What I’m saying is that they were made illegal because they *DID* cause these problems. Not because people thought they did. It was a public nuisance and that is the reason they were made illegal, to protect the public.

I will say, however, that Marijuana is in a different category than these more powerful drugs.

What about cocaine, morphine, heroin (a derivative of morphine), amphetamines, and nearly every schedule II and schedule I drugs? These are man-made substances and are not natural.

You should get a more complete picture of the history of drug regulation before you make an opinion of this magnitude. Look at *why* these regulations were enacted in the first place and the social atmosphere of the time. 1914 is not 2009.

Opium had become a problem for the whole of society at the time. (Check out the drastic effects it had on China in the 18th and 19th centuries). In the U.S. Opium use was mainly associated with the Chinese immigrants in San Francisco (when racism was much more prominent). The other thing it was associated with was the fact that it made husbands quit going to work (because they were high) and were incredibly violent especially towards their wives. For some reason people decided that the government should protect women from abuse. Absurd, I know. (note: sarcasm).

Then Morphine was developed as a “cure” for opium addiction. Problem was that Morphine actually metabolizes into Opium in the body.. so it was even worse than Opium. Then Heroin was developed to alleviate Morphine addiction (because we got all the old Opium addicts addicted to Morphine). This was, again, even worse.

Also, during the two World Wars, Morphine was used as a painkiller for operations. While this led to a vast number of lives being saved, the fact that they did not understand all the details of Morphine meant that many people were given large doses and thus developed an addiction.

In order to protect the general populace from the effect these drugs had on people, the government decided it was easier to ban the substance than to just throw all of the addicts in jail.

The reason that religious organizations are able to “enjoy” certain drugs is that, unlike our general culture, they are used within the religious groups for religious purposes, not for recreational use. (at least it is supposed to) They also are part of a culture in which its use is regulated by social standards and mass education.

I could understand deregulating some Schedule I drugs for use in medical purposes, but as a recreational product, it is too difficult to regulate and protect from abuse and public problems.

I can guess that you would then argue that banning these drugs has created a criminal culture that is a nationwide problem. I would counter-argue that it is not the banning of drugs that has created these. Many criminal organizations form for economic reasons. The mob (originally a branch of the Italian Mafia) was formed in order to protect Italian-Americans from being economically discriminated against. Many “street gangs” are formed because communities with little, to no, economic opportunity for its residents, they band together in order to stay alive.

The demand for recreational drugs just gives them the only opportunity that they can find to make money, and therefore eat and have a place to live. A vast number of studies has shown that if given a legitimate opportunity, gang members would rather sit at a desk than move drugs. Its safer and much more secure.

In closing, regulation exists for a reason.. this reason is that a vast majority of individuals cannot properly medicate themselves and makes it too easy for them to become a danger to the rest of society. While there needs to be a new strategy, the reason regulation exists will always exist.

Do you think this was the intent of the California law? Antibiotics are not sold in medical “germ killer” storefronts.

Like penicillin, medical marijuana should be dispensed only with other medical prescription products—by licensed general pharmacies, not former yogurt stores calling themselves “coffee” shops.

I largely agree with your view that criminalizing many drugs, especially marijuana, is counter-productive, but LA law enforcement can only enforce the law as it exists today, and that law is simply not as broad as the “clinics” say it is.

The drug czar’s Rx for prison fodder costs dearly, as life is flushed down expensive tubes. My shaman’s second opinion is that psychoactive plants are God’s gift. Behold, it’s all good. Canadian Marc Emery sold seeds that enable American farmers to outcompete cartels with superior local herb. He’s being extradited to prison, for doing what government can’t do, reduce U.S. demand for Mexican.

Only on the authority of a clause about interstate commerce does the CSA (Controlled Substances Act of 1970) reincarnate Al Capone, endanger homeland security, and throw good money after bad. Administration fiscal policy burns tax dollars to root out the number-one cash crop in the land, instead of taxing sales. America rejected the plague of prohibition, but it mutated. Apparently, SWAT teams don’t need no stinking amendment. Father, forgive those who make it their business to know not what they do.

Nixon passed the CSA on the assurance that the Schafer Commission would justify criminalizing his enemies, but it didn’t. No amendments can assure due process under an anti-science law without due process itself. Psychology hailed the breakthrough potential of LSD, until the CSA shut down research and pronounced that marijuana has no medical use, period. Drug juries don’t seat bleeding hearts.

The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) allows Native American Church members to eat peyote, which functions like LSD. Americans shouldn’t need a specific church membership or an act of Congress to obtain their birthright freedom of religion. John Doe’s free exercise of religious liberty may include entheogen sacraments to mediate communion with his maker.

Freedom of speech presupposes freedom of thought. The Constitution doesn’t enumerate any governmental power to embargo diverse states of mind. How and when did government usurp this power to coerce conformity? The Mayflower sailed to escape coerced conformity. Legislators who would limit cognitive liberty lack jurisdiction.

Common-law must hold that adults are the legal owners of their own bodies. The Founding Fathers undersigned that the right to the pursuit of happiness is inalienable. Socrates said to know your self. Mortal lawmakers should not presume to thwart the intelligent design that molecular keys unlock spiritual doors. Persons who appreciate their own free choice of path in life should tolerate seekers’ self-exploration.