Share
On Tuesday, representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) introduced bills in Congress that could drastically change how marijuana laws are enforced in the United States.
The bills would allow marijuana in states that have approved its sale, effectively ending the drug’s longstanding federal prohibition. The bills do mandate, however, that marijuana be regulated like alcohol and be subject to federal excise taxes.
According to government studies, cannabis is the most commonly used illegal substance in the United States and polls reflect a growing sentiment to legalize the drug. November’s election sparked renewed national interest in drug reform, after Colorado and Washington voters passed historic legislation to legalize the recreational use of weed.
The two states have since found themselves in legal limbo. Their new laws run afoul of the federal Controlled Substances Act, which identifies marijuana, along with other drugs such as ecstasy, LSD, and heroin, as having no therapeutic value and a high potential for abuse. The new bills could resolve the conflict.
Some organizations at Virginia Tech expressed support for the proposed legislation.
“As supporters of individual freedom, the Libertarians at Virginia Tech commend any legislation seeking to increase the birthright of liberty,” said Harrison Bergeron, a sophomore biology major and vice president of Tech’s Libertarian organization, in a statement to the Collegiate Times. “We hope the commonwealth legalizes cannabis and the federal government does not overstep its bounds.”
While the club was supportive of moves to legalize the drug, they expressed skepticism toward taxes and regulation at the federal level.
In a press release, Students for Sensible Drug Policy commended the potential change to existing laws. The organization championed the bills as “the most sweeping proposed reforms ever to be advanced in Congress related to marijuana legalization.” Tech’s chapter of SSDP could not be reached at press time for comment.
Virginia is still unlikely to legalize marijuana anytime soon, though. An investigative piece released over the summer by Capital News Service revealed that Virginia currently treats marijuana more harshly than most states.
Moreover, the federal bills face a likely unsympathetic Republican majority in Congress and President Obama’s stance on the drug remains unclear, along with his Justice Department’s.
Tech students were split about the new measures to legalize the drug.
“Anytime you give the states more power, that’s great,” said senior civil engineering major Trey Wilkins.
Senior chemistry major Lyndsey Bickel disagreed. She thought that allowing states to legalize marijuana could lead to drug tourism in places where it is legal.
“If you legalize it, more people will do it," Bickel said. "If we got that reputation, more people would come here to do it.”
Follow this writer on Twitter: @KulakCT
A version of this article appeared in the Feb 6 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 18 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Lyndsey Bickel, never met you but I can tell your friendless. Take a lap
Reply to this Top
If we legalize federally the entire country will follow. The tourism argument becomes moot.
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
I can tell you that Lindsey has better friends than rolled up plants..unlike the anonymous doper that commented above.
Reply to this Top
"If you legalize it, more people will do it"
Well, that's just an assumption.
So let's take a look at its accuracy. Legalizing marijuana like wine will allow stores to undercut drug dealers' prices thus stripping the dealers of their adult customers and driving them off the street (exactly what happened when we legalized adult alcohol sales). With drug dealers gone and stores not selling to them, teenagers will find marijuana significantly harder to access, which will REDUCE teenage use.
And as the vast bulk of adult marijuana users are *already* using marijuana, use by this group should be relatively UNCHANGED by legalization.
Actually, the big change could well be alcohol users choosing to switch to the far safer recreational drug, marijuana. In which case, any increase in marijuana use by this group will be associated with a decrease in alcohol use which will REDUCE overall harm and addiction in society as marijuana is significantly milder, safer and less addictive than alcohol.
The federal marijuana prohibition causes FAR more harm than good and must END!
Reply to this Top
“If you legalize it, more people will do it," Bickel said. "If we got that reputation, more people would come here to do it.”
That is the whole point queen pretentious.
Reply to this Top
The current federal stance with respect to marijuana has led to bloody wars with powerful drug cartels and prisons filled with people who have committed non-violent offenses.
A good analogy is to look at prohibition. Prohibition didn't affect the demand for alcohol, it drove the supply line underground. Instead of a regulated, taxed, and publicly visible industry, prohibition brought about organized crime syndicates large enough to integrate the distribution process vertically, horizontally, or both. Prohibition was repealed because it was bad policy. When it ended, the mobs lost a great source of income and power. I believe that an overhaul of the current federal marijuana policy can deliver similar results.
I've seen many people separated from their jobs and families in drug related cases. It's easy to say “... they were a druggie...” without knowing anything about them. I've known good fathers who like to smoke a joint every once in a while. I've known hard workers to partake after the day is over to relax. Face it, these are not evil drug addicts! The “crime” for which they are being accused is a matter of bad policy. Imagine if you had an illegal beer, lost your job, lost your family, and went to prison. Does that seem reasonable?
