Is cannabis a progressive issue or not?

[Therellas]

Ive noticed now with this tea party bs that they are trying to own the issue.
I havent heard any dems really talking about it.
I see how the republicons are using this as a wedge issue....
and its working.
wtf?

[Deep13]

1. I would say decriminaliation is a progressive issue...

...because of the staggering cost of suppressing a drug that has probably never killed anyone.

[Recursion]

8. What about that kid on the bike?

:evilgrin:

[Deep13]

21. He stole some doobies, reefers, speefs.... nt

[TexasObserver]

67. In real life, that kid on the bike would be half way down the block ...

... before the guy in the car got the food, remembered he was driving, and eased forward at 2 miles an hour.

[tazkcmo]

2. It's also a libertarian issue

Personal freedom and all that. But I agree, it's largely a progressive issue due to the complete logic of legalization.

[eShirl]

11. You know the old saying... a Libertarian is a Republican who smokes pot. n/t

[Shell Beau]

73. I must say that people who smoke pot (at least the ones I know) tend

to be more liberal.

[bertman]

97. Not for me. 50-50 liberal-conservative

[Uncle Joe]

55. It's also a Populist issue as the demonization of this plant and it's remarkable medical

properties has been used to further the cause of corporate supremacy either via Big Pharma profits and/or disenfranchising the American People from the their elected government and/or their livelihoods.

[Toasterlad]

59. Exactly

[bsd13]

3. No, not really

There are just as many conservative, independent, and libertarian "pot heads" as there are liberal/progressives. Granted the social circles are different but the issue crosses a lot of boundaries. Everyone has a part to play in getting it legalized and no one should think that they or anyone else has a right, or more importantly in this case a reason, to "own" the issue.

[Shell Beau]

78. I agree that their are just as many "potheads" that are repubs, etc.,

but I don't see them really wanting to decriminalize it. Of course that is only an observation that I have made.

[PassingFair]

4. It's the one issue that Progressives, Conservatives and Libertarians ALL agree on.

The only people I've met that DON'T want
marijuana legalized are lawyers, prosecutors
and law enforcement people.

On edit: The DLC types I know are against
legalization or decriminalization as well,
because they are afraid of ALL "issues".

...wouldn't want to look "un-centrist".

:eyes:

[Therellas]

9. this is what spurred my post.

now its about law enforcement keeping and justifying their "JOBS".

[ieoeja]

26. All the cops I know want it legalized.

I should point out that I live in Chicago where the cops have plenty of work to do and consider marijuana busts a waste of their time. I don't know any of the cops where I grew up in southern Indiana, but I suspect many of them believe marijuana is evil.

[Eric Condon]

60. Off-topic: where did you grow up in Southern Indiana?

New Albany over here. And at least in New Albany, cops are much less concerned with drugs (like, for instance, the huge proliferation of crack and meth) than they are with hassling teenagers for absolutely nothing, which is what used to happen to me and my friends back in the day.

[ieoeja]

61. On a farm south of Loogootee.

I now own 240 acres of it, half in Martin Co, half in Daviess Co.

I have two Loogootee cops-after-an-election story. In one election when Reaganite fever was at a high pitch, they elected a "law and order" mayor. Much to their astonishment they found the cops under this mayor targeting *them*! In a city of 2500 people, the only laws the cops would have been ignoring are things like rolling through a stop sign, going 5 mph over the speed limit, etc. All the little things that most people are guilty of doing.

Another time they elected a retired state cop who, it turns out, had a whole lot more sense (and humor) than the people who hired him. While Loogootee is a conservative Democratic city, the only newspaper is Republican. So the owner started attacking the mayor because they knew more calls were being placed to the city police than were appearing in the police report given to the newspaper. After a few weeks of this, the city cops provided a "full" report that was comedy genius. I have kicked myself a thousand times for not saving a copy of it. But it went something like this:

Received report of kids
playing in the street.
Officer responding found
children playing a
friendly game of tag.
After refereeing game
for a few minutes,
responding officer
instructed children
to be careful and
left.
----------------------
Received report of
dangerous animal on
N. Line St. Responding
officer approached a
dog which smelled
officer's hand then
licked officer's face.
Officer responded by
wiping slobber off
his face then returned
to his patrol.


It went on like that for quite some time.

[hfojvt]

58. I am finding a bit more of a split

this poll says only 38% think it should be legal
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/19/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4877495.shtml

whereas other polls say 52% say it should be legal.

Still, 52% is a very long way from ALL.

[jotsy]

5. I believe what we're seeing is a maneuver to get the topic back on the front burner

so once legalized, it becomes a profitable commodity to an economic system that needs infusion from an entirely new direction. I wish we'd have come to the right decision before there was money at stake.

k & r, it's a good question for what should be an interesting chat.

[Therellas]

10. hope your right.

:patriot:

[jotsy]

14. Forgot to welcome you to DU!

Hope you find the wide variety of conversation to your liking.

[Therellas]

43. well thank u.

pleasure to make your acquaintance. :hide:

[sufrommich]

6. Teabaggers are pro pot? nt

[Therellas]

12. I see ALOT of "don't tread on me" bleeding over.

its very frustrating.

[Recursion]

7. Remember, the term "progressive" was coined about prohibitionists

William F. Buckley smokes pot.

[Deep13]

13. True, but unlike neocon ideologs, we are capable of admitting error. nt

[PassingFair]

17. William F. Buckley is dead.

:evilgrin:

[Recursion]

22. He must have wandered into traffic while he was high!

Pot claims another victim!

[PassingFair]

24. Madness!

[NikRik]

15. The only thing making pot dangerous.......

is its legal satus ! The harmless weed should be make legal and controlled and taxed as a way to perhaps help get us out of this financial mess we are in .Its not a fix all ,however between the $ we will save putting people thru the legal system and the revenue raised from a sales tax could help very much ! Its completely unacceptable that anyone would be jailed for pot ! IMHO
Nick

[Yurovsky]

95. exactly...

make it legal and you take away jail and what people will do to stay out of jail or once they are in jail. You take away the $$$ aspect and eliminate the violence associated with some bigger dealers.

[RainDog]

16. cannabis is a medical issue, a personal freedom issue, a "govt is lying to you" issue

so I'd say it's an issue for all Americans.

prohibition of cannabis is stupid, just as prohibition of alcohol was.

[mdmc]

102. 1

[LaydeeBug]

18. Oh, pleeeeease. The day pot smoking gets taken away from us treehuggers is the day *we* take over

the gun issue.

[Recursion]

23. Some of us treehuggers are already gun-nuts

The day is coming...

[Bitwit1234]

19. I see where the ingredients can be put in a pill

and given to people who take chemo. I have never tried it, but if it settles the stomach of chemo patients, I'm all for it. I go for my first chemo treatment Tuesday. Wish me luck that I don't get overly nauseous.

[RainDog]

25. a vaporizer provides instant relief

just fyi.

as someone who has had migraines for years, my experience with cannabis is that it stopped the nausea immediately - and is the only medicine that will do so.

however, I now have a prescrip for migraines so I use something that's legal and less effective rather than the med that is best.

in any case, we are led to believe that the only good medicine comes in a capsule but that's not the truth.

[Mythbuster]

111. I have MS...

...and in my opinion, the only thing criminal about marijuana is that they continue to deny it (legally) to people like myself and others who would truly benefit from being able to buy it, whether at a pharmacy or preferably at the local liquor store. Sorry to hear about your migraines... they suck! You are very correct about pot wiping out nausea in a flash! :smoke:

[Fumesucker]

27. Good luck with your chemo...

As someone who has dealt with nausea more than average I can tell you that giving a pill to someone who is vomiting is not particularly helpful.

[Recursion]

74. Good luck. Show the big C who's the boss here. NT

[uppityperson]

79. Marinol is synthetic THC in a pill.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html
Not saying I agree with dea position, just it was the first hit I got.

It is a class 3 narcotic, in same category as vicodin. Good luck with the chemo.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. Yeah, the only difference is mode of delivery.

With inhalation all it has to do is pass through your aveoli and it's in your bloodstream and to your brain in seconds.

With a pill it's got to go through your digestive tract to your intestine where it needs to be absorbed (probably rather poorly as it's so hydrophobic) and it gets metabolized along the way, and then its in your blood stream but some of it's going to go through hepatic cycling where it gets metabolized some more. So with the marinol you've got wait longer, it's not as efficient, and then there's the problem of digesting a pill when you're already nauseous in the first place.

It'd be nice if their was an inhaler version, were you only get THC instead of a thousand compounds, no smoke, and a measured dose every single time so you can get all of the benefits of smoking with none of the drawback.

[Fly by night]

117. Numerous studies have proven that Marinol is less effective than whole-plant cannabis.

There are several reasons for that.

The main reason is that Marinol contains only synthetic THC, while whole-plant cannabis contains over 60 bioactive cannabinoids.

THC is also the most psychoactive substance in cannabis, and people who just get that one cannabinoid often report dysphoria that is less common with whole-plant cannabis, since some of the other cannabinoids mediate the "high" produced by THC to make it more palatable.

Finally, the mode of ingestion (pill versus inhalation) is much more difficult to titrate and it takes much longer (often more than an hour) to feel any effects from the pill versus instantaneous response after inhalation.

As with many things, the whole (plant cannabis) if greater than the sum of its parts (particularly when you are legally allowed to consume only one of its parts.)

One final point: neither THC nor whole plant cannabis are narcotics.

[RainDog]

118. Marinol, synthetic (pharmacy-produced) THC, is schedule 3 but cannabis is schedule I?!?!

they are essentially the same - the THC is the reason cannabis makes anyone high - tho as noted, marinol is less effective b/c it lacks other cannabinoids, so the govt is saying that THC that lets pharmaceutical cos make a profit is a drug with medicinal benefits, far less harmful than heroin or other schedule I substances.

this, on the face of its existence, seems to indicate that the govt is merely indicating preference for who profits off of cannabis.

cannabis is FAR safer than vicodin. you cannot OD on cannabis.

the bullshit and political shamelessness make me sick. the american govt is colluding with big biz to keep Americans from medicine that will help them.

it is time for this bullshit to end.

[RainDog]

119. why isn't this unfair trade practices?

the govt is saying that the same substance is illegal if it's grown in your backyard but legal if a pharmacy creates a fake version. like saying that butter is illegal and only "I can't believe it's not butter" is legal because the govt is in thick with the producers of the same.

why can't the legality of this be challenged as a trade issue?

[mdmc]

103. the pill does that with a heavy hand

kinda like smoking a joint in the further bus, fully packed, with Cheech and chong types doing the same..
it settles the stomach, but does so with a heavy hand..

[Ganja Ninja]

20. It's only an issue when they want your vote.

After that the attitude is sort of "why rock the boat?"

[Fumesucker]

28. Obama grows the drug war, with enforcement a clear priority

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7629693

The budget places America's drug war spending at $15.5 billion for fiscal year 2011; an increase of 3.5 percent over FY 2010. That figure reflects a 5.2 percent increase in overall enforcement funding, growing from $9.7 billion in FY 2010 to $9.9 billion in FY 2011. Addiction treatment and preventative measures, however, are budgeted at $5.6 billion for FY 2011, an increase from $5.2 billion in FY 2010.

In short, the Obama administration's appropriations for treating drug addiction are just short of half that dedicated to prosecuting the war.

[Therellas]

29. so if cannabis was a real problem we can "assume".....

that "helping" people just isn't their priority.
lets just lock them up for the revenue.
great.

[Echo In Light]

32. Exactly - and yes, it is a progressive issue as it pertains to the state waging war on citizens

[Fumesucker]

33. My thinking on the question goes like this..

As a black man who had indulged in both cocaine and cannabis if Obama had been caught he would never have been eligible to be president.

Clearly, Obama thinks he would have been better off to have been busted for his pot and coke use because he thinks others will be better off for it and Obama is a Christian who believes in the golden rule.

[mdmc]

105. here is one more follow up thought

If I had burned a hobo to death or raped a prostitute, and later admitted I do these crimes in a book that I wrote, I would expect to face punishment for my actions. I would know that these actions were wrong and that I would require punishment in order for justice to be served.

Obama has admitted to using coke and pot, but does not seem at all concerned that his crimes will go unpunished. Obama is fine to allow his crimes to go unpunished, yet requires punishment for everyone else caught doing exactly what Obama did.

[Fumesucker]

115. Good point, thanks for posting..

[alfredo]

30. Frame legalization as new revenue for the state, unburdening

the court system and prison systems.

[Therellas]

31. this is why i believe that they realy are at WAR with the american people.

it just makes too much sense to do it.

[alfredo]

34. Common sense is not common in our society.

[Sebastian Doyle]

35. promoting legalization of ALL hemp is a progressive issue

It was the corporations who made it illegal in the first place, and most of them weren't doing it because of the recreational variety, but that made the hysterical propaganda case easier (if you have never seen "Reefer Madness", find a copy. It's even funnier if you watch it when you're stoned)

[Therellas]

39. absofreakingloutely.

at least thats what i thought
until i heard may dems busting on or avoiding the issue
and teabagged'ers and conservatives actually talking about it.

[RedCappedBandit]

36. The war on drugs is a human rights issue.

[Therellas]

40. thats what i think as well.

however it doesnt seem as if its even on the radar.

[asdjrocky]

37. Conference call at 2:30 today.

City Council meeting on the 9th where I'm speaking.

Planned protests if they close our only dispensary in town.

And yeah, we're all pretty much either considered Progressive or active on this single issue.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. An issue or a litmus test?

Yes to the former, no to the latter.

