March 8, 2010 -I’ve never been a big fan of illegal drugs, let me say that up front right now. I hate to even take aspirin for a headache. However, after some careful reading on the subject, aided and abetted by some of my older pot-head friends, I am changing my mind about just why legalizing pot is an idea whose time has come. There are a lot of very good reasons – moral, ethical and economical – why this should be done now and as soon as possible.

Currently, the Controlled Substances Act does not recognize the difference between medicinal and recreational use of marijuana. For a surprisingly large number of Americans, though, marijuana is just like any other prescription; it’s a way to escape from chronic pain. And, given the stupidity of the FedGov law as it is currently written regarding sale and possession of pot, even patients who obtain marijuana legally in their state can face federal prosecution.

Cannabis has been used to treat HIV/AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, cancer, chronic pain, arthritis and pains associated with aging. Something else that pot helps with is asthma prevention, and it also eases glaucoma. Especially for older Americans, cannabis can be the best prescription for their pain. Something else that people overlook with pretty appalling regularity is that being in chronic pain also robs a person of not only the will to eat, but also the will to live. “Marijuana munchies” is not just a figure of speech; using marijuana to help control chronic pain also helps to ease the truly horrific estivation that comes with being a victim of the diseases mentioned above. Using pot makes you hungry. When you’re hungry, you eat. When you eat regularly, you tend to live longer. That’s one of the best side effects that I personally can think of for a non-addictive drug. SO, you’re zoned out for a while. A person using narcotic painkillers is just as zoned, and the narcotics kill appetite.

In a study conducted for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, doctors found that nicotine was far more serious than marijuana on many levels. So, if marijuana were objectively and fairly compared with the effects and side effects of many other prescription drugs, it would become clear just how beneficial of a substance it is. Other countries are recognizing the benefits of medicinal cannabis as well. Canada, Chile and the Netherlands have decriminalized or legalized medical marijuana, and countries such as Australia and Belgium are conducting trials on the benefits of medical marijuana. It’s time for the United States to shed its stereotypical view of marijuana and recognize the many medicinal benefits.

Morally speaking, using pot is a LOT less bad for the person using it than smoking cigarettes. It’s a LOT better than drinking. Ethically speaking, anything that relieves pain and suffering without making the person taking the drugs worse in a good many ways is good. Then, too, there are the economic benefits.

I can just hear the squawking now. ECONOMIC BENEFITS?

Yes, ECONOMIC BENEFITS. Let me repeat that: MONEY. Lots of money.

The late, great Milton Friedman, the Nobel Laureate, former Reagan advisor, and esteemed scholar associated with the very conservative Hoover Institution, was among hundreds of important economists who argue that pot should be legalized and taxed, and that the income from such taxation could generate billions in new revenues and billions more in enforcement savings. If you live in California, what would you rather have? Pot smokers whose cases are tying up the legal system? Or better health care and roads thanks to a marijuana tax? The economic case for legalizing marijuana is as compelling as it has ever been and, in a time of great changes in the interaction between government and the governed, it would not be the worst thing in the world to have a serious national debate on the topic.

Currently over 100 million Americans have used or have admitted using pot. Thinking people do their own research, and, many times, have concluded that the laws against marijuana are arbitrary. It has been proven that legalizing will cost taxpayers far less than we have to pay currently in order to keep marijuana illegal. In fact, Portugal legalized marijuana in 2001 and it has since proven effective, in that crime rates and drug use among youth have significantly decreased. In fact, most who supported legalization were middle-aged citizens, rather than young adults.

So, who’s really holding up the legalization of pot? Aside, that is, from the FedGov and the National Drug Czar, that is?

Well, for one thing, cigarette companies and Big Pharma; my guess is that they’d be the ones most concerned. Big Pharma does NOT want people to have access to benign naturally occurring substances that provide much the same relief, without side-effects or breaking the bank that their reconstituted synthetics might provide. Think about it: sell a carton of 200 joints for $50.00, and throw out the narcotics. Might cost the drug companies a bit, wouldn’t you think? The FDA has recently claimed that there are no medical benefits to marijuana use. However, at the same time, the FDA has approved synthetic versions of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active ingredient in marijuana, for use in high-priced prescription drugs. Surprisingly, the FDA also lists marijuana to be as dangerous as heroin & PCP. If nothing else, this would convince me that the so-called experts are either stupid, blind, or, in all probability, so deep in Big Pharma’s hineys that the agency heads are actually eating breakfast, lunch and dinner out of Big Pharma’s stomach.

