politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: "Why do Republicans Respect Marijuana Prohibition Like it Came From Moses?"
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2016/07/20/ ... s-against-marijuana-prohibitio
Published: Jul 20, 2016
Author: Anthony L. Fisher
Post Date: 2016-07-21 09:08:33 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 7944
Comments: 76
"Bad law needs to be dealt with, we don't need to follow it blindly," says 86-year-old Ann Lee, the founder and executive director of Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition (RAMP). In an interview with Reason at a Cleveland hotel near the Republican National Convention (RNC), Lee adds, "The mystery to me is why Republicans respect this law like it came from Moses, and when you read how it came about in 1937 under FDR...why Republicans support that is beyond me." Lee is a staunch pro-life social conservative who had her come-to-Jesus moment in when it came to marijuana prohibition after her son suffered a devastating accident in 1990. While recovering, he told his mother that unlike synthetic painkillers and other drugs, marijuana actually provided him physical relief. Lee, who grew up in Jim Crow-era Louisiana, says she grew up living under bad racist laws that needed to be changed. She argues that drug prohibition is the modern-day version of Jim Crow and also needs to be changed. RAMP's treasurer Bonnie Lugo tells Reason that she was also a staunch drug warrior until she met Lee while running against her for a spot on Texas's Republican Executive Committee. Lugo's first impression of Lee was that "she was this crazy lady" advocating for drug legalization but that the "tenacious" Lee ultimately convinced her to do her own research on the subject. When Lugo learned about how much safer marijuana is than alcohol or cigarettes, combined with the fact that people's lives were being ruined in myriad ways because of its criminalization, she did a 180 on the issue. Lugo says, "Once you figure out that your government has lied to you, it's easy to figure out all the rest." Lugo laments that too many of her fellow Republicans have bought into "60 years of indoctrination by our government that marijuana is a gateway drug, that it leads to harmful acts." Lee adds, "it's very hypocritical" of her fellow Republicans to be "pro-life and anti-medical marijuana." In trying to sell marijuana legalization to fellow RNC attendees—who are very much of pushing a "law and order" agenda this week—Lee says she is trying to convince her party cohort that they can be for law and order but need to "remember laws can be bad, too." When asked if RAMP has any plans to advocate for the legalization of drugs other than marijuana, Lee says, "this is all I can say grace over. I can't handle anything else. But I know this issue." 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
The law is respected because it's the law. If numbnuts here thinks it's a bad law or a stupid law, he's free to petitition the government to change it. Unfortunately for him, the majority of people don't agree with him. When they do the law will change. That's how it works. By the way, the law was enacted in 1971, not 1937.
Attaboy - another utterly predictable response from you. They are trying to get the law changed you insufferable bastard. By the way, the law was enacted in 1971, not 1937. So - according to you, not a single person was arrested for a marijuana offense between 1937 and 1971? Unbelievable! Correct.
Correct. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 effectively made possession or transfer of marihuana illegal throughout the United States under federal law, Mandatory sentencing and increased punishment were enacted when the United States Congress passed the Boggs Act of 1952 and the Narcotics Control Act of 1956. The acts made a first-time cannabis possession offense a minimum of two to ten years with a fine up to $20,000.
It was only illegal if you didn't have a tax stamp. Then you were arrested for an IRS offense, not a marijuana offense.
I think people underestimate how harmful marijuana may be. Many, many people have had bad panic attacks after smoking or consuming marijuana.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Because they prefer cocaine?
Split that hair. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. People have died after consuming alcohol - should it be banned? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Pothead hippie. /s A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Read my statement. Do you agree or disagree with it? I made no comment about alcohol or legalizing or banning anything. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
I know of no evidence that "many, many" marijuana users have had panic attacks so bad that they qualify as "harm". Since the article was about legalization, and it mentions marijuana's harmfulness only to say that it's safer than alcohol or cigarettes, sounds like you're refusing to stay on topic. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Not really. My point was that marijuana was not made illegal until 1971.
Given that alcohol and cigarettes kill millions, saying a drug is safer than them is hardly a ringing endorsement.
It's a ringing endorsement of having no greater legal restrictions on that drug than on the alcohol and cigarettes which kill millions. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The distinction between "it is against federal law to possess marijuana" and "it is against federal law to possess marijuana without filing paperwork that would expose one to prosecution under state marijuana laws" is a distinction without a difference. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. So now alcohol and cigarettes are the new standards of safety and legality? I wasn't aware that §811(c) of the Controlled Substances Act was repealed.
And when this was presented to Congress, they agreed and passed the Controlled Substances Act making marijuana illegal. See? You got what you wanted.
Marijuana, and other psychedelics, do not produce the same physical withdrawal sysptoms as opiates and other drugs. This leads to an argument of harmlessness of marijuana. However, marijuana produces the same mental debilitation as opiates without the immediate physical effects. Someone can live in a dung pile and stay oblivious as long as he can light up another joint. That same person can obliviously require the people around him to live in the same dung pile while he lights up another joint. I am of the unalterable belief marijuana is more dangerous and destructive than heroin, individually, socially, and institutional/culturally on a larger scale. Partially extracted from RLK- The Analytic Papers.
A basis for comparison is not a "standard". Try to address what I actually posted instead of beating straw men. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. So why were you claiming otherwise? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. So the less physically harmful the more "dangerous and destructive". Wow. By that logic, shouldn't drugs with "immediate physical effects" be legal? How exactly do they "require" that and enforce that requirement? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Here? theanalyticpapers.com/ A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. How exactly do they "require" that and enforce that requirement? Ask the woman with one or two kids and trying to raise them married to a pothead for an answer.
Is that what it was? Here I thought you were arguing that if a dangerous substance is legal, a less dangerous substance should also be legal.
