Slashdot Mirror
The White House Responds To We the People Petition
First time accepted submitter Nysul writes "The White House, aiming to gather the opinion (or marketing data) of the internet nation, asked for our thoughts by creating the We the People site and now it has responded to some of the more popular petitions, such as marijuana reform and separation of church and state. You probably won't be surprised at the answers."
...I read their claim that marijuana is addictive. You can lie to my face all you want, but don't expect me to vote for you.
If marijuana is half as bad as they claim, shouldn't Barack Obama, former marijuana and cocaine user, resign immediately and be placed in a maximum security prison?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Pretty good read.
tl;dr version: Fair tax isn't fair.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
The translation for most of these is really simple: The obvious political calculations don't support the petitions. The vast majority of people who support the decriminalization of pot are people who would vote for Obama anyways. (There might be some libertarians in the Tea Party but even bringing up legalization at their rallies had lead to booing. See e.g. http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Pot-Legalization-Brings-Boos-at-Tea-Party-Rally.). The only one that's even more blatant than that is the petition answer about removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. The people who care about that definitely aren't going to vote for anyone other than Obama (well, if Huntsman won the Republican primary then maybe, but right now he's polling at 2% among registered Republicans...). That petition response is even more noteworthy for having a nice mix of trying to claim that non-believers make up an important part of the US even as Obama endorses the claim that God is important to nation. The worst part of all this is that his political calculation is correct: Next election I'm probably going to be voting for him. Because the other option will be a lot worse.
I don't know how they can talk about legalizing marijuana and act like it's illegal because of health issues. if that was the case then shouldn't smoking and drinking alcohol also be illegal? It seems like they aren't open to serious discussion on any of these topics and just copy and pasted some default answers.
Everything on the Marijuana is bad list is probably doubly applicable to alcohol. Cigarettes, aside from the cognitive impairment, are infinitely worse than smoking pot is for you.
Regulate and tax it like cigarettes and booze. It's really not that complicated.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
a petition to take petitions seriously:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl
"Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America."
Huh? So preventing drug use reduces drug use?
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
so, when is the revolution, guys?
how much proof do we need that they do not care about our needs or wants or even justice??
it would be one thing is there was a fair reply that held water; but this was a sham in every sense of the word.
since the system does not serve us, I say its time to start the revolution. we gave things a fair chance but they just don't want to listen to us.
time for REAL CHANGE. voting booths don't bring change, btw. they lull us into thinking we have a voice.
look at these lying replies to our issues. they don't care! in our faces, blatantly, they do not care!
I hope things get messy real soon. because that is the hope and change we can believe in.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
No one should have thought that this We the People thing would bring about any measurable change. It's an exercise in false hope of efficacy in the legislative/executive process. 150k signatures supporting marijuana legalization/reform and the best answer they could come up with is a bunch of scare tactics and anti-drug rhetoric based around studies that were ineffective and the lack of studies because of the nature of the substance being tested.
You want real change for marijuana policy? Run for local office, get people to support you, and defeat the incumbents who stand in your way. Get the local laws to support your goals and work your way up the chain.
As for the education funding reform response, it's just pushing the Obama administration's education agenda. The petition signed by 32k visitors called for a bailout of recent graduates as the best economic stimulus possible for that generation. The response is nothing more than what you'd expect to receive from a Congressperson when you write vehemently in favor of or opposing a piece of legislation: the Congressperson will summarize the bill, summarize their position, and essentially say "thank you for your feedback".
Again, if you want real reform, get elected and don't let yourself get corrupted. Good luck; you'll need it.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
The fair tax contains provision for allowing the basics to go untaxed. This is why it is NOT unfair to the middle and lower classes. Not mentioning this is paramount to bald faced deception.
Current tax mechanism in a nutshell
Why the current tax system is hopelessly regressive
Why a/the fair tax is FAIR
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I found a petition to stop software patents, but was unsuccessful in finding one that demanded a drastic reduction in copyright term in order to create a strong public domain for e.g. sound recordings.
Since I'm not a US citizen it wouldn't be right for me to create one, but it makes one wonder: did no one think about this, or have they been removed?
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
POTUS has failed on so many bold promises already, why should I care how he responds to petitions? Sort of worry about whether the fertilizer a serial killer is using in his garden is organic or not.
Gitmo is still open.
The Patriot Act is just about as strong as ever.
Wars are multiplying, though he does get credit for winding down Iraq (way too slowly) and Libya (bonus credit for keeping boots off the ground, but loses them for getting us involved in the first place).
The economy is still a wreck, and his limp wristed efforts have done nothing but embolden his detractors and sully the chances of trying a truly bold stimulus plan.
So yeah, I got about what I expected from a bozo who has long ago lost my vote. Not that I voted for him the first time, as I saw through his grandiose speeches by looking up his voting record on things I cared about.
Is the mare transparent?
With millions of people testifying to the medical benefits of cannabis, it's pretty clear it's not a Schedule I drug.
However, the government in the US points to a lack of "proper studies", as do the Canadian medical associations. Yet both the US and Canadian governments put up every possible roadblock to proper, verifiable research, imposing restrictions like 30-day trials and then claiming there are no studies into "long term effects."
On the recreational side, over 50% of the population in both Canada and the US support regulation and taxation, the same as beer or wine, allowing home production.
Our governments aren't interested in learning the truth or discussing the issue. They're on a mission from God to protect us from "demon weed", and nothing will stand in their way -- not science, not the will of the people, not the economic arguments, and certainly not an electronic petition.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
From the article:
"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 "
Well, if that's your standard for keeping marijuana illegal, may I suggest adding:
Tobacco: Also associated with nicotine addiction, respiratory disease and cancer
Alcohol: Also associated with addiction, liver disease and cognitive impairment
Oh wait, those have huge lobbists behind them. Nevermind.
I don't know why you're guessing at numbers, as the linked study has them all in a handy table.
ER visits per 100k people:
Underage Drinking: 227.2
Pain Relievers: 194.0
Cocaine: 137.7
Marijuana: 122.6
Heroin: 69.4
Marijuana is a significant source of ER visits, with close to 400k visits per year across the country. Not as common as underage drinking or ODing on pain killers, but not small potatoes either.
I use it medically and I have to choose to take it every day. There is no compulsion to take it, it isn't addictive at all. My town is rather isolated physically so we have several rehab centers here and I meet patients regularly. I have never heard of anyone needing treatment to stop smoking pot. I have met people that stopped and none of them needed treatment or had any trouble stopping. The withdrawal from pot is the 'munchies' that you get when it's wearing off. That is easily treated with cookie therapy.
Now that half the open petitions say "give us better answers to last week's petitions", the site's login process is fubarred for me. Is it just slashdotted, or has it been disabled intentionally?
Die you stupid capitalist pig dog. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hampster and your father smells of elderberries!
no household making over $1 million annually should pay a smaller share of its income in taxes than middle-class families pay
which, by putting requirements in terms of income, automatically dismisses any sort of consumption tax in the premise.
Replacing our current system with a national sales tax would produce a major increase in taxes for middle class families
There is no mention of the "prebate", which would more or less offset this imbalance. (Naturally, YMMV.) Of course a national sales tax with no "prebate" would increase taxes for middle class families. Why does that sentence not specifically say "FairTax" instead of "a national sales tax"? I smell a red herring, or at least a carelessness of word choice that adds unnecessary ambiguity.
I have my own gripes about FairTax, but they aren't addressed in that White House response. But I do like a lot of things about FairTax, largely because I would prefer a consumption tax in place of an income tax. The details of consumption tax implementation, whether FairTax or otherwise, are still up for debate.
From the response:
No - but every mention of religion BY THE GOVERNMENT in a manner that incorporates governance or inter-govermental matters is a breach in the wall of separation. The ONLY reference to religion that should EVER be made by the government is by a judge and jury in order to punish government officials for bringing it up in the first place.
If private citizens -- not government employees -- want to speak about religion, that's fine. If those citizens want to put up religious icons or statements (or anti-religious) on their own land, or the land of another agreeable private citizen, that's fine too. But when the government puts religious symbols and sayings on the walls, desks, facades, and paperwork of its own, or gives tax breaks to the religions it "approves of", or throws a bible to "swear on" in the face of anyone in a courtroom, or stamps religious platitudes on the currency the citizens have to use... those are HUGE breaches in the wall of separation, specifically "respect" paid in some religious directions and not others - PRECISELY the thing the bill of rights forbids.
The arguments posted on the "response" page are for the 100-IQ and under crowd. It's like reading the essays of 9th graders who had a really bad civics instructor the previous year.
It's high time we held the judiciary, executive and congress to the oaths they swore. That's the biggest hole in our entire system of governance: the assumption that the government would consist of people of honor who would actually understand, much less obey, an oath.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"Respecting" in the 18th century was commonly used where "with respect to", "with regard to", or "regarding" would be used now. The First Amendment does not mean that Congress shall make no law venerating a certain religion, but that it shall make no law which has as its object the establishment of a state religion.
Theyre not on a mission from God.. theyre on a mission from Pfizer.
I'd be far more comfortable with your running the world if you had mastered something as basic as a simple cut and paste into a web page.
1) You should not be able to legally bribe a politician. Buying a vote is illegal. It should be illegal for a lobbyist to drop a suitcase full of cash with legislation attached.
2) Paper trails on voting machines.
3) Tort Reform. The reason this nation does not have skate parks, or dirt bike tracks is because liability is out of control. Someone gets hurt, brings drugs or a gun to private property, the owner of the property loses it. This is also why car insurance is too expensive. A person could be paying 10% of their income into car insurance just because of out of control liability laws.
4) A very small tax on capital gains directly, and redo the tax code, trying to remove loop holes until they pop up again.
5) A 10% tax on real estate selling to prevent real estate to be hoarded like a stock commodity.
6) Nationalized Health Care done correctly.
7) Nationalized college tuition for students that keep up a high grade average.
God spoke to me
The only thing that has evolved is the advertising to get elected.
That is not a misinterpretation; that is what the 18th-century framers of that clause meant. But the practises that you describe could nonetheless and, in my opinion, should be construed as falling under the clause insofar as they constitute, in some sense, the establishment of multiple state religions, given that the government essentially maintains a whitelist of officially recognized religions to which it grants certain privileges not afforded the religions not on that list.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN
even funnier
Agreed. This is the petition to sign. Call them on their doublespeak.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
I know that there is a good number of people on the internet who don't want to hear it, but legalizing marijuana just so that you can get high is a pretty selfish thing to be expecting the president to deal with. There are, and have always been, way more important issues than sending that kind of nonsense to his desk.
If you want some kind of drug-related reform done, then it should focus on the system of punishment. Pot itself should stay illegal, because despite all the claims to the contrary, there is more than enough evidence to indicate that it has a negative impact on a person's health, mental well-being, and mental acuity. Alcohol is as well, but there's simply no chance in cutting society's ties to that particular substance (even though we see how damaging it can be). But the point is, pot is not exactly a serious crime in and of itself. Simple possession of a personal amount shouldn't warrant anything more than a fine. Unless someone is like a repeat offender for selling, or is selling/transporting large quantities (which would be more indicative of a stronger criminal element backing), then I can't see sending someone to prison for numerous years. Non-violent drug crime sentences should be reformed to not only free up overcrowded prisons, but to take the opportunity to actually reform some of these people. Get them skills, jobs, and a purpose. Standing on a street corner is not being a contributing member of society.
Medical marijuana use isn't included in what I've mentioned here, because normal people can't use that. The people who abuse prescriptions to get it, however, should be treated just the same as anyone obtaining any other drug illegally.
I now expect to hear the standard rhetoric of why I'm wrong and that pot is good and safe and why people should be allowed to use it, and/or that I'm ignorant and just don't understand, but trust me, I've heard it all before.
Did you see the last one?
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/why-we-can%E2%80%99t-comment
Who the hell is Sholom Rubashkin?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholom_Rubashkin
Exactly: whatever. It just means people in a cult like the Hasidic Jews can be programmed to sign a petition like lemmings. Hardly democracy in action.
What if one of the petitions was "endorse creationism in all school curricula and have evolution is expunged" and it had 200,000 signatures. You don't think that's possible? Would the follow up, the Obama administration's trite put down of the topic, mean Obama is ignoring the revolution? Ignoring the will of the people? Exactly.
I'm sorry, but political polls, and petitions, are pure bullshit. You can word anything to mean anything, and someone will say "yes" on a phone call or sign some piece of paper or check some box on a website, then some media write up can spin the numbers to mean pretty much whatever you want. And it all means nothing.
