Skip Navigation Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team
 

Citizen's Briefing Book Component

FIND AN ISSUE YOU CARE ABOUT



MORE CATEGORIES

Content Starts Here

Idea Detail
92970
Points

Ending Marijuana Prohibition

 I suggest that we step back and take a non-biased "Science Based" approach to decide what should be done about the "Utter Failure" that we call the War on (some) Drugs.
The fact is that Marijuana is much less harmful to our bodies than other Legal Drugs such as Tobacco and Alcohol. And for the Government to recognize Marijuana as having Medicinal Properties AND as a Schedule I drug (Has NO medicinal Properties) is an obvious flaw in the system.
We must stop imprisoning responsible adult citizens choosing to use a drug that has been mis-labeled for over 70 years.
3550 Comments  »  Posted by Matt to Economy, Homeland Security, Additional Issues on 1/12/2009 11:11 AM

Comments
 
Carlsbad
1/17/2009 10:09 AM
Mandnclan, nice economic theories; are you still in school now or did you just not pay attention (smoking?) while you were there?

NOTHING OBAMA CAN DO makes pot legal.  N O T H I N G.   It's on the books in the 50 states, no executive order, no federal statute, NOTHING, can override these laws except legislation in the 50 states.   By way of example, there are dozens of things Bush would legalize or make illegal if he could do it with blanket executive orders or some magic dope powers, like abortion, gay marriage, increased drug penalties, etc.... .....anyway, the point is moot because Obama isn't going to commit political suicide to pander to the minority whose most important issue in life is a drug.  
 
THE STATE LEGISLATURES control criminal law.
 
RockChalkJayhawk
1/17/2009 10:10 AM
  NewEnergyGuru41 1/17/2009 9:31 AM
"you just want it to be legal so you can get high and get loaded

sorry but thats not how the world works"

 

Who are you to say what people do in their free time? Responisble adults deserve a right to pursue happiness by what ever means as long as no harm to other people is done. Marijuana safety needs to be an issue that is pressed to all potential users and current users. Information on the appropriate time to enjoy marijuana, the effects, signs your forming a habit, gateway effect, dont smoke and drive ect. If this information accurate and readily availible it could change the American view on marijuana prohibition....not to mention billions in tax dollars that were previously almost untaxable
 
Knoa
1/17/2009 10:11 AM
Please don't avoid this isssue any more Mr. Obama.
 
mandanclan
1/17/2009 10:11 AM
and it's THC that's fat soluble.

marijuana is just a plant.

remember?
 
Jordan2Dope
1/17/2009 10:15 AM
As I read these responses I've concluded that a great deal of Americans think this it a "Self-Obessed" topic. I disagree. Ending Marijuana prohibtion, and legalization of marijuana would help everyone in this country. Not only would it help this "utter failure" we all know as the drug war, but it would also keep our children safe. A great deal of every gangs income result in the selling of drugs. Marijuana brings gangs millions of untaxed dollars a year, and as a result, strengthens them. (buying weapons and such) reason #2: it would do this country good in jobs, and could be taxed which could bring the government in an enormous amount of capital a year (Not to mention the benefits of hemp also. Rope, clothing, and many other textiles)

Plain and simple......Prohibition does NOT work.

Legalize it, Tax it, control it.

And I also feel the need to add one last thing:

ANNUAL AMERICAN DEATHS CAUSED BY DRUGS

TOBACCO ........................ 400,000
ALCOHOL ........................ 100,000
ALL LEGAL DRUGS ................ 20,000
ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS .............. 15,000
CAFFEINE ....................... 2,000
ASPIRIN ........................ 500
MARIJUANA ...................... 0
----------------------------------------
Source: United States government...
National Institute on Drug Abuse,
Bureau of Mortality Statistics
 
Something is wrong here............
 
marsmath
1/17/2009 10:16 AM
CAN SOMEONE SET STEFFI STRAIGHT? I'M TIRED.
 
Snootchies
1/17/2009 10:18 AM
This is true, its sad that such poisons as alcohol and tobacco is legal but yet something that helps so many lives is illegal.  The government should stop being scared of the own citizens that they brainwashed into thinking marijuana is bad.  Your reputation wont drop in making it legal if someone as the president discusses all the benefits and medicinal properties that this plant has to the nation.  It will wake alot of people up and realize this plant could help save our economy.
 
mandanclan
1/17/2009 10:20 AM
carlsbad,

you would have to be pretty ignorant to believe that obama (will) have no way of at least promoting marijuana law reformation and/or influencing the changing views of both recreational and medicinal marijuana use.

the biggest reason i believe in this AT ALL is the possibility of parallel benefit financially in our country. I understand that it's state legislation making any sort of law. The DEA, however is a federal organization and is a huge anti-marijuana advocate. There is always a place to begin from. With Obama's currently enormous influence, he has a great opportunity to see positive results. Drug dealers are making the profit right now.
 
