letter from the white house i received today

White House



What We Have to Say About Legalizing Marijuana

By Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy

When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics. So our concern about marijuana is based on what the science tells us about the drug's effects.

According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health- the world's largest source of drug abuse research - marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has almost tripled over the past 20 years, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health – especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20's. Simply put, it is not a benign drug.

Like many, we are interested in the potential marijuana may have in providing relief to individuals diagnosed with certain serious illnesses. That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of the marijuana plant can be used as medicine. To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition.

As a former police chief, I recognize we are not going to arrest our way out of the problem. We also recognize that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use.

That is why the President's National Drug Control Strategy is balanced and comprehensive, emphasizing prevention and treatment while at the same time supporting innovative law enforcement efforts that protect public safety and disrupt the supply of drugs entering our communities. Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America. And, as we've seen in our work through community coalitions across the country, this approach works in making communities healthier and safer. We're also focused on expanding access to drug treatment for addicts. Treatment works. In fact, millions of Americans are in successful recovery for drug and alcoholism today. And through our work with innovative drug courts across the Nation, we are improving our criminal justice system to divert non-violent offenders into treatment.

Our commitment to a balanced approach to drug control is real. This last fiscal year alone, the Federal Government spent over $10 billion on drug education and treatment programs compared to just over $9 billion on drug related law enforcement in the U.S.

Thank you for making your voice heard. I encourage you to take a moment to read about the President's approach to drug control to learn more.
:finger:

Basically this is a response to https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/legalize-and-regulate-marijuana-manner-similar-alcohol/y8l45gb1
This the same old bullshit and lies obama is not the hope and change I voted for that's for sure.

Any comments are welcome.

Legalize It:leaf:
 

budlover13

King Tut
AAAaaaarrrgggghhhhh!!!!!! FUCK!!!!!


Sorry. Just needed to vent. This change must be forced by the majority that requests it imo.
 

k0ijn

Scientia Cannabis
Hehe are you telling me that the US spent $10 billion on false drug education?

As if the FDA can be trusted, I've seen plenty of what they did to Dr. Burzynski..

marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment.
What a load of bullshit.
Marijuana isn't addictive.
If Marijuana is associated with respiratory disease wtf is cigarette smoke associated with then? Ridiculous..

Simply put, it is not a benign drug.
Yes it fucking is.
It's about the most benign 'drug' in the entire world, with hardly any side effects and treats well over 200 diseases.
Same old bullshit just a different day.


As a former police chief, I recognize we are not going to arrest our way out of the problem. We also recognize that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use.
Job well done there. You aren't arresting your way out of it right as we speak now? Moronic statement.
What is even more moronic is the next sentence. It doesn't even make sense. They choose to overlook the benefits of MJ because some lying, cheating and downright criminal organization like the FDA says it's bad? Give me a fucking break.

We all know why they aren't legalizing it, it's because other industries will crumble because of it.
Like the pharmaceutical companies that are going to lose money on 'Sativex' if MJ is legalized.

Fucking double standard, money grubbing hypocrites.. Piss off.
 

Jack Harer

Well-Known Member
All that was designed to do was make the populous FEEL like their opinions mattered. They gonna do what they gonna do, and we'll just be left bent over and hurting!! Come to terms with it, bend over, and take it like a man!! LOL

They never said they'd be using objective science and research, just that they'd use it, and it's the same old biased shit.
 

Charlie Ventura

Active Member
"According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health- the world's largest source of drug abuse research - marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has almost tripled over the past 20 years, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health – especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20's. Simply put, it is not a benign drug."

Those "voluntary" drug treatment admissions they speak of is actually a result of a judge saying: "either volunteer for drug rehab or go to jail."

I have a friend who just today has admitted himself into an alcohol treatment center. Alcohol is the most addictive drug out there. So, is the White House going to recommend that we reestablish alcohol prohibition?
 

Randm

Active Member
How about conducting a study on which causes the most harm to family and community, Marijuana or the arresting, jailing, the breaking up of homes and families, and property confiscation that is the result of prohibition? It seems to me that all that marijuana prohibition does is to supply a bunch of lawyers with work. As well as the whole farce of corporate owned 'rehabilitation ' facilities that rake it in due to prohibition. The only politician on the national scene that said that they would decriminalize drugs is Ron Paul.

Just a quick question. If they felt that they had to make a constitutional amedment to make alchohol illegal back in the 30's, why do they think they have constitutional athority to make marijuana illegal ???? I see nothing in my reading of the constitution that grants the federal government the right to prohibit anything that is not related to interstate commerce. If it is grown, and consumed within a state, then where is the interstate commerce clause involved? Those who keep crying for more government control over society ( Its for your own good you know ) are reaping their rewards. I'm personally sick and tired of an out of control federal government and think its time to reign it in and force them to adhere to their original contract, the constitution.
 

Charlie Ventura

Active Member
How about conducting a study on which causes the most harm to family and community, Marijuana or the arresting, jailing, the breaking up of homes and families, and property confiscation that is the result of prohibition? It seems to me that all that marijuana prohibition does is to supply a bunch of lawyers with work. As well as the whole farce of corporate owned 'rehabilitation ' facilities that rake it in due to prohibition. The only politician on the national scene that said that they would decriminalize drugs is Ron Paul.

Just a quick question. If they felt that they had to make a constitutional amedment to make alchohol illegal back in the 30's, why do they think they have constitutional athority to make marijuana illegal ???? I see nothing in my reading of the constitution that grants the federal government the right to prohibit anything that is not related to interstate commerce. If it is grown, and consumed within a state, then where is the interstate commerce clause involved? Those who keep crying for more government control over society ( Its for your own good you know ) are reaping their rewards. I'm personally sick and tired of an out of control federal government and think its time to reign it in and force them to adhere to their original contract, the constitution.
Good question.