I think marijuana should be legal. I think reference to "God" should be removed from our currency and from our oath. And I think this news story and petitions in general are a complete waste of time.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
My problem is that the criminalization of recreation drugs is far worse than the problem of people using recreational drugs. Unregulated trade always leads to underground economies and criminal organizations. Being unable to resolve disputes through legal means leads directly to violence for conflict resolution. If someone doesn't pay you for drugs you provided what other recourse do you have? These are the very problems our legal institutions are well adapted to and could solve. If you could just sue someone for not paying for the drugs then why form and maintain a gang of tough guys? The war on drugs is an expensive farce. It has proven to be ineffective (we still have the drugs) it just creates an environment for gangs to profit from unregulated trade. Look at who gains; the criminals, our legal system, the prison manufacturers, and law enforcement. They whole time they play cowboys and Indians, and we put more people in prison than anywhere else in the world *we* pay for it. We financially support the prisoners, the guards, the cops, the administrators, the wardens, the judges, the clerks, the oversite committees, etc... and we as investors get nothing for it. We are not made safer; we are not living better lives. It is a complete waste of money and resources. We finance a delusion of doing the right thing no matter the real cost. A delusion so zealously perused they have alienated entire segments of our population. If drugs do cause a real problem there most likely already is another crime (one with a victim) that could and should be enforced. If it only causes the drug user a problem it really shouldn't be any business of the government in the first place.
Following the logic of the reply on marijuana, alcohol should CERTAINLY be illegal if marijuana is.
I'm not saying alcohol should be illegal, I'm saying that every single argument in the president's response is in some way applicable to alcohol and in most cases, alcohol is far, far worse.
This is the response of a coward who is only interested in preserving the status quo. A coward I voted for.
He could at least have had his people answer honestly. Instead we get this drivel.
Take a look that this petition, it's on the money: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-instead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN
The laws you mention sound an awful lot like they are respecting the fact that religions exist not respecting the establishment of one. The law is allowed to recognize that such a thing as religion exists; it's not allowed to establish, prefer, promote, or otherwise favor any of them over one another or over their absence. Really would you want to read that the way you suggest? A legal system that is required to stick its fingers in its ears and yell "la la la, I can't hear you" when dealing with facts on the ground is crippled.
Click on his link, it's a very good one.
And does this study distinguish between those going to hospital due to marijuana and those there for other reasons who happen to have pot in their system? Personally ive never seen someone need to go to hospital due to pot use alone ( and im sure im not the only one thats seen people smoke very large amounts of the stuff over a night and even wake up hangover free if maybe a bit dazed) I call bullshit that majiuana puts anywhere near half the number of people that alcohol does.
Guess it was just slashdotted. Works fine for me now.
When you ask peoples opinion then shit on it with a copy paste response then lock it down its not "we the people" its I the government
welcome to the dictatorship, A bunch of do nothing fat ass children with no basis in the real world just want to bring more pork into their state for gndn projects, that should have every single one of their heads removed and stuck on a pike as the whitehouse burns in flames
Who the fuck are you anyway other than greedy pig headed asshats that would rape your own mother for a buck?
I had the same eye-roll that everybody else has had about "addictive" and to some extent "cognitive impairment". (Not giving up on stuff that causes life-affecting "cognitive impairment" is pretty much a definition of 'addictive'; since the 'addictive' property is known to be very weak, those who don't probably don't have a lot of responsibility in their life; and, indeed, most of my contemporaries gave it up upon getting jobs, mortgages, kids.)
But the lung disease link sat me up in my chair - I've been waiting for years to see an equivalent to the 1964 surgeon general's report about smoking and cancer.
But it wasn't a link to a cancer study, it was about "bullous lung disease" which is rare enough, I'd never heard of it. (It is rare, and mostly hits smokers, surprise) It's based on a Jan 2008 paper in Respirology that noted the ten (10) cases they'd been presented with that were chronic cannabis smokers in a year, averaged 41 years old, when the mean for all cases is 65 - so they concluded it can cause this disease up to 20 years earlier than tobacco.
The ten cases weren't overwhelming, though, especially not when presented as the proof of something by the White House. And, oddly enough, the first thing I found when googling for it was actually this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360494/ in Britain, with the headline "Bullous disease of the lung and cannabis smoking: insufficient evidence for a causative link". Mind you, they were tracking a mere 117 cases, still very small, though 12x bigger at least.
Interestingly, they offered the hypothesis that it related not so much to the chemicals in cannabis vs. tobacco, nor even to the respiratory harm from smoking ANYTHING, but to the WAY that cannabis is often inhaled:
"There is a quite separate way in which cannabis smokers are reported to present with abnormal air in the chest (pneumothorax and/or pneumomediastinum). Instances in case reports are attributed to extreme breath holding, Valsalva, and Müller's manouevres.8-11 This is a form of barotrauma which is a well-recognized cause of pneumothorax in intensive care units. If there is a cause-and-effect relationship between cannabis smoking and acute rupture of previously normal lung air spaces due to extreme pressure change, it falls under the diagnostic heading not of spontaneous but of traumatic pneumothorax. The focus in our investigation was on bullous lung disease in cannabis smokers." ...in short, don't inhale until your lungs are full to the max and then hold that. It can cause a physical trauma. (Also, don't stick your finger in your eye.)
That does not mean that smoking anything, even dried leaves off of trees, is a good idea for your lungs, of course!
But, frankly, this is very weak tea indeed, as evidence that cannabis is "not a benign drug", to be used at such a level. All of their links pointed to effects that happen to users that were heavy, or chronic, or both. Man, I'd like to hear of ANY over-the-counter drug that is so benign that you can use it heavily or chronically, without adverse side-effects. ASA and Ibuprofen certainly wouldn't qualify.
I was not surprised. In fact, the answer was the same for all the petitions:
"We are big fucking pussies and therefore will not do anything that might make it seem to those with actual power that we are 'against' them, thank you and 'nice try'."
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Al Franken, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, John Boehner...
I could name off a list of honest politicians, but, hey, who am I to get in the way of a good out of control tirade?
The real problem here isn't honesty, it's that they're too honest. The Rs want to hate fuck you. The D's want to actually do something funny we used to do in this country called "policy" and "lawmaking"
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Why doesn't the White House have a nonpartisan independent organization manage the petitions? If the White House manages them, they can cherry pick the petitions they like.
All hail the King!
You eat what we let you eat.
smoke the cancer sticks we let you smoke.
see a doctor if have the right job
but we'll give you welfare if you have babies
b/c we need your babies to fight our future wars
against the food we won't let you eat
and the grass we wont let you smoke
and the hope we have dashed against the rocks
day after day after day.
All hail the King!
:T:R:A:N:S:
Editors get a lot of shit around here but he actually improved my submission by adding an additional relevant hotlink.
When the most popular item(s) is about legalizing drugs my guess this system does not accuratly reflect the issues facing most people. My assumption most people don't even know this exists.
There may be evidence to suggest that Cannabis is addictive or that its bad for you or whatever.
But I can walk into a supermarket/bottle shop and find about a dozen things, all of which are legal to buy and use and all of which are just as bad, if not worse, than Cannabis.
I believe that instead of banning Cannabis, they should:
1.Legalize it
2.Regulate it and only allow it to be grown and packaged by licensed producers (similar to how Tobacco is regulated).
