Pot Legalization = Catch 22

Making industrial hemp a commodity for fuel, food, paper, cloth, construction, ect. Farmers benefit, we all benefit. A No Brainer. Legalize!

The Medical benefits for pain, nausea, stress, etc. = Established & demonstrated over decades & centuries. Another no brainer & also essentially humanitarian & essential to make available. Legalize!

Now to the Crux of the Matter: Smoking and/or ingesting for its intoxicant, feel-good properties = How are we to test for *TRUE* impairment? As in behind-the wheel & on the job? Would we be facing a Monkey's Paw dilemma in the sense of "Be careful what you wish for?"

It is far less harmful than tobacco or alcohol. Keep the current DUI laws, it includes pot AND alcohol and other drugs. Legalize it, but don't let anyone operate cars, trains or planes. Legalize. TAX. It's a no-brainer.

Recreational drug, don't operate any dangerous machines while under the influence.

I would also restrict it's use to persons age 18 and up.

There's the BAC test. As far as I know, there's no equivalent for pot. That's the rub.

I don't mean it doesn't work, because it obviously does. But it puts a tech device in where an officer's judgement used to be. Frankly, for most people .08 is not impairing. If the only way you can tell someone is over the limit is with a BAC test, then the person was not impaired enough to stop.

If someone can't walk the straight line, say the alphabet backwards, or whatever your favorite test is, then the BAC test is redundant. Those same tests work for people who are stoned.

And if that's not enough, there's the 'sniff' test - for all you potheads, (speaking as a former pothead) Yes, you REEK of weed. That's a good first indication. Hell, there's a spot out in the parking lot of the theater I work at where the pot smoke clings to the overhanging tree, and I can smell it there the next day. Outdoors. That doesn't say anything about level of intoxication, but it is a certain indicator that there has been some toking going on.

If a person is impaired, it will show. If a person is not impaired, there's no need for tests.

Blood tests work obviously but for road-side use, there's a tongue-strip that researchers are working on here.

Put exactly the same regs in place: Age limits, no driving or operating heavy machinery under the influence, license to sell.

but That is the problem - what is the *legal* level of impairment?

pot do not indicate your level of intoxication. It only measures whether you have used a cannibinoid (pot) substance within the last 30 days. So you may have smoked a joint on vacation 2 weeks ago and are driving your kids to the dentist, TOTALLY SOBER, but can still get popped for pot use because of a drug test.

for all DUI's.

tests? Who would analyze them fairly?

impaired behavior on the road, behind the wheel. A video camera on each patrol car's front bumper would solve the fairness issue.

That way, they get the stoned asshole going 5 mph along the shoulder--not the guy who smoked hours ago and still has red eyes but is driving normally.

Sure, alcohol does nice things like work as a solvent, or disinfect wounds?

But how would we keep people from drinking it?

If you don't want drunken sex offenders running over our children with their cars and then sex offending them, please, support prohibition.

or any of its uses, I assure you I am not. I am simply asking whether it can be legalized without a big clusterfuck. I LIKE smoking pot.

but i have never heard anyone compare a casual beer as leading to child molestation.

I'd prefer we start with banning religion, that little settlement in California the other day gives more credence to the argument of ending child abuse by removing another's rights.

When you have successfully eradicated the threat of religion and it inherant dangers to our children, then go for the beer, keep it simple.

Edit: I may have misunderstood your post.

It doesn't matter what you're impaired by, unless you intend to single out pot smokers with additional punishments, on which I call bullshit. Cops can tell if you're impaired, and can test you on the spot if there's a question. Proving or disproving that the driver smokes pot is entirely unnecessary.

they need to have a "scientific" benchmark that is "objective". Hence Breathalyzers for alcohol, and their accuracy is questionable. That is my point.

and I think it's a good one.

Anything else is bullshit.

is because a subjective field sobriety test based solely on the judgment of a police officer can be easily refuted in court.

Juries are more likely to trust "science". Video cameras can help, but they also are not foolproof.

And, if the driver passes the field sobriety test, they're still guilty of the erratic driving which got them pulled over in the first place. It isn't necessary to prove they were "on" something. A moving violation is a moving violation.

prohibitionist stance for recreational pot use. I don't think there is anything inherently WRONG with it, but we must get over this hump of drug testing. How many of your parents had to pee in a cup to prove mere competence??? Do you realize there was time not so very long ago that you could get a job for your intelligence and credentials ALONE?? How long would Mark Twain have lasted in this ridiculous society? CRAP!

Edit: Spellung

/dumbest plan ever, but amusing to me

There's just no motivation for it. Big Pharma doesn't want that door cracked open even slightly.

but I was hoping that someone had an idea of how to counteract that. When people say legalize it, control it & tax it, it makes sense until people smoke it - how is impairment to be measured? You know this will be an issue.

detect quantities in the sweat or saliva, with a chart that decides what constitutes impairment. We know it's detectable up to thirty days in the system, depending on the individual.

After all, point oh eight is impaired with alcohol--we can MEASURE that. We can measure high blood sugar. We can measure pharmaceutical toxicology.

Surely we can test, examine, determine and measure this. They oughta get off their asses and start working on it. Maybe they can get some advice from other countries that are out in front of us in this regard.

If they get home alright, they weren't impaired. :)

--IMM

If someone is performing as well or better than expected, there's no reason to question what they've done. If someone is performing impaired, all that's necessary is to video tape the impaired behavior. Virtually every law enforcement department in the country should have cameras in their cars by now.

It doesn't matter if you crossed the yellow line and hit me head on because you were high, drunk, too sleepy to drive or in the midst of a diabetic crisis. I had a family member killed by an elderly man who drove several miles down the wrong side of a divided highway and blamed the victim for causing the accident! Supposedly he was suffering from low blood sugar at the time, although it may have been that his eye sight was so poor that he shouldn't have been driving.

The same applies to employers. The one time I saw someone hurt at work becsause they were too looped to be around fast machinery the person was on prescription tranqulizers.

Note: I am in no way making light of your family's tragedy and you have my condolences.

The mill I worked at used to have a lot of heavy drinkers. One time the guard looked out at the gate house and watched two guys trying to hold each other upright long enough so they could punch in their time cards. After the third or fourth miss, he gently suggested that maybe they were too drunk to work that day and maybe should just take the day off. Turned out, they had just finished up a shift and were trying to punch out and go home!

in the wrong place at the wrong time even though the impaired, elderly man should not have been driving. A sad thing that should NOT have been blamed upon the victim.

On the road, poor driving is one symptom. Recently 5 HS cheerleaders were driven into a semi in the other lane by the one who was text messaging at the time. Clearly impaired, and with any luck the erratic driving would have led to getting busted rather than killed. But that doesn't mean criminalizing cell phones is the answer, just laws that penalize driving erratically while under the influence.

however the current tests for pot use do not accurately measure "impairment", a positive test for pot becomes a "catch-all" for even responsible use.

in whatever driving error led to the stop. Same is true for too much coffee or rocking along with a loud stereo or worrying about a divorce or sleep deprivation. If they have no way to prove whatever type of impairment might have contributed to the accident, or specifically that the devil weed had any bearing on whatever road rules were violated, then they can't. So what?

(edit because some typos pass spell check)

impairment, however alcohol is processed and out of your system in a short time - same with cocaine, speed, etc. These tests for pot use can make a positive result up to a month after the intoxicating/impairment aspects go away.

You seem to think that decriminalizing pot is a problem because cops can't charge with an additional crime for using it? Same is true for sleep deprivation, and it is far, far more likely to impair driving skills. So your "argument" is just nonsense. Sorry, I can't follow your "reasoning."

follow the logical path of prohibitionist thinking in putting up roadblocks for even the most compassionate (medical) and productive (industrial) legalization of growing this amazing multi-use plant. They put up roadblocks even Before you get to recreational use. I am just looking for a pre-emptive answer to the impairment issue. Is That nonsense?

If there is no evidence of impairment then that settles the issue.

You/they are assuming that that pot means impaired driving, then saying at the same time that there is no evidence of any impairment. The fact that blood tests are useless does not rule out doing other tests, coordination and such, but if the cops can't find any sign of impairment by any tests at all, then the simple conclusion is there is no evidence that suggests that, whether pot might or might not have been consumed, being impaired was a factor in whatever driving error was made.

:eyes:

be unable to separate medical and industrial uses of hemp (pot) from the "reefer madness" of recreational use! So let your eyes roll until they fall out but the fact IS that hemp production just may be able to solve a lot of issues that threaten our planet from paper production to food and fuel consumption to severe medical issues that YOU may face someday!

different critters. You could smoke hemp all day and get nothing but a headache, so the hemp issue is completely separate from the "severe medical issues'. I don't understand why you are making that point at the beginning of your post, and conflating them at the end.

for those who are drunk, sober, tired, and high. Can you guess which group performed the best?

:)

Kazak can't seem to score... :cry:

Okay, so we've eliminated the sober group. Guess again.

can even concentrate and focus better on motor tasks when they are high. So my guess is that Dr. Johnny Fever performed best.

that's good.

Well, in this particular case, it turned out to be the entire control group! It might've been an aberration, I suppose... :shrug:

Anyway, I accept your answer, treat yourself to a scooby snack! :)

I realize of course I've only vaguely referred to the study and still haven't sited anything solid. I've looked online and haven't found diddly about this. Can anyone vouch, or know of any other similar studies? I'm sincerely interested in seeing something conclusive on this.

I love that show (I can't find a way to get it in the states, but I watch it on Youtube). The segment that I saw had the high driver outperforming even the sober driver. I'm guessing it was due to the slight paranoia that pot causes. As I recall, the group went like this:

1) High
2) Sober
3) Drunk
4) Tired.

It's all very fuzzy in my head (can't imagine why!?! ;-)) In any event, thanks for that bit of corroboration...

or body.


THat is the crux for me.



I am not propterty of the state.




If you operate a vehicle in an impaired state (no, not SC), then proper charges/consequences should follow.


Otherwise, I should be free of prosecution in doing with my mind and body as I wish, as long as it doesn't infringe on others' abilities to do the same.


It is none of the business of the government who smokes what and when, unless it is a factor in some sort of crime.


My body and mind are my own.

freedoms and jailing loads of people based upon this business which is none of their business.

The Drunk Driving laws require a chemical test to determine the amount of alcohol in the driver's system. Alcohol lends itself nicely to this--the higher your BAC is, the more impaired you are, and as you metabolize the alcohol the less impaired you become.

Cannabinoids, being fat soluble, stay with you longer than your high does. In my Piss Test NCO class we discussed the Army's view that someone who didn't smoke dope every day could work THC from one pot exposure out of his system in ten days. You sure as HELL don't stay stoned for ten days--if you could, weed would be the greatest value proposition in the world. "Smoke this and you'll be happy for a week and a half!"

Assume marijuana was legal. Eventually you're going to know who all the people who smoke it at your workplace are. If all we have before we legalize is the current test, if the boss decides he doesn't like you he can send you off for a piss test, you come back hot and you get fired. "But boss, I only smoke on Saturday nights and it's Thursday!" 'No, you came up positive. We'll send you the personal items in your desk.'

When we get a test that can prove intoxication, not just that you had smoked, we can talk legalization.

save the evironment!" But when it comes down to the actual implementation of better pot laws, these issues of "impairment" rear their ugly heads and we KNOW there are powerful lobbying interests of GREED that must be countered before the brainwashed public fear factor can be addressed.

The fact that some boss can fire you for using tobacco or MJ or no reason whatever doesn't mean those are "offenses" that should be made into crimes. It just means that corporations have more power than workers. What a STRANGE way to look at right and wrong and the law system.

You're postulating that it is legal, but the boss is reacting as if it was illegal.

