Slashdot Mirror

Let's see. They responded to a pro-marijuana legalization petition http://blog.norml.org/2011/10/29/white-house-response-to-normls-we-the-people-marijuana-legalization-petition/, and to this one related to the Westboro Baptist Church https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/white-house-westboro-baptist-church_n_3540814.html. If you want to argue that their responses were generally dismissive or lacking content, then sure, but I already acknolwedged that in my initial post.

Here's the ruling

Based upon this record it is the recommended decision of the administrative law judge that the substance 3, 4-
methylenedioxymethamphetamine, also known as MDMA, should be placed in Schedule III.
Dated: MAY 22 1986
Francis L Young, Administrative Law Judge

here is the story

I don't know the process here between FDA and DEA, which has which ultimate powers regarding final say on drug scheduling, but I have a feeling the drug is going to be rescheduled by the FDA (it is a "good," drug, a miracle drug, and the benefits to patients far outweighs the damage to those who abuse drugs), and then something fishy will happen at the DEA, and someone will overstep their authority, just like last time, and it will again be decided in court who gets their way, the nanny-staters and asshole control freaks or the doctors, scientists, and patients that need the drug.

A 501c3 charity can't hire lobbyists. Did you mean FSF should affiliate itself with a PAC, much as NORML Foundation (a charity) and NORML PAC are affiliated?

Here's a starting point for you:
http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence

but NO DRIVING while stoned

Tobacco smoking affects driving ability to a level similar to mobile phone use, but the evidence does not say the same about marijuana. (It's based on court convictions, which, guess what — are easier to get if someone has marijuana in their bloodstream, even though that doesn't mean anything, scientifically!)

Until and unless we ban smoking tobacco (which makes people more aggressive) while/before driving, criminalizing driving while/after smoking marijuana (which tends to do the opposite) is ever so much complete bullshit, and exists for absolutely no reason but revenue generation. Nictotine improves reaction times, but it also increases aggressiveness and what we need is safer, more responsible driving.

the US Govt needs to admit the war on marijuana is impractical and oppressive

And yet you support laws which are impractical and oppressive, only slightly less so, and then want a medal. Congratulations, the moderators gave you one. But it's plastic.

Incidentally, alcohol is regulated a lot more than you think it is. Not just anyone is allowed to produce it, or even own the equipment to produce it — in that respect, it is actually more restricted than marijuana! Having made it, you're not allowed to sell it, and you're only allowed to produce a small amount. All that is reasonable on some levels, because alcohol is flammable (only distillation equipment is controlled in any way, although you're only allowed to produce a certain amount of beer or wine per year as well) and a toxin. Marijuana is less flammable than things you're allowed to own any amount of, like polyester yarn or fluffy bunny fur, and so far nobody has been able to show any serious health drawbacks even with combustion and inhalation of large quantities of the stuff. So what's your basis for limiting production to six plants, et cetera?

You're just a tinier fascist.

Let's go after people for their driving behavior, not their brain chemistry, because people make their own brain chemistry and it's totally possible for you to be more unsafe to drive than if you had ingested a foreign substance without even doing so. Are we going to implant monitors in everyone's bloodstream that let them know when it's okay to drive? Or are we just going to keep making cars and roads safer and eventually phase out non-self-driving vehicles from public roads, and maybe even do away with those idiotic strips of tarmac altogether? Because I think it's stupid that we're still paying for these when there are superior alternatives, and having this debate is basically fucking retarded when we should be debating superior transportation technologies that make the argument moot. Then the officials of the race tracks can decide what chemicals you're allowed to have in your blood stream while you operate an automobile.

This one. Curses Slashdot for trimming the tree.
http://norml.org/library/item/...

See http://norml.org/library/item/... Twelve peer-reviewed journal articles are summarized.

Where are the properly controlled studies showing that a given level of blood THC is causally related to an increase in driving accidents?

They exist but they don't validate the legislators' pre-conceived science-free notions, so they need to be ignored.

If this breath test can generate revenue and court cases, then the uselessness of a one-time blow for THC isn't relevant. (prediction: somebody will propose compulsory roadside fat-tissue biopsy in the next five years).

And we're not even considering the substitution effect of decreased fatalities with THC vs. ethanol intoxicated drivers, with preferential bias existing for THC. It would be great if nobody got high and drove, but it would be great if people rode around on winged unicorns too, because they don't even need airbags (sparkles work just as well). Dealing with reality can be so darn annoying at times.

Actually, I was just chuckling over the fact that "50,000 people a year die from second hand smoke" and "50,000 people a year die from coal power plant emissions" and 50,000 people a year die from prolonged seizures and 50,000 people a year die from alcohol poisoning.

Handy that these happen in blocks of 50,000.

I'm seriously sick of this ignorant crap. There is absolutely no known possible mechanism for GM foods to cause cancer because they're GM.

That's kind of like all the anti-drug people who say that there is no scientific proof that marijuana has any medicinal value. It was absolutely true. But the reason it is true is because you needed the DEA to give you a permit to work with banned drugs and they only like to give out permits projects researching adverse effects, not beneficial effects.

Same thing with GMO's -- the testing coverage of GMOs is very weak. There is this get out jail free card they use to legally avoid testing called substantial equivalence - the theory is that if you are just mixing genes from two different kinds of food, then its all good. They do very limited testing to make sure there is nothing obviously wrong (like the potatoes genes haven't turned the new GMO crop into belladonna) but the basic testing is all that's ever done if they can claim equivalence. Of course they do this because comprehensive testing would be really, really, really expensive. So, you know, let the customers beta test it.

So yeah, there is no known mechanism because no one is looking for one.

10 years for growing the wrong plant.

Not if it is less than 50 plants.

But we know the real issue isn't horticulture, don't we?

So manufacture of a gun for personal use is legal, but growing a cannabis plant for personal use is a federal felony punishable with up to 5 years in prison? What am I missing here?

It hasn't been repeated as far as I know so the results haven't been verfied.

I'm pretty sure there have been additional studies since then.

Many related to health issues other than cancer. A majority of the double blind, human studies seem to show positive effects.

How the random anecdotal evidence of a poster gets modded up I have no idea.

http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-and-the-brain-a-user-s-guide

Perhaps he is referring to the fact that smoking cannabis and then stopping causes neurogenesis and thus an literal increase in mental capacity?

Ah but wait. That is NORML the hippy pot smoker site (nevermind the couple dozen independent sources cited correctly) so maybe we should see what the NIH says about it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253627/. Yup, turns out the moron burnout you knew growing up was a moron to begin with and avoiding reality by staying baked out of his mind because Cannabis actually increases brainpower rather than decreasing it.

In Kentucky the maximum penalty for possession of up to half a pound (HALF A POUND) of marijuana is 45 days. The people that are filling prisons up for minor drug possession are there because it was an easy conviction compared to the other shit they did. I was at court a few weeks ago to get my record expunged (wanton and willful destruction of a willow tree, no joke) and there was a girl there, first-time offender, who'd been picked up for disorderly conduct (apparently the city doesn't have a drunk in public law). DC's maximum penalty is 14 days in jail - normally you see a $300 fine or so. This girl, when placed in the back of the police car, started screaming at the cop, saying things like "I'll kill you and your entire family! I know your name, I will find out where you live and cut our your kids' hearts!" The judge read excerpts from the car recorder, and it was a pretty crazy invective. She did all 14 days, despite crying about how she would lose her job and kids, yadda yadda yadda.

So yes, while people might be in jail nominally for possession, that's not really why they are there, it's just prudence on part of the judge and prosecutor.

According to NORML, what basically happens when someone is driving while on marijuana is that while they're somewhat impaired, they also drive more cautiously and leave more space around them. The net effect is that while they're annoying, they aren't all that dangerous.

By contrast, when someone is driving drunk, they tend to be both impaired and reckless. The net effect is that thousands of people each year are killed by drunk drivers.

I addressed this in a previous post. For all the studies cited by NORML, many others come to opposite conclusions. However, the common thread among Just about all of these studies is that marijuana causes impairment.

If you're impaired, you're impaired. Perhaps you can compensate for that impairment and you most likely won't get into a situation where you need all your faculties/best-case response time, etc. -- until you do. Driving while impaired is a bad idea. Whether it's because you're high (marijuana, alcohol, etc.), tired, angry/upset, texting or talking on the phone.

I'm glad that people can compensate for their impairment, but no one should drive while impaired. Period.

According to NORML, what basically happens when someone is driving while on marijuana is that while they're somewhat impaired, they also drive more cautiously and leave more space around them. The net effect is that while they're annoying, they aren't all that dangerous.

By contrast, when someone is driving drunk, they tend to be both impaired and reckless. The net effect is that thousands of people each year are killed by drunk drivers.

One of the highest ranked petitions on the site called on the President to advocate for the regulation of Cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol. The administrations response did not mention alcohol once. Further, it was written by the drug czar, who is legally required to oppose any measures that would legalize Cannabis.

Don't think for a moment that anyone is listening to your petition. This is a marketing tool for the president to co-opt your issue. If he can respond to a few unimportant petitions, he gets to claim that he listens to "the people", while ignoring anything that's really important.

For example, after the debacle I described above, someone created a petition for the president to take these petitions seriously. It got the requisite peitions and got a response. They gave some examples of how the petitions influenced policy. Among them were banning puppy mills, digitizing federal records, and a "conversation" on online piracy. Not exactly heavy hitting issues here.

"The People" have absolutely no say on anything that matters in this country. Fuck these petitions, and fuck this president.

Texas wins the number 2 slot in my google search (may be the same source, I didn't rtfa, just looked for Texas):
http://blog.norml.org/2011/05/16/alternet-the-five-worst-states-to-get-busted-with-pot/
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/150935/the_5_worst_states_to_get_busted_with_pot?page=entire

I don't touch the stuff personally, but I know people that do (none in Texas).

I can't help but thing of when there were demands for removing the prohibition of cannabis brought up on the site. The official response wasn't anything of honestly leveling with the people so much as basically telling everyone that they didn't care what we think and everyone should just piss off, with a heaping helping of vacuous crap. I highly doubt this will be any different. Sure they'll respond, but odds are it will be with some hollow & meaningless response, and in the end no action will be taken.

Sorry, but legalization isn't going to work any better than saying "buy American" is going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. Today marijuana is essentially legal in California and it is not taxed. So what would you expect the price for marijuana to be at California dispensaries? Well, it turns out that it is almost exactly the same price as illegal, imported marijuana is on the street in Chicago. Check it out.

Based on this, legal drugs are likely to always have strong competition from imported illegal drugs. The production costs are going to be much lower for the imports, even with payoffs to local officials. Should cities, states and the federal government start taxing drug sales imports will be significantly cheaper. And how will law enforcement be able to tell the difference between legal, taxed drugs and imported untaxed illegal drugs?

It is very unlikely that we are going to see prices plummet should there legalization. What you are going to see is a gradual eroding of enforcement as has happened over the last 10 years or so. The side effects of programs like California's and Arizona's (if it ever gets off the ground) is that it will be very, very difficult to implement any sort of drug testing for employment. You really can't test for and ban employment because of a legal substance. For example, it is not legal to exclude someone from a job based on alchohol use, although you can fire them later for being drunk on the job.

When does it stop being practical to do drug testing the results should be very interesting on city streets. Imagine the outcry when it is only possible to fire school bus drivers after an accident or two - it is not possible to deny employment to alchoholic candidates today.

Very very many arguments are based in ignorance, but that does not make them illogical. Logic does not care what premise you start with, it will still guide you to the natural conclusions of your premise.

True enough. So we demand a full explanation until we reach the premises, which we can then show to be faulty.

Also, in many cases drugs are the catalyst that ruins people's lives. Who hasn't known a drug-head who went off the deep end?

So does prison. Prison ruins more lives than marijuana does. Prohibition proponents only care about the harm done by drugs, never about the harm done by bad policy.

Those who care about drug legalization need to logically deal with that kind of situation or they will never convince the rest of the country to favor legalization.

We've already done that with alcohol. We found that prohibition caused worse problems than legalization does. The same should hold for the objectively much less harmful Cannabis.

Notice how Kerlikowske completely neglects to address alcohol, although it was specifically mentioned in the #1 question? If they were honest, they'd address the issue. They're not honest, and they're not interested in honest debate.

If you're interested in a point by point rebuttal of Kerlikowske's position, packed with real data, check out NORML's response.

No matter which side of the debate you're on, you have to admit that NORML raises real issues. They deserve to be addressed not ignored. Right?

Jeez, has nobody linked to this already? Here's NORML's point-by-point carefully reasoned response to the White House: http://blog.norml.org/2011/10/29/white-house-response-to-normls-we-the-people-marijuana-legalization-petition/#more-7406

Highlights:

“Addiction” links to a NIDA page noting the lifetime dependence rate of cannabis to be 9% – that is, 9 in 100 people who try cannabis will develop a dependence. Kerlikowske does not mention that caffeine has the same 9% rate, alcohol is a 15% rate, and tobacco is a 32% rate

“Respiratory disease” links to a 2008 Science Daily article on a study entitled “Bullous Lung Disease due to Marijuana” which looked at the cases of ten people who came in already complaining of lung problems, who admitted they smoked pot over a year.

“Cognitive impairment” links to a 1996 NIDA fact sheet on studies of cognitive impairment involving card sorting. Since then A 2001 study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found chronic users who quit for a week “showed no significant differences from control subjects”. A 2002 clinical trial published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal determined, “Marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence.”

And it goes on and on. Jeez, the informational content of Chief Kerlikowske's report really is close to zero, isn't it?

NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, put up a great, far better researched response to the Administration's stance. Fair warning, I am linking to NORML, so it's probably NSFW for that reason alone (and that makes me sad).

As a citizen of a third world hell hole, I'm really tired of being mugged by addicts, with a corrupt police force since the drug traffickers have a constant inflow of dollars and euros selling shit to your fat asses.

Calm down! We're talking about Pot, not Crack. Big, Big difference.

Marijuana is simply not physically addictive. The National Commission on Marihuana(sic) and Drug Abuse (a/k/a the Shafer Commission) looked into this exact point. They traveled to countries where people had been HEAVILY smokin' the ganj since they were little kids. They asked them if they could take their Pot away. All of them said "Sure". They did. No withdrawals. No muggings. No nothing. The people just shrugged their collective shoulders and went on about their business.

And I should know: My Mom was a staff member on the Commission (actually the assistant to the Chairman of the Commission, Gov. Raymond P. Shafer), and I heard these (and other) stories from her, first hand.

BTW, they recommended decriminalization (because they knew that legalization would never "fly"); but President Nixon, who had created the Commission to demonize Pot, refused to accept the report and had it buried .

And that's exactly why we are having this discussion now, over 39 years after the Federal Government itself recommended that Marijuana possession be decriminalized.

Here's a pithy summation from the report: "The criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance."

But yet, because of Tricky Dick, here we are, almost 40 years later... And that's the sad, sad truth.

You poor, blind fool. Go ahead mod me down, fuck my karma. Its this perpetuation of misinformation that made pot illegal to begin with. Stop believing what you learned from D.A.R.E. and those stupid fucking commercials. Its not just untrue, they are down right lies! Pot is no more harmful to the human body than breathing the air in most major cities. Its incredibly therapeutic, can replace a multitude of harmful otc drugs, has no lasting effect on motor skills, and its 100% natural, unlike every other commercially available intoxicant and pharmaceutical drug.

People don't smoke pot and hurt other people or themselves. If you want proof just go to any music festival and watch as thousands of people peacefully smoke and listen to music with smiles on their faces alongside thousands of other, completely sober people. Cops and security at festivals don't care, they know that the drug is mild and that it breeds an easy-going attitude, especially when being consumed in large groups. Its a drug of inclusion, not exclusion like cocaine or heroine or tobacco or alcohol. There is no real stigma on smoking cannabis, other than the faux-stigma imposed on it by governments and a brainwashed society.