3.Stick a big tax on it
4.Introduce any laws necessary to make it a criminal offense to drive or do whatever else under the influence of Cannabis if doing those things puts other peoples lives at risk. Also introduce laws to make it illegal to smoke Cannabis anywhere its already illegal to smoke Tobacco (so that no-one has to worry about second-hand-pot-smoke)
5.Require the Cannabis product to only be sold through special outlets and be packaged in plain packages with absolutely no promotion or advertizing allowed.
6.Require warnings all over the sales outlet telling people of all the negative consequences of consuming it.
and 7.Run education campaigns telling people how bad it is.
If, after being told how bad it is people STILL want to consume it and their actions in consuming it do not impact other people in any way, let them consume it.
And this is comming from someone who had a family member with cannabis related problems and has seen what that stuff can do who believes that making it legal will reduce crime (as people wont have to steal to get money to buy pot). It will also stop drug dealers from using pot as a gateway to hard drugs like Ice or Heroin or Crack.
There are few things Obama could do to restore some faith that he isn't the worst sitting president since Bush II.
That's a whole lot of... something you got there. I'd just like to point out that, objectively, Obama is the BEST sitting President since Bush II. This is simply a statement of fact, and totally undisprovable (which may or may not be a real word). I dare you to try.
That is all.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
So let's see here..
TOPIC:
Religion in the Public Square
RESPONSE:
That's why President Obama supports the use of the words "under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance and "In God we Trust' on our currency.
DE-STUPIDIFIED:
Nope, we're keeping this govt. sanctioned religion!
TOPIC:
Taking Action to Reduce the Burden of Student Loan Debt
RESPONSE:
We know that these steps don’t solve all our problems in higher education. There is still more work to be done to make it possible for every American to earn a quality education. But enormous progress has been made.
DE-STUPIDIFIED:
We lowered the interest rates on these loans saving them a few hundred dollars and gave some people $5500, what more do you want from us?
TOPIC:
The Fair Tax – A National Sales Tax That Increases Tax Burdens for Middle-Class Families
RESPONSE:
In short, because it raises burdens on middle-class families and asks less from the most fortunate, this national sales tax is inconsistent with President Obama's principles for tax reform.
DE-STUPIDIFIED:
We can't really give you a good reason why we don't support the Fair Tax, so we've decided to present clear propaganda against it. Even the title of this section on our website indicates that it places an unfair burden on middle class families despite it doing no such thing. And throughout our response we've constantly hinted at this despite it being entirely false (but please don't actually research the Fair Tax, else you might discover that to be the case). The answer is no, that's all. We want tax reform, just tax reform that's inherently complex and has loopholes for our corporate owners (thanks guys, those millions and free tax evasion tips are really nice)!
TOPIC:
What We Have to Say About Legalizing Marijuana
RESPONSE:
Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America.
DE-STUPIDIFIED:
We didn't actually answer your question in this response. We dodged it over and over by talking about drug-related things. We made sure to drill that point home "drug." We want you to walk away from our "response to legalizing marijuana" remembering that we said the word "drug" in our response 17 times, more than any other word. In short: fuck you hippies. Marijuana would compete with alcohol and tobacco. You really think I'm going to give up $50,000,000 in campaign contributions so you can get high with your buddies with no consequences? LOL!
TOPIC:
Why We Can’t Comment [at allegations of Judicial misconduct]
RESPONSE:
For the reasons given above, the White House declines to comment on matters raised by this petition.
DE-STUPIDIFIED:
Fuck off.
Stay classy, Washington. Keep up the good work. Not answering questions and constantly refusing your citizens the right to have the country run the way they want is a fucking brilliant way to go about running a democratic country. Oh wait, I made the mistake of assuming we still live in a democracy, didn't I? Lol. It's so funny watching them tell us why they won't do what we want. Nobama, 2012.
"If you are going to create a public petition system, then take the petitions seriously.
Dismissing the top petitions with canned responses invalidates the whole exercise."
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/take-petitions-seriously/bHPkPddj
3 000/25 000 signatures
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
With all this marijuana / church crap (add guns ownership, gay mariage and other distractions) your lovely government is trying to keep your attention as far as possible from important things. See, they're making so much noise about this crappy site, yet thousands and thousands of people occupying centers of so many cities, trying to bring attention to THE real issue are completely ignored (and sometimes tear-gased and flash-banged) by the same government, and shamelessly ridiculed / silenced by your corporate media.
Since 2008 crash not a single fraudster who caused this fiasco was sentenced (and don't bring in Madoff - he was jailed because he tried also stealing from other fraudsters, not only from ordinary people). Instead of resolving this issue, government is actively covering up all these crimes and handsomely paying for all bad bets of said fraudsters from your taxes, your future and your children future. There is a lot of budget deficit noise lately but if you look at it closer, you'll see that it will only harm ordinary people and science budgets. Lucrative corporate contracts, army contracts will remain intact (and grow over time). Banksters will surely go back for another round of bailouts (it's easy money after all) and they'll get what they want. Government officials will cover up all corporate wrongdoings in hope to end up on in some well paid corporate job. This vicious circle is called regulatory capture and there is propably nothing left to deal with it - except for (non-violent !!!) civil disobedience.
I'm a foreigner from post-communist country who was growing up in crappy communist system, it strikes me that communism was very similiar to contemporary corporate state (no wonder China succeeds). There are actually two sides of the same coin - both on state level (de-facto central planning in US and EU, lobbied by corporate sponsors) and inside corporations themselves (levels of sillyness and ineffeciencies are comparable, if not greater to those in state-owned enterprises in post-communist countries). There are differences of course - technology went forward a lot, corporate state has way better PR and allows for private enterprises (more and more limited by thousands of corporate-sponsored regulations). Actually, communist China mastered this by keeping their core communist system intact (chinese exporter still needs to give away all his earned dollars in exchange for freshly printed CNYs) and allowing for limited private enterprises (oh, irony - less limited than in the West!). Let me stress this again: communism and corporate state are the two sides of the same coin !
While I'm watching what OWS folks do, I see so many similiarities with what my father in Solidarity movement was doing 30 years ago in Poland. Once again that's striking to me - you're basically at the same point of this process we've been in early 80's. Just don't get distracted by "Hope & Change" crapola, "Republicans vs Democrats" fraud. Don't get distracted by "We The People Petition" - government-sponsored PR scams aren't worth wasting your time. Don't get co-opted by some political party and don't get divided between (fraudulent) political lines (your lovely corporate media will try their best to do this). And don't let violence to outbreak - white shirts from police will be more than happy seeing this. They know how to deal with violence but have no idea how to deal with peaceful protests. That's why see things like Antony Bologna fiasco and I admire how OWS folks dealt with this - it was briliant. And finally, don't let your government to incite next great war (every f*ng estabullshitment tries this when it runs out of options). I wish you good lock goig forward with this.
you don't get to be where those people are without skeletons in the closet. If you have skeletons in the closet someone else has leverage on you. if someone else has leverage on you, first it's do one small bad thing and then its do more bad things or I'll tell about the first ones.