The boss has no grounds to fire anyone unless the person is caught toking up at work, or is obviously impaired while at work. Firing based on tests like this opens the boss wide up to lawsuits.

that unless we've got some way to MEASURE impairment, scientifically, there's no way we can legalize pot.

Take my employer. We have a list of things (most of them involve powered lift equipment) that will get you sent for a drug test if you do them.

Pretend pot is legal, but we only have the current test. You have a perfectly legal joint on your day off. A week later, you pick up a skid of Portland cement that wasn't wrapped properly at the factory, come around the corner a bit too fast, and 25 bags slide off and break. Any incident causing more than $200 damage to merchandise is grounds for urinalysis, and Portland cement is $9.25 per bag.

Your urinalysis will come back positive. If you're positive for marijuana, you'll be considered impaired at work and fired.

I know you only stay stoned for a few hours after you smoke. There must be something in pot smoke that causes this--is there a cannabinoid that metabolizes quickly, perhaps, that acts as a catalyst for the "fun" cannabinoids? Very little pot research in the US (well, the legal kind--you guys who smoke weed don't count here) is done using real pot but rather single cannabinoids so they can "control" the experiment, so WE DON'T KNOW what all is in that shit or how reefer actually works. I know if you get a High Times magazine and look at the pot marketplace reports they discuss the nature of the high you get from whatever pot is available in your area, so I got it figured that different cannabinoids--there are many--produce different effects in the body.

Alcohol laws stem from a history of carnage. Testing for alcohol impairment makes sense because of it's history. We have a fine documented history of humans operating vehicles and machinery drunk and we have enacted, rules, laws and methods of law enforcement to counteract the problem.

On the other hand, that history of carnage from ANY other drug abuse is simply not there in the same amounts as with alcohol! If the man flying the plane has had too many lattes and wrecks it, that should have little to no bearing on keeping caffeine legal. I can guarantee to you that caffeine abuse has contributed to quite a bit of road rage! Quite likely, caffiene over-use is the primary contributing impairment behind more than a few accidents as well. Yet no real documented history backs that up because the problems here are in amounts not even close to that of problems relating to alcohol. I don't want my pilot too high on ANYTHING, nor does anyone else but that should have little to no bearing on legalization.

As to operating a motor vehicle, I suspect STRONGLY that most cops would finger alcohol as causing more problems out on the road than pot. I do not see how legalizing pot would cause any changes here AND cops are trained to recognize degrees of impairment anyway so no changes needed there either. I do not see where there need be any concerns over methods of FUTURE law enforcement for pot abuse at this time nor do I see where this needs to be a concern regarding legalization of pot. I would LOVE to see a study between road rage and caffeine abuse done though!

it is not in the realm of thought of those who have the power to change the pot laws, because this issue will come up in the debate.

refuse to do so NOT out of any safety concerns for people, but are concerned only with the safety of major industries (alcohol, pharma, tobacco, just for starters...).

behind our house.It's "County" land.I'd Love to have my own hemp source.We'll see

It's like saying that garden poppies are heroin.

relies on the the same properties as recreational pot. The sad thing is, that anytime the industrial hemp issue is brought forth, some rockhead equates it with "legalizing dope".

I'm not saying we should have people go to work high either. What I'm saying is that we have a real problem of daily intolerance.

I remember in the 70's that I had NO PROBLEM being straight for work, and enjoying myself when at home. I don't think we'd have as many problems with that attitude and adherence to the laws outlining its use.

The benefits to risk make cannibis a much better alternative to ETOH or Xanex!

Treat it like booze as far as driving goes.
Lee

Marijuana Truths
Posted by Madspirit in General Discussion
Sun Apr 29th 2007, 06:15 PM
POT FACTS: www.norml.com

Who smokes marijuana?
According to recent statistics provided by the federal government, nearly 80 million Americans admit having smoked marijuana. Of these, twenty million Americans smoked marijuana during the past year. The vast majority of marijuana smokers, like most other Americans, are good citizens who work hard, raise families, pay taxes and contribute in a positive way to their communities. They are certainly not part of the crime problem in this country, and it is terribly unfair to continue to treat them as criminals.

