Marijuana

[DonCoquixote]

OK, the President seems to have gotten a lot of people furious at him for his comments on Marijuana. Now, before you all tar and feather me, I also disagree with his stance. I am for Legalizing the product, but more for it's properties as an industrial product called hemp than for anything people put in their pipes. It can do a lot of the work Cotton and Lumber can do, and of course, make fine bio-diesel and ethanol, which could go a long way towards making us energy independent, as well as possibly lower the price of corn. I also realize there are more than a thousand miles between the person using Marijuana for GENUINE medical reasons, and the person who just wants to get all "spiritual" to a Grateful Dead album. However, I do find some of the responses I read here a bit childish, to be frank.

Right now, the world is burning down, and people are in a state of panic. Yes, we know a lot of that panic is made by the GOP, but in an age where people are losing their life savings, and our reputation abroad is a joke, people have a very clear idea on what they want Obama to focus on. Simply put, if he fought for full legalization of pot, he would be thought of as fiddling when Rome Burns. We are talking about a fight that would take a lot of money and time, when we do not have much of either. People can throw me all the "but the people are behind us" stuff they want to, but at the moment, John Q. Public is NOT ready for legalized pot smoking. They may be ready for pot to be used industrially, especially if it is sold as a means of getting off foreign oil, and repackaged as "hemp". However, most people know that is NOT what a lot of pot advocates are really fighting for.

I disagree because he, like others, fails to break the issue into parts. If he was clever, he could have said "First off, from the question you sent me, I am not sure whether you mean medical marijuana, or something more general, if you mean medical, there is some research being done, and considering that many medicines are already made of strange things, I would support research into the workability of medical marijuana. Of course, this would have to be done in a manner that protected against abuse, like any other medicine." If he said this, he could have shown he at least put some thought into this, as well as raised legit concerns about abuse (Some clinics are legit, but some are not.)

He could have hinted at how France does use this product industrially, and how looking into that could perhaps even take glamor away from the drug. He could also have said that doing such a measure could take a bite out of the Drug cartel.

Of course, none of this would require IMMEDIATE action, which would tick people off. However, as much as people want to fight, legalizing Cannabis, like any drug, SHOULD take time and forethought. All Obama had to promise to do is start the dialog, which he failed to do, and yes, it was a miserable failure, considering he was the first president to admit using it without the "I did not inhale" Nonsense.

Now, for all those who say I am scum because I am not immediately advocating selling the stuff in 7-11's next to the Red Bull, ponder this. Yes, MJ may be much less harmful then Coke, yes, it may be another thing regulated, ala the ATF and DEPT of agriculture, but if you think that legalizing the smoking of it does not have ramifications, I offer you four words: Phillip Morris, RJR Nabisco. If you think that the same companies that push tobacco would not seize control of Cannabis, you are naive. The Mobsters that made Vegas thought no one would push them out, until Corporate America not only bought them out, but made the place three times as expensive. You think the same people that spiked tobacco with additives won't play around with MJ, you are mad. Let's not even get into folks like Monsanto. Add to this of course that said companies are as GOP as the Bushes, and we can see yet another source of revenue filling the coffers of the same people that brought such luminaries as Jesse Helms. Oh, they may crow about how they really are not trying to hurt anyone, you know the line. Laugh if you wish..but on the day Cannabis is legalized, I will see many an ex-hippie who thought they were going to do a small business get squashed.

[Oregone]

1. "You think the same people that spiked tobacco with additives won't play around with MJ..."

I fully accept they will seize ownership of larger operations (not small local operations that can afford licensing), but, whatever (the same thing happened with organic food). The larger the corporation, perhaps the easier it is to tax them and it destroys the black market (which is very important). But, the contents of the product can be somewhat regulated with government involvement. Will they add something to it? Depends on how much the government steps in, tests, and restricts. Regardless, whatever they add in, it may be better than PCP laced schwag you can get stuck with on the streets.

Its only pot, and people have been growing it forever. Smaller ops will always be able to start and exist (as long as regulation and licensing isn't too impressive). But large scale operations that, probably like beer, make shit weed wouldn't make this a bad idea in itself. People don't want it legalized so they can make their own business anyway, for the most part. People want it legalize because it makes sense.

[mdmc]

2. Be the change you want to be

I can give you a response from an Obama supporter that wants to end Prohibition.

We should have this issue off the table on the national level. Take it to the town halls. I know the inner city is certain that the drug war has failed. I think that the drug war is poor public policy and in need of reform. But this reform needs to come from the bottom up. From the troubled communities to the White House.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
We should run for local office and work with those involved (cops, attorneys, treatment providers) to put an alternative to the current drug war into effect.
Pot will be a grassroots effort. It is not for Obama to battle.

[MADem]

3. This has to bubble up from the states. Not go top down from the Federal Government.

That's why he's got out his ten foot pole.

More and more states are "decriminalizing." More and more states are allowing medical exemptions.

Legalization will be the next step at the state level, with TAXES applied, and there will either be a fight with the Feds, or the Feds will just choose not to prosecute. When the other states, and the Feds, see the tax revenue, they'll get the spirit.

They'll have to put pot "cigarette machines" in the nursing homes!

[Kaleko]

4. Amen to yours and post # 2 above. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

5. "We are talking about a fight that would take a lot of money and time,"

Sorry, but that's just wrong... all it would take is an Executive Order by President Obama. No more, no less. "The Federal Government will no longer view marijuana as an illegal substance and will no longer prosecute individuals for possession or sales of this substance".


See how quick and easy that would be??


"People can throw me all the "but the people are behind us" stuff they want to, but at the moment, John Q. Public is NOT ready for legalized pot smoking."

:rofl: Who the fuck do you think *you* are? Do you suffer from delusions of grandeur or something? Who placed you in the all knowing position of what people are ready for?


"They may be ready for pot to be used industrially, especially if it is sold as a means of getting off foreign oil, and repackaged as "hemp". However, most people know that is NOT what a lot of pot advocates are really fighting for."

You do know that industrial hemp and marijuana are two different plants, right? I didn't think so.... you could smoke a POUND of hemp and come away with nothing but a headache...

"Pot advocates" are fighting to be able to use a naturally growing green plant for their recreation/relaxation, just like people use alcohol, without being criminals.

You obviously put a lot of time into your post... too bad you didn't bother spending time with any research or facts.

[DonCoquixote]

7. response

Sorry, but that's just wrong... all it would take is an Executive Order by President Obama. No more, no less. "The Federal Government will no longer view marijuana as an illegal substance and will no longer prosecute individuals for possession or sales of this substance".

So let me get this straight, we hated it when GOP presidents made orders regardless of what the people thought, or what polls said, but we that we have a democrat in office, we like that? One of the goals we should have been looking for was to put the executive branch in it's proper place, the chief executive whose job it is to enforce the will of congress, not the imperial presidency it has been since Nixon. If you do not research that, I suggest you take a high school civics class which very plainly says that president is NOT supposed to just rule on high like some sort of king.

Who the fuck do you think *you* are? Do you suffer from delusions of grandeur or something? Who placed you in the all knowing position of what people are ready for?

Gee, I suppose Time Magazine does no research:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101021104/story.html

Here is a little quote in case you are too lazy to read the article.

"A Time/CNN poll last week found that only 34% want pot to be totally legalized (the percentage has almost doubled since 1986). But a vast majority have become mellow about official loopholes: 80% think it's O.K. to dispense pot for medical purposes, and 72% think people caught with it for recreational use should get off with only a fine."

In case you cannot count, there is a big difference between 34% and 72% As I said in the OP, there are at least two separate issues, Medical use and Recreational use, which is how Obama should have addressed it. Obviously, according to Time, the American people seem to think the issues are totally different too, as shown by the difference between 34% and 72%.

OK, Time is part of that evil anti-pot media, right? OK, put this in your bong.

http://hightimes.com/news/ht_admin/1904

"Forty-six percent of respondents -- including a majority of those polled on the east (53 percent) and west (55 percent) coasts -- say they support allowing states to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. Forty-nine percent of respondents opposed taxing and regulating cannabis, and five percent were undecided."

In short, we have a very pro Marijuana magazine, one that you may very well have read yourself, and even they cannot get more than 50% of the people to say they would legalize the smoking of pot.

"You do know that industrial hemp and marijuana are two different plants, right? I didn't think so.... you could smoke a POUND of hemp and come away with nothing but a headache..."

Indeed, that is what they grow in France, and I wish Obama talked about that.. However, I doubt you folks will be satisfied with legalizing hemp. Of course, that means that anyone who wants to use that plant for purposes other than getting high will have to wait until the happy day people are allowed to smoke it as well.

As far as research goes, I brought the articles, feel free to bring some of your own as well.

[Ghost in the Machine]

11. I see that comprehension, critical thought & honesty aren't your strong points...

"So let me get this straight, we hated it when GOP presidents made orders regardless of what the people thought, or what polls said, but we that we have a democrat in office, we like that? One of the goals we should have been looking for was to put the executive branch in it's proper place, the chief executive whose job it is to enforce the will of congress, not the imperial presidency it has been since Nixon. If you do not research that, I suggest you take a high school civics class which very plainly says that president is NOT supposed to just rule on high like some sort of king."


There's a huge difference between an order legalizing marijuana and an order legalizing torture or warrantless wiretapping of American Citizens.... see if you can figure out what that difference is.


"Gee, I suppose Time Magazine does no research:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101021104/story.html

Here is a little quote in case you are too lazy to read the article.

"A Time/CNN poll last week found that only 34% want pot to be totally legalized (the percentage has almost doubled since 1986). But a vast majority have become mellow about official loopholes: 80% think it's O.K. to dispense pot for medical purposes, and 72% think people caught with it for recreational use should get off with only a fine."

In case you cannot count, there is a big difference between 34% and 72% As I said in the OP, there are at least two separate issues, Medical use and Recreational use, which is how Obama should have addressed it. Obviously, according to Time, the American people seem to think the issues are totally different too, as shown by the difference between 34% and 72%."

You want to use a 6 year old article for a debate? That's lame, man... just totally lame. This shows both your intellectual dishonesty *and* your lack of reading comprehension skills. The first thing you need to do is try to understand the difference between "totally legal" and "legal". You see, bubblegum is *totally legal*, anyone can buy and use it. Alcohol & tobacco are "legal", but the purchase and use of them are restricted to adults. Prescription drugs are "legal".. as long as a doctor prescribes them for you to use. However, it's illegal for *you* to sell your prescription to someone else. You also realize, don't you, that the 72% who favor only a fine for recreational use are actually favoring *decriminalization*? It would make it a civil infraction instead of a criminal infraction.


"OK, Time is part of that evil anti-pot media, right? OK, put this in your bong.

http://hightimes.com/news/ht_admin/1904

"Forty-six percent of respondents -- including a majority of those polled on the east (53 percent) and west (55 percent) coasts -- say they support allowing states to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. Forty-nine percent of respondents opposed taxing and regulating cannabis, and five percent were undecided."

In short, we have a very pro Marijuana magazine, one that you may very well have read yourself, and even they cannot get more than 50% of the people to say they would legalize the smoking of pot."

More of your intellectual dishonesty is exposed here. Why didn't you post the headline of this 3 year old article, which is:
"Zogby Poll: Nearly Half Of Americans Believe Pot Should Be Regulated Like Alcohol -- Majorities In The East And West Coasts Back Legalization"
Once again, use some reading comprehension skills, and some critical thinking skills, to figure out the difference between "legalizing" and "regulating". Yes, *some* people want legalization without any taxation or regulation. I'm not one of them, and I don't agree with them.


You still don't seem to understand the difference between hemp and marijuana either. I'm also a strong proponent of legalized hemp and the industries it will spawn. Here's you a good starting place to learn the difference:

Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa var. sativa is the variety grown for industrial use in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere, while C. sativa subsp. indica generally has poor fiber quality and is primarily used for production of recreational and medicinal drugs. The major difference between the two types of plants is the appearance and the amount of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) secreted in a resinous mixture by epidermal hairs called glandular trichomes. Strains of Cannabis approved for industrial hemp production produce only minute amounts of this psychoactive drug, not enough for any physical or psychological effects. Typically, Hemp contains below 0.3% THC, while Cannabis grown for marijuana can contain anywhere from 6 or 7 % to 20% or even more.

Industrial Hemp is produced in many countries around the world <7>. Major producers include Canada, France, and China. While more hemp is exported to the United States than to any other country, the United States Government does not consistently distinguish between marijuana and the non-psychoactive Cannabis used for industrial and commercial purposes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

Please go educate yourself, then come back to me with something more intelligent and less intellectually dishonest.


Thanks,

Ghost

[DonCoquixote]

12. Hemp

You said:

"There's a huge difference between an order legalizing marijuana and an order legalizing torture or warrantless wiretapping of American Citizens.... see if you can figure out what that difference is."

Of course, you do realize that laws are not some selective thing you can apply the way you want for one instance and apply another way for another. If Obama starts making all sorts of "executive orders" than whoever follows him can make some sort of orders and say very simply "Nobody minded when Obama did it!" I strongly recommend you look up the principle of Stare Decisis, aka precedent, aka one of the pillars of our legal system.

You said:
"You also realize, don't you, that the 72% who favor only a fine for recreational use are actually favoring *decriminalization*? It would make it a civil infraction instead of a criminal infraction."

Depends on the fine..ask anyone who was ever had a lien on their house if a fine is really all that minor.

