ANSWERS: 6
  • Because most politicians and corporate executives (the ones who contribute huge sums to politicans re-election campaigns) are anal control freaks.
  • No answer. I'm with you. Seems like most folk have realized we have bigger problems in the war on drugs than a little herb now. I think we are slowly getting there though.
  • We are heavily invested in the 'War on Drugs'*: serious money comes to local police departments by way of the Feds, seizure laws allow police to convert the assets of drug dealers into yet more money for their departments, and a lot of people are in jail which, though expensive, also means that jailers are employed and finally, a goodly amount of lawyers are hired to defend the accused. In short, our law enforcement is heavily dependent on marijuana being illegal. And yeah, I hate it. __________________________ *It is worth noting that whenever there is a 'war' on something that doesn't involve actual combat it is a war that will never be won. Indeed the thing warred upon often increases.
  • In my opinion there are a couple of things that are keeping it illegal. Number one-The government doesn't want to admit that they have been wrong about marijuana all along. They purposely keep outdated propoganda out there to keep people misinformed. I was in high school just under ten years ago in health class learning about drugs and some of the stuff they said about marijuana was just rediculous. It sounded like something straight out of those old Reefer Madness movies. Talking about how weed will make you psychotic, a bunch of b.s. I knew better because I was already using it. But many people don't know better. So the government perpetuates these lies to keep people opposed to reforming drug laws. Because if they legalized it, what would they say to all the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who have been locked up and had their lives ruined because of the illegality of marijuana? "Oops, sorry". Number two-Marijuana can make you lazy. This has been seen as inconsistent with having a strong labor force needed to sustain our role as a world power. The U.S. wants hard working people. They would rather have someone go to work, work hard, come home and get drunk rather than somone who wants to relax and take it easy all day. Even though the guy who drinks might end up beating his wife or getting into a car accident. But what percentage of Americans actually work labor intensive jobs today? It seems like most people work in office type jobs. One in ten people work in retail. We don't have this blue-collar, factory based economy like we did in the past. Number three-Mental expansion. The government, in my opinion, does not want people experimenting with mind altering substances that might help them tap in to different plains of conciousness and open the door to higher levels of spirituality therefore leading to a shift in social and political views that would go against the status quo in America of capitalism and warmongering. They don't want there to be a peaceful revolution. In my opinion, these are some of the reasons why it is still illegal.
  • I am not going to get into the merits of the legalization of marijuana (these conversations always result in the same old arguments). But, I did want to comment on a huge fallacy in your question. You state: "it seems that most ppl want it to be legal?" Well, this is a fallacy because it relies on a biased sample. If most people wanted it to be legal, then it would be legal. That is because we still have a referendum process in America. Studies consistently show that the majority of Americans oppose the legalization of marijuana. In any given community there might be a majority of people who are in favor of legalizing marijuana. For example, I would venture to guess that the majority of people on AB would be in favor of it.
  • It is a long and complicated procedure, where various organizations are involved, and all the attempts which have been made to change the legislation in this respects on the US national level have been blocked at one level or other. However, some success has been reached at the state level in some states. "Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act refers to the proposed removal of cannabis from Schedule I, the most tightly-restricted category of drugs, by the United States Congress or the United States Attorney General. Since the early 1970s, cannabis reform advocates (such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) and the U.S. Government have been battling over whether to transfer cannabis to a different category that would allow medical use. Rescheduling proponents argue that cannabis does not meet the Controlled Substances Act's strict criteria for placement in Schedule I, and therefore the Government is required by Law either to permit medical use or to remove the drug from federal control altogether. The Government claims that cannabis is, in fact, dangerous enough to merit Schedule I status. The dispute is based on differing views on how the Act should be interpreted and what kinds of scientific evidence are most relevant to the rescheduling decision. The Controlled Substances Act provides a process for rescheduling controlled substances by petitioning the Drug Enforcement Administration. The first petition under this process was filed in 1972 to allow cannabis to be legally prescribed by physicians. The petition was ultimately denied after 22 years of court challenges, although a pill form of cannabis' psychoactive ingredient, THC, was rescheduled in 1985 to allow prescription under schedule II. In 1999 it was again rescheduled to allow prescription under schedule III. A second petition, based on claims related to clinical studies, was denied in 2001. The most recent rescheduling petition was filed by medical cannabis advocates in 2002. Though as today stands, 13 states have legalized the use of medical marijuana, and hemp products are sold widely in the U.S. today." "Cannabis could be rescheduled either legislatively, through Congress, or through the executive branch. The Congress has so far rejected all bills to reschedule cannabis. However, it is not unheard of for the Congress to intervene in the drug scheduling process; in February 2000, for instance, the 105th Congress, in its second official session, passed Public Law 106-172, also known as the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reed Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000, adding GHB to Schedule I. The Controlled Substances Act also provides for a rulemaking process by which the United States Attorney General can reschedule cannabis administratively. These proceedings represent the only means of legalizing medical cannabis without an act of any Congress. Rescheduling supporters have often cited the lengthy petition review process as a reason why cannabis is still illegal. The first petition took 22 years to review, and the second took 7 years. In 2002, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed a third petition." "Rulemaking proceedings The United States Code, under Section 811 of Title 21,[13] sets out a process by which cannabis could be administratively transferred to a less-restrictive category or removed from Controlled Substances Act regulation altogether. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) evaluates petitions to reschedule cannabis. However, the Controlled Substances Act gives the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as successor agency of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, great power over rescheduling decisions. After the DEA accepts the filing of a petition, the agency must request from the HHS Secretary "a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance." The Secretary's findings on scientific and medical issues are binding on the DEA. The HHS Secretary can even unilaterally legalize cannabis: "[I]f the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance." 21 U.S.C. § 811b." "Stages in rescheduling proceedings Filing of Petition with DEA Acceptance of Petition by DEA Initial Review by DEA Referral to HHS Scientific and Medical Evaluation by HHS HHS Report to DEA Evaluation of Additional Information by DEA Publication of DEA Decision (Judicial review by the U.S. Court of Appeals) (Public Hearing on Disputed Matters of Fact)" Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act Further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Places_that_have_decriminalized_non-medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization_of_non-medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Control,_Regulation,_and_Education_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_medical_status_of_cannabis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy