White House Dismisses Popular Marijuana Petitions

[DreamSmoker]

WASHINGTON, DC -- Late Friday night the White House issued a typical evasive rejection of the several marijuana legalization petitions that collected more signatures than any other issue on its "We the People" website. Even though recent polls show that more voters support marijuana legalization than approve of President Obama's job performance, the White House categorically dismissed the notion of reforming any laws, focusing its response on the possible harms of marijuana use instead of addressing the many harms of prohibition detailed in the petitions.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) represents police, prosecutors, judges, FBI/DEA agents and others who want to legalize and regulate drugs after fighting on the front lines of the war on drugs and learning firsthand that prohibition only serves to worsen addiction and violence.


"It's maddening that the administration wants to continue failed prohibition polices that do nothing to reduce drug use and succeed only in funneling billions of dollars into the pockets of the cartels and gangs that control the illegal market," said Franklin, who serves as executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a group of cops, judges and prosecutors who support legalizing and regulating drugs. "If the president and his advisers think they're being politically savvy by shying away from much-needed change to our drug policies, they're wrong.

http://copssaylegalize.blogspot.com/2011/10/white-house-dismisses-popular-marijuana.html?m=1

[RainDog]

1. k&r n/t

[Autumn]

2. They do dismiss a lot that the people want.

Not too cool.

[Uncle Joe]

22. I believe they're afraid of becoming too popular.

It's easier to support corporate supremacy over the people if you can govern a divided nation.

I don't remember which Republican, it might have been Bush the Least that said he would rather rule the nation at 51% than have a large mandate and represent 70+% of the American People.

[RKP5637]

3. Business as usual, what the people want is irrelevant. Yep, a real democracy in action. n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. How's that changiness working out for you?

I use Colbert's word 'cos this ain't change we can believe in.

[RKP5637]

11. 2012 is going to be very difficult for me. n/t

[Starbucks Anarchist]

36. When did he promise pot would be legalized?

[Cronus Protagonist]

48. His promises aren't worth the teleprompter they're displayed on

lol

[Starbucks Anarchist]

52. Ah, the RW "teleprompter" trick.

So you use right-wing framing while also not being able to prove that Obama ever promised he would legalize pot.

[Cronus Protagonist]

55. I can use whatever amuses

lol check my history before you start calling for the noose.

[Codeine]

53. "Changiness"? "Teleprompter"?

You're hitting all the best rightwing teabagger memes, aren't you?

[Cronus Protagonist]

56. Not at all. The best right wing memes are "You will be a millionaire someday"

And possibly the claim that "Less taxes means more jobs"... I merely used Colbert's word (not a right wing meme)and humorously mentioned the teleprompter. Don't get your knickers in a twist. This is just the internets. See my sig line for details.

[paulk]

5. should anyone be surprised?

[Exilednight]

6. A no brainer policy, yet the braind dead White House can't bother seeing what people want. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

7. La La La

[markpkessinger]

18. LOL! "The Obama Adminsitration Officially Supports ..."

... do I even need to finish that sentence? (Speaking of which, I'm surprised the person who posted that comment a couple of weeks ago ad nauseam in response to every post about the medical marijuana raids hasn't shown up on this thread yet!)

[Gregorian]

8. Is the president really owned by the corporations?

I don't smoke pot, but this is sort of a balance point for me. If Obama isn't for legalization of cannabis, I'm far more inclined to vote for another candidate (should we be so blessed) than not.

I don't like hypocrisy. And compared to alcohol and tobacco, which are both highly toxic, and or addictive, cannabis is just about as benign as water.

Big red ex for Obama on this one.

[RKP5637]

13. Obama is a wall street / corp. person, and big pharma is working on extracting

from pot what is beneficial for patients, reading between the lines. So, the WH is lining up big pharma to make huge profits off of extracted chemicals from pot and then sold for huge amounts $$$ via prescription. It's just one more in a series of ripoffs in good old USA. It's a F'ed up country in many many ways.

[Gregorian]

14. I don't think they're going to succeed.

I do know this. But they have been trying so long, it looks like they aren't succeeding.

I just hope that the OWS efforts continue to grow.

[B Calm]

9. 40 years ago I would have never had dreamed the marijuana prohibition would

still be going on in the year 2011. . Wow, what a fucking backwards country we live in!

[RainDog]

10. Dr. Lester Grinspoon thought the same thing

He set out to prove the harm of cannabis as a professor at Harvard back in the day because so many students were using it.

He couldn't find any.

Then his son was dx'd with leukemia. His son puked his guts out. Someone told Grinspoon about the benefits of cannabis but he didn't want to use it because it was illegal and he, like most all of us, are law-abiding citizens.

But his wife was a little less inclined to give a fuck what the prohibitionists said when her son was suffering. So she went to the local HIGH SCHOOL and got some cannabis for her son to smoke before his treatment.

The difference would be called a miracle by the religious. The son did his treatment session and asked to stop for a subway sandwich on the way home - while before, they would race home to be there for the time when he would start puking. Dr. Grinspoon told the treating physician what they were doing. That doctor told him and his wife to bring their son into the hospital so he could smoke there, rather than out in the car, because that doctor wanted to see... and this reality is why so many doctors support the use of medical marijuana for cancer patients.

Interestingly, marinol doesn't have the same effect (the synthetic pill.) Smoked (or now, vaporized, with the removal of most all particulants) marijuana delivers the health benefit to the patient immediately.

If one of Obama's children got leukemia, I wonder if he would let them puke and waste away or if he would seek out the most effective way of relieving their pain and suffering? If he would let them suffer - well, that's sort of what's happening at a national level, too.

[Blue_In_AK]

12. It's bullshit,

but I'll just go on ignoring his opinions like I have every president's over the past 44 years. They're all idiots on this subject.

[Fumesucker]

16. I disagree...

They're hypocritical, cynical serial liars on this subject.

The exceptions to this rule are all considered.. well Kookinich and Pault**d are two of the kinder names.

[Occulus]

28. "hypocritical, cynical serial liars"

:thumbsup:

[mdmc]

42. 1

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Really, Gil? You're not going to be able to "arrest your way out" of the "pot problem"?

It must be EXTREMELY furrrstratin' to the lawn order folks that they can't just stick all- what is it, 90 Million Americans who smoke pot?- in prison.

OH, IF ONLY WE COULD!!!!! :cry:

[krabigirl]

26. lol. i agree with you. I am sure they would if they could!

[NorthCarolina]

17. Of course, and here's why

From Wikipedia:

In 2006, $68,747,203,000 was spent on corrections.

and we all know about the Privatized Prison Industry in America

That kind of money buys a lot of friends in DC, and the White House is certainly no exception. Hell, Obama has even admitted to getting high himself, and odds are he likely still may, but you don't say no to payola on a grand scale. Particularly when you're up for reelection. Of course, the high incarceration rate also helps to keep the unemployment numbers lower than they would likely be without it, so it's far too advantageous of a system for him to back changes to a system that works so well. If nothing else, the response from the White House clearly showed that at a minimum MJ should be removed from schedule 1 status...unless they plan to add alcohol and tobacco TO schedule 1 status as well...which I doubt. Politics as usual, policy is not dictated by what the people want, it's dictated SOLELY by what pays the best dividends, and that's the bottom line. It's always that way.

[DreamSmoker]

19. This is the White House saying .. Screw You all.. End of Conversation..

Backed by the the Lies used back in Nixon's days..
Hell if thats all this Government has on Cannabis?? It match's the Do NOthing Congress on just about everything else..
Oh and thank you President Obama for the spin job on this issue..
You led so many down the road of hope..
Instead they all got a silent screw you..

[_ed_]

20. Obama is a massive hypocrite and a corporate tool

So it was ok for him to smoke weed as a youth just to get high, but now it's unacceptable that med. marijuana is being sold in CA?

Zero respect for this man. Zero.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

24. +1 googool n/t

[Raksha]

32. +1000

[Tsiyu]

23. We talked about this last night

He is not listening to what the American people are telling him.

Some friends assure me that after he wins in 2012 we will have legalization.

I say, he could insure a win by making legalization a part of his 2012 platform. Everybody and their cousin's brother would register to vote for that issue.

It's one for the People, instead of the 1%, AND it would give the economy a boost in a great many ways....

But my pals say the Righties would just use it against him, say he's "soft on drugs."

I say, So what? The American people will mostly just tell the Righties to shut their pieholes.

Also, some of the biggest dealers I've known have been Republicans. They like the cannabis, too...

[krabigirl]

25. not sure why people expected anything different. They love and are the status quo.

why would they want anything to change? too much $$$$ to be made from continuing the BS. And they wonder why people don't approve of the job they are doing? Seriously, why bother with petitions, etc. It's just data mining for them. Change on this issue will have to come from the states. Eventually, if nearly all states either legalize, decriminalize, or legalize for medical use, the idiots in the federal government will have to face the music. (or not..)

[DreamSmoker]

27. Government won't budge after 40 years of Bullpucky

I have been in this for over 40 years...
This Government has not even budged in all that time..
It still uses the very same lame excuses used by President Nixon to date to back its position..

Here.... Look and read for yourselves...

White House responds to marijuana legalization
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/30/white-house-responds-to-marijuana-legalization-petition/

[Hatchling]

29. The smoking gun?

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.

Which leads me to suspect that any MJ substance processed by Big Pharma to be sod for big bucks is A-OK but any agricultural production is going to continue to be "anti-Amurican". Never mind that if MJ were legal then Industrial hemp would also be legal and we sure wouldn't want to wish that on our struggling economy, would we?

[RainDog]

33. exactly. you have to pay attention to the word contortion

this statement ignores the reality that vaporizing removes most all particulants and that doctors and others who work in this medical field (of course there are outliers) find that the issue of inhalation is really inconsequential compared to the benefits for cancer patients - doctors with long histories dealing with cancer and medical marijuana are on record saying this.

pharmas have been trying to play a catch-up game to whole plant cannabis. they thought they could isolate and synthesize just one cannabinoid and get around the medical reality - but the medical reality is that the whole plant has cannabinoids that work together.

AND

beyond the issue of medical marijuana - it's really not the govt's business to tell people if they may inhale cannabis or cigarettes or incense or steaming water or perfume... and on and on.

it's just repulsive to see Obama demonstrate how regressive he is - how much he favors power over people.

Cannabis laws are some of the most racist and classist in this nation in their application, and always have been. Cannabis laws are anti-science. And THIS is what Obama is upholding.

[formercia]

30. How are we going to have access in Latin America

if we don't have the War on Drugs as an excuse? How are we going to co-op all of those Latin American officials without all of the Money flying around from both sides. Do you think the Latinos are going to put up with a bunch of Gringos trying to tell them how to run their Countries if there wasn't any Money in it. The WAR on Drugs goes away, so do the Gringos.

[Danascot]

44. President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia

... made waves a few days ago when he said that legalizing “soft” drugs, such as marijuana, “could be a solution, only if everybody does it at the same time.”

http://univisionnews.tumblr.com/post/12033532806/analysis-are-calderon-and-santos-serious-about

[Raksha]

31. K & R

[DreamSmoker]

34. Here is more to add

This is what the White house responded to.. Other wise you and I would not of heard anything at all as a response to what the Feds Pulled..



Although most of the nine signatories on a Friday letter to the White House were California Democrats -- including Reps. Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, Lynn Woolsey and Sam Farr -- the group also contained a California Republican, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, who is an outspoken medical marijuana advocate, and a Tennessee Democrat, Rep. Steve Cohen.

"We write to express our concern with the recent activity by the Department of Justice against legitimate medical cannabis dispensaries in California that are operating legally under state law," the lawmakers said.

Federal prosecutors targeted medical marijuana dispensary owners in California on Oct. 7, vowing to shutter state-licensed businesses and threatening landlords with property seizures for violating federal drug laws. Now these House members are pushing back.

"It is our strong position that local and state governments must be allowed to develop, implement and enforce their own public health laws with regard to medical cannabis," the letter stated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/medical-marijuana-crackdown-house-representatives-letter_n_1065354.html?ref=politics

[Starbucks Anarchist]

35. I'm completely pro-legalization, but the attention paid to this issue is a bit much.

I find it a bit sad that this issue seems to be more important to some people than universal health care, repealing corporate personhood, or any of a wide variety of issues that affect far more people.

Yes, putting people in jail for smoking pot is an enormous travesty and legalizing pot would help stimulate the economy, but I really have to question the mindset of people for whom this issue takes precedence over everything else.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

37. No, you don't have to question our mindset. You actively choose to.

I get it. You don't give a damn about Obama's stance on marijuana. I do. You don't get to pick how important various issues are; those issues eventually make themselves known, no scheduling or prioritizing required.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

39. Did you miss the part where I said I'm completely pro-legalization?

Which certainly implies that I strongly disagree with Obama's anti-legalization stance.

But hey, if you want to make this your number-one issue, go ahead. If I was given the choice between universal health care and pot legalization, I'm going with the former, no doubt about it.

Of all the problems we're facing, legalizing pot -- while completely valid and correct -- still doesn't rank at the top of my list.

