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: 8828
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 31.
#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.
Split that hair.
Not really. My point was that marijuana was not made illegal until 1971.
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.
And when this was presented to Congress, they agreed and passed the Controlled Substances Act making marijuana illegal. See? You got what you wanted.
So why were you claiming otherwise?
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.
No, you also claimed that marijuana was nonetheless not illegal.
#51. To: ConservingFreedom (#31)
Marijuana was legal with a tax stamp. The law was broken by not having a stamp, not because you had marijuana.
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.
#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?"
#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"
#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.
#14. To: ConservingFreedom (#9)
Split that hair.
#17. To: misterwhite (#14)
marijuana was not made illegal until 1971.
#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."
#22. To: misterwhite (#19)
And when this was presented to Congress, they agreed
#27. To: ConservingFreedom (#22)
"So why were you claiming otherwise?"
#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.
Replies to Comment # 31. "No, you also claimed that marijuana was nonetheless not illegal."
End Trace Mode for Comment # 31.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]