Many successful business and professional leaders, including many state and elected federal officials, admit they have smoked marijuana. We must reflect this reality in our state and federal laws, and put to rest the myth that marijuana smoking is a fringe or deviant activity engaged in only by those on the margins of American society. Marijuana smokers are no different from their non-smoking peers, except for their marijuana use.


Why should we decriminalize or legalize marijuana?
As President Jimmy Carter acknowledged: "Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use."

Marijuana prohibition needlessly destroys the lives and careers of literally hundreds of thousands of good, hard-working, productive citizens each year in this country. More than 700,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges last year, and more than 5 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana offenses in the past decade. Almost 90 percent of these arrests are for simple possession, not trafficking or sale. This is a misapplication of the criminal sanction that invites government into areas of our private lives that are inappropriate and wastes valuable law enforcement resources that should be focused on serious and violent crime.


What about kids and marijuana?
Marijuana, like other drugs, is not for kids. There are many activities in our society that we permit adults to do, but forbid children, such as motorcycle riding, skydiving, signing contracts, getting married and drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. However, we do not condone arresting adults who responsibly engage in these activities in order to dissuade our children from doing so. Nor can we justify arresting adult marijuana smokers on the grounds of sending a message to children. Our expectation and hope for young people is that they grow up to be responsible adults, and our obligation to them is to demonstrate what that means.

The NORML Board of Directors has adopted a set of principles called the "Principles of Responsible Cannabis Use," and the first principle is "Cannabis consumption is for adults only; it is irresponsible to provide cannabis to children."


Critics claim that marijuana is a "gateway drug." How do you respond to this charge?
There is no conclusive evidence that the effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent use of other illicit drugs. Preliminary animal studies alleging that marijuana "primed" the brain for other drug-taking behavior have not been replicated, nor are they supported by epidemiological human data. Statistically, for every 104 Americans who have tried marijuana, there is only one regular user of cocaine, and less than one user of heroin. Marijuana is clearly a "terminus" rather than a gateway for the overwhelming majority of marijuana smokers.

For those minority of marijuana smokers who do graduate to harder substances, it is marijuana prohibition -- which forces users to associate with the illicit drug black market -- rather than the use of marijuana itself, that often serves as a doorway to the world of hard drugs. The more users become integrated in an environment where, apart from cannabis, hard drugs can also be obtained, the greater the chances they will experiment with harder drugs.

In Holland, where politicians decided over 25 years ago to separate marijuana from the illicit drug market by permitting coffee shops all over the country to sell small amounts of marijuana to adults, individuals use marijuana and other drugs at rates less than half of their American counterparts.


But isn't marijuana addictive?
Substantial research exists regarding marijuana and addiction. While the scientific community has yet to achieve full consensus on this matter, the majority of epidemiological and animal data demonstrate that the reinforcing properties of marijuana in humans is low in comparison to other drugs of abuse, including alcohol and nicotine. According to the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM), fewer than one in 10 marijuana smokers become regular users of the drug, and most voluntary cease their use after 34 years of age. By comparison, 15 percent of alcohol consumers and 32 percent of tobacco smokers exhibit symptoms of drug dependence.

According to the IOM, observable cannabis withdrawal symptoms are rare and have only been identified under unique patient settings. These remain limited to adolescents in treatment facilities for substance abuse problems, and in a research setting where subjects were given marijuana or THC daily. Compared with the profound physical syndrome of alcohol or heroin withdrawal, marijuana-related withdrawal symptoms are mild and subtle. Symptoms may include restlessness, irritability, mild agitation and sleep disruption. However, for the overwhelming majority of marijuana smokers, these symptoms are not severe enough to re-initiate their use of cannabis.


The Supreme Court recently ruled that the U.S. Justice Department, including the Drug Enforcement Agency, may prosecute state-authorized medical marijuana patients for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. What does this decision mean for seriously ill patients and for the ongoing tension between state and federal laws?
Laws in twelve states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) remain in effect despite the Supreme Court's decision.

The US Supreme Court decided 6-3 in Gonzalez v. Raich that the Justice Department has the authority to prosecute state-authorized medicinal cannabis patients for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act.

The Ninth Federal Circuit Court had previously ruled 2-1 in December 2003," The intrastate, non-commercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician - is, in fact, different in kind from drug trafficking," and issued an injunction barring the US Justice Department from taking legal action against the appellants, California medical cannabis patients Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. The Justice Department appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which ruled on June 6, 2005.

The Supreme Court's 2005 decision did not expand the powers of federal law enforcement agencies like the DEA; it only affirmed that they can enforce federal laws prohibiting the use of controlled substances, regardless of state, county, or municipal law. It is not anticipated that federal agents will step up efforts against state-authorized growers, dispensaries, or patients because of this decision. State and local law enforcement officers, who are responsible for the enforcement of state and municipal laws, will most likely continue to honor the democratic decisions that their residents have made about marijuana policy.

Writing for the majority, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that he longs for the day when medicinal cannabis advocates "may be heard in the halls of Congress." NORML's chief complaint is directed at Congress, not at the Court, for allowing the federal/state inconsistency in medical marijuana laws to exist.


Why does Congress refuse to reschedule marijuana to permit its use as a medicine under federal law?
Many members of both parties in Congress have confused a public health issue, medical marijuana, with the politics of the War on Drugs. In doing so, they have denied an effective medication to the seriously ill and dying.

Pending legislation H.R. 2087, on this specific proposal.

Didn't Congress vote on a measure to prevent the federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients in 2005?
On June 15, 2005, the House voted 264 to 161 against a bi-partisan measure, sponsored by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), that would have barred the US Department of Justice (DOJ) from targeting patients who use marijuana medicinally in accordance with the laws of their states.

The 161 House votes in favor of the patient-protection provision was the highest total ever recorded in a Congressional floor vote to liberalize marijuana laws. Of those who voted in support of the Hinchey/Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment, 15 were Republicans and 128 were Democrats. The House's only Independent Congressman also voted in favor of the amendment.

Many Congressional battles are won only after several failed attempts. Please contact your representative now and urge their support for federal medical marijuana legislation.


Critics of the medical use of marijuana say (1) there are traditional medications to help patients and marijuana is not needed; and, (2) permitting the medical use of marijuana sends the wrong message to kids. How do you respond to these concerns?
For many patients, traditional medications do work and they do not require or desire medical marijuana. However, for a significant number of serious ill patients, including patients suffering from AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and chronic pain among others, traditional medications do not provide symptomatic relief as effectively as medicinal cannabis. These patients must not be branded as criminals or forced to suffer needlessly in pain.

Dronabinol (trade name Marinol) is a legal, synthetic THC alternative to cannabis. Nevertheless, many patients claim they find minimal relief from it, particularly when compared to inhaled marijuana. The active ingredient in Marinol, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is only one of the compounds isolated in marijuana that appears to be medically beneficial to patients. Other compounds such as cannabidiol (CBD), an anti-convulsant, and cannabichromine (CBC), an anti-inflammatory, are unavailable in Marinol, and patients only have access to their therapeutic properties by using cannabis.

Patients prescribed Marinol frequently complain of its high psychoactivity. This is because patients consume the drug orally. Once swallowed, Marinol passes through the liver, where a significant proportion is converted into other chemicals. One of these, the 11-hydroxy metabolite, is four to five times more potent than THC and greatly increases the likelihood of a patient experiencing an adverse psychological reaction. In contrast, inhaled marijuana doesn't cause significant levels of the 11-hydroxy metabolite to appear in the blood.