[Uncle Joe]

38. Consider that corporate personhood is a Hydra; with multiple heads, this is one of them,

It's all tied together in one big package

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernaean_Hydra

....and yes I'm speaking of the Hydra.

[DreamSmoker]

40. The US Department of Justice Releases their 2011 Budget Requests

The FBI would like to spend some $91 million of their $4.5 billion dollar budget on drug crimes. It is impossible to identify exactly how much of this requested budget will be solely devoted to marijuana. All illegal drugs are lumped together. Some will be spent on cocaine, meth-amphetamine and others, but we know that the majority of this budget will be spent on the number-one choice of illicit substances. Most of the 4 billion, 357 million, 129 thousand dollars of your money will be spent by the Federal Agents of the United States of America to persecute drug users. When it is all down in black and white it looks like the prohibition of cannabis use for American adults is really a jobs program for law enforcement. Maybe that explains why the police are compelled to let lawmakers know they are against cannabis law reform.


http://stash.norml.org/the-us-department-of-justice-releases-their-2011-budget-requests

[Starbucks Anarchist]

43. Once again, I never said prohibition was good.

I completely agree that it should be legalized. So you can post links all you want, but my point still stands -- this is not my number-one issue, and I question people who put so much emphasis on it above all other issues.

[redqueen]

45. It's easier to see.

The BS about MJ has been beaten over people's heads for decades. So everyone has had a long, long time to realize it's all BS.

The BS about healthcare etc has only been pulled out a few times and hammered on, so people aren't so sure about it. If there was a constant noise made about healthcare and how bad it is to have a non-profit system, then I imagine more people would have figured out it's a load of BS and more would be hammering on the WH about it. As it is, though, this is the issue that people already know is BS without having to be told.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

51. It's called a discussion board, not an echo chamber.

And if people didn't keep assuming I was against legalization (when I have posted otherwise several times already), I wouldn't have to correct them.

I'm sorry if that upsets you so much. Maybe you should light up a joint.

[RainDog]

47. why do you assume that people who pay attention to this issue don't care about others as well?

as far as my political view - this issue or a host of others are not going to cause me to not vote for the lesser of two evils when the other choice produces even more anti-science, pro-theocracy, anti-women,minorities, gblt rights, anti-health care, and pro-corporate system. I don't want republicans choosing judges or exercising more power than they already have. Until there are viable alternatives, I vote to keep one group out of power.

If you want to imply that anyone who has an opinion on this issue means this issue is the only important one - well, that's merely your assumption and not in any way a reflection of reality.

However, the reality is that this issue is a microcosm of issues of corporate vs. people power, of racism, of anti-science propaganda that further erodes confidence in the ability of the federal govt to correct its abuses of power and of the need to face reality in order to generate revenue and not waste money on failed policy.

As of 2006, cannabis was (and remains) the largest cash crop in the U.S. Jon Gettman's excellent study indicates what a HUGE economic issue this is for agriculture and for states that need to raise revenue to provide for local services, for example.

http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/intro.html

Using conservative price estimates derived from federal surveys, domestic marijuana production has a value of $35.8 billion, more than corn and wheat combined, easily making it America’s largest and most lucrative cash crop.

Based on production estimates derived from marijuana eradication efforts from 2003 to 2005 marijuana is the top cash crop in 12 states, one of the top 3 cash crops in 30 states, and one of the top 5 cash crops in 39 states. The domestic marijuana crop is larger than Cotton in Alabama, larger than Grapes, Vegetables and Hay combined in California, larger than Peanuts in Georgia, larger than Tobacco in both South Carolina and North Carolina, larger than Hay, Tobacco, Corn and Soybeans combined in Kentucky, and larger than the top ten crops combined (Soybeans, Hay, Cotton, Corn, Tobacco, Vegetables, Wheat, Cottonseed, Sorghum and Apples) in Tennessee.

Illicit marijuana cultivation provide considerable unreported revenue for growers without corresponding tax obligations to compensate the public for the social and fiscal costs related to marijuana use.

As America’s federal, state, and local governments strive to fund important services such as transportation, education, law enforcement and homeland security untaxed and unregulated domestic marijuana cultivation and distribution remains both an increasing challenge to policymakers and an untapped source of revenue for legislatures.

So, do you really think agricultural issues and tax revenue are not important issues for the overall economics of American society?