Addiction to cannabis does happen, and this is more of a reason to legalize than a reason to keep it illegal. There are people out there that are addicted to cannabis, and whether it be psychological or chemical addiction, in the end it doesn't matter. They need help, and if they are instantly a criminal due to their habit, the likelihood of them finding help before jail is virtually zero. Drug abuse is not a crime. But it is not a disease either. Its a phenomenon of society that has plagued us from the very beginning. If we could stop demonizing the users and the substances and begin learning how to cope, society will benefit. I'd rather have industries based around rehabilitation of drug abusers than industries based around enforcement of drug laws and incarceration of drug abusers.

I can keep rambling but without links and statistics I doubt anyone will take me seriously. Just click this link, do some serious, informed research, and let the facts lead you to a decision: http://www.norml.org/

Well, I live here and I've had extensive ties to the pot culture for the last 25 years, so when I say "its decriminalized for personal use" it's decriminalized for personal use compared to 1995, 1990, 1985.

I've carried a medical marijuana card, I live in a state where I can have an ounce (28 g), and 25 plants.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4522

That's pretty well decriminalized.

Do I want the prohibition against meth to continue? Yes. Organized crime? The damned border between the US and Mexico needs to be militarized and that will deal with the organized crime aspect of meth. Meth in the US mostly is still a small time production industry, the only "organized crime" involvement is with the Narco Terrorists and cartels.

Yes if you can garner more than 60% of the popular vote and even then you'll be lucky to get the law to change. Just look at NORML. Oh and then there was prohibition and slavery. One of those required a war to change the law. How many other laws have you seen repealed?

Dear Mrs. Bennett, my deepest condolences on your loss. I know that this is more than a day late and a dollar short (no pun intended), and some find this to be quite controversial, but there are alternative options for cancer patients including palliative care when the patients themselves are ready. In states where it is legal patients can seek medical marijuana not only for cancer treatment but for treatment of the pain and debilitating side-effects of chemotherapy and other (extremely costly) synthetic pharmaceutical medications. One site to check out for more information is: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3376 Living in WI, US, we are currently lobbying to become the 15th state to pass legislation to this effect. Anyone interested in helping further this cause can visit: http://www.jrmma.org/ or: http://immly.org/

There are plenty of archaic and unconstitutional laws still on the books; written and passed in some vain sort of attempt to change people. Look at any of the states that still have Drug Tax Stamps despite the very obvious evidence presented in Leary v. The United States. Mostly these laws are passed, I guess, to add one more charge to some unlucky schmuck to keep them away from "good" society longer. There is a larger problem here that needs to be addressed by better persons than myself.

I bet NORML is desperately searching for the haggis lobbyists so they can hire them.

What police departments in the US seem to do is combine it with a fraudulent anonymous tip, then they get busy kicking down doors and destroying property.

Actually. Why not? Why can't you run your own crystal meth lab?

The reason it is so dangerous is because it is against the law. People have to use equipment in ways it wasn't designed for in places that should never be used as a chemical lab. They also have no way to properly dispose of hazardous waist and no means to properly vent their work space.

If you could legally buy proper lab equipment and the raw components for meth without having to "cook" the ingredients it wouldn't be dangerous. Not only that you could make it in a safe location, like an industrial office instead of some slum house.

The reason cooking meth is dangerous is because it is against the law.

Second your point is a little exaggerated. Marijuana is a plant, other than the stupid law there is nothing wrong with growing it. Read some of the history of growing marijuana in the US, it wasn't until the 1920-30's that it even became an issue. reference

The last three presidents of the United States have smoked more marijuana than I ever have. Logically the prohibition of marijuana is a bad law. Look at the research.

We only get to live one life. People should be free to live it as they see fit so long as they aren't harming others. It is a travesty that there are so many prohibitions in life because of closed minded people such as yourself.

Make sure to check out http://norml.org/ as well.

These figures only go up to 1996, but it looks from this that it's heading towards a million arrests a year for pot. What a waste of police time (assuming this is reasonably correct data). Couldn't be bothered to find out how many were second/third/etc offences, but I'm guessing a lot of them - anyone done the research?

