General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPresident Obama's puzzling silence on marijuana policy
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2017033938_peirce18.html"Dance with the One that Brought You" is the title of a well-known song. But the Urban Dictionary offers a deeper meaning: "The principle that someone should pay proper fealty to those who have gone out of their way to look after them."
But what about President Obama? In 2004 he endorsed marijuana decriminalization. He was candid about his early pot use and in 2006 told a group of magazine editors: "When I was a kid, I inhaled, frequently." By his run for president in 2008, he was slipping away from decriminalization but at least talked of a "public health" approach, emphasizing drug treatment instead of prison, giving drug-reform advocates hope for a new day in national policy.
But Obama as president has been a clear disappointment to reform forces. In White House-initiated electronic town halls, respondents — heavily weighted to original Obama supporters — have repeatedly put marijuana at the top of their issue lists. But the White House has either laughed off or provided dismissive retorts.
Obama's Drug Policy Office claims the drug war is over, replaced by a focus on shrinking demand, "innovative, compassionate and evidence-based drug policies." But Obama has not once singled out marijuana — a substance arguably far less harmful to the human body than alcohol — for special consideration. Nor has he spoken to the harm to youth caused by 800,000 yearly arrests. Or moved to stem the billions of dollars a year spent on marijuana-related arrests.
The editorial writer notes that Obama can reignite the youth vote by making a statement that marijuana policy needs to be revisited - not even actually do anything before an election - while Ethan Nadelmann, of the Drug Policy Alliance, wonders if the Obama administration has been co-opted by holdover appointees (he's talking about you, Michele Leonhart.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)
tblue
(16,350 posts)I could be wrong, but this probably doesn't rank very high on his list of priorities and he doesn't want the political headache that would surely follow from the Right.
Just a guess.
boppers
(16,588 posts)
SixthSense
(829 posts)that are totally ignored by the establishment.
MJ legalization is one... wanting not to get involved in another war is another... a fair economic playing field that can provide jobs and a future is a third; relief of staggering student loan debts a fourth.
What really blows me down is that we can't find a Democrat to offer these policies.
DCKit
(18,541 posts)Dear Mom and Dad,
If you don't help us change the House and Senate to a majority of progressive Democrats that will provide some kind of future for my generation, I will be living in your basement forever.
Love,
Jr.
SixthSense
(829 posts)see 2008 election results
they got screwed by a unified Democratic government:
- the President has turned up the heat on MMJ
- we've gotten into another war (Libya) and the admin is pushing like neocons for war in Iran
- student loan costs have escalated dramatically
- Obama has a dozen people from Goldman Sachs and related organizations running the economy
They're getting pepper sprayed in public for merely protesting the situation.
Now what do we tell them?
DCKit
(18,541 posts)Not DLC, Blue Dogs or DINOs. We need a majority of progressives.
The rest are no better than any of the (very few) moderate Republicans and many are worse, as you have pointed out.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)have noted that one of the best ways to talk about this issue with conservatives is to note the waste of money for arrests for something less harmful than alcohol.
Barney Frank also owned George Will on Sunday when Frank noted that conservatives are all for big government when they can prohibit others' freedoms.
Those are the two lines of attack that conservatives need to answer.
...and they SHOULD have to answer them. Why don't we ever hear any of the Sunday talking heads ask about this colossal waste and attempt to infringe upon people's right to privacy, to the 9th amendments understanding that those things not enumerated in the constitution are allowed - which is why alcohol had to have an amendment to prohibit it, btw - but with Nixon, it was simply one more line in the southern strategy to go after minorities and young voters.
SixthSense
(829 posts)Because most of the candidates offered from both parties, if there is not a primary groundswell of opposition, will be full-on corporatists.
Otherwise - and this will almost certainly be the case for the vast majority of voters next year - those young men and women will be given two choices on their ballot, either one of which they can be 100% assured will work day and night to screw them over:
Ballot 2012
[ ] Screw N. Yu (D), a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs
[ ] F. N. Yuova (R), a wholly owned subsidiary of J. P. Morgan
That's one future, the most likely one.
Ask any young person whether they'd like to see the likely Obama-Gingrich or Obama-Romney if they had the alternative of voting in a Kucinich-Paul or Sanders-Paul race, which set of options do you think they would prefer?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and this choice to ignore them is what makes Ron Paul attractive to them.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Reefer is not just for Young People.
And most young people don't really consider it their issue.
And anyone who is even considering Ron Paul as a candidate for President is dumb as a post.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)however, the reality is that the majority of people who use cannabis recreationally are young voters.
if you had spent time, as I have, reading about this issue, reading forums, going to sites that are geared toward this same demographic - well, think it's ridiculous.
I'm just mentioning what I've seen people talk about.
I would never support Ron Paul - but, you know, libertarianism has a strong following among techie males - who are also the cannabis demographic. Just reporting what I have seen those sorts talking about.
Rageneau
(3,503 posts)I don't care how 'right' he is on other issues, Obama is so wrong on legal pot that he doesn't deserve my vote. Obama has betrayed Democracy, he has betrayed his party, he has betrayed his constituency, he has betrayed truth and reason, he has betrayed his oath to uphold the Constituition. So screw him.
Ron Paul is wrong on most issues, but he's right on a few that Obama isn't and -- more important -- he has the principles to do what he promises he'll do. Unlike Obama.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)When I first started following politics as a young person in the late 90's I was a big Ron Paul supporter in large part because he supported legalization. After a few years I realized how destructive many of his other policies were and I ran far away from him and never looked back, but as a young person who had a lot to learn him along with the other Libertarians were able to pull me in on the legalization issue and then convince me of all kinds of wrongheaded ideas. We can not dismiss this, people do start following candidates because of a single issue and then embrace other stances that are often completely wrong. Marijuana should be legal and we should not be afraid to say so, unfortunately right now Ron Paul is one of the few people saying it so he is winning voters who should be on our side.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)There really aren't that many Marijuana Single-Issue voters.
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)I was going to reform drug laws, but then I got high.
Now the youth vote don't love me any more, and I know why....
Cause I got high
Cause I got high
Cause I got high
-------------------------------------------------------------
More seriously, I really liked Obama's rhetoric on this when he campaigned, but even then I thought it was too good to be true.
I really do wish they would stop arresting people for ingesting weed.
And, no, I really don't think President Obama gets high.
Listening to Afroman....good times!
RainDog
(28,784 posts)This figure is for all arrests, however, 800k of those are for something the President did himself. The worst harm he could have suffered for that action would have been arrest.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)it makes perfect sense, for him politically, to keep the status quo on drugs.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)youth voters do not have the same sort of "brand loyalty" that older voters have. This editorial specifically talks about how the youth vote is disappointed by Obama's actions concerning this issue - which, again, consistently out polls any other "netroots" issue.
All political groups poll overwhelmingly in favor of legal mmj and, this year, for the first time, a majority is in favor of full legalization.
The largest groups that do not support legalization are Republicans who are not going to vote for him anyway and the elderly - who are not going to be voting over the long term in the same numbers that younger voters will.
A political party that wants to secure its favor among young voters might want to consider the impact of ignoring the poll numbers - those for legalizing mmj have been far, far above 50% for more than a decade.