One under god
1/17/2009 10:22 AM
carlisbad
"No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril."Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608.

  "The innocent individual who is harmed by an abuse of governmental authority
is assured that he will be compensated for his injury." Owens v. City of Independence,
100 S.Ct 1398 (1980)

     " ...If one individual does not possess such a right over the conduct of another
[Good and Lawful Christian Man], no number of individuals [in a deliberative
body] can possess such a right. All combinations, therefore, to effect such an
object, are injurious, not only to the individuals particularly oppressed, but to the
public at large."People v. Fisher, 14 Wend.(N.Y.) 9, 28 Am.Dec. 501

 "Non dat qui non habet---He gives nothing who has nothing."Bouvier's Law
Dictionary (1914),"Maxim,"p.2149, [No legislative body or man can convey any authority or
jurisdiction he does not possess over common Rights vested by God to another. Because legislative
powers are limited, all powers derived from legislative acts are limited.]

 "The claim and exercise of a  Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."  Miller v. U.S.

Article 19 of the United Nations Human Rights Charter reads: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;

this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

 "Constitutional  rights may not be infringed simply because the majority
of the people choose that they be."  Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756

"Government  may not  prohibit or  control the  conduct of  a person for
reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms."  Smith
v. U.S. 502 F2d 512 CA Tex (1974)

"There  can be no  sanction or penalty  imposed upon one  because of his
exercise of Constitutional rights."  Sherar v. Cullen  481 F. 946

 "Where  rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no
rule-making  or legislation  which would  abrogate them."   U.S. Supreme
Court in Miranda v. Arizona 380 U.S. 436 (1966)

"A  plaintiff  who  seeks  damages for  violation  of  constitutional or
statutory   rights  may  overcome  the  defendant  official's  qualified
immunity  only by showing that those  rights were clearly established at
the time of the conduct at issue."  Davis v. Scherer, 82 L.Ed.2d 139,151.

   "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as
inoperative as though it had never been passed." -- Norton vs. Shelby County,
118, US 425 p. 442

    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." --
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US 137, 174, 176 (1803)
 
Carlsbad
1/17/2009 10:26 AM
you would have to be pretty ignorant to believe that obama (will) have no way of at least promoting marijuana law reformation and/or influencing the changing views of both recreational and medicinal marijuana use.

----

Sure, I agree, Obama could choose to become a spokesman for marijuana with no actual legal powers.  And why would he do this?   To ensure the Republicans take power back in 2010/2012 and enact even tougher laws against your favorite drug?
 
Coinyer101
1/17/2009 10:27 AM
THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN PRESIDENT BARACK! YOUR 'POLITICAL CAPITAL' WILL TAKE A SERIOUS HIT FROM THE PEOPLE, IF WE ARE NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY.IF WE ARE DENIED A TABLE TO DISCUSS THESE MATTERS, THE DISAPPOINTMENT WILL RENDER THIS SITE AND ITS WONDERFUL POSSIBILITIES INNEFFECTUAL. IF THIS IS NOT ADDRESSED IN A REASONABLE MANNER, MANY OF US WILL LOSE INTEREST IN POLITICS ,AGAIN, AND JUST GO BACK TO OUR FORMER DISENFRANCHISED VOTER STATUS. WHEN YOU NEED OUR SUPPORT ON MORE DIVISIVE ISSUES, WE MAY BE TOO BUSY BREAKING THIS STUPID LAW , TO CARE. THIS IS A MATTER OF THE INDIVIDUAL 'LIBERTIES' YOU PROMOTED ON YOUR OPENEING TRAIN TRIP, TODAY, AS A 'NEW DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE'. I 'HOPE' YOUR WORDS OF 'NEW' AND 'CHANGE' ARE NOT JUST WORDS. IF YOU DONT HEED OUR VOICES ON THIS ISSUE, WE WILL NOT GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THEM IN THIS FORMAT, AGAIN. WE WILL TAKE TO THE STREETS AND DEMAND OUR 'LIBERTY' THE 'OLD-FASHIONED' WAY. WE ARE TIRED OF BEING DENIED OUR LIBERTY JUST SO THE GUBMENT CAN RAKE IN BILLIONS OF $ IN STOLEN MONEY AND PROPERTY OF CITIZENS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND DEA. YOU MAY DISAGREE ,BUT, THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT.
 