Thus, You don't get to be a politician without being corrupt.
I like Ron Paul. But he is a LIAR.
Simply because Politicians = LIAR.
NO exceptions.
Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
No, that would be the sensible thing to do. That's not how politics works.
You could use his argument as an argument for the prohibition of basically any currently-legal thing.
The vast array of money that does NOT want pot to be legal is huge... HUGE! Much bigger than 'too big to fail' huge.
Paper companies.
Plastic companies.
Oil companies.
Textile companies.
Wood product companies.
Drug companies.
Alchohol companies.
Tobacco companies.
Farmers and animal feed companies.
Regular law enforcement.
Border patrol.
DEA employees.
Legal and correctional systems. (judges, lawyers, paper shufflers, rehab, probation officers, drug testing companies, ect ect ect.)
And. Drug dealers. (having them on your side should tell you something.)
All of these people and companies would lose money if pot were legal. Now sure, they could perhaps make more with it being legal. But that would require change and investment. And hell. That's just not going to happen unless they are dragged kicking and screaming into it.
All you freakin potheads need to wise up. It's not about addiciton. It's not about public safety. It's not about doing whats 'right'. And you need to stop arguing with them on these points. It makes you look silly to anyone with a clue about the world.
It's about money. Pure and simple. In america. And the world. Money is king.
Until THAT gets changed.. Pot wont be legal. we might be able to push for decriminalized... but legal? not gonna happen guys.
So long as they can whip out the lamest fucking reason to hide the fact it's about greed and money.. It's gonna stay the way it is. The misinformation and disinformation programs about this have been going on for decades now. It's just not going away anytime soon so long as our current systems are in place and in control. And ruled by cash above all else.
The only green we on this planet give a damm about is... Money.
You have an overly narrow definition of lying.
If what you say is technically true, but what you are intending people to hear is false, you are lying to them.
Think about it this way. Would the conclusion that pot should be prohibited logically flow from the argument that it is "associated with addiction?" No, people would find that argument nonsensical. It would be like arguing you would prohibit postage scales because they are "associated with" cocaine distribution.
This sounds like the Swedish governments "statistics" on "cannabis-related" car accidents where anyone who is in a car accident who happens to have had THC metabolites in his/her bloodstream is counted as someone involved in a "cannabis-related" accident (which of course also opens up to "cannabis-related" deaths, if the driver of one of the cars in a pileup that killed six people had THC metabolites in his body those were all suddenly cannabis-related deaths, it's a neat way of counting if you want to inflate the numbers since the methods used for detecting cannabis use rely on the detection of metabolites that can be detected in urine for a long time after the actual use).
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_National_Drug_Control_Policy#Anti-legalization_Policy :
> By law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form) of illicit drugs.
This is the man who the Obama administration gave the job of answering the marijuana reform petition.
1) person found with pot
2) cop beats shit out of said person
3) person lands in emergency room
yes, lots of pot-related emergency room treatments.
(rolls eyes)
there are lies, damned lies, and then there are made up bullshit lies that the gov uses to justify its already-decided mindset.
don't piss in my mouth and say its milk. stupid government motherfuckers.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
In some US states there is a three strike rules which means that after your 2nd conviction any new conviction carries a rather serious jail sentence not proportional to the direct seriousness of the 3rd conviction.
Mind you, it is not as bad as the bleeding hearts will tell you. Whenever they come up with an example of a third time loser going away for a petty crime, they conveniently forget to mention the serious nature of the first 2 CONVICTIONS (remember, convictions are rare, it is HIGHLY unlikely a repeat offender will have committed the same number of crimes as he/she has convictions). So, a two time rapist gets sent away for stealing a loaf of bread straight out of jail... am I supposed to feel sorry for that guy now?
Anyway, drugs is considered a serious offense in the US. You can agree or disagree with this BUT the fact remains that if you are arrested for your third joint you could face a serious jail sentence. If you are prepared to risk DECADES in jail for a joint, then you are addicted.
If you want to protest the drugs laws there are other methods. But simply be arrested for the third time knowing you are going to be locked up a long time and still doing it, that is NOT a case for marijuana being "harmless".
If as drunk driver is arrested for the third time, do you also deny that this person has a drinking problem?
If a smoker is fired for secretly smoking in an explosion hazard zone at the only job he is ever likely to have, do you deny this person is a nicotine addict?
But no, a pot smoker who throws his life away is doing it because the drugs have no effect on him whatsoever.
The few I have known ALL had issues. Whether that was because of the drugs OR that their issues let them to drugs I don't know. Maybe there are some functional pot smokers but when the common image of a pot smoker is that of a schizophrenic who can only hold a subsidized shop while complaining about the state and people who pay taxes, while the prisons are populated who couldn't just say no after the 2nd jail time... I am going to keep thinking pot smokers are either addicted or so mentally defective they created the addiction in their own mind.
Show me a functional pothead and I might change my mind. Mind you, that only will convince me that like alcohol, some people can handle the occasional use.
If we can accept that someone standing out in the bitter cold for their smoke or someone who has a bottle in their desk has a problem, why is marijuana to be considered harmless?
Below some people claim that anyone who uses it knows they can stop any time... yes, because anyone who had one drink is automatically an addict OR that you can have one drink without turning into an alcoholic means alcohol can't be addictive.
Clean up the act of potheads and maybe the public perception will change.
Oh and a final note, most potheads claim to want a better world yet happily smoke a drug that is soaked in blood. Doesn't matter that you don't like the rules that lead to the drug wars, your smoke is still soaked in blood. If you think people shouldn't buy blood diamonds why do you smoke stuff obtained through so much bloodshed and human misery?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
There's more to it than that. This asshat is a minister. He got a fucking minister to respond from the fucking white house to a petition for increased separation of church and state.
I'm more bothered by the White House choosing to have the man drawing a salary for undermining separation of church and state respond to a petition to protect the wall of separation. The insecure need to have God printed on paper, or included in the bizarrely paranoid pledge, isn't as big an issue for me as the existence of DuBois' department.
How ithe flying fuck can he keep a straight face while saying that the government "guarantees citizens' rights to practice the religion of their choosing or no religion at all", while going on to support the claim that children should be compelled to invoke the Christian god when affirming their fealty to the magical flag?
His response can be more concisely written as "Shush now. This is how we've always done things."
