DEA will make decision by June 30th on decriminalizing marijuana

http://takeaction.earlblumenauer.com/cannabis

Petition above.

Orlando went a long with Tampa, Miami and I believe Volusia county on criminalizing under 20 grams

Obama should go along with this.  It would be out of character for him not to.

He ought to just sign an executive order and let the chips fall with the new President that will rescind his executive order's, maybe.

Any republican president would likely overturn it.
Especially Trump.  He's adamantly opposed to it and alcohol both.

ppaca wrote:http://takeaction.earlblumenauer.com/cannabis

Petition above.

Orlando went a long with Tampa, Miami and I believe Volusia county on criminalizing under 20 grams

Decriminalizing?

knothead wrote:

ppaca wrote:http://takeaction.earlblumenauer.com/cannabis

Petition above.

Orlando went a long with Tampa, Miami and I believe Volusia county on criminalizing under 20 grams

Decriminalizing?

A ticket instead of an arrest, pay a fine and be on your way, no record. That is for the first few times I read and the fine will go up each time. Haven't read what they'll do if they catch you 10 times.

In 1972 I was arrested with well over an ounce, spent night in jail, went to court next morning in a big gymnasium with about 150 other's and pleaded no contest, fined $150 and no record. I didn't live to far from Ann Arbor at the time and in Ann Arbor it was I believe a $5.00 fine back then.

ppaca wrote:

knothead wrote:

ppaca wrote:http://takeaction.earlblumenauer.com/cannabis

Petition above.

Orlando went a long with Tampa, Miami and I believe Volusia county on criminalizing under 20 grams

Decriminalizing?

A ticket instead of an arrest, pay a fine and be on your way, no record. That is for the first few times I read and the fine will go up each time. Haven't read what they'll do if they catch you 10 times.

In 1972 I was arrested with well over an ounce, spent night in jail, went to court next morning in a big gymnasium with about 150 other's and pleaded no contest, fined $150 and no record. I didn't live to far from Ann Arbor at the time and in Ann Arbor it was I believe a $5.00 fine back then.

Wow . . . . heck of a scare I assume but it does make the point that locking young people up with a felony record for their lifetime makes no sense. Glad it all eventually turned out good . . . .

The closest I came was in high school. A friend and I were out mudding in his baja bug and were pulled over coming out of the woods. We were covered in mud and they pulled us out of the car. They search everywhere... pulled the seats and the spare tire... literally spent and hour searching. But they didn't check the ash tray where there was a pipe and bag and a bunch of roaches... lol. We were freaking out the whole time.

PkrBum wrote:The closest I came was in high school. A friend and I were out mudding in his baja bug and were pulled over coming out of the woods. We were covered in mud and they pulled us out of the car. They search everywhere... pulled the seats and the spare tire... literally spent and hour searching. But they didn't check the ash tray where there was a pipe and bag and a bunch of roaches... lol. We were freaking out the whole time.

Lady luck was smiling down on ya . . . . lol

On a more serious note... ALL prohibition is wrong... we must realize that some people simply choose to fail. Whether it's drinking themselves to death, eating themselves to death, even being too lazy to provide for themselves. Before I'm considered heartless and cruel... I'm not including the truly and verifiably disabled or those that paid into programs like ss or medicare. Now there can certainly be private restrictions... for example employment conditions or activities that could harm others like driving. But part of liberty is the right to fail... and it must be protected as aggressively as equal protection and opportunity should be.

Playing in the Nebraska ditch weed some years ago

My brother spent 7 months in the penitentiary in 1972 for possession of less than an ounce. I think it was planted on him. He was only 17 when he was arrested...they held him in county until after his birthday. He received a 5-year sentence, but the law was abruptly changed and they released him in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere. I went to visit him in that hellhole. At that time in Texas, the penalty for possession with intent to distribute could carry the death penalty. Nixon couldn't tolerate the anti-war protests.

My wife and I once went on a cruise that had a stop in Ocho Rios Jamaica.  I didn't want to stay in the "cruise vacuum" atmosphere and instead wanted to go out and see real Jamaica.  I asked "How do I get outside of this resort area" and the workers there gave me a look like "are you sure you want to do that?"  They told me where to go and we headed that way.  As we're walking along these 20 foot walls that surround the resort area, I start to notice razor wire along the tops.  It looked like something out of Jurassic Park.  We approached a gate where there was a crowd of police and people in military dress.  They asked what we were doing out there and I said I wanted to go outside of the gates.  They had odd looks on their faces, but opened them nevertheless.  Once we got maybe a hundred yards away, people began to approach us aggressively trying to sell us things, offering to take us places, etc.  One guy says "I bet you like to smoke weed.  I can take you to a ganja mountain. A huge mountain with ganja as far as the eye can see. You can smoke all ya want mon."  I practically begged my wife, though I could tell she was getting uncomfortable with the level of attention we were getting, so we had to pass.  

One of these days I'm going to head back down there and see this ganja mountain.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/15/more-and-more-doctors-want-to-make-marijuana-legal/

A group of more than 50 physicians, including a former surgeon general and faculty members at some of the nation's leading medical schools, has formed the first national organization of doctors to call on states and the federal government to legalize and regulate the use of marijuana in the interest of public health.

The group — which is announcing its formation Monday, under the name Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR) — is endorsing the legalization of marijuana for adult recreational use, a break from the position of the American Medical Association, the largest organization of doctors in the country. DFCR argues that the prohibition and criminalization of marijuana use does more harm to the public than good. Citing hundreds of thousands of annual marijuana arrests, racial and economic disparities in marijuana enforcement, and the role of prohibition in keeping marijuana prices high and lucrative to violent drug dealers, the physicians say that creating a legal and regulated marijuana market is the best way to ensure public safety, combat the illicit drug trade and roll back the negative consequences of strict enforcement policies on disadvantaged communities.

