PDA

View Full Version : New Federal Marijuana Policy



Goldwater
10-19-2009, 12:04 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal drug agents won't pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law.

The guidelines to be issued by the department do, however, make it clear that agents will go after people whose marijuana distribution goes beyond what is permitted under state law or use medical marijuana as a cover for other crimes, the officials said.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091019/D9BE5D2G0.html
Top story on Drudge so I'm sure some of you know by now.
What do you think?

Gingersnap
10-19-2009, 12:29 PM
I think they should stop worrying about what people do with weeds. :rolleyes:

noonwitch
10-19-2009, 12:39 PM
When so many states have now voted for medical marijuana, it is clear that this is what the public wants, at least in those states. It's expensive and stupid for the federal government to intervene in those situations. They can still bust people bringing it in illegally from outside this country, and they can still bust the punks on the corner who are smoking it in public, at least for the time being.


I'm for all-out legalization, with the appropriate taxation and age restrictions that apply to alcohol.

Goldwater
10-19-2009, 12:41 PM
When so many states have now voted for medical marijuana, it is clear that this is what the public wants, at least in those states. It's expensive and stupid for the federal government to intervene in those situations. They can still bust people bringing it in illegally from outside this country, and they can still bust the punks on the corner who are smoking it in public, at least for the time being.

The swat raids and police clamping on any medicinal drugs was getting a bit much in California, Reason Magazine was writing on it constantly.

lacarnut
10-19-2009, 02:36 PM
With the Federal government/insurance companies proposing guidelines on health care, this seems like it sends the wrong message. It's okay to smoke weed but not cigs. A little contradiction there. Well, the only way up for a cig smoker is to cigars. Now, from weed, it is to cocaine, heroin, etc.

Gingersnap
10-19-2009, 03:00 PM
With the Federal government/insurance companies proposing guidelines on health care, this seems like it sends the wrong message. It's okay to smoke weed but not cigs. A little contradiction there. Well, the only way up for a cig smoker is to cigars. Now, from weed, it is to cocaine, heroin, etc.

I have never personally known a cigar smoker who did so because he just didn't get enough of a "kick" out of Camels.

How about we quit worrying about all of the interesting things people put in their own bodies voluntarily?

lacarnut
10-19-2009, 03:21 PM
I have never personally known a cigar smoker who did so because he just didn't get enough of a "kick" out of Camels.

How about we quit worrying about all of the interesting things people put in their own bodies voluntarily?

Two of my stepsons elevated their pot smoking to cocaine, heroin and pills though. One is dead and the other is barely living if that's what you call it. Legalization will increase usage in my opinion. Is that what you want?

Like I said, it is rather ironic that the government looks down on smokers but weed is okay.

xavierob82
10-19-2009, 03:35 PM
Two of my stepsons elevated their pot smoking to cocaine, heroin and pills though. One is dead and the other is barely living if that's what you call it. Legalization will increase usage in my opinion. Is that what you want?

Like I said, it is rather ironic that the government looks down on smokers but weed is okay.


Three close friends of mine from college who smoked pot: 2 of them have top secret security clearances and make big $$$ working in the defense industry, and the other one is almost finished with her masters at G-dub.

Marijuana is a plant. And safer than cigarettes. And safer than alchohol. The " gateway drug" theory is ludicrous. Your stepsons would have gotten into crack and heroin regardless.

Goldwater
10-19-2009, 03:36 PM
Like I said, it is rather ironic that the government looks down on smokers but weed is okay.

I don't think they've been particularly keen on both until a change in stance on tobacco and now weed lately. Smoking used to be great and encouraged, but the science got up to speed and advised against it, there isn't as much of a case in this respect against weed. However there is the argument you used lacarnut, and I'm sorry to hear that, I have no idea if the gateway drug situation happens a lot or not.

lacarnut
10-19-2009, 03:49 PM
Three close friends of mine from college who smoked pot: 2 of them have top secret security clearances and make big $$$ working in the defense industry, and the other one is almost finished with her masters at G-dub.

Marijuana is a plant. And safer than cigarettes. And safer than alchohol. The " gateway drug" theory is ludicrous. Your stepsons would have gotten into crack and heroin regardless.

Most jobs require the pee test. So I call your little story minus 1 on the bouncy scale.

Tobacco leaves are a plant also, you idiot.

What crystal ball tells you that weed is not a gateway drug. What have you been smoking or putting up your nose. Druggie.

Gingersnap
10-19-2009, 04:03 PM
Two of my stepsons elevated their pot smoking to cocaine, heroin and pills though. One is dead and the other is barely living if that's what you call it. Legalization will increase usage in my opinion. Is that what you want?

Like I said, it is rather ironic that the government looks down on smokers but weed is okay.

And every heroin addict in the U.S.A. has probably had a cup of coffee and oral sex. So what? I'm sorry that your relatives have had bad experiences with drugs. Some of my relatives have come to bad ends without any drug or alcohol involvement at all.

I have no use for addicts but we clearly don't get fewer addicts through prohibition - we just get smarter addicts.

noonwitch
10-19-2009, 04:04 PM
Most jobs require the pee test. So I call your little story minus 1 on the bouncy scale.

Tobacco leaves are a plant also, you idiot.

What crystal ball tells you that weed is not a gateway drug. What have you been smoking or putting up your nose. Druggie.




For a job interview type of drug test, one can buy various products to mask the THC. As the person knows usually what day he or she is having the screen done, they can prepare accordingly. I know someone who once worked for a military contractor, and she swore by some product she bought at the head shop. She never tested positive (with ongoing random screens), and she is a big pot head, so I suppose it worked. I think it's called Quick Clean or something like that.

If one is just suddenly sent for a drug screen, or is doing so for courts or probation officers, there is frequently no warning ahead of time, thus the positive result.

rjas77
10-19-2009, 04:14 PM
[quote]Marijuana is a plant. And safer than cigarettes. And safer than alchohol. The " gateway drug" theory is ludicrous. Your stepsons would have gotten into crack and heroin regardless.

Well..Tobacco is a plant too..but I will cede your point on alcohol

aerojarod
10-19-2009, 04:48 PM
The states and feds could make better use of their anti-drug funds by supporting rehab programs for those who have drug abuse problems. Just like alcohol and tobacco there are those that are able to socially enjoy said products, and those who cannot. We can decriminalize drugs and still prohibit their use for certain occupations, like bing a commercial pilot, for instance.

Decriminalize possession. Let corporations grow/produce them. Tax the shit out of it. Establish age restrictions of purchase. Mandate drug testing for high-risk occupations.

lacarnut
10-19-2009, 04:53 PM
And every heroin addict in the U.S.A. has probably had a cup of coffee and oral sex. So what? I'm sorry that your relatives have had bad experiences with drugs. Some of my relatives have come to bad ends without any drug or alcohol involvement at all.

I have no use for addicts but we clearly don't get fewer addicts through prohibition - we just get smarter addicts.

I would bet that most heroin addicts in the US started out with a gateway drug like weed. That's what. Since CA has one of the highest unemployment and pot smokers in the US, you don't think there could be a correlation there.

You have any proof that you do not get fewer addicts through prohibition of pot smokers.

xavierob82
10-19-2009, 05:19 PM
Most jobs require the pee test. So I call your little story minus 1 on the bouncy scale.

Tobacco leaves are a plant also, you idiot.

What crystal ball tells you that weed is not a gateway drug. What have you been smoking or putting up your nose. Druggie.



Marijuana only stays in your system 30 days max, dumbass. Excluding alcohol and an occasional cigarette, I don't do drugs. Don't confuse me with your moronic sons.

I personally never touched the stuff, but smoking pot was almost like a rite-of-passage at my alma mater. I'm not familiar with the actual stats, but from I've seen personally, most people who try pot do it a few times, mainly during their HS or college years, and then cease. Considering that many casual potsmokers I knew in college now have jobs and are relatively successful, only proves one thing: people who abuse drugs are, for a lack of a better word, just stupid. Even if we lived in a world where narcotics and alcohol never existed, these dolts would find some other way to fuck themselves up. We'd be hearing the "horrors" of young teens being addicted to chocolate, candy, or some other ridiculous nonsense. :rolleyes:

I applaud the Obama Administration's decision. It's about time we took steps--albeit baby steps--in ceasing this ridiculous war on drugs once and for all.

Gingersnap
10-19-2009, 05:32 PM
I would bet that most heroin addicts in the US started out with a gateway drug like weed. That's what. Since CA has one of the highest unemployment and pot smokers in the US, you don't think there could be a correlation there.

You have any proof that you do not get fewer addicts through prohibition of pot smokers.

I think Kali is the welfare state to end all welfare states and that every imaginable kind of loser population is overrepresented there.

The only correlation between pot-smoking and heroin addiction is the purchase experience. You buy your weed from a dealer and it's likely your dealer will attempt to interest you in something more expensive or addictive. Pretty much the same way that your local grocer will get you in the store with the BOGO canned peas offer but will try mightily to sell you on the cupcakes, Lucky Charms, and jumbo shrimp while you're in there.

Detach the pot purchase experience from the heroin purchase experience and I doubt that many people would be moved to seek out drug dealers just to try heroin.

Prohibition never works. It creates black markets and unnecessarily glamorizes criminal behavior. It fuels crime, criminals, and violence against perfectly innocent people. It also costs a bundle.

As it stands right now, every single American who has even had a fleeting interest in trying pot has done so and done it cheaply and easily and yet the vast majority of people either try it and don't like it or they use it until they have to get a real job and then lose interest in it. Every single person I know under 60 has tried weed but I only know one person who still smokes it and he's a paranoid IT guy who is unemployable due to craziness. He'd probably be even crazier without the dope.

lacarnut
10-19-2009, 05:47 PM
Marijuana only stays in your system 30 days max, dumbass. Excluding alcohol and an occasional cigarette, I don't do drugs. Don't confuse me with your moronic sons.

I personally never touched the stuff, but smoking pot was almost like a rite-of-passage at my alma mater. I'm not familiar with the actual stats, but from I've seen personally, most people who try pot do it a few times, mainly during their HS or college years, and then cease. Considering that many casual potsmokers I knew in college now have jobs and are relatively successful, only proves one thing: people who abuse drugs are, for a lack of a better word, just stupid. Even if we lived in a world where narcotics and alcohol never existed, these dolts would find some other way to fuck themselves up. We'd be hearing the "horrors" of young teens being addicted to chocolate, candy, or some other ridiculous nonsense. :rolleyes:

I applaud the Obama Administration's decision. It's about time we took steps--albeit baby steps--in ceasing this ridiculous war on drugs once and for all.

Yep, many quit out of college. Then, when they are making more money, step up to cocaine. They have to sell that shit to those that are making big bucks. Moron, you lie.

You are too stupid to realize that tobacco is a plant also. Just what we need is legalization of all drugs so that a fool like you can participate. Let's tax it so the government can create thousands of government union employees. More revenues so that the government can piss it away and make liberals like you happy.

lacarnut
10-19-2009, 06:10 PM
Prohibition never works. It creates black markets and unnecessarily glamorizes criminal behavior. It fuels crime, criminals, and violence against perfectly innocent people. It also costs a bundle.

As it stands right now, every single American who has even had a fleeting interest in trying pot has done so and done it cheaply and easily and yet the vast majority of people either try it and don't like it or they use it until they have to get a real job and then lose interest in it. Every single person I know under 60 has tried weed but I only know one person who still smokes it and he's a paranoid IT guy who is unemployable due to craziness. He'd probably be even crazier without the dope.

Here is where I think your argument in favor of legalization falls flat. I agree that most ADULT single Americans that have had an interest in smoking pot have already done so. What about juveniles who see that the government and adults have given the go ahead to smoke pot. I think it sends the wrong message to kids that if it okay for adults, it okay for us and will lead to increased usage by teenagers.