Why bother with a cheaper, more cost-effective REAL substance when you can make a synthetic for 5 times the price? Where’s the benefit to the general public in *THAT*?

Also, let’s not forget that the tobacco industry won’t just step aside to let a brand new business take over the market. Should marijuana become legal, who do you think will first start the mass manufacturing? My guess of Marlboro is a good one. Camel is a decent choice, too. Only problem that I can see with this is that all cigarettes have additives, including an extra jolt of nicotine to keep you puffing. What’s to stop the tobacco companies from doing the same thing with a commercially marketed joint?

“Stoned” Joe Camel, anybody?

And then, of course, there’s the FedGov’s interest in keeping the War on Drugs going. The only violence associated with pot is the extreme violence used by Mexican drug traffickers to get it into this country. Legalize pot, and one of their most lucrative markets is gone. The DEA and other agencies have grown fat over the last 30 years fighting their phony “war on drugs.” Trillions in tax payer dollars have been doled out to agencies to wage their war. The so-called “war on drugs” has become a massive government funded industry that jealously guards its funding. Any talk of legalizing pot sends the bureaucracies into an uproar as they foresee dramatic funding cuts, and fewer thermal gizmos that detect leafy green plants in someone’s backyard. We can start by playing the war on drugs game a lot smarter. We can stop the stupid, hysterical silliness and legalize pot. Then, and only then, MAYBE the DEA can focus its attention on real drugs like meth, cocaine, crack, heroine, ecstasy, and the growing prescription drug problem.

Marijuana should be legalized, taxed, and fall under the same rules as alcohol. That means 21 and up to buy it. Those under 21 found with it should be ticketed as they are for alcohol. Those found to be driving under the influence of marijuana should be given DUI’s as they would have been had they been drinking.

The horrific violence of Mexican cartels, which make perhaps as much as 75 percent of their money from marijuana (in Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard’s estimation), the budget meltdown in California, overcrowded prisons and overstretched law enforcement, all of these should be factored into legalization. In April of 2008, Representative Barney Franks co-sponsored, with Ron Paul, the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, which would have lifted federal penalties for possessing 3.5 ounces or less. That bill never made it to committee. However, Frank and Paul introduced another bill that did reach the committee stage: the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009, which would end the ban on cultivation of non-psychoactive hemp. “I think people have gotten more skeptical of government intervention,” Frank said. “And I think people have seen the ineffectiveness of the all-out-war approach to all this.”

“Change we can believe in – and it all starts with just a TINY bit of common sense. Source.

June 24, 2009 – Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts has introduced two pieces of legislation on marijuana — one medical, and one recreational — that deserve a lot more attention (and support by fellow House members) than they have been getting. The first would change federal law to allow states to experiment with medical marijuana without interference from Washington. And the second would drastically reduce federal penalties for “personal possession” of marijuana.

The medical marijuana bill aims to fix a problem in the federal classification of marijuana. The problem was best summed up in a live performance by Bill Maher I saw a number of months ago, where he talked about medical marijuana laws that states such as California (and others) have passed. I don’t remember his exact words, but it went something like this: “It’s still illegal to grow it, it’s illegal for doctors to prescribe it, it’s illegal to sell it, it’s illegal to buy it, but if a joint happens to fall from the sky into your lips, then it’s OK to smoke it.”

There’s a reason for this legal disconnect. States are afraid of legalizing a production chain for marijuana because such legislative attempts always run into a brick wall called “federal law.” Federal law always trumps state law, and federal law says that marijuana is illegal. Period. Federal law also states that marijuana has no medical value, and therefore even doctors who prescribe it are at risk of legal trouble with the feds for doing so.

A few months back, I called upon President Obama to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II Controlled Dangerous Substance, instead of Schedule I. The difference between the two is that Schedule I drugs have “no currently accepted medical use.” Schedule II drugs do. Schedule II drugs (which include cocaine, opium, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and PCP) are just as illegal as Schedule I drugs, but doctors are still allowed to prescribe them. That’s really the only difference between the two.

The first of Frank’s bills, (which you can look up under the number “HR 2835″) is titled “The Marijuana Patient Protection Act” and (from Frank’s press release): “would prevent federal authorities from prosecuting pharmacies, growers and users of medical marijuana in states where the use of the substance for medical reasons is legal.”

Congressman Frank himself says about his bill:

“There are some people who are in severe pain for whom nothing else seems to work. It is cruel to prevent them from having access to something which helps relieve their pain. This is especially true because so many states allow it. For the federal government to come in and supersede state law is a real mistake.”

