"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."
#5: Willie Green To: Deckard (#0)
Willie Green posted on 2016-07-21 10:49:38 Reply Private Reply
#6: misterwhite To: Deckard (#4)
It was only illegal if you didn't have a tax stamp. Then you were arrested for an IRS offense, not a marijuana offense.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-21 10:51:37 Reply Private Reply
#7: no gnu taxes To: Deckard (#0)
no gnu taxes posted on 2016-07-21 10:55:20 Reply Private Reply
#8: A Pole To: Deckard (#2)
A Pole posted on 2016-07-21 11:19:10 Reply Private Reply
#9: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#6)
Split that hair.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 11:38:44 Reply Private Reply
#10: ConservingFreedom To: no gnu taxes (#7)
People have died after consuming alcohol - should it be banned?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 11:39:22 Reply Private Reply
#11: ConservingFreedom To: Deckard (#0)
Pothead hippie. /s
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 11:40:08 Reply Private Reply
#12: no gnu taxes To: ConservingFreedom (#10)
I made no comment about alcohol or legalizing or banning anything.
no gnu taxes posted on 2016-07-21 11:44:00 Reply Private Reply
#13: ConservingFreedom To: no gnu taxes (#12)
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.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 11:55:34 Reply Private Reply
#14: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#9)
Not really. My point was that marijuana was not made illegal until 1971.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-21 13:48:23 Reply Private Reply
#15: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#13)
Given that alcohol and cigarettes kill millions, saying a drug is safer than them is hardly a ringing endorsement.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-21 13:55:32 Reply Private Reply
#16: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#15)
It's a ringing endorsement of having no greater legal restrictions on that drug than on the alcohol and cigarettes which kill millions.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 14:01:10 Reply Private Reply
#17: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#14)
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.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 14:03:09 Reply Private Reply
#18: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#16)
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.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-21 14:26:41 Reply Private Reply
#19: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#17)
And when this was presented to Congress, they agreed and passed the Controlled Substances Act making marijuana illegal.
See? You got what you wanted.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-21 14:32:13 Reply Private Reply
#20: rlk To: Deckard (#0)
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.
rlk posted on 2016-07-21 15:13:53 Reply Private Reply
#21: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#18)
A basis for comparison is not a "standard". Try to address what I actually posted instead of beating straw men.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 16:07:36 Reply Private Reply
#22: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#19)
So why were you claiming otherwise?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 16:08:24 Reply Private Reply
#23: ConservingFreedom To: rlk (#20)
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?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 16:13:04 Reply Private Reply
#24: ConservingFreedom To: rlk (#20)
Here? theanalyticpapers.com/
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 16:17:41 Reply Private Reply
#25: rlk To: ConservingFreedom (#23)
Ask the woman with one or two kids and trying to raise them married to a pothead for an answer.
rlk posted on 2016-07-21 16:20:18 Reply Private Reply
#26: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#21)
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.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-21 17:14:42 Reply Private Reply
#27: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#22)
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.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-21 17:20:19 Reply Private Reply
#28: BorisY To: rlk (#20)
the
... natives
are
restless
... swarming
pothead
... graveyard
Make
America
great
again
love
boris
BorisY posted on 2016-07-21 19:02:22 Reply Private Reply
#29: GrandIsland To: Deckard (#0)
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.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-07-21 19:11:52 Reply Private Reply
#30: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#26)
Which comparison doesn't make the more dangerous substance "the standard" contrary to your feeble straw man.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 21:39:16 Reply Private Reply
#31: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#27)
No, you also claimed that marijuana was nonetheless not illegal.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 21:40:29 Reply Private Reply
#32: ConservingFreedom To: BorisY (#28)
Booze is a much quicker trip to the graveyard.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 21:42:03 Reply Private Reply
#33: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#29)
So Republicans must oppose everything Dums support and thereby let the Dums set the Republican platform? Good strategy, dipshit.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 21:43:42 Reply Private Reply
#34: GrandIsland To: ConservingFreedom (#33)
GrandIsland posted on 2016-07-21 21:49:45 Reply Private Reply
#35: buckeroo To: misterwhite (#1)
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.
buckeroo posted on 2016-07-21 21:52:29 Reply Private Reply
#36: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#34)
So that's a yes to letting the Dims set the Pub platform. Thanks, dipshit.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 21:52:58 Reply Private Reply
#37: buckeroo To: GrandIsland (#34)
What the HeLL is that?
buckeroo posted on 2016-07-21 21:53:10 Reply Private Reply
#38: ConservingFreedom To: GrandIsland (#34)
"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."
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 21:56:04 Reply Private Reply
#39: GrandIsland To: buckeroo (#37)
The manifesto you live by.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-07-21 21:56:09 Reply Private Reply
#40: no gnu taxes To: ConservingFreedom (#13)
Perhaps you should do some actual research into the actual effects of marijuana then.
no gnu taxes posted on 2016-07-21 21:56:15 Reply Private Reply
#41: ConservingFreedom To: buckeroo (#37)
It means FireIsland needs his Depends changed.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 21:56:56 Reply Private Reply
#42: rlk To: ConservingFreedom (#24)
Don't know anything about it. I can't even get into the site.
The reference is to the last chapter of a proposed political textbook on political psychology of twelve to fourteen hundred pages to be reviewed for possible publication. It analyzes the 2016 presidential campaign from several aspects, including electorate life styles, of which the recreational drug based life style is one.
The last two sentences in the book propose a question:
Question: What do you get when you send a hyena to college?
Answer: A politician.
rlk posted on 2016-07-21 21:57:29 Reply Private Reply
#43: buckeroo To: GrandIsland (#39)
buckeroo posted on 2016-07-21 21:57:59 Reply Private Reply
#44: ConservingFreedom To: no gnu taxes (#40)
Sorry, not doing your homework for you ... YOU make a claim, YOU supply the research. Put up or shut up.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 21:58:11 Reply Private Reply
#45: rlk To: ConservingFreedom (#38)
And don't forget Iraq, Lybia, and Turkey which have become transformed into jihadist islamic caliphates.
rlk posted on 2016-07-21 22:05:42 Reply Private Reply
#46: buckeroo To: ConservingFreedom (#41)
He can't even handle his bladder anymore than understanding that some of us acually believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
buckeroo posted on 2016-07-21 22:08:17 Reply Private Reply
#47: no gnu taxes To: ConservingFreedom (#44)
no gnu taxes posted on 2016-07-21 22:09:58 Reply Private Reply
#48: GrandIsland To: buckeroo (#46)
You mean faggot bathrooms, open borders and heroin for children.
We aren't equal, suckhole... we never were.
GrandIsland posted on 2016-07-21 22:13:56 Reply Private Reply
#49: ConservingFreedom To: no gnu taxes (#47)
Sorry, not doing your homework for you no matter how easy you claim it will be ... YOU make a claim, YOU supply the research.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-21 22:15:10 Reply Private Reply
#50: buckeroo To: GrandIsland (#48)
You do all that besides walking chidren across the street while wearing a whistle and holding a STOP sign? Good grief, man, are you all there?
buckeroo posted on 2016-07-21 22:15:41 Reply Private Reply
#51: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#31)
Marijuana was legal with a tax stamp. The law was broken by not having a stamp, not because you had marijuana.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-22 09:42:50 Reply Private Reply
#52: misterwhite To: buckeroo (#35)
The majority of states that passed medical marijuana laws did so exactly that way. You're saying those are bad laws?
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-22 09:46:08 Reply Private Reply
#53: misterwhite To: ConservingFreedom (#30)
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.
misterwhite posted on 2016-07-22 09:58:02 Reply Private Reply
#54: ConservingFreedom To: misterwhite (#53)
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.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-07-22 19:12:23 Reply Private Reply