Obama: Marijuana no more dangerous than alcohol

[Vic]

Anyway, WA and CO are just the first of many states that will legalize marijuana. For the feds to jump in now would be premature and would likely slow the progress.
The religious right and the tea party (is there a difference? ) with their social authoritarian agenda know this and that's one reason why they're trying to set this disingenuous trap.

 

[Jhhnn]

Under Administrative Law, President Obama can order federal agencies such as the DEA, ICE, and the FBI to demphasize marijuana law enforcement.

He could do it today. That is, he could do it today if he didn't lack the intellectual courage.

Blaming Congress or the Tea Party or whomever will neither change the facts nor will it provide the President with any more intellectual courage.

Uno

Which is exactly what he's doing in Colorado & Washington, in case you hadn't noticed. The DEA hasn't busted anybody for selling Colorado legal retail marijuana, nor likely will they do any differently in Washington or any other state that chooses to legalize & regulate. Not while Obama is in office, and likely not any time thereafter.

With that federal level complicity, legalization should expand rather rapidly to more states of its own accord and be irreversible by 2017.

The Obama Admin is throwing the fight, taking a dive on cannabis prohibition. They took a couple of love taps from Wa & Co, and now they're clinging to the mat, feigning helplessness. It's a fight they intend to lose.

You can bet that Mitt Romney's DEA would be doing things the old fashioned way, however-

 

[Incorruptible]

Anyway, WA and CO are just the first of many states that will legalize marijuana. For the feds to jump in now would be premature and would likely slow the progress.
The religious right and the tea party (is there a difference? ) with their social authoritarian agenda know this and that's one reason why they're trying to set this disingenuous trap.

You're spouting BS. The Tea Party believes in the Constitution while the religious right support big government.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Which is exactly what he's doing in Colorado & Washington, in case you hadn't noticed. The DEA hasn't busted anybody for selling Colorado legal retail marijuana, nor likely will they do any differently in Washington or any other state that chooses to legalize & regulate. Not while Obama is in office, and likely not any time thereafter.

With that federal level complicity, legalization should expand rather rapidly to more states of its own accord and be irreversible by 2017.

The Obama Admin is throwing the fight, taking a dive on cannabis prohibition. They took a couple of love taps from Wa & Co, and now they're clinging to the mat, feigning helplessness. It's a fight they intend to lose.

{oops, spelling}

You can bet that Mitt Romney's DEA would be doing things the old fashioned way, however-

Again, I post you the following:

"Capra claimed marijuana legalization had failed in every place it had been tried.

“There are more dispensaries in Denver than there are Starbucks,” Capra remarked. “The idea somehow… that this is somehow good for us as a nation, that this is good for the next generation coming up is wrong. It’s a bad thing, and this body will get its door knocked on ten years from now and say, ‘How did we get where we got?’”


He said at an international drug conference in Moscow, foreign officials wondered why the United States was scaling back its war on drugs.
“Almost everyone looked at us and said: Why are you doing this, you’re pointing a finger at us as a source state,” Capra said. “I have no answer for them. I don’t have an answer for them.”


He apologized for his excitement, but insisted marijuana legalization was a “bad, bad experiment” that would cost the United States both socially and criminally."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/1...ion-scares-us/

 

[Onceler]

All drugs should be legalized. It should be like the old days when anyone could buy opium from a shop. People were trusted. But it should have very harsh punishments for those that cause road accidents or assaulting someone.

 

[NoStateofMind]

snip

What's your point?

 

[Victorian Gray]

What's your point?

Did you read the article?

In case you didn't, the person being quoted is the chief of operations of the DEA testifying before the American Senate.

Can you now make the appropriate connections?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Did you read the article?

In case you didn't, the person being quoted is the chief of operations of the DEA testifying before the American Senate.

Can you now make the appropriate connections?

So?

 

[Jhhnn]

Again, I post you the following:

"Capra claimed marijuana legalization had failed in every place it had been tried.

“There are more dispensaries in Denver than there are Starbucks,” Capra remarked. “The idea somehow… that this is somehow good for us as a nation, that this is good for the next generation coming up is wrong. It’s a bad thing, and this body will get its door knocked on ten years from now and say, ‘How did we get where we got?’”


He said at an international drug conference in Moscow, foreign officials wondered why the United States was scaling back its war on drugs.
“Almost everyone looked at us and said: Why are you doing this, you’re pointing a finger at us as a source state,” Capra said. “I have no answer for them. I don’t have an answer for them.”


