Prohibition Support On The Left

Eric brought to my attention that although it is generally true that Prohibitionists reside on the conservative right it is not strictly true. In Louisiana Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu opposes medical cannabis while her main opponent Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-La favors medical cannabis.

There’s no reason Landrieu shouldn’t be for legalizing marijuana in such situations. There’s no reason anymore anyone should oppose it.

Landrieu’s not the only slow liberal Democrat on this one. National Review was for it 18 years before The New York Times finally backed it earlier this year.

Also for it: Landrieu’s main challenger, Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-La.

The best thing to do would be to make marijuana legal, period, then sell it and tax it as we do tobacco and liquor. Barring that reasonable move, however, the next best thing is allowing people suffering through chemotherapy or other draining regimens to smoke some pot.

Nevertheless, there was Landrieu on the stage in Shreveport last week, staring down a rising Cassidy and about to see a poll the next morning that had her trailing him by 9. The first lightning round requested a “yes” or “no” on medical marijuana.

Cassidy, who fielded the question first, had already said “yes.” His affirmative response seemed to take one of the very nice liberal moderators aback for she asked him to repeat his answer, and the candidate (who is also a medical doctor) said “yes” again.

Next up was retired Air Force Col. Rob Maness and out shot an immediate “no.” I’d like to see Maness change his mind on that issue, but he’s a military officer and those guys have a way of being hidebound on issues like allowing someone withering away because they have no appetite from firing up a bong hit or two and getting the munchies.

Finally the question came to Landrieu. And she said “no.”

According to Real Clear Politics Cassidy is likely to be the final winner of the race if no one gets a majority in November.

In other news, Eric has kept me up on a challenge to the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) in Federal Court in the Eastern District of California.

The U.S. government claims marijuana is a dangerous, addictive drug with no medical benefits. But that claim will be up for debate Monday in California when a federal judge is scheduled to hear testimony from doctors that conclude the opposite.

Doctors Carl Hart, Associate Professor of Psychology at Columbia University, retired physician Phillip Denny, and Greg Carter, Medical Director of St. Luke’s Rehabilitation Institute in Spokane, Washington will testify Monday that marijuana — real name, “cannabis” — is not the demon drug the federal government makes it out to be. Accepted science does not justify the listing of cannabis as a dangerous “Schedule I” substance, many say.

There is more on this all over the ‘net. Have a look around. And if you are wondering why the case is sometimes referred to as “Schweder” and sometimes a “Pickard” you can follow the motions made in the case and the rulings of the judge at eastern_district_of_calif/schweder-marijuana-case/. And just to relieve the suspense: it is a multiple defendant case and Schweder and Pickard (is that you Jean Luc?) are two of the defendants.

What is happening is that Prohibition is breaking down. The state of the law is going to be messy for a while.