@Aedes,
Quote:First, the supremacy clause in the constitution stipulates that federal law ALWAYS supercedes state law when they conflict. So if a federal law is unjust and a state law contradicts it, the federal law overrules it. That's why the state medical marijuana laws cannot prevent federal prosecution. It has nothing to do with the issue -- only the discrepancy between state and federal law.
I'm familiar with the US Constitution. My issue isn't with the Supremacy Clause, but whether or not the Federal Government has the right to ban a particular substance, like marijuana or alcohol, without a constitutional amendment. The first drug laws were changes in the tax code, and not outright prohibition. Nixon's drug laws went a step further, a step that seems to me to be unconstitutional.
That said, the Constitution also allows the states to legislate matters not addressed in the Constitution, the document which tells the Federal government what it can do. And as far as I know, prohibition is not addressed in the Constitution (barring a Constitutional Amendment). States rights; but I guess that's lost favor since the Civil War.
Quote:I can give supportive scientific articles that show marijuana associated with metaplastic changes in the lung (which are precancerous histologic changes), marijuana is associated with head and neck cancers, it is associated with not only sperm dysmotility but also lower testicular volume, lower sperm count, and gynecomastia.
You went to Harvard, man, I'm not trying to dispute your claims when the claims are medical. I just wasn't so sure on the link between marijuana use and hypogonadism and lung cancer. Hypogonadism because I am not aware of any permanent damage from the use of marijuana and lung cancer because the link doesn't seem so cut and dry as tobacco use.
The links you give do work for me, thanks.
Quote:Marinol has not been found to be addictive or abused according to the package insert.
Whoever wrote the thing should take a walk with me some time. What I have seen doesn't make the cut for scientific evidence, perhaps, but is enough to convince me that Marinol can be abused. Addiction is a little trickier.
Quote:We're not exactly in agreement here. The US government HAS been oppressive, it HAS used terror tactics, and it DOES do so on several fronts. However I will NOT concur with your implication that this is a general, common, or deliberate practice of the government such that we can wantonly throw those words around to complain about this or that issue.
Well, the practice must be deliberate - the government doesn't accidentally round up thousands of American citizens.
If the US government passes any law that is oppressive that affects thousands of citizens I don't see how we could describe the oppression as anything other than general, common and deliberate.
Quote:I see therapeutic potential as well, I mean I certainly recognize its utility (as well as Marinol's) as an antiemetic and appetite stimulant in patients with cachexia. But first things first -- do the research and then write the prescriptions. Doctors, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies are known to be wrong, and without the research you can put people at great risk of harm just because you are optimistic about a drug.
Absolutely - which is why we need more research on marijuana.
Quote:Does it also need a constitutional amendment to ban crack? Does it need a constitutional amendment to ban the public from owning a nuclear bomb?
No and no. Both of those present a clear danger to every American.
Quote:But they thought they did when they passed the law, and there are procedures to get such things revoked. If the country as a whole concurred with you, and felt any kind of urgency about it, then the ban would probably be reversed. As is, I think most Americans have no problem with the ban.
Their justification was racism, xenophobia and the hope of felonizing a particular portion of the population.
You can look up poll numbers about marijuana as easily as I can. The vast majority of Americans do not think marijuana is a dangerous drug, support for outright legalization is somewhere around 30-35%, a number which has consistently grown over the past few decades, support for medical marijuana also has a significant majority, a bit over 70% if I recall correctly.
But to the main point of the thread - the deliberate, general oppression of the American people, let's take a look: Nixon's Huston Plan was a forerunner of the Patriot Acts. Same principle. Today, any citizen can be detained, held indefinately, without legal counsel, and all without charge. Any citizen. That's you and me, too Aedes.
Edit:
Quote:That's not the history of the ban. And considering 50% of the population tries marijuana at some point in their life, it's hard to call it the drug of alternative people -- it's only exceeded by caffeine, alcohol, and maybe tobacco (less than 1/3 of Americans smoke cigarettes, though many more than that have tried it).
Actually, that is the history of the ban, to an extent. The first laws against marijuana were justified in this way - politicians claimed marijuana use made Mexicans and African Americans violent, and caused them to sexually assault white women. Mr. Hearst also had his newspapers run fabricated stories to support those claims.
Nixon is the father of the modern war on drugs. He used the drug laws to felonize a portion of the population that strongly opposed his administration. The counter culture movement of his time was viewed to be closely related to marijuana and drug use; not exactly untrue. The counter culture was also identified as the same group leading the protests against the Vietnam War and general dissent against Nixon; Hunter S. Thompson is a good example here. Nixon took criticism very personally.
Any way, you know that many Americans use marijuana regularly. Meanwhile, laws are in place to send those marijuana users to prison. Thus, the marijuana laws affect a large portion of the population. The laws are obviously deliberate, and the government commonly enforces the laws, laws which felonize the actions of a large portion of the American population.