Petition to REGULATE ALCOHOL and TOBACCO like marijuana

[RainDog]

h/t to MJongo

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/regulate-tobacco-and-alcohol-manner-similar-marijuana/0xLz2Wmr

According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health, tobacco and alcohol are both associated with addiction and numerous serious mental and physical health issues.

Given the extreme number of fatalities yearly as a direct result of alcohol or tobacco usage (tobacco accounts for 90% of lung cancer cases in the US; alcohol results in over 22,000 deaths annually), as well as the Obama administration's approach to reducing the potential harm caused by marijuana, we the people believe the time has come to create and enforce anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol laws similar to those currently enforced relating to marijuana.

Please sign this petition.

If cannabis may not be decriminalized then alcohol and tobacco should be criminalized.

There are more useful applications for cannabis in society than for either of these products. Both have caused deaths, while cannabis cannot cause death from overdose or cancer. Both alter cognition and perception. Both are addictive for some people.

If we cannot have legal cannabis, we should not have legal alcohol or tobacco, since both are far more dangerous. I mean, we can't let adults decide what to do - think of the children.

[tridim]

1. Meh, I get it, but it's a dumb idea.

I don't even put Cannabis in the same class as alcohol and tobacco, because Cannabis is non-toxic.

Reverse psychology isn't going to work here.

[RainDog]

4. The White House has promised to respond to any petition that gets more than 5000 votes

I want the White House to explain their rank hypocrisy in relation to these three substances.

I am sick of this bullshit from the govt. and it needs to stop.

[Downwinder]

23. No dumber than the present policy.

[RainDog]

2. In response to this: What We Have to Say About Legalizing Marijuana

The Petition to Legalize Marijuana had more signators than any other petition - more than 74,000.

This is the White House reponse:

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/what-we-have-say-about-legalizing-marijuana

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 marijuana is based on what the science tells us about the drug's effects.

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

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

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

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

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

[RainDog]

3. how Gil Kerlikowske is lying

the statement that marijuana leads to addiction and therefore drug treatment programs is based upon current sentencing laws that allow people to go into treatment rather than jail.

even if those people do not show addiction to marijuana, they are considered addicted.

the equivalent would be if alcohol was illegal, you had a bottle of wine in your car you planned to take home for dinner, because you had lived somewhere that thought it was okay to have a glass of wine with dinner - and you were pulled over for an expired registration sticker. the police saw the bottle of wine and offered you the chance to go into an addiction program or face arrest. you go into the program. and you also become a statistic that says, simply because you had alcohol in your car, you are an addict.

The National Institute of Health notes cognitive impairment - however, recent studies indicated a two hour window of impairment for driving, say...again, if you are with friends and you have a couple of glasses of beer, you don't drive. the same thing.

there is no evidence of permanent cognitive impairment as of this study reported in July 2011

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/19/study-marijuana-not-linked-with-long-term-cognitive-impairment/

when the test was controlled for gender and education level - the results showed no impairment.

Participants took tests of memory and intelligence three times over the eight year period the study. They were also asked about how their marijuana use had changed. When the results were at last tabulated, researchers found that there were large initial differences between the groups, with the current marijuana smokers performing worse on tests that required them to recall lists of words after various periods of time or remember numbers in the reverse order from the one in which they were presented.

However, when the investigators controlled for factors like education and gender, almost all of these differences disappeared. The lower education levels of the pot smokers — and their greater likelihood of being male — had made it look like marijuana had significantly affected their intelligence. In fact, men simply tend to do worse than women on tests of verbal intelligence, while women generally underperform on math tests. The relative weighting of the tests made the impact of pot look worse than it was.

The authors, who were led by Robert Tait at the Centre for Mental Health Research at Australian National University, conclude:

he adverse impacts of cannabis use on cognitive functions either appear to be related to pre-existing factors or are reversible in this community cohort even after potentially extended periods of use. These findings may be useful in motivating individuals to lower cannabis use, even after an extensive history of heavy intake.

This issue of potency is also a sleight-of-hand. When potency is higher, people use less to achieve the same high.

The issue of teenage access seems to ignore that the Dutch experiment with cannabis decriminalization indicates fewer teens using cannabis when it is regulated. This is from Sept. 2011 -

The results of a new study published in the journal Addiction earlier this month challenged the United States' "provincial" drug policy rhetoric, especially as it relates to youth. The study compared data on cannabis use among US teens to newly available numbers on usage rates in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe. The results: The Dutch have about 700 adults-only clubs that sell 50 to 150 metric tons of cannabis per year, yet Dutch teens report lower levels of weed usage and availability than youth in the United States.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/LegalizationNation/archives/2011/09/22/going-dutch-teen-marijuana-use-in-the-us-vs-netherlands-the-full-interview-with-cal-professor-robert-maccoun

...and on and on.

[CarmanK]

5. Don't lend your name to this nonsense! Prohibition killed!

People value their names, and should not be asked to risk their reputations or their honor on such a frivolous, disrespectful action. PROHIBITION cost this country dearly. The WOMEN who orchestrated that movement did this country a great injustice and many innocents died as well as a lot of criminals ruled far too many city blocks. MJ should have been legalized at the same time prohibition was repealed, but there was no champion back then. In addition, look at the extremes that are about to take over this nation because of faux ideologies. PERSONHOOD TO AN EGG IN MS, is the ultimate insult to women and an outright assault on a woman's equality. Can you imagine the govt setting the rules and conditions of appropriate behavior of a woman from "puberty to menses"?? Bet not. The inhumane immigration policies being implemented by the states is another distration from the real problems facing this country. Don't ask people to support STUPID, we have enough serious work to do.

[RainDog]

6. Yes. Prohibition is a failure. That continues with the prohibition of cannabis.

the reality is that no one is going to prohibit either substance - and I don't want to prohibit either substance.

I want the White House to respond to this petition to explain why they can support legalization of alcohol and tobacco but not cannabis.

Anyone who doesn't get that this is political theater does not need to sign on. Believe me, this petition will get 5000 signatures anyway.

[RainDog]

7. btw, cannabis was legal when alcohol was prohibited

it was a patent medicine in the U.S. and doctors could prescribe it freely. Queen Victoria used it for menstrual cramps.

In fact, cannabis has only been illegal for the last 70 or so years, when the prohibitionists wanted another substance to target to justify their existence. The basis for cannabis prohibition was ENTIRELY centered on RACIST arguments about the threat of "darkies thinking they are equal to whites."

Doctors opposed prohibition of cannabis - it wasn't even called by its known names at the time - cannabis or hemp. It was renamed "marihuana" to associate it with Hispanics because of the racism against Latin Americans in the U.S. at this same time.

It was also "re-legalized" during WWII so that farmers could grow hemp for the war to make rope, etc.

Prohibition of cannabis is also a false ideology that goes hand-in-hand with those who want to control women's reproductive rights and, still, blame Hispanics for problems caused by the wealthy.

I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I can support an end to prohibition and an end to FASCIST THEOCRATS who want to impose their ideology on the rest of the nation. In fact, in the most recent poll regarding cannabis, the majority of Americans favor an end to this prohibition. The only groups overwhelmingly opposed were social conservatives and the elderly.

[Voice for Peace]

9. I think it's a great idea, makes a statement. No way they will criminalize alcohol or tobacco

but then they'll have to justify it.

[RainDog]

8. wow. it's already up to 1400

I guess some people "get" why this petition is useful.

[Shagbark Hickory]

10. The thing is our government is notoriously terrible at regulating things.

Personally I think a good middle ground is to legalize possession and cultivation of a reasonable amount but still keep sales/distribution/cultivation for profit illegal.

This way the government can still have its drug war but not bog down local law enforcement with little possession cases.

I think it will take a lot of profit away from the cartels too.

[Fumesucker]

11. 'Where are you going to cultivate something that a lot of people want and is illegal to sell?

The only place it will be possible is indoors, under lights or some outside place where no one ever goes, those places are considerably more rare than you might think.

Even then you're going to get things like home invasions to steal pot (happening already in some communities).

It won't make a dent in the cartels, nothing short of outright legalization and regulation in the manner of alcohol and tobacco is going to hurt the cartels.

[RainDog]

13. and indoor cultivation, or illegal cultivation, is worse for the environment

- the amount of electricity needed vs. simple sunshine - why use energy in this way?

- the illegal grows in public parks that endanger people who are out for a hike - the run-off from these operations, the trash they leave behind. why subject anyone to this?

[Shagbark Hickory]

16. A friend in college grew some in his dorm room closet.

:shrug:

I don't think you're understanding my idea. People can grow their own for their own use. Why pay for something or break in to steal something that you can grow so easily for free?

[RainDog]

12. that just maintains the hypocrisy.

why would the govt prefer to let unregulated, illegal growers make money rather than regulate and distribute along the same model as liquor stores?

prohibition simply doesn't work.

and it's an infringement upon adults' rights to make their own decisions without the interference of govt when that substance, we know, is far, far less dangerous than legal substances.

there is NO valid reason to continue to treat cannabis as anything more dangerous than alcohol.

[Shagbark Hickory]

17. I don't think you're understanding the idea either.

Why pay money for something you can grow so easily for free at home?
My idea was to legalize cultivation for personal use. Reasonable amounts. In other words, don't start a commercial farm of it.

I could also argue that growing it outside is also bad for the environment by the way, as it's an invasive species in many areas. But we won't go there.

I really don't think you'd like what would happen if commercial cultivation was legalized.
You'd have awful companies like Altria (formerly Philip Morris) but for marijuana lobbying to do away with the very legislation you're proposing.

[RainDog]

18. people who are sick cannot necessarily grow their own

if you want to limit the size of cannabis production, you can simply have limits on the amount of commercial space and have inspections.

you really cannot argue that growing cannabis outdoors is bad for the environment in the way that indoor grow ops are. The amt. of electricity used, alone, would put that one out of bounds.

and, yes, there is still ditch weed all over the eastern united states from the hemp for victory campaign - but it has not taken over any area in which it is found. it's not like kudzu.

but, I agree with you that "micro" would be better in many ways for cannabis that's for use as marijuana. but that could be accomplished by only allowing x number of people to work for any company (or its subsidiary) that cultivates marijuana for recreational use.

however, cannabis that is produced for hemp should and could be grown on a large, industrial scale. I would like to see hemp cultivation instead of corn for ethanol, for instance.

hemp can replace any product that is currently made out of petrol - plastics, car bodies, etc.

GW Pharmaceuticals, in Great Britain, already has something like 10 warehouses where they grow cannabis to make Sativex (whole-plant - and I mean whole plant, stems and all) liquified cannabis that is used as a spray for people with MS. This is sold legally in Canada, Israel, Germany and GB.

[Shagbark Hickory]

21. Wait wait wait.... We *are* talking about the U-nited States of America, right?

"You can always have limits and do inspections"

No. No, you can't. Look, I'm a communist and I make no attempts to hide it. I am for heavy handed control of industry. But in this country, industry controls government.
You're out of your mind if you think that they're even going to grow marijuana here. Industry will grow it in mexico where the labor and land is cheaper and conditions for growing it are better. And there's no regulation.

"but it has not taken over any area in which it is found. it's not like kudzu."

While there are different degrees of invasive plants, just because it may not be as destructive as another invasive plant doesn't mean it doesn't have a negative impact on the environment. ALL invasive plants affect the environment and ALL AGRICULTURE impacts the environment. And this happens to be one that corporations and farmers will use a lot of fertilizer and water and electricity to operate irrigation pumps and all of that jazz. I really don't think you want to open up this particular can of worms with me because it's an area that I have a lot of knowledge in.


"but, I agree with you that "micro" would be better in many ways for cannabis that's for use as marijuana. but that could be accomplished by only allowing x number of people to work for any company (or its subsidiary) that cultivates marijuana for recreational use."

No! no! no! no! no!
I just want to make sure we're talking about the same country. I'm talking about the United States. Where corporations hire lobbyists to influence what legislation is passed. Haven't you heard? Reggalation hurts the economy. Keeps the job creators from creating jobs. :sarcasm: Imagine for a second how rich and powerful the oil and health insurance cartels are. Then imagine an industry even more rich and powerful. That will be the marijuana lobby. No legislation, no matter how important or well intentioned will stand a chance against a legally sanctioned cartel. I don't want to see any more cartels. Be them health, oil or marijuana.

"I would like to see hemp cultivation instead of corn for ethanol, for instance. hemp can replace any product that is currently made out of petrol - plastics, car bodies, "

Of course you would. Wouldn't we all?
Keep dreaming.

Can I just point out that now you're talking about messing with the livelihoods of the Agricultural cartels, oil cartels, the companies that make money from the war on drugs, the steel industry and probably the labor unions too! Good luck getting that through congress.

"GW Pharmaceuticals, in Great Britain, already has something like 10 warehouses where they grow cannabis to make Sativex (whole-plant - and I mean whole plant, stems and all) liquified cannabis that is used as a spray for people with MS. This is sold legally in Canada, Israel, Germany and GB."

OK, so for the moment, a country that is not as easily controlled by corporations as the USA has managed to limit the market for a product. I think medical marijuana can probably stay where it's at for now but you know in this country, Pharma is indeed a very powerful force to be reckoned with. I wouldn't be surprised if they fought to keep marijuana from being legalized for all but those with prescriptions. Actually, I'm pretty certain that it would.

The pro-MJ crowd always takes an all or nothing approach to legalization. And it's not realistic that one of the most corrupt countries in the world will be the first country in the world to enact such a broad legalization program. I am just a neutral voice here but I admit, I don't want yet another industry cartel that will control our government. I think you should try to get more states to pass legislation like Chicago. Because I think you'll end up getting the support of cops and you won't be fucking with the big industries and the fed who quite likes the status quo. And it actually has a chance. And in the end, all of the MJ users will end up getting what they want, the ability to use MJ whenever they please and be left alone.

[RainDog]

22. There are farmers who support legalization of hemp

in conservative states because they want to use it as a cash crop.

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html

Hemp is already grown as a cash crop in France, as well. Tho they keep cultivars that are for "marijuana" illegal. In terms of sustainability, hemp is a far, far better crop, with fewer pests, than corn.

There are a lot of things that are unthinkable or undoable until they are thought or done. have you ever watched any reports, etc. about the people in CA who are quasi-legally growing outdoors now? This has been going on for decades. that was unthinkable until it happened.

I would be interested in some links to indicate that cannabis is an invasive plant with negative consequences based upon its existence here as an uncultivated weed. since the colonies/early republic demanded that farmers grow hemp, you would think the negatives of such a policy would be apparent in the northeast long before now. where is that evidence?

I do know it has a lot of positive qualities, in terms of permaculture farming, because it chokes out other weeds b/c the way it grows restricts germination of seeds under the leaf canopy for cannabis grown for flowers and, since the flower is the goal of harvest, the plant can be tilled under. I do think it is a heavy feeder - again, for those who grow to maximize thc content. Hemp is planted so close together, because the stalks are the goal, it also cuts off light to weed seed germination. Like sunflowers, btw, it pulls toxins from soil. you know, there are now female-only cannabis seeds that are sold/grown - b/c the goal of recreational cannabis cultivation is to create unpollinated female buds. this limits invasiveness. --although cannabis can be hermaphroditic in response to all-female plants.

anyway - you know, if the govt would decriminalize, that would be great. that's a step in the right direction. that's sort of the Dutch model - it's still illegal to grow. but coffee houses are allowed to operate, too. people obtain their medical marijuana from pharmacies there - the two uses are separated.

btw, GW Pharmceuticals has requested permission to sell Sativex in the U.S. too. Their plan, from what I read, was to grow the cannabis in Japan. So the current prohibition is also setting up a situation in which jobs related to this emerging medical market are offshored. ironic. I don't know where their request for rescheduling stands with the DEA now.

[Shagbark Hickory]

26. ...

"There are farmers who support legalization of hemp"

There are a lot of people who support it. It would make a hell of a lot more money than corn. But you have to be realistic about the eventual outcome.

"There are a lot of things that are unthinkable or undoable until they are thought or done. have you ever watched any reports, etc. about the people in CA who are quasi-legally growing outdoors now? This has been going on for decades. that was unthinkable until it happened."

No but I have heard of people that are illegally growing it outdoors now. And also growing it in state and national forests and conservation areas. Are you suggesting that a viable business model growing and selling something on the black market would be the same it it was opened up to corporations to do?

"I would be interested in some links to indicate that cannabis is an invasive plant with negative consequences based upon its existence here as an uncultivated weed."

http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=CASA3

There are multiple sources cited at that one link. If you want more links, Bing and Decide.

"there are now female-only cannabis seeds that are sold/grown - b/c the goal of recreational cannabis cultivation is to create unpollinated female buds. this limits invasiveness"

Plants that are supposed to be sterile do often cross pollinate with others though. It only takes one. I could see Monsatan introducing GM MJ too.

"anyway - you know, if the govt would decriminalize, that would be great. that's a step in the right direction. that's sort of the Dutch model - it's still illegal to grow"

It is but it isn't. If you can't legally grow it, that's not the same. What I would be fighting for if I were you is the right to legally grow it. Non commercially of course.

"btw, GW Pharmceuticals has requested permission to sell Sativex in the U.S. too. Their plan, from what I read, was to grow the cannabis in Japan. So the current prohibition is also setting up a situation in which jobs related to this emerging medical market are offshored. ironic."

No it's not ironic. It's the opposite of ironic. It's exactly what would happen if sales and distribution were legalized. Especially with all the free trade agreements and mexico decriminalizing MJ.

That's why I don't see this as the answer to some great economic recovery that so many people do. If you can use it to convert into ethanol, that's one thing but these ethanol plants are failing left and right. That doesn't seem to promising.

[RainDog]

27. well, that list includes onions, mustard, watercress and burning bush

as "noxious plants" too - but that doesn't preclude their legality or using them for cooking or landscaping. the reality seems to be that cannabis or hemp cultivation would not lead to the downfall of American society or agriculture.

in any case, you know, I could definitely go with legalization of recreational-grade cannabis as a substance and limits to cultivation to personal use - along with the current caregiver provisions that allow cultivation for people with medical problems for whom this substance offers often life-saving or health-giving properties. I don't mind taking the big profits out of this - and don't think medical mj should be taxed at all.

I still think that commercial agricultural hemp production should be allowed and even encouraged. again, such production is not in any way a way to create recreational grade cannabis - in France, farms are tested to maintain hemp with a particular percentage of thc - hemp can be cultivated, over time, to become recreational grade - but honestly, it would not be worth the bother since the Reagan-era WoD spurred so many hybrids geared toward that end of the market. if someone planted hemp together with recreational-grade cannabis, they would pollinate the recreational grade and render it less valuable.

as noted here - hemp is part of the solution to many of the problems we face around the world. not the only one, by any means, but definitely important as part of a move toward more sustainable practices.

here's some hempformation from another thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2214498&mesg_id=2219845

[Iggo]

14. Let's outlaw divorce, too. (n/t)

[The Straight Story]

15. I have long stood up for the rights of others - smokers of tobacco and pot, but some here....

don't seem to care about freedom of choice - whether abortion or pot.

Why should I stand up for others having freedom of choice (like whether or not to go to a bar that allows smoking) when they don't really themselves actually care about freedom at all??

Don't want to smoke pot - don't. Don't want to smoke in a bar that allows it, ummm.... don't go there.

Pot and other such items all come down to your body, your choice - but that appears to only matter to some when it comes to abortion, outside of that folks think it is a bad idea.

[RainDog]

19. lol!!! 1700! n/t

[Tx4obama]

20. UNrec. Leave my ALCOHOL and TOBACCO alone !!!

If anything, there should be a petition to LOWER tobacco and alcohol taxes !!!

[RainDog]

24. gladly

and tell the prohibitionists to do the same with cannabis.

then we're square.

[RainDog]

25. now over 1800

ask any police officer if he or she would rather deal with alcohol use as a criminal issue or a health one. ask which is more cost effective.

Obama seems so intent upon upholding the status quo that he's willing to continue to incarcerate blacks and hispanics at rates far greater than whites for the same "crime." that's really shameful.