The Mission

Anyone who has taken a look at this blog has been a part of a mission. My goal for all this time has been to educate people about marijuana and the reasons why people push for its legalization. More importantly, however, I want to bring to light the stigma against people who take marijuana. I know that it is wrong for nonviolent offenders to get sentenced to years in jail for committing simple crimes of possession or usage of a drug that may be less harmful than cigarettes. I know that it is wrong for people to be hindered in getting the medicines they need simply because of an outdated law. I acknowledge that these things are wrong as a rational human being. And if my writing has caused even one person to think at all about any of these issues, I feel as though I have done my job. 

However, the work does not end there. Even if people have learned from and/or agreed with me, they may be at a loss as to what to do next. The eternal inquiry "So what?" may enter into their minds. Some probably believe that legalization is already inevitable and will happen on its own and is inevitable, so there is no reason for them to push for it. However, social change is not the same as evolution--it is a man-made rather than a natural force. It requires supporters and momentum to continue its progression, lest the movement peters out and dies. And to those who think that their contribution to the movement would be merely a drop in the bucket, as the saying goes, "Anyone who believes that one little person has no impact has never been bitten by a mosquito."

The most obvious move would be to petition one's legislators. Support those who advocate for legalization and talk to your own local government about making pot legal. If they hear enough voices wanting the same thing, they will begin to support that thing in the hopes of gaining public favor. However, even if the government is not onboard, there is nothing to say that you cannot change someone else's mind. Education is key to everything, and by sharing credible information about why marijuana should be legalized, you have the chance to change. 

Of Cons and Confusion

Dawes knew what they were talking about when they said, "All these scientists and these doctors, they're all right, and they're all wrong." On both sides of the legalization debate, opposing forces have exchanged salvos of misinformation, and often it is difficult to distinguish fact from all-out fiction. Opponents against the legal use of the drug shout from the rooftops their damning evidence concerning marijuana's ill effects on mental, physical, and social health. Meanwhile, fans of pot scoff at these proclamations as antiquated catastrophism, upholding the marijuana as harmless at worst and a cure-all wonder-drug at best. 

Claims on both fronts, however, are often heavily exaggerated. Marijuana is not the drug "with its roots in Hell," as Reefer Madness alleged, but it's not a godsend either; it simply exists. Pot, like money, is a neutral force that can be used for either good or evil. Legalization, however, is not only a good thing--it is becoming increasingly necessary, not to mention imminent. How can this dichotomy exist? I have already stated repeatedly why I favor legalizing. Let's now take a break to examine a few of the most pressing opposing arguments (and their inherent flaws). 

1. "Marijuana is more dangerous/addicting than cigarettes."

If you're willing to brave a quick Google search of this topic, you'll have to do a fair amount of digital navigating before you get past the initial search-result barrage of amateur bloggers declaring themselves to be health experts (as though I'm one to talk). For this reason, in my research, I decided to go directly to one of the most famous sources, one you can find in just about any gas station: the US surgeon general. Of course, there's no secret as to the opinion on tobacco smoking. 

However, surgeon general statements on marijuana have been more of a mixed bag over the years. Currently, Surgeon General Regina Benjamin acknowledges the evidence that pot can have medicinal effects, but further studies are required to determine how to reduce the adverse effects of the drug. David Satcher, surgeon general from 1998-2002, says that there is no definite medical use for marijuana currently known. Also, as early as 1994, Surgeon General M. Joycelyn Elders stated, 

"The evidence is overwhelming that marijuana can relieve certain types of pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms caused by such illnesses as multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS -- or by the harsh drugs sometimes used to treat them. And it can do so with remarkable safety. Indeed, marijuana is less toxic than many of the drugs that physicians prescribe every day." As for addiction, any substance can lead to dependence, including legal ones such as cigarettes and alcohol.

2. "Marijuana is a gateway drug."

This is one of the most prevalent arguments against pot, and at first it seems nothing but valid. After all, it is true that most who get involved with heroin and cocaine began by experimentation with pot. However, that marijuana actually led to further drug use is an assumption based on ine observation. Not everyone who tries marijuana will progress to harder drugs: According to a Time magazine article, 

"in 2009, 2.3 million people reported trying pot — compared with 617,000 who tried cocaine and 180,000 who tried heroin." The article goes on to quote the National Academy of Sciences: "In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a “gateway” drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, “gateway” to illicit drug use. There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs."

3. "Marijuana is a bad influence on the youth."

Yes, obviously. What's your point?

Depending on where your child lives and goes to school, "the influence" is likely the norm in their life. They are surrounded by it every day, and it is not scare tactics that will cause them to take the high road and stay sober, but real, comprehensive education. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Anyone really hell-bent on doing something will find a way to get it done, whether by legal means or otherwise. Instead of supporting overly harsh penalties on the use of a drug that may or may not be dangerous, talk to your children in the same way you talk to them about alcohol and cigarettes. Keeping the topic of marijuana in the dark will only make them want to explore it more. 

Time Article: http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/

Surgeon General Statements: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004872

The Death Penalty for Saving a Life?

Charlotte Figi is a beautiful, bright young girl. These days, her eyes sparkle with vibrancy. These days, her light brown hair bounces playfully around cherubic cheeks and reflects the sheen of the sunlight as she enjoys the outdoors. 

But that's now. Before "these days," it was very different. 

Charlie was born with Dravet Syndrome, a form of chronic childhood epilepsy characterized by severe seizures and impaired development starting at the age of around two years. It is violent, indiscriminate, and incurable. For the Figi family, the ordeal of their daughter experiencing 300 seizures a week was a norm. On more than one occasion, the convulsions caused her heart to stop. 

Skip ahead to today, and not only is Charlotte thriving, but she also has the distinguished honor of having a strain of pot named after her. "Charlotte's Web" is a form of cannabis plant in development that, hopefully, could save the lives and spirits of other afflicted children in the future. 

That's because marijuana was the Figis' savior, being the only medicine that had ever succeeded in effectively managing Charlie's symptoms. Her place of healing was Harborside Health Center, which is one of the top ten taxpayers in the city of Oakland, CA, largely based on their sale of medical marijuana. At Harborside, a vast variety of marijuana is painstakingly tested and then sold. According to the center's director, Steve DeAngelo, the regulated drug has been used to help people with such issues as cerebral palsy, certain cancers, and HIV. And now one little girl with Dravet Syndrome. 

The problem? The director could technically be executed for his work. 

Of course, what he's doing is perfectly legal in California, along with the nineteen other states that permit the use of medical cannabis. However, according to federal law, he could be subject to capital punishment. According to the federal government, if one is in possession of exorbitant amounts of pot--60,000 plants, to be exact--he or she may be subject to the death penalty. DeAngelo, in his mission of healing, has distributed far more than that. 

So why isn't he in rotting in jail already? For that matter, considering the fact that pot is still illegal according to federal law, why haven't the police arrested any of those drug users that you saw smoking on TV after legalization occured in Washington and Colorado? After all, we still have Clause 2 of Article VI of the US Constitution, the famous Supremacy Clause decreeing that the federal law is the "supreme law of the land." In other words, state laws should not be in violation of the legislation made in D.C. 

This, as you can see, is an issue that goes beyond the life of one suffering girl or the freedom of one supposedly law-abiding man. It affects all of us, though certainly some more directly in others. If the greatest world superpower cannot even abide by one of the core concepts of its own Constitution, what does such a thing say about the nation's integrity? What kind of precedent does this set for the independent actions of the states in the future. 

Given all this, it seems to me that the US has three choices in order to redeem itself and stay honest:

1) Arrest all those delinquent pot users in the states in which their actions are perfectly legal according to local law. Execute a few medical professionals while you're at it. 

2) Change the Constitution and cut out that pesky Supremacy Clause. 

3) Legalize marijuana. 

