Philadelphia Will Do  
 

In Which I Write About The War On Drugs Again

050407GCM.jpg

I don’t like to be serious here, you know, ever. But forgive me for a second while I pontificate.

Let’s get the event out of the way: Saturday at 4, a group will meet at Broad and South for a march to Headhouse Square to protest the criminalization of marijuana. Yes, I’m writing about drug legalization again. But it’s in the guise of an event preview, so, really, I’m doing two annoying things: Getting serious about drugs and previewing an event I have an interest in. Hooray!

Thing is, though, marijuana should be legal. It’s a drug that has never killed anyone — it’s impossible to overdose — is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco and, uh, a drug many American citizens enjoy recreationally. You can die from drinking too much alcohol. You can die from taking too many Aspirin. But you can’t die from smoking (or eating, or whatever) marijuana. People with extreme pain can ease it by smoking marijuana. People on drugs that make it hard to eat can regain their appetite by smoking marijuana. (Uh, duh.) But the federal government continues to rely on faulty science to prevent people from getting the relief they need.

But, actually, the government did approve of marijuana. Thirty-five years ago a Nixon commission on drugs recommended marijuana be legalized. Nixon shelved the report.

Is marijuana a “safe” drug? No. No drugs are. But, to lock people up for smoking weed? To arrest 16.5 million people for marijuana-related charges? To spend $20 billion attacking a plant people enjoy using simply because Mexicans smoked it when they immigrated to the United States?

Pardon me if my arguments aren’t very strong. But, to me, it seems like a no-brainer. Save money! Make tax money! Allow dying people to feel better! What, exactly, is the issue here? It’s not like making marijuana illegal makes it any harder to get.

Anyway, since I’m apparently incapable of making a decent argument, I asked Derek Rosenzweig, co-chair of the Philadelphia chapter of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, a few questions about marijuana legalization and the Global Cannabis March on Saturday. And by “asked a few questions,” I mean “asked a few softballs.” Hey, I already told you how I feel about this.


What was the main factor that led you to NORML and to believe marijuana should be legalized?
After I’d smoked it a few times, I engaged in conversations with a few individuals with strong opinions towards ending prohibition. I knew for a fact that I didn’t want to go to jail for just smoking a little pot. The people I was talking to made some pretty big claims, so I researched them a little, and learned that most of what they were saying was true. Also, I realized that quite a few people I know could benefit greatly from having medical marijuana available, and full legalization and regulation encompasses medical by nature. After that I started going to the NORML meetings on and off, going to events, and eventually I founded a chapter at my alma mater Drexel University to help our organization achieve its goals.

There were events last month Philly NORML organized. How did they go?
They were excellent. Great turnouts, great audiences, and a great primer for the upcoming GCM.

Marijuana smokers tend not to be outspoken about legalization even if they believe in it. It seems like people are afraid of advocating for something illegal. Do you think this can be changed?
On the east coast, I agree with your assessment. The west coast’s a different story. It’s pretty simple, really: Most people in that situation think they’re alone in their beliefs, that their friends wouldn’t support it, that they’ll lose their jobs or become ostracized. The reality of the situation is that nationally, about 46% of Americans support legalization right now. Only about 4.8% percent of Americans (about 14.6 million people) smoke pot regularly though. So the support is there, and only when we organize and come together in numbers will people and their legislators realize just how much support there is.

In a recent survey, Pennsylvania’s representatives and senators weren’t as opposed to medical marijuana was one might think. Do you think legislation could eventually be passed to change the law? Is NORML planning on moving on to this issue after the GCM?
Pennsylvanians for Medical Marijuana (www.pa4mmj.org) is a new group whose goal is to do just that. They’ve profiled the legislators and found a favorable situation, and a recent poll of PA citizens determined that 76% of us support medical marijuana. Passing legislation will be a matter of convincing certain legislators that the FDA is lying about medical marijuana, that our citizens can be protected from Federal interference, and determining the amounts of medicine that medical users will be able to possess legally. PA4MMJ is still trying to find a legislator from the senate and house who will champion the bill.

  1. The Junky's Wife Says: May 4 4:36 PM

    People in extreme pain can releave it by smoking heroin? I agree with the legalization (or at least decriminalization of marijuana), but the idea of prescribing heroin to smoke seems pretty extreme…

  2. dmac Says: May 4 4:52 PM

    Ah, yeah. It’s supposed to be marijuana. I was copying and pasting things and somehow part of the last post ended up here. Fixed it now.

  3. rubylegs Says: May 4 5:17 PM

    Ever think about whether Congress has the constitutional authority to ban marijuana use? Consider the fact that at one time people believed that it was necessary to amend the Constitution to provide Congress with the authority to ban alcohol.

    I’d say Scalia and Thomas and other “Originalists” would have a hard time arguing that our founding fathers, most of whom cultivated hemp, intended the Constitution to provide Congress the authority to enact such a ban.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment18/

  4. kevin Says: May 4 5:34 PM

    Thomas did in fact maintain that the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overrule California’s medical marijuana laws, in Raich vs. Ashcroft.

  5. Rahzel Says: May 4 11:33 PM

    he wasnt talking about heroin…he was talking about cannabis.

    0 deaths
    absolutley no chance of OD’ing
    Many medical and mental benefits, marijuana gives me the ability to unwind after a rough day and R E L A X.

    Believe it or not, marijuana is one of (if not, *THE*) most beneficial drug on the planet.

    Bleed Green, Support legalization!!!

    TAKE ACTION!

  6. DimitriousR Says: May 6 1:58 AM

    Look the whole issue with the DEA is that it was created to be used in accompaniment with the FDA. This is one of the worst corruptions in the american populace. First our own gov’t allows the creation of something much better taken care of in the private sector, telling us what is good for us. Didn’t the catholic church do something of the sort during and after the middle ages (religion is a whole different story of corruption) but as the thought holds the fact that we have allowed our own gov’t so much control over our lives makes me wonder whether we have liberty at all if it is the mere illusion of liberty that we see in the flag the thoughts and hopes and dreams of our founding fathers to live a free life. They had warned us to stay vigilant in our watch on the gov’t because it is in the nature of gov’t to be corrupt and to seek excessive power.

    And we didn’t listen, we live in a nation that argues with us on whether we should be consuming things that may alter our states of mind, and possibly be enjoyable. At this point the gov’t seems to be avoiding the inevitable, it is in its nature to see an opportunity to exploit its people for gain. I.e taxes. Wouldn’t it be nice though.

    As far as our founding fathers go they never directly said to keep it legal, they just said that the Central Gov’t will be limited in its ability to control each state. this is partly why the civil war began. argument over what a state could do.

    here are some words of wisdom from one of our founding fathers.

    I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
    Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)
    3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

    Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
    Thomas Jefferson
    3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
    Thomas Jefferson, to Archibald Stuart, 1791
    3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

    The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.
    Thomas Jefferson
    3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

    The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this. — Albert Einstein, “My First Impression of the USA,” 1921

Leave a Reply

Name *required

Mail *will not be published, required

Website

Submit