White House Response to The New York Times Editorial Board's Call for Federal Marijuana Legalization

[reasonevangelist]

Imposed violence is the only difference between them disregarding facts and insisting the contrary, versus us disregarding and "not recognizing" their unjustifiable claims to authority to enact violence to enforce an irrational and unjustifiable law.

The only reason things remain as they are, is because they use our tax dollars (legislated to be taken under duress, if need be) and funding from lobbyists, to equip militarized organizations to commit violence against us, in ways we are not well-enough equipped to neutralize. In other words: because they can kill and imprison us more easily than we can stop them from doing so.

 

[reasonevangelist]

I was in the army. We got popped but not caught directly smoking mj in the officers mess. They took us up in one of those duel prop hellicoptors and tried to dump us into the minas basin at 100ft.
Canada has moved mj to schedule 2, but on the other hand patients had to give up their grow-ops.

Your 3rd and 4th sentences are fucked. ^^ (the truth of them, not the way you composed them)

 

[Harrekin]

Yep. This is the biggest trick that people fall for without realizing: accepting the asserted legitimacy of an illegitimate system which uses an invalid basis as the foundation of its "legitimized authority."

It's the same thing as when "creationists" insist on challenging atheists "prove god doesn't exist!"

Burden of proof rests upon the claimant. All those involved in manufacturing cannabis prohibition, have never satisfied the requirement of sufficiently justifying their claims that it is "dangerous." Furthermore, they have acted destructively toward many people who have not provoked it, as if they are not obligated to substantiate their own claim.

By accepting their challenge: "prove it isn't dangerous!" you are accepting their invalid and unsubstantiated assertion, as the starting point for the debate, when in fact, the starting point is, was, and remains, their STILL unjustified (and unjustifiable) claim of "dangerous."

They demand disproof, while ignoring their own requirement of substantiating evidence for their still invalid claims.

They never proved it was dangerous enough, to satisfy the requirements of authorizing themselves to threaten and commit violence against people who are fully capable of safely using a plant.

Except in this case weve a growing body of scientific literature that does say it isn't harmful.

 

[reasonevangelist]

Except in this case weve a growing body of scientific literature that does say it isn't harmful.

that becomes relevant once the claimant agrees to acknowledge facts of reality, but not before. This is where the "argument from assertion of creation (or in this case, "danger") requiring disproof" tries to make reality irrelevant: they won't acknowledge any fact that precludes the validity of their assertion, while attempting to only allow the debate to occur under the shifting of the burden of proof away from the claimant. If you don't allow them to shift the burden of proof away from an utterly unsubstantiated and unjustifiable assertion, they have zero argument, aka "no leg to stand on." Their argument is baseless and contrived, and all their tactics indicate their need to shift the burden of proof away from themselves, in order to proceed with any type of argument at all.

This is part of why i'm so glad they actually engaged the debate. All who are capable of critical thought, can see just how untenable their position really is.

 

[Red1966]

Marijuana makes white women have sex with the Negro. Isn't that dangerous enough for you?

 

[TheMan13]

You're accepting the legitimacy of the system by saying it doesn't belong in schedule 1.

The scheduling system itself is faulty and even if it did work, cannabis shouldn't be scheduled at all, period.

This lawfare transcends the simple abuse of criminal law through prohibition schemes we speak of here brother. It is this corruption of regulatory capture within our government that we watched destroy our economy in 2007 and it's the reason we will never truly recover. It's how our government sells us progressive tax law and effectively delivers an extremely regressive one. It's how Republicans and Democrats fund their billion dollar campaigns and maintain power. IMHO education is societies only means of survival, as this is the only way equality in a democratic society can be achieved. How to remove the root evil that is successfully being sold to us as a solution

 

[Harrekin]

Marijuana makes white women have sex with the Negro. Isn't that dangerous enough for you?

Makes people criminally negligent too.

 

[Observe & Report]

The whole "we can't legalize because of driving" and "I can't drive now that they legalized" thing will be moot soon. Driverless cars are coming fast. It may be that all states ban human driving on public roads before all states legalize Cannabis.

 

[reasonevangelist]

The whole "we can't legalize because of driving" and "I can't drive now that they legalized" thing will be moot soon. Driverless cars are coming fast. It may be that all states ban human driving on public roads before all states legalize Cannabis.

I doubt the automakers will allow that.

Then again, they may be in no position to lobby for much of anything at this point.

 

[SmokeyDan]

A hard day's honest work plus a bowl or two when you get home, versus living in football prison camp (look it up, those guys have very little freedom during the season) and getting smashed repeatedly by violent men who get paid millions of dollars to neutralize your performance during a game... and if you don't win all the accolades every year, people publicly shame you for being "terrible," while your entire life is built around supporting a giant facade distraction from the real issues.

I can certainly see how some people might choose the former over the latter. Plus, weed doesn't risk paralysis or brain trauma from concussions (the damage from which, ironically enough, can be mitigated with cannabis).

"Because their only option to achieve affluence is professional sports" is kind of a bad argument against cannabis, IMO. And maybe it's not just my opinion.

You could apply "slippery slope" to that argument, and suggest that everyone who isn't born rich or exceptionally physically attractive, should join the military, because that's their only real chance at achieving financial security, from middle age and beyond. So let's legislate mandatory military service for all citizens, excepting those lucky enough to be born affluent and/or beautiful.

That doesn't explain why it happens in basketball, or professions like nursing and others where concussion and violence aren't a factor.

People everywhere, in all walks of life, are unable to not smoke weed despite consequences they wish to avoid.

It's called addiction. And most weed smokers can put it down for a while to piss clean. So can some heroin and meth addicts. That does not mean they're not addicted.

It's not a life crippling addiction like those, but it is an addiction for many users out there.

 

[reasonevangelist]

That doesn't explain why it happens in basketball, or professions like nursing and others where concussion and violence aren't a factor.

People everywhere, in all walks of life, are unable to not smoke weed despite consequences they wish to avoid.

It's called addiction. And most weed smokers can put it down for a while to piss clean. So can some heroin and meth addicts. That does not mean they're not addicted.

It's not a life crippling addiction like those, but it is an addiction for many users out there.

If you ban everything people like to do, of which cessation causes any degree of trauma (psychological or otherwise), what is the net result in regard to quality of life for the individual?

Are you seriously saying that everything anyone doesn't like to not do, is "addiction?"

Surely that's not what you're insinuating. And surely, you're not implying that people should not be allowed to repeat enjoyable activities, unless forced cessation doesn't cause them even the slightest degree of involuntary discomfort.

Surely... you would know better than to maintain such a position.

 

[SmokeyDan]

If you ban everything people like to do, of which cessation causes any degree of trauma (psychological or otherwise), what is the net result in regard to quality of life for the individual?

Are you seriously saying that everything anyone doesn't like to not do, is "addiction?"

Surely that's not what you're insinuating. And surely, you're not implying that people should not be allowed to repeat enjoyable activities, unless forced cessation doesn't cause them even the slightest degree of involuntary discomfort.

Surely... you would know better than to maintain such a position.

How do you equate my position with wanting to keep weed illegal or ban anything?

Recognition of the negative sides of marijuana is the only way to move forward with legalization.

You can't just wish your way into thinking weed has no negative consequences on the individual or society.

It certainly does and would.

As far as society goes, the negative effects of legalization would not be as bad as the current consequences of prohibition.

But people will not trust weed activists if we go around saying it has no negatives. Of course it does.

 

[reasonevangelist]

How do you equate my position with wanting to keep weed illegal or ban anything?

Recognition of the negative sides of marijuana is the only way to move forward with legalization.

You can't just wish your way into thinking weed has no negative consequences on the individual or society.

It certainly does and would.

As far as society goes, the negative effects of legalization would not be as bad as the current consequences of prohibition.

But people will not trust weed activists if we go around saying it has no negatives. Of course it does.

It's not cannabis that has negatives, it's people who lack better judgment.

Teach to them, and the problems will disintegrate.

The only "negatives" are not attributable to the cannabis itself, but to the unlearned peoples and absurd aggressive policies.

Remove the source of the problems, and the problems stop being caused.

I dislike how much time and energy is wasted, and how much divisiveness is needlessly created, in arguing over the wrong issues.

If someone grows plants and uses them to get high, but doesn't harm anyone else in the process... who is the victim? And on what grounds does that lack of outward harm (regardless of whether there is any inward harm) justify imposing violence and destruction of a person's livelihood?

"Addiction" is not even the issue. It's yet another red herring.

Meanwhile, of all therapeutically active, naturally occurring substances, which can be relatively easily cultivated without harm to people or environments, it is also the least addictive, least damaging, and most helpful.

Aside from nutritious home grown food, it is literally the best thing a person can cultivate.