He apologized for his excitement, but insisted marijuana legalization was a “bad, bad experiment” that would cost the United States both socially and criminally."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/1...ion-scares-us/

And the beauty of it all is that DoJ policy puts him on the sidelines in WA & CO. The higher ups in the Obama Admin won't even address such comments as they shelter unfolding legalization. They'll just act like nobody said a word, and they'll get away with it.

Most people want legalization to succeed for one reason or another. In that, Obama obtains license to deal with it exactly as he is, just letting it happen.

 

[Victorian Gray]

And the beauty of it all is that DoJ policy puts him on the sidelines in WA & CO. The higher ups in the Obama Admin won't even address such comments as they shelter unfolding legalization. They'll just act like nobody said a word, and they'll get away with it.

Most people want legalization to succeed for one reason or another. In that, Obama obtains license to deal with it exactly as he is, just letting it happen.

If you really, really believe that, I don't think that we have anything more to discuss.

I will simply say that his administration's record in the way it deals with California has been, and continues to be, abhorrent. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years in both COL and WA. Based on the past record of this administration I know what *I* expect to happen.

Unless his hand truly is forced as it was re gays in the military and gay marriage I don't see much changing on the national level. This will truly have to a state by state fight.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So?

I dunno. So?

 

[Vaux]

All drugs should be legalized. It should be like the old days when anyone could buy opium from a shop. People were trusted. But it should have very harsh punishments for those that cause road accidents or assaulting someone.

I think I agree with this. If anything should be illegal it's the unnatural and dangerous manufactured drugs like meth.

 

[boomerang]

All drugs should be legalized. It should be like the old days when anyone could buy opium from a shop. People were trusted. But it should have very harsh punishments for those that cause road accidents or assaulting someone.

I have some questions.

So if they buy it at a shop, does it matter where the money comes from? A great percentage of home invasions are to steal items to sell for pennies on the dollar to support drug habits. Will legalization help with that? Will it matter where the money comes from? I mean we just want everybody to be able to have a good time without fear of recourse and stealing is a way for them to have a good time. So? Should they be able to use unemployment benefits or food stamp money to buy drugs? Drugs are now legal so do you see any reason that an individual's access to them should be restricted?

If we legalize let's say Opium and an individual gets addicted, does society have the burden of getting that person clean? It's a legal drug and as you said, people should be trusted, so what happens in that case. Should all drugs be legal? Somebody brought up meth. That's legal then. What about Krokodil, that should be legal too right? What about prescription drugs that are being sold out on the black market. Would that still be illegal?

A large segment of our society is obsessed with fairness and equality right now. People with more money can buy more drugs. Is that something that should be built into this on the ground floor? Addressing the inequalities between individuals in the context of drug use?

 

[NoStateofMind]

I have some questions.

That's good because it doesn't seem like you've thought this out.

So if they buy it at a shop, does it matter where the money comes from? A great percentage of home invasions are to steal items to sell for pennies on the dollar to support drug habits. Will legalization help with that? Will it matter where the money comes from? I mean we just want everybody to be able to have a good time without fear of recourse and stealing is a way for them to have a good time. So? Should they be able to use unemployment benefits or food stamp money to buy drugs? Drugs are now legal so do you see any reason that an individual's access to them should be restricted?

You cannot stop all theft. To think you can is completely unrealistic.

The main reason those addicted to drugs steal is to support their drug habit. As it stands now the costs of their addictions are heavy financially because of scarcity. Simple supply and demand. Illegality forces their gram of dope to be hundred(s) of dollars. If on the other hand their dope could be had on any street corner you would see the cost of dope drop dramatically. What once would have caused them to commit a crime to obtain now become just one lawn mow away.

If we legalize let's say Opium and an individual gets addicted, does society have the burden of getting that person clean? It's a legal drug and as you said, people should be trusted, so what happens in that case. Should all drugs be legal? Somebody brought up meth. That's legal then. What about Krokodil, that should be legal too right? What about prescription drugs that are being sold out on the black market. Would that still be illegal?

Couple of points here.

No one owes any man anything. So no "society" (meaning forced contributions) does not "owe" them a way to get clean. That's the addicts choice and that free will is what we call liberty.

Krokodil. HAHA. Fearmonger much? Geez if those who use Krokodil had access to what they really wanted (Heroin) then Krokodil would cease to exist. "Oh but they do have access to it" you say, yeah but not at legalized prices. Hence why Krokodil is used. Remove the high costs of real heroin and that shit fades into history.

A large segment of our society is obsessed with fairness and equality right now. People with more money can buy more drugs. Is that something that should be built into this on the ground floor? Addressing the inequalities between individuals in the context of drug use?

