The Obama administration officially responds to 8 "We the People" petitions regarding marijuana. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/what-we-have-say-about-legalizing-marijuana tl;dr - Same shit, different day. The drug czar fulfills his employment duties.
oh, well as long as the FDA doesn't see any benefit in it, then it must be bad. I love the shit about how it has the potential to damage a developing brain until even the 20s ages.... so at what age did our President, leader of the "free" world, NObama, damage is developing brain?
And some people say its the craziest idea to reduce government, and abolish bullshit agencies like the FDA Wtf man.
well, considering how well he's been doing, maybe the weed he smoked is effecting his job performance. that would explain a lot
I came home from work today, and like you I decided to check up on the 'We The People' page. Needless to say, I wasn't surprised by the response to the issue. I think we all know about the hundreds of studies that shed Marijuana in a positive light; Studies that hint that Medicinal application of the chemical compounds contained within the Cannabis plant are far safer and far less expensive than standard drugs, such as Tylenol, Anti-inflammatory drugs, Aspirin, etc.; Though the position that Gil is taking on the application of Marijuana, whether Medicinal or recreational, is one that dodges the question posed as well as contradicting the vast amount of scientific knowledge available on the subject. To directly address the rhetoric behind this quote would be similar to saying, "The Government is right, scientists that don't take a biased approach to what they're studying are wrong." /Facepalm... How did I not see the Drug Czar shelling out studies from an institution that's funded to study the negative aspects, and ONLY the negative aspects of what's being studied. What about the AMA, an organization that is headed by ACTUAL Physicians? Last time I heard, these guys had beef with the fact that Marijuana is a Schedule 1 substance. It seems that the majority position among this organization [which, I must point out, have no particular interests in which they have to protect to keep their jobs (hint, hint; BIG PHARMA) other than their patients] is that Marijuana has desirable clinical applications and is safe enough to be recommended by a doctor. But go on... Everything in bold has a corresponding number. The numbers in question mean either: 1: Completely false. Studies are available that point to the opposite of what is stated here. 2: Intentionally misleading. Information is construed in a manner that is intended to justify the rhetoric behind the statement. The intended meaning of the words in bold are: Many: Various individuals who profit off of the Pharmaceutical industry. We: Big Pharma. You "Ardently" research the "individual" components of the plant because: Big Pharma can't put a patent on a plant. Cannabis is cheap and easy medicine to grow. Cannabis has various medical applications. This = More $$$ The Institute of Medicine cannot confirm that smoked marijuana is beneficial because the Institute of Medicine is a not-for-profit, non-governmental American organization. NIDA has the market on Cannabis research. As I've said before, the government funds NIDA to research the negative aspects of Marijuana. The Institute of Medicine adheres to a strict Peer-Peer review process, which if Cannabis research was allowed in this setting, would amount to studies that are contradictory to the negative bull that's spouted by NIDA, as we've seen with other scientific organizations outside of U.S. Federal Jurisdiction. And about the bold: The so-called "Modern Standard" Gil cites is an invalid argument to stand behind, simply because said "Standard" is set by "Vested Interests." Science is not greedy. Can you find any truth hidden in this statement? I couldn't... PM me if you do . What? Couldn't find even a sliver of truth? Didn't think so... Legalization is the most cost-effective approach to dealing with Marijuana - Revenue minus wasted money spent on enforcement, incarceration, and erasing the ridiculous notion that pot-smokers need "intervention" is reality. First, learn how to articulate yourself Gil. Lastly, Learn how to stay on subject. Nobody is recovering from "Marijuana" addiction you fucking idiot. No. This is an elementary thought process. The government isn't capable of controlling ANYTHING, nor has the power to do so when exercising control encroaches on the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the victim. If you can't control guns, murder, and unethical financial practices, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the Federal Government believes that it's capable of suppressing the human instinct to act upon an impulse to alter their consciousness. Summed up, this response is nothing but the same old tired rhetoric with a twist: Lies, lies, and more lies. Not only does Gil lie through his teeth about EVERY FUCKING POINT he attempts to state as fact, he ignores the VERY SIMPLE question that was posed.
Oh, fuck off. Let's make alcohol and tobacco illegal then if we're so concerned about "public health" Obama can eat a dick. He knows full well that the War on Certain Drugs is a counterproductive, wasteful sham. Yet he continues to wage it anyways. Earlier presidents probably illegitimately believed smoking a joint would make you take an axe to grandma then rape your sister; whereas Obama, Clinton & Bush all smoked pot themselves and they each have known first-hand that it's relatively harmless.
If I were ever allowed to ask President Obama anything... it'd go something like this (in all seriousness): Dear Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity in allowing us to personally address you. Recently, you and your administration stated that the use of Cannabis/Marijuana is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. With this recent stance in response to your "We The People" initiative, my question tonight is as follows. What new information have you received now that changed your personal opinion on this very matter when you said: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvUziSfMwAw]Barack Obama and Medical Marijuana (interview Q&A) - YouTube[/ame] Or, if I may Mr. President, what has changed since you issued a Memo telling the DEA to respect the state autonomy in regards to their own drug usage laws. (Breaking News: President Obama Issues New Medical Marijuana Guidelines | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform) Your response sir....
Wow, I knew they would do that...fuck em...so much bullshit I don't even wanna deal with it all in a response...I want to overthrow the government
I stopped watching that video after he said there are legitimate concerns regarding people growing their own for the sake of regulation. Really d00d? Alcohol and tobacco are regulated... And yet you can brew your own beer, make your own alcohol, AND GROW YOUR OWN FUCKING TOBACCO. Fuck all these bullshit excuses to dance around legalization. I fucking hate prohibition but even more so I hate those that mindlessly defend it.
Someone should create a petition titled "Criminalize Alcohol & Tobacco like Marijuana" post some government studies showing the dangers of the drug then baad da boom baad a bang we have them in a pickle. They can't say that the drus are harmless because we have government studies saying there harmful. They can't say that to criminalize tobacco would infringe on people's civil liberties because that would be a total face slap to pot smokers. Yeah the way I see it we have 3 options. Option 1- we make the petition get 5,000 signatures and make Obama look like an idiot. Option 2- we say fuck the petition and just get real pissed and march on Washington Option 3- we elect Ron Paul and let him march on Washington