You said:
More of your intellectual dishonesty is exposed here. Why didn't you post the headline of this 3 year old article, which is:
"Zogby Poll: Nearly Half Of Americans Believe Pot Should Be Regulated Like Alcohol -- Majorities In The East And West Coasts Back Legalization"

OK, the poll could only get 46% of all Americans to agree on what to do about it, and yet, that title makes it sound like a clear majority, hyping up the "both coasts" bit to course make it seem like only the Midwest is some problem. Not saying YOU are dishonest, but the article itself shows what the results actually were. 46% percent Nationwide that support the results you want is NOT a majority. As someone else said, there may be a case for allowing the States to decide this, allow let's say Vermont to legalize it the way Nevada legalizes prostitution, but the executive order that you want Obama to pass would not be that precise. It would say to the people that do not want it "this is the way it is gonna be, and if you do not like it, go hang."

You said:

"You still don't seem to understand the difference between hemp and marijuana either. I'm also a strong proponent of legalized hemp and the industries it will spawn. Here's you a good starting place to learn the difference:"

Gee, I thought I already discussed that, especially noting that said product is used in France, and that Obama missed an opportunity to make the difference clear. Someone apparently is not bothering to read what I wrote before responding.

Again, I look forward to the days when Hemp is used for Gasohol, Biodiesel, Paper, Textiles and other things, and I do think Obama missed a chance to make that clear, but I also think he knows what battles need to be picked and when. I also still believe that part of the reason that the difference between hemp and MJ is confused is because a lot of the "legalizers" do not WANT that distinction to be clear. If Industrial Hemp was legalized and grown, but none of that THC laden MJ, they would still be unhappy, even if legalizing hemp would make a stepping stone to the total legalization they want.

You can accuse me of being "dishonest" all you want to, but go ahead and get us a current poll that says the majority of Americans NATIONWIDE support the legalization of Marijuana. Now, if you want to say "let the states decide it", I will be all for it, but do realize Obama represents everyone, even the people who do not like or agree with most of DU. When Jesse Jackson campaigned for president, he went to West Virginia and said "I know most of you may not vote for me, but I want to be YOUR president. Obama realizes this, and realizes that he cannot just rule by fiat at the Federal level.

[Webster Green]

6. We don't need research to know that pot has medicinal value..

Additional research would be helpful to determine which strains are better for this and which are better for that, but damn near everyone knows that it has legitimate medicinal uses. Hell, when I was doing chemotherapy my doctors would clue other patients to follow me out to the fire escape, because they knew I would be out there toking up before I got my injections, and that was back in 1978.

It's way past the time to stop lying about cannabis, and let us take advantage of one of the greatest gifts in the plant kingdom.

The tobacco companies can kiss my ass, because I can grow the stuff in my backyard, and it will be the fucking bomb. :hippie:

[IDemo]

8. I am for the legalization of both marijuana and industrial hemp

but it doesn't help either issue to tie them together.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/133055/hemp_is_not_pot:_it%27s_the_economic_stimulus_and_green_jobs_solution_we_need/

But growing hemp remains illegal in the U.S. The Drug Enforcement Administration has lumped the low-THC plant together with its psychoactive cousin, marijuana, making America the planet's only industrialized nation to ban hemp production. We can import it from Canada, which legalized it in 1997. But we can't grow it.

-snip

In America, industrial hemp has long been associated with marijuana, although the plants are different breeds of Cannabis sativa, just as poodles and Irish setters are different breeds of dog.

While hemp contains minute levels of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana (compare 0.3 percent or less in Canadian industrial hemp versus 3-20 percent for medical marijuana), to get high you'd have to smoke a joint the size of a telephone pole.

[RedCappedBandit]

9. Ending this war on people is not fiddling.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Actually, I think the conventional wisdom is wrong: The American People are far more ready

for this than the "Cable Newz Corporate Powers-That-Be" can imagine.

They're still flogging this tired shit about the all-powerful "values voter", as if the folks from Jesus camp really constitute most of America. They DON'T. Americans are far more socially libertarian than either party gives them credit for. They are overwhelmingly pro-choice, they want government OUT of their bedrooms and bloodstreams, and they are more than ready for marijuana to be legalized, regulated, and taxed.

The conventional wisdom waterheads are still living in 1983, and don't get it. This is why Terri Schiavo bit the GOP on the ass. This is why Obama's team was so surprised that pot legalization was such a popular topic in his online Q&A. It's been the subject that dare not speaketh it's name, but no longer-- people are tired of $40 Billion dollars a year going to fight smoking of a relatively benign plant (that some 65 million otherwise law-abiding Americans use at least occasionally) ... people see our economy in shambles and wonder why we're wasting time on dumb-ass shit like the drug war.

I personally haven't smoked pot in over a decade, and I have seriously thought these things might never change in my lifetime, but I'm starting to think that this time around, the change is coming. For real.