marijuana

Yeah, see, there is a duality in the Federal Governments thinking on this. They seem to be fine with the concept of the states deciding what they want to do about legalization (medicinal or not).. Except where it violates federal laws. What seems to be the misnomer is that they seem to go after some dispensaries that are prominent and have a good reputation to make an example of and by them. Some of these dispensaries may have violated the local law (either sent product to a non-medicinal state or acted out of accordance with their co-op regulations) but many of these dispensaries are just popular and careful to follow regulations and that makes them a target. Really, it's just a step towards legalization but I love the concept because it gets people thinking about plants like this as medicine.. Which is what it is! It's what this plant and many similar to it have been used for many centuries. Even a prominent Chinese emperor was found buried with cannabis seeds and plant material. Regardless of your opinion of cannabis. It is undeniable that people have enjoyed cannabis for many a millennium and now that cannabis can virtually be found in every part of the globe, people probably aren't going to stop anytime soon! lol

What I really don't get is how the Feds can let states enact gambling laws, control and regulate the flow of cash, who can be employed, and set standards for gaming practices.. and at the end of the day if the casinos follow the law, they are left alone! Whereas, people who are licensed by the state of California to distribute MC to patients who are legally able to obtain it, are still treated like criminals to be handed over by our state to the feds, indiscriminately.

I just got up (did not go to bed until after 4am) and I've read a bunch of posts at once. I'll give my take on several points I've seen.

I'm not comparing marijuana being illegal to the Holocaust. I was making a point about Jedi not being bound to follow unjust laws.

At the time people were helping slaves escape to freedom slavery was NOT unconstitutional. It was a crime for a person in a state that allowed slavery to help one escape to a free state.

The Supreme Court (US) has ruled that states are not and cannot be required to enforce federal laws. It's legal for a state to ignore illegal immigrants status. Texas even passed a law granting illegal immigrants who graduated from high school and live in Texas in state tuition at state colleges. Where marijuana is legal in states, those states are not bound to enforce federal law. It's the federal governments precognitive to do so but the state does not have to help them.

Nobody is singing "Everybody smoke pot." Children should never use any substance except with the advice of a doctor. Even at the age of 18 some are still not mature and the brain is developing.

What are basic unalienable human rights? There is not a universal consensus on that. I believe that what I choose to eat and drink and what plants I want to grow and use for myself is absolutely my right and nobody else's business and my absolute right.

That the government can bust into peoples homes, terrorize them, put them in jail and take their children away just because they grow or posses marijuana is absolutely EVIL and insane. Alcohol is far more dangerous and harmful than marijuana.

For those that do get benefits from cannabis, whether it's relief from medical symptoms or for spiritual enlightenment or even just because it makes one feel good, the government saying that it is prohibited is the same as a thought crime.

No matter if you use marijuana or if you've never used it, no matter if it works well for you or if you don't care for it, you should be appalled at the insanity of this war on people and stand for marijuana being legal and regulated the same a wine. This will help destroy the illegal drug cartels and stop making criminals of otherwise good and law abiding citizens.

Is there anyone who advocates we go back to alcohol prohibition? Is there anyone here who does not believe that alcohol is more dangerous and harmful that cannabis?

Like John has said, I am surprised that people, even those who have never smoked marijuana, do not see how unjust, destructive, and wasteful our policy on Marijuana is in this country. Long before I ever smoked marijuana, I was a strong supporter of marijuana law reform. I went to protests and signed petitions and spoke to countless people on the topic. All of this years before I ever smoked marijuana. Now I smoke it myself and have become even more resolved in my fight for law reform.

Prohibition of a plant, that for the most part has positive effects on people who use it, is simply unjust.

I believe the original question of this topic is, "Is it wrong for a Jedi to use marijuana?" or "Is it alright for a Jedi to use marijuana?"

In regards to religious use and personal freedom of thought Alan Watts says it so well. This is only a small part of a larger article that I'll re-post in full as soon as I get it formatted.