True but many states have marijuana tax stamps, that way, when someone gets caught, the DA can also bust them for tax evasion. This does bring up a question though, if I went through the trouble of buying the damn stamps does that mean that my medicinals are now legal? Can you tax an illicit substance? source: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6670

Still in 20 states, http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6668

Here is a list of various States Marijuana taxes including some court cases about double jeopardy, self-incrimination etc. Note that most of these laws were found constitutional or amended to become constitutional.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6668

According to NORML, there are still 20 states that require tax stamps on marijuana. And places like Minnesota have penalties like 7 years in jail and fines up to $14000.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6670

You may not be too far off this guy is defending the founder of NORML against possession.

Yeah, so? What's your problem with NORML?
I would argue that the only relationship between the RIAA's activities concerning file sharing and our
government's policies on marijuana are the shear idiocy of both. Oh, and I guess this lawyer.

It's legal in Alaska.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6814

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312132,00.html

http://cannazine.co.uk/cannabis-news/united-states/marijuana-can-prevent-cancer-not-cause-it.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3655586.stm

Now who looks stupid?

Their "superBOWL" adds can be viewed here and here

Here's one of the better ones

If you want marijuana legalized, support NORML anyway you can people, perhaps next year we can get one of these aired during the big game!

They can tell if you have THC in your body but you could have ingested marijuana in some form or another weeks ago.

I'm going to guess you might have been smoking something when you posted that.

You're thinking of metabolites in urine tests.

And if any of your argument was true we'd have to ban psychoactive medications out-right or presume that no-one could develop and market effective blood or saliva testing (either of which are possible).

I'm not personally a fan of weed or the pocket of culture that's developed around it, but trying to rationalize it's prohibition as logical is about as stupid as the prohibition itself.

You grow some grass in your own backyard for personal consumption - yep, that IS Interstate Commerce. Because nine walking corpses somewhere said so.

The 'feds' don't seem to bother Alaska much. Small amounts of marijuana were decriminalized years ago. Federal DEA agents work with Alaska state and local police forces on other drug related issues. They seem comfortable to just leave it be at the moment. I suppose that somebody in the Federal Government could make a big commotion out of it, but for now they seem to be happy just indicting Senator Tube.

Here in the great state of Maryland, students can choose to "volunteer" for any organization they want. So long as it's on the states list of approved organizations to volunteer for. This came about due to a legal battle about 7 or 8 years ago in which a girl chose to volunteer for NORML to meet the states requirement for 40 hours of volunteer service. The following year the state began issuing it's list of "Approved" volunteer organizations and students must choose an organization from that list. If you're going to require that someone "volunteer" for an organization and then tell the what organizations they can and can't "volunteer" for, in my eyes that amounts to forced labor.

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516 gives sentencing. Check the states with mandatory. Montana for example goes to felony on second possession.

"State law takes precedence, according to our Constitution."

This sounds incorrect from what I've been tracking in the news in recent months; Federal prosecutors are actively pursuing California pot growers who believe they are protected by paperwork that declares it for "medicinal purposes" under the assertion that state laws cannot countermand federal laws. You cannot have a federally controlled substance given the all clear on a state level.

There are some interesting things in the news from recent years:

This one supports your claim from 2006
This one however discusses federal charges against a guy who, according to the article, in federal court has no medicinal defense - the state laws don't protect him one bit (2007).

There's plenty more material on the subject out there, but here's an interesting home base for the folks seeking to reform federal law with numerous links to relevant news.

I agree, but I'd rather be in a vehicle with a driver that smoked pot than who consumed alcohol.

Food for thought: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5449

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7189

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1775.html

I don't understand how you can ban one product that has grown out of the ground for 1000s of years and at the same time sell alcohol and cigarettes.

Why should I be a criminal because I want to get high and watch TV or play video games with my friends instead of drinking or smoking myself to death like my grandparents did.

As for the driving under the influence, the same could be said for quite a few over the counter products. The faster we get our robot drivers the happier I will be.