I think we can draft better policy than the current federal blanket ban on marijuana. The cartels would lose power, policy regarding marijuana can be negotiated democratically, and to be honest I think we can all have a better society.
Reply to this Top
Ms. Bickel's hysterical rhetoric is built on the proven false premise that absolute prohibition actually works. There simply is no compelling supporting evidence for that presumption.
If heinous legal punishments were enough to keep people sober then somebody needs to explain the 1960s. Virginia law had a mandatory minimum of 20 years without any parole for conviction of petty possession of cannabis. Every State had comparable penalties until at least 1973. That was the year that Oregon decriminalized petty possession from a felony with a 5 year term to a civil violation with a nominal fine.
The people of Oregon have made the Statement that they don't think that their legislature made a mistake in 1973 as well as the statement that the legislature was out of line in 1997 when they voted for and the Governor signed a law re-criminalizing cannabis to a C misdemeanor. The voters made a petition, got the number of valid signatures required and got a veto referendum on the 1998 ballot. The vote was 2-1 in favor of kicking that law to the curb. How the heck is a legislature that passes a law that's struck down by such a significant margin representing the will of the people?
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_57,_Possession_of_Marijuana_a_Class_C_Misdemeanor_%281998%29
Reply to this Top
"Ms. Bickel's hysterical rhetoric is built on the proven false premise that absolute prohibition actually works. There simply is no compelling supporting evidence for that presumption. "
You are right. The prohibition on guns on school campuses sure hasn't worked. And the CT's prohibition on "personal attacks, name-calling," certainly hasn't worked here. The prohibition on smoking in restaurants sure hasn't worked. We need a better plan than banning things.
Reply to this Top
I'm missing the part where drug tourism is a bad thing...any sort of tourism results in a boost to local economies. That's like saying "I think building a Disney World in Virginia would bring a lot of roller coaster tourism". Yeah? Great!
What Lyndsey Bickel is implicitly saying is that she does not want users of marijuana in her state. Why? It is probably her opinion that marijuana users are lesser people.
To that I would say, lets compare GPAs and test that theory.
Reply to this Top
CBS News made a list of the top 17 States for youth use as of 2009. The States with the 3 harshest penalties (Arizona, Florida, Indiana) were on that list. The State of California was noticeably absent.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10008970.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Reply to this Top
The question of rather "drug tourism" is a bad thing or not has been posed. I'm going to draw yet another analogy, hopefully thought provoking:
I moved here recently from Georgia. Until January 2012, Sunday sales of packaged alcoholic beverages were illegal. Sale of alcohol served at a restaurant was ok if they served 51% food. Effective January 2012, the state moved the Sunday sales decision to the counties. The county I am from decided that Sunday sales would remain illegal. That county was dry until maybe 6 or 7 years ago, and liquor is not licensed for sale even today.
So what does this mean? It means we went to an adjacent county to buy beer, wine, and liquor, and our own county missed out on the revenue. When beer and wine became available in the county (the county became wet), DUI plummeted. The county's no Sunday sales stance only lasted a few months, as the leaders realized that the policy would likely increase DUI on Sunday as residents drove to adjacent counties for alcohol. Sunday sales are now legal there (still no liquor, though).
The point is, their original alcohol stance was intended to prevent its use. The policy was later revised by referendum – the citizens voted for beer and wine in the county. The no Sunday sales rule was repealed because it was ineffective and viewed as likely to increase DUI. Revenue has increased, and alcohol related problems have decreased.
Reply to this Top
You didn't name a single example of absolute prohibition.
Reply to this Top
When will our Government realize it can profit more from taxing the sale of the harmless medicinal herb than by jailing people for it? Groups are organizing all over the country to speak their minds on reforming pot laws and defending this plant. I drew up a very cool poster for the cause which you can check out on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/01/vote-teapot-2011.html Drop in and let me know what you think!
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top
identify ralph lauren,Subsequent a handful of latest visits in this article, however, has started to become progressively more chic. ralph lauren shop http://www.ralphlaurenshop-de.com/
Reply to this Top
Excellent web site. A lot of helpful information here. I’m sending it to a few buddies ans also sharing in delicious. They Didn't Believe that I Could Become a places to buy dresses Pro...Now I am! good places to buy dresses http://www.squidoo.com/uk-dresses#module161811089
Reply to this Top
Other countries censor content and not just rogue regimes such as the Iranian mullocracy. Poor people! http://www.baidu.com <a href="http://www.baidu.com" title="baidu censor">baidu censor</a>
Reply to this Top