Have you ever heard of the scarcity principle? If you make something hard to get, or inflate the amount of risk required to obtain it, you will also increase its appeal. Any "addiction" is actually the result of social engineering, and not of the cannabis or the people themselves. If people could grow as much as they think they need, and not have to worry about whether they'll be able to "get away with" having enough... and if they didn't have to worry about being barred from lucrative activities, or even survival level employment... the stress produced by forced cessation, would be eliminated by the lack of forced cessation, and any remaining stress would be eliminated when the person is ready to decide not to use it for a little while. Most people do in fact reach a point where they will choose not to use it sometimes, perhaps for a long time, just because people change, their desires and motivations fluctuate, and sometimes you get tired of doing the same thing you really like, all the time.

The only real problem is when people are forced to abstain from something they feel enriches and enhances their lives. Remove that, and the "addiction" problem will virtually disappear.

 

[canndo]

the statement is filled with logical fallacies. The general sense of it is that the administration intends to treat marijuana as a public health issue. Fine. But since when does a public health issue dealt with through incarceration? Ebola may become a public health issue but no one is considering putting people who are sick in prison.

so long as there is a penalty that involves federal courts and jail it will continue to be a criminal matter.

further, the document tends to imply that so long as the substance is illegal, no one will use it. It ignores the long recognized fact that marijuna laws are not a deterent to use, something the NYT piece brings to the fore.

it argues that pot is detrimental to the growing brain yet no one is advocating children be given access.

nearly every argument presented has nothing to do with the issue. And if course it claims to revere the science of the situation while cherry picking a few inapplicable studies.

I suspect they got the same guy who wrote nixon's pot policy out of his nursing home for one last repeat performance.

will the transparant bullshit never end? Public health issue my ass.

 

[canndo]

oh, and "we shouldnt legalize it because it wont generate as much revenue as everyone thinks" is the argument of an insane person. what they are actually saying is that local law enforcement will lose all that civil forfeiture money (which is often split with feds) and taxation will not replace it all.

 

[bird mcbride]

It's not just drugs, it's any excuse to rob a person of what they've worked for ln life, even if some things have to be made up.
.

 

[bud nugbong]

yea its all about money, Uncle sam has to make sure the upward draft of money comes right up the shoot. Utill the proper channels and regulations are in place. It is more profitable to just keep it illegal and let the states do what they want.

If it were just legalized there would be a good chance of the economy going crazy because of everyone trying to get in the game at once. Farmers abandoning crops to try and make quick money, then the mmj market crashes. and everybodys broke. It would work itself out but the gov doesn't seem to let things work themselves out.

All I know is by growing my own last year I saved 2500$ and spent that money on taxable goods and services. rather than untaxed to karl. Seems like that's the way to go. The war on drugs is a pointless one.

 

[Rob Roy]

You're right. Not everyone has the same addiction potential.

However, I don't think that is important. It isn't the substance that changes, it's the person. I said many times weed is weak in comparison to meth with respect to addiction.

You would have just worded it differently is all.

My point is that for weed to be legal I think it is important that we be honest about it, and promote responsibility in its use.

In my brief time on this forum it seems most of the people here believe there are ZERO consequences from its use and that one should be able to use all they want while driving in public.

Much less progress can be made with those positions in getting it legalized.

It is fair to say it's less addicting than other legal stuff, cigarettes and alcohol. And that it is less impairment to driving than alcohol.

Okay.

For weed to be legal, we need recognize only one thing. Nobody but you has the right to determine what you put into your body.

The efficacy or other properties of weed are not the point. You own yourself, none of us own others.

Some people making something that other people choose to do "illegal" when it should be a personal choice to consume or not, insists that somebody else can own you....where does that lead?

 

[Rob Roy]

How do you equate my position with wanting to keep weed illegal or ban anything?

Recognition of the negative sides of marijuana is the only way to move forward with legalization.

You can't just wish your way into thinking weed has no negative consequences on the individual or society.

It certainly does and would.

As far as society goes, the negative effects of legalization would not be as bad as the current consequences of prohibition.

But people will not trust weed activists if we go around saying it has no negatives. Of course it does.

Recognition that we should not tread on others is another way....that would require people dropping the idea that good things come from a coercive governmental system and people start acting as if they own themselves.

In other words when it "becomes legal" it will have simply gone from a a prohibition based control to a permission based / licensed control system. Still, not freedom. Fuck that.

 

[SmokeyDan]

Recognition that we should not tread on others is another way....that would require people dropping the idea that good things come from a coercive governmental system and people start acting as if they own themselves.

In other words when it "becomes legal" it will have simply gone from a a prohibition based control to a permission based / licensed control system. Still, not freedom. Fuck that.

It would be light years better, yet you say "fuck it."

Medical mj is a permission licensed based arrangement, and I'm not a huge proponent, it is a step in the right direction.

In places like Colorado and Washington, the license is only needed to sale it, which is predictable in this country, we need licenses to sale anything, a business license.