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: 10396
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 # 72.
#7. To: Deckard (#0)
I think people underestimate how harmful marijuana may be. Many, many people have had bad panic attacks after smoking or consuming marijuana.
People have died after consuming alcohol - should it be banned?
Read my statement. Do you agree or disagree with it? I made no comment about alcohol or legalizing or banning anything.
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.
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.
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.
A basis for comparison is not a "standard". Try to address what I actually posted instead of beating straw men.
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.
Which comparison doesn't make the more dangerous substance "the standard" contrary to your feeble straw man.
Alcohol and tobacco were the substances YOU cited for comparison to determine legality. This is totally different than the criteria set out in §811(c) of the Controlled Substances Act, thereby making it the new standard. However ... if you're simply making a comparison but NOT advocating a legal change because of that comparison, then I retract my statement.
I noted the article's statement about them, and in reply YOU propped up straw men about legality and standards. I note that the law is out of whack by regulating the more harmful drugs while banning a less harmful drug; there's more than one way to resolve that.
No. I simply commented on their relative safety. You turned it into a legality issue.
No, actually, you commented on absolute safety - "alcohol and cigarettes kill millions" - (without contesting the relative statement) and then in post #18 dragged in the straw man about "standards."
I said, "Given that alcohol and cigarettes kill millions, saying a drug is safer than them is hardly a ringing endorsement." I made a relative statement about safety, not legality. "and then in post #18 dragged in the straw man about "standards." Legal standards, yes. Because in post #16 you stated that marijuana should have "no greater legal restrictions" than alcohol and cigarettes. How is that NOT setting a new standard for legality?
Because it can be addressed by either of at least two quite different policy changes: legalizing (with regulation) marijuana; or banning alcohol and cigarettes.
How about a third option -- people could stop using marijuana?
People could stop using alcohol and cigarettes - but none of these "could"s have anything to do with the law or its out-of-whackness in regulating the more harmful drugs while banning a less harmful drug.
#73. To: ConservingFreedom (#72)
Since you mentioned that banning cigarettes and alcohol was an option, I figured I could engage in fantasy also.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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."
#21. To: misterwhite (#18)
So now alcohol and cigarettes are the new standards
#26. To: ConservingFreedom (#21)
"A basis for comparison is not a "standard".
#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.
#53. To: ConservingFreedom (#30)
"Which comparison doesn't make the more dangerous substance "the standard" contrary to your feeble straw man."
#54. To: misterwhite (#53)
Alcohol and tobacco were the substances YOU cited for comparison to determine legality.
if you're simply making a comparison but NOT advocating a legal change because of that comparison
#59. To: ConservingFreedom (#54)
"I noted the article's statement about them, and in reply YOU propped up straw men about legality and standards."
#61. To: misterwhite (#59)
I simply commented on their relative safety.
#64. To: ConservingFreedom (#61)
"No, actually, you commented on absolute safety - "alcohol and cigarettes kill millions"
#68. To: misterwhite (#64)
in post #16 you stated that marijuana should have "no greater legal restrictions" than alcohol and cigarettes. How is that NOT setting a new standard for legality?
#70. To: ConservingFreedom (#68)
"Because it can be addressed by either of at least two quite different policy changes: legalizing (with regulation) marijuana; or banning alcohol and cigarettes."
#72. To: misterwhite (#70)
How about a third option -- people could stop using marijuana?
Replies to Comment # 72. "but none of these "could"s have anything to do with the law or its out-of-whackness in regulating the more harmful drugs while banning a less harmful drug."
End Trace Mode for Comment # 72.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]