The emergence of the group comes at a crucial moment in the national debate over marijuana legalization. More than 60 percent of the public now says that it supports marijuana legalization. Support for allowing medical use of marijuana with doctors' supervision is closer to 90 percent. Over 35 million Americans use marijuana recreationally each year, according to the latest federal statistics. Research organizations, medical groups and even many national lawmakers have called on federal authorities to revisit policies toward marijuana that have remained essentially unchanged for nearly 50 years.

"You don't have to be pro-marijuana to be opposed to its prohibition," DFCR founder and board president David L. Nathan said in an interview. Nathan is an associate professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School at Rutgers University and a distinguished fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. He's quick to point out that his group does not advocate for the use of marijuana: While researchers generally agree that marijuana use is less harmful to individuals and society than the use of other common drugs, like alcohol and tobacco, about 9 percent of people who begin using as adults become dependent on the drug, and heavy use can be especially harmful to the developing brains of adolescents.

Rather, Nathan says, the best way to manage those risks is to bring use of the drug, as well as the associated commerce in it, out into the open via regulation. "Doctors should affirmatively support this," he said. "If you’re going to make something against the law, the health consequences of that use have to be so bad to make it worth creating criminal consequences. That was never true of marijuana. It was banned in 1937 over the objections of the American Medical Association (AMA)."

Indeed, in 1937, the AMA objected to the overly strict regulation of marijuana, as it was then used as a treatment for a number of medical conditions. The Association was worried that prohibition of marijuana would "deprive the public of the benefits of a drug that on further research may prove to be of substantial value."

After the passage of the "Marihuana Tax Act," marijuana "just wasn't that well-known among doctors," Nathan said. Many doctors were unaware that the drug essentially outlawed by the Marihuana Tax Act was the same substance they knew as "cannabis," which they used to treat a variety of ailments from corns to poor appetite. In subsequent years, physicians were just as susceptible to lurid media reports about the supposed dangers of marijuana use and the "Reefer Madness" era as anyone else.

Like most mainstream medical groups, the AMA is now opposed to the outright legalization of marijuana, calling it a "dangerous drug" and "a public health concern." But the group's stance has evolved in recent years. It recently added language to its position statements calling for "the modification of state and federal laws to emphasize public health based strategies," rather than punitive, incarceration-based measures. The group now encourages research into the drug, and has called on federal authorities to make it easier to do so.

Doctors often find themselves acting as mediators between patients who want access to marijuana for medical purposes, and a federal bureaucracy that still considers the drug illegal for all purposes.

"Physicians are put in the awkward position with respect to individuals who ask for a marijuana recommendation, but otherwise would be perfectly happy purchasing the drug in a retail environment," Nathan said. "We believe that the best way to improve the situation is to enact full legalization with smart regulation. That would more clearly separate medical from personal use."

Not all medical professionals are happy about relaxing attitudes toward what they see as a dangerous, addictive drug. The notion of doctors advocating for marijuana legalization is "totally idiotic," said Robert DuPont, who served as the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and as the second White House drug czar, in an interview. "The idea that we cannot manage the health problems related to marijuana because it's illegal, that doctors are somehow inhibited from dealing with marijuana use and marijuana problems, is completely wrong."

"The idea that legalizing is going to stop the illegal market is equally stupid," he added.

DuPont thinks that the current legal status of marijuana is sufficient to address the risks associated with marijuana use, and that punitive measures for drug sellers and users can be a powerful tool for helping at-risk people get treatment. "The criminal justice system is a wonderful vehicle for getting people into treatment and recovery," he said.

Other physicians would like to see marijuana use decriminalized, but would not go so far as to make the drug completely legal for adult recreational use. Peter Friedmann, an addiction-medicine physician at University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate Health, notes that we already have two legal psychoactive drugs — alcohol and tobacco. "What is the problem for which having a third class of legal drug is the answer?" he questioned.

Still, he points out that there's a lot of diversity in the medical field. "People are of their time and of their culture and doctors are no different," he said. "There are physicians who are Republicans, Democrats, Independents — they pretty much they reflect the population. There are all kinds. The fact that there's a group of physicians now coming out in favor of cannabis legalization as the only effective way to regulate, it is no surprise."

Much of the discussion around marijuana legalization, among doctors and the general public alike, hinges on different assessments of the same data showing the risks and benefits of changing marijuana laws. Groups like the AMA are concerned that legalization would lead to more widespread use of the drug, which would invariably mean greater prevalence of the negative health consequences associated with its use, like dependency and some mental illnesses that may be exacerbated by the drug's use.

PkrBum wrote:On a more serious note... ALL prohibition is wrong... we must realize that some people simply choose to fail. Whether it's drinking themselves to death, eating themselves to death, even being too lazy to provide for themselves. Before I'm considered heartless and cruel... I'm not including the truly and verifiably disabled or those that paid into programs like ss or medicare. Now there can certainly be private restrictions... for example employment conditions or activities that could harm others like driving. But part of liberty is the right to fail... and it must be protected as aggressively as equal protection and opportunity should be.

You're right, the lazy ones regardless of whether they smoke weed, drink or completely straight are always going to lazy and make nothing of their lives. I know more successful people who have used it than unsuccessful.

Summed up in 5 words why you will never get rid of drugs...
''People want to get high''