I think you know what my vote is. How about you?

Constitution USA video--> http://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/watch/a-more-perfect-union/

Harborside Health Center--> http://www.harborsidehealthcenter.com

Charlotte Figi-->http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/how-pot-helped-charlotte-figi-5-with-her-seizures-and-inspired-charlottes-web/story-fneuz9ev-1226831059660

Words, Words, Words

Hemp. Cannabis. Weed. Marijuana. Pot. Narcotics. Grass. Bud. 

The drug in question has a plethora of aliases, and in today's society, all of them conjure images of ill health, delinquency, and hallucinatory effects. However, the truth is that many of these words once had very different connotations, and it was in fact the English language itself that played a part in the prohibition of cannabis sativa. 

First, let's go back in time. You are back behind the little wooden desk, finely adorned in hideously scrawled curse words and pencil doodlings of questionable decency--it's high school history class once again, and maybe your spiral is filled with carefully organizes notes, or maybe that notebook of yours is a wordy whirlwind of notes that you slipped to friends during the lecture. Regardless, a few facts have been relentlessly pounded into your adolescent brain over the years. You know that the Pilgrims came in 1620. You know that they cultivated a land of plenty. You know that over a decade and a half later, the Founding Fathers--Washington, Jefferson, the works--set forth a new nation conceived in liberty. And you know that they were all high as a kite the whole time. 

Wait, what? 

Well, that may be an exaggeration, and one would hope that the documents on which our nation is founded aren't just some psychedelic musings. It is true, however, that hemp was a highly successful and cash crop in the colonies, helping many of the earliest settlers pay back their debts established by King James I. In other words, for quite some time, there was very little backlash against pot and its users. (Of course, that didn't make the drug any less healthy. The same could be said for the even more important cash crop of tobacco at the time, and we all know now the medical ramifications that the colonists were subjecting themselves to--but that's a blogging topic for another day.)

So what exactly happened? Most of the trouble began in the 1900s, and this is where the problem of connotations in the English language came in. With the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906--which prohibited misleading labels on drugs--came the use of the word "poison" to describe cannabis, naturally frightening the consumer public. Shortly afterward came a surge of nativism and "anti-Mexicanism" spurred by an influx of immigrants from across the border. At this point, the term "marijuana" became used extensively to emphasize the drug's origins, implying that it originated from "immoral" and "dirty" people. Marijuana would also become associated with African Americans, prostitutes, and organized crime during the "Reefer Madness" Era, named after a 1936 film that exposed the apparent depravity of users. By the end of the 1950s, mandatory sentences for possession and usage of certain drugs were in place, with the arrival of such laws as the 1952 Boggs Act. 

And it started with words. 

So now we know how and why it became illegal. What about the history of ending the prohibition? It will probably come as a surprise to few people that the campaign for legalizing the drug began in the '70s. The first bill campaigning for approval of marijuana to be used in life-threatening medical situations was presented by the 97th Congress in 1981, and in the last decade there has been a litany of bills advocating for states' rights in deciding whether or not to legalize medical marijuana. However, these proposals have largely failed. 

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't still advocate for the passage of the H. 499 bill. If prohibition started with words, maybe legalization can start the same way, right here. 

Sources: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr499#summary

http://www.policymic.com/articles/78685/a-brief-history-of-how-marijuana-became-illegal-in-the-u-s

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-bloom/legalization-or-bust-a-br_b_775684.html

How Marijuana Benefits Kindergarteners

The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013 does not have a title with much "zing" to it. Its message, however, has a better chance of catching on. As the lengthy name implies, the bill's primary focus is to end marijuana's status as an illicit substance on the federal level, thereby promoting each of the states' right to choose independently whether or not to legalize the drug. Additionally, the act 

The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013 (H. R. 499) currently stagnates in Committee. The prognosis for the bill is, quite frankly, dismal. It is descended from a measure of the same name brought forth by former representative Barney Frank in 2011(H. R. 2306), a proposal that sputtered before quietly dying. Few missed it after its passing. 