Marinol's oral administration also delays the drug from taking peak effect until two to fours hours after dosing. A 1999 report by the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded: "It is well recognized that Marinol's oral route of administration hampers its effectiveness because of slow absorption and patients' desire for more control over dosing. ... In contrast, inhaled marijuana is rapidly absorbed." In a series of US state studies in the 1980s, cancer patients given a choice between using inhaled marijuana and oral THC overwhelmingly chose cannabis.

As to the message we are sending to kids, NORML hopes the message we are sending is that we would not deny any effective medication to the seriously ill and dying. We routinely permit cancer patients to self- administer morphine in cancer wards all across the country; we allow physicians to prescribe amphetamines for weight loss and to use cocaine in nose and throat operations. Each of these drugs can be abused on the street, yet no one is suggesting we are sending the wrong message to kids by permitting their medical use.


Don't alcohol and tobacco use already cause enough damage to society? Why should we legalize another intoxicant?
While there are indeed health and societal problems due to the use of alcohol and nicotine, these negative consequences would be amplified if consumption of either substance were prohibited.

Marijuana is already the third most popular recreational drug in America, despite harsh laws against its use. Millions of Americans smoke it responsibly. Our public policies should reflect this reality, not deny it.

In addition, marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. It fails to inflict the types of serious health consequences these two legal drugs cause. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, "The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat than alcohol or tobacco."

No one is suggesting we encourage more drug use; simply that we stop arresting responsible marijuana smokers. In recent years, we have significantly reduced the prevalence of drunk driving and tobacco smoking. We have not achieved this by prohibiting the use of alcohol and tobacco or by targeting and arresting adults who use alcohol and tobacco responsibly, but through honest educational campaigns. We should apply these same principles to the responsible consumption of marijuana. The negative consequences primarily associated with marijuana -- such as an arrest or jail time -- are the result of the criminal prohibition of cannabis, not the use of marijuana itself.


What is industrial hemp? How does it differ from marijuana?
Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa L. It is a tall, slender fibrous plant similar to flax or kenaf. Farmers worldwide have harvested the crop for the past 12,000 years for fiber and food, and Popular Mechanics once boasted that over 25,000 environmentally friendly products could be derived from hemp.

Unlike marijuana, hemp contains only minute (less than 1%) amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. In addition, hemp possesses a high percentage of the compound cannabidiol (CBD), which has been shown to block the effects of THC. For these reasons, many botanists have dubbed industrial hemp "anti- marijuana."

More than 30 industrialized nations commercially grow hemp, including England and Canada. The European Union subsidizes farmers to grow the crop, which is legally recognized as a commercial crop by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Nevertheless, US law forbids farmers from growing hemp without a federal license, and has discouraged all commercial hemp production since the 1950s. NORML is working to allow American farmers to once again have legal access to this agricultural commodity.


How can I help?
The most important step you can take is to contact your elected officials at all levels of government (local, state and federal), and let them know you oppose arresting responsible marijuana smokers. As a constituent, you hold special influence over the politicians who represent your district. It is critical you let them know how you feel.

Because the marijuana smoking community remains largely "in the closet" and is all too often invisible politically, our core constituency currently exercises far less political power than our numbers would otherwise suggest. The only way to overcome this handicap is for more of us to take an active role, and routinely contact our elected officials.

A majority of the American public opposes sending marijuana smokers to jail, and 3 out of 4 support the medical use of marijuana. Yet many elected officials remain fearful that if they support these reform proposals, they will be perceived as "soft" on crime and drugs and defeated at the next election.

Tell your elected officials that you know the difference between marijuana and more dangerous drugs and between marijuana smoking and violent crime, and that you do not support spending billions of dollars per year incarcerating nonviolent marijuana offenders.

To make that easy, NORML has a program on our web site that will identify your state and federal elected officials, and provide a sample letter that you can fax to Congress or e-mail to state legislators. Additionally, we encourage you to join NORML and help us with this fight for personal freedom. We depend on contributions from private individuals to fund our educational and lobbying campaign, and our ability to move reform efforts forward is partially a question of resources. Please join with us and let's end marijuana prohibition, once and for all.

it's not Like driving on acid... which is way cooLer.