When the petition "formally acknowledge an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race - Disclosure." reaches as many signatures (11,845) as actual pressing social issues.
Every answer to every question is to always to look for the money.
Alcohol companies will always spend (your) money to successfully lobby against marijuana.
Lawyers, prosecutors, for-profit prison companies, prison builders, prison guards, prison suppliers, police, judges, clerks, everyone in the American (in)justice system will always vote for those who will perpetuate their paychecks.
That was a meme first articulated by the Clinton campaign during the primary and then by the GOP during the general election.
But I think we're being trolled. Hugo Chavez as a prominent intellectual? Seriously? Pointing to a peace prize awarded to the likes of Fidel Castro, Louis Farakhan, and would-be assassins as some sort of mark of legitimacy?
Guys... what did you expect? Nobody supports pot legalization more than me, but publicly supporting it as acting or candidate president is still suicide in today's politics. You can complain all you want, but that doesn't mean Obama is going to suddenly turn around and support an issue that is likely to destroy his chances of re-election. If you've been paying attention to politics at all, ever, you'd know that "politically correct" is not even close to the same as "correct." You have no choice but to play the politics game once you're in the game. This statement/response is part of that game.
Of course I whole-heartedly disagree with this statement, but show me one presidential candidate who publicly supports pot legalization and has a tangible chance of being elected. That politician has never existed. I assure you, Obama actually believes pot should be legal. As do hundreds of other politicians out there. But the solution (for the politician) is not to sacrifice their job to admit he believes in legalization, until the population is ready is ready for it. The real solution (for the constituents) is getting people in the population educated on the matter to the point that it actually becomes acceptable for a major politician to support it. This isn't Obama's problem... it's our problem. I only wish we had a better education system that encouraged people to think for themselves, instead of just believing everything they heard the first time.
I've been growing my own for the past 3 years -- in one of the most oppressive prohibitionist states mind you -- and I can proudly say that I am now 100% "marijuana independent". It wasn't easy, however. In fact it has been one of the most difficult things I have ever done in my life. (The old adage "it's a weed after all" doesn't quite work like one would think.) But now I can finally offer a big "fuck you" to both the prohibitionists AND the violent black market they deliberately created. Hell, I waste the stuff like nobody's business, and feel nothing but good about it. I don't contribute to black market profits, and neither do I contribute to the prohibitionists' profits (who benefit proportional to the size and scope of their primary justification, which of course is the very black market they created). I am completely, utterly, "off the grid" and under the radar.
They don't own your body. They don't own your mind. The secret is that prohibition was never implemented for your good; it was implemented for their good. The objective isn't safety, or health, or even conformity. The objective, like so many other government "initiatives", is simply to rake more money through the business of government. The more money passing through the hands of the elite who designed and implemented this scam, the better positioned they are to exploit that cash flow for personal gain.
Did I just claim that the entire reason prohibition exists is profit? You're god damn right I did.
And one more thing: there is nothing "special" about prohibition like the elite at the top of the pyramid claim: prohibition is just another subset of oppression. The key is that with enough propaganda, chest-beating, and violence, the average un-thinking lemming would never even stop to consider that he's being scammed.
If people would vote in the primaries.
I think you need to learn to read. It says specifically: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" CONGRESS
and the purpose of this line is plain, they wanted to make sure the government did not pass a law creating a state religion, i.e. the church of England. Their intent was not to allow freedom of religion but freedom of christian religions. Had they any idea of all the non-Christians that would eventually end up here they probably would have written it differently, much to our detriment.
Now, don't get me wrong. There should be an amendment made that expressly separates church and state. I'd vote for it, that's for sure. But it currently does not exist.
In that case I'm revoking your declaration of independence, that relied heavily on "Natures God" and "Divine Providence" for it's authority. I believe you owe about 400 hundred years back taxes? Of course I'm being facetious but your ignorance of historical context is inexcusable.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The founders of your great nation, had come from a place (Europe) where religion was heavily involved in politics. In the English House of Lords, you have the Lords Spiritual, bishops governing by right of being part of the Established Church. In Italy you had the Vatican playing politics like it was a game, seeing who would be next to get their uncle made pope. Wars were fought over Calvinism and Catholicism. These were Established religions referred to in the First Amendment, and you can understand why the founders of the US wanted nothing like that to happen in the US.
This however had nothing to do with personal expressions of faith, as it was expected then as now the politicians expressed their faith publicly. You might disagree with this personally, but this was the 18th century and it is what it is. Indeed it can probably be argued that Jefferson wanted to erect a wall of separation between church and state, but he didn't quite get that far, didn't have the votes. This is why you end up with the fudge that is the First Amendment, congress is able to say "one nation under god" because that is not establishing a particular religion, and is inline with the traditions of the time when the nation was founded. They cannot however grant churches seats in the senate. You want to change that? Fine, use your democratic rights, write a constitutional amendment and get it ratified.
Nothing there in the responses about the TSA or the Federal Reserve/Banking Regulations. Like those topics don't exist. And so 99% of the uproar is over marijuana. Wow.
No, we won't be doing anything you ask. But thanks for your concern, and remember to vote Obama in 2012!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I find it remarkable how little people seem to understand about addiction. Perhaps that is why people who want to keep MJ a Schedule 1 narcotic use it as an excuse.
Your brain produces chemicals that cause pleasure, deep down in the reptile brain. These are called reward pathways, and the most prevalent is the dopamine reward pathway. They work exactly like a rat hitting the button for a food pellet, but their triggers are rooted in evolution. For example, when you eat fatty foods, even though you know it is bad for you, you enjoy it and you crave more of it because foods that is dense in fat and simple sugars are rare in Nature, so evolution favored those whose brains rewarded them for seeking out and consuming these foods.
When the levels of a particular reward-pathway-chemical (let's call them endorphins) remain high your brain does what it always does when presented with a constant stimulus; it learns to ignore it, typically by becoming less sensitive to that endorphin (e.g., decreasing the number of receptors for it.) If you take that endorphin away suddenly, you experience withdraw as your brain re-adapts to the lower levels of that endorphin (many of which are required at some level for normal brain functions.)
People can become "addicted" to running or weight lifting or any other type of physical exercise because the endorphins that the body released cause a good feeling. Conversely, when one doesn't work out for a while, the body craves those endorphins and causes that nagging "I need to go to the gym" feeling.
Nicotine bypasses the normal route of the brain releasing an endorphin to reinforce "productive" behavior and just ramps up the dopamine reward pathway for no good reason. When I was trying to quit smoking, I would get a mad craving---even months after having abstained---when I got in the car, because I had conditioned myself to smoke when I got in the car. You can use cigarettes to create such a positive reinforcement for almost any behavior. Opiates (heroine, morphine, etc.) mimic chemicals that your brain produces in small quantities for various reasons (including reward) rather than just pushing the reward button directly, like nicotine.
