Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

25 Years in Prison for Pot? Drug Warrior Congressman's Idea Is Way Obsolete

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
MagickMuffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 07:25 PM
Original message
25 Years in Prison for Pot? Drug Warrior Congressman's Idea Is Way Obsolete
I looked but didn't see this posted, and apparently there is never too many duplicates on one certain topic :evilgrin:


Just days after Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, along with 13 cosponsors, reintroduced HR 2835, the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act of 2009 in Congress, Republican Rep. Mark Kirk (Illinois) has called for federal legislation to sentence certain first-time marijuana offenders to up to 25 years in prison.

U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk to push tougher sentences for more-potent marijuana: via The Chicago Tribune

U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk will call for legislation Monday that would toughen drug-trafficking laws regarding a highly potent form of marijuana, with penalties of up to 25 years in prison for a first-time offense.

The law would target offenders who sell or distribute marijuana that has a THC content exceeding 15 percent.

Representative Kirk’s website also alleges that the five-time-elected Congressman is “pro-science.” Unless, of course, we’re talking about cannabis — in which case he is actually “pro-ideology” and “anti-science.” After all, if Rep. Kirk was truly interested in the science of cannabis he would already know that:

1) According to a 2008 review (see page 12) of marijuana potency by the University of Mississippi, the average THC in domestically grown marijuana — which comprises the bulk of the U.S. market — is less than five percent, a figure that’s remained unchanged for nearly a decade.

2) THC — regardless of potency — is virtually non-toxic to healthy cells or organs, and is incapable of causing a fatal overdose. Currently, doctors may legally prescribe a FDA-approved pill that contains 100 percent THC, and curiously, nobody among Rep. Kirk’s staff or at the Lake County Sheriff’s office seems to be overly concerned about its potential health effects.

3) Survey data gleaned from cannabis consumers in the Netherlands—where users may legally purchase pot of known quality—indicates that most cannabis consumers prefer less potent pot, just as the majority of those who drink alcohol prefer beer or wine rather than 190 proof Everclear or Bacardi 151. When consumers encounter unusually strong varieties of marijuana, they adjust their use accordingly and smoke less.


http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/140687



Why can't these idiots just mind their own business and quit worrying about our rights to pursue happiness?!?!?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
benld74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. THC content of 15%!? Talk about a contact high!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagickMuffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Talk about Reefer Madness
These guys have NO clue. If this law (?) passed then the Enforcers would have to ENFORCE the law. I hope there is a Democrat to challenge this AssClown in the next election cycle, because he has NO business "serving" the People.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. They have a clue. There are huge amounts of money being made
Edited on Tue Jun-16-09 08:21 PM by truedelphi
By indie start up marijuana sellers. The notion that marijuana shoul d be legalized is not good for Big Pharma, it is not good for the crime families, it is not good for so many in Mexcio who really really need the USA to keep on the same course so that they can continue to reap the profits. Much of the Mexican economy is based on the illegal drug trade. The drug cartel controls its people, they hand over hordes of money to their "bosses" and those "bosses" hand it on over to the police, the gvoernment agents, and the politicians. If everyone in the USA is allowed to grow their own crop in their back yards, the mexican economy will flounder even more horribly than it usually does.

BTW the drug cartels of Mexico prop up certain aspects of our banking business. Each cartel cleans up at least one member of its family and sends them north to set up a cover story business and often they even go so far as to purchase a small bank so that the drug monies can be laundered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagickMuffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. I would prefer growing crops ourselves
Edited on Tue Jun-16-09 08:40 PM by MagickMuffin
I would love to use it in cooking.

Just think if people were allowed to grow it legally and exchanging crops with each other. Now that would be awesome!


Mexico could still peddle Cocaine, however, if Cannabis were legal I would bet that Cocaine would be almost useless, at least with the people I know they don't like the Coke.


edit: typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Your name is Magick Muffin and you
Edited on Tue Jun-16-09 09:23 PM by truedelphi
Don't use it in cooking? (I find that a leetle beet hard to believe, jes' myself thinking aloud.)

In any event, :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagickMuffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Well, like I said if it were legal to grow
This MagickMuffin would be baking some sweet Sweet desserts, but it would also be used in savory dishes as well. There's no way anyone could afford to use it in dishes with the prices as high as they are now.

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. i`m not sure if he`s going to run for anything -yet
he`d like to have burris senate seat....scary thought is`t it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagickMuffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Scary yes indeed,
but at least he would have to get the whole state to vote for him instead of a single district.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Mormon Madness is to blame for marijuana becoming illegal. Reefer Madness was just propaganda
to keep it scary and illegal...

From an article at salon.com


However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.

When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies."

In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff is what makes them crazy."

http://www.congressunderfire.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=2&mesg_id=2&page=





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagickMuffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Another deceitful tactic they used was a name change from Cannabis to Marijuana
Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association.

Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for Anslinger's view.

He also reproached the legislature and the Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people's minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren't even aware of it.

Woodward went on to state that the AMA was opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings, coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the committee:

"That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for statements . It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.

But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.

You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children's Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.

Inquiry of the Children's Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.

Inquiry of the Office of Education--- and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit--- indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.

Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, I think, about 1930. That particular Bureau has control at the present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that Bureau to give evidence on that point.

Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have had no record of any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been committed to those farms.

The bureau of Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence."




Isn't it interesting they (gov) were using children even way back then to push their agendas.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. here`s the comment section from the trib
one person agreed with kirk....i wrote my 2cts worth

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/chicago-tribune/T9H86BL6EDV1CTJK0
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
6. Congressman Buzzkill
This is so cartoonishly stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. I was walking in the hills of Powell County Ky this weekend and I noticed
pot growing wild everywhere. It was the quintessential ditch weed. The plants were 8 to 10" tall. Why make a plant that grows wild illegal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
12. Dictator wanna be.
Edited on Tue Jun-16-09 08:55 PM by Gregorian
Give me one good reason why cannibis should be illegal. Give me that same reason and tell me why nicotine shouldn't be illegal. Then tell me why Limbaugh and Bush should be walking free.

It's bullshit. And if we don't fight back, they'll just gain their power. Which is all they are trying to get.

I am sick of these assholes. But I'm just as sick of the masses of people who don't care enough to see to it that people don't go to jail needlessly.

Oh, and I don't smoke pot. So I have nothing to benefit in this. Except I don't want to live in a country of little dictators. And roving bands of armed militia. They're still hanging out of helicopters with m16's here. What a waste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. didn't obama
tell them to lay off the states that have mm laws in place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
14. Somebody needs to hold Representative Kirk down and blow SEVERAL shotguns of that 15%
smoke up his nose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-16-09 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
15. Fifteen percent? No fucking way...
Pot with 15 percent THC would be made out of cast resin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fly by night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-17-09 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Wrong.
Edited on Wed Jun-17-09 05:56 AM by Fly by night
I am in contact with the Netherlands contractor that produces three strains of cannabis for that government's medical cannabis program. One of the three strains is a 15% THC variety. While it is not common, there are cannabis cultivars that reliably test out at 15% THC. (My favorites are Train Wreck, Sweet Tooth #3 and a Hawaiian/Cotton Candy strain.)

The most potent cannabis ever tested by the University of Mississippi laboratory had over 30% THC. (I seem to remember that the sample came from Oregon in the late 70s or early 80s.)

Don't misunderstand. I believe that the "more potent pot" propaganda is way overblown. During the Smirking Chimp years, Bush's drug worriers routinely claimed that pot was 20-30 times more potent these days, when the truth (from their own laboratory) is that average potency has increased about 50% in the past decade (compared to their claims of a 2,000% - 3,000% increase in potency).

As someone has already pointed out, cannabis users can tell pretty quickly whether the potency of the cannabis they are smoking (or vaporizing) is higher than usual and will adjust their consumption accordingly. The best clue is coughing more than usual, since several components in cannabis, including THC, are vasodilators.

You don't get off unless you cough.

FBN
www.saveberniesfarm.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC