Best Federal Marijuana legislation ever

[PeteKleinow]

In the best legislation for Medical Marijuana EVER handed down, the new Attorney General, Eric Holder, says the states can now be free to enact, enforce and regulate the weedy industry.

So the states that have it in full effect like California and Oregon can rest easy, streamline their policies without the threat of federal intervention. And the states that have been on the fence about it can also go ahead with implementing their own legislation. It's been difficult to figure out exactly how to do it, like finding secure places to keep from bandits making off with the crop. Now it can be an open system where secure fences and the like can be built without the need for clandestine operations.

Finally, after all these years, progress has been made for the usage of marijuana by those who truly benefit from it. Higher minds have finally prevailed. There will be obstacles to overcome in getting this to the level of operation desired, but now the pressure is gone and local laws will be the rule of the day.

The last time there was anything positive toward decriminalization or medical marijuana from the Feds was Jimmy Carter's suggestion and endorsement of a $100 maximum fine for possession back in the late 1970's. This new action is the first real advance to happen, not just talked about.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29433708

[Black Dawg]

sorry for 2x post

[Black Dawg]

This is new policy not legislation. The AG has just relaxed pursuing these laws. Until new federal laws are passed, the DEA can shift policy back at anytime. It appears the administration will end the war on drugs.

[Dzldoc]

Better Idea

[Wolfman]

Better idea.

Only if I'm above that fire. Legalize it.

[Angel With A Broken Wing]

In the best legislation for Medical Marijuana EVER handed down, the new Attorney General, Eric Holder, says the states can now be free to enact, enforce and regulate the weedy industry.

So the states that have it in full effect like California and Oregon can rest easy, streamline their policies without the threat of federal intervention. And the states that have been on the fence about it can also go ahead with implementing their own legislation. It's been difficult to figure out exactly how to do it, like finding secure places to keep from bandits making off with the crop. Now it can be an open system where secure fences and the like can be built without the need for clandestine operations.

Finally, after all these years, progress has been made for the usage of marijuana by those who truly benefit from it. Higher minds have finally prevailed. There will be obstacles to overcome in getting this to the level of operation desired, but now the pressure is gone and local laws will be the rule of the day.

The last time there was anything positive toward decriminalization or medical marijuana from the Feds was Jimmy Carter's suggestion and endorsement of a $100 maximum fine for possession back in the late 1970's. This new action is the first real advance to happen, not just talked about.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29433708

In a manner of speaking. Yeh, that's good news; I've often thought that our five acre yard is not being fully utilized with only ornamental plants.

[Pb Derigable]

I like how the dems keep ignoring federal law ( sanctuary cities).

If a state want to make pot legal. Im all cool with it, just make it legal, don't do this decriminalizing bullshit.

[Gomper]

Better Idea

[Dzldoc]

[wanna be drummer]

[wanna be drummer]

[Pb Derigable]

So if the DEA is not going to do raids anymore. how do they get the tier 7 gear from Uldar. they are going to get creamed in the battle grounds.

Sry WoW humor.

[Dzldoc]

[SuperDave]

This is new policy not legislation. The AG has just relaxed pursuing these laws. Until new federal laws are passed, the DEA can shift policy back at anytime. It appears the administration will end the war on drugs.

Considering all of the trouble going on our border in Mexico with the cartels, do you think they really want to end it? It's a pretty scary situation down there and it's getting closer. It's not like the borders are heavily guarded. Something needs to be done and soon.

[BIGDAN]

The war will never end unless we legalize it to take away that criminal element. The alcohol related gang-land slayings ended after prohibition. If the Mexicans want to keep fighting among themselves then that will be their problem and it won't filter over to us.

Bull shit mate, you would have to legalise all drugs, cocaine, heroin, crack, meth, where do you begin or end? And after prohibition what do you think all the gangsters did to make their money? work for a living or go on to find more criminal ways to "make ends meet"?

You pro-drug lot make me laugh, you do not know the effect drugs have on your own people or country as a whole but you would allow everyone to use anything they like no matter what the effect on society. Just look at your picture, "PETER TOSH says LEGALISE IT", and now look at the effect drugs has had on Jamacia, and you want that for Americia, or England.

And please get real, you think you can shut the door to Mexico's problems while you let millions gain illegal entry to your country and all will go away and you will be alright? drugs have really addled your brain havent they. What the hell is society coming too when so many of us cant see the damage that drugs bring to society? This is going to haunt us forever.

Regards, Danny

[wanna be drummer]

Danny, it's not about the effects. If it were, then alcohol, toboacco, and fat foods would be banned too. Look at the effects those three have. Same damn thing.

I'm not saying everyone should smoke weed. But I am saying that you don't have the right to tell someone, no you can't have this because I don't like it. Tough shit. That's not your call. The role of government exists for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the people. Drug laws, in no way whatsoever, do that at all.

[JimmyPageZoSo56]

Marijuana isnt bad for people. It helps patients with the pain they are in. Its not addicting either.

Myth: Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness. Among adolescents, even occasional marijuana use may cause psychological damage. During intoxication, marijuana users become irrational and often behave erratically.

Fact: There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults. Some marijuana users experience psychological distress following marijuana ingestion, which may include feelings of panic, anxiety, and paranoia. Such experiences can be frightening, but the effects are temporary. With very large doses, marijuana can cause temporary toxic psychosis. This occurs rarely, and almost always when marijuana is eaten rather than smoked. Marijuana does not cause profound changes in people's behavior.

*

Iverson, Leslie. “Long-term effects of exposure to cannabis.” Current Opinion in Pharmacology 5(2005): 69-72.

*

Weiser and Noy. “Interpreting the association between cannabis use and increased risk of schizophrenia.” Dialogues in Clincal Neuroscience 1(2005): 81-85.

*

"Cannabis use will impair but not damage mental health." London Telegraph. 23 January 2006.

*

Andreasson, S. et al. “Cannabis and Schizophrenia: A Longitudinal study of Swedish Conscripts,” The Lancet 2 (1987): 1483-86.

*

Degenhardt, Louisa, Wayne Hall and Michael Lynskey. “Testing hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 71 (2003): 42-4.

*

Weil, A. “Adverse Reactions to Marijuana: Classification and Suggested Treatment.” New England Journal of Medicine 282 (1970): 997-1000.

Myth: Marijuana is Highly Addictive. Long term marijuana users experience physical dependence and withdrawal, and often need professional drug treatment to break their marijuana habits.

Fact: Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.

*

United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. DASIS Report Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral. 2002. June 24 2005.

*

Johnson, L.D., et al. “National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994, Volume II: College Students and Young Adults.” Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.

*

Kandel, D.B., et al. “Prevalence and demographic correlates of symptoms of dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in the U.S. population.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 44 (1997):11-29.

*

Stephens, R.S., et al. “Adult marijuana users seeking treatment.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61 (1993): 1100-1104.

Myth: Marijuana Is More Potent Today Than In The Past. Adults who used marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s fail to realize that when today's youth use marijuana they are using a much more dangerous drug.

Fact: When today's youth use marijuana, they are using the same drug used by youth in the 1960s and 1970s. A small number of low-THC samples seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration are used to calculate a dramatic increase in potency. However, these samples were not representative of the marijuana generally available to users during this era. Potency data from the early 1980s to the present are more reliable, and they show no increase in the average THC content of marijuana. Even if marijuana potency were to increase, it would not necessarily make the drug more dangerous. Marijuana that varies quite substantially in potency produces similar psychoactive effects.

*

King LA, Carpentier C, Griffiths P. “Cannabis potency in Europe.” Addiction. 2005 Jul; 100(7):884-6

*

Henneberger, Melinda. "Pot Surges Back, But It’s, Like, a Whole New World." New York Times 6 February 1994: E18.

*

Brown, Lee. “Interview with Lee Brown,” Dallas Morning News 21 May 1995.

*

Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Drug Threat Assessment, 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1993.

*

Kleiman, Mark A.R. Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1989. 29.

*

Bennett, William. Director of National Drug Control Policy, remarks at Conference of Mayors. 23 April 1990.

Myth: Marijuana Offenses Are Not Severely Punished. Few marijuana law violators are arrested and hardly anyone goes to prison. This lenient treatment is responsible for marijuana continued availability and use.

Fact: Marijuana arrests in the United States doubled between 1991 and 1995. In 1995, more than one-half-million people were arrested for marijuana offenses. Eighty-six percent of them were arrested for marijuana possession. Tens of thousands of people are now in prison or marijuana offenses. An even greater number are punished with probation, fines, and civil sanctions, including having their property seized, their driver's license revoked, and their employment terminated. Despite these civil and criminal sanctions, marijuana continues to be readily available and widely used.

*

United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports for the United States. 1996. Washington: U. S. Dept. of Justice, 1997.

*

Gettman, Jon B. National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Crimes of Indescretion: Marijuana arrests in the United States. Washington: NORML, 2005.

*

Marijuana Policy Project. Smoke a Joint, Lose Your License. July 1995 Status Report. Washington: MPP, 1995.

*

Treaster, J. “Miami Beach’s New Drug Weapon Will Fire Off Letters to the Employer” New York Times 23 February 1991: A9.

*

Reed, T.G. “American Forfeiture Law: Property Owners Meet the Prosecutor.” Policy Analysis 179 (1992): 1-32.

Myth: Marijuana is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco. Marijuana smokers are at a high risk of developing lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema.

Fact: Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana.

*

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. “Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box.” New York. (1995): 36.

*

Turner, Carlton E. The Marijuana Controversy. Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1981.

*

Nahas, Gabriel G. and Nicholas A. Pace. Letter. “Marijuana as Chemotherapy Aid Poses Hazards.” New York Times 4 December 1993: A20.

*

Inaba, Darryl S. and William E. Cohen. Uppers, Downers, All-Arounders: Physical and Mental Effects of Psychoactive Drugs. 2nd ed. Ashland: CNS Productions, 1995. 174.

[BIGDAN]

Danny, it's not about the effects. If it were, then alcohol, toboacco, and fat foods would be banned too. Look at the effects those three have. Same damn thing.

I'm not saying everyone should smoke weed. But I am saying that you don't have the right to tell someone, no you can't have this because I don't like it. Tough shit. That's not your call. The role of government exists for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the people. Drug laws, in no way whatsoever, do that at all.

Hi 'wanna be drummer'

As always you make a lot of sense. But is selling "Drugs" by a State Government giving everyone the right message? If you think Government exists for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the people, then you are very misguided in your belief, in my opinion.

For they are the ones who give and take away "Rights" as they see fit, and as such they cannot be called "Rights" in any way, can they? In my opinion the role of Governments exists as the Right to protect those who bank-rolled them in to power and not to protect the rights of anyone else.

If Governments were to rule fairly on our behalf and for the good of the people as they are supposed too then Tobacco, Alcohol, Fatty foods as well as self prescribed Drugs would all be banned and the law would be enforced to the letter. The trouble there is that there is too much money to be earned from these commodities and Government is so corrupt as to not either pass these laws or enforce them. The result is major crime in all our cities and societies.

So we let people deciede for themselves weather or not to use or abuse the above products and we then deal with the consequences, another strain on our ever decreasing social funding. And you last part about Drug Laws not working is very true, thats because they are not punitive enough, we could eradicate all the antisocial behavior that goes with Drugs and Alcohol but the things we would have too do would not be palatable to us and any Government that tried to impliment them would never get away with it or get re-elected.

You might think that I am a very intolerant person, but I dont disagree with Cannabis becoming legal. In my life, although I was never a Drug user I have always observed that Cannabis users do not add to anti social behavior as a direct result of Cannabis use, unlike Alcohol, Cocaine, Heroin and Crack which all do, so I am not totally opposed to its legalisation, but I think it will lead to its own trouble in the end, what that will be is anybodys guess.

But its still illegal in my house, and as Govenor of my house I have every right to do so, dont I?

Regards, Danny

[wanna be drummer]

Hi 'wanna be drummer'

As always you make a lot of sense. But is selling "Drugs" by a State Government giving everyone the right message? If you think Government exists for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the people, then you are very misguided in your belief, in my opinion.

Why else do you think Government exists?

As for "selling drugs giving the right message", I'd argue that the amount of weapons that our government sells to foreign countries isn't "giving the right message" either, but that doesn't stop them.

I don't want people to use heroin. Really I don't. But I'm not going to force people to not do that to themselves as long as they aren't hurting anyone. It's not my place. Parents should teach their kids on why drugs are bad, why they shouldn't use them, etc. That's not the government's job.

For they are the ones who give and take away "Rights" as they see fit, and as such they cannot be called "Rights" in any way, can they? In my opinion the role of Governments exists as the Right to protect those who bank-rolled them in to power and not to protect the rights of anyone else.

The government cannot take away rights as they see fit. They can not just dump the Bill of Rights into hell and say "We are no longer granting the people of this country the rights of free speech, press, etc." and expect to get away with it. Could they? Sure. But that only proves my point that the government shouldn't be in charge of that kind of shit. We have our rights, as explained through the Constitution, and the government that the Founding Fathers made exists to protect those rights. Nothing more. Nothing less.

If Governments were to rule fairly on our behalf and for the good of the people as they are supposed too then Tobacco, Alcohol, Fatty foods as well as self prescribed Drugs would all be banned and the law would be enforced to the letter. The trouble there is that there is too much money to be earned from these commodities and Government is so corrupt as to not either pass these laws or enforce them. The result is major crime in all our cities and societies.

Do you have any idea how much money could be made thruogh selling marijuana?? Why wouldn't that be legal too then?

Anywho, you argue that because the government doesn't enforce laws banning tobacco and alcohol, we have crime throughout society. Well, then I'd say to you that poverty causes ten times more crime than all of those substances combined. Do you suggest the government pay those people just so they don't steal stuff for themselves?

So we let people deciede for themselves weather or not to use or abuse the above products and we then deal with the consequences, another strain on our ever decreasing social funding. And you last part about Drug Laws not working is very true, thats because they are not punitive enough, we could eradicate all the antisocial behavior that goes with Drugs and Alcohol but the things we would have too do would not be palatable to us and any Government that tried to impliment them would never get away with it or get re-elected.

Drugs laws will never work under any circumstance in any way whatsoever. Same way gun control doesn't work. It's completely foolish to believe otherwise.

You might think that I am a very intolerant person, but I dont disagree with Cannabis becoming legal. In my life, although I was never a Drug user I have always observed that Cannabis users do not add to anti social behavior as a direct result of Cannabis use, unlike Alcohol, Cocaine, Heroin and Crack which all do, so I am not totally opposed to its legalisation, but I think it will lead to its own trouble in the end, what that will be is anybodys guess.

Alcohol is used by probably 90% of America and we're fine for the most part.

Cocaine, heroin, crack, etc. if legalized, could become much safer (safer than alcohol probably) through private study and selling.

That's how the free market works. It makes thigns better and safer.

But its still illegal in my house, and as Govenor of my house I have every right to do so, dont I?

Regards, Danny

You should have whatever right you wish in your own house, so long as you don't violate the rights' of others. That's how I see things.

[BIGDAN]

Why else do you think Government exists? Someone has to keep us all under control.

As for "selling drugs giving the right message", I'd argue that the amount of weapons that our government sells to foreign countries isn't "giving the right message" either, but that doesn't stop them. Agree, but foreign policy is different to home policy yes?

I don't want people to use heroin. Really I don't. But I'm not going to force people to not do that to themselves as long as they aren't hurting anyone. It's not my place. Parents should teach their kids on why drugs are bad, why they shouldn't use them, etc. That's not the government's job. I think it is.

The government cannot take away rights as they see fit. They can not just dump the Bill of Rights into hell and say "We are no longer granting the people of this country the rights of free speech, press, etc." and expect to get away with it. Could they? Yes. Sure. But that only proves my point that the government shouldn't be in charge of that kind of shit. We have our rights, as explained through the Constitution, and the government that the Founding Fathers made exists to protect those rights. Nothing more. Nothing less. Government can do pretty much as it likes in my opinion. What about the "Rights" of the Red Indian, the Blacks, Women, Gays, Communists, Confederates, and anyone else who thought that they had rights under your so called Constitution. If Rights are given then they can be taken away, right? When it comes to "Rights" you have only one, the "Right" to die.

Do you have any idea how much money could be made thruogh selling marijuana?? Why wouldn't that be legal too then? No idea mate, nor do I have any idea as to how much money could be made from prostitution, but I dont think any State/Country should sell drugs of any kind directly, just to get out of the shit they are in, surley thats for the private sector to do?

Anywho, you argue that because the government doesn't enforce laws banning tobacco and alcohol, we have crime throughout society. Well, then I'd say to you that poverty causes ten times more crime than all of those substances combined. Do you suggest the government pay those people just so they don't steal stuff for themselves? Poverty is not the cause of crime in this way, but Poverty stricken areas next to affluent areas brings on jealousy amongst the poor and crime is the result. There are many countries where poverty abounds yet there is little crime, India for one. But the Governments and Courts could actually make people responsible for their own crimes and make the individual pay for the damage, hurt and crime that they do in full, in dollars/pounds as well as putting them behind bars, that would be a deterrent, hit them in their pockets, and if you cant pay you dont go free.