One under god
1/17/2009 10:32 AM
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens because of respect for the law,

are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance."  U.S. v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179, 187


    "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form
and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any
purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not
merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an
unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." -- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177,
late 2d, Sec 256

 "No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on
any other branch of government, which is free from the resraints of the
Constitution."  Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)


"Invito beneficium non datur- No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p, 2140).[No officer can compel any Good and Lawful Man to get a license, benefit, or privilege in commerce.]

"The individual may stand upon his Constitutional rights as a Citizen.  He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited.  He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business or to open his doors to investigation...  He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.  His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land, long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of the law and in accordance with the Constitution.  He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."  Hale v. Henkle 201 U.S. 43 at 74

 "That the majority shall prevail is a rule
posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature.  He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.

    “Time does not confirm a void act.”  California Civil Code section 3539

 
"The Constitution is to be construed with respect to the law existing at the time
of it's adoption and as securing to the individual citizen the rights inherited by him
under English Law, and not with reference to new guarantees." --Mattox vs. U.S.,
156 US 237, 15 Sup Ct. 337, 39 L. Ed. 409

 
Dissi
1/17/2009 10:32 AM
Nullify your jurries on all drug cases state or federal. Disregard  these laws against freedom and choice. Do not respect them Do not enfoce them. We have the power in the jurry room, we are the 5th veto power our founders intended us to use against the tyrany that Obama now will choose to continue or end.

Dispand the DEA and the criminals that profit from this Un-American War on the people

Let me respect the police and the goverment again. Let us all be on the same side again.
Let us stop using drug laws to take away your rigth to vote and supressing the people
 
One under god
1/17/2009 10:34 AM
The Constitution is to be construed with respect to the law existing at the time
of it's adoption and as securing to the individual citizen the rights inherited by him
under English Law, and not with reference to new guarantees." --Mattox vs. U.S.,
156 US 237, 15 Sup Ct. 337, 39 L. Ed. 409

    "It [U.S. Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the
principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the
Constitution. The language of the Constitution could not be understood without
reference to the Common Law." -- U.S. vs. Wong Kim, Ark, 169 US 649, 18 S. Ct. 456
   "The Constitution is to be interpreted according to Common Law Rules." --
Schick vs. U.S., 195 US 65, 24 Sup. Ct. 826, 49 L. Ed. 99

    "...a Statute will not be construed so as to overrule a principle of established
Common Law, unless it is made plain by the act that such a change in the
established law is intended." -- Starkey Construction Inc. vs. Elcon, Inc., 248 Ark 958, 978A,
457 SW 2nd 509, 7 U.C.C.RS 923

"The 'sovereignty' of the United States consists of the powers existing in the people as a whole and the persons to whom they have delegated it, and not as a separate personal entity, and as such it does not possess the personal privileges of the sovereign of England; and the government, being restrained by a written Constitution, cannot take property without compensation, as can the English government by act of king, lords, and Parliament." Filbin Corporation v. United States, D.C.S.C., 266 F. 911, 914.

"In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution. The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared." Perry v U.S., 294 U.S. 330,353 (1935).

'When the validity of an act of Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.' Crowell v. Benson, 285 US 22,62."

Title 42 USC, Section1983:

    "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or territory, or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States, or other person within the jurisdiction thereof, to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceedings for redress."

(Notice that this statute recognizes the fact that "statutes, ordinances, and regulations" together with "custom", can be unconstitutional and violate our rights. Where they do so, it is up to us to challenge their jurisdiction over us. Failure to challenge jurisdiction at the first instance of a rights violation can be fatal to your case, and will be seen as an admission that the law in question does indeed have lawful jurisdiction over you.)
 
One under god
1/17/2009 10:35 AM
 "To maintain an action under 42 USC 1983, it is not necessary to allege or prove that the defendants intended to deprive plaintiff of his Constitutional rights or that they acted willfully, purposefully, or in a furtherance of a conspiracy. . . it is sufficient to establish that the deprivation. . . was the natural consequences of defendants acting under color of law. . . ." Ethridge v. Rhodos, DC Ohio 268 F Supp 83 (1967), Whirl v. Kern CA 5 Texas 407 F 2d 781 (1968)

Title 18 United States Code, Section 241, provides that... "any person who goes on the highway in disguise to prevent or hinder the free exercise and enjoyment of any right so secured by law...shall be fined not more than $10,000.00 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both."

Further, Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, provides for one or more persons who, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, territory, or district to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution, or laws of the United States... shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, with its color of law provision, gives a cause of action to apply Title 18, United States Code, Section 241, because Section 241 needs two persons in disguise and Section 242 provides the second person under color of law as the "QUASI SUMMONS" mentioned herein implies that a judge in the Municipal Court is acting in concert to commit an overt act of fraud and extortion for conversion.