All I claimed was that a tax stamp was required and if you didn't have one you were violating the law. You're the one who expanded the argument from there.
the ... swarming pothead Make love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Because legal weed is a (D) platform staple, dipshit. I've tried telling you a million times that most of what you desire IS FILTHY LIBTARDED. Legal weed, fag marriages... cop hatred... ALL JANE FONDA SHIT. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Which comparison doesn't make the more dangerous substance "the standard" contrary to your feeble straw man. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. No, you also claimed that marijuana was nonetheless not illegal. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Booze is a much quicker trip to the graveyard. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. So Republicans must oppose everything Dums support and thereby let the Dums set the Republican platform? Good strategy, dipshit. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. There isn't anything on the libtard platform that's worth supporting, unless you're a paultard liberal hippie asshole. Dipshit.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You only address a majority of any legislation (51%) probably signed by a politically powerful ally that was paid for by lobbyists. That means it is bad law.
There isn't anything on the libtard platform that's worth supporting So that's a yes to letting the Dims set the Pub platform. Thanks, dipshit. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. What the HeLL is that?
For or against, dipshit? "we must stay vigilant. The al-Qaeda core may be on the path to defeat, but the organization and its affiliates remain active in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. For that reason, we are committed to an unrelenting pursuit of those who would kill Americans or threaten our homeland, our allies, our partners, and our interests around the world." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. libtard platform What the HeLL is that? The manifesto you live by. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Perhaps you should do some actual research into the actual effects of marijuana then. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Comments (41 - 76) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"The mystery to me is why Republicans respect this law like it came from Moses, and when you read how it came about in 1937 under FDR...why Republicans support that is beyond me."
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
If numbnuts here thinks it's a bad law or a stupid law, he's free to petitition the government to change it.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#3. To: Deckard (#2)
"So - according to you, not a single person was arrested for a marijuana offense between 1937 and 1971?"
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
(Edited)
So - according to you, not a single person was arrested for a marijuana offense between 1937 and 1971?"
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
#6. To: Deckard (#4)
"The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 effectively made possession or transfer of marihuana illegal throughout the United States under federal law"
#7. To: Deckard (#0)
#8. To: Deckard (#2)
#9. To: misterwhite (#6)
It was only illegal if you didn't have a tax stamp. Then you were arrested for an IRS offense, not a marijuana offense.
#10. To: no gnu taxes (#7)
I think people underestimate how harmful marijuana may be. Many, many people have had bad panic attacks after smoking or consuming marijuana.
#11. To: Deckard (#0)
86-year-old Ann Lee
#12. To: ConservingFreedom (#10)
#13. To: no gnu taxes (#12)
Read my statement. Do you agree or disagree with it?
I made no comment about alcohol or legalizing or banning anything.
#14. To: ConservingFreedom (#9)
Split that hair.
#15. To: ConservingFreedom (#13)
" and it mentions marijuana's harmfulness only to say that it's safer than alcohol or cigarettes"
#16. To: misterwhite (#15)
Given that alcohol and cigarettes kill millions, saying a drug is safer than them is hardly a ringing endorsement.
#17. To: misterwhite (#14)
marijuana was not made illegal until 1971.
#18. To: ConservingFreedom (#16)
"It's a ringing endorsement of having no greater legal restrictions on that drug than on the alcohol and cigarettes which kill millions."
#19. To: ConservingFreedom (#17)
"The distinction between "it is against federal law to possess marijuana" and "it is against federal law to possess marijuana without filing paperwork that would expose one to prosecution under state marijuana laws" is a distinction without a difference."
#20. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
#21. To: misterwhite (#18)
So now alcohol and cigarettes are the new standards
#22. To: misterwhite (#19)
And when this was presented to Congress, they agreed
#23. To: rlk (#20)
(Edited)
marijuana produces the same mental debilitation as opiates without the immediate physical effects. [...] I am of the unalterable belief marijuana is more dangerous and destructive than heroin
Someone can live in a dung pile and stay oblivious as long as he can light up another joint. That same person can obliviously require the people around him to live in the same dung pile while he lights up another joint.
#24. To: rlk (#20)
RLK- The Analytic Papers
#25. To: ConservingFreedom (#23)
Someone can live in a dung pile and stay oblivious as long as he can light up another joint. That same person can obliviously require the people around him to live in the same dung pile while he lights up another joint.
#26. To: ConservingFreedom (#21)
"A basis for comparison is not a "standard".
#27. To: ConservingFreedom (#22)
"So why were you claiming otherwise?"
#28. To: rlk (#20)
more dangerous and destructive
... natives
are
restless
... graveyard
America
great
again
boris
#29. To: Deckard (#0)
Why do Republicans Respect Marijuana Prohibition Like it Came From Moses?"
#30. To: misterwhite (#26)
Here I thought you were arguing that if a dangerous substance is legal, a less dangerous substance should also be legal.
#31. To: misterwhite (#27)
All I claimed was that a tax stamp was required and if you didn't have one you were violating the law.
#32. To: BorisY (#28)
pothead ... graveyard
#33. To: GrandIsland (#29)
Because legal weed is a (D) platform staple
#34. To: ConservingFreedom (#33)
#35. To: misterwhite (#1)
The law is respected because it's the law.
#36. To: GrandIsland (#34)
"So Republicans must oppose everything Dums support and thereby let the Dums set the Republican platform? Good strategy, dipshit."
#37. To: GrandIsland (#34)
libtard platform
#38. To: GrandIsland (#34)
#39. To: buckeroo (#37)
#40. To: ConservingFreedom (#13)
I know of no evidence that "many, many" marijuana users have had panic attacks so bad that they qualify as "harm".
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]