Obama has members of the House bringing forth proposed legislation, hundreds of economists, more than 50 lawyers in CA regarding prop 19, the AMA, members of the UN - ALL calling for an end to the current laws. People see this and wonder what political advantage it serves to ignore these people plus the millions of young people who worked so hard to elect President Obama.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)On the public option. Sworn loyalty to Big Pharma and to Big Health Insurers, both of whom lose out when the MS and cancer patients can simply grow their own remedies. Prison industry loses out as well.
He is a person who has sworn to work for the Biggest Interests at the Biggest Corporations.
We common people are just a bunch of "retards." Almost every action he has taken shows us that is really what is going on.
Though of course, the pretty words he recites when the teleprompter is working are exactly the opposite of his actions.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)THIS! "Kannalife"
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/12/medical_marijuana_patients_opp.php
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/internal-fed-memo-medical-marijuana-crackdown-leaked
http://www.theskanner.com/article/VIDEO-Drug-Czar-Says-New-Strategy-Will-Push-Prevention-and-Treatment-2011-11-22
Just waiting to do This!
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/20/big-pharma-set-to-take-over-medical-marijuana-market/
http://blog.420petition.com/marijuana-topics/marijuana-industry/medical-marijuana-big-pharma-style/
SixthSense
(829 posts)That's the truth of the matter... marijuana, if legal, would be no more expensive than broccoli, people could grow what they wanted in their homes.
But then the prison industry loses a million "customers". And PhRMA loses billions on peddling synthetic drugs that can be replaced entirely by a simple common weed. The cigarette companies on the other side of the ledger don't have the same pull as those industries do.
If you care to do the research I'm sure you will find:
- large donations from the industries benefiting, to key elected officials
- revolving door of personnel between government and industry
- crimes against humanity being covered up to preserve a profitable situation
We need a Moses, someone to say: Let my people go!
fredamae
(4,458 posts)at this juncture. I'm trying to find a resource that listed LE Orgs as the only donor of opposition, in a particular bill. I'll post it as soon as I find it.
$1 TRILLION spent so far on this Failed "Prohibition 2.0" and We tax payers got Zero in return fo for Our investment. I'm tired of being left out of this and All discussions regarding how Our money is spent!http://searchjustice.usdoj.gov/search?q=marijuana+task+force+2011+budget+expenditures&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=iso-8859-1&oe=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&entqr=3&ud=1&site=default_collection
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/how-pot-could-save-obamacare-supreme-court
RainDog
(28,784 posts)rather than schedule I, that action triggered a DEA hearing on marijuana.
of course, the DEA ignored the evidence - but that was more than a decade ago and much, much more research has been done now.
I don't think the DEA can get away with another refusal to reschedule under the same circumstances without a mass political protest specifically against them - and at this time, the media tools and the organization (via OWS) exists to make that a reality.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)was extremely expensive and not only did it not make her feel any better or able to eat, it made her feel "yucky" (her words) and after only a three dose trial we concluded it made things worse not better (perhaps others had different results, I don't know).
After it was apparent it would not help her I called my nephew and he scored her some actual weed (it was even donated by the "dealer"
.
She had relief from nausea and a return of a long lost appetite within minutes of smoking a bowl. That is all the research I need to know it is all about the money (the Marinol was over $75 a pill at the time and the weed was free, street value for enough for her for a month was like $50 and that is from the current black market.)
The difference in both price and effectiveness was beyond remarkable.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)someone gave me some when I had a migraine and no health insurance - in the past I'd had to go to the emergency room b/c of a migraine and had lost days to migraines and then migraine "hangovers" from the pain.
I hadn't been around the stuff in years. The pain went away immediately. Within seconds. I was stunned.
I've heard a lot of others also say that marinol is not as effective - including Doctors who report on their patients' experience with marinol v. cannabis for help with tolerating chemo.
Some doctors have problems with whole cannabis because it's not medicine as they understand it. I say, if something obviously works and is safe - why treat it as a drug at all if it's a plant.
That's like saying someone can't make a cup of chamomile tea to help them sleep at night - only, in the case of cannabis, the benefits are much greater.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)As an Obama "hero worshipper" I am more than puzzled and off put by his MJ policy. Disappointed for real.
Response to banned from Kos (Reply #14)
Romulox This message was self-deleted by its author.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)I unreced a similar thread by the OP on DU2 that wondered if Obama is really in charge of DOJ, DEA... 
The President is a committed Drug Warrior; engage with reality, please!
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and you are now, apparently, misunderstanding this one.
I am quoting an op-ed. I have that op-ed in blockquotes to indicate it is a quote.
yes, I remember you very well.
I am not going to waste much time with your inability to understand the difference between reporting something and mind reading.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)There's no mysterious third party "forcing" Obama to crackdown on Medical Marijuana. 
goodbye.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Cognitive dissonance: how does that work?
Countdown_3_2_1
(878 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Truth hurts. A LOT.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Advocating legalising marijuana, or even adopting positions that could be caricatured by opponents as doing so, would be politically fatal for a Democrat whose electability rests on not being painted as a far-leftist.
"Legalising cannabis is worth spending political capital on" is a perfectly sensible position. "Legalising cannabis would be a vote-winner", or indeed "Legalising cannabis would not be a massive vote-loser", strikes me as almost certainly daft.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:38 PM - Edit history (1)
when 500 economists sign a petition to legalize marijuana the position is not far leftist.
http://economics.about.com/od/incometaxestaxcuts/a/legalize_pot.htm
when Joe Klein, in Time Magazine (which is considered centrist at most) writes about legalizing marijuana, it is not a far-left position.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889166,00.html
when a Gallup poll finds 50% of Americans favor legalization (vs. 46% opposed) - it's not a far-left position.
http://reason.com/poll/2011/10/18/new-gallup-survey-majority-of
As you see from this survey, support for legalization is the majority opinion among liberals, moderates, independents, Democrats, people from ages 18-49 (with 49% support for ages 50-64.)
Instead, what this poll indicates is that a failure to take action to legalize marijuana is a conservative and Republican position - the one group that does not favor the Obama presidency without doubt.
Obama's refusal to address this issue puts him in the same camp as the far right.
i_sometimes
(201 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)there are a lot of links, videos and stats that are useful - including the entire proceedings of the tax act.
i_sometimes
(201 posts)what the DOJ has wrought firsthand.
One, the black market for weed almost disappeared here in Oregon. The price per lb dropped so much from 04 to 09 that growers-legal and otherwise- were hoarding, waiting for more money.
Cue the raids in California and presto, 4k an lb again.
From a low of 1600 for dank.
And now the black market is back.
No taxes collected, no safety when purchasing, just more crime and more outdoor growers polluting.
But I am making more money per lb so there is that.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Will actually Deschedule Cannabis Before the Dems Will.
I must wonder with the polling results demonstrating Wide Public Support for consumption of Cannabis for both Medical and Personal use if we don't see movement soon.
Regardless of what lawmakers "fear"-The Public, once again, is Way ahead of the lawmakers. Sooner or later Someone besides Frank, Rohrabacher, Hinchey, Kucinich, Paul and etc WILL move this forward for pure political gain.
The question is Which one?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Republicans have to worry about "will this policy make me be viewed as a far right winger". Therefore, legalising cannabis might well be politically advantageous for one.
Democrats have to worry about "will this policy make me be viewed as a far left winger". Therefore, it would be politically risky in the extreme for one to do so.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)how do you reconcile this idea it is such a far left position with the poll data I supplied that shows legalization is the majority position among the majority of voters across the political spectrum with the idea that it's "dangerous?"
how do you reconcile that states have voted by direct democracy to legalize in most states that have with the idea this is so far left?
the data do not support your belief.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)In a logical world, the two would be equivalent; in the real world, for reasons not entirely clear to me, they are not.
Even though a lot of people outside the far left support legalising cannabis, it appears to be viewed as a left wing "shibboleth" or "dog whistle" or "code word" or what have you, and hence if a politician supports it, even non-left-wingers who support it themselves are likely to hold it against them.
I think it's probably psychologically akin to the way that right-wingers often oppose environmentalism, simply because it's an issue that has been "adopted" by the left.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)the demonization of cannabis is a far right position that has allowed them to target minorities and to shit on the Constitution they claim is so sacred - it allows them to spew a little ultra-hate.
the problem is that politicos view this through the prism of the 1960s when the support for this issue is mainstream.
the problem is that politicos are far, far behind the wisdom of the crowd - those who know people from all walks of life who support an end to prohibition because it is wrong at its very core. most everyone has a family member who has suffered from cancer and why should those people have to seek out illegal cannabis to help them survive chemo? makes no sense.
so, as you note, the problem is really that a small but vocal right wing idiocracy dominates American politics and hurts us all - on environmental issues, on economic issues, on this one. And no one will admit these same people are liars who enrich themselves at the expense of Americans and the rest of the world.
What I see is a true failure of the American system.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I don't think it's just the far right who would be less likely to vote for a Democratic politician if they supported legalising cannabis, I think that a significant number of people who answer opinion polls as saying that they support it themselves would be.
My explanation - based on guesswork rather than data, so not to be relied on - is that it's to do with people voting on perceptions of left wing/right wing and moderate/extremist, rather than on specific issues. Cannabis is seen as a left-wing issue, and hence I think legalising it in the USA won't happen unless there's a change in American perceptions of the left wing.
I'm marginally less pessimistic about it here in the UK.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Johnson will not win, of course, but he is both pro-choice for abortion and cannabis.
He's not the same old Ron Paul libertarian, either.
If he acts as a third-party spoiler, he will pull voters from both Republicans and Democrats.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)"principles".
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)What I actually said, if you'd bothered to read and think about my post, was "why express puzzlement that someone else is not doing the right thing, when the* answer is obviously "because he'd be criticised if he did it"".
*On edit: "an answer" - there may well be other factors too.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)A question was asked - "why does Obama do X" - and I answered it. Doing so does not provide evidence that I agree with his doing so.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's amazing how hard it is to communicate using only words, isn't it?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)SixthSense
(829 posts)What is this, 1984? The world has changed, and marijuana is so common that only the most ignorant still think it is a problem. Several states have legalized it, more have decriminalized it. Today's seniors were not so old in the 1960s as their parents were.
The only people still holding to drug prohibition are the religious right (which loves to legislate morality), and law enforcement, which has corrupted itself thoroughly in the pursuit of money.
nebenaube
(3,496 posts)But the kids who smoke put Obama over the top. They will be voting for Ron Paul if they vote at all.
randome
(34,845 posts)You may be able to pull out a poll or two or three but I doubt they would be comprehensive enough to demonstrate that 'the youth' care that much about it.
Some do, yes. And some localities more than others. But I think most of the cries for decriminalization come from outside the school system.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)you might want to take some time to education yourself, as I have mentioned before.
as I observed in the past, even when you are presented with evidence, you simply ignore it and claim reality is something you perceive, no matter what the data indicate.
you might want to look at the Gallup Poll posted here or read some of the threads in the Drug Policy Forum that talk about this issue.
8 different petitions to the White House web site received more votes than any other issue on the "We The People" website - where citizens could petition the White House.
"Five of the top 10 petitions on the "We the People" site are about some aspect of marijuana or drug policy reform. The eight marijuana petitions that the White House's Friday rejection was intended to address have collectively garnered more than 150,000 signatures.
This isn't the first time that marijuana policy reform has proven popular in online forums hosted by the White House. A question from LEAP member and former sheriff's deputy MacKenzie Allen got the most votes in a White House YouTube forum this January.
Marijuana questions also dominated the White House's "Open for Questions" online town hall in March 2009 and the Obama transition team's Change.gov website in late 2008. Each time, the administration has issued terse rejections that contradict Obama's 2004 statement that "we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws."
randome
(34,845 posts)My point was that it was implied that 'the youth', as a group, want marijuana legalized. I simply said I have seen no evidence of that in my interactions with my daughters and their school. And yes, they may not tell me everything but yes, they know that no subject is out of bounds.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)on this issue - because I was stunned that you were so dedicated to denying what evidence indicated.
Your interactions with your daughters and their school means nothing in terms of numbers who support legalization.
The strongest support for legalization has ALWAYS come from the youngest voting demographic. That goes all the way back to when Nixon first criminalized cannabis. If you don't know this, it merely indicates you are not informed about this issue.
randome
(34,845 posts)Even my daughters know I value other opinions. They can disagree with me if they want. They can even smoke marijuana if they want. But they know I disapprove of it. We have a very respectful relationship.
Would you want YOUR child to smoke it?
I've seen claims that MJ not only promotes safer driving but makes people more alert. Is that the kind of evidence you want to claim I deny?
In the end, it doesn't matter what fringe study #613 in a series 'proves'. I think people in principle think MJ should be decriminalized. So do I. But I think that's a 'safe' position to take when it has no chance of coming true. Maybe the same can be said of Obama's earlier statements on the subject.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and you can read up on current information.
as far as the discussions with you at DU2 - you know, you can find those yourself if you really care.
Gallup is not a fringe organization. In 2011, a majority favors full legalization.
http://reason.com/poll/2011/10/18/new-gallup-survey-majority-of
Zogby is not a fringe organization and, in 2009, 52% polled in favor of full legalization
http://boingboing.net/2009/05/07/zogby-poll-52-of-ame.html
Here are some older polls concerning medical marijuana. All are from reputable organizations.
72 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, "Adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if a physician recommends it."
POLL: AARP
DATE: November 2004
Sample Size: 1,706
80 percent of respondents supported allowing adults to "legally use marijuana for medical purposes."
POLL: Time Magazine/CNN Poll
DATE: October 2002
Sample Size: 1,007
70 percent of respondents answered affirmatively to the question, "Should the use of medical marijuana be allowed?"
POLL: Center for Substance Abuse Research
DATE: January 2002
Sample Size: N/A
73 percent of respondents supported allowing doctors "to prescribe marijuana."
POLL: Pew Research Center Poll
DATE: March 2001
Sample Size: 1,513
73 percent of respondents said they "would vote for making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe."
POLL: Gallup
DATE: March 1999
Sample size: 1,018
60 percent of respondents supported allowing physicians to prescribe medical marijuana.
POLL: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
DATE: March 1998
Sample size: N/A
62 percent of respondents favored legalizing marijuana "strictly for medical use."
POLL: Luntz Research Poll
DATE: September 1997
Sample size: 1,444
66 percent of Independent voters said "doctors should be allowed to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for patients suffering serious illnesses."
64 percent of Democrat voters said "doctors should be allowed to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for patients suffering serious illnesses."
