Category: Legacy

Intro

In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act. At the time, no one knew enough about marijuana (although it has been in use around the world for thousands of years) to know where to schedule it. For the mean time, it would be considered a “Schedule I” substance until more research of the plant could be conducted.

Reference Note
Schedule I is the placement for substances that:
(A) has a high potential for abuse.
(B) has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) lacks accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
There are also Schedules II, III, IV, and V which are just lesser forms where Schedule V substances:
(A) has a low potential for abuse compared to Schedule IV.
(B) has accepted medical use in the United States.
(C) may lead to limited physical or psychological dependence.
This is why the DEA thinks cocaine (Sched. II) is safer than marijuana (Sched. I).

President Nixon commissioned the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse also known as the Shafer Commission after the chairman Raymond P. Shafer. In 1972, Shafer presented the report, Marijuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding in which recommended that marijuana be decriminalized and treated as a social concern which means its use would, at least, be discouraged.

“[T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only ‘with the greatest reluctance.”

And this was in 1972. We’re still fighting this war almost 4 decades later because the Nixon Administration ignored the very report they commissioned in the first place, not the first nor last time this has occurred.

With all of that information under our belt, couldn’t, or maybe shouldn’t, one agree that if there are any substances or drugs that should have Schedule I status, they would be alcohol and tobacco. Let’s analyze this fairly. According to Schedule I, a substance should have a high potential for abuse, no medical utility, and lack accepted safety for use.
Source: Wikipedia

Petition to schedule tobacco

Is tobacco addictive?

“Yes. Most smokers use tobacco regularly because they are addicted to nicotine. Addiction is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, even in the face of negative health consequences. It is well documented that most smokers identify tobacco use as harmful and express a desire to reduce or stop using it, and nearly 35 million of them want to quit each year. Unfortunately, only about 6 percent of people who try to quit are successful for more than a month.“

Is there any medical utility for tobacco?
I tried to find some information that would promote the use of tobacco for medicinal purposes and I could not find any evidence. However, I found this:

“Cigarette smoking kills an estimated 440,000 U.S. citizens each year—more than alcohol, cocaine, heroin, homicide, suicide, car accidents, fire, and AIDS combined. Since 1964, more than 12 million Americans have died prematurely from smoking, and another 25 million U.S. smokers alive today will most likely die of a smoking related illness.”

Well so far, it satisfies two out of three requirements for Schedule I. Shall we go for a third? I think so!

Is there any accepted safety for use?
I didn’t find much on accepted safety for use but I found this nifty list of surgeon general warnings that may help:

• Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health
• The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health
• Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.
• Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health.
• Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight.
• Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.
• Cigar Smoking Can Cause Cancers Of The Mouth And Throat, Even If You Do Not Inhale.
• Cigars Are Not A Safe Alternative To Cigarettes.
• This Product May Cause Gum Disease And Tooth Loss.
• This Product May Cause Mouth Cancer.
• This Product Is Not A Safe Alternative To Cigarettes.

I figure the accepted safety of tobacco would be before you’re negatively affected by any of these ailments and the others that weren’t mentioned.
Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse and Wikipedia

Petition to schedule alcohol

Is alcohol addictive?

“Yes, alcohol is highly addictive. About 18 million adults are addicted to alcohol. This means they need to drink alcohol in order to function normally, and their drinking causes problems in their lives.”

Is there any medical utility to alcohol?

“Various meta-analyses have established alcohol’s causal role in a wide range of physical, mental and social harms, with practically no organ in the body immune from alcohol related harm.”

Is there any accepted safe use of alcohol?

This really all depends on what you consider safe, of course. It takes only ONE drink to be considered impaired. Depending on your weight and history of intake, it may take a lot to actually kill you. But, it can kill you.

Sources: WebMD and World Health Organization (PDF)

But, WHY?

There are numerous reasons why I want the DEA to schedule alcohol and tobacco.

1. Appropriate: Both alcohol and tobacco fit the definition of a Schedule I substance
2. Hypocrisy: If the DEA didn’t schedule these substances, they’d be contradicting their own policy
3. Destruction: Imagine using the Controlled Substances Act to criminalize alcohol and tobacco. Sit back and internalize what would happen if alcohol and tobacco were made illegal!!! It’s my guess that the CSA, along with the DEA, would be dismantled long before alcohol and tobacco were ever made illegal. I fear for my life just thinking about clicking on “publish post”.

Instead of fighting a government that comfortably views and accepts marijuana’s criminalization, force them to confront, not only their own addiction to self-inflicted death, but also the contradiction of this sick, twisted, disgusting, and backward drug policy. The only issue for me to figure out is how does one petition the DEA to schedule these dangerous drugs so they can be removed from society? Just a matter of time before it’s all figured out.

