Another day, another reversal of Bush policy. This one is something most rational people of goodwill (which didn't apply to the Bush administration) can agree is a good thing, I think.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AP-Newsbreak-New-medical-apf-4109207182.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=
| Quote: |
AP Newsbreak: New medical marijuana policy issued
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.
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 laws.
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.
Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. |
it might not be morally good, but hey, politics arent moraly good anyway. On the other hand, marijuana is being sold in massive quantities anyway, so why not rather try and tackle the problem by taking it under some legal control, rather that leaving people to buying their 'smoke' from some dodgy alley.
Maybe before people jump for joy they should read your quoted text. Obama is referring to marijuana for medical use. I assume that people would then be required to have a medical prescription for it. Which would still make it difficult to get hold of for those who need to have it.
| Quote: |
| The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday. |
Very little has changed. Basically the Federal government is opting out of "policing" the use of marijuana "for medical use" and it is now up to the States to supervise this. | deanhills wrote: |
| Basically the Federal government is opting out of "policing" the use of marijuana "for medical use" and it is now up to the States to supervise this. |
Before this though, people who had marijuana, in perfect accordance with state law, could still be arrested and prosecuted by the federal government.
This silly practice will now end.
On a side note:
Yay! That's the 2nd thing Obama has done that I agree wholeheartedly with!
(Handfleisch, please make a note of this, to curb any later claims that I simply disagree with Obama about everything for various irrational reasons.) | ocalhoun wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Basically the Federal government is opting out of "policing" the use of marijuana "for medical use" and it is now up to the States to supervise this. |
Before this though, people who had marijuana, in perfect accordance with state law, could still be arrested and prosecuted by the federal government.
This silly practice will now end. |
OK, got it Ocalhoun. And agree. This was a good move. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Basically the Federal government is opting out of "policing" the use of marijuana "for medical use" and it is now up to the States to supervise this. |
Before this though, people who had marijuana, in perfect accordance with state law, could still be arrested and prosecuted by the federal government.
This silly practice will now end.
On a side note:
Yay! That's the 2nd thing Obama has done that I agree wholeheartedly with!
(Handfleisch, please make a note of this, to curb any later claims that I simply disagree with Obama about everything for various irrational reasons.) |
I also agree with this. I'm not an advocate of illegal drug use, but I do think that the previous policy was an instance of the federal government overstepping its bounds. It's good to see Obama honoring states' rights.While this is a positive move it still does little to address the US Drug policy which is so irrationally biased by big business.
| atul2242 wrote: |
| While this is a positive move it still does little to address the US Drug policy which is so irrationally biased by big business. |
For me it is irrationally biased by the medical profession. They even want to get into the business of natural supplements as well.Actually, they will still arrest people who have weed on them, or those engaging in other crimes (for instance if they are using a dispensary as a cover for selling other drugs). The federal laws effectively banning marijuana have not changed. Raiding of dispensaries will still happen by motivated individuals, and the growers will still be prosecuted, it is just not their main focus.
| brokenadvice wrote: |
| Actually, they will still arrest people who have weed on them, or those engaging in other crimes (for instance if they are using a dispensary as a cover for selling other drugs). The federal laws effectively banning marijuana have not changed. Raiding of dispensaries will still happen by motivated individuals, and the growers will still be prosecuted, it is just not their main focus. |
I thought Handfleisch stated clearly that it was marijuana that is used for medical purposes. According to Ocalhoun, previously those who had been using marijuana for medical purposes (obviously under doctor supervision with a prescription) also got prosecuted. With the new regulations, those using marijuana for medical purposes will no longer be prosecuted on a federal level. It would make sense that those who are growing weed or using it for different purposes than medical will be liable for prosecution.While it's a good move, it's not exactly a home run, yet. It's a small step forward regarding our Draconian drug laws, but it's at least a step nonetheless. While Bush is an easy target for blame, these anti-marijuana laws are much older, and did not originate with politicians, but with corporations who were able to persuade(bribe) politicians into enacting such laws. This is why I am so disgusted with politics. For too long they have been nothing more than corporate ******, lapping at the heels of industry in order to get rich at the expense of American Freedom and Liberty.