Prohibition has pushed cannabis cultivation indoors and the result is enough green house gas emissions to equal an additional 3 million cars.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/04/11/11greenwire-study-pot-growers-inhale-1-of-us-electricity-e-62219.html

Indoor marijuana cultivation consumes enough electricity to power 2 million average-sized U.S. homes, which corresponds to about 1 percent of national power consumption, according to a study by a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

At the same time, continued prohibition of cannabis for personal use continues prohibition of hemp for agricultural and industrial use.

50% of the world's pesticides are used on cotton and 35% of those pesticides are used in the United States. Hemp cloth can replace cotton and provides better UV protection as well. Hemp does not have the natural enemies that attack cotton and, therefore, does not require this use of pesticides.

http://www.panna.org/resources/cotton

Hemp can yield 3-8 dry tons of fiber per acre. This is four times what an average forest can yield. Hemp can displace wood fiber and save forests for watershed, wildlife habitat, recreation and oxygen production, carbon sequestration (reduces global warming), and other values.

Hemp is a superior product for paper, may be and is currently being used as a building material and insulation and, again, is far better, ecologically, than the products it can replace.

Hemp is one of the faster-growing biomasses known - producing up to 25 tonnes of dry matter per hectare per year.

Hempseed is a valuable edible. The amino acid profile is more complete than more common sources of proteins such as meat, milk, eggs and soy. Feeding this planet is a MAJOR issue. Hemp is a part of the solution to this dilemma as well.

This plant, which requires few pesticides, is a source of biodiesel and alcohol fuel that is clean burning and non-toxic.

Yet this plant, with little to no psychoactive qualities, is lumped in with cannabis grown for medical and recreational uses. Ron Paul did bring a bill for Hemp Legalization to the House in 2011 and it had 22 signators. But hemp cultivation requires approval from the DEA - for a substance that is not, in any way, useful as a psychoactive substance. At least 4 states have legalized hemp cultivation but they require approval from the DEA.

THIS is the sort of thing that makes this issue one of the most important - the abuse of power from one agency to hinder the progress of the entire agricultural sector of the U.S. I don't know about you, but I think this is as important as it gets when the issues this prohibition places on hemp production impacts food supply, massive, world-scale pollution, world-scale reduction of global greenhouse emissions and a change in mindset, basically, that looks at how societies may benefit from a move to policy that is based upon the well being of its people and the land, rather than a few who benefit from laws grounded in nothing other than favoritism toward one group rather than another.

Because the reality is that the race-baiting used to criminalize all cannabis was a way for Du Pont to eliminate competition for nylon when it came on to the market.

To fail to see the implications of this history and its current harm to society is to remain short-sighted about the way in which corporations and bureacracies abuse power and refuse to give up that power in spite of the massive harm they do to a society.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

50. I never said all of them didn't care about anything else.

As I've stated before, I am completely pro-legalization, so obviously that doesn't mean that I don't care about other issues or that I put pot legalization at the top of my list.

I was referring to a subset of the pro-legalization people who in fact do think that way. It's certainly not limited to some DUers, either. If you are not that type of person (and I don't believe you are), then you aren't part of the group I was referring to.

I'm well aware of the benefits of legalization along with the sordid racist history of prohibition. But too often, whether on DU or in the real world, I see *some* pro-legalization people place way too much emphasis on the issue, and not all of them are as eloquent or as informed as you are. There is no shame in admitting that a small handful of the pro-legalization people simply just want to get high without going to jail or paying exorbitant prices -- and I don't think there's anything wrong with that, per se, but it annoys me when this subset of people act like this is the most compelling issue facing us. That is where my annoyance lies.

Besides, it's generally not difficult to obtain pot and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to avoid getting caught. As I've said before, I am totally in favor of legalization, but I am not willing to place the issue at the top of my list. Legalizing pot, which is the right thing to do, is not a magic cure-all for all the problems facing us, as some people (not you) would have us believe.

[RainDog]

57. maybe, on message boards, it's easier to reply to threads of this sort?

and, as Red Queen said, this issue is clearly an abuse of power - it's fairly easy to see how this is bad policy compared to other substances by simply looking at history.

In addition, this issue is extremely important in CO and CA for 2012 with legalization on the ballot - this would be a major turning point and start the full on confrontation between state v. federal power on this issue - which is what has to happen to stop the federal assault on people who vote, who use direct democracy to change bad laws.

I don't want to put myself in a position in which I judge the motivations of others on this issue. I mean, someone here thinks I'm an apologist for the Obama administration on this issue simply b/c I wrote about the way an issue was reported without claiming I knew exactly what had happened. LOL.

You know, I ignore threads about lots of things - about celebrities and fawning over pols because of their looks - But I'm not going to assume those who post those threads are only interested in those things, tho - maybe they are, but I don't have the knowledge about their lives to make that determination.

Different people can make a difference by putting time into understanding one issue or another and then sharing that information with the rest of us. I appreciate those who take this time and then explain things in a way I can understand. With complex issues, that can be hard to do, and I look to people who work at non-profit research and journalism outlets to help me.

Back in the 1930s, this wasn't the most important issue either. Economic policies were harming our nation. Financiers had abused the system via lack of regulation and brought about a depression. Yet it was important then for the same reasons it's important now and I would not have minded one bit if a lot of different people had spoken out to stop a bad law when it started.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

58. You make some good points.

As I said before, some of the more vocal pro-legalization people here and elsewhere don't share your eloquence and are unable to put the issue in a broader perspective as well as you can. Instead, what it comes off as (with that specific group of people) is, "I want to get high and that's all I care about." Fortunately, people like you are able to put the issue in perspective without letting other issues fall by the wayside.

And I will gladly sign any petition, vote for any ballot measure, etc., to legalize pot because it makes sense on its face, so there's very little (if any) substantive disagreement between us on this issue.

[RainDog]

60. yeah, I know you're one of the good guys :)

and I knew you were going to get blasted for what you said - and I know there are others who share your frustration.

what I've seen over the years is that being vocal (or textual) about an issue is what changes minds. education is important. sometimes threads are started because of need to vent, but then can become educational opportunities by noting the bigger picture. ;)

[Starbucks Anarchist]

61. Thanks.

You too. :toast:

Or maybe this would be more appropriate. :smoke: ;)

[RainDog]

62. people always assume I'm a big toker

but that's not the reality. it's easier to write about something when it's not so personal. same with abortion. I'm never going to have an abortion- and I had two kids by choice - but I support the rights of others to have a choice, too. same with rights for gblt friends and neighbors. same with rights for minorities.

however, I DO have a lot of friends who are jazz musicians, and you know they're the reason for all the problems in this world, according to that jazz-hating wart on the ass of humanity leader of prohibition Harry J. Anslinger.

Here's one of Harry Anslinger's big rationales for prohibition:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

"Jazz entertainers are neither fish nor fowl. They do not get the million-dollar protection Hollywood and Broadway can afford for their stars who have become addicted - and there are many more than will ever be revealed. Perhaps this is because jazz, once considered a decadent kind of music, has only token respectability. Jazz grew up next door to crime, so to speak..."

Louis Armstrong outlived Anslinger and has contributed far more to this world than that racist prohibitionist ever did. Yet Armstrong was arrested - a man who worked so hard he was able to overcome the most severe hardships to become one of the most revered musical artists in American history - the person credited with the invention of the jazz solo as we know it. Who else did Anslinger hate?

Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonius Monk, Count Basie, Jimmy Dorsey, Duke Ellington, Lionel Hampton and Cab Calloway

From the early 1930s until the end of the 1940s, Anslinger's DEA compiled dossiers on these "dangerous criminals." The reality is that the DEA is the danger to our society in regard to this issue. It was then and it is now. And that's why I think this issue is worth talking about.

[Number23]

54. Right there with you, SA

I mentioned before that some folks here act like smoking pot should be in the Bill of Rights. It's nothing short of bizarre.

[Irishonly]

63. Not really

I agree there are many issues facing the country. Most people responding to the medical marijuana threads are also responding to many other issues. What happened in CA was wrong and it affects sick people. BTW, a lot of medical users do not directly smoke it.

[dreamnightwind]

41. The response's author is a former police chief

from the White House statement:

"As a former police chief..."

...

Gil Kerlikowske is Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy

----------------------------------------

So a former police chief is Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

A police chief is geared towards eliminating or at least reducing drug use, not evaluating whether a substance should be legal or not. Why is a former police chief writing this response, or given any responsibility in this decision?

Perhaps the way to move forward on this issue is by a fairness argument. Insist that marijuana be dealt with in a manner consistent to the way alcohol and nicotine are dealt with, and any differences in the way they're dealt with must be based on differences in the substance's effects.

We all know it is far safer than alcohol or nicotine.

They can always make an argument that there is something wrong with it. Smoking anything has some harmful effects. Also some neurolgical effects. So they can always fall back on this argument, unless we frame it as one of perspective and fairness.

This whole thing seriously pisses me off.

[wildbilln864]

49. kick! eom

[Odin2005]

59. "Fierce Advocate" strikes again.