57 percent of Republican voters said "doctors should be allowed to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for patients suffering serious illnesses."
POLL: CBS News telephone poll
DATE: June 1997
Sample size: N/A
74 percent of respondents agreed "people who find that marijuana is effective for their medical condition should be able to use it legally."
POLL: Family Research Council
DATE: June 1997
Sample size: 1,000
69 percent of respondents favored "legalizing [the] medical use of marijuana."
POLL: ABC News/Discovery News Poll
DATE: May 1997
Sample size: 517
68 percent of respondents said the federal government should not punish doctors who prescribe marijuana. 60 percent of respondents said doctors should "be able to prescribe marijuana."
POLL: Lake Research Poll
DATE: February 1997
Sample size: 1,002
85 percent of respondents favored "making marijuana legally available for medical uses where it has been proven effective for treating a problem."
POLL: ACLU Topline Poll
DATE: November 1995
Sample size: 1,001
randome
(34,845 posts)I have NO problem with that. None. However, people being the creatures they are, I also know that it would need to be tightly regulated if the goal is to have MJ available ONLY for medicinal purposes.
If it isn't, then supplies will be sold under the counter, on the street and it will be back to being a recreational drug. I am against that.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)however, the polls concerning medical marijuana indicate that national support for legal medical marijuana goes back to the Clinton administration - and yet in 2011 we continue to have raids on state-legal medical marijuana providers and sellers who are in compliance with state law.
Other nations have dealt with the issue of medical vs. recreational cannabis by having mmj sold in pharmacies while recreational mj is sold in coffee shops.
when it is sold for recreational use it is regulated and limited to adults. in these nations (which you can read about in the drug policy forum) teen use is less than here where it is prohibited - because it is regulated.
I am fully in support of cannabis for adults for any use they may choose. There is no reason for the govt to tell adults they cannot grow or consume an herb that is less dangerous than aspirin. The laws came into existence because of racism and continue to be enforced in a racist manner. Anyone who is against legalization is, by default, in support of racist laws. That's the reality. You support racism by supporting prohibition,, even if you don't realize that's what you're doing.
Again, if you go to the drug policy forum and read about Portugal and The Netherlands, you will find that your belief that having a regulated market would result in a black market are not supported.
and, as far as information, as I said - go to the drug policy forum if you really care about this issue. There are dozens of links to reputable studies by the top universities in the world, links to economists, links to law enforcement, links to leaders of nations around the world who disagree with you.
and, that said - have a wonderful day.
randome
(34,845 posts)What works in Europe will not necessarily work in America. Selling pot in pharmacies and coffee shops would not be a regulated use of the drug by any stretch of the imagination.
It's human nature. Inventories would be manipulated and MJ would be sold, as I said, under the counter and be back in use on the street as a recreational drug in no time.
It's human nature and, I guess, American nature, to always skirt the rules.
I've seen very many studies and polls, some supporting pot as actually beneficial, others supporting the idea that it is still a mind altering substance. (And if it were not, why would anyone want to smoke it?)
All these studies and polls support the position of the person linking to them.
So, again, I think it should remain illegal except for medicinal use. I think medicinal use should be strictly regulated. I think criminalization and incarceration should be something on the order of a fine and a search of the premises or something like that.
I do NOT support jail sentences for pot use. But I don't want it to be 'in vogue', either.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)studies from the Global Alliance on Drug Policy, for instance?
studies from Harvard, studies from UCLA... studies published in peer-reviewed journals about science?
this is something you don't get.
people would rather buy a known rather than unknown entity. people would rather drink a pinot noir than boone's farm - so why would people prefer something off the street?
yes, cannabis is a mind-altering substance. so is alcohol. so is chocolate. that isn't the issue. the point is that it's no one's business if you want to eat a chocolate bar or drink a glass of wine or smoke a bowl when you get home. it's no one's business. you are not harming anyone else and anyone who wants to prohibit someone from doing so needs to go fuck themselves. this is the American nature, too - to have the freedom, as adults, to live your life without someone threatening you when you are doing no harm.
if you think that all the information in the drug policy forum is only an indication of the person linking to them... well, that's an idiotic position to take. it just is.
may I ask you one more question? do you believe in creationism?
randome
(34,845 posts)You never answered my question above, though: would you like any child of yours to smoke weed?
Ingesting smoke will damage your lungs, maybe not as fast as tobacco, but it is still an unhealthy habit to take on. Yes, alcohol is unhealthy, too, but the vast majority of people who drink are not alcoholics. The vast majority of people who smoke cigarettes are addicts and I would think the same level of addiction would show up if weed was made completely legal.
In principle, I agree with you that it's nobody's business but your own. But the reality -Society's paradox, again- is that we don't want to see a vast number of people 'high' in our daily lives. You say 'smoke a bowl when you get home'. Do you really think everyone in America will pace themselves that well?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I would have no problem with my adult children smoking weed in moderation, just as I would have no problem with my adult children drinking in moderation. I think it would be better for them to smoke weed than drink.
I have no problem with the idea that people can enjoy an altered state of consciousness and still be upstanding citizens because I know a lot of people who fit that description. stoners are stereotypes, not the reality for anyone who smokes. my ex's daughter most definitely smoked cannabis when she was a teenager because we talked about it. (she doesn't live in the U.S. fwiw) She has a PhD and does research and now also has a child. I assume she no longer smokes but I'm sure she drinks moderately.
A doctor who studied the issue of cannabis smoke noted that those who smoke both tobacco and cannabis have lower rates of lung cancer - cannabis has tumor-suppressant qualities and no one has ever been dx'd with lung cancer from cannabis in any of the research that I am aware of.
(btw, lots of researchers have started out to disprove the value of cannabis and became supporters b/c their research didn't support their beliefs.)
nicotine is the reason cigarettes are addictive. there is no nicotine in cannabis. again, I urge you to read up on this issue. You cannot compare the two.
what's interesting is that doctors have found that cannabis has allowed patients to wean themselves from opiods - substances that are far more dangerous. some doctors, using a harm reduction paradigm, have found cannabis useful to help alcoholics to get sober, as well.
The reality is that, right now, there are millions of people who smoke pot. They are doctors, professors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, politicians, business owners, professionals in all different fields... so, whether you want a vast number of people getting high, they are doing so anyway. Why should they have to be subject to laws that are not based upon any reality - why should they be treated any differently than someone who wants to have a glass of wine in the evening?
Society's paradox is a joke - people already deal with people who are high - they just don't know those people are. look at the video of Irv Rosenfeld and tell me what's so terrible about him using cannabis. He's a stock broker, well spoken, successful - the Cheech and Chong stereotype is like "dumb and dumber." No one thinks all white guys are like those two characters - but too many people seem to think everyone who prefers cannabis to alcohol is like a movie stereotype.
since cannabis is illegal, many of the people who prefer it are not going to show themselves because they are not going to put themselves in a position in which they could be targeted.
The reality remains that to target people for using something that is less harmful that substances that are already legal simply because you don't like the idea of it and want to claim it's a paradox of society means that you are willing to send people to jail for no crime at all.
think about that. you care more for your mythical "acceptable society" than you do for the right of adults to make choices for their own lives.
I think that's shameful.
randome
(34,845 posts)And a good point about the nicotine. I still maintain that ingesting smoke is harmful, no matter how good it might make someone feel. There is no evidence for weed smoking causing cancer because there are relatively few people smoking or willing to admit to it. If you need more 'evidence' that smoke is bad for your lungs, I can't offer anything other than it should be self-evident.
And I further maintain that the reason people are so very careful not to let it slip that they are high is because Society still attaches a stigma on that frame of mind. Some doctors are high, you say? That may be so but if I am ever in need of surgery, I would not want someone who is drugged poking around inside me.
But why would this be such an important issue for you if you are not in need of medical marijuana? I put it to you that you simply want to get high. And I can understand that. In fact, I have no problem with it personally. But if that's all this is to you, just a way to while away your time, why is it so important to you? It should be no more worth your time than it is to discuss the tyranny of stoplights.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)by Big Pharma, you are far more likely to have to worry you have a doctor/mechanic/fellow driver high on Hydrocodone, Oxycotin, Lortabs and assorted other mind-altering substances than you are to worry about cannabis.
And those pills are highly addictive.
And they are ubiquitous.
The Beer Lobby and Big Pharma lobby VERY HEAVILY against cannabis legalization. Ask yourself why that is....
randome
(34,845 posts)They want the patents. I still say ingesting smoke is harmful and I don't want to see more people high. Keeping a stigma attached to drug use may not prevent all occurrences of it but it sure makes it less likely.
Meeting to go to now. I'll try to catch up on this thread later.
I did not state that doctors are operating on someone while high. cannabis effects last for a few hours. it does not cause a hangover, like alcohol. if I were you, I would be much more worried about a doctor operating on me if that doctor were hungover.
the point is that you don't know someone is high because they don't exhibit actions that would lead you to notice - unlike someone who is drunk, for instance. you want to take these things and generalize them to every situation and that's just not reality. the stigma comes from the legal threat, not that someone gives a fuck about what you think.
why is this an important issue to me?
Because, as I've noted before, it is racist to the core. Why don't you care about a racist law - a law whose initial intent was racist and whose current application is racist?
The war on drugs has led to huge abuses of constitutional rights - it has basically obliterated the 4th amendment. Why don't you care about that?
Cannabis as a harm reduction strategy is good medicine - why don't you care about that?
You make an assumption that I would not be a candidate for medical marijuana. On what basis? Actually, cannabis is known as an effective treatment for migraines and was considered the best treatment when it was legal (because it was legal until 1937 - it has only been illegal for 70 years - for the rest of human history is was used as medicine.)
Your attempt to stop this conversation by implying that I want to while away my time is, frankly, just nastiness on your part. I don't while away my time. I am trained as a special collections librarian and I do research and learn about various subjects. I can also tell you a lot about Victorian prostitutes - that doesn't mean I want to be a Victorian prostitute, however. It means I wanted to understand the culture of that time and the way that women were treated as second-class citizens and how that impacted society. In the 1800s, if a woman walked alone on a street, she was assumed to be a prostitute - even girls who had to work in shops to earn a living. They were accosted because of the way in which society had such repulsive and sexist attitudes. Your remarks are the same sort of attempt to marginalize someone. To which I say - well, I won't say what I want to say, other than to say that I find your pettiness repulsive.
You're really and truly misinformed. Or maybe it's just small mindedness that doesn't allow you to see this issue for what it is.
Maybe you're just comfortable with racism. Maybe you enjoy the idea of people in jail for no crime because, I dunno, maybe you're a sadist. Why would you support such laws unless you were a sadist, right? That's the argument you are trying to make with me - that no one should care about any issue if you don't. Maybe that's just narcissism. I don't know. Maybe it's some desire to force your way of life on others because of narrow mindedness. I don't know.
And with that, I have to go. Please don't bother to reply because I won't.
here's a very short part of a documentary that features a doctor who has done a lot of research into cannabis - a pulmonary specialist.
Uncle Joe
(58,333 posts)As for the importance of the issue, the tyranny of stoplights hasn't thrown millions of people into an immoral for profit prison system, arbitrarily taken their property away, ruined their career chances, broken up families and basically raped the Bill of Rights.
You may not view this as an important issue or threat because you don't do cannabis and you're afraid that your daughters may do it if this were legalized but the threat is growing as this decades long, counterproductive, dsyfunctional, and corruptive prohibition grinds on.
Perhaps your attitude might change if one of your daughters did partake and was busted, you might come to view the draconian outsized punishment as vastly excessive, but then you might be the type that still believes the system is just?
randome
(34,845 posts)And that the penalty for possession should be no more than a fine and maybe a search of the premises. Don't think that makes me unaware of the devastating effects the draconian laws have had on others. And I hope I never experience that first hand for myself or for my daughters.
Uncle Joe
(58,333 posts)to re-corrupt the system.
Politics runs on money via lobbying/bribing and the powers that be would find a way to brink back the "tough on crime" approach given enough time as a means to funnel money toward themselves, disenfranchise the American People from their government and we would be back where we are today.
randome
(34,845 posts)I think the vast majority of people would agree that SOME drugs should remain illegal. The problem is where to draw the line.
Uncle Joe
(58,333 posts)I believe this should be our primary focus.
I also believe the line is most clear as the evidence is overwhelming that cannabis is less harmful than tobacco or alchohol and thus should be legal for adults.
Having said that I'm convinced some of the more dangerous drugs came into existence precisely because of the so called "War on Drugs."
Humans have been finding ways to alter their consciousness for thousands of years, they found cannabis stash aproximately 3500 years old.
Prohibition of known drugs has motivated this primal urge to alternative experimentation and creation of other more destructive drugs as a means to get around the law, meth being one example.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)But I don't support making drugs legal, either. It's one of Society's unresolvable paradoxes.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)i_sometimes
(201 posts)What I could get comped back in 2008 was around 1800 to 2600 a lb.
With Obama's disrespect of states rights, SoCal is now at 4000 a lb and Oregon is back up at 3500 a lb.
Oh, with more money in it now, the black market is back.
Legal growers such as myself do benefit from lower supply/higher demand but I would
rather it be different.
Much different.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)What could be the source of this illusion that Joe Biden is a Drug Warrior? Perhaps some older boys from...some previous administration made him do it? 
Biden also pushed for much harsher penalties for possession, use, or sale of crack (prevalent in the ghettos) than for powder cocaine (favored by white folks). Zeese notes: "In the past year Biden has said that was a mistake based on lack of information. He said the same thing about the Iraq war approval. In that case, as in many others, he helped ITAL cause END ITSthe lack of information. As Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee he put on phony hearings where only pro-war viewpoints were heard. He would not allow testimony from weapons inspectors, former military officers opposed to the war, or foreign policy academics opposed to the war. He used the hearing to mislead his colleagues and the public."
Biden was also instrumental in creating the Office of National Office of Drug Control Policy and takes credit for coining the phrase "Drug Czar" to describe its director. He introduced the “Reducing Americans Vulnerability to Ecstasy (RAVE) Act of 2002,” which, Zeese called “an election-year bill, sloppily written and overbroad, based on exaggerated fears.” Zeese says, "Biden also beat the drug-war drum for escalating penalties for methamphetamine. He never sees drug absuse as a medical problem, only a law enforcement problem. His heart is always with the cops and prosecutors.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/09/06/joe-biden-drug-warrior/
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)I love my marijuana, but I can completely understand why Obama must steer clear of the issue.
randome
(34,845 posts)...and I'm good with it.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)except for religious conservatives - indicate a liability?
