Pubdate: Thu, 19 Mar 2015
Source: Boulder Weekly (CO)
Copyright: 2015 Boulder Weekly
Contact:  http://www.boulderweekly.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/57
Author: Leland Rucker

THE CANNABIS DEBATE DRIFTS INTO THE HALLS OF CONGRESS

Last week I wrote about a bill that was then being debated in the 
Utah state legislature. S.B. 259 would have amended a law passed last 
year that allowed Utah citizens to use certain strains of 
CBD-dominate cannabis to treat medical conditions but mandated no 
legal way that patients could obtain them.

Like many others, I concentrated on the testimony of a DEA agent 
whose job is to eradicate illicit marijuana from national forest 
land. Matt Fairbanks testified against the bill because he feared 
that wildlife might be adversely affected by ingesting cannabis. It 
reminded me that about all prohibitionists have left is to continue 
to make up things this ridiculous to press the point that cannabis is 
more dangerous than alcohol.

But as I quickly found out, the ramifications ran much deeper. By the 
time the column appeared, the bill had died on third reading after 
one senator flipped his vote at the last minute. As Angela Bacca 
wrote in a lengthy examination of the bill's demise on the SFGate 
blog, "The bill was killed behind closed doors by special interest 
groups who feared financial loss by providing freedom of medical 
choice to chronic and terminally ill patients."

Legislators killed the bill despite outrageously high support for 
legalized medical cannabis from Utah citizens. A Y2 Analytics poll 
from the Libertas Institute and the Drug Policy Project of Utah found 
that 72 percent of Utah citizens believe doctors should be able to 
recommend medical cannabis to patients with serious conditions. 
Support for medical cannabis use is consistent across all Utah 
demographic groups, including 66 percent of Republicans, 67 percent 
of LDS/ Mormon respondents and 64 percent of those over age 65.

"I've had a very strong emotional knee-jerk-type of reaction from a 
lot of folks. I think we need to push past that emotion and push past 
much of the propaganda that's been promulgated for a number of 
years," said Sen. Mark Madsen, the Republican who shepherded S.B. 259 
to its inevitable conclusion. "Reefer Madness is neither medical 
research nor public policy. It's propaganda, and we can't be basing 
our policy on propaganda."

Wikipedia defines propaganda as "a form of communication aimed 
towards influencing the attitude of a population toward some cause or 
position," which means that the United States has based its cannabis 
policies on propaganda that tries to make us believe it's better to 
spend billions of dollars to fail at keeping people from getting high 
rather than dealing with drugs in any kind of sensible way.

The propaganda began with Harry Anslinger in the 1930s, and it hasn't 
stopped. In 1970, President Richard Nixon disregarded the advice of 
his own presidential marijuana commission that suggested legalizing 
it and instead made marijuana a Schedule One drug. Since then, seven 
presidents and endless Congresses have continued to fund the 
prohibition based mostly on that hype, without any real scientific 
evidence to back up their claims.

Americans are currently using the amendment process to vote their 
displeasure with government propaganda. It's no longer just cannabis 
users who are voting against marijuana prohibition. At least 13 
states are considering or in the process of ballot initiatives for 
medical or recreational use in 2016, and Virginia legislators 
introduced a legalization bill in that state last month.

Last week the ante was upped considerably when a bipartisan 
Senatorial trio, Republican Rand Paul and Democrats Kirsten 
Gillibrand and Cory Booker, introduced S. 683, The Compassionate 
Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States (CARERS) Act, "a bill 
to extend the principle of federalism to state drug policy, provide 
access to medical marijuana, and enable research into the medicinal 
properties of marijuana."

That's a mouthful of a title, but it's a pretty accurate accounting 
of what it intends. It would not legalize medical marijuana in the 
U.S., but it would end all federal prosecution for medical patients 
and caregivers in states that have approved it, allow them access to 
cannabis (remember, that is the problem in Utah and other states that 
have allowed limited access to CBD products) and help jump-start 
actual unbiased research into medical cannabis.

On March 10, it was assigned to the Judicial Committee. Its chances 
of getting out of there are not good. Only 15 percent of introduced 
bills actually become law, and as we have found out, there are some 
propagandists in Congress who are perfectly willing to try and thwart 
the will of almost 80 percent of D.C. voters in their quest to keep 
people from using cannabis like alcohol.

Representatives Jared Polis and Earl Blumenauer have introduced 
similar bills in the House, which means this is the first time 
cannabis is being debated on the floors of both the House and Senate. 
President Obama told NPR this week, "At a certain point, if enough 
states end up decriminalizing, then Congress may then reschedule marijuana."

Real cannabis reform can't happen without Congress changing our 
antiquated laws. While I don't expect the current bills to pass, I 
don't expect that the debate is going to leave Congress anytime soon, either.

Respond: You can hear Leland discuss his most recent column and Colorado 
cannabis issues each Thursday morning on KGNU. http://news.kgnu.org/weed
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom