MARIJUANA AND GAMBLING ARE NONE OF WASHINGTON'S BUSINESS

In the last few days two bills have been introduced to the United States Congress. The first would end the involvement of the Federal government in the enforcement of marijuana laws, leaving that up to the several States. The second would legalize on-line casinos.

The Alexandria Daily Poop endorses both pieces of legislation, for the following reasons.

Regarding online casinos, most of those presently available are located offshore, with little protection of the bettor should his winnings not be forthcoming or should the games be artificially modified so as to increase the house advantage. Having an American E-Casino would enable criminal prosecution for - for example - a crooked roulette wheel.

As to the end of Federal involvement in matters concerning cannabis, we find this to be a great way to end the drug wars raging in Mexico. Here in the United States, we are capable of growing better pot than anywhere else in the world. We would love to see the United States be the source of the most desirable strains of pot on the planet.

Nevertheless, the same old tired reasons for continuing the status quo concerning pot continue to arise. We shall now proceed to demolish these arguments.

"MARIJUANA IS A GATEWAY DRUG".

No, it isn't. Marijuana rather has been consigned to stand in the gateway via its illegal status. Presently, if one wishes to purchase cannabis one must go to places and circumstances where much more dangerous stuff is being sold. Legalizing the stuff (and selling it subject to the laws regulating alcohol) would take it out of the street.

Sure, an 18-year-old who is able to legally buy pot (or a 21-year-old who could buy hashish) might be able to supply his kid brother and his pals. But the same thing goes on with beer, wine, and liquor. What's the diff? (Here's the diff: People have died from alcohol overdose. Before any concerns about permanent damage arise, one would have to consume an amount of PURE TETRAHYDRACANNABINOL EQUIVALENT TO THE WEIGHT OF A STANDARD HERSHEY BAR.) Parents, if you can tell that your kid has been drinking then most assuredly you can tell if he's STONED. Proper parenting can accomplish for free what we have been spending billions to do regarding pot (and everything else, for that matter).

"THE POT AVAILABLE TODAY IS (fill in the blank) TIMES AS STRONG AS THE POT WE SMOKED WHEN WE WERE KIDS"

In my misspent teenage years, I smoked pot that was a whopping SIX PERCENT THC. Some of these estimates have said that "today's powerful marijuana" is "thirty times as powerful".

180 percent THC??

Shaddap.

"LABORATORY TESTS SHOW THAT MARIJUANA IS A FAR MORE POTENT CARCINOGEN THAN TOBACCO"

First, anyone who smokes a pack of reefers a day has bigger problems than simple drug dependence; and cancer is the least of his problems.

Second, smoking pot isn't the only way to consume it. The thing about eating or drinking cannabis preparations is that the "lag time" between consumption and effect can be fifteen to forty-five minutes. Someone may feel that they have not been intoxicated at all, climb into a vehicle, and start driving; only to have the full effect of the drug come on suddenly. But they should have known, and operating under the influence is DUI no matter the intoxicant.

"WELL YOU SEE, NOW, THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT! THERE ARE NO FIELD CHEMICAL ANALYSIS TESTS TO SHOW AN ILLEGAL AMOUNT OF THC IN A DRIVER'S BLOODSTREAM!"

Well, maybe not. But the charge is "driving under the influence" of an intoxicant. Dashboard cameras exist to document the behavior of a DUI suspect. Are you trying to say that if a law enforcement officer pulls over a driver who has not been drinking but is high on pot, then the pothead driver will walk??

The only thing a "Breathalyzer" does is to establish a prima facse case for intoxication based on a certain blood/alcohol ratio. DUI cases in which the driver "blew" well under the common .08 standard have been successfully prosecuted numerous times. In the case of cannabis, the law enforcement officer might just need to document the fact that the DUI suspect couldn't stand up straight (or said that the flashing lights of the police car indicated a wormhole in the time/space continuum) It's an out-and-out falsehood to say that a driver stoned on nothing but pot can't be successfully prosecuted. It happens every damned day in this country. We at the Alexandria Daily Poop particularly call BULLSHIT on this argument.