Drugs laws will never work under any circumstance in any way whatsoever. Same way gun control doesn't work. It's completely foolish to believe otherwise. Wrong. You might have to go way over the top but you could bring in deterrents that will make you thing again. Theft-Hands off. Steal a car-Hands off Feet off. Drug offence-Give us the name of your supplier or you get life. Then give the same incentive to the supplier and work your way back to Mr Big, then execute him, that would work for me.

Alcohol is used by probably 90% of America and we're fine for the most part. Untill Friday/Saturday night, or untill a thousand drunks go on the rampage.

Cocaine, heroin, crack, etc. if legalized, could become much safer (safer than alcohol probably) through private study and selling. Never, an addict for the most part does not work and would still do crime to feed his habbit, unless you are thinking of giving the hard drugs away free?

That's how the free market works. It makes thigns better and safer. No it makes it worse and less safe.

You should have whatever right you wish in your own house, so long as you don't violate the rights' of others. That's how I see things. Me violate the rights of others, would I do that? You break the house rules, I break you.

[wanna be drummer]

Someone has to keep us all under control.

That's what the police is for. Other than that, it's up to personal responsibility. The goervnment should not replace responsibility.

Agree, but foreign policy is different to home policy yes?

Of course it's different, but the standards should be the same.

I I think it is.

Why?

Government can do pretty much as it likes in my opinion. What about the "Rights" of the Red Indian, the Blacks, Women, Gays, Communists, Confederates, and anyone else who thought that they had rights under your so called Constitution. If Rights are given then they can be taken away, right? When it comes to "Rights" you have only one, the "Right" to die.

So if we were in 1850, I'd be arguing that all men have inalienable rights and for this reason, slaves should be freed. All the while you'd be arguing that they have no rights since the law/government says they do not? That's disturbing.

All men have inalienable rights. Period.

No idea mate, nor do I have any idea as to how much money could be made from prostitution, but I dont think any State/Country should sell drugs of any kind directly, just to get out of the shit they are in, surley thats for the private sector to do?

I never said the government should sell drugs. That's fpor the private sector.

As for prositution, you can legalize it, but you'd just have to keep tight reins on security for the girls and STD prevention, lest we have a breakout.

Poverty is not the cause of crime in this way, but Poverty stricken areas next to affluent areas brings on jealousy amongst the poor and crime is the result. There are many countries where poverty abounds yet there is little crime, India for one. But the Governments and Courts could actually make people responsible for their own crimes and make the individual pay for the damage, hurt and crime that they do in full, in dollars/pounds as well as putting them behind bars, that would be a deterrent, hit them in their pockets, and if you cant pay you dont go free.

We are not India. Go to downtown Detroit or Boston or New York or LA or etc. It's not drugs killing the people, it's poverty.

Wrong. You might have to go way over the top but you could bring in deterrents that will make you thing again. Theft-Hands off. Steal a car-Hands off Feet off. Drug offence-Give us the name of your supplier or you get life. Then give the same incentive to the supplier and work your way back to Mr Big, then execute him, that would work for me.

Gee while we're at it, why don't we just cut out the eyes of minors who watch porn? Or paralyze those that run from the cops?

What you are arguing is seriously disgusting...I'm not kidding

Untill Friday/Saturday night, or untill a thousand drunks go on the rampage.

When ahs that ever happened?

Never, an addict for the most part does not work and would still do crime to feed his habbit, unless you are thinking of giving the hard drugs away free?

No, but the private sector would significantly lower prices. Also, you can make these thigns less addictive, but it will take study that only the private sector can do.

No it makes it worse and less safe.

Really? You think governments are responsible for the major breakthroughs of the scientific world? Think again.

[JimmyPageZoSo56]

The biggest reason why weed isnt legal is because it would put the drug and alcohol companies out of business. They pay billions to make sure it wont be legal for this reason.

[bigstickbonzo]

The US government makes billions of dollars a year in keeping them illegal, yet still importing them into this country and funneling them throughout the US market. That's a fact, not some Tom Clancy storyline. It's easier to deny it, continue making the money and keeping the churches/MOM-organizations off your back than legalizing it to satisfy people who crave marijuana's soothing side effects and alienating some "religious" hocus pocus that was first established when marijuana was discovered to be smoked by those "non-Christian savages," the Native Americans.

[Gomper]

Come and get 'em you stoned numbskull! You bring the weed, we'll bring the donuts.

[Dzldoc]