Why is it possible for every other western democracy to look at ways to deal with the science and evidence that indicates current policies concerning cannabis are not only wrong but are harmful to those with certain medical conditions?
This reminds me of the conservative stranglehold on issue after issue - steer clear - not because the majority wants it, but because a powerful and nasty minority doesn't.
...and this is why some young voters, as I have seen state over and over, will vote for Ron Paul if he runs b/c they have no stake in many issues at their age - but they do have a stake in this one.
randome
(34,845 posts)It doesn't have to make sense.
boppers
(16,588 posts)..and you posted it?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)the majority of Democrats, liberals, moderates, independents, Americans from age 18-49 all poll in favor.
Americans from 50-64 poll at 49% - which, considering the long history of cannabis propaganda, is pretty amazing.
The more people learn about cannabis, the more they favor an end to prohibition, as we have seen over the years.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)particularly in regard to the Medical aspects of marijuana law. It is too late for him to steer clear, he already addressed it and needs to honor that. Legalization is not the issue at hand at all.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)unemployment still at record highs, a mortgage foreclosure crisis, countries (Egypt, Syria) teetering on the brink of chaos, trade imbalances, nuclear issues, and so many more critical time-sensitive issues the president must contend with ... you're wondering why he is "silent" on the issue of marijuana (read: won't push Congress to legalize pot)? This is the most pressing issue of youth today? (It's not, of course, but you're portraying it that way. Much more at the top of the list are jobs, the cost of a college education, loan repayment, and health care.)
I think you must be high.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)The savings to the govt from ending prohibition would reduce the deficit. BILLIONS of dollars are wasted in the war on drugs.
Opening a new market, on the other hand, would be a spur to small businesses - not simply cannabis itself but also hemp products, marketing, cafes...
so, no, I'm not high.
I would encourage you to read about this issue before you make statements that indicate you have no idea what you're talking about.
If 500 economists petition for legalization of cannabis because it would be good for the economy, as they have, I don't think you should assume they are high either because, again, that just makes you look small-minded.
but that's what I find often about those who try to dismiss this issue.
randome
(34,845 posts)I mean, as part of decriminalization. We should never legalize something just because it helps the economy. I do know that enormous amounts of money are wasted on pointless incarcerations.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That took an amendment to the Constitution Which involved state legislators and Congress.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Except of course none of it is.
In the midst of the depression there was wide bipartisan support for the repeal of Prohibition but no one party was all for it or all against it. Neither party had it as a part of the platform, they both avoided the issue. In the end the effort to get it passed on the floor of the Republican convention failed by majority vote and the fight on the florr of the Democratic floor passed by a majority vote.
Roosevelt was concerned about more important issues and avoided the issue. In the end he made exactly one speech endorsing it. At the convention he made it seem that he was for the repeal because the delegates voted for it. He never endorsed the policy until the delegates at the convention had already voted in favor of it.
For those interested in facts here it is:
Repeal was initiated by a wide spread action of lawyers across the country that even involved the American Bar Association. No similar effort exists now and it would be a highly partisan issue.
http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/endprohb.htm
The sitution was much different with the Democrats. Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York, who led in the delegate count, had carefully avoided taking a position on repeal. At the convention, a successful floor fight produced a pro-repeal plank- drafted and defended by the VCL- in the Democratic platform, which FDR unambiguously endorsed in his acceptance speech. "This convention wants repeal," he declared. "Your candidate wants repeal."
During the election campaign, FDR made one unequivocal speech endorsing repeal. Otherwise, both candidates successfully avoided the issue, despite- or perhaps because of- their having takin opposite positions. "Politics is the art of changing the subject," observed Walter Mondale many years later.
FDR was the greatest President in US history. Part of that greatness was keeping his eye on the ball and not getting squandering politcal power on issues outside of the mainstream. It took him more than 12 years but by not getting involved in every issue he was able to consolidate opinion on the ones that mattered most.
You are now free to make up more stuff that sounds good and supports your personal point of view.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2012, 01:54 AM - Edit history (1)
During the election campaign, FDR made one unequivocal speech endorsing repeal. Otherwise, both candidates successfully avoided the issue, despite- or perhaps because of- their having taken opposite positions. "Politics is the art of changing the subject," observed Walter Mondale many years later.
When the only thing standing in the way of repeal was the election of FDR, thousands of "wets" and hundreds of "wet" organizations moved unambiguously behind the Democrat. The message was clear: Roosevelt meant repeal, and repeal meant Roosevelt.
People wanted both, and Roosevelt triumphed in the election. The Number of "wets" in Congress grew significantly. In the nine states, voters passed referenda repealing the state prohibition laws.
This is when the VCL stepped forward and took on the remarkable leadership and responsibility for which they were so uniquely equipped. It required no particular insight into the nature of democracy to know that when the weight of public opinion demanded repeal of Prohibition, Prohibition would be repealed
The VCL served the same purpose as various groups now who lobby for the repeal of prohibition of cannabis.
Oh, but let's just see what FDR himself had to say:
The number of states that have now legalized medical marijuana is analogous to the number of states that repealed alcohol prohibition.
FDR was inaugurated on March 4, 1933. On March 13 he called for the repeal of prohibition. He signed the Harrison-Cullen Act on March 23 - legalizing alcoholic beer and then noted, " I think this would be a good time for a beer."
He dealt with the banking crisis in his first week, CALLED FOR THE REPEAL OF PROHIBITION IN HIS SECOND WEEK, and went on to work out the New Deal with huge public support.
The repeal of prohibition came about on Dec. 5th - Congress did that, but FDR claimed full credit for the same. He popularity increased with the repeal of prohibition.
He started as a "dry" but moved to a "wet" in order to gain the nomination from the Democratic Party. Repeal of prohibition was an economic spur. Yet fewer people drank after the repeal of prohibition than before - prohibition increased the use of alcohol, increased crime, glutted the courts, cost millions in law enforcement.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)the party or the country on the issue.
Here is the fact: FDR didn't lead the country on repealing prohibition. After it was popular and to the most minimal extent possible to own the issue he supported it.
He made no statement for it until the convention approved it and then his statement was "The convention is for it so I am for it".
During the campaign he made only one speech on it and ignored it as much as was possible and still capture all of the anti prohibition vote. In the middle of a campaign he did the minimum necessary to get the maximum popular vote.
It was also documented that before FDR made a statement on it there was wide spread bipartisan support for it, including support across the country by the American Bar Association and many Republicans who brought it to a vote at the Republican convention.
Your premise that Obama should learn from FDRs example is laughable.
Unlike during FDR's time concerning the complete legalization there is no:
Widespread movement in the Democratic Party to make this a major political issue in the next campaign.
Widespread movement in the Republican Party to make this a major political issue in the next campaign.
Major national coordinated campaign for a national repeal.
No significant support from organizations like the American Bar Association organizing and pushing the issue across the US.
The facts are clear. Personally I have never used it but I support its legalization but the fact is in CA anyone over the age of 18 can pay the fee get a doctors note and get it legally. You can get it legally for 'anxiety' or 'inability to sleep'.
Here is a list of 120 Marijuana dispensaries in San Diego.
http://www.sandiegocannabisclubs.com/directory/
Man that is some prohibition. Remarkable how a prohbited item that cannot be bought legally has hundreds of legal dispensaries that spend millions of dollars in advertising.
