California assembly OKs bill to legalize marijuana statewide

[bascule]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/assembly-committee-oks-bill-to-legalize-marijuana.html

 

Looks like the California assembly could soon be voting on a bill to legalize and tax marijuana statewide.

 

The opposition to the bill is laced with the same cliches and fallacies that have dominated the debate for years:

 

"We're going to legalize marijuana, we're going to tax it and then we're going to educate our kids about the harm of drugs. You've got to be kidding me,'' Gilmore said. "What's next? Are we going to legalize methamphetamines, cocaine?''

 

I would ask Mr. Gilmore what he thinks about the fact we legalized alcohol, tax it, and then educate our kids about the harm of alcohol.

 

And of course his argument includes the traditional slippery slope. Legalize pot? What's next? Are we going to legalize RAPE, MURDER?

 

It will be interesting to see what happens if this bill passes and truly puts states rights vs the Controlled Substances Act to the test. Sadly, I could see SCOTUS trying to defend CSA's constitutionality via the Interstate Commerce Clause again, even though that's patently silly.

[Mokele]

 

But if we make pot illegal, soon it'll be illegal to smoke and drink! Then they'll make caffeine and candy illegal! Soon they'll just ban food and we'll all starve!

[CharonY]

No caffeine and candy? The end of science.

[Phi for All]

I'm even starting to hear some fairly conservative friends conceding that it's stupid to keep our prisons full of people who's only crime is possession of marijuana. They make sure to add the "tax-it-like-anything-else" clause, but I think the black market angle is what really got them turned around. Making criminals rich and placing otherwise law-abiding people at risk for an ideology that doesn't stand up well to comparisons with alcohol are strong arguments.

[Moontanman]

Well if they legalize it in California then it should be legal here in NC in, oh say, 1000 years....

[Pangloss]

It's not a slippery slope of "rape and murder" that this calls into question, but rather the concept of government safety regulation. In order for this to be successful over the long haul, the law will have to be very clear and very specific as to why this substance should not be controlled, and it will have to do so on a scientific basis. Why is this drug clearly different from other recreational drugs, and why do some of those still need to be controlled, but others do not? The line needs to be very clear and very consistent. Draw a clear line and the FDA will continue to be able to regulate and mandate safe drugs. Draw a fuzzy one and it's back to thalidomide and asbestos.

 

That having been said, if they can do that clearly and it gets held up by the courts, fine, I'll live with it. If nothing else at least California will stop taking money out of this Floridian's wallet to pay for for social services it can't afford, I didn't get a say in, and I have no access to.

[bascule]

Why is this drug clearly different from other recreational drugs, and why do some of those still need to be controlled, but others do not? The line needs to be very clear and very consistent. Draw a clear line and the FDA will continue to be able to regulate and mandate safe drugs. Draw a fuzzy one and it's back to thalidomide and asbestos.

 

Multiple studies have shown the relative harm of marijuana is approximately equal to (or even less than) alcohol and cigarettes.

 

It's effectiveness in treating nausea associated with chemotherapy (better than drugs like Zofran in clinical studies) at least provide very compelling evidence that it should at the very least not be schedule 1 (no accepted medical use).

[StringJunky]

Multiple studies have shown the relative harm of marijuana is approximately equal to (or even less than) alcohol and cigarettes.

 

It's effectiveness in treating nausea associated with chemotherapy (better than drugs like Zofran in clinical studies) at least provide very compelling evidence that it should at the very least not be schedule 1 (no accepted medical use).

 

Poential medically therapeutic uses for cannabis derivatives is not a justification for condoning its use recreationally as your post seems to imply.

 

Medical cannabis is a highly refined substance and will be named according to the specific components extracted/modified from it just as heroin is not diamorphine in Medicine.

 

I'm not trying to be semantic, Medicine derived from cannabis should not held in the same light as recreational/raw cannabis...they are different things.

 

Discussion about recreational use and discussions about therapeutic use shouldn't really be discussed in the same thread IMO...they are not mutually transferrable.

[Mr Skeptic]

Making criminals rich and placing otherwise law-abiding people at risk for an ideology that doesn't stand up well to comparisons with alcohol are strong arguments.

 

And alcohol is a particularly good comparison, because we made it illegal for a while, and the effects of that were well-known.

[bascule]

Poential medically therapeutic uses for cannabis derivatives is not a justification for condoning its use recreationally as your post seems to imply.

 

That's not what I said or implied.

 

To reiterate: the FDA/DEA have not even budged on the medical issue. According to the federal government, marijuana has no acceptable medical use, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

 

Medical cannabis is a highly refined substance and will be named according to the specific components extracted/modified from it just as heroin is not diamorphine in Medicine.

 

I'm not trying to be semantic, Medicine derived from cannabis should not held in the same light as recreational/raw cannabis...they are different things.

 

Unfortunately the government hasn't budged on the medical issue whatsoever, therefore it remains a state-condoned gray area that, yes, is not presently in compliance with the Pure Food and Drug act because in order for the FDA to issue guidelines for it to comply they would first have to accept that it has a medical use.

 

Discussion about recreational use and discussions about therapeutic use shouldn't really be discussed in the same thread IMO...they are not mutually transferrable.

 

The real point is that the federal government has its head up its ass on the matter and that's causing considerable numbers of problems.

[StringJunky]

Bascule: I acknowledge now, with your subsequent response, that you were not intentionally implying it...it just looks that way when mentioning cannabis in the recreational sense in your first paragraph then mentioning it in the medically therapeutic sense in your second.

 

I was really just alluding from a debating pov it's a poor strategy as I'm sure you would agree...you didn't mean it that way so it doesn't matter.

 

As it is here in the UK, I think it is absurd that the medical research profession has to be licensed by the Home Office to experiment with it, not because it is potentially lethal but because it is politically controversial.

 

Scientists should decide first and foremost whether it's worth pursuing not politicians.

 

On a positive note, it would appear that UK lawlords are recommending it become schedule 2 and allowed under medical supervision:

 

Lord Perry of Walton, chairman of the inquiry said: "We have seen enough evidence to convince us that a doctor might legitimately want to prescribe cannabis to relieve pain, or the symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS), and that the criminal law ought not to stand in the way. Far from being a step towards general legalisation, our recommendation would make the ban on recreational use easier to enforce. Above all, it would show compassion to patients who currently risk prosecution to get help." Dec. 2009

 

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-uk-law-lords-say-legalise-cannabis-for-medical-use-1261968392.html

 

It's nice to see them basing their decision on evidence, and not dogma....like good scientists!

 

If its medical use becomes mainstream here perhaps the US will follow eventually, if the evidence as a valid therapy is overwhelming for specific ailments. Only widescale, controlled and monitored research can determine this.

 

I agree with you Bascule, from the medical perspective, the present situation is nonsensical.

[bascule]

Discussion about recreational use and discussions about therapeutic use shouldn't really be discussed in the same thread IMO...they are not mutually transferrable.

 

Actually, I think the issues are inseparable.

 

I work in Denver, Colorado. Denver has the highest density of medical marijuana dispensaries of anywhere in the country, beating LA. Just to put it in perspective, we have more medical marijuana dispensaries than we do Starbucks.

 

This has lead to a lot of debate among the local politicians. One Denver suburb moved to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, then changed their mind and imposed a moratorium instead. It's a very tricky issue, as on one hand most politicians look down on it, but on the other hand they're generating jobs and tax revenue in a down economy.

 

Obviously these dispensaries are not serving just medical patients. They provide a legal source of marijuana to recreational users as well.

 

This problem is caused by the federal government's failure to recognize the medicinal benefits of marijuana. Were they to do so, marijuana could be cultivated by pharmaceutical companies, packaged in a manner that complies with the Pure Food and Drug Act, and dispensed through pharmacies.

[StringJunky]

Sorry Bascule, I'm not savvy with US political structure..is the Federal Gov. the highest tier or is it state level?

 

My ignorance leaves me confused as to why the federal government doesn't recognise the medicinal benefits yet there are medical marijuana dispensaries dispensing the stuff presumably legally?

 

My interpretation (at the moment) of your post is its allowed at the local state level in some places but not condoned officially by central government.

 

You have national government structure and a state government structure (with a certain amount of legislative independence) don't you? One more tier than the UK I think.

 

This situation doesn't occur in the UK as Central Government determines these kinds of matters and are applicable to the whole country.

 

Your country having so many independent state legislative bodies is what severely hinders the rate of progress on this issue and gay rights, abortion etc nationally I think.....too many cooks spoil the broth.

[Sisyphus]

Your country having so many independent state legislative bodies is what severely hinders the rate of progress on this issue and gay rights, abortion etc nationally I think.....too many cooks spoil the broth.

 

I don't agree with that. It's much harder to get the whole country on board an issue than it is one state, so individual states often lead the way for others. You see that for practically every progressive issue, past and present.

[StringJunky]

Sysiphus: I suppose the parallel here with the US, this side of the pond, is the EU and the problems of implementing harmonious legislation across all the countries...but even here, on major issues mentioned before, once the EU bureaucracy make a decree it becomes law across all countries...abortion law is not fully harmonious IIRC though:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6235557.stm

 

I can't comment any further on this issue in California until Bascule, or someone, enlightens, me to as to my earlier post.

[Pangloss]

Multiple studies have shown the relative harm of marijuana is approximately equal to (or even less than) alcohol and cigarettes.

 

It's effectiveness in treating nausea associated with chemotherapy (better than drugs like Zofran in clinical studies) at least provide very compelling evidence that it should at the very least not be schedule 1 (no accepted medical use).

 

I read the other posts above but I still don't understand your point in bringing up the second paragraph above. People already accept medical exceptions; the question here is harm in casual use. Not trying to give you a hard time here; just not clear on your point.

 

At any rate, I agree that multiple general studies indicating low harm may (eventually) be sufficient explanation for general public understanding and acceptance, but the question I was really trying to get at was about the acceptability of specific intoxication effects. Tobacco and alcohol are substantially different in their effects, and there is a clear demarcation between their effects and the effect of marijuana. This will open an obvious door to the question of which effects are okay, and which ones are not. That question should be answered before legalization occurs.

 

Just to pursue this a bit further, legal distinctions could be drawn regarding duration and degree of control-loss. Numbers could be drawn up regarding alcohol as a kind of baseline for comparison, and other drugs rated against that figure, then a legal line drawn.

 

If that's not done, then it raises a very obvious question: Why are any substances controlled?

[bascule]

I read the other posts above but I still don't understand your point in bringing up the second paragraph above. People already accept medical exceptions; the question here is harm in casual use. Not trying to give you a hard time here; just not clear on your point.

 

The FDA and DEA do not recognize medical exceptions.

 

At any rate, I agree that multiple general studies indicating low harm may (eventually) be sufficient explanation for general public understanding and acceptance, but the question I was really trying to get at was about the acceptability of specific intoxication effects. Tobacco and alcohol are substantially different in their effects, and there is a clear demarcation between their effects and the effect of marijuana. This will open an obvious door to the question of which effects are okay, and which ones are not. That question should be answered before legalization occurs.

 

I think The Streets did an excellent job of answering that question:

 

gwDRBm-qbQI

 

(may not be your kind of music but it makes a very good point)

 

If that's not done, then it raises a very obvious question: Why are any substances controlled?

 

That's a very good question. As a civil libertarian I find the illegality of "substances" to be rather silly, costly, and detrimental to society

Edited January 14, 2010 by bascule

[Pangloss]

The FDA and DEA do not recognize medical exceptions.

 

D'oh, I'd completely forgotten about that. Thanks.

 

 

If that's not done' date=' then it raises a very obvious question: Why are any substances controlled?[/quote']

 

That's a very good question. As a civil libertarian I find the illegality of "substances" to be rather silly, costly, and detrimental to society

 

And the legalization of pot would give that position a huge boost. Unfortunately I think that even if by some miracle a policy of non-regulation were instated, the very first pregnant woman popping a thalidomide would end it overnight. And no, it wouldn't be her fault, because she's a single working mother of three! But joking aside, I don't think they'd be wrong -- safety regulations are one of the few things we can point to as a universal success in modern democracies.

 

But the reality of legalization is that a clear legal distinction will NOT be drawn, and we're in for many years of costly litigation and legislation. I don't think that's worth it just to keep a few stoners happy. Still, if a good piece of legislation were put up, it could work.

[Mr Skeptic]

No one is talking about keeping a few stoners happy. We're talking about not ruining their lives and paying exorbitant sums of money for the privilege. We're talking not giving piles of money to criminal elements.

 

That it will also make a few people happy is rather insignificant.

[Mokele]

but the question I was really trying to get at was about the acceptability of specific intoxication effects. Tobacco and alcohol are substantially different in their effects, and there is a clear demarcation between their effects and the effect of marijuana. This will open an obvious door to the question of which effects are okay, and which ones are not. That question should be answered before legalization occurs.

 

Why does the government get to regulate what sort of experiences you can have?

 

The salient issue is harm, either to the person or to society in general. If something causes minimal or no harm, does the government have a legitimate interest in regulating it.

 

For instance, imagine a hypothetical hallucinogen which has no negative health impacts, no addictive potential, and which also causes enough lethargy that users won't bother driving. Should the government ban it just for being a hallucinogen?

[bascule]

For instance, imagine a hypothetical hallucinogen which has no negative health impacts, no addictive potential, and which also causes enough lethargy that users won't bother driving. Should the government ban it just for being a hallucinogen?

 

Sounds like you're describing salvia divinorum. Regarding driving on it there's the rather humorous Driving on Salvia.

 

Salvia is presently legal. It will be an interesting test of your question.

[Pangloss]

Why does the government get to regulate what sort of experiences you can have?

 

The salient issue is harm, either to the person or to society in general. If something causes minimal or no harm, does the government have a legitimate interest in regulating it.

 

For instance, imagine a hypothetical hallucinogen which has no negative health impacts, no addictive potential, and which also causes enough lethargy that users won't bother driving. Should the government ban it just for being a hallucinogen?

 

As you say, the salient issue is harm. But it'll be an interesting issue to follow as a political observer, because it throws some common special interest alliances into disarray. Legalization is ostensibly a progressive issue, but the "no harm" position presents a challenge to the progressive concept of interdependence and connectedness. It's also an issue that, as with video game violence, some Democrats have latched on to as something that helps them appeal to moderate and conservative "family values" voters.

 

In short, the opposition won't just be from the right.

 

 

No one is talking about keeping a few stoners happy. We're talking about not ruining their lives and paying exorbitant sums of money for the privilege. We're talking not giving piles of money to criminal elements.

 

Well I can't really argue that a long-term legal and legislative battle over legalization would out-expense the current cost of the War on Drugs at all levels. You're probably right.

[Mokele]

As you say, the salient issue is harm. But it'll be an interesting issue to follow as a political observer, because it throws some common special interest alliances into disarray. Legalization is ostensibly a progressive issue, but the "no harm" position presents a challenge to the progressive concept of interdependence and connectedness. It's also an issue that, as with video game violence, some Democrats have latched on to as something that helps them appeal to moderate and conservative "family values" voters.

 

In short, the opposition won't just be from the right.

 

I think a big part of the left's opposition is reaction to the right's expectations - it's like we're afraid that if we support legalization, we'll be branded as the bunch of loser hippies they always claimed (with more grown-up worries about this resulting in political setbacks, loss of power, etc.)

 

I'm not sure how it really does pose a problem for the progressive POV - the lack of serious addictive potential means that it doesn't have the negative repercussions of more addictive drugs like cocaine or alcohol, and it's chemical effects make one less likely to interact violently with others.

 

IMHO, it's all about harm, either to the person or those around them, and pot doesn't make the grade on that. Hell, alcohol is far worse by those standards.

[Mr Skeptic]

Oh, right. Another aspect of having marijuana illegal, is that we have no control over it. And not just purity and quality controls. Apparently, it is easier for teens to get marijuana than it is to get beer or cigarettes. Make of that what you will.

 

http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/

[CaptainPanic]

It would be interesting to see this. I've posted a lot of times that the Netherlands show that a policy of legalization is not harmful to citizens or the economy.

 

However, I am slightly worried about these developments - what's gonna happen to tourism in Amsterdam?

 

It might be argued that a policy of legalization of weed in other countries would be harmful to the Dutch economy.