[Therellas]

41. litmus for progressives?

because any real discussion is sparse at best.

[Fumesucker]

42. So you can be pro drug war and a progressive at the same time?

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. Yes.

You've created enough exclusionary clauses.

[Fumesucker]

45. Alcohol is a recreational drug..

Would it be progressive to bring back alcohol Prohibition as part of the drug war?

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. Progressives *were* the original prohibitionists.

I don't support the drug war or prohibition, but unlike you, I'm not going to tell someone who disagrees with me on that point that they can't be a progressive.

[Flaneur]

50. Sorry, supporting the drug war is not a progressive position.

No matter what progressives thought a century ago.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. I don't get to define "progressive"

Neither do you.

I think I'm a progressive, and I support democrats. That's good enough.

There just happens to be a general consensus among most progressives on the merits of drug prohibition. Nothing more.

[Fumesucker]

56. Then basically there really is no such thing as a "progressive"

If the word has no definition that people can agree on.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. Is there a definition of "Native American" that everyone must agree on?

For the most part, when a person says they are a progressive, I take that at face value. I don't get, nor do I feel the need, to judge.

[Fumesucker]

71. Eh, if Sean Hannity were to call himself a progressive you would take him at face value?

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, progressive is as progressive does.

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. If he voted for Democrats, I'd suppress my doubts and argue the issues. n/t

[uppityperson]

81. So part of your "progressive" definition is voting Democratic.

[Fumesucker]

113. So you do have a litmus test... voting Democratic..

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. PJ O'Rourke is for legalization, would you call him a progressive? n/t

[Fumesucker]

114. Apparently you don't understand the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient"..

You think it is sufficient for someone to vote Democratic in order to be a progressive.

I think it is necessary for someone to be anti drug war in order for someone to be a progressive, that does not mean I think it is sufficient.

Edited for speling.

[uppityperson]

80. you don't "get to define progressive", yet you "think I'm a progressive"

huh. Seems you are defining it somehow to say you are in that group.

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. I'm 5' 11" tall.

That doesn't mean that anyone 6' tall is precluded from self-identifying as a progressive.

My definition is a more inclusive than some. Pretty much if you say you are a progressive and vote for democrats, who am I to judge?

[Therellas]

47. are you sure?

that's pretty counter intuitive huh?
progress and war that is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. Tell that to LBJ

We don't seem to have much problem with the War on Poverty.

[Therellas]

53. dude , he died in 1973.

its 2010.

[uppityperson]

82. +1

:rofl:

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. Really? That's what earns a +1 from you?

:rofl:

It wasn't worth a comment until now.

[uppityperson]

85. Yup, I thought it was very funny.

I appreciate off the wall humor and this was so straight foward of facts that it qualifies.

"tell LBJ" "dude, he's dead"

Yup, funny

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. I'm sure his other 67 posts were equally witty and brilliant. n/t

[uppityperson]

88. Of course they were, that's why I put "+1" after each and every one of them! nt

[Therellas]

91. glad it you got it and it made you chuckle.

:bounce:

[Flaneur]

48. Being pro-drug war is hardly progressive.

Expansion of state policing powers.

Racially biased implementation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. We're against expansion of state policing powers?

Guess it's back to the drawing board on banking reform legislation.

[Fumesucker]

57. Regulating megacorporations is the same thing as criminalizing individual consensual behavior?

:wow:

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. There is nothing inherently un-progressive about laws or enforcing them.

You're in the wrong place. You wanted "Libertarian" first door on the right.

[Therellas]

65. I don't think you would have said something like that to any other part of the left.

i do think your opinion represents the actual progressive view however.

[Fumesucker]

68. Depends entirely on the law in question..

For instance, laws establishing a theocracy would not be progressive in any way shape or form.

[joeybee12]

51. How can cannibalism be progressive at all!! I mean...

...oh wait, sorry...just being a %^$&&.

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. What's all this I hear about Cannibalists?

Why would anyone want 'em around? And why on earth should be legalize..... err... "Cannabis?" Oh well that's entirely different. Nevermind.

Bitch.

[Therellas]

90. nevermind.lol

thats what i was thinking too.

[undeterred]

64. The need for medical marijuana certainly crosses party lines.

[grahamhgreen]

66. Yes.

[AngryAmish]

69. Yes. Loser pot heads are not criminals.

They are merely losers. And we should look out for the little guy, life's losers. Like pot heads.

[Forkboy]

70. You're always so deep.

:crazy:

[Therellas]

98. naw fuckem.

i get your joke.
scathing.

[mdmc]

109. Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN

Wont

Someone

Please

think

of the

CHILDREN!

[Posteritatis]

72. As much a woo issue as anything at this point

While I'm pro-legalization of it on the your-body's-your-own-damn-business issue, I do find the constant claims that it's a magical plant that cures everything from cancer to traumatic hemicorporectomy a little tired.

[JonLP24]

87. You may have misunderstood the claim "cure cancer"

Cannabidiol is major ingredient found in cannabis that has been show to inhibit cancer cell growth as well as relieve convulsion, inflammation, anxiety, and nausea as well as other health benefits.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7098340.stm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16612464
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025276
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/192/4/306
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16728591

[Posteritatis]

89. I get that, though I've seen the claim in just those words too

I know it does have various effects with various conditions, but I've also heard explicit "if you have cancer, stop chemo and smoke pot and it will make you not have cancer anymore" type claims from some of the stuff's more wild-eyed advocates. I really have seen people claim it cures - not treats, not inhibits, but you're-not-sick-anymore cures - just about everything short of physical trauma. After a point it gets silly, but it's far from the only thing out there that's treated like a panacea.

[Therellas]

94. did you know we have cannabinoid receptors in our brains?

we find these receptors in all mammals, fish birds AND reptiles.
were all born with them.
the only place to get cannabinoids is cannabis.
fyi.
I cant believe it either.
my eyes are so wide they hurt.

[Posteritatis]

99. So? (nt)

[Therellas]

106. oh nothing .

just neato facts.

[JonLP24]

104. I hear ya

I haven't heard anyone personally make the claim(which doesn't mean anyone hasn't ever claimed it cured anything) I do see others often claim that people claim it cures cancer and knowing this I sometimes think they misunderstood the claim which doesn't mean you did which is why I was careful to include "may" in front of "misunderstood".

Also another reason why I believe you is there are rumors out there that are repeated so often that many believe to be true for example, there are more cases of domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day(which is false).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

93. The thing is, there are a million compounds that can inhibit cancer cell growth.

Almost none of them have the potential to be cancer drugs or cancer chemopreventatives.

The ability to inhibit cancer cell growth may be of some importance to lab work, but scientifically illiterate types love to take that sort of thing and run with it. You see the same thing all the time with phytochemicals and micronutrients.

On the flipside, there are those shit-for-brains liars who claim pot has no medical benefit at all, even thought it's been proven to be a fantastic anti-emetic for decades.

[Therellas]

96. indeed.

trying to redefine and even claim credit for the way universe already works.

[JonLP24]

107. Cannabidiol by itself is harmless I think

In Canada the compound by itself is used as medicine and shows no psychoactive/intoxicating effects. Even by itself and not combined with THC it's a Schedule I substance in the US which means:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."

[Therellas]

100. you should look into the history of the plant.

its pretty popular.
the botany of desire is awesome.

[mdmc]

101. progressive..libritarian.. bucking the establishment

free the leaf has got it all!

God Bless the Teabaggers if they get on board with decriminalizing the leaf..

[jberryhill]

108. This is one issue that's all over the map

You'd probably get a majority to favor legalization here and at Freeperville.

I dunno what that means.

[Swamp Rat]

110. ..... huh?

[flvegan]

112. I think that the legalization of it is.

Too many benefits. Only downside is that Big Pharma seems to lose out on profits, since folks can grow it themselves.

[Fly by night]

116. It's a human rights issue, a triumph of science, common sense and compassion over social control.

I welcome anyone -- of any political persuasion -- who wants to retire the "drug worriers" permanently.

BTW, out here in the country (middle Tennessee), an appreciation of cannabis is something that binds all political persuasions among my friends. And among my neighbors. When one of my neighbors was dying from lung cancer, his nurses encouraged him to find cannabis. Even though I didn't care for the man (he had killed one of my dogs years earlier and lied about it), I willingly gave him some of my stash, which allowed his last few weeks on earth to be more restful than would have otherwise been possible.

This was years ago, but another neighbor told me recently that one of the last things this man told his wife was that, if she ever decided to sell their farm, she should sell it to me. I really appreciated hearing that.

Now if I could just keep the feds off my property from now on, I might be able to hold on to what I have left.

www.nashvillescene.com/2010-01-28/let-s-roll/

[mzmolly]

120. No.

They can have the issue as far as I'm concerned. :hi:

[krabigirl]

121. Yes.

I wouldn't think that the current "tea party" would support cannabis legalization. The original tea party, which came from the Ron Paul movement and was mostly libertarian would, but the current tea party is basically the extreme right of the GOP. Very much into the police state, forcing Christianity on all of us,hatred of anyone who is not like them..so no...they would not be for cannabis legalization.