Further, United States Code, Title 18, section 242 provides for one or more persons who, under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any state, territory, or district to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. . . shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.



BOTTOM LINE IN REGARDS TO THE PATRIOT ACT:

  "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as
inoperative as though it had never been passed." -- Norton vs. Shelby County,
118, US 425 p. 442

 
Jordan2Dope
1/17/2009 10:36 AM

"pander to the minority whose most important issue in life is a drug. "

Minority?? Lol....Do your research man.

Are you one of these people that support Tobacco and Alcohol. Both combined result in about 500,000 deaths a year, while marijuana result in 0 deaths a year

Stop letting the government obstruct your views, Open your eyes. You've been taught that it's bad.....so therefore you think it's bad.

Go smoke your addictive tobacco and sip your addictive alcohol......I mean....they are legal..........It's MUCH safer than marijuana.....right...............................................

 
infowars.com
1/17/2009 10:37 AM
seek the truth infowars.com
 
DrMummy
1/17/2009 10:38 AM
Steffi

lrn2 science

The active ingresients in MJ are called cannabinoids.

These chemicals are also made in your brain.
 
One under god
1/17/2009 10:39 AM
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." --
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US 137, 174, 176 (1803)

Keep records of any injury you have have sustained as well as witnesses of their precise illegal actions that resulted in an injury.

source: http://christsassembly.com/watchman_reporters/index.php/topi c,338.new.html#new
1. Because things are done by the state that doesn't make the activity itself illegitimate (e.g. health care, education) the activity in this case being self-defense (I think all libertarians are opposed to wars of conquest.)

2. However that doesn't address the question of what to do if the activity in question necessarily involves large scale and systematic rights violations for third parties such as non-combatants, particularly those such as children who cannot even be counted as "indirectly combatant" by virtue of being involved in the productive process in the combatant nation. (I should make it clear that I think that this particular justification for total war is bogus.)

3. There are indeed libertarians who, adopting a position of strict individualism, argue that libertarianism does preclude war (other than perhaps a very strictly defensive one fought on one's own real estate). Wendy McElroy and Neill Smith would be examples of this. This doesn't mean pacifism since this position does not entail rejection of the use of defensive force per se, just the organised use of force that must inevitably impact on innocent third parties.

4. This does raise the question of whether there is some alternative to the large scale organised use of force (i.e. war) to defend against aggression, whether direct or indirect, and to assist others in resisting oppression or aggression.

There are a number of possibilities that have classically been floated or even used such as a Swiss style militia, the use of organised passive resistance, assasination of targeted rights violators, sabotage and subversion by various means. This all draws on notions such as Gene Sharp's idea of "social power" derived from voluntaristic action.
 
marsmath
1/17/2009 10:41 AM
User-added image
TAKING HIS MEDICINE
AWAY, SHOULD BE
 
Carlsbad
1/17/2009 10:43 AM
Let me respect the police and the goverment again.

____

This is part of the reason why some of us in the middle don't jump whole heartedly to your side.   If the law is everything you personally want it to be, you imply you will obey it - yet when you disagree with it, as you obviously do, you ignore it.  The people have spoken through their elected representatives and criminlized marijuana - this isn't some government conspiracy where "government" is acting out of step with the majority of its people.  "government" is not your enemy - your fellow citizens, the majority, are.

The fact is, you don't care about the law, or respecting it, you're willing to break it if it fits in with your philosophy.  You put your own desires above complying with the rules of our democracy.   To the rest of us who are indifferent to marijuana and are generally supportive of individual rights, your rejection of law and the democracy that created the laws prevents us from joining you on your crusade.

 
marsmath
1/17/2009 10:44 AM
CANCER- COLORECTAL


Anandamide, induces cell death in colorectal carcinoma cells
http://gut.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/54/12/1741


Cannabinoids and cancer: potential for colorectal cancer therapy. (may need free registration)
http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/16042581


Marijuana takes on colon cancer
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...9_head_dn14451


Cannabis compound clue to colon cancer
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-alcohol_rss20
 
Freetheweed
1/17/2009 10:45 AM
Carlsbad, you wrote:
do you mind if Obama works on the economy first?
Do some research, legalizing has an easy potential of saving and gaining BILLIONSof dollars right here in our own country.
not to mention if it were legal for the past 71 years that the prohibition has been ruining lives over, we would have had those 71 years of innovation, scientific studys could find the anti-cancer  potential.