And yes they are trying to bring order to this industry and some will close on compliance issues but it is a huge business here there is no effective prohibition.
To show how big a business it is I refer you to the San Diego Reader
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/
This is the local San Diego magazine that has for years been provided free at offices and stores.
For years it promoted restaurants and places to go.
Now 80% of the advertising it is for MJ dispensaries.
It is so ubiquitous that if you go to the web page they have a MJ icon in the most prominent spot that takes you to all of their MJ advertisers.
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/altmed/
and here is their special list where you can have weed delivered to you.
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/altmed/
While other states are not this liberal they could be. So why would any national politician expend limited valuable capital on an issue that is not national in scope and where there is no effective organized national campaign to make it so.
That you would bash Obama on this issue by trying to compare him to non existent 'leadership' by Roosevelt is laughable but if you really really really believe it, go ahead I am not wasting time on an issue that for the people in California has been largely settled.
All you have proved is that you love your myths about marijuana more than facts.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I quoted an editorial that said one way Obama could get the youth vote fired up to campaign is to indicate he wants to look at the issue of cannabis.
If you read my post, you would see that, within the second week of his presidency, FDR signed the "Beer Bill," which signaled his commitment to ending prohibition. It was important enough to his administration to call for an end of prohibition in his second week in office. You are trying to rewrite history - that's in the link you provided.
If FDR got the nomination because he moved from "dry" to "wet" - AS YOUR LINK INDICATED- that absolutely means ending prohibition was central to his gaining the nomination, no matter how much you want to rewrite history in an hysterical defense of something that was never even said by me in the first place.
And, here is where you really prove how lowlife you can be when you claim I love my marijuana myths more than fact.
There is no myth in any of this. None at all. You are lying because you don't like it that Obama is willing to continue a repulsive, wasteful, racist and idiotic policy and you care more about how this LOOKS than the impact it has upon people around this nation.
There are many states that have draconian marijuana laws. The entire nation is not CA. NYC and Chicago, as reports have demonstrated, use marijuana laws to target minorities.
This is not a myth. This is reality.
I have no use for you anymore. You just demonstrated to me you are nothing but a hack.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and attacking me when history demonstrates that you are wrong.
I respected you before. Now... that's gone.
treestar
(82,383 posts)With what is going on today. And we know Congress we have now won't do it. Why should the POTUS be that focused on it?
People should concentrate on their state legislatures if they want movement on this.
i_sometimes
(201 posts)license dispensaries that Obama's DOJ can then raid.
The problem isn't with the 16 states with legal weed, its the DOJ, Obama's...
treestar
(82,383 posts)And in the California cases, the feds were raiding regarding broken federal laws, not interfering with the state allowing medical marijuana. There was still federal regulation that applied.
i_sometimes
(201 posts)"And in the California cases, the feds were raiding regarding broken federal laws, not interfering with the state allowing medical marijuana. There was still federal regulation that applied."
Explain please.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not for having it (as permitted under state law). It was allowed to be as such, but then people were allegedly abusing that situation to sell non-medical marijuana.
i_sometimes
(201 posts)regulations regarding medical cannabis.
Obama blows chunks on this matter, no more excuses like "too many other things to worry about", "its not what he said he would do", blah blah blah. Its silly to think people are not paying attention, we are, especially those of us in the industry.
And no, I am not a one issue voter but I prefer my Presidents to tell the truth and do the right thing.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)one of the places that was raided, whose plants were pulled up and destroyed was working with the sheriff in his county to make sure he was in compliance with state law.
every plant was tagged to indicate it had been inspected and showed for whom it was being grown.
this person was not in violation of state law.
he was, nevertheless, targeted and the plants he was growing for patients were destroyed.
he had, however, appeared in a documentary with the sheriff that showed how they were working together to implement the state law.
in my opinion, that's why he was targeted.
what he was doing was not illegal in the state of CA.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)then why are we escalating wars, signing trade agreements, escalating domestic spying, loosening gun laws, and so on? Here's a clue: The president and the rest of the government can do more than one thing at once. In fact they seem to be able to enact as many right-wing policies simultaneously as the 1% ask for. this "he doesn't have time for it" lie is so dumb even a freeper could see through it.
comipinko
(541 posts)The economics of big pharma reaping huge profits from it's upcoming canaboid products.
Uncle Joe
(58,333 posts)Thanks for the thread, RainDog.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)Those ardently opposed probably wouldn't vote for him anyway. I would imagine that one of the very strange reasons a crackpot like Ron Paul gets the youth vote is because he's not uptight about legalizing drugs.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Ending prohibition of cannabis would clearly be good for America, but it would almost certainly be very bad for the Democrats.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)for MJ legalization to be one's main concern. A lot of people are feeling the effects of government policy or non policy, spending, etc in ways that are extremely painful.
While Obama and Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to make sure that people continue to receive unemployment benefits, how is it considered reasonable to detract focus and raise a different controversial issue?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and the govt is wasting money overturning laws that people have voted to enforce.
how is it considered reasonable to claim that there are no economic consequences from the war on drugs?
go look at what Miron has to say about the cost of the drug war. why waste tax dollars on policy that Americans, in the majority, do not want?
why support policy that targets minorities - why did Obama deal with the discrepancies in crack cocaine sentencing? why didn't he just let those racist laws stand...how terrible of him to be in the enviable position to focus on something so minor as racist law, right?
this isn't a topic you can marginalize with such arguments. go read about the costs of the drug war and then tell me it isn't a pig at the trough issue for law enforcement and a way to deny civil rights to huge numbers of minorities.
but that doesn't matter, I guess.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I don't think it is unimportant.
My point is that we are having to deal down bad legislation after tedious fights. There is no chance that battle would be easier. And, it would take time away from addressing the budget legislation that funds Medicare and Medicaid. Budgetary items that help fund various state programs.
For that to be a primary concern is most certainly enviable when you consider that every single year disability advocates have to fight and beg for the funding that provides attendant services so that they can get out of their beds, eat, and sometimes even go to work.
To my friends it is a priority that must be addressed on every single yearly budget. That fight has gotten hard enough without adding to the oppositional legislative mess we already have.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)and kill dangerous "exceptions" to our civil liberties.
In turn, it would knock out or limit some of the worst lobbies, and really take the profit out of gangs and murderous cartels.
I think it is low hanging fruit, it is difficult to think of something simpler and cheaper than to stop doing stupid shit that by no measure works even if one is some how convinced that notion is worth having.
You have a money pit that has had the effect of making the supposed problem worse and superfueling criminal organizations to the point of taking over substantial countries. If one hates drugs then it would seem the drug war would seem to be a substantial enemy to your objective, one more damaging from all observation than decriminalization/legalization.
SixthSense
(829 posts)For a lot of people, legalization is their primary concern because they have friends and family in jail over it.
With a million people in jail on drug crimes plus their friends and family there is a large number of people who would be positively affected in a big way by a change in policy.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)they are simultaneously escalating the war on some drugs, the involvement in the middle east, dismantling social security, keeping private health "insurance" alive, and raising money for the next campaign. Seems like dropping the Wo(s)D would help, not hurt.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)They won't confirm Obama's appointments and they obstruct everything this administration favors. A lot of things fell by the way side during the HCR fight. To suggest fighting for legalizing MJ would not derail other priorities and bring out a fresh line of attacks to distract from more pressing issues is either naive or dumb.
