax on possesion.

Can I grow my own then? there is this new vegetable growing thing advertised on TV --- seems good for growing pot too.

If we really want to talk about this, we need to be honest. It can
t be a crime for the guy who sold it if its ok for me to have it.


Not my issue, by I don't anticipate (none / 0) (#25)
by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:34:47 PM EST

CA Legislature and/or Gov. S. making selling non-criminal; don't think the average voter likes the idea of the seller hanging around the schools, parks, 7-11, and selling to kids.


: Great Argument For Legalization (none / 0) (#26)
by squeaky on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:55:22 PM EST

Regulation and taxation.

Can't the medical part be resolved easily (none / 0) (#2)
by rilkefan on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:14:53 PM EST

by making the active anti-nausea etc. ingredient(s) available to patients in a form without the intoxicating effects?

According to a physician I spoke with, (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:17:06 PM EST

the active ingredients in marijuana are available to chemo patients in the form of a pill, by prescription.


Marinol (none / 0) (#5)
by Nasarius on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:24:06 PM EST

There are a number of problems with it, including:

It only contains THC, just one of many active ingredients in raw marijuana, and
It's ingested orally. Not a terribly good idea when you're trying to suppress nausea and vomiting.

And to answer the original question, the medically active chemicals and euphoria-inducing chemicals are, for the most part, one in the same.


: My elderly aunt took the pill (none / 0) (#7)
by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:33:12 PM EST

because when she got so underweight after a operation and wouldn't eat, we asked the doctor for it. He obliged and she rapidly gained weight. She kept wondering why she was so hungry all the time. It has many uses.

It doens't work for a lot of people. nt (none / 0) (#14)
by lilybart on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:01:56 PM EST

Did anyone see the History Channel doc (none / 0) (#4)
by magisterludi on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:20:14 PM EST

on the reason pot is illegal? It has to do with the newer population, moving to the southwestern states in the 1930's, not liking the local Mexican-Indian population, who happened to grow pot and smoke it for spiritual ritual.

The powers that were wanted to make marijuana illegal to deprive these locals of their religious practices and therefore make living there untenable for the devoted. In a short time, they got their wish.

Of course, this is via the HC and I've seen some pretty questionable "history" on it at times.
I

: Philip Marlowe (none / 0) (#6)
by rilkefan on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:28:39 PM EST

looks down on "tea smokers". Don't know how much of that is Chandler (a heavy heavy drinker) and how much a representation of prevailing educated working class attitudes of the day. I always find it quite striking on rereading.

How many Drunken driver's get out of jail (none / 0) (#8)
by Dancing Bear on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:35:35 PM EST

a day or two later to go on and get re-arrested. They tried to criminalize alcohol but failed poorly. So they demonize another substance and claim it is worse.

There has to be a better solution to this. Many people who are alcoholic have a difficult time becoming totally substance free. I have studied this at length and have many AA supporters disagree with me.

Alcoholism is viewed as an allergy by many. A reaction occurs when alcohol is introduced and an addiction is activated by THIQ. Having been sober since 1979 I have managed to do so by the recreational use of Marijuana. Many say I'm substituting one addiction for another and I find that silly.

That is like saying if I'm allergic to peanuts I shouldn't eat grapefruit. I become insane when exposed to alcohol but I do not become insane when smoking marijuana. I just become mellow. I'm not poking fun at it either.

I'm just relating personal experience. I have run programs in NY, LA, TN, and CT to help alcoholics. I don't offer this advice to newly sober people but as a person who has been sober for 30 years (from alcohol) I have used pot socially because I am able to. I am not able to with alcohol.

I am put at criminal risk when I could walk across the street and purchase something that could very easily have me dead in a few days. It is not illegal for me as an alcoholic to put the public at risk by consuming alcohol but God help me if I need to unwind and blow off steam or just do as I see fit in my own home.

I generally do this at bedtime rather than ingest some fabricated substance that generally leaves me feeling medinciney the following morning.

I may do it several times a month at the very most. When I drank I did so every day until I blacked out and collapsed. And God knows what else.

So for me the disparity is amazing.

I have done the same thing. (none / 0) (#15)
by lilybart on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:04:17 PM EST

I havent' had a drink since I went to rehab 19 years ago. But I do smoke a little as what my husband calls a "marital aide."

I know I can't drink again, but I can handle pot. The accepted wisdom is wrong.


Cure for insomnia that so many have (none / 0) (#19)
by lilybart on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:10:52 PM EST

I have many friends who take cocktails of ambien and god knows what else, and still can't sleep.

A few hits and they would sleep like babies and not be taking those actually dangerous drugs.


: Yeah, but (none / 0) (#22)
by badger on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:26:47 PM EST

they wouldn't be buying those dangerous drugs either. I imagine that's a factor in keeping pot illegal.

Don Quixote... (none / 0) (#9)
by Adept Havelock on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:36:31 PM EST

in the guise of the US Government, continues to tilt at this windmill.

You would think they would have learned the lessons of the 18th amendment. Instead, we continue to make the same mistake with regards to narcotics we made with alcohol in the 1920's-1930's.

What's the definition of insanity again?

: That said, (none / 0) (#23)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:27:37 PM EST

the "decriminalize/legalize pot" crowd is also living a Senor Quixote fantasy because it'll never happen, in our lifetimes anyway.
And decriminalizing/legalizing narcotics is even more not going to happen...

I thought one of the reasons (none / 0) (#10)
by stillife on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:41:40 PM EST

marijuana was made illegal was b/c it was used by jazz musicians in the 20's, most of whom were black. (I used to have a great album called "Marijuana Jazz Songs of the 30's and 40's", featuring songs like "If You're a Viper").

When I was a pot-smoking teenager, we watched the propaganda film "Reefer Madness" for sh**s and giggles. I just watched it again with my daughter and its unintentional campy humor holds up over time.

I don't smoke anymore, but I believe that marijuana is a more benign substance than alcohol. You don't hear about people smoking weed and going on violent rampages (except in 30's propaganda films).

It should be legalized, with the same controls as alcohol. But I guess too many people are making too much money from it being illegal for that to happen.

: Hemp (none / 0) (#16)
by waldenpond on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:06:03 PM EST

Wasn't the original crop less 'fun' and used as a replacement for hemp rope? I thought part of it was an attempt to reduce competition which actually makes sense in our corporate environment.

: Ask any emergency room worker (none / 0) (#17)
by lilybart on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:06:05 PM EST

They will tell you the horror stories of drunks but they will be hard pressed to tell you stories of the pot overdoses they treat, or the pot-fueled violence, because there are no stories like this.

It was the 70's & it did not hurt us (none / 0) (#11)
by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 07:43:14 PM EST

It should be legal. How can you deprive a college student a loan or a Cancer victim medical relief when we are at an age now that our Presidents and Presidential nominees have smoked grass a few time in their life and all future ones will admit that too. Why is one in fear or has a forever blemish on their record and one is in the White House.

we've been smoking since the neolithic age (none / 0) (#12)
by DandyTIger on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:00:26 PM EST

we're not about to stop now. Mmmm cannabis. Hey, if it were good enough for Robert Mitchum, it's good enough for me. Here's the obligatory wikipedia link on the topic with some fun history. And another link on it's legal history. Check out the way cool old government PSA poster from the 30's. It's priceless. Sadly, it looks like it was FDR in '37 that put the kibosh on it.

If all of America's pot smokers (none / 0) (#18)
by lilybart on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:09:01 PM EST

took to the streets, people would be SHOCKED at the number of upstanding adults, with good to great jobs, nice families and no criminal records. I know so many successful CEOs, editors, muscians (ok, duh) brokers, writers (one who recently won a pulitzer) that smoke.

It really is way past time to stop the legal madness.

: The problem is (none / 0) (#21)
by stillife on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:22:16 PM EST

that America's pot smokers are too stoned and lazy to take to the streets. ;)
But I do agree with you.

NYC pot arrests up 1000% (none / 0) (#20)
by QuakerInABasement on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:15:24 PM EST

Here's an interesting study of marijuana arrests in New York City.

The number of arrests between 1997 and 2006 was nearly 10 times higher than either of the previous 10 year periods.

The arrest statistics are signifigantly skewed by race--blacks were nearly eight times more likely to be arrested than whites and Hispanics were 3.5 times more like than whites to be arrested.

