Resolved: The Federal Government can legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp

Well, my opponent has forfeited R3, but hopefully he will at least provide a conclusion to his arguments. For my conclusion, I will provide some background, and then reiterate my arguments. Marijuana is a plant grouped by the genus cannabis. It has three species: cannabis sativa (cannabis sativa subspec. sativa)(http://www.ars-grin.gov...), cannabis indica (cannabis sativa subspec. indica)(http://www.ars-grin.gov...), and cannabis ruderalis (http://www.cannabisculture.com...). The US Federal Government has not always prohibited marijuana, and it didn't even attempt to regulate it until introduction of the Marijuana Stamp Act of 1937 (http://www.druglibrary.org...). Though the Stamp Act did not itself criminalize marijuana, it provided penalty provisions and a complex regulation codifying elaborate rules of enforcement. Passage of the Act included reports that alleged that marijuana causes "murder, insanity, and death". In 1942, due to World War II, the US Department of Agriculture produced a film called "Hemp For Victory", a film which encouraged and taught US farmers to grow variants of hemp to use as raw materials used by sailors for rope. This was in response of Japan's blockage of alternative raw materials from entering the US. In 1969 in Leary v. United States, this act was found to be unconstitutional since it violated the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself. In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The Controlled Substances Act serves as the US implementation of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, an international treaty to prohibit production and supply of specific drugs and of drugs with similar effects except under license for specific purposes, such as medical treatment and research. The Single Convention repeatedly affirms the importance of medical use of controlled substances. The Preamble notes that "the medical use of narcotic drugs continues to be indispensable for the relief of pain and suffering and that adequate provision must be made to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs for such purposes". The treaty is ambiguous with regard to personal use. Several commissions have attempted to clear this point, and with the exception of the Le Dain Commission, most have found that states are allowed to legalize possession for personal use. The American National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse reached the conclusion in 1972 that the Convention does not bar possession for personal use, finding "that the word 'possession' in Article 36 refers not to possession for personal use but to Possession as a link in illicit trafficking." In addition to exceptions for medical and personal use, Article 28 of the Convention specifically excludes industrial hemp from these regulations, stating, "This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and seed) or horticultural purposes." Because prohibitions against medical use, possession for personal use, and industrial use are exempted under the Convention, prohibition of such is the design of the Controlled Substances Act which is intended to enforce the Single Convention, but applies it's own restrictions against the medical and personal use of marijuana, and by not including an exception for industrial use, it also restricts industrialized hemp. When the Controlled Substances Act was enacted, a letter to the Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and International Commerce states that marijuana scheduling as Schedule I was intended to be provisional: Some question has been raised whether the use of the plant itself produces "severe psychological or physical dependence" as required by a schedule I or even schedule II criterion. Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marijuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue." The Controlled Substances Act provides a process for rescheduling controlled substances by petitioning the Drug Enforcement Administration. The first petition under this process was filed in 1972 to allow cannabis to be legally prescribed by physicians. The petition was ultimately denied after 22 years of court challenges, although a pill form of cannabis' psychoactive ingredient, THC, was rescheduled in 1985 to allow prescription under schedule II. In 1999 it was again rescheduled to allow prescription under schedule III. The Drug Policy Forum of Texas, and other organizations and universities have defined legalization vs. decriminalization as follows: Legalization A system that allows the use and sale of drugs to adults under a system of regulation such as pertains to alcohol or perhaps involving licenses. Many suggest there would be a ban on advertising and public use. If the alcohol model prevailed, different states might vary the regulatory structure and legality might also be limited by local option to specific areas within a state. Decriminalization A system that punishes offenses by means other than prison. Fines for most traffic violations are an example. In relation to drugs, it is normally limited to possession (and sometimes growth) of small amounts (often around one ounce) and somtimes to sale of equally small amounts to adults. It is also often limited to marijuana among the illegal drugs. There is another distinction possible between de jure decriminalization, which entails an amendment to criminal legislation, and de facto decriminalization, which involves an administrative decision not to prosecute acts that nonetheless remain subject to arrest and imprisonment under the law. Some cities have simply decided de facto to specify that enforcement of some marijuana laws is the "lowest priority" for their police forces. There are several ways the US Federal Government can legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. -The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005 would remove penalties and roadblocks to industrialized hemp under the CSA, redefining marijuana as listed under Schedule 1 of the CSA. This Act would allow for a national and state regulated hemp industry. (http://www.globalhemp.com...)(http://www.govtrack.us...) -Rescheduling marijuana as a Schedule II or III would legalize the prescribed medical use of marijuana. -A Constitutional Article allowing for the regulated medical, personal, and industrial use of cannabis can be written and ratified as an Amendment. -Congress can introduce a bill under the Commerce Clause or Taxing and Spending Clause of the US Constitution allowing for a regulated marijuana industry. There are other ways, and many different laws can be written, ratified, changed, or reworded- the fact remains that the US Federal Government HAS the power to legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. Thank you. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... http://blog.thehill.com... http://www.usdoj.gov... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.votehemp.com... http://www.factmonster.com... http://www.opencongress.org...