Marijuana
How sick is the federal government’s campaign against marijuana, especially medicinal marijuana? In 1996, California voters passed Prop 215 to legalize marijuana used for medicinal purposes. In what has been a bipartisan effort, both the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations have fought to overturn state laws to allow for the drug to be used. Most of this activity seems aimed at California, where last month federal agents raided more than a dozen establishments dispensing the drug for medicinal purposes. They are using federal law to trump local laws (under the argument that even intrastate medicinal marijuana growing may possibly impact interstate drug trafficking) which allow the drug to be prescribed and used. Nevertheless, many states have a variety of medicinal marijuana laws that are still in effect.
One question: why is marijuana being targeted? Marijuana is less addictive than tobacco, less inebriating than alcohol. It is less of a “gateway” drug than either of those two, if it is even one at all. That it is illegal is an accident of history, and is not due to the deleterious effects of the drug. So why is the federal government wasting so much time and energy to combat it when there is so much else to do?
The government’s attack against medicinal marijuana is incomprehensible. Doctors prescribe drugs far more dangerous and far more addictive on a regular basis, and yet somehow marijuana is the danger? You may pull out studies which claim that marijuana does no better than other drugs (which usually turn out to be funded by drug companies with in interest in pushing their own meds), but there is a great deal of evidence that shows it is useful, especially in the stimulation of appetite and the control of nausea, and helps in most cases where other drugs fail.
Where government policy is most outrageous is in the use of marijuana in terminal patients. I mean, come on. Who the hell is worried about addiction in these cases? People dying of cancer in hospices, prescribed with marijuana by doctors, buying it legally from a pharmacy or other legal distributor–and the feds feel they have to bust that kind of thing up? How sick is that?
So what am I missing here? Why is the federal government so adamantly pursuing a relatively harmless and potentially beneficial drug? Is it true that pharmaceutical companies are behind the push so as to do away with a cheap competitor, or is that a conspiracy theory? Or is the cause simply that members of congress and administration officials are scared of looking weak on law enforcement if they don’t hunt down and destroy the “killer weed,” pushed forward by the ignorance of a general public that believes it is a dangerous narcotic? Does the government seriously think it’s a threat? What’s your take, what have you heard?
Well there is this theory:
“Crossing the Rubicon” by Michael Ruppert
See:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0865715408/qid=1136224596/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8864429-4063117?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
I haven’t read this book, but the theory in it runs something like this: the CIA and the illegal Drug cartels and Wallstreet have some kind of symbiotic relation ship.
I haven’t read the book, just bumped into it at a Barnes and Noble. But I think it says that Wallstreet and the CIA are highly connected. Basically the CIA is Wallstreets proxy. Wallstreet relies on drug money for liquidity and the CIA to maintain that liquidity. I think the CIA also supposedly gets money from drug running or something along those lines. The Drug Cartels of course need for drugs to be illegal.
If drugs were legalized then the Cartels would lose their profit making enterprizes to legitimate concerns.
All of this is conspiracy stuff, but it is told by a person who has experience in Drug enforcement. Unfortunately he ties these conspiracies into the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.
That war of course is a mystery as no one seems to know why it was started. Undoubtedly, the fact that no one seems to know suggest that it was done under some synister motivations which opens it up to conspiricy theories like the one in Crossing the Rubicon. I suspect it makes for great story telling, I just don’t have the time to read it, and would rather read real history – so it is just outside my domain for my consumption.
The problem with the tie to the Iraq war is that the motiviations are tied into “peak oil” scenario. This is a false motivation it would seem to me. Peak oil is not a problem for economies, just a problem for oil companies.
The New York Times last summer published an Op-ed piece written by a govenor or ex-govenor of Montana who said that liquified coal is economical at $35 a barrel for oil. The problem is the price has to be kept that high to justify the building of plants, so it needs to be subsidized. And there are also alternative fuels: one being nuclear power, which most people in the field know is vastly safer then projected if done the right way – perhaps its oil people who protest the loudest in that area. So peak oil is not a problem for our economy, just for the oil companies. I can’t help but think that the $35 barrel threshold is what kept the price of oil down for the entire 1990s despite exploding demand. The Oil Oligopoly doesn’t want alternative sources to creap into the supply chain.
I seem to recall, before Gulf War I, the Japanese were reluctant to contribute to the effort. When asked why a Japanese official was quoted as saying “History shows that who ever controls the oil will sell it, as some price. And whatever that price is, Japan will be willing to buy it and pay whatever the price for it the market demands.” This of course is remarkably enlightened thinking as Japan started off WWII in an effort to control a source of petroleum. And even in 1990 Japan was one of the most efficient energy consumers out there: Electric Power from Hydroelectric sources and Nuclear Power; Subsidized encouragement of highly efficient cars (less than 1 litre size engines); Eloborate and efficient public transportation – the higher the price of oil, the greater the competitive advantage Japan would seem to have over energy inefficient countries like the U.S., which is grossely inefficient.
Getting back to the topic, – for poor people, canibis is a much better and cheaper intoxicant then alcohol. Life for the poor is very harsh. If they want take a drug, alcohol is very hard on the body and the wallet, so is tobacco. Cannibis is less toxic and will basically grow anywhere. This is why Jamacians smoke it, its cheaper and less toxic to the system.
But don’t be confused. Marijuana can have terrible consequences. More than one person I was close to was addicted to Marijuana, ie. “Potheads”, and one person in particular that I am very close to was very addicted. Potheads start their day with marijuana. The addiction is not said to be physiological, as my addiction to cafiene is, but psychological. No matter, if you know someone who is addicted to it, try prying them away from it. It might as well be the same thing. They can be relieved of it with the help of a 12 step program, it usually works if they are committed. But it takes years before they get all of their intellect back, and they will make many poor decisions along the way.
The drug appeals and affects people differently. I always hated the stuff myself, because, well I think too deeply now and smoking it sends me into a boundless abyss of ever deapening analytical thinking that I can’t snap out of until its effects wear off. I just hate that. But thats me.
I think with all drugs it would be better to regulate it, tax the hell out of it, and use the money towards treatment for people who want to get out from under it.
Whether its Drugs, Alcohol, sex trade, gambling or even Abortion, Supply side prohibitions almost never work, demand management almost always seems to be the best way to approach dealing with such vices.
Perhaps the feds are getting after folks who distribute “medical marijuna” that is
not covered as “medical” (i.e. no doctor Rx).
you are right with how each person would react differently to a drug but when you say that all drugs should be regulated, what about the ones in our everyday foods such as sugar,caffeine…etc