We're going to view, analyze and deconstruct one letter of response from each of two unnamed US Senators, picked at random.The topic is a bill being introduced into Congress to move cannabis from Schedule One to Schedule Two; along par with heroin and Oxycontin: US NEWS - Federal Marijuana "Decriminalization".
The goal is to recognize and honor the right of states to regulate marijuana on their own terms without federal intervention. The is federalism... something our forefathers were very much divided upon. It all goes back to what a fledgling nation should be constructed of.
European history is very ancient, something Americans tend not to understand. If America had not been where it is, unknown as it was, only to be discovered as early as the 1400's, modern day history would obviously have been very different. By 1620 however the first of many colonists arrived in the New World. They were people who wanted a new beginning, a new world to live in.
Which brings me back to federalism, the right of states to govern themselves while a federal government does little more than settle disputes between the states and negotiate with foreign countries. Many forefathers favored this form of government like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. Others favored a democracy, which oddly enough means having one very strong central government, elected by the people. There would be little in the way of state's rights under a democracy.
The whole goal our forefathers had was to fashion a government that could not become oppressive and controlling like that of England. At the time King's Soldiers could enter any house at will to search and seize anything not claimed on taxes due. That is what ultimately led to the Boston Tea Party. Colonists protesting the King's right to invade a persons privacy and extort extravagant taxes.
Having won the Revolutionary War, our founding fathers created the US Constitution. The Constitution was a sacred, legal document defining a democracy. It implied no rights to the states. At the time as famously know there were 13 Colonies. All had different ideas for life in the New World.
Of particular concern drafting the Constitution were the rights of states... something that bothered some of those who signed the US Constitution. They signed it with a promise, a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a federalism accomplishment, and it's existence is exhibit A of why the the controversy over marijuana exists today.
If there were no Bill of Rights out-lining the rights of states and individuals with those states, our federal government would be there to decide it all for us. It's something they, the Federal Government tries to do often.
Marijuana was placed into/as a Schedule One drug in 1970. At that point it became extremely illegal to possess and use. The purpose of Schedule One is to classify extremely dangerous drugs into a category from where there is no return. Drugs in this category mean they are extremely dangerous. There is zero medical benefit, they are extremely addictive.
Deep six drugs in this category!
Trouble is, marijuana was only temporarily placed as a Schedule One drug back in 1970 at Nixon's urging. He promised a complete, independent review of marijuana which would decide it's permanent status. I have written numerous times before about Nixon's Blue Ribbon, Shaffer Committee, which was to decide upon the danger and virtue of marijuana.
The Shaffer committee found no reason to schedule marijuana. It recommended legalization. Nixon pulled strings, established marijuana as a permanent Schedule One drug based upon no scientific justification, and history and the War on drugs came to be.
Fast forward to 2015, almost 78 after marihuana prohibition started, when now 3 states have legalized marijuana for "recreational use" and around 21 states have legalized medical use. This goes back several decades to where in the 70's many states reduced penalties and Oregon adopted a Constitution amendment legalizing marijuana.
The problem is the federal government and marijuana being a Schedule One drug under federal law.
The bill to honor states rights in this matter is extremely important. So I wrote my Congressmen. in Part Two we will review, discus and deconstruct their responses to plea to say yes.
.
The goal is to recognize and honor the right of states to regulate marijuana on their own terms without federal intervention. The is federalism... something our forefathers were very much divided upon. It all goes back to what a fledgling nation should be constructed of.
European history is very ancient, something Americans tend not to understand. If America had not been where it is, unknown as it was, only to be discovered as early as the 1400's, modern day history would obviously have been very different. By 1620 however the first of many colonists arrived in the New World. They were people who wanted a new beginning, a new world to live in.
Which brings me back to federalism, the right of states to govern themselves while a federal government does little more than settle disputes between the states and negotiate with foreign countries. Many forefathers favored this form of government like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. Others favored a democracy, which oddly enough means having one very strong central government, elected by the people. There would be little in the way of state's rights under a democracy.
The whole goal our forefathers had was to fashion a government that could not become oppressive and controlling like that of England. At the time King's Soldiers could enter any house at will to search and seize anything not claimed on taxes due. That is what ultimately led to the Boston Tea Party. Colonists protesting the King's right to invade a persons privacy and extort extravagant taxes.
Having won the Revolutionary War, our founding fathers created the US Constitution. The Constitution was a sacred, legal document defining a democracy. It implied no rights to the states. At the time as famously know there were 13 Colonies. All had different ideas for life in the New World.
Of particular concern drafting the Constitution were the rights of states... something that bothered some of those who signed the US Constitution. They signed it with a promise, a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a federalism accomplishment, and it's existence is exhibit A of why the the controversy over marijuana exists today.
If there were no Bill of Rights out-lining the rights of states and individuals with those states, our federal government would be there to decide it all for us. It's something they, the Federal Government tries to do often.
Marijuana was placed into/as a Schedule One drug in 1970. At that point it became extremely illegal to possess and use. The purpose of Schedule One is to classify extremely dangerous drugs into a category from where there is no return. Drugs in this category mean they are extremely dangerous. There is zero medical benefit, they are extremely addictive.
Deep six drugs in this category!
Trouble is, marijuana was only temporarily placed as a Schedule One drug back in 1970 at Nixon's urging. He promised a complete, independent review of marijuana which would decide it's permanent status. I have written numerous times before about Nixon's Blue Ribbon, Shaffer Committee, which was to decide upon the danger and virtue of marijuana.
The Shaffer committee found no reason to schedule marijuana. It recommended legalization. Nixon pulled strings, established marijuana as a permanent Schedule One drug based upon no scientific justification, and history and the War on drugs came to be.
Fast forward to 2015, almost 78 after marihuana prohibition started, when now 3 states have legalized marijuana for "recreational use" and around 21 states have legalized medical use. This goes back several decades to where in the 70's many states reduced penalties and Oregon adopted a Constitution amendment legalizing marijuana.
The problem is the federal government and marijuana being a Schedule One drug under federal law.
The bill to honor states rights in this matter is extremely important. So I wrote my Congressmen. in Part Two we will review, discus and deconstruct their responses to plea to say yes.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment