Marijuana legalization? A White House rebuttal, finally

[Crunchy]

Same old shit really... i dont remember reading any talking points from the drug czar regarding prohibition and the funding of crime, i guess its easier to stick to the moral 'save the children' approach >.>

Marijuana legalization? A White House rebuttal, finally

 

 

By the Monitor's Editorial Board – Fri Mar 12, 4:53 pm ET

The Obama White House has finally laid out its most thorough, reasoned rebuttal to arguments for marijuana legalization – countering a campaign that is gaining alarming momentum at the state level.

The president’s tough position was delivered in early March by his “drug czar,” Gil Kerlikowske, in a private talk before police chiefs in California – which is ground zero for this debate.

“Marijuana legalization – for any purpose – is a nonstarter in the Obama administration,” said Mr. Kerlikowske, a former police chief himself.

 

It’s almost certain that California voters will be asked in a November ballot initiative whether to allow local governments to regulate and tax marijuana (similar to taxes on sales of alcohol). Other states are considering similar proposals, which are really a backdoor way to legalize pot.

(For a Monitor news story on the California ballot initiative, click here)

Thirteen states have decriminalized the use or possession of small amounts of marijuana, which is not the same as legalizing it. Selling it is still illegal except in states where it is used for medical purposes. And under federal law, any sort of marijuana use or sale is a criminal offense.

The drug czar’s remarks are worth notice for two reasons. First, they provide needed talking points for those who oppose legalization but who can’t seem to make their message resonate in the face of a well-financed, well-organized pro-marijuana effort. Second, they help clear up confusion about the White House policy on legalization.

When Attorney General Eric Holder announced last year that US law enforcement officials would neither raid nor prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries or those using them, states got mixed signals. Mr. Holder explained it as a matter of the best use of scarce federal law enforcement resources, which he didn’t want to expend in the now 14 states that have approved some use of medical marijuana.

 

But “a lot of people believe the administration is somewhat in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana,” says Scott Kirkland, police chief for El Cerrito, in the San Francisco Bay area. In California, the public, city council members, city managers, even police chiefs have “misinterpreted” the administration’s position, says Mr. Kirkland, the spokesman for marijuana issues for the California Police Chiefs Association.

The drug czar couldn’t have been more plain. On medical marijuana, which has strong public backing in opinion polls, the former Seattle police chief said that “science should determine what a medicine is, not popular vote.” As Kerlikowske pointed out, marijuana is harmful – and he has the studies to back it up. Read the footnotes in his speech; they’re sobering, especially No. 8.

 

(For a previous Monitor editorial on the perils of legalizing pot, click here)

Legalization supporters argue that no one has ever died from an overdose of this “soft” drug. But here’s what “science” has found so far: Smoking marijuana can result in dependence on the drug.

More than 30 percent of people who are 18 and over and who used marijuana in the past year are either dependent on the drug or abuse it – that is, they use it repeatedly under hazardous conditions or are imparied when they’re supposed to be interacting with others, such as at work. This is according to a 2004 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Pot is also associated with poor motor skills, cognitive impairment (i.e., affecting the ability to think, reason, and process information), and respiratory and mental illness.

The recent “Pentagon shooter,” John Patrick Bedell, was a heavy marijuana user. The disturbed young man’s psychiatrist told the Associated Press that marijuana made the symptoms of his mental illness more pronounced. Mr. Bedell’s brother, Jeffrey, told The Washington Post that marijuana made his brother’s thinking “more disordered” and that he had implored him to stop smoking pot, to no avail.

 

Kerlikowske also effectively knocked down the argument that regulating and taxing marijuana is a great way for states to make money in these deficit-dreary times. Indeed, NORML, the lead group in the legalization movement, is set to launch a digital ad campaign in Manhattan’s Times Square next week: “Money CAN grow on trees!”

It’s a claim that’s too good to be true, just as the exclamation point implies. Look at the nation’s experience with regulated alcohol. America collects nearly $15 billion a year in federal and state taxes from alcohol. But Kerlikowske says that covers less than 10 percent of the “social costs” related to healthcare, lost productivity, and law enforcement. And what about lost lives? Let’s not add marijuana to the mix of regulated substances.

 

“The costs of legalizing marijuana would outweigh any possible tax that could be levied,” Kerlikowske explains. In the United States, illegal drugs already cost an estimated $180 billion annually in social costs, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. That number would increase as marijuana became more widely and easily available.

