"Marijuana is not a narcotic." -- UN "drug worriers" slam decrim -- I slam back.

[Fly by night]

Good morning, all y'all. I subscribe to an daily online ezine aimed at substance abuse treatment professionals and assorted types (probably 55,000 of us on the email list.) This week, Join Together published the following story on continued efforts to squelch drug policy reforms in Latin America (and by extension, in the US.)

What follows is the story and a link to the larger discussion. The discussion is worth visiting.

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2010/un-report-slams-drug.html

U.N. Report Slams Drug Decriminalization in Latin America
February 26, 2010

Recent moves to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana and other drugs in Latin American nations could "undermine national and international efforts to combat the abuse of and illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs," according to the annual report of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB).

The Christian Science Monitor reported Feb. 24 that the document was critical of nations like Mexico, which last year decriminalized possession of marijuana, heroin and cocaine. "The movement poses a threat to the coherence and effectiveness of the international drug control system and sends the wrong message to the general public," the INCB said in its 2009 annual report.

Drug-reform groups said the INCB was exceeding its mandate and interfering with the operations of sovereign nations.
-----

The UN story isn't really the purpose for this post, however. As I was searching Google for information on "marijuana narcotic" to respond to that thread, I chanced upon a report, "Marijuana (Cannabis) Fact Sheet", published by the Bruin Humanist Forum (Los Angeles) in 1967. I haven't been able to find out anything about this group, but they published a well-researched paper at the beginning of the modern pot era in this country (mid-60s) that still speaks truth today.

Visit the full paper at this link -- it is really an excellent read:

www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/bruin.htm

In any event, as I went through the 1967 report, I picked out key sentences and pulled them together into my dense response to the discussion of the UN report at Join Together. It was fun condensing a 7+ page paper into 250 words. Because those 250 words say a lot, I thought I would re-post it here. It really summarizes why cannabis policy reform is at least four decades overdue, but still much appreciated.

-----

Marijuana is not a narcotic

Marijuana is not a narcotic. It is pharmacologically distinct from the family of opium derivatives and synthetic narcotics.

Marijuana is not addicting, though in under 10% of users, a psychological dependence can develop.

The marijuana habit is gregarious and easily abandoned.

Marijuana is not detrimental to the user's health. Even when used over long periods of time, it does not cause physical or psychological impairment.

Marijuana does not produce aggressive behavior. On the contrary, its use inhibits aggressive behavior.

Marijuana does not lead to the use of addicting drugs.

Using marijuana produces feelings of euphoria, reduction of fatigue and relief of tension. It also increases appetite.

Marijuana is safer and more beneficial than tobacco or alcohol (both of which are physically toxic; both of which are addicting), and there is no basis for legalizing these two dangerous drugs while outlawing one which is not dangerous.

The classification of marijuana as a narcotic and the marijuana prohibition law is based upon an arbitrary and unreasonable classification having no reasonable relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and morals.

The classification of marijuana as a narcotic is unconstitutional and void in violation of the Eighth Amendment provision against cruel and unusual punishment, and the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Marijuana does not constitute a social hazard. It is not damaging to the user or to society, and therefore should not be outlawed."

Bruin Humanist Forum, Los Angeles, 1967
-----

Hear, hear. Peace out.

[piratefish08]

1. legalize!

it's way overdue............

[Fly by night]

Tax, regulate, make it safe, reliable and available.

In other words, get (back) with the human program, when it comes to this Goddess-given plant.

Thanks.

[ixion]

2. k/r... end Marijuana Prohibition Now!!

:applause:

[Fly by night]

5. Agreed.

[Echo In Light]

3. k/r

[BeFree]

4. Smoking oil?

Now that shit will kill you. Yet we burn oil like it's going out of style and make everyone, EVERYONE inhale.

That's fucked up, man.

[unblock]

6. wait -- unconstitutional because of the 8th and 14th amendments?

fine, there as certainly plenty of policy reasons why one might advocate for decriminalization/legalization of marijuana, but i don't think it bolsters the case to invoke constitutional arguments that just aren't there. at least, i'm not following them. if they're going to make marijuana, then fines and/or imprisonment is not cruel and unusual, and as long as you get a fair trial and the law is enforced uniformly and so on, then there's no violation of the 14th amendment.

i'm also not clear about the relationship between the u.s. constitution, which is binding only on the u.s. government, and the incb, which i'm not familiar with but appears to operate abroad.

[Fly by night]

7. I report (or "excerpt'), you decide.

I was only selecting excerpts from that much longer Bruin Humanist Forum paper, which includes citations to legal arguments that were being proposed at the time (1967). I am not a legal or Constitutional scholar, so I must defer to only reporting what was being proposed (and discussed) at the time as part of that report.

There seems to be many places to argue the inappropriateness of our long-standing policies towards cannabis. Beginning to treat cannabis as something other than the opiates that were the real focus of our international drug control treaties would be one good place to start to change this sanctimonious (and science-less) silliness.