: Giuilani's "quality of life" policy (none / 0) (#24)
by stillife on Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 08:28:57 PM EST

My son got busted for smoking a joint on the street when he was about 15. As a parent, I was upset, but as a child of the 60's it was such BS.
When I was around 20, I had a friend, a young black man, who explained to me how the cops enforced the laws selectively. This was in the mid-70's, in Chicago, and you could pretty much smoke weed on the street without fear of repercussion - if you were white and especially if you were a white girl.
My son doesn't smoke pot much anymore; he's a college grad and a working man, but he still has connections - and my husband (who will be 60 this year) buys pot from him! And he's not unusual, at least among our friends. Most of them (people in their 50's) smoke occasionally.

: Yep... (none / 0) (#29)
by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:44:10 PM EST

it's a jungle out there.
Police and thieves in the street...oh yeah.

Quite simply.... (none / 0) (#27)
by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:48:57 AM EST

I believe it should be legal because the government has no right to make it illegal.

Let the govt. state their case for prohibition, without the propaganda, racism, and outright falsehoods of their original argument in the 30's.

I see no reason to have to defend freedom, let the govt. and the prohibitionists defend tyranny. A plant grows from the bosom of mother nature, just as we grow from her bosom. We pick it, dry it, and smoke it. This is our inalienable right.

Until the miracle awakening, I and millions of others will treat the law like the big fat joke that it is, while being sneaky and trying not to get caught. Ah yes, the American way...don't be honest, be sneaky. Honest men get locked up with far more regularity.

When you are speaking of government (none / 0) (#28)
by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:07:45 AM EST

the issue is really not whether the government has the "right" to enact a regulation. The question is whether the consitution forbids a regulation, either because it involves a subject over which the constitution has granted the government no power or the people have a right which prohibits the government from enforcing the regulation.

The constitution does give the Federal government very broad powers. The General Welfare Clause standing alone can be interpreted to allow extremely broad regulation in areas not either proscribed by individual rights reserved to the people or powers reserved to the states (and the ICC has been interpreted to make that pretty limited and no one hardly even mentions the 10th amendment these days).

States have very broad "police powers" to act in the general interest in those few areas where the federal government does not assert supremacy or preemption and also co-extensively with the federal government in many areas where both may act.

The debate about marijuana (and other drugs, and a host of other things) is really more about whether government should regulate and to what extent than whether the government has power under the law to do so.

: Decon... (none / 0) (#30)
by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:49:12 PM EST

how bout the 9th?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Any fire there?

theoretically (none / 0) (#31)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:37:30 AM EST

yes.

A strong philosophical case can be argued premised on "natural rights" theory that among the natural rights retained by the people is the right to engage in personal behavior that harms no one but the individual engaging it. Many would argue that possession and use of substances falls into that category.

In jurisprudential terms that argument has never really made much impact in our legal system and we have seen more doctrine in areas which seem somewhat analogous premised on the 4th and 14th and almost none on the 9th.

And, even if the 9th was reinvigorated (or maybe just invigorated), many would still argue that the use of substances, while physically and directly only harmful to the user, contributes to broader indirect harms in society generally. Many would then retort that many of those indirect harms are exacerbated not ameliorated by the regulations but that is probably more of a policy argument than one hugely relevant in constitutional terms.

Thanks again.... (none / 0) (#32)
by kdog on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:52:40 AM EST

As I read the 9th and thought of the founding fathers, who definitely grew hemp and perhaps marijuana as well, I figured they would have thought growing it was a natural right.

I don't think Tom Jefferson meant to give the federal govt. the power to burn down his hemp field, for example.


: You should also (none / 0) (#33)
by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:24:21 AM EST

beware of the fact that jurists and scholars across the spectrum (although perhaps for different reasons) have historically dismissed the 9th Amendment as a source for finding individual rights not elsewhere enumerated. (that's why I premised the theory above on the argument that the right pre-existed in natural law and would be merely recognized and not that it owes its existence to the 9th.
The prevailing view is that the 9th was merely intended to guide interpretation of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights. In effect (and I am over-simplifying for a brief response to a layperson, so I acknowledge this is not intended as a scholarly analysis) the limited doctrine available suggests that the the 9th was intended to prevent courts from upholding powers of Congress on theories analogous to the "penumbra and emanations" arguments used to find implict individual rights in the Constitution. Meaning, the Constitution should be narrowly construed insofar as delegating powers to government and finding a law constitutional because the ower to enforce it is implict in an enumerated power. of course, many might argue that the "necessary and proper clause" has made that "check" pretty meaningless in practice.