Ca.State Marijuana Law Vs. Federal Marijuana Law
Can anyone else point out the biggest problem with the Nov. vote in California to legalize marijuana… That’s right, the Fed’s. How can CA. legalize marijuana, tax marijuana, and regulate marijuana at the state level when the federal Controlled Substances Act makes it a felony to grow or sell cannabis… period. California can abolish its own cannabis laws, leaving enforcement up to the feds, chances are that no one wants’ that. But Californian’s can't legalize a federal felony. As a result, any MMJ club paying California taxes on cannabis sales or filing cannabis related California regulatory paperwork would be confessing, in writing, to multiple federal crimes. I’m not sure about you, but that hardly sounds like a good idea.
Marijuana was outlawed in 1937, to mostly a religious outpouring.
“Smoking marijuana might cause you to fall under the influence of listening to jazz! I believe that it was even said on the floor of Congress that marijuana had to be banned because smoking it might make a black man look at a white woman twice. And let's not forget that U.S. Treasury Department funded documentary film, called, “Reefer Madness!” So marijuana was outlawed as devil weed in 1937.”
This information was taken from: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/congress/2503/lyrics01.html
Why would the government outlaw a drug that kills… ZERO people? Because it's moral? Because it's right? Because to control the population why legalize something that won't put pending death on people? Why not, in the same thought process, have cigarettes and alcohol which kill thousands of people every year?
Besides, a man on Jack Daniels' will think about killing you, and a split second later may actually TRY to kill you. It only takings a little bit to change the inhibitions of a completely drunk person. On the other hand a person on marijuana, even if they think about killing you, will most likely only use the energy to get off the couch for a hamburger.
What's the difference here? Marijuana is probably the only drug that you can turn your back to, and not fear getting stabbed or shot. Crack? Cocaine? Alcohol? Speed? You can almost expect an attack if someone is angry at you under the influence of one of these drugs. Cigarettes? You can EXPECT to have to become addicted to the nicotine, and keep choking down the various chemicals that are in them.
On that point, marijuana is only slightly, mentally addictive. So if you smoke it everyday, and stop, you may feel a little in the dumps for a few days, but things will get back to normal very quickly. There are no physical withdrawls to pot, unless you want to call 'moving around more' a withdrawl.
Jim Stillman wrote in this article :
“The basic Federal statute regulating cannabis is the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which describes drugs as being under one of five classes or schedules. Cannabis is considered a “Schedule I” substance, one that has a high potential for abuse, no accredited medical use, and a lack of accepted safety. (One may, and many have, questioned that description of cannabis, but that's where the law is now.)
In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, decided in 2001, the Supreme Court held that “medical necessity” was not a defense to a prosecution for the producing and distribution of cannabis to ill persons. The Court said that Congress had made cannabis a Schedule I drug and that was that!”
So what is so bad about marijuana? It won't kill you. Why is it a Schedule I drug? It may increase your waist size, but with a country full of overweight people it may show you just how many… May 'recreationally' use this product.
California Cannabis Vote: What will the Fed's Do?
Can anyone else point out the biggest problem with the Nov. vote in California to legalize marijuana… That’s right, the Fed’s. How can CA. legalize cannabis tax marijuana, and regulate cannabis at the state level when the federal Controlled Substances Act makes it a felony to grow or sell cannabis… period. California can abolish its own marijuana laws leaving enforcement up to the feds, chances are that no one wants’ that. But Californian’s can't legalize a federal felony. As a result, any MMJ club paying California taxes on marijuana sales or filing marijuana-related California regulatory paperwork would be confessing, in writing, to multiple federal crimes. I’m not sure about you, but that hardly sounds like a good idea.
Will the California budget crisis accomplish the long cherished goal among libertarians of legalizing marijuana? San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano certainly hopes so, for he has offered legislation legalizing and taxing marijuana.
Under the proposed legislation, every Californian over the age of 21 would be able to openly purchase marijuana after paying a hefty tax. The tax would consist of a special fifty dollar an ounce levy along with the normal state sales taxes. It is estimated that legally sold and taxed marijuana would bring in $1.3 billion in revenues to the state of California.
According to a Zogby Poll commissioned by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) a growing number of people support the legalization and taxing of marijuana.
“When asked: “Should marijuana be taxed and legally regulated like alcohol and cigarettes to help raise money for public services and to reduce law enforcement costs?”, voters responded: 44% Yes, 52% No, and 4% Undecided.
“Surprisingly high support was reported in the West, where voters favored legalization 58% - 36%. However, the significance of this margin is questionable due to the relatively small number of respondents (232). Easterners were nearly divided - 48% Yes, 49% No - while other regions were strongly opposed.
“A similar Zogby/NORML poll in 2006 found only 36% of Americans in support of legalization, with 55% opposed.”
Libertarians and even some conservatives have maintained that the current regime of criminalizing drug abuse is counterproductive and futile. Drug legalization advocates compare the current “war on drugs” to the 1920s era prohibition, during which alcohol was banned, leading to wide spread law breaking by ordinary people and the rise of organized crime. They suggest, for instance, that marijuana is a relatively benign recreational narcotic, compared to alcohol and especially tobacco. Marijuana also has some beneficial medical properties, such as glaucoma and the pain and nausea surrounding chemotherapy.
There may well be a case for legalizing and taxing marijuana. On the other hand, many drug advocates suggest that all illegal drugs, including cocaine and heroin, should also be legalized. People, they maintain, have a right to put any substance into their bodies that they want, even ones that are unhealthy.
There is a joke that the test of a true libertarian is whether he or she believes that crystal meth should be available to school children from vending machines. The proper libertarian answer is that only if the said vending machines are operated by the private sector.
The advocates for legalizing hard drugs ignore the societal cost of drug addiction. People addicted to cocaine, heroin, or crystal meth simply are not able to function after a time. Legalization will cut costs for law enforcement and deny organized crime a source of revenue. But health care, rehabilitation, and other costs would remain and perhaps even increase.
Libertarians would respond, well, fine, drug addicts should pay for those costs. In the real world, that is not going to happen, though.
As for California legalizing marijuana, traditionally the federal government has taken a dim view of states getting wobbly on illegal drugs. On the other hand, Barack Obama promised during the campaign that he would not interfere with the states concerning drug enforcement.
Will the time come when, at least in California, one can take out a joint at ones favorite coffee shop and light up? There is another problem, which cigarette smokers are very familiar with. Because of concerns over second hand smoke, the places where one can light up anything are getting few and far between. It may be that one day one can have the right to own and use marijuana, just not the right to do it just about anywhere.
Of course there is always brownies.
Source: Legalizing marijuana could help California get out of debt, assemblyman says, Kelly Bush, MSNBC, February 24th, 2009
New Poll Finds Growing Support for Legalization, California NORML, February 19th, 2009