"The undoubted mystical and religious intent of most users of the psychedelics, even if some of these substances should be proved injurious to physical health, requires that their free and responsible use be exempt from legal restraint in any republic that maintains a constitutional separation of church and state." (10)

"To the extent that mystical experience conforms with the tradition of genuine religious involvement, and to the extent that psychedelics induce that experience, users are entitled to some constitutional protection. Also, to the extent that research in the psychology of religion can utilize such drugs, students of the human mind must be free to use them. Under present laws, I, as an experienced student of the psychology of religion, can no longer pursue research in the field. This is a barbarous restriction of spiritual and intellectual freedom, suggesting that the legal system of the United States is, after all, in tacit alliance with the monarchical theory of the universe, and will, therefore, prohibit and persecute religious ideas and practices based on an organic and unitary vision of the universe." (11)


10. "Responsible" in the sense that such substances be taken by or administered to consenting adults only. The user of cannabis, in particular, is apt to have peculiar difficulties in establishing his "undoubted mystical and religious intent" in court. Having committed so loathsome and serious a felony, his chances of clemency are better if he assumes a repentant demeanor, which is quite inconsistent with the sincere belief that his use of cannabis was religious. On the other hand, if he insists unrepentantly that he looks upon such use as a religious sacrament, many judges will declare that they "dislike his attitude," finding it truculent and lacking in appreciation of the gravity of the crime, and the sentence will be that much harsher. The accused is therefore put in a "double-bind" situation, in which he is "damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't." Furthermore, religious integrity—as in conscientious objection—is generally tested and established by membership in some church or religious organization with a substantial following. But the felonious status of cannabis is such that grave suspicion would be cast upon all individuals forming such an organization, and the test cannot therefore be fulfilled. It is generally forgotten that our guarantees of religious freedom were designed to protect precisely those who were not members of established denominations, but rather such (then) screwball and subversive individuals as Quakers, Shakers, Levellers, and Anabaptists. There is little question that those who use cannabis or other psychedelics with religious intent are now members of a persecuted religion which appears to the rest of society as a grave menace to "mental health," as distinct from the old-fashioned "immortal soul." But it's the same old story.

11. Amerindians belonging to the Native American Church who employ the psychedelic peyote cactus in their rituals, are firmly opposed to any government control of this plant, even if they should be guaranteed the right to its use. They feel that peyote is a natural gift of God to mankind, and especially to natives of the land where it grows, and that no government has a right to interfere with its use The same argument might be made on behalf of cannabis, or the mushroom Psilocybe mexicana Heim. All these things are natural plants, not processed or synthesized drugs, and by what authority can individuals be prevented from eating theme There is no law against eating or growing the mushroom Amanita pantherina, even though it is fatally poisonous and only experts can distinguish it from a common edible mushroom. This case can be made even from the standpoint of believers in the monarchical universe of Judaism and Christianity, for it is a basic principle of both religions, derived from Genesis, that all natural substances created by God are inherently good, and that evil can arise only in their misuse. Thus laws against mere possession, or even cultivation, of these plants are in basic conflict with biblical principles. Criminal conviction of those who employ these plants should be based on proven misuse. "And God said 'Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed- to you it shall be for meat.... And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." —Genesis 1:29, 31.

Excerpt from:

Psychedelics and Religious Experience
by Alan Watts

(Originally appeared in the California Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 1, January 1968, pp. 74-85.) Copyright Alan Watts & California Law Review.

If the kind of thought and effort were to go into an actual legal battle with the courts, given the funding, with level heads prevailing; cannabis could be legalized.

Another argument the pro-cannabis party would have to overcome would be the “where to stop the legalization of narcotics” ploy. Opium, cocaine and other drugs of a harder nature come from plants. And one could make an argument for their use due to religious experiences, benefits or infringement of personal rights.

I am merely playing the devil’s advocate here.

Back to the original question, I think that we should not condone its use in places where such action would incur legal ramifications. (This would, of course, leave interpretation of the official position open to the individual as regard to personal use. And not incriminate any of the leaders.)

Oh it's been happening, Wescli. There are lobbies, advocates, high profile doctors, supreme court trials.. It's an ongoing process! Some I've even been directly involved in. The big problem is that the Government makes too much money putting people in prison for offenses like marijuana that one could say they are addicted to it, themselves! lol

"If the kind of thought and effort were to go into an actual legal battle with the courts, given the funding, with level heads prevailing; cannabis could be legalized."

The problem is that, so far, the federal courts just defer to the DEA and the Schedule 1 status of cannabis. When alcohol prohibition was repealed it was the states who stepped up first and revoked it within the state, similar to how the states medical marijuana laws are doing today. It's not a matter of if but when all states allow marijuana being prescribed by a physician and then will come full re-legalization (humanity survived 12,000 years with no laws making it illegal) and tax and regulation like wine.

"Another argument the pro-cannabis party would have to overcome would be the 'where to stop the legalization of narcotics' ploy. Opium, cocaine and other drugs of a harder nature come from plants. And one could make an argument for their use due to religious experiences, benefits or infringement of personal rights."

Cocaine is not a narcotic but I know what you mean. This is the slippery slope argument but there is a fairly clear distinction. Out of all the people arrested for drug law violations the vast majority is for marijuana. There is no doubt that marijuana is safer than alcohol. There is no reasonable comparison between marijuana and cocaine and opium; they are very different things.

A coca plant does not equal cocaine, one would have to grow quite a few plants to make themselves a stash of cocaine. (BTW, Coca Leaves on the other hand have been chewed for thousands of years by humans without serious negative side effects, in fact it is one of the safest natural stimulants available.)

The argument for people to be allowed to grow and use marijuana is equivalent to people being able to grow and use the coca plant, not make / use cocaine. Refined cocaine requires lots of the plant (far more than you could grow in your back yard) and a chemical process. It does not occur naturally.

Same deal with opium. You could grow enough poppies to get some raw opium but again, morphine, codeine, heroin etc require lots of the raw material and a process.

"I am merely playing the devil’s advocate here."

Thank you. I do that plenty myself.

"Back to the original question, I think that we should not condone its use in places where such action would incur legal ramifications. (This would, of course, leave interpretation of the official position open to the individual as regard to personal use. And not incriminate any of the leaders.)"

I appreciate your concern for our self incrimination but at least we still have The First Amendment in The United States. I do not have the authority to grant you a 'get out of jail free' card if you choose to use cannabis where you might be arrested.

I do have the right to tell you that there is nothing morally wrong or anything in Jediism (TOTJO's version of Jediism at least) that says you, as a Jedi, should not use cannabis or you're not being a good Jedi if you do. I mean proper medicinal or sacramental use - not abuse.

Of course you should be aware of the laws that you're stuck with where you are. I'm not telling anyone to break the law. I can only speak for our 'law' and philosophy. I'm a voice among many and not THE voice. No one is.

I suppose for my own personal view on the matter, while I choose not to use it (or alcohol or tobacco), as long as the vows we as Jedi take are adhered to, I don't see a problem with it- in the proper situation, and with the appropriate respect for the plant and its potential effects.

If an accidental death occurs from improper gun usage, is it then OK to outlaw the use and sale of them? Or if someone kills themselves by slamming into a tree at 90MPH, do we outlaw the use and sale of automobiles? All things require the proper respect for the object, living or otherwise, and the activity.. or there's a good chance you'll get hurt.

Before reading what we have here, the only arguements one way or the other I had been exposed to were the chronic smokers (those who smoke all the time, merely to be high) with their narrowminded view that it could never be bad no matter how much/who smoked it, and the legal high ground (which is narrowminded in it's own right). I think as far as legalization is concerned. both sides being willing to see things from other's point of view is a huge step in the right direction.

I've never used it (other than the "pot pill" for my chronic nausea), but I don't have a problem with it. Personally I don't think we should be as aggressive in law enforcement over it. There are much much worse things people can do than smoke weed. DEA should be focusing on the hardcore stuff that is a bigger threat, such as heroin and meth.

Tobacco causes more issues than pot, at least from what I see. Yet cigarettes are readily available! Same with alcohol, it seems to put people in more jeopardy than pot does. More accidents caused by alcohol than pot. Not that I think alcohol is wrong, but the facts need to be seen.

I think at the very least it should be decriminalized. Doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be legalized, I'd be fine with it either way (legal or decriminalized). At least with decriminalization, there isn't as much going toward targeting people with pot, and more resources can be used toward more hardcore stuff.