Should hemp be legalized? How about marijuana? That is the question that continues to be asked. The NYT’s ran California Seeks to Clear Hemp of a Bad Name today and it brings up some very good points. Arnold Schwarzenegger needs to make a decision on a bill brought forth by the California legislature, and co-authored by the San Francisco liberal and an Orange County conservative, that legalize the farming of hemp.
Seven states have passed bills supporting the farming of industrial hemp; their strategy has been to try to get permission from the Drug Enforcement Administration to proceed.
But California is the first state that would directly challenge the federal ban, arguing that it does not need a D.E.A. permit, echoing the state’s longstanding fight with the federal authorities over its legalization of medicinal marijuana. The hemp bill would require farmers who grow it to undergo crop testing to ensure their variety of cannabis is nonhallucinogenic; its authors say it has been carefully worded to avoid conflicting with the federal Controlled Substances Act.But those efforts have not satisfied federal and state drug enforcement authorities, who argue that fields of industrial hemp would only serve as hiding places for illicit cannabis. The California Narcotic Officers Association opposes the bill, and a spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy in Washington said the measure was unworkable.
Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican running for re-election, has been mum on his intentions, with the political calculus of hemp in California difficult to decipher. The bill was the handiwork of two very different lawmakers, Assemblyman Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat best known for attempting to legalize same-sex marriage, and Assemblyman Charles S. DeVore, an Orange County Republican who worked in the Pentagon as a Reagan-era political appointee.
Captain Ed brought up a good point on this:
This bill isn’t really about hemp as such, but about the continuing criminalization of marijuana. California has long signaled that it wants to dump anti-marijuana laws but have been stymied by the federal government. The hemp bill is another demonstration of the difficult task in declaring a crop illegal, especially one that has such positive potential as hemp, simply to support a failing front on the war on drugs. Even conservatives in the Golden State have begun to question the resources spent on fighting marijuana.
This arguement reminds me of the Poppy pods that are used in the harvest of opium. I am referring to the Opium Poppy and not the Golden Poppy, which is the state flower of California. Opium has many useful properties, but at the same time, it can be used to manufacture straight opium. One is legal, yet the other is not. Yet both hemp and Opium Poppies have useful benefits.
Should Arnold sign the bill?
no, but the federal government should legalize ALL drugs.
I know your position on legalizing drugs, but I am confused on why you think Arnold shouldn’t approve this.
“Should hemp be legalized? How about marijuana?”
Legal Hemp is a separate issue from legal Marijuana.
But yes, California should legalize Hemp production.
Marijuana should be decriminalized, at least, for personal use quantities.
Is it really a seperate issue? And what is a personal use quantity? 1lb? 2lb?
Hemp and Marijuana are two different plants. One is psycho-active, and the other isn’t.
Thus, two separate issues.
I don’t care if it’s 50 tons. It should be legal
As should
Shrooms
Heroin
Cocaine
Acid
Speed
Crack
Ecstacy
Meth
we must be insane to allow 10s of miilions of people to be addicted to legal drugs (booze, smokes, coffee, valium, Oxy-contin, prozac, ritalin, welbutrin, xanex, McDonalds, ho-hos), yet come down with the wrath of the gods becuase someone, god forbit, smoked a fucking joint, or blew a line.
ridiculous.
Personal use? I could probably agree that 1lb is good enough to meet that standard.
I mean, am I living in bizarre-o-world?????????????
our founding fathers were weed smokers and cocaine users.
this is where I want to go and strangle conservatives.. you don’t want the government to have its hands on your guns, but you have no problem with them having their hands on Dave’s pipe, or joe’s bowl.
ridiculous.
Must be a full moon out, as I am in agreement with Mike Kilo.
Hemp and Marijuana are two different plants. Really? Cause I don’t think so. Marijuana derives from hemp SF. There are different varieties of hemp, but it is hemp from which we get marijuana.
SF, why are you surprised, we actually agree more than we disagree! I mean, other than taxes, entitlements, foreign policy, the war on terror, abortion, etc. we are CLOSE AS A SHAVE!
haha, seriously, the war on Terror, I’m for.. the war on drugs….stoopid, idiotic waste of time, manpower and money.
WHere are all you “get governemt out of my wallet, my home, my life” types on this?????
Peejz, to understand the difference between hemp and marijuana, look at two botanical analogies: field corn and sweet corn; breadseed poppies and opium poppies…
—————–
Myth: Smoking industrial hemp gets a person high.
Reality: The THC levels in industrial hemp are so low that no one could get high from smoking it. Moreover, hemp contains a relatively high percentage of another cannabinoid, CBD, that actually blocks the marijuana high. Hemp, it turns out, is not only not marijuana; it could be called “antimarijuana.”
———————————–
Oh Mike, I was just being facetious.
But you really hit the nail on the head when you mention the paradox of conservatives who are anti-government intrusion and yet still support Big Government interfering with American agriculture…
My link didn’t show up…:oops:
it’s not the agriculture I give a F about… it’s the fact that the government picks and chooses what drugs we, the little helpless piss ants, are allowed to be addicted to.
Booze, no problem
Weed…NO WAY MAN!
Ritalin, go right ahead!
Ecstasy, HOLD IT RIGHT THERE, BUDDY!
fuck that
The same liberals who want to legalize drugs want to ban guns just typical of these rotten two faced liberals:mad:
I for one don’t see the harm in legalizing marijuana. After all, most of us have smoked it at one time or another and as far as I can tell it’s no worse for you than cigarette smoking or alcohol. There would be alot of jobs not to mention tax revenues in the manufacture, licensing and distribution of same.
All other drugs I have more of a problem with but having said that there seems to be alot of sense in just making it all legal and quit fighting it.
People tend to go for the mystique of drugs they aren’t supposed to have and when you take that element away they lose interest. It would rapidly put the dealers out of business.
15. well, I’m not a hypocrite, I would have BOTH legal.
16. Absolutely right, BonBon! Anyone who smokes weed, takes E, gets high, knows what they want to do, and are never going to be problem addicts..
the problem addicts ARE ADDICTS ANYWAY!!!!!! it’s just like the argument you guys use with guns… criminals who want guns don’t go the local, legal gun dealer, they buy them underground, just like the junkies!
take away the underground, get it out into the daylight, and tax the shit! Damn… why are we enriching colombian drug lords, and keeping our inner cities war zones, when all we’d have to do is legalize.
damn
“Booze, no problem
Weed:NO WAY MAN!
Ritalin, go right ahead!
Ecstasy, HOLD IT RIGHT THERE, BUDDY!”
Excellent point.
“take away the underground, get it out into the daylight, and tax the shit!”
Exactly. We’re missing out on billions of dollars in taxes on the local, state and federal level by having such an irrational drug policy.
Here in the bay area (and this is medical marijuana I’m about to mention, so I do understand it’s a bit different) we have Pot Clubs for patients and caregivers that each can net upwards of $100,000 a year in taxes for city coffers. And we all know how cash-strapped most big cities are…
While I couldn’t care less about hemp and I think MJ should be decriminalized, Meth is a far different issue. Meth is one of the most dangerous drugs there is, imo. Meth is an insidious, extremely dangerous, evil drug that has no legitimate value whatsoever.
I haven’t heard of any coffee drinkers stealing and robbing to support their coffee habit. I also haven’t heard of any coffee addicts going psychotic after a 3-day coffee binge and murdering their own children because they thought they were Satan.
20. Ok Robert, I’ll play along…. and what exactly does the current “War on Drugs” do to stop this kind of behaviour? Maybe if Meth were manufactured in a reputable, safe environment, and the user could be tracked, it may cut down on problems like this.
You keep it underground and what you described above will only continue.
and what fucking legitimat value does Ritalin serve? Other than to make Doctors and Pharmaceutical companies rich, lazy soccer mom’s happy, and children into zombies.
I’d rather have a few meth heads running around than a fucking generation full of mind-numbed robots, all with alleged “ADHD”, strung out on Ritalin.
“You keep it underground and what you described above will only continue.”
As if legalizing it would prevent that behaviour?
not prevent, but at least bring it into focus so attempts can be make to address it, deal with it, contol it, perhaps.
If a meth user has to go to a sanctioned distribution center to get the stuff, they can be monitored, etc. counseling, treatment, etc. .. if they are underground, you’ll NEVER get to them.
Locking up users has to be the most idiotic, waste of money and engergy (and prison space) I have ever heard of.
An addict will be an addict as long as he or she wants, and the fact that the drugs are legal or illegal have NOTHING to do with it. At least if they were legal, we’d get some tax revenue, take it out of the gangs’ hands and be able to monitor the users more closely.
what’s so wrong with that?
“what’s so wrong with that?”
It won’t work, that’s all.
Do you think giving free meth to a meth user will prevent their use or criminal activity? Hardly.
What you ar touting is still givernement control Mike. Instead of making it legal, you are touting the governement to regulate it and even tax it. You are for taxation, huh? This only makes governement bigger and able to control yet more people, from the recreational pot user to the heavy crank addict. The problem is, this sect will undoubtedly grow in proprotion due to legalization, and THEN you have governement control the vast majority of the population.
This is clled the George Soros plan. You have now become a part of an “open” society.
Same control, different angle.
“If a meth user has to go to a sanctioned distribution center to get the stuff, they can be monitored, etc. counseling, treatment, etc. .. if they are underground, you’ll NEVER get to them.”
Exactly.
Now Mike, you’re going to hate me, but I think the same argument could be applied to abortion.
Women will get abortions no matter what is legal or not legal, so I’d much rather have them do it in a “safe”, medically monitored location that is regulated by the state.
23.
Read 25. Now do you see what I mean?
“Do you think giving free meth to a meth user will prevent their use or criminal activity? Hardly.”
Actually, I do.