The reason is, marijuana requires a federal tax stamp in order to be transported/sold. Of course tax stamps are never issued by the feds, so its a catch 22.

Most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.
 

Jack Harer

Well-Known Member
How about conducting a study on which causes the most harm to family and community, Marijuana or the arresting, jailing, the breaking up of homes and families, and property confiscation that is the result of prohibition? It seems to me that all that marijuana prohibition does is to supply a bunch of lawyers with work. As well as the whole farce of corporate owned 'rehabilitation ' facilities that rake it in due to prohibition. The only politician on the national scene that said that they would decriminalize drugs is Ron Paul.

Just a quick question. If they felt that they had to make a constitutional amedment to make alchohol illegal back in the 30's, why do they think they have constitutional athority to make marijuana illegal ???? I see nothing in my reading of the constitution that grants the federal government the right to prohibit anything that is not related to interstate commerce. If it is grown, and consumed within a state, then where is the interstate commerce clause involved? Those who keep crying for more government control over society ( Its for your own good you know ) are reaping their rewards. I'm personally sick and tired of an out of control federal government and think its time to reign it in and force them to adhere to their original contract, the constitution.


I agree whole heartedly!! However, HOW do you propose we do that? Taking back the reins of control from the government is not gonna happen. That's what happens when people say "I don't care, It doesn't affect me", until it does affect them, then it's too late.
As far as the prohibition of Marijuana goes, it's the DEA that seems to be setting policy regarding it's addictive nature and medical value. I say we challenge them to prove their case, and defend their position. It HAS been done before, by a bunch of hobby rocketeers who challenged the BATFE, in federal court, to prove and defend the BATFE's position that the propellant used by the rocketeers was in fact an explosive and belonged on the list of controlled explosives. After a 9 year battle, the rocketeers prevailed, forcing the BATFE to remove the propellant from the controlled explosive list. I was a member of that club during the course of that case, and can provide the link to the synopsis.
A department of the federal government (The Justice Dept/Homeland Security at that) was challenged by a few citizens, and the Government lost!!! The DEA's position on MJ is NOT based on science, and that can be proven in court. THAT is the venue to challenge issues like the fact that all the "voluntary rehab" cases were the result of a choice of rehab or jail. We pit rational science and research against theirs, and who do you think will win in open court? I would THINK that the NORML attorneys would be at least taking a look at this. Where are they?
There are over twice as many active members of this site alone than there were rocketeers who challenged the BATFE. It would take money, but I think that it could be accomplished if it were filed in federal court.
 

ihatepolice

Active Member
I agree whole heartedly!! However, HOW do you propose we do that? Taking back the reins of control from the government is not gonna happen. That's what happens when people say "I don't care, It doesn't affect me", until it does affect them, then it's too late.
As far as the prohibition of Marijuana goes, it's the DEA that seems to be setting policy regarding it's addictive nature and medical value. I say we challenge them to prove their case, and defend their position. It HAS been done before, by a bunch of hobby rocketeers who challenged the BATFE, in federal court, to prove and defend the BATFE's position that the propellant used by the rocketeers was in fact an explosive and belonged on the list of controlled explosives. After a 9 year battle, the rocketeers prevailed, forcing the BATFE to remove the propellant from the controlled explosive list. I was a member of that club during the course of that case, and can provide the link to the synopsis.
A department of the federal government (The Justice Dept/Homeland Security at that) was challenged by a few citizens, and the Government lost!!! The DEA's position on MJ is NOT based on science, and that can be proven in court. THAT is the venue to challenge issues like the fact that all the "voluntary rehab" cases were the result of a choice of rehab or jail. We pit rational science and research against theirs, and who do you think will win in open court? I would THINK that the NORML attorneys would be at least taking a look at this. Where are they?
There are over twice as many active members of this site alone than there were rocketeers who challenged the BATFE. It would take money, but I think that it could be accomplished if it were filed in federal court.
i say you make a thread with this post and a vote. Im Soooooo in im sure we can all afford donations how many members we can get bank.
 

Jack Harer

Well-Known Member
Could you imagine if every MJ site would put aside their differences and we all got together and hired a law firm we could send donations to?? How much money could we get with the combined memberships of this site, THC Farmer, IC Mag, Marijuana.com and the rest? IT boggles the mind that it hasn't been attempted yet. NORML certainly seems to accept the status quo. I don't hear much from them other than they need money,
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
AAAaaaarrrgggghhhhh!!!!!! FUCK!!!!!


Sorry. Just needed to vent. This change must be forced by the majority that requests it imo.
historically, freedom isn't given, it's taken. We can't simply ask for change and hope the powerful are nice enough to give it to us.
 

Cali chronic

Well-Known Member
I got the same one too.
They do not listen or read or care to learn. Old rednecks who need to be taken out and shot like mangy dogs. They ignore facts even from their buddy Nixon's admin. Who threw out the beneficial facts and waged war on drugs as they swill their beer and scotch that contributes to 5% of the populations diseases. Most of those old bastards are not worth the piss in my bladder and I wish Cancer on all those closed minded pricks.
Can I get an Amen Bretheran?
 

Jack Harer

Well-Known Member
You got an Amen here. But we need to realize that these fucks aren't ignoring good science or research, they are skewing the whole thing to keep this illegal. They (politicians) are lining their pockets with PAC money to keep it that way. There is more money for them by MJ being illegal than there is to be made if it were legal. Believe me, if there was more money to be made with pot being legal, it would be in a heartbeat. It's all about the Benjamins.
Thesse fuckers are anything but stupid. They just don't give a rats ass what we the people think, as long as they get paid. They KNOW the shit is basically harmless. They do NOT have the publics interest in mind when they spout their rhetoric.
 
Top