Not to say that this is the 1 fix-it-solution but it will save alot of our time wasted on possesors of marijuana and also create millions of new jobs, keep hard working americans out of jail and get to keep there houses and goto college.
 
Jack (Mr_Soap)
1/17/2009 10:45 AM
Maybe this time we will be heard. *crosses fingers*
 
marsmath
1/17/2009 10:46 AM
CANCER- GLIOMA/ BRAIN


Anti-tumor effects of cannabidiol
http://www.hempworld.com/HempPharm/a...ilanstudy.html


Pot’s cancer healing properties
http://www.november.org/stayinfo/bre...cerKiller.html


Cannabinoids Inhibit the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Pathway in Gliomas
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cg...ort/64/16/5617


Inhibition of Glioma Growth in Vivo
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cg...61/15/5784.pdf


Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme.
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/...w.php?s_id=193


Cannabidiol triggers caspase activation and oxidative stress in human glioma cells.
http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/...?pmid=16909207


Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12088.php


THC tested against brain tumour in pilot clinical study
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/...l.php?id=222#1


THC inhibits cell cycle progression in human glioblastoma multiforme cells
http://marijuana.researchtoday.net/a.../4/10/1467.htm


Down-regulation of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 in gliomas
http://marijuana.researchtoday.net/a.../4/12/1563.htm


Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression.
http://marijuana.researchtoday.net/archive/5/3/1697.htm


Anti-Tumor Effects
http://www.ukcia.org/research/AntiTumorEffects.htm
 
Carlsbad
1/17/2009 10:47 AM
Minority?? Lol....Do your research man.

___
I already have.   Have you?   Post one major poll from a mainstream source that shows majority support for marijuana legalization.   

BTW, I don't care if you smoke or not and I'd vote to decriminalize it.  Part of your error is imagining that you and the others whose life revolves around a drug are somehow able to see clearly and the rest of us are not... No government conspiracy here is against you, just democracy. 
 
marsmath
1/17/2009 10:49 AM
"The greatest service that can be rendered to any country is to add a useful plant to its culture." -Thomas Jefferson


"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson


"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this." -Albert Einstein, My First Impression of the U.S.A., 1921


"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marihuana in private for personal use...Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce [28g] of marihuana." -Jimmy Carter, U.S. President, Message to congress, 1977


"In any civilized society, it is every citizen's responsibility to obey just laws. But at the same time, it is every citizen's responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - Martin Luther King Jr.


"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 5th Amendment, I was quiet because I wasn't a criminal. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun. Now they've taken the 1st Amendment, and I can say nothing about it." - author unknown
 
Demo
1/17/2009 10:50 AM
Forget smoking it, Forget making any products from it, Forget using it in anyway. Just the fact that I can go to jail in my state for 18 months just for having a plant in my house is ridiculous. Its not harming anyone just sitting there. It lets out a nice aroma but yet you 100 of miles away say I can't have that certain plant in my house.
 
One under god
1/17/2009 10:50 AM
It seems to me that there is a significant difference between a situation where a government is defending its own citizens and where a government is defending citizens of another country. In the first case, the citizens have a say in the decision; in the second, they don't.
 
A government acting in accordance with Libertarian principles will have processes in place giving its own citizens at least indirect control of its policies, including defense.

The citizens of another country may not want intervention; as individuals, some may be in distress, and some not. Often, the intervener is in the position of separating hostile factions intent on killing each other (as in the former Yugoslavia) while all factions would prefer to have the intervener stay away.

Libertarianism puts a premium on individual liberties, and with liberties comes responsibility. The individual citizens of a given country are the ones primarily responsible for sorting out its problems.

They can't do so if another country steps in, pretending to have divine knowledge of what is right for them. I suppose that if the various factions could unanimously ask for help, then Libertarianism would not prevent intervention. But, if the factions could get unanimous agreement, they could probably work out their own problems without help.

So, I think that "defenseism" does follow from Libertarianism.

Obama vs the rest

A number of commentators have linked this passage from Barack Obama's speech:

t's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.

Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America.

There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America — there is the United States of America.

 But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.

. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

 
pwrblnc
1/17/2009 10:52 AM
Initially, It didn't take all the states participation to end the prohibition on alcohol.  It was one of the first acts taken by the Roosevelt administration to encourage changes to (and subsequently repeal) the 18th Amendment. It was a two-step process; the first was the Beer Revenue Act. This legalized beer and wine with alcohol content up to 3.2% alc/vol. The second step was to pass the 21st Amendment to the Constitution. With the words <i>“The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”</i> Americans could once again drink legally and on December 5, 1933 the nationwide prohibition was over. States had the final word but at least they could act on it without the Federal Government coming in and acting on their own to make arrests. It didn't take very long for all the states to jump on board and legalize alcohol. So the argument that this can not be done by the president is not true. President Roosevelt made that clear.
 
marsmath
1/17/2009 10:55 AM

I am currently a student who does not, has not and does not plan on using marijuana; nor do i use alcohol or tobacco. As a non-user, i can provide unbiased support for marijuana. I am in an Economics class at my university. Our proffesor spent 3 classes [4.5 hours] just on the benefits of marijuana legalization. The money that is spent enforcing the prohibition of just marijuana [DEA, jails, police officers, government drug tests, propoganda, etc.], and the potential tax revenue [assuming marijuana is taxed at the same percentage as tobacco and alcohol, and is purchased legally at the same rate and price as is currently purchased illeagaly] could finance the ENTIRE Iraq Conflict [conflict, not war; war was never declared]. Also, the black market for marijuana is causing a HUGELY uneven distribution of wealth. And wherever there is a black market, there is violence. This violence is also being paid for our tax dollars in housing (jails) and in law enforcement [I have paid taxes 3 times now, and proud of it!]. Also, marijuana producers do not use marijuana to its full potential very often either. Roasted and salted hemp seeds offer double the health benefit as peanuts. Hemp is one of the best natural fibers occuring on planet earth. Government taxes on these products as well could be that extra edge to help push us out of our economic unrest right now. The economic benefits, as well as the claimed medical benefits, are FAR more than the negative effects or detering effects of its legalization. Since its distribution is unregulated by the government, the prices and quality are also unregulated. Marijuana usage is never going to stop, either. In fact, its usage has increased by over 10,000% since its prohibition. It is a common fact that you never know what you're buying when it comes to illegal drugs. You don't know what its laced with or if it was treated with harmful or lethal chemical or pesticides. Would you rather buy marijuana from a drug dealer with a pink mohawk on the corner of the street and risk being arrested and not know what you're buying, or would you rather buy it from a licensed government approved retailer that has to abide by STRICT regulations in order to keep its license? Would you rather buy moonshine or would you rather buy Jack Daniels? It is a more logical AND moral decision to legalize marijuana to protect the health and families of those who do use marijuana, as well as to protect the safety of those who do not.

 
Coinyer101
1/17/2009 10:56 AM
carlsbad. it's called an EXECUTIVE ORDER!!
 
mandanclan
1/17/2009 10:56 AM
"I already have.   Have you?   Post one major poll from a mainstream source that shows majority support for marijuana legalization.   

BTW, I don't care if you smoke or not and I'd vote to decriminalize it.  Part of your error is imagining that you and the others whose life revolves around a drug are somehow able to see clearly and the rest of us are not... No government conspiracy here is against you, just democracy. "

carlsbad,

you are obviously an educated and intelligent person, and i get where it is you are coming from. However, my life does not evolve around marijuana and i know of many others in the same boat. yes, there ARE, people who take it that far. That's just personal choice. You can take cheeseburgers too far. look at the obesity count in the U.S. alone.

I dont think democracy is at all against us. hell look at the votes on this very poll...we're #1 for god's sake!
 
jaymoney
1/17/2009 10:57 AM
 
The Engineer
1/17/2009 10:58 AM
Fundamental rights and liberty.  These are yours. 

"Treat adults like adults and children like children."  This is reversed in our society.

Whether you support this or not and whether you like it or not, you were born with the right to drugs, all drugs.  This right is so basic that it precedes any (U.S. or otherwise) Constitution and the right to vote.

However, your right to drugs is actually in harmony with the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, as it should be in a free country.   "All men are created equal, etc..."  But, again that is irrelevant.  If there is an argument otherwise, then the U.S. Constitution must be amended, if you want congruence.  But, your right remains, again...like it or not.

The current system deprives us of that right.

It is actually that simple.  Accept and take back your rights.

You always retain the right to refuse drugs.  It is your choice.

Approximately one third of this country does not drink alcohol and that is their right to choose not to consume alcohol.

It is no ones affair what medicines or herbs you (do or don't) consume for whatever reason you (do or don't) consume them. 
 
mandanclan
1/17/2009 10:59 AM
thank you jaymoney!!! i was just about to reference that.

well actually i did "abusing cheeseburgers..." hahahahaha
 
One under god
1/17/2009 10:59 AM
according to a new Headline Press survey. The new poll found that 86% of all those surveyed favor the decriminalization of pot. ( see American Chronicle )

The online survey, conducted over the last two weeks of October, found that only 14% of those surveyed do not want the use of marijuana legalized. Studies indicate that the medicinal use of marijuana aids in the healing or prevention of cataracts, broken bones, a variety of cancers and other ailments.
 
marsmath
1/17/2009 11:04 AM
Albert Schweitzer:

Civilization can only revive when there shall come into being in a number of individuals a new tone of mind, independent of the prevalent one among the crowds, and in opposition to it -- a tone of mind which will gradually win influence over the collective one, and in the end determine its character. Only an ethical movement can rescue us from barbarism, and the ethical comes into existence only in individuals.