BTW, CA has indicated that it wants to tax weed at 30%. Legalization will dramatically increase the present cost. If you do not think that will create a black market, you are dreaming. Legalization might cause more crime and violence between the drug dealers who pay the tax and the ones that do not. If I was a user, I would searching for the weed without tax. How about you? Besides, I though you Libertarians were against an expansion of the thousands of union governmental employees that would be required to administer the taxes and enforcement. Voluntary payment of taxes will not work for the drug sellers.

Rockntractor
10-19-2009, 08:05 PM
Weed is the least of our problems now. It doesn't even make the top 100 right now. Besides the more stoned liberals are the less likely they are to vote.

expat-pattaya
10-19-2009, 09:48 PM
Well, the subject comes up from time to time. I say - why stop at weed?

Prohibition has accomplished what? We STILL have people with drug problems. Those that do have few means of becoming normal again due to the fact their first interaction with the mainstream society is called a "felony arrest". Now we have someone who both has a drug problem AND a future career problem. Revolving door through rehabs, prison and eventually early death. Prohibition isn't working.

Add to that the huge costs with jailing users, trials, unproductive members of society, and the HUGE costs in crimes committed to pay for the expensive drugs. Plus, every town of Mayberry now has a SWAT team which "oops" smashes in the door of people who may or may not be involved in drugs. Plus, they feel it their right to steal personal property under the guise of the law (car/home/boat seizure) with no legal remedy available to Joe citizen.

Finally, we have a huge narco culture replete with violence and corruption in every state in the union. Yup. prohibition works wonders.

If it were me, I would legalize every drug except methamphetamine. For meth I would pass a death sentence for being caught with ANY amount of the drug. Meth is simply TOO addictive and destructive. Or legalize it too but the first time you do something weird and are arrested using it serve 20 years to make certain you are clean.

For the rest - let people do to themselves what they want. For those who want help - help them. Don't jail them. I doubt we would have any more addicts than we do already.

The result would be:

No more huge costly jails and judicial system
Less crime as the costs of the drugs plummet to less than alchohol
Potential for an addict to re-enter society if he cleans himself up
fewer police needed
our rights restored (no midnight raids and SWAT screwups)
No more narco gangs
We could actually control our borders if there wasn't the narcotics problem

I know, a difficult concept for some. Mmmm, Drugs are bad Mmmkaaaay? Yeah, I know.:cool:

fettpett
10-20-2009, 03:50 PM
Doesn't mater what a person is addicted to, if they have an addictive personality they will become addicted to something. Cigs, alcohol, pot, heroin, cocaine, video games, sex, and whatever else. Usually it is not the "thing" that the person becomes addicted to, it's their personality or whatever pyschobabble term you wanna use.

that being said there are drugs that are psychically addictive, crack, coke, heroin and others. Hemp is not addictive in it's basic form which most people use. it becomes a "Gateway" drug when it gets laced with another drug.

Edit: anyone can become addicted to anything, psychological addictions can be stronger than physical ones
and spelling errors

obx
10-22-2009, 12:17 PM
If it was legal tomorrow, the black market would not dry up untill the legal plants matured.
________
Interracial Lesbian (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/711/lesbian/videos/1)

Molon Labe
10-22-2009, 02:06 PM
The states and feds could make better use of their anti-drug funds by supporting rehab programs for those who have drug abuse problems. Just like alcohol and tobacco there are those that are able to socially enjoy said products, and those who cannot. We can decriminalize drugs and still prohibit their use for certain occupations, like bing a commercial pilot, for instance.

Decriminalize possession. Let corporations grow/produce them. Tax the shit out of it. Establish age restrictions of purchase. Mandate drug testing for high-risk occupations.


Wow. This is pretty much my take these days. I've pretty much gotten flamed before for suggesting most of this but it seems more people are seeing the drug war for what it really is. I'm not for taxing much of anything "sin" tax wise, but one battle at a time I guess.