| Ophois wrote: |
| Draconian drug laws |
That's a really good description Ophois. I wonder if someone would sit down and work on statistics how much that is contributing to the cost of healthcare, and if some of it could be relaxed, how the cost of healthcare would be dropping. Take for example anti-inflammatories. Why would one need a prescription for those? There are so many drugs on that level that needs to be freely made available. If people were given greater responsibility for their own health care, they would be much more inclined to read the small print on the drugs. How many doctors warn their patients about the small print in their drugs anyway? You still get a guy like Michael Jackson to die anyway. He is a good example of how people can get around drugs through paying doctors for them, either legal prescriptions or illegal ones, and why that would make healthcare so expensive. If society should rather teach its society to become more responsible in taking care of their own health along preventive care lines, including reading up on the drugs they are taking, this would be much more efficient, and less costly.Natural remedies and Health-care
I agree with you. If people were free to find natural products which could help hem life would be simpler for them. It is just not marijuana but there are so many herbs which people have just forgotton about as they have never been promoted by Healthcare departments.
I found in central Europe many people switching to natural herbs for small ailments. Growing small quantities of marijuana for home use is also not frowned upon. Most rural households also make their own wines.
In Hindi we have a phase " Daawa -Daaru" Daawa means medicine and Daaru means alcohol.
| deanhills wrote: |
| That's a really good description Ophois. I wonder if someone would sit down and work on statistics how much that is contributing to the cost of healthcare, and if some of it could be relaxed, how the cost of healthcare would be dropping. |
Our drug laws contribute to more than just health care cost. More accurately, they simply waste money, which could be used in many ways.
In 2005, we had 1,288,600 people in prison or jail. 253,300 of whom were in the system for drug related crimes, roughly 20%. We now have, as of June 30, 2008, 2,310,984 people in the system(almost doubling in just under four years!). Again, 20% of whom are in for drug related crimes.*
It's not so much that these laws raise the cost of health care, but they cost us so much money that we could otherwise be allocating towards health care and other things. Here in Florida, it costs about $55.09(USD) to keep a person in prison, per day, which is $22,108(USD) per year.** So if 20% of our inmates are drug offenders, that would be around 400,000 people, conservatively estimating. If we use Florida as an example for the cost of warehousing these prisoners, it comes to $8,843,200,000(USD) annually, just for the drug offenders. Yes, that's almost nine billion dollars.
In 2008, there were 1,702,537 arrests for drug violations, with 847,863 of them being for marijuana, and 754,224 of which were possession alone.*** NORML(the Nat'l Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) cited the Bureau of Justice, stating in 1999 that 1 in 7 actual prisoners(serving time) were behind bars for marijuana. (Article here) If we go by that, then 330,140 people are in prison for marijuana only, costing us(again, using the Florida formula) $7,298,735,120(USD). Staggering, no?
So, given a margin for error and estimation, about seven billion dollars per year is spent on locking up marijuana users. Seven billion dollars, per year, could fund health care reform, educational reform, or be pumped back into communities and small businesses as an economic stimulus. The fact that so much money is wasted imprisoning people for canibus is an embarrassment and a disgrace, given the rather benign nature, and usefulness, of canibus. In addition to the desperate need for that money elsewhere.
*U.S. Dept. of Justice prison statistics
**Florida DOC statistics
***Drug Arrest statistics(DOJ sources are cited on page) | Ophois wrote: |
So, given a margin for error and estimation, about seven billion dollars per year is spent on locking up marijuana users. Seven billion dollars, per year, could fund health care reform, educational reform, or be pumped back into communities and small businesses as an economic stimulus. The fact that so much money is wasted imprisoning people for canibus is an embarrassment and a disgrace, given the rather benign nature, and usefulness, of canibus. In addition to the desperate need for that money elsewhere.
|
Not to mention the costs in terms of freedom! Outlawing dangerous drugs is nanny-state-like enough, but outlawing one that can't be overdosed?
There's also some extra monetary savings you neglected to mention; prisons aren't the only cost of drug enforcement. You also have investigation and arresting of drug users/dealers. How many police department man/hours are spent on drug enforcement? That's paying for personnel and equipment that could either be put to better use or eliminated to save money. What about the judicial process? How many hours do judges, state prosecutors, and state defense attorneys (as well as other courtroom staff) spend arguing marijuana cases? Again, that's personnel who could be used for better purposes (lowering wait time for other trials), or eliminated to save money. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Not to mention the costs in terms of freedom! Outlawing dangerous drugs is nanny-state-like enough, but outlawing one that can't be overdosed? |
No doubt. The State and the Fed need to get their heads out of their asses on this one.
| Quote: |
| There's also some extra monetary savings you neglected to mention; prisons aren't the only cost of drug enforcement. |
Certainly. I was just going with a very base figure, how much would immediately be saved if there were no pot smokers in prison. There are, of course, countless other ways that money can be saved, as you mentioned. Additionally, the judiciary process for "real" cases would not be so clogged up. If only we could stop arresting almost a million people a year for a drug that is nowhere near as harmful as anything advertised on TV for depression.
This topic is such a no-brainer that I want to bang my head into a wall thinking how stupid these laws are. | Ophois wrote: |
| I was just going with a very base figure, how much would immediately be saved if there were no pot smokers in prison. |
Probably a good idea to keep the guys in prison under drugs most of the time, from what I have heard, they seem to be quite heavy on one another, a little escapism would probably help to calm them down. 
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Ophois wrote: |
So, given a margin for error and estimation, about seven billion dollars per year is spent on locking up marijuana users. Seven billion dollars, per year, could fund health care reform, educational reform, or be pumped back into communities and small businesses as an economic stimulus. The fact that so much money is wasted imprisoning people for canibus is an embarrassment and a disgrace, given the rather benign nature, and usefulness, of canibus. In addition to the desperate need for that money elsewhere.
|
Not to mention the costs in terms of freedom! Outlawing dangerous drugs is nanny-state-like enough, but outlawing one that can't be overdosed? |
As you probably know, it's pretty fair to say that it wasn't originally outlawed for moral/health reasons -- they used much worse justification if you look into the history. | Quote: |
| Probably a good idea to keep the guys in prison under drugs most of the time, from what I have heard, they seem to be quite heavy on one another, a little escapism would probably help to calm them down. |
Depends on the drug. Users of canibus don't need to be anywhere but at home. Or maybe at a party.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| As you probably know, it's pretty fair to say that it wasn't originally outlawed for moral/health reasons -- they used much worse justification if you look into the history. |
Let's see...
Immigration was a factor.
So was Dupont.
For a good read, Jack Herer's book "The Emperor Wears no Clothes" gives a fairly comprehensive history about why canibus was outlawed, and how important the plant was prior to the campaign against it's use. Just as an example, the word "canvas" was derived from "canibus", and to every sailor and navy, canvas was of the utmost importance. Easy to grow, easy to harvest, easy to replace. Sails, clothes and rope were all made from canibus. In fact, until the 1800's, all bibles were printed on hemp paper. Makes one wonder what the burning bush really was.
The Emperor Wears no ClothesIn 1996 India made cannabis illegal to grow and sell. This was a directive from the US trade treaty. Till then it was an integral part of our religious culture and in many parts of the country still is.
Now we have many people rotting in Jails booked for possession of marijuana. Not only that the growing of the plant has been banned. And we all know it is a good cash crop for non-intoxicating products as well.
| Ophois wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | As you probably know, it's pretty fair to say that it wasn't originally outlawed for moral/health reasons -- they used much worse justification if you look into the history. |
Let's see...
Immigration was a factor.
So was Dupont.
For a good read, Jack Herer's book "The Emperor Wears no Clothes" gives a fairly comprehensive history about why canibus was outlawed, and how important the plant was prior to the campaign against it's use. Just as an example, the word "canvas" was derived from "canibus", and to every sailor and navy, canvas was of the utmost importance. Easy to grow, easy to harvest, easy to replace. Sails, clothes and rope were all made from canibus. In fact, until the 1800's, all bibles were printed on hemp paper. Makes one wonder what the burning bush really was.
The Emperor Wears no Clothes |
Yes, immigration was a huge factor, combined with racism and xenophobia. Yellow journalism, blatantly false information in legislature, fear mongering, propaganda...you name it.
I've always found it really interesting that some colonial governments (Virginia is one, if my memory serves me right) mandated a specific amount of hemp growth from farmers.