His bill, to date, has 16 cosponsors, including two Republicans (Ron Paul and Dana Rohrabacher). Barney Frank has been fighting this battle for a long time, and has introduced similar legislation in every Congress since 1995, when he picked up the baton from the late Congressman McKinney from Connecticut (Frank had supported McKinney’s bills for ten years prior to introducing his own bill in 1995).

Back in 2006, when he introduced a similar bill, Frank was more expansive:

“This is an issue on which people around the country are ahead of the politicians. Many elected officials are hesitant to support any proposals that might be viewed as weakening our drug laws, but I believe this is a common sense idea that will give some people who are suffering a measure of relief.

“If there are doctors willing to recommend the use of marijuana for their patients, and states willing to permit it. I think it’s wrong for the federal government to subject either the doctors or the patients to criminal prosecution. Nothing in this proposal would make marijuana more available for the general population. The bill is limited to medicinal use of marijuana with a doctor’s approval. The bill does, however, offer a challenge to conservatives who often profess their support for states’ rights. I am delighted that some of my conservative colleagues, including Congressmen Ron Paul and Dana Rohrabacher, along with former Reagan Administration official Lyn Nofziger, have joined in this effort.

“I would add that taking legal action against those who use small quantities of marijuana for medical purposes is a highly questionable use of scarce prosecutorial resources at a time when they could be put to much better use.”

The second legislation Congressman Frank introduced recently is “The Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults” (search for it under “HR 2943″), which would (again, from Frank’s press release): “eliminate federal penalties, but not override existing state law, on the possession or not-for-profit transfer of small amounts of marijuana. The bill would allow possession of up to 100 grams of the substance, and not-for-profit transfer of up to 28.3 grams (1 ounce). The legislation would also create a $100 fine (a civil penalty) for public use of marijuana.”

This is a harder row to hoe politically, which is why Frank lists responses to common criticisms:

* The legislation would not affect federal laws prohibiting the cultivation or sale of marijuana for profit.

* It would not legalize major drug dealing or create obstacles for federal officials from prosecuting such activity.

* It would not affect any state or local laws regulating marijuana.

* It would not alter the status of marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act

That last one is a bit of a disconnect, since H.R. 2835 would do exactly that, making it a bit odd in a press release that highlights both bills. Frank has, so far, gotten less support for H.R. 2943 than for the medical marijuana bill, shown by the fact that there are currently only four cosponsors (two of which are the aforementioned Republicans).

But Frank doesn’t mince words on this issue either: “I think John Stuart Mill had it right in the 1850s, when he argued that individuals should have the right to do what they want in private, so long as they don’t hurt anyone else. It’s a matter of personal liberty. Moreover, our courts are already stressed and our prisons are over-crowded. We don’t need to spend our scarce resources prosecuting people who are doing no harm to others.”

The congressman does not say, but I am assuming he is referring to the Mill quote:

“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.”

The question now is whether either of these bills is going to get anywhere. Frank’s press office was not overly optimistic about chances for passage this year, seeing as how he’s been fighting to get this done for almost a quarter-century now. A call to Henry Waxman’s office (the chairman of the House committee both bills have been referred to) asking when the committee would hold a vote or move the legislation went unreturned by my deadline. A call to the White House press office asking whether President Obama could sign, or would support, this legislation also went unreturned.

It’s all fine and good that Obama has said that his administration wouldn’t be going after legal (by state law) medical marijuana facilities, but the only way to guarantee that this policy outlives his term in office is to change the classification from Schedule I to Schedule II. This would allow the states to set up their own framework for the legal growth, transportation, and availability of marijuana to medical patients, without being worried about the heavy hand of Washington smacking down their efforts. Changing marijuana’s classification, and reducing federal penalties for personal use are both commonsense changes at the federal level which are long overdue. While Barney Frank is to be applauded for pushing the issue forward, he cannot do this on his own.

Like other issues Democrats have dragged their heels on, one has to wonder: “If not now, when?” How many Democrats do we need to elect to Congress before such commonsense laws are passed to rein in some of the excesses of past eras? How big a majority would it take? I strongly encourage anyone who cares about this issue to search for the these bills’ cosponsors, and if you don’t see your representative on those lists, contact them and ask them why they aren’t.

[Technical note: The Library of Congress' THOMAS site is a great resource for looking up the text and details of bills as they wend their way through Congress. However, the links they return when you search for a bill seem to be temporary, and do not work hours after you post them. So I apologize for the hassle of doing your own searches instead of providing direct links. Go to the THOMAS site, click on "search on bill number" to see details of bills.] By Chris Weigant. Source.