Supreme Court's Marijuana Ruling Should Begin Fight for Legalization

The medical Marijuana movement took a huge step back in its fight for legalization. By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the federal government can still ban the possession of Marijuana in states that have legalized the herb for medicinal use. The court ruled that Congress's constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce in both legal and illegal drugs extends to small personal quantities of doctor prescribed Marijuana. The majority ruled that homegrown cultivation of the herb for personal use could have broader "social and financial implications." As a result, all doctors who prescribe the herb, or patients who consume it, can be prosecuted under federal law even if state law protects them.

This ruling was simply the justice system wiping its hands of the Marijuana issue after years of endless litigation, and now advocates for the use of the herb will no longer be able to litigiously demonstrate Marijuana's benefits. Because of this ruling, NORML and other Marijuana advocacy groups will now have to lobby the Congress for any future legalization. But because the Congress is filled with bought and sold Conservatives that think Marijuana is evil and more dangerous than VIOXX, advocates must now redesign the direction of their movement.

Whether one advocates the end of medical or personal prohibition of Marijuana, the legalization of one will perpetuate the legalization of the other. Medical use of the herb has always legitimized the issue of legalization, but now that the Supreme Court has put an end to any further litigation of the issue, there is no need to emphasis legitimacy. Marijuana advocates now must try to motivate its base to become more radical in its approach; like the animal and environmental groups.

Remember that Marijuana has become a major culprit in the "War on Drugs." And as long as the anti-drug consortium continues to affiliate Marijuana with physically addictive narcotics (e.g. heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines), the herb will continue to be illegal for any purpose. As a result of this affiliation, the anti-drug groups have even redefined Marijuana's role in society as the "gateway drug." If advocates for the herb have any chance of legalization, they must take extreme measures to do so.

The problem with groups like NORML is that they attempt to give some special scientific meaning to this plant. They feel that some study or scientific paper on the benefits of Marijuana will some how give their persuasion substance. This is not and has not ever worked in favor of the legalization issue. These tactics have obviously been a waste of time and will never persuade those who avidly oppose the herb. Consequently, NORML has horribly failed in its thirty-five year attempt to legalize Marijuana. So where does the movement go from here?

Marijuana advocacy groups need to look back in history and use the Prohibition of alcohol as a template for a new approach for legalization. At the time, the government was strong armed to make alcohol legal because of the mass quantities of people that consumed it. It was too much for the government to handle. This is the same approach that advocacy groups should be using. They should try to persuade more people to consume Marijuana so that the government can't control ban on the herb.

To persuade people that have never been exposed to Marijuana to consume it, advocacy groups should tell its members to make Marijuana readily available to the general public. This does not mean, "Go out and sale Marijuana to the public." It means that advocacy members should take the remnants of their consumed Marijuana (e.g. seeds, stems) and throw them anywhere a plant can grow (e.g. yard, field, woods, etc). One doesn't have to plant or dig, just throw remnants and nature will take its course. If, by some chance, most who consumed Marijuana did this, it would expose the plant to individuals that have never consumed the herb and make them more tempted to try it. The author of this article calls this the "Poison Apple Theory."

In the story of Adam and Eve, God told both Eve and Adam that they could consume anything they wanted in the garden except for a poisonous tree. But because the bad fruit was exposed to both of them all the time, one of them eventually persuaded the other that they should consume it. Therefore, both of them consumed the fruit, against God's will, and the rest is history. This story is more than a biblical tale; it's a testament of human nature. As stated in the previous paragraph, if one exposes Marijuana to those who don't consume it, its human nature to want to try it.

Of course, not everyone will consume Marijuana because of the Poison Apple Theory. But if Marijuana all of a sudden started growing everywhere because of the theory, what would the government be able to do? They wouldn't be able to do anything! Just because the Supreme Court made its ruling, does not mean that the fight for legalization is over, it's taken a dramatic turn out of the judicial system. That's why the advocacy groups need to wake-up and start fighting this "War on Drugs" with guerilla-style tactics.