User-added image

YES WE CANNABIS!
 
Carlsbad
1/17/2009 11:05 AM
Do some research, legalizing has an easy potential of saving and gaining BILLIONSof dollars right here in our own country.

---
Economic  "research" from NORML and other pot smokers doesn't convince those of us who aren't dominated by a drug that legalizing this drug is some great thing for our economy.  I'm open minded as most of us are - post some research from a mainstream source (CNN; The Economist; Forbes; etc...) that suggests legalizing pot will be a great economic benefit.

the past 71 years that the prohibition has been ruining lives over,

---
Prohibition hasn't ruined lives - the people who chose to put the importance of a drug over protecting their own future have ruined their lives.   Why would they do this again if marijuana is harmless, nonaddictive and doesn't produce irrational behavior?

Not to say that this is the 1 fix-it-solution but it will save alot of our time wasted on possesors of marijuana and also create millions of new jobs, keep hard working americans out of jail and get to keep there houses and goto college.

---
Their first priority is pot - if their first priority were working and staying out of jail or going to college, they wouldn't do whatever they do that gets them arrested, in jail and unable to work or go to college.   They put a drug before their lives and you consider this rational?

I'm not against you, on my island all drugs would be legal, but in America democracy rules.  Sorry.
 
Ishael
1/17/2009 11:07 AM
This user is a liar and a troll, help crush him!
<a href="http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/ideaProfile.apexp?c=09a800000004fo6&
u=00580000001n6r1">B0zFee</a>

<a href="http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/ideaProfile.apexp?c=09a800000004fo6&u=00580000001nS3i">My</a> post from <a href="http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004n6l#comments">Honesty and Transparency</a>

Here's transparency, I posted an honest new topic in the forum, and the trolls got together and squashed it...so now I will repost it as comment in the popular forum threads that might in some way be relevant.  The text follows...

Mr. Barack Obama
My name is Jason Robert Canitz
I live at 4615 Mallow Rd
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
I request your pardon of my past misdeeds, so that I might live my life to the fullest, and be able to utilize all my hard-earned wisdom for my own benefit, and to the betterment of others.  I am a student at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs where I am a sophomore. 

I wish to write an autobiographical book so I can share my life experience with others without fear of retaliation over my past misdeeds.  I am ashamed of my past, and long to absolve myself of it, so that I might become something more and greater. 

My academic interests are neuro-psychology, neurobiology, quantum physics, machine-phase chemistry, and evolutionary computation. 
My Ultimate goal is to enable myself and humanity in general, to separate consciousness from biological life. 


Consciousness, sentient life should be preserved for as long as the being wishes to exist, sentient life should not have to grow old and die if it does not want to.  Furthermore, sentient life should be enabled to inhabit whatever shell it wishes to, be that man, woman, android (male/female/other) or even exist as a being of pure energy inside of a neural net (which is, what we as people are in our brains, but it should be possible to replace biology which must whither and die, with technology which is far easier to maintain (that is, provided life extension treatments don't come about soon).  Plus, technology has the capability to run much faster than biology (machine time vs. biological time), so that would drive human evolution and technological advancement along an exponential curve.  The knee of the curve is called the singularity, that's when slow progress gives way to hyper fast progress.  For an example, look at a graph of the function [y=e^x} and you will see what I am describing. 

Please take me seriously, and give me the chance I need to ascend to greatness. I voted for you, and have applied for a position in your administration.  If you get this message, you will be hearing more from me.  You will soon have the power to make my dreams in life a reality.  Take an interest in me, and I pledge I will do whatever I can for you, and for America, and for all sentient life everywhere!

 
Nick S.
1/17/2009 11:07 AM
Post one major poll from a mainstream source that shows majority support for marijuana legalization.  

Ok.

Change.org - marijuana legalization was the #1 idea
Change.gov - of the three times now, marijuana legalization has been #1 twice and #4 once.

Is that not enough to show you?
 
phantom
1/17/2009 11:08 AM
 Carlsbad takes lessons from Bill O' Reilly, so don't worry about him. He's not supposed to make sense.