The Dutch – so often praised by marijuana advocates – have had to greatly ratchet back the number of legal marijuana outlets because of crime, nuisance, and increased pot usage among youth. Los Angeles, too, now sees the need to scale back the number of private dispensaries of medical marijuana. Many California towns have looked at L.A. and are saying “no” to dispensaries.

 

The California Board of Equalization, which administers the state’s sales tax, estimates $1.4 billion of potential revenue from a marijuana tax. Found money? Its reasoning is based on either “a series of assumptions that are in some instances subject to tremendous uncertainty or in other cases not valid,” according to an independent study by the RAND Corporation.

What’s too bad about the drug czar’s speech is that it was made behind closed doors at a venue not accessible to the press, then quietly put on the administration’s website. Given the confusion over the message, the White House needs to be far more outspoken about this.

President Obama himself needs to get more involved than simply letting his drug czar reveal this critical stance below the radar. As a high-profile parent, he can help other parents who are struggling to prevent their children from going down the rabbit hole of drug use. If one message can resonate in this debate, it’s that America’s young people are most vulnerable to the threat of legalization.

 

They are particularly sensitive to the price of pot (and prices will come down if pot is legalized). They’re the most influenced by societal norms (and public approval is growing). And they’re the ones most heavily engaged in studying and learning – a process that pot smoking can impair.

Individuals who reach age 21 without using drugs are almost certain to never use them. But according to a study by a leading source on young people and drugs, Monitoring the Future, marijuana use among teens has increased in recent years, after a decade of decline. Teens perceive less risk in use – not surprising when states approve of it as medicine. Risk perception greatly influences drug use among young people.

 

The risks of marijuana – and the wisdom of knowing that joy and satisfaction are not found in a drug – are lessons that Mr. Obama could effectively teach the nation. But even so, it can’t stop there.

The momentum, for now, is with those who want to legalize marijuana. They have been generously financed by a few billionaires, including George Soros, and make strategic use of the Internet and media.

It will take clear-thinking parents, teachers, local officials, faith leaders, and law enforcement officers to convincingly articulate why the march to legalization must be stopped. They can, if they use the kinds of reasonable and fact-based arguments that the nation’s drug czar has just laid out.

(To read Gil Kerlikowske’s speech, click here.)

 

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100312/cm_csm/287142

 

Peace,

Crunchy

[mull]

As Kerlikowske pointed out, marijuana is harmful – and he has the studies to back it up. Read the footnotes in his speech; they’re sobering, especially No. 8.

 

http://ondcp.gov/news/speech10/030410_Chief.pdf

 

8 Moore and colleagues (2005) summed up the literature on respiratory illnesses and marijuana in the Journal of General Internal Medicine by stating that “the current literature of case reports and clinical samples suggests that marijuana-related respiratory problems may constitute a significant public health burden.” See Moore, B.A., et al, Respiratory effects of marijuana and tobacco use in a U.S. sample, Journal of General Internal Medicine 20(1):33-37, 2005. Also see Tashkin, D.P., Smoked marijuana as a cause of lung injury, Monaldi Archives for Chest Disease 63(2):93-100, 2005. Other evidence on the effect of marijuana on lung function and the respiratory system, and the link with mental illness, can be found in expert reviews offered by Hall W.D, and Pacula R.L. (2003), Cannabis use and dependence: Public health and public policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press., and Room, R., Fischer, B., Hall, W., Lenton, S., and Reuter, P. (2009), Cannabis Policy: Moving beyond stalemate, The Global Cannabis Commission Report, the Beckley Foundation. Room et al. write, “Cannabis use and psychotic symptoms are associated in general population surveys and the relationship persists after adjusting for confounders. The best evidence that these associations may be causal comes from longitudinal studies of large representative cohorts.” Also see Degenhardt, L. & Hall, W. (2006), Is cannabis a contributory cause of psychosis? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51: 556-565. A major study examining young people and, importantly, a subset of sibling pairs was released in February 2010 and concluded that marijuana use at a young age significantly increased the risk of psychosis in young adulthood. See McGrath, J., et al. (2010), Association between cannabis use and psychosis-related outcomes using sibling pair analysis in a cohort of young adults, Archives of General Psychiatry.

 

 

From the above article -

 

“Money CAN grow on trees!”

It’s a claim that’s too good to be true, just as the exclamation point implies. Look at the nation’s experience with regulated alcohol. America collects nearly $15 billion a year in federal and state taxes from alcohol. But Kerlikowske says that covers less than 10 percent of the “social costs” related to healthcare, lost productivity, and law enforcement. And what about lost lives? Let’s not add marijuana to the mix of regulated substances.

 

It's already far past alcohol simply as an unregulated product, therefore proving how harmless an herb it is!

Been waiting for this comparison.. why not tobacco I wonder (mega-deaths!)

 

Lies still sound the same coming from a different zar..

[Paladin]

Hey Crunchy. Fascinating article. Ta!

 

This is repeated from a Christian news outlet, which obviously biases the interpretation some. That said, the original speech which Mullaway references above is unequivocal.

 

For those following this, page 7 of the speech is pretty much the money shot. This is where the guts of the "Marijuana is harmful" references cited in the speech are detailed.

 

And it's a sad bloody story. It boils down to - smoking cannabis has impacts on your lungs, and the famous twins study that linked psychosis and adolescent cannabis use.

 

No doubt on the first point. That's why I vape. As for the second, it's incorrect to use the results this way. The old correlation vs causation chestnut.

 

Bloody disheartening to see this announcement being made on the back of such analysis.

 

Some points made, I can agree with. Cannabis can impair academic performance, because it is harder to take in information and absorb it while under the influence. Well, obviously. But - how about alcohol?

[Kiweed]

It is the OVERSIZED dithering government that has overgrown its original intention of serving the people that needs to be criminalised.

 

Nothing is going to bring about change without some major event.

 

It is my contention fellow stoners that the total bankrupcy of the US Treasury will be how the final collapse of the American empire / Western Ally Nations will unfold.

 

Like what happened in Russia where Commumism collapsed not long after the end of the Berlin Wall we will see American policy on everything be dismantled at a blistering pace....except BIGGER.

 

I can see the day when Canberra is bulldozed back into the earth from where it sprung, that day can not come soon enuf IMVHO.

[Luke Skywalker]

It has been and will continue to be a long hard slog getting 80 years of prohibitionary thought and mental straightjackets from the public mind. The inroads made in the last 10 years or so do give me hope for the future though.

[Paladin]

I'm with you, Luke. The wheels grind slow yet exceeding fine.

 

The thing is, in the USA, the states are taking the lead - not the feds.

 

I was kinda hoping for a second-term surprise from Obama, though.

[Crunchy]

I'm with you, Luke. The wheels grind slow yet exceeding fine.

 

The thing is, in the USA, the states are taking the lead - not the feds.

 

I was kinda hoping for a second-term surprise from Obama, though.

If Obama gets re-elected i recon he'll do something on the issue, but hes only just through his 1st year, he wouldnt risk his re-election on such a controversial issue.

If he gets re-elected (hopefully he does, people would have to be fucking crazy to elect a republican president so soon after bush) i believe he'll do something on the issue cos he hasnt got as much to lose.

 

[Frazz]

well what you have here is an editorial from a right-wing Christian group

it purports to quote Gil Kerlikowske's comments in a 'private meeting' of police chiefs

if it was such a private meeting how did these Christians hear of it, perhaps through divine intervention

 

nevertheless Gil Kerlikowske's hostile attitude to Cannabis is well known in the US

but i do agree with Crunchy in that Obama is not likely to be easily hoodwinked by the Prohibitionists

though i do believe that Cannabis legalisation may be too big a hurdle to jump in a single bound

 

but hey, would we not settle for Decriminalisation of Cannabis for non-medical personnel use just for a start

i certainly would

 

this allows the anti-Cannabis forum to save face whilst still reflecting the changing social and moral views

decriminalised acts are no longer crimes dealt with by the criminal courts, yet they may still be the subject of penalties such as monetary fines

of course trafficking and possesion of large quantities would still remain crimminal acts

but at least it would be a start to break the wall down,

we may just have to learn to crawl before we can run free on this issue (metaphorically speaking)

 

[Rocker]

Yep, cannabis should be legal any century now.

 

Sorry to be cynical but we are going backwards in Australia at a fair rate of knots and even Amsterdam is starting to look shaky.

People of my generation thought we would be buying it in the shops long before now but instead in the sate where I live you can't even buy a damn bong.

And this is progess?

[Crunchy]

Once one state legalizes, other will follow.

If Obama gets re-elected in 3 years and medical marijuana has spread to the majority of the states, as well as some states fully legalizing, then i can definitely see a change in federal law (what change exactly, i cant be sure, fed might decrim and leave regulation to the states)

(NOTE: 14 states currently have medical marijuana, 26 have Med Marijuana bills on the books i think? and 5 states have full legalization bills, and thats just for THIS YEAR).