Even strong chemical addictions like opiates and nicotine are somewhat contextual. For instance, the rate of addiction to morphine from medical treatment is near zero, because you do not form a positive connection between morphine and reward. Soldiers coming back from Vietnam were addicted to heroin in huge numbers, but had a much, much easier time quitting than the average addict because they never did heroin in the context of their normal lives back home.
Like exercising or eating fatty foods, consuming marijuana also triggers reward pathways, but exponentially less than nicotine or opiates (or alcohol). Thus, it does not create chemical dependance--but it can lead to mild addiction. Playing video games also triggers reward pathways and, if you smoke pot every time you play a video game, the act of playing a video game can induce a craving for pot. Likewise, if you smoke strains that cause the munchies, and stuff your face with Little Debbie snack cakes every time you smoke pot, then you are inadvertently conditioning your body to connect the positive-reinforcement of eating fatty foods with smoking pot. So which is addictive? The snack cakes, the video games, or the pot?
Non-chemical addiction works exactly the same way, but rather than being associated with a particular reward pathway, it is just "habit" (conditioning). If my evening routine is to come home and take a bong hit, then when I don't get that bong hit, I feel as if something is off (and may become irritable as a result.) The same is true of drinking a beer when you come home, or eating at McDonalds on Friday.
Smoking pot long-term does cause structural changes in the brain. But so does learning the piano or a second language. If you smoke pot every day to relax, then you will be a bit irritable when you stop. If you smoke c
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
If a patient mentions that they smoke pot, or they find THC metabolites in their system, even if they are "prescribed" (technically "recommended" since it's Schedule I), then it makes it into the statistic claiming that pot was a cause or contributing factor... They are LYING to us, big surprise...
-Myke
I never knew a place like slashdot would be so damn friendly towards marijuana smoking. Wow
This meta petition is easily the most important petition.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Don't forget the vast Treatment Industry.
Once the court and legal system have extracted their pound of flesh, you will more than likely be extorted into a "drug treatment program" which the court liberally and generously will allow you to enter as an alternative to jail.
If you are lucky, your insurance might cover some of this, but you will likely cover most if not all of the cost. Here, you will enter a parallel universe where there is no "normal" consumption of mind altering substances, only "recovery" and varying levels of dependency and abuse.
You will admit your abuse and dependence. Depending on your court sentence, you may even "agree" in a legally binding way to everything the treatment center wants, including followup drug tests and counseling to ensure you remain "in recovery". This is on your dime and is open-ended -- you don't EVER "recover" or become a "former" addict, you are perpetually in recovery.
Meanwhile, the Treatment Industry serves as the soft-edged propaganda wing for the war on drugs, serving up "education" on alcohol, marijuana and other mind altering substances. The message is always the same -- there is no legitimate use of mind altering substances, only abuse and dependency.
About half of the open petitions are calling for sacking the drug czar because she won't individually respond to each of other bunch of pot legalization petitions. The petitions that aren't about drugs are poorly written...
They're calling for the resignation of the drug czar because HIS response was poorly written. Nothing, not one goddamn thing, in Gil Kerlikowske's blanket response can't be countered with "because pot is illegal" or "while alcohol and tobacco remain legal".
Except for the part about him being a police chief for years, which pretty much automatically disqualifies him from making unbiased judgements about drug policy wholly and forever. He DIRECTLY PROFITED from prohibition throughout his career.
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?
You are totally correct. Let me rephrase that to more appropriately express my feelings:
Astoundingly, Obama has taken the GWB lows to new depths, a feat that prior to his assumption of office would have been thought nearly impossible. If Obama wishes to address the factors that make him the worst president of all time, even worse than GWB, he could work on the following issues. [add my list here]
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
The point is not that established interests are opposed to marijuana because it has serious public or individual health issues.
It's because it doesn't.
Some people in this world have a core belief that anything pleasurable must have a cost, and become hysterical in the face of any pleasurable activity that is consequence-free. To them, pleasure without cost is an outrage, and it goes against their whole identity. They can't enjoy it without giving up their beliefs, and they can't allow someone else to enjoy it either without offending their internalized belief system. Unable to change their beliefs, they attempt to change reality around them, no matter the cost. Things like ideological consistency and democracy are expendable.
For example, alcohol is okay, because there is a price to pay for abuse, such as hangovers in the short term and more serious health issues longer term. In contrast, before 1950s contraceptive technologies, it genuinely was the case that sex outside of marriage was an irresponsible high-risk anti-social activity with serious real-world consequences. But then because of technology, the world changed, and unable to change their belief system, they fall back on morality arguments with no rational basis. Some thing with cannabis.
How is a Congress controlled in both houses by your own party considered "hostile"?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
What is the Constitutional basis for the so-called "War on Drugs"?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
But, they are studying the plant to see if Pfizer can isolate and patent any of the components.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I also am foreigner from post-communist country who was growing up in crappy communist system, and for the longest time I've held the same opinions expressed by boorack above. After witnessing what happened in my home country (years of peaceful civil disobedience against an ever more constricting politicians/mobsters/banksters association leading to no result) it got me thinking. It's a path to nowhere.
You watch, Occupy Wall Street is already yesterday's news and the usual tactics of adding "noise" to simple, clear and justified demands are in place and started to work (oh, OWS is now about global climate change, gay rights, abortion rights and imigration rights too!!!). Two months from now - if at all, since winter is coming - everyone's reaction will be "are they still there? Oh, the fools". I know it because I have seen it times and times again. The modern state has mastered the art of making any public protest meaningless through "freedom of expression" - if you want to protest against the upper class getting a disproportionate share of the wealth, you can do so but you need to allow a naked blue painted bozo to demonstrate right by your side for marijuana legalization.
I submit that we should instead join one of the two political parties and/or create a third one instead and rebuild this oh-so-eroded center. If you are well meaning, and I am well meaning, I submit we'll recognize each other - inside or across party boundaries - and we can work together for the greater good, something the current crop appears incapable of doing seeing that they are simply looking to get reelected. I submit that a political system like ours can be changed from within, democratically - it was designed to do so - far easier and especially far less traumatizing - then from without, via a revolution.
A few notes:
1) look back at the beginnings of the Tea Party ( I know the slashdot crowd tends to lean on the liberal side and the Tea Party is the butt of all jokes here but check out the early echoes) . Many of their ideas parallel those of OWS. That was , of course, before they got infiltrated and hijacked by the right wing christian fundamentalists. I liked their ideas of smaller government, smaller taxes and increased accountability of elected officials to their constituency. I was looking to join - with an eye towards doing my part in that change from the inside I was describing above - but found out I am not welcome because I am not of the "right" Christian provenance and I am an immigrant (although a citizen). That made me laugh a bit, I'll just use some other back door into politics, this country is too good to be let go just like that .