In these hard economic times, it makes more sense than ever to do away with the war on drugs, specifically, the war on marijuana.

http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/

If marijuana were taxed like tobacco and alcohol, the study claims that the federal government would earn 6.2 billion yearly. Couldn't we use that money to, oh I dunno, fund scientific research on cancer, or improve our public transportation system? You know, something actually worth-while that doesn't hurt the American people? It's a well-known fact that 33% of Americans smoke marijuana, while only 25% of the Netherlands citizens smoke marijuana. The reefer madness river has run dry. The DEA can't even claim it kills anymore. Just look at the "fact sheet" on their website.

The truth is, those who are pro-legalization see the marijuana plant for what it truly is, they see it with a clear view, unobstructed from the government's relentless nay-saying and the widespread classical drug-conditioning we've been enforcing on our kids (see: pavlovian response). On the other hand, those against legalization see the marijuana plant through a very small, tainted telescope, leaving them to believe that not only is it a harmful plant, but also that their view is inerrant and shouldn't be questioned.

I'm not saying everyone should use and abuse marijuana, I'm saying that there's been plenty of modern, non-biased research on marijuana and it's shown that it's better for our bodies than any other prescription and over-the-counter medicine on the market, period.
 
YoMeR
1/17/2009 11:08 AM
say aye to our government wasting monies on a futile war.


 
Dissi
1/17/2009 11:08 AM
To carlsbad who supports the federal laws of tyranny that Obama has no control over. After all a President has no control over the Federal govt.
Haibus Corpus and the Magan Carta gave the power of the jurry to the people, It only takes one of me to overide 11 of you in jurry room.
Our founding fathers provided a fix to your tyranny and Obama's if he does nothing.
Even the people of the 12th century new better then you their rigth and responsabilities to be a patriot
 
pwrblnc
1/17/2009 11:09 AM

I have noticed a large number of comments here from those who are using the term druggies and potheads in their negative response to this briefing entry. I can't help but wonder how many of them drink? I can assure you, and I am sure I have many who will agree, that alcohol does much more harm than marijuana. I know of at least three people who have died from alcohol poisoning. I had an alcoholic step-father who abused my mother, myself and my four brothers. I worked at a police department as a dispatcher and have heard the cries from wives, husbands and families is crisis when the drunk comes home.

I wish those three dead friends and my step-father had been smoking marijuana. Things would have been much different. I might also note that all of my friends who smoke marijuana are now over 50 years of age, successful, intelligent and contribute more to society than a drunk.

 
mandanclan
1/17/2009 11:11 AM
^^^what he said.
 
IbmJohn
1/17/2009 11:14 AM

I can agree with many of the arguments against the prohibition, however it seems a shame that this issue is the most popular among the users of this website. 

 
marsmath
1/17/2009 11:15 AM
 
Carlsbad
1/17/2009 11:05 AM        ....Prohibition hasn't ruined lives - ...


                      WE HAVE A WINNER!!!  FINALY, THE BIGGEST FOOL ON THE INTERNET!
 
Coinyer101
1/17/2009 11:16 AM
excellent post, marmath. it appears you have used our educational institutions wisely, and i have great respect for a teacher who does not join in with the government propaganda 'machine'. freedom of speech is a most valued gift. so is freedom from ignorance.
 
Carlsbad
1/17/2009 11:28 AM
carlsbad. it's called an EXECUTIVE ORDER!!

---
One of the ironies is that some of the posts on this board tend to show the negative effects of marijuana it is claimed don't exist.   Executive Orders can not override state law.   OBAMA CAN DO NOTHING TO LEGALIZE POT, only the 50 legislatures can do this.

Why didn't Bush outlaw abortion with an EO?   Why doesn't he simply outlaw gay marriage with an EO?   In fact, why didn't he just outlaw Democrats or voting in general with an EO?   EO's can not contradict the law created by the legislatures - their legal purpose is for interstitial clarification where laws are ambiguous.  (abused in Bush years)

my life does not evolve around marijuana

Yet you and your cosmokers think this is the #1 issue for the US president, which makes it hard to believe that this issue isn't tremendously important to you.   I myself voted for things my life revolves around - my family, my work, the economy, and I strongly suspect you did as well.

I dont think democracy is at all against us. hell look at the votes on this very poll...we're #1 for god's sake!

Is that not enough to show you?

Online polls aimed at the party dope smokers call home?   Again, look at national polling from mainstream sources and look at Obama's words on this matter.  You are a minority, you will never vote Republican and thus Obama can safely ignore you and govern to the mainstream popular priorities.   In many ways, what you're advocating is just as bad as Bush pandering to the jesus freaks and war mongers in his party.
Subscribe to ideas