To many supporters who are directly affected when they discuss food stamps or energy assistance, it is a fight for another day.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I think he can tell Holder and Leonhart he thinks it's time to hold rescheduling hearings, yet again, because of the advances in research into the subject of medical marijuana. Either or both of them could create a hearing.
when a company is asking the DEA to allow them to sell whole-plant cannabis, not a synthetic, for use as a substance for people with MS - which is allowed already in Great Britain and Canada (the whole-plant cannabis product is Sativex, btw), it's entirely reasonable to look at the current scheduling to see if it reflects current medical understanding... b/c obviously it does not.
Four governors have recently requested that the DEA look at rescheduling in order to allow them to implement the laws the people in their states have chosen to enact without interference from federal law enforcement.
To me, there are a host of issues that fall under the umbrella of social justice and this is one of them. Strangely, I never see people who advocate for rescheduling cannabis or a change in the law attempt to marginalize or demonize those who work in other areas that advocate for rights to others.
I don't understand why some people think it makes sense to attack those who keep track of this issue. The entire point of citizen involvement is to advocate for changes that are for the betterment of society.
But, apparently, when it comes to this issue, some people prefer to tell others to shut up because their issue is what's really important. Not very liberal, imo, or very smart.
i_sometimes
(201 posts)Really.
Shining Jack
(1,559 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)He turned his Attorney General ( Holder) loose on Senior Citizen Cancer Patients in California.. even after the State of California approved medical pot.
Eric Holder found time enough to ship guns to Mexico gangs.. but couldn't find the time to resist NDAA and the arrest of Americans on American Soil.
I know the game Mr. Obama is playing.. and it isn't 13th dimension chess. (jmho)
mike_c
(36,279 posts)Why should Obama take on an issue that is a political hot potato? Because it's a national problem, of demonstrable importance to many Americans, and because leadership means actually addressing problems and doing the right thing, rather than going through the safe motions for the sake of political theater. Jesus jumping christ! If every politician followed the dictum of avoiding political controversy at all cost then nothing useful to the people would ever be accomplished in government!
Oh, wait....
Seriously though-- most political hot potatoes reflect REAL PROBLEMS that leadership must address and resolve. It is SHAMEFUL that the ignorant and misguided prohibition against cannabis has gone on this long. The propaganda propping up the drug war has become so threadbare that anyone who pays attention can see through it, yet Obama and his DOJ behave as though this tissue of lies is accepted by everyone. We're LAUGHING at them. Their arguments against legalization are transparent jokes, but they repeat them like monks chanting their creed.
Obama must either be an idiot, which he isn't, or simply unwilling to right this wrong, because the wrong is so clearly apparent to anyone who isn't an idiot. Leaders who can recognize injustice but choose to accept it, and to participate in it, are not able to provide the leadership we need.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Besides, incarceration for minor possession helps to keep unemployment numbers lower than they would be otherwise.
lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)I can't think of an issue that he's been to the left of Reagan on since getting elected
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)i_sometimes
(201 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Look at how much money - never mind the lives, just look at the financial cost - criminalising cannabis and locking up people who use it costs the USA each year.
And - because it's always easier to stop doing something than to start doing it - it's an issue where it would be easy to make a big change.
I can think of no single issue where a stroke of the pen could do so much good so easily.
freedomnow
(8 posts)I agree. I'd like to see a Democratic Plank calling clearly for ending the drug war and stating the schedule they are going to do it on. This is not as radical as it sounds. The justification and legal rationale must be made clear. But it is not a radical idea in 2011. In fact, the respectable Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is calling for ending the drug war as the best policy, and they are an organization of conservative, main stream police and DEA officers of all parties. They were on the front lines and they say it causes more problems then it solves. So this is not a radical idea anymore in 2011. It's just inertia. For more on this Democratic Plank see http://www.democraticunderground.com/100249686
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and another that shows Philadelphia saved millions merely by de facto decriminalization in terms of law enforcement priorities.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117045
edited to add this GREAT link from iscooterliberally in the drug policy forum
Count the Costs
http://www.countthecosts.org/
Logical
(22,457 posts)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)
FlaGatorJD
(364 posts)Once he's reelected, will he then do the right thing and stop this assault on medical mj and maybe even lead in the changes to these archaic drug laws?
Or will he continue use our resources in a way the candidate said was not a good use of them?
I stand 100% behind the youth and legalization proponents on this issue. As indicated, all the polls are now showing
the public gets it and realizes that the money spent arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating mj users is one of the most assinine policies in the history of the US. If you simply look at the economics, the current situation is costing us billions of dollars and is ailienating an entire segment of the population.
I'm an Obama supporter and strongly feel he mislead the youth in this country and they deserve to be pissed off.
red dog 1
(27,792 posts)"Leonhart has consistently turned down research into the therapeutic and medicinal benefits of marijuana, and has a track record of undermining state law with regard to legal medical marijuana."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/michele-leonhart
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)I'm up and in the middle of the night and in pain, it's completely needless. Even with what I've been proscribed, I'm up, and on top of it I get nausea and only minimal relief. And when I stop using the legal medicine I'll get to experience the withdrawal, which I get a small taste of a few times a week when I don't "need" the meds for pain.
I'm a fine gardener, but if I raised mj I'd be off to jail.
I'm done with the cruelty of people who are sophmoric and downright imbecilic in their views and "opinions" on things they now nothing about.
But Obama knows, so the shame is his. The man whose mother had cancer knows.
freedomnow
(8 posts)It's prescribed for loss of appetite, nausea, pain.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)what the pharmas found after creating marinol is that patients preferred whole-plant cannabis. Doctors who deal with cancer and other patients have confirmed this.
marinol takes hours to work, rather than seconds. it is too strong for many people because whole-plant cannabis has CBD, which acts to modulate the effects of THC.
In addition, CBD, rather than THC, has effects on inflammation and spasticity, etc.
In addition, marinol is hugely expensive compared to something someone can grow for free themselves or acquire for much cheaper.
What pharmas have learned is that combining sativa and ruderalis with a 50/50 mix of the two has been far more effective, and when it is delivered as a spray, rather than a pill, it works faster. This is the legal medicine called Sativex - which is illegal in the U.S. because it's cannabis, not a synthetic.
freedomnow
(8 posts)It's prescribed for loss of appetite, nausea, pain.
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)Just legalise it, period. I could grow it myself.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)recreational user, one time medical user, and probably soon to be medical user again (the cancer does come back sometimes).
I find the amount of Cannabias and humor in here deplorable, it's attitudes like those that allow the issue to be laughed off and belittled by both friend and foe alike (to all of our loss). Thank you DU, for showing me that once again in the company of some of my booze-swilling allies, WE'RE (Stoners,The Green, Pot Heads and Red Eye Knights) still the butt of the joke.
I have far ruder words, and I'm choosing not to use them, but among them are the vulgar for advising those that would bring levity to a very serious issue to go and attempt aerial intercourse with an oscillating pastry, but I'll be damned if I comport myself as anything less than at least civil, no matter how ticked off I am.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and brought the true believers along with him to the right. Some of the conversations here could be mistaken for freeperville. So you're not alone. Best of luck with your remission.