If you remove the question of WHERE to get the money for their next fix, you remove the criminal option.
Woodshed, what possible good has come out of the War on Drugs?
What “victories” do you have to speak of?
so if we give booze to an alcoholic they will stop? We are talking about addiction. The addicts aren’t worried about someone tracking their usage, they are worried about their next fix.
27.
That’s inane. They will not cease their criminal activity, and you have no hard evidence that they will. You are equivicting a meth user with a light drug user such as a casual drinker or pot smoker. Meth adversly affects behaviour and judgement to the point of irrationality.
It isn’t always centered around their next fix either, as most meth users have a cheap source available (There are meth labs in every small town in America and supplies are easily bught at the local Wal-mart). It removes the ability to think rationally.
28
That’s akin to asking “What victories do you have on the war against murder?”. People still die. What is wrong is society condoning a self destructive behaviour, in both cases.
Ted- isn’t a distribution center just another name for a pharmacy?
#18, SFL: The victory is that while dangerous drugs such as Meth have not been eradicated, its abuse is kept down to a much lower level than would be the case otherwise.
#30: You are exactly right. There is no comparison between a Meth addict and a casual potsmoker. Meth is far more addictive, and actually destroys, as you point out, the ability of the user to rationalize. It destroys both their mind and their body at a rapid rate.
Ever see pictures of 30-year old meth abusers who look like they are 60?
This legalization of drugs argument has been going on forever and there are no new arguments or issues. Why don’t we legalize, control, and tax armed robbery? Murder? We haven’t been able to completely eliminate either! The war on violent crime has been a failure, by that standard.
This is directed to Mike Kilo: Mike, I understand your support of drugs and by your words I am saying all drugs. I don’t agree but I get your point. Where I am having a problem is where you are bringing up distribution centers, etc..I want you to take pot out of this arguement:
As it stands, I am already being asked to foot the bill for a drug addict that is homeless. Somehow it became my responsibility to take care of a person that does drugs, can’t hold a job and as a result, can’t afford food or shelter. Somehow, people like SF feel I should empathize with these people and that it is my responsibility to take care of them. Who will be paying for these distribution centers? Who sells the drugs, the pharmacutical companies? If that’s the case, the user won’t be able to afford the drug without insurance. Does that mean medicaid will foot the bill? Changing the status from illegal to legal is but a pittance of the entire scope of what we are talking about. For the sake of an arguement, let’s say that there are 5 million homeless people in this country. Let’s say 76% are alcoholics(although many are drug users): are these people alcoholics because they are homeless, or are they homeless because they are alcoholics and can’t hold down a job?
30 Woodshed said, “What is wrong is society condoning a self destructive behaviour, in both cases.”
HA!!!! Society “condones” a hell of a lot worse… the murder and dismemberment of millions of unborn babies every year, the wholesale subsidy of diabetes and death for welfare recipients. Give me a fucking break, your so worried about some people getting high that are GOING TO DO IT NO MATTER WHAT.
my god.
35.
So, justifying bad behaviour by pointing to worse behaviour is correct?
No- as I said, it is destructive behaviour in any case. In no case, should society condone it.
But you did make a case for SF liberal post 25, regarding abortion. You are also condoning governement control of people, via the George Soros plan.
Care to elaborate on that, Mike?
ok, so the governmnt exerts no control over anything now? Sheesh.. 40% of my paycheck would beg to differ with you.
There is no case to be made, or comparison to abortion. Getting high is a personal choice that you do to yourself. Abortion is killing another human…you don’t see the difference?
government controls you anyway.. they educate you (public schools), train you (military) tax you, force you to drive on their roads, participate in theri ponzi scheme “retirement plan”…. you find a way to get “government control” out of my life, please… let me know.
“ok, so the governmnt exerts no control over anything now? Sheesh.. 40% of my paycheck would beg to differ with you.”
I never said they didn’t, and I never said that what you describe is right either.
There is no case to be made, or comparison to abortion. Getting high is a personal choice that you do to yourself. Abortion is killing another human:you don’t see the difference?
It is subjective at this point. Governement control is still governement control. In any form, it is wrong. What you toute is governement control through the George Soros plan.
That said, there is a concept here and that is that as long as it does not infringe upon your personal rights, society has a right to make laws to protect itself. Banning drugs or declaring them controlled substances falls well within that right.
government controls you anyway.. they educate you (public schools), train you (military) tax you, force you to drive on their roads, participate in theri ponzi scheme “retirement planâ€:. you find a way to get “government control”out of my life, please: let me know.
As I said, governement control is governement control, and not justifiable unless to a certain extent (For example, taxation is fine in the traditional sense that our fore fathers alloted for, but not by todays standards as Congress no longer represent “we the people”).
That said Mike I must respectfully say you are being hypocritcal about this. You are against governement control, but for allowing these substances to be distributed, taxed and regulated to the populus by the governement endorsing that they track you usage.
This is entirely different from the populus of society declaring they do not want it on their street, in their society.