Federal Government Responds To Ny Times Asking For Legalization

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by Old School Smoker, Jul 29, 2014.

  1. This last weekend The New York Times endorsed marijuana legalization. Today the White House responded. The response is below:
    The New York Times editorial board opined in its Sunday July 27, 2014 edition that the Federal government should legalize marijuana for adults aged 21 years and older. The New York Times editorial board compares Federal marijuana policy to the failure of alcohol prohibition and advocates for legalization based on the harm inflicted on young African American men who become involved in the criminal justice system as a result of marijuana possession charges. We agree that the criminal justice system is in need of reform and that disproportionality exists throughout the system.  However, marijuana legalization is not the silver bullet solution to the issue.
    In its argument, The New York Times editorial team failed to mention a cascade of public health problems associated with the increased availability of marijuana. While law enforcement will always play an important role in combating violent crime associated with the drug trade, the Obama Administration approaches substance use as a public health issue, not merely a criminal justice problem.
    The editorial ignores the science and fails to address public health problems associated with increased marijuana use. Here are the facts:
    • Marijuana use affects the developing brain. A recent study in Brain reveals impairment of the development of structures in some regions of the brain following prolonged marijuana use that began in adolescence or young adulthood.[1] Marijuana use is associated with cognitive impairment, including lower IQ among adult chronic users who began using marijuana at an early age.[2]
    • Substance use in school age children has a detrimental effect on their academic achievement. Students who received earned D's or F's were more likely to be current users of marijuana than those who earned A's (45% vs. 10%).[3]
    • Marijuana is addictive. Estimates from research suggest that about 9 percent of users become addicted to marijuana. This number increases to about 17 percent among those who start young and to 25-50 percent among people who use marijuana daily.[4]
    • Drugged driving is a threat to our roadways. Marijuana significantly impairs coordination and reaction time and is the illicit drug most frequently found to be involved in automobile accidents, including fatal ones.[5]
    The editors of The New York Times may have valid concerns about disproportionality throughout our criminal justice system.  But we as policy makers cannot ignore the basic scientific fact that marijuana is addictive and marijuana use has harmful consequences.  Increased consumption leads to higher public health and financial costs for society. Addictive substances like alcohol and tobacco, which are legal and taxed, already result in much higher social costs than the revenue they generate. The cost to society of alcohol alone is estimated to be more than 15 times the revenue gained by its taxation.[6] For this reason, the Obama Administration and the Office of National Drug Control Policy remain committed to drug use prevention, treatment, support for recovery, and innovative criminal justice strategies to break the cycle of drug use and associated crime. This approach is helping improve public health and safety in communities across the United States.
    Research also indicates that policies making drugs more available would likely not eliminate the black market or improve public health and safety, as promoted by marijuana advocates. Reports from the nonpartisan RAND Institute found that the potential economic benefits from legalization had been overstated, citing that:
    • Marijuana legalization would not eliminate the black market for marijuana.[7]
    • Dramatically lowered prices could mean substantially lower potential tax revenue for states.[8]
    We are also keeping a close eye on the states of Washington and Colorado in conformance with the directive provided by the Attorney General in August 2013.
    Any discussion on the issue should be guided by science and evidence, not ideology and wishful thinking. The Obama Administration continues to oppose legalization of marijuana and other illegal drugs because it flies in the face of a public health approach to reducing drug use and its consequences. Our approach is founded on the understanding of addiction as a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated, and from which people can recover. We will continue to focus on genuine drug policy reform – a strategy that rejects extremes, and promotes expanded access to treatment, evidence-based prevention efforts, and alternatives to incarceration.

     
  2. So basically what they said was that young kids smoking weed could result in them having a difficult time learning but yet wouldn't making it legal for people 21 and up make it harder for kids to get it? I found it easier in middle school to get weed than it was alcohol. Also there's a black market for everything, this doesn't mean that nobody is going to but legal weed. Legal weed will be cheaper and better for the public. And it shouldn't matter if it's a little tax revenue or no tax revenue, it's more money than not taxing it. Our federal government are fucking idiots
     
  3. #3 Old School Smoker, Jul 29, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2014
    Ok, here is what the American people have been saying to what the Obama admistration wants to do:
     
      We have known about the "public health issue" for years. And guess what? We still want it legalized! Is this not a country by the people, for the people, and of the people? We do not need our federal government parenting us. We know right from wrong.
      What the federal government is horrified of, is the repeat of health costs due to the legalization of alcohol or tobacco (tobacco has always been legal). And they also mentioned that they would lose tax revenue if legalized. 
      The idea of drug abuse prevention, at least with marijuana, has failed in the past. It will continue to fail. We the people of the United States of America have looked at the vast differences of health hazards in alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. We choose marijuana.
      Champagne is served at every presidential  ignauguration. God only knows how many liquor cabinets remain through the government offices of Washington D.C. Take the alcohol away from the politicians, and all hell will break loose. Just ask Ted Kennedy.
     
     
     

    Attached Files:

  4. My IQ is none of anyone's goddamn business!
     
    I think we can all agree that children should not be getting high. The "think of the children!" issue is moot, when it comes to adult cultivation and consumption.
     
    If i can supply my own "addictive" substance, then it doesn't cost anyone anything, for me to be "addicted." And it's none of anyone's business if i feel that i "need" a natural therapeutic remedy that i can safely cultivate and consume, myself, without endangering anyone.
     
    I think we can all agree that people should not be driving with significant cognitive impairment... however, there are "safe" levels of "high" which DO NOT significantly impair the ability to drive safely. It's not the same type of impairment as alcohol, and doesn't last nearly as long.
     
    If i don't participate in the black market, then i should not be subjected to laws intended to punish those who do. If i grow my own and consume it myself, and/or only share with other consenting adults, without involving any money, or only trade goods for goods, but not for legal tender currency, then no actual "crime" is being committed, and to impose any penalty in this regard, is both unacceptable and unconstitutional.
     
    And finally: how DARE they pull the "public health" card, while backing corporations like Monsanto, who want to poison us all with their mutant GMO foods. Bullshit.
     
  5. #5 clevername, Jul 29, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2014
     
    YES!
     
    edit: But first! We need to REPEAL FEDERAL PROHIBITION OF CANNABIS.
     
    Then, after that, we can proceed with designing appropriate regulations.
     
    The Feds need to fess up and admit they were wrong, stop punishing people who are not causing problems, and stop authorizing themselves, without our consent, to violently oppress cannabis enthusiasts.
     
  6. when the gov finds a way to make money on this they will change their collective minds. remember that most gov officals are of a ripe old / elderly age. they live in a different time. it is going to be many years before the right people get in gov who understand us marajuana users for who we are and what we stand for. we will get there it is just going to take time.
     
    so i am going to burn this spleef and bide my time :bongin:
     
  7. #7 clevername, Jul 29, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2014
    Like i've been saying, we need to educate everyone, and get all the pro-cannabis people on the same page. The Feds have never had a valid or tenable position on this matter, and have simply abused their powers and declared themselves authorized to commit violence against relatively harmless people who enjoy a relatively harmless substance (when used appropriately).
     
    Whether or not they "make enough money," is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. THAT'S THEIR PROBLEM, NOT OURS! IT'S THEIR JOB TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO NOT GO BROKE, THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE THE GOVERNMENT JOBS THEY HAVE!
     
    "Money" is not a sufficient justification to commit violence against nonviolent cannabis enthusiasts, and it must End.
     
     
    Thanks for posting this, Old School.
     
     
    Edit: Also!
     
    Are they seriously trying to compare "public health costs" to the IMMEASURABLE DAMAGE THEY HAVE DONE TO THE MILLIONS OF UNJUSTLY DESTROYED LIVES!?
     
