Why Would Any Support the War on Drugs and Marajuanna Prohibiton?

I don’t support it. It is unethical:

If it is to protect our personal health, then tobacco, and alcohol, and excessive calorie consumption should also be illegal.

If it is to promote Public Safety, then alcohol should be illegal, as well as texting while driving, talking while driving, tuning a radio while driving, and eating while driving.

As long as the law is UNEQUAL in its RATIONALE, it is also UNETHICAL.

Unequal justice is not justice.

Arsenic is natural, why not use it. “Intoxication” is just that, a toxic substance (usually alcohol and/or drugs) is affecting the neural connections in the brain. Inhibition and cognitive functioning are decreased, leading to behavior not normally engaged in, or exaggerated in comparison to normal behavior. Long-term/excessive use of intoxicants leads to permanent damage of the brain, and the liver, the organ responsible for removing toxic substances.

Are you aware that psychoactive drugs (e.g., marijuana, opiates, cocaine, amphetamine-types, alcohol) achieve their effects through altering brain function?

Are you aware that the neurons in the human brain are not “fully wired” until the early 20s (http://www.actforyouth.net/documents/may02factsheetadolbraindev.pdf)?

Are you aware that the artificial manipulation (through toxic substances) of a developing brain may have permanent effects on neural connections? (see Chaos Theory for review of major effects associated with minor variations)

How ironic would it be if one’s intelligence (that facilitates your rationalization of drug use) disintegrates noticeably as a result of drug use? And, wouldn’t it be even more ironic, if one were at some point not sufficiently intelligent to determine that you are not as intelligent as they once were?

Are you aware that conviction for possession of illegal drugs can disqualify you to receive Federal Student Aid (http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/fafsaws90bw.pdf)?

Are you aware that positive drug tests can contribute to grounds for removal of one’s children?

Are you aware of the following:

Cannabis
(World Health Organization)
Terminology
Cannabis is a generic term used to denote the several psychoactive preparations of the plant Cannabis sativa. The major psychoactive constituent in cannabis is ?-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). …

Acute health effects of cannabis use
The acute effects of cannabis use has been recognized for many years, and recent studies have confirmed and extended earlier findings. These may be summarized as follows:
Cannabis impairs cognitive development (capabilities of learning), including associative processes; free recall of previously learned items is often impaired when cannabi is used both during learning and recall periods;

Cannabis impairs psychomotor performance in a wide variety of tasks, such as motor coordination, divided attention, and operative tasks of many types; human performance on complex machinery can be impaired for as long as 24 hours after smoking as little as 20 mg of THC in cannabis; there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated by cannabis.

Chronic health effects of cannabis use

•selective impairment of cognitive functioning which include the organization and integration of complex information involving various mechanisms of attention and memory processes;

•prolonged use may lead to greater impairment, which may not recover with cessation of use, and which could affect daily life functions;

•development of a cannabis dependence syndrome characterized by a loss of control over cannabis use is likely in chronic users;

•cannabis use can exacerbate schizophrenia in affected individuals;

•epithetial injury of the trachea and major bronchi is caused by long-term cannabis smoking;

•airway injury, lung inflammation, and impaired pulmonary defence against infection from persistent cannabis consumption over prolonged periods;

•heavy cannabis consumption is associated with a higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis and a higher incidence of acute bronchitis than in the non-smoking cohort;

•cannabis used during pregnancy is associated with impairment in fetal development leading to a reduction in birth weight;

•cannabis use during pregnancy may lead to postnatal risk of rare forms of cancer although more research is needed in this area.

http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/cannabis/en/index.html

.Alcohol related crashes are the leading cause of death for young Americans, between the ages of 16 and 24 years old. 80% of all domestic disputes are alcohol-related. I can play the statistics game and win but it’s really not the issue. Marijuana is a schedule I drug, meaning that it has no accepted medical use and is only available for research under the most restrictive conditions provided by federal regulations. Recognition of marijuana’s accepted medical use by 15 states would enable the DEA to place marijuana in a less restrictive schedule, enabling increased research, patient access, and establishing a federal regulatory context for state medical marijuana programs. In order to be classified a schedule I drug the drug has to 1. have a high potential for addition 2. No accepted medical use in the united states 3. lack of safety. However, We know marijuana has no business being a schedule 1 drug because A. anything that feels good has a potential for addiction. B. Marijuana is medically legal in 15 states. C. It’s impossible to overdose on it. In 1970, Congress placed cannabis into Schedule I on the advice of Assistant Secretary of Health Roger O. Egeberg. His letter to Harley O. Staggers, Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, indicates that the classification was intended to be provisional. In 1972, the commission on marijuana and drug abuse released a report favoring decriminalization of cannabis. The Nixon administration took no action to implement the recommendation, however. A protracted struggle ensued in which cannabis reform activists began working through all three branches of government to reschedule the drug.

The Controlled Substances Act also provides for a rulemaking process by which the United States Attorney General can reschedule cannabis administratively. These proceedings represent the only means of legalizing medical cannabis without an act of any Congress. Rescheduling supporters have often cited the lengthy petition review process as a reason why cannabis is still illegal. The first petition took 22 years to review, and the second took 7 years. In 2002, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed a third petition. A final decision on the rescheduling petition is supposed to be made by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). As acting DEA Administrator, Michele Leonhart has had the rescheduling petition on her desk for three years but has so far failed to respond. “It’s time to end the delay,” says Coalition spokesman Jon Gettman, adding, “The government has had eight years to consider this petition, during which the evidence for marijuana’s medical efficacy has only grown.” Michele Leonhart has consistently turned down research into the therapeutic and medicinal benefits of marijuana, and has a track record of undermining state law with regard to legal medical marijuana. Recently several pro-legalisation agencies have called on President Obama to withdraw his support of Leonhart, including SSDP, MPP, NORML, LEAP, and DPA. Many people point to Leonhart’s claim that marijuana caused her cousin’s death as root of her opposition. “I’m a big fan of the DEA,” said Sessions, before asking Leonhart point blank if she would fight medical marijuana legalization. “I have seen what marijuana use has done to young people, I have seen the abuse, I have seen what it’s done to families. It’s bad,” Leonhart said. “If confirmed as administrator, we would continue to enforce the federal drug laws.”

Democratic Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin calmly lit into Leonhart, an alumna of the Bush administration, for regulations adopted during her tenure that prohibit nursing home employees from dispensing prescription pain medication to chronic pain sufferers in their care. Due to a change in policy under Leonhart, said Kohl, “nursing homes are unable to administer pain medication to residents in a timely manner. The time that it takes for a nursing home to comply with the DEA’s new enforcement policy can be an eternity to an elderly patient who is in agonizing pain.”

According to Kohl, a deputy administer of the DEA told him during an October 2009 hearing that the DEA “would act quickly to solve this problem.” Kohl then met with Leonhart in early May of 2010 to discuss the regulations.“You told me you also would address the problem swiftly,” Kohl said to Leonhart during the hearing. “In August, I requested joint comments from DEA and DHHS on draft legislation that I prepared and submitted to you to facilitate more timely access to pain medication for ailing nursing home residents. I received no response.”