2) Consider that "We the People" is often stupid and greedy. Between an honest politician promising blood and tears and one promising free healthcare and free train rides, the latter will always get elected, never mind he's gonna have to indenture his constituency to bankers for years to provide those "free" services. See Greece's current situation if you don't believe it, generation of unwarranted entitlements accumulating till the breaking point - and oh, they all - electorate and elected alike - knew it. I frankly don't see a way around this known pitfall of democracy - so consider it next times you utter the "elected politicians should do what we, the people who elected them , tell them to" platitude.
3) Consider what thinning the middle class and accumulation of riches on top does to a country. The truths you knew about America are no longer true. This is not your parents or your grandparents US. A country with solid middle class tends to be right leaning and mildly conservative - a majority of the people have wealth and want to keep it that way - justifiably so - where us a country with few rich people on top and many poor one at the bottom - which I argue is a breach of social contract - tend to be left leaning as a majority of the people want their "missing" share of the wealth the top has - and justifiably so. The rich think they can
We have a winner.
Citation required. Your anecdotal information is not valid here.
âoeIn theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." â Albert Einstein
You want real change for marijuana policy? Run for local office, get people to support you, and defeat the incumbents who stand in your way. Get the local laws to support your goals and work your way up the chain. [...]
Again, if you want real reform, get elected and don't let yourself get corrupted.
This reminds me of an old Russian story, allow me to provide a rough translation:
A group of mice came to an owl and said: "Oh, wise Owl, hear our plight. We are small, weak, soft and helpless, and all the forest predators hunt and kill us. What shall we do?". The owl considered this and replied: "You should become hedgehogs, for all the animals respect their prickly needles." The mice rejoiced and ran home, but on the way, one of them stopped and asked, "but how should we become hedgehogs?". So they turned back and ran to the owl. Upon hearing their question, the owl replied: "Do not bother me with trifling details, I deal with STRATEGY!"
Now, I do understand, oh wise Rinisari, that you deal with strategy, but please allow me to bother you with trifling details.
1) Getting elected to office, local or otherwise, requires defeating powerful opponents, where "power" means money, connections and influence. Those opponents can easily outspend you and effectively shut you up by virtue of influencing the media. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the voting populace does not get their information from slashdot.
2) You will be fighting a one-against-many war since, unfortunately, the message "voting for a third party/candidate is throwing your vote away" resonates strongly, even among the slashdot crowd.
3) Your opponents will fight dirty, because dirty, questionable, borderline legal and often illegal tactics have proven to be effective. A lot of people will happily vote for corrupt politicians as long as they "bring home the bacon", and a whole lot of people are taken by false promises.
So please, share with us your plan of getting elected without getting corrupted.
Apparently by law Gil Kerlikowske (author of response of "What We Have to Say About Legalizing Marijuana") is required to "oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form) of illicit drugs".
I'm quoting wiki so the accuracy of this is questionable but if this is the case this seems like quite the conflict of interest here. Why even bother responding to this one if they're going to put a guy up who may be legally obligated to ignore the facts?
Note - I'm not a smoker nor intend to be one. I'd more than welcome open discussion but this is obviously a flawed debate before it even began.
The correct question to ask is "is it more addictive, or is addiction to it more harmful to the victim or others, than other legal substances?" For example, alcohol. Or for that matter, video games or gambling, both of which can be addictive.
Or sugar. I quit about a year and a half ago and had intense physical cravings for about 3 weeks. I had psychological cravings for more than a year. Truth be told, just thinking about a mocha chip ice cream cone with chocolate jimmies still gives me a quaver. But, I put on my big-boy pants and don't indulge. Or, should I say, my little-boy pants, 65 lbs later.
Now, think about all the medical costs associated with obesity and the Supreme Court's ludicrous Rational Basis Test, and any justification for Prohibition on marijuana can be multiplied many times over for a Prohibition on Sugar. "Lollipops fund terrorists" yanno.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics
In other words, this is rule by an elite few who say how things should be, rather than rule according to principles like the belief that people should be able to pursue their own happiness in whatever way they choose so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others.
But there's no news for me, there.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I don't get it, they asked for a dialog with the people, people in turn said what they wanted, in turn fulfilling the requirements to petition the government to legislate as per their wishes. Since when does that nanny ass Commucrat get to smart off their OBVIOUSLY BIASED BULLSHIT DATA, FARTS AND FIGURES instead of saying "Yes Sir, Mr. Public, I'll draft that legislation right away. This is the government by the people for the people, yahsir!" , like he was elected to do?
Wow, you mean a Repubmocrat would sucker all those wearing the Democrat Jersys into voting him into orifice on false peetences? Nooooooooo! What is this world coming to? Got a beer? Papers? Cool, swing on by,we'll percolate it. The rest of you, discuss,... I'm feeling a bit verklempt.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
What We Have to Say About Legalizing Alcohol
By: Gil Kerlikowske
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 alcohol 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 - alcohol use is associated with addiction, sleep disorders, increased risk for cancer, and motor vehicle accidents. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that alcohol use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Studies also reveal that binge drinking alcohol remains common on college campuses, 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 alcohol may have in lowering the risk of coronary heart disease for individuals. That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of alcohol can be used as medicine. To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found alcohol consumption 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 alcohol 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.
Don't mess with the bunny, outsideworld.org
There are few things Obama could do to restore some faith that he isn't the worst sitting president since Bush II.
Has there been another president in between?
I love the fact that 99% (I made that up) of responses on the article are about the Reefer! I agree, legalize and let's move on, but it just hit me as funny as hell that was virtually the only topic discussed by Slashdotters. Peace.
I have friends that have been heavy users of marijuana and they've complained about various health issues when they've stopped
That's not surprising, considering that pot eases many physical ailmants. My neck an back hurt when I don't have any -- I have arthritis. But aspirin and Naproxin take care of it. If I stop taking aspirin, guess what? The pain returns. Does that mean aspirin is addictive?
There are very very few smokers of marijuana that will dare to admit that it could be an addictive drug
There are very few daily orange juice drinkers that will admit it could be addictive. Very few people admit that fire is cold, too.
Free Martian Whores!
I've also seen many cannabis users ruining the lives of themselves and their families. But the cannabis wasn't the reason for the ruin. Using cannabis was just another symptom of the root cause.
In fact, the illegality of cannabis was the most damaging thing about it, increasing the cost of living, requiring association with shady types to get it, and causing run-ins with the law.