    They sure as hell are.
     
    How much money are all those ruined lives worth? That is life-value stolen from all of us.
     
  8. It's just infuriating watching them try to justify and legitimize their crimes against our humanity.
     
    They are usurpers and have overreached their constitutionally specified authority, while relentlessly and deliberately violating our constitutionally protected rights. It's disgusting.
     
  9. #9 clevername, Jul 29, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2014
    Thought of something else:
     
    What about all those cannabis pseudo-criminals who could be free and working and paying taxes? There's quite a lot of them.
     
    What about all those cannabis pseudo-criminals who could be growing, distributing, making massive profits, and legally paying taxes on their substantial gains?
     
    I'm pretty sure that would be a very significant amount of tax revenue, potentially in the billions.
     
     
    Here's what i think needs to happen:
     
    Drop cannabis from the controlled substances act, entirely.
     
    Repeal all cannabis prohibition penalties for all naturalized or native citizens, at both federal and state levels.
     
    Allow all native or naturalized adults to cultivate, possess, use, and even sell/distribute, to all adults.
     
    Disallow illegal immigrants from all of the above, minus possession and use. (this will generate tourism and nip the black market in the bud... pun not intended)
     
    Minimize all remaining penalties, such as anything involving "contributing to the delinquency of minors."
     
     
    Anything i do in the privacy of my own home, with other consenting adults, should be none of anyone's business, as long as:
     
    1. i don't harm anyone else
    2. i don't endanger anyone else
    3. i don't damage or steal property that is not mine
    4. something else i forgot (lol) edit: oh yeah: as long as i don't contribute to "organized crime" by allowing currency to enter an arbitrary black market (we should be allowed to sell our own stash legally, as long as we pay taxes on any gains)
     
     
    Think of all the prisoners who could be out there in the world thriving, making profits, paying taxes... and all the tourism and merchandising which would ensue, following repeal of prohibition, establishment of appropriate regulations, and reduction of the amount of funds needed for unjustly imprisoning people who do not deserve it.
     
    Perhaps interstate and/or international commerce should be strictly regulated... but if an adult wants to support a local grower/distributor, legally, instead of "the black market," that keeps the currency in the system and supports economic growth and generates more tax revenue! Why should that be forbidden? How absurd that we even have to employ such rhetoric!
     
    This would, in turn, drive an increase in population, which would then give the enforcers plenty of real crime to chase, while also increasing the amount of tax-revenue-generating citizens, and perhaps more importantly: the morale of the populace
     
     
    I would even accept a ban on THC concentrate production in non-approved facilities, because i don't want anyone blowing up themselves or their families... but RSO should be fully legal for anyone to produce, especially with all the inevitable toxic pollution in our environments. If we could ease our own suffering and protect ourselves from various ailments, without involving the establishment, that's one less thing the establishment has to pay people to keep track of or deal with. If the money doesn't have to be spent in the first place, it doesn't have to require an offset to an eliminated cost. It's not all about generating profits, it's also about reducing unnecessary costs. We can eliminate a plethora of unnecessary costs through my suggested approach, while also allowing substantial revenue to be generated.
     
    Plus! This would make the populace more peaceful, easygoing, and perhaps more willing to remain compliant. Give us a way to do what we want "appropriately," and there will be far less reason or motivation for people to behave disruptively. I'm pretty sure this would work in "big brother's" favor, which does give me mixed feelings, but is an acceptable risk, IMO.
     
     
    Either way, the oppression-approach is incredibly unethical, was never justified, was never a degree of authority the government was ever supposed to have, and has caused immeasurable damage, and ruined countless lives... and until this injustice ends, as it rightly should, it will continue to arbitrarily steal and squander the value of countless lives.
     
    If they won't "come clean" and admit their untenable position is hopelessly flawed, we will have no other choice but to meet aggression with aggression, which will surely cost even MORE lives and money... so if they give a shit about their money, they better listen this time. They can surrender their ill-gotten gains, cease and desist in their criminal abuses of usurped power, and stop treating us like cattle... or we can show them what "lost revenue" really means.
     
    Less people working means less tax revenue. There are currently over 1 million cannabis prisoners, and all of them could be generating tax revenue, instead of rotting in a cage just for the sake of profiting the private prisons and their investors... most of whom also happen to hold high positions in various levels of government. Unethical is an understatement.
     
  10. War on drugs tax makes them even more. Along with bribes and so forth. They're raking in cash. They already know cannabis isn't harmful.


    "I'm to drunk, to taste this chicken" -Talladega nights
     
  11. What a load of absolute crap.
     
    They say this, while GW Pharmaceuticals is trotting through FDA trials for their patented extract. An extract which could be made economically, safely at a lower cost by local dispensaries and caregivers. But, instead, due to forced and unjust illegality, GW is able to profit extremely well. By selling the public a concoction that could be made at home for a fraction of the price.
     
    This is not about the children, or safety, or addiction because those have all been disproved multiple times.
     
    This is about patents, profits, and control.
     
    Politicians recently submitted a bill which would FEDERALLY allow low-THC strains to be legalized. Low as in industrial hemp low, .03THC; whilst high cbd strains are allowed.
     
    And CBD pills and extracts would also be allowed; allowed to be prescribed to you by your doctor, sold at the pharmacy and crafted by shady groups like GW Pharma.
     
    The key issue here, and always has been:

    WHO gets to access, cultivate and utilize cannabis.
     
    It is clear that the private interest groups are rushing to lock up the burgeoning industry. Evidenced by their hanging on to long-dead propaganda pieces, inferring that cannabis is far too dangerous, and people are far too irresponsible, for this plant to be accessed freely by the common man.
     
    Stay sharp friends. The people need to realize that we are the majority, we control the power ultimately. The challenge is convincing the majority that real issues need their attention; pulling them away from their buffalo wings, Dominos, NFL & PrimeTime TV/The Kardashians/Dancing with the stars yadda yadda.
     
  12. Bottom line the regulatory schemes for both medical and recreational will be up to the state's and for medical a combination between CO and California's seems like a good way to regulate mmj. What is importantant is that the federal government does finally realize the medical benefits and remove it from schedule 1. How each state decides to manage it, should be up to the people of that state.
     
  13. I hear ya! Why industrial hemp was not legalized ions ago, is beyond me.
     
      I think if the feds finally do give in and legalize it for medical purposes, It will be controlled the same way as morphine is controlled by doctors. You just can't walk into a clinic and ask your family physician for a prescription of morphine. There are strict restrictions on that. You have to be in ICU bleeding to death with mangled bones.
      And if they legalize it for recreational purposes, They won't allow anyone to grow their own. That will be a felony even if you have seeds. We will be paying up to $40 a gram for shwag. I just don't trust them.
     
  14. But that would make us not "united" states, now wouldn't it?
     
    Not only do we need to completely repeal cannabis prohibition at the federal level, we also need to make an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, banning the creation of any unjust, unjustified, or unjustifiable laws against cannabis.
     
    "Let the states decide" is a recipe for starting a civil war. We don't need another one of those.
     
  15. That's their responce? That's all they got? Weak.
     
  16. While I agree the best result would be the complete repeal of prohibition of cannabis on a federal level, the fact remains some states like Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, extremely conservative states basically are far from ready and I'm sure would continue to prohibit cannabis similar to the way some counties in states still prohibit the sale of alcohol in some counties. On that note, major changes to the federal laws are coming, whether all states and how different branches of government change with them remains to be seen.
     