H. R. 499, however, has a factor that separates it from its 2011 predecessor. It is sponsored by Representative Jared Polis of Colorado (image below), a state that has recently drawn attention to itself for being the second in the union for legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes. 

Oh, God...Colorado? That pit of moral decay? Well, of course they would be the ones who would want drugs legalized. They're probably all too high for politics anyway!

Those are the same potheads who estimate that they will rake in "collect about $134 million in taxes from recreational and medical marijuana for the fiscal year beginning in July," according to the New York Times's account of Gov. John W. Hickenlooper. Furthermore, over 70% of this revenue has been sworn to schools, including programs involving a comprehensive education program concerning the threat of drugs to young people; substance abuse rehabilitation, to ensure that those addicted to marijuana recieve help rather than jailtime for their mental health issues; and an increased police presence in the state. And these numbers are only the beginning. Change in this state has also begun to arrive as the drug dealers have begun to leave, taking a good deal of the gangs and violence with which they are associated with them. 

Of course, there is a potential downside that some have pointed out: The state may end up spending all their revenue from the drug business on the aforementioned increased police force, since they will need to guard the borders of Colorado from those wishing to smuggle contraband marijuana into other states. 

Of course, that wouldn't be an issue if pot went legal nationwide, and if every state went the way of those filthy druggies in Colorado. 

New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/us/colorado-expects-to-reap-tax-bonanza-from-legal-marijuana-sales.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=1

Rep. Jared Polis's website: http://polis.house.gov

The Why

Hello, and welcome to my blog concerning the promotion of the federal legalization of marijuana. I realize that an informational piece such as this post might be better suited for the "About Me" section on my account, but I want to make it more apparent for any newcomers to see. Here, in other words, I want to explain the "why": Why should a quiet, sober teenager in a quiet, (mostly) sober suburb care about the prevalence of pot in the nationwide community?

The fact is that no wide-eyed little baby is born with political convictions--we get those from learning, from experiencing. If I had grown up in different surroundings and with different educational influences, etc., it is not at all unlikely that I would have developed different opinions. Therefore, I believe in sharing some of my background in order to give some inkling of the origins of the ideas that will be expressed in this blog. The Greeks called this ethos. Today, we merely call it credibility. 

I am a young, sixteen-year-old, Caucasian female living in northern Chicagoland. I was raised by a largely Catholic family, and though I personally no longer follow the faith, some of my early education in the religion's dogma has shaped my moral compass in the world. I was not a part of the violence for which my city is infamous, for which it has been renowned for so long. I was the neighbor to the horrors that occur so frequently in some select areas of Chicago. But I was that neighbor living several doors down, the one with the backyard enclosed by a fence that was too tall to see over. 

As aforementioned, I do not use weed. I never have used any drug for recreational purposes, illegal or not. I have seen enough destruction in my family due to the legal ones alone, from tobacco-related deaths spanning three generations to alcoholism. (And if you believe President Obama's controversial remark about booze being more threatening than pot, you may recognize a certain double standard that I have begun to see.) 

So why do I care about legalizing marijuana for reasons beyond the medical? Not for myself, certainly. I have no use for the drug. 

I care because the Cook County Jail is currently around 1,000 people over capacity, stuffed to the brim with nonviolent offenders who, many of whom sell and use marijuana as a deadly lifeline. I care because they wallow in prisons and are starved of proper rehabilitation in the meanwhile. I care because the overcrowded conditions result in an estimated 5% of inmates who have been awaiting trial for two years. I care because the lack of proper regulation contributes to the ongoing reign of the gangs and contributes to the reason why Chicago remains the most racially and economically segregated city in the US. 

And this is only one city. 

If you have another opinion--if your experience and your reason tells you to disagree--by all means, please discuss it with me. However, I would appreciate it if you would bring sufficient evidence to your argument so that a legitimate and productive discussion may be had. I will remain civil to you, and I hope that you will respect me by doing the same.