After I wrote the last post [link] on why I believe marijuana won’t boost the economy, I got a lot of support and a lot of flack. I got support from people who understand what I am trying to do. I got a lot of flack from people who, I find, don’t give a damn. I find myself between two evils, both stemming from greed. Unfortunately, most people probably won’t bother reading. They’ll ignore common sense because for them legalization is the only thing that matters.

Marijuana legalization advocates, specifically, seem to not care about HOW marijuana is legalized, as long as it is legalized. This exhibition of “weed greed” is a major problem for me. Advocates don’t have a problem quoting big numbers to entice politicians who are suffering from “tax greed”. California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano proves my point. He claims that California can reap in $1.3 billion in tax revenues per year [link]. And, I know this is a number that’s been quoted by legalization groups in the past [link]. I also believe that those numbers are not at all feasible.

Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that legalization will be a boost to the economy. I simply do NOT believe in the exorbitant numbers quoted by marijuana advocates and politicians who believe in those numbers. At the same time, I don’t blame advocates for appealing to political greed on this issue. Greed seems to be the ultimate driving force of this economy anyway.

Assemblyman Ammiano proposed a fixed tax of $50 per ounce of marijuana. While I can appreciate the opportunity that he brings in opening the floor to debate, I find this tax to be completely reckless and a danger to legalization efforts. While it may cause politicians to salivate and froth at the mouth, it’s not an honest number to start with in a real debate. However, that’s what a debate is all about. We can’t have a real debate with people willing to misinform the public.

In my previous post [link], I did something that may have pissed off fans of legalization. I discussed common sense economics. My argument is simple to anyone who has taken freshman level economics. It must have been scary to them to see a serious argument based on real numbers and the precedent of alcohol prohibition. Comments to my post seem to almost make up the idea that potheads will drive this economic revolution.

We seem to forget that potheads are human beings. We seem to forget that marijuana is not addictive. We seem to discount the idea of competition. And, we seem to discount any concept of supply vs demand. It’s these misconceptions that allude to these large numbers. It seems very obvious to me that typical potheads don’t understand, don’t care to understand, or are just willing to misinform anyone on their willingness to pay these prices.

If we adjust pricing for competition and increased supply vs demand, $50 per ounce ammounts to extortion. A commenter mentioned that potheads wouldn’t have a problem paying 75% in taxes, that is, after pricing adjustments. Well I am a pothead and grower and I will NOT pay $50 per ounce extra. While it may seem necessary to keep up that farce to get what we want, it’s a thin veil, easily broken. Once the real economists see these plans, they’re not going to agree at all.

It’s very much legalization by any means necessary.

It’s my view that if marijuana is to be legalized then we ought to legalize it for the right reasons. Greed is never the right reason to do anything. As I’ve mentioned before, there is greed on both sides of the issue. Legalize marijuana because it’s safe. Legalize marijuana because it’s helpful. Legalize marijuana because it’s the smart thing to do.

If we usher in legalization based on greed, we do more harm to national efforts than we will ever realize.

I don’t believe marijuana will bring in over $1 billion in tax revenues to California. Simply read my last post as to why I believe it [link].

If I am right, we go back to combating the same arguments as before because we stopped combating them due to greed. It won’t be worth it to legalize marijuana if people still think that it’s a dangerous substance. It won’t be worth it to legalize marijuana if high taxes drive the black market. And, there will be various groups supported by the DEA, tobacco companies, alcohol companies, and pharmaceutical companies as well as others who will make every effort to prove legalization is a failure. Advocates and politicians have been blinded by greed to the point that they don’t even care to further address these issues.

It’s silly that one kind of misinformation, spurred by greed, is overriding another kind of misinformation, spurred by fear. I feel that we’ve come a long way as it pertains to general public opinion. Marijuana is more widely accepted. This legalization for economy push, although in the right direction, is for the wrong reasons. Legalization is going to be based on a weak foundation of money that may not materialize rather than the strong foundation of common sense and intelligence.

I am not an opponent of legalization. I am an opponent of weak policy, greed, and stupidity.

I am for marijuana legalization. It’s the right path for the United States. It will bring in some tax revenue and will also save a lot of money on police expenditures. However, if California messes this up by NOT meeting demands or expectations, I believe it will push national legalization efforts back by a lot. I already believe they won’t meet those expectations. I’d rather have an honest debate about the nature of marijuana than a misinformation campaign about a boost to the economy that will disappoint.

We ought to have an honest debate with doctors, scientists, and researchers instead of this silly war of words we get caught up in between advocates who can only quote unnamed experts. Is it so wrong of me to ask for honesty in the debate. Is it so wrong of me to question motives? Is it so wrong of me to be so honest? I suppose to many fans of legalization, it is wrong of me to be honest. Unfortunately, they sound a lot like the DEA who routinely misinforms the public about marijuana.

I want to be wrong. I need to be wrong. But, I will not ignore history. I will not ignore other precedents. I will not ignore the lessons of alcohol prohibition. Legalize marijuana the right way. This is not the right way.