I have no idea what you are going into here. Probably some centralized drug dispensary so everyone gets a set amount of drugs? How ridiculous SMH!

Not only does illegality force those addicts to commit crimes they otherwise would not but there is a cascading effect not normally mentioned. Legalizing all drugs also removes the income of violent gangs which infest the streets of just about every inner city. It removes the reason for home invasions by paramilitary police who throw some poor schmuck in jail, charge him with "crimes" for engaging in consensual trade, the court costs associated with his defense, the repair of his home thats been torn apart and the mental trauma of the occupants which might include children having guns put in their face and watching daddy taken out in handcuffs. Then for the children to be without a father for whatever length of time and the mother barely scraping by. This in turn affects child care because not that the mother cannot be home she has to hire/depend on others for that child care. No one cares about your kids the way you do. Then when the father returns he has a "record" and cannot obtain employment. I assume you can take it from here?

"The war on drugs" is a war on you.

 

[boomerang]

You cannot stop all theft. To think you can is completely unrealistic. The main reason those addicted to drugs steal is to support their drug habit. As it stands now the costs of their addictions are heavy financially because of scarcity. Simple supply and demand. Illegality forces their gram of dope to be hundred(s) of dollars. If on the other hand their dope could be had on any street corner you would see the cost of dope drop dramatically. What once would have caused them to commit a crime to obtain now become just one lawn mow away.

So it will be like housing, milk, bread and gasoline. Affordable and available to all in whatever quantities they desire. Cool.

At this point I'm done because you haven't thought this through. But I am convinced you think you have.

 

[NoStateofMind]

So it will be like housing, milk, bread and gasoline. Affordable and available to all in whatever quantities they desire. Cool.

At this point I'm done because you haven't thought this through. But I am convinced you think you have.

Great thought out response! Lol

 

[rudder]

The main reason those addicted to drugs steal is to support their drug habit. As it stands now the costs of their addictions are heavy financially because of scarcity. Simple supply and demand. Illegality forces their gram of dope to be hundred(s) of dollars. If on the other hand their dope could be had on any street corner you would see the cost of dope drop dramatically. What once would have caused them to commit a crime to obtain now become just one lawn mow away.

The main reason those addicted to drugs steal is to support their drug habit.

Have you given any thought to that idea? The reason drug addicts have no money is because they are incapable of holding a job because of their drug use. Sure there are functional addicts... but even in Colorado an employee can be fired for a failed positive drug test for marijuana. And even if heroin were a $5 a day habit... there would still be a lot of addicts that need $5 and no way to get it other than stealing. Of course with obamacare, heroin addiction will be a disability and those addicts will simply be able to go into an emergency room for a free prescription.

 

[NoStateofMind]

The main reason those addicted to drugs steal is to support their drug habit.

Have you given any thought to that idea? The reason drug addicts have no money is because they are incapable of holding a job because of their drug use. Sure there are functional addicts... but even in Colorado an employee can be fired for a failed positive drug test for marijuana. And even if heroin were a $5 a day habit... there would still be a lot of addicts that need $5 and no way to get it other than stealing. Of course with obamacare, heroin addiction will be a disability and those addicts will simply be able to go into an emergency room for a free prescription.

And why is it that they cannot get a job? And who says he has to work for someone who pays weekly or steady employment? Removing the government regulations allows people to be employed without restriction. The owner of the business takes on the responsibility of the employee. If he has trash work in a factory where the daily employee can work without coming into contact with heavy machinery then I don't see a problem. However if the person employed gets injured on a job this does not remove the ability of the business owner to request a drug test at that time to prove liability was on the worker and not the business. If he refused to give a blood/urine sample he could then call in witnesses who had either used with the employee, saw him purchase or produce receipts from the shop it was purchased.

It all traces back to regulations. Get rid of them.

 

[BlitzPuppet]

And why is it that they cannot get a job? And who says he has to work for someone who pays weekly or steady employment? Removing the government regulations allows people to be employed without restriction. The owner of the business takes on the responsibility of the employee. If he has trash work in a factory where the daily employee can work without coming into contact with heavy machinery then I don't see a problem. However if the person employed gets injured on a job this does not remove the ability of the business owner to request a drug test at that time to prove liability was on the worker and not the business. If he refused to give a blood/urine sample he could then call in witnesses who had either used with the employee, saw him purchase or produce receipts from the shop it was purchased.

It all traces back to regulations. Get rid of them.

Wow...so you think it'll be all fine and dandy if we just remove all regulations/restrictions of drug addicts getting jobs? Poor them?

Too bad there will be many employers that have the same view of them as I do; lower class

I don't know about you but I would HATE working with/around drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. All that is HEAVILY screened where I work and because of that the people are all pretty responsible and have self-control. They WANT to keep their jobs.

 

[fskimospy]

The main reason those addicted to drugs steal is to support their drug habit.

Have you given any thought to that idea? The reason drug addicts have no money is because they are incapable of holding a job because of their drug use. Sure there are functional addicts... but even in Colorado an employee can be fired for a failed positive drug test for marijuana. And even if heroin were a $5 a day habit... there would still be a lot of addicts that need $5 and no way to get it other than stealing. Of course with obamacare, heroin addiction will be a disability and those addicts will simply be able to go into an emergency room for a free prescription.

How do you square that with the fact that drug abuse in countries that have decriminalized drugs has declined significantly?

 

[TechBoyJK]

Wow...so you think it'll be all fine and dandy if we just remove all regulations/restrictions of drug addicts getting jobs? Poor them?

Too bad there will be many employers that have the same view of them as I do; lower class

I don't know about you but I would HATE working with/around drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. All that is HEAVILY screened where I work and because of that the people are all pretty responsible and have self-control. They WANT to keep their jobs.

Addiction is a disease. Addicts aren't 2nd class citizens. They are real people. He's not saying give addicts high responsibility jobs, but there ARE jobs that addicts could do and get paid.. rather than starving out in the streets.

 

[Vic]

Wow...so you think it'll be all fine and dandy if we just remove all regulations/restrictions of drug addicts getting jobs? Poor them?

Too bad there will be many employers that have the same view of them as I do; lower class

I don't know about you but I would HATE working with/around drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. All that is HEAVILY screened where I work and because of that the people are all pretty responsible and have self-control. They WANT to keep their jobs.

I guarantee that, even with all the screening, you are working around drug addicts and alcoholics every day. Alcohol passes through the body quickly, prescription drugs are rarely tested for, and samples can be faked.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you really, really believe that, I don't think that we have anything more to discuss.

I will simply say that his administration's record in the way it deals with California has been, and continues to be, abhorrent. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years in both COL and WA. Based on the past record of this administration I know what *I* expect to happen.

Unless his hand truly is forced as it was re gays in the military and gay marriage I don't see much changing on the national level. This will truly have to a state by state fight.

CO & WA residents can't help it if CA law & regulatory effort are a mess, inviting intervention by US Attorneys & the DEA. Actual State level regulation of MMJ in California is a joke. It's impossible for federal authorities to hand off regulatory responsibility when there's nobody there to give it to. We're also blameless if CA advocates can't put together a proposal addressing the interests of various groups as A64 has done in CO.

Not to mention the successful roll out of retail MJ in Colorado went off w/o a hitch while Obama benched the DEA. If the Obama people had wanted to stop it, they'd very likely have done so from the start, with federal lawsuits & injunctions, also with enforcement of federal law on an immediate basis. That's not what happened.

Non-enforcement of federal law is a paradigm shift, a tipping point. It follows a paradigm shift in public perception. A strong majority of Americans now believe that legal marijuana is better than prohibition. Facts do not support belief to the contrary. The heirs of Harry Anslinger's legacy can no longer maintain the mythos he created.

Of course this will proceed state by state. That's the only way it *can* proceed, regardless of wishful thinking to the contrary. "Conservative" (authoritarian prohibitionist) elements enjoy disparate power & representation at the federal level. And they're entirely comfortable taking hostages to their agenda. In pushing it down to the state level, Obama denies them a national forum & their usual hostage taking opportunities. They have to go toe to toe with legalization activists in states where they can't win, and toe to toe with MMJ advocates in many more.

Barring some unforeseen fuckup, legalization will have proceeded much too far for turning back by the time Obama leaves office. That's because it's conceptually sound. The real negative consequences will prove negligible, barely making a ripple, while the positives are entirely too obvious to mention. 3 years from now, it'll be unstoppable, and I'm confident that the Admin knew that when they created current policy, when WA & CO voters provided the opportunity.

 

[marincounty]

CA law is just fine. CA is the first state to legalize medical marijuana, and the lax law allows almost anyone to obtain a doctor's prescription for it. I don't see a problem.
The WA law puts in an arbitrary level of THC that is illegal to drive with, and cops are busting people all over. CO has very tight laws on the supply, prices have skyrocketed.
CA has a glut of marijuana, and prices are dropping.
Marijuana , or Cannabis as it is properly called, is a weed that can be grown almost anywhere. Free the weed.