PLEASE NOTE that we do not here say that cannabis should be uniformly legal throughout the United States. The only argument that we make here is that laws regarding cannabis (and other psychoactive drugs such as alcohol) should be left up to the Several States, where it belongs. Alcohol prohibition (another failed attempt at State Nannyism) was at least underpinned by an Amendment to the Constitution. Federal drug laws arrogantly assume that no such nicety is required.

Absent such an Amendment, the regulation of the manufacture, possession, and use of cannabis (and other drugs) should be left to the Several States, where it belongs.

MARIJUANA IS A "SCHEDULE I" DRUG, BUT THC IS SCHEDULE III

THAT'S RIGHT, FOLKS. Now figure this one out, and try to get the DEA to explain it: Marijuana, Cannabis Sativa, the plant used around the world as a smoked, eaten, or brewed drug is on the Drug Enforcement Administration's "Schedule I" right along with heroin and LSD as a public health menace. BUT the ACTIVE INGREDIENT in marijuana, Tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC) ; the stuff that makes pot so supposedly dangerous, is on SCHEDULE THREE (III); and is so loosely regulated that it can be prescribed as a toothache remedy.

WHAT THE FUCK? HUH? I MEAN, WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK???

A little background here. As did a lot of my generation, I smoked pot when I was a lot younger. It has been quite a while since I have even seen the stuff and I really don't have the time to go looking for it, nor do I care to deal with the sort of people who deal in it. And I consider the arguments of both the radical advocates of legalization and the radical opponents of legalization to be equally full of crap. Marijuana is not a cure-all, it is not a viable source of automobile fuel, is not a superior source of industrial fiber, and food made with marijuana-seed byproducts (such as a beer "flavored" with "hemp seed") tastes like crap. BUT ALSO pot is not a "gateway" to "stronger illegal drugs" except for the fact that-due to the very fact that it is illegal-stronger and more dangerous stuff is often obtainable through the same channels. There's a lot more derision I could throw at both sides, but you get the point. Nevertheless, personally I think marijuana should be legalized and taxed. I will save arguments on that point for another time.

Now there has been for some time a "medical marijuana" movement, and indeed it has been shown that marijuana does have some beneficial effects. People wasting away from AIDS or as a result of chemotherapy and the concomitant loss of appetite have benefitted greatly from getting the "munchies", for example. But the government and certain high-profile folks have kept up a steady drumbeat about the dangers of marijuana. Well.

Out of little more than boredom, I paid the DEA's website a visit and looked at the FAQs about pot. In answer to criticism about DEA opposition to "medical marijuana", the DEA said: "Medical Marijuana already exists! It is called "Marinol"....."

"Marinol"? Hmmmm.....

I had heard of Marinol a few years ago, and thought it was THC produced with an additive that blunted the "fun" aspect of THC. This , as it turns out, is not the case. Marinol is synthetic THC in a sesame-seed oil base, administered in gel-caps. Swallow a dose of Marinol and within 30 minutes to an hour you will be as high as if you had been smoking pot for real. But Marinol is not a Schedule I drug, or even a Schedule II drug. It is Schedule III, and may be prescribed for "off-label" purposes. That is, the manufacturer designates as "indications" nausea, anorexia, etc; but if a physician decides it might be useful for something else, he may prescribe it for that purpose. It costs about $25 per dose, which is about the price you would pay for an equvalent-in-THC amount of Red Lebanese Hashish (which is ditto Schedule I).

I am not going to go into a satirical rant here, although the situation begs for one. But Federally speaking, the marijuana plant is so allegedly dangerous that it cannot be grown, sold, or posessed except under the ultra-strict supervision of the DEA; and penalties carry the life-ruining stigma of a felony conviction under Federal law. But THC - so long as it is made synthetically in an authorized laboratory - can be sold by prescription; and can be prescribed for just about anything some doctor thinks it would be good for. Hell's bells, it has been prescribed to treat Hyperactivity/Atttention Deficit Disorder in SCHOOLCHILDREN and the DEA hasn't battted an eye. But grow a little pot so you can have a few tokes to ease your stress and enjoy dinner (a purpose that Marinol can be prescribed for) and you are facing major slammer time.

Is it just me, or is there some fucked up and tortured logic being used to justify marijuana prohibition? Huh?