  17. #17 ogderp, Jul 30, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2014
    I'm not surprised at all by their response to the New York Times. A couple years ago, there was a petition to legalize marijuana on the white house's website and it gained more than enough signatures so they had to issue a response and it was very similar to the response that they just issued to the times. They're still quoting all these BS propaganda studies that were funded by groups such as NIDA and the DEA as proven facts. The times said that they think it should be legalized for adults 21+ for recreational use due to the concern that marijuana use among kids and adolescents might have negative effects on brain development, but the Feds still used their same "think about the children" line that they've been using for decades in their response to the times. Saying that marijuana use lower's young people's IQ and causes them to get bad grades and that legalization will make that problem worse. Well when I was in high school, which was just a couple years ago. Weed was way easier to get than alcohol was. I never even drank because I didn't like it as much as weed and it was kinda rare that I could find a hook up for alcohol when I could find hook ups for weed all the time. So if anything, legalizing and regulating it like alcohol will make it harder for kids to get than if it remains illegal. They also said that there will be huge social costs to legalizing it, such as a new wave of "marijuana addicts" stoned driving will become an epidemic, and whatever else they consider to be a major social problem caused by marijuana that will outweigh tax revenue. While I do think that it can be a problem if someone is smoking too much and I think that no one should drive when they're stoned, I think that we can agree that it's easier to cut back on weed if you're smoking too much than it is to cut back on alcohol if you're drinking too much and while stoned driving can still be dangerous, they've done tests and studies that basically proved that driving under the influence of marijuana isn't as dangerous as driving drunk. I think what has to happen is that more states need to move forward with legalizing for medical, recreational, or both and eventually the Feds will be outnumbered by legal states and will have to change the law. That or the Feds are still trying to figure out how they can control the marijuana market
    to where they get all the money, which I do not support.
     
  18. #18 LuxSpiritus, Jul 30, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2014
    This is why,
     
     
    Tetrahydrocannabinol[SIZE=small][edit][/SIZE]
    Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active ingredient in cannabis, was originally placed in Schedule I when the Convention was enacted in 1971. At its twenty-sixth meeting, in response to a 1987 request from the Government of the United States that THC be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II, the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence recommended that THC be transferred to Schedule II, citing its low abuse potential and "moderate to high therapeutic usefulness" in relieving nausea in chemotherapy patients. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs rejected the proposal. However, at its twenty-seventh meeting, the WHO Expert Committee again recommended that THC be moved to Schedule II. At its 45th meeting, on 29 April 1991, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs approved the transfer of dronabinol and its stereochemical variants from Schedule I to Schedule II of the Convention, while leaving other tetrahydrocannabinols and their stereochemical variants in Schedule I.
    At its thirty-third meeting (September 2002), the WHO Committee issued another evaluation of the drug and recommended that THC be moved to Schedule IV, stating:
    The abuse liability of dronabinol (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) is expected to remain very low so long as cannabis continues to be readily available. The Committee considered that the abuse liability of dronabinol does not constitute a substantial risk to public health and society. In accordance with the established scheduling criteria, the Committee considered that dronabinol should be rescheduled to schedule IV of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances.
    No action was taken on this recommendation. And at its thirty-fourth meeting the WHO Committee recommended that THC be moved instead to Schedule III. In 2007 the Commission on Narcotic Drugs decided not to vote on whether to re-schedule THC, and they requested that the WHO make another review when more information is available.<sup>[25]</sup>
    \n<sup>UN Regulations would look bad on them if they were to legalize it at the federal level. They accepted the ban on Psychotropic substance in the terms of the UN.</sup>
     
  19. What would you guys estimate is the percentage... out of those who want to use cannabis, how many already do? Versus how many would, if the laws were different?
     
    I think it's more than half. I think most of the people want to, already are.
     
  20. I don't believe much from coming
    The White House . In 2008 me Obama pledged to stop the DEA stormtroopers from raiding leggal dispensaries , but under pres o there have been more raids than the Bush administration .me Obama you got you got your facts All wrong .read a few of the 70,000 peer reviewed studies which prove weed harmless


    Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
     

Share This Page