Marijuana is now legal in 4 more states [Archive]

ckaihatsu

25th February 2017, 14:58

Spicer Indicates Crackdown

Drug Policy Alliance

Chris,

Today, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer strongly indicated that the Department of Justice will crack down on recreational marijuana programs.

When asked at a press briefing whether the federal government will take action in states that have legalized marijuana, Spicer said, “I do think you’ll see greater enforcement. The Department of Justice, I think, will be further looking into [the issue]. I believe they are going to continue to enforce the laws on the books with respect to recreational marijuana.” You can watch the briefing here. (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=5&ms=MjgwMDU3NTMS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=OTg0NjE2MDk4S0&mt=1&rt=0)

Since 2012, the Obama Administration took a hands off approach to recreational marijuana. That’s about to change.

Jeff Sessions and the Trump Administration are on the wrong side of history. Almost 60% of the American people support legalizing marijuana, and support is growing.

It’s time for Congress to act and let states set their own policies. Send a message to your representatives now to support the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2017. (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=2&ms=MjgwMDU3NTMS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=OTg0NjE2MDk4S0&mt=1&rt=0)

We must fight back against the Jeff Sessions Justice Department.

It’s worth noting that thanks to the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, which DPA and our allies helped pass in 2014, Spicer said the Justice Department will not intervene in medical marijuana states.

But that amendment does not protect the eight states with legal marijuana programs. There’s little that can be done unless we end the federal prohibition of marijuana once and for all.

Stand with us and send a message to your representatives now. (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=7&ms=MjgwMDU3NTMS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=OTg0NjE2MDk4S0&mt=1&rt=0)

Trump seems insistent on pushing the marijuana market back underground, wiping out tax-paying jobs, and eliminating billions of dollars in taxes.

We can’t let this stand.

Sincerely,

Bill Piper
Senior Director of National Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance

facebook (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=11&ms=MjgwMDU3NTMS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=OTg0NjE2MDk4S0&mt=1&rt=0) twitter (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=8&ms=MjgwMDU3NTMS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=OTg0NjE2MDk4S0&mt=1&rt=0)

You have received this email because [email protected] is a member of the Drug Policy Alliance mailing list.

Unsubscribe from this mailing list. - Contact Us.

Drug Policy Alliance
131 West 33rd St., 15th Floor New York, NY 10001

Raul Castro

25th February 2017, 15:24

willowtooth

1st March 2017, 09:37

jdneel

1st March 2017, 16:18

Because of prohibition, marijuana is easier for kids to obtain than a beer. Legalization would help keep it out of the hands of minors.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

(A)

1st March 2017, 18:57

Marijuana is shown to highly damaging to kids as it slows down the brain, legalizing encourages a culture that is dangerous. 80% of people who od heroine started out on weed, By legalizing it you say yeah it is ok. Of course Marijuana isn't cocaine but it is not good for you in any kind of way

Why I am I not surprised the totalitarian left is Anti-Cannabis.

legalizing encourages a culture that is dangerous.
Their is nothing dangerous about weed culture.

80% of people who od heroine started out on weed,
AND 100% of heroine users breath air routinely; I fail to see the connection. Do you just believe what any government official tells you?

"Weed is bad M'kay" Said Castro probably.

it is not good for you in any kind of way
Cannabis and its extracts have proven to combat several forms of cancer not to mention it is an Anti-depressant; a Anti-inflammatory; Anti-convulsant and is used to treat a long list of other ailments including MS and neurological disorders.

You are right that

legalizing encourages a culture that is dangerous.

But the dangerous culture is the culture of accepting government regulation; not the use of a natural medication.

jdneel

1st March 2017, 19:41

The evidence for medical cannabis is overwhelming. The GOVERNMENT'S claim that cannabis has no medicinal properties is an outright falsehood and the public knows it. One would think that our politicians would consult doctors before making such pronouncements.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

The Intransigent Faction

2nd March 2017, 07:27

Why I am I not surprised the totalitarian left is Anti-Cannabis.

Their is nothing dangerous about weed culture.

AND 100% of heroine users breath air routinely; I fail to see the connection. Do you just believe what any government official tells you?

"Weed is bad M'kay" Said Castro probably.

Cannabis and its extracts have proven to combat several forms of cancer not to mention it is an Anti-depressant; a Anti-inflammatory; Anti-convulsant and is used to treat a long list of other ailments including MS and neurological disorders.

You are right that

But the dangerous culture is the culture of accepting government regulation; not the use of a natural medication.

You don't have to turn everything into sectarian bickering. The issue of cannabis' health effects and whether or not it should be illegal can be separated. One can be "totalitarian" and see prohibition as an unwise, ineffective policy (especially under the current context with the systemic racism this entails), just as an anarchist can advise against heroin being handed out to schoolchildren while opposing a legal ban of heroin. Personally, I can see valid (not necessarily sound) arguments for and against restricting drug use in some way. Setting that aside, though, there's something else worth adding:

There's a lot of focus on pot smoking, but prohibition goes well beyond this. I know it varies state-by-state in the U.S., but it took a Supreme Court ruling in Canada, despite government criticism, to allow Canadians to use medicinal marijuana in other ways rather than in effect being forced to smoke it. It's worth mentioning that it's not about people just wanting to smoke a bowl and get high. Prohibition effectively prevented other, potentially more medically appropriate uses.

I understand opposition to prohibition, but let's not give a mistaken impression that smoking it is somehow good for people. It's neither necessary nor probably the best way to get the benefits of marijuana.

IbelieveInanarchy

2nd March 2017, 12:05

Jimmie Higgins

2nd March 2017, 15:05

within capitalism I support reforms to make weed a public utiliy; vapor should be available from a tap in each house or appartment. Under full communism, however, Mickey Mouse will have been appropriated as the mascot of all pot-smokers but children won't care because they will be preoccupied with the study of engineering and will drink the finest apple juice ever produced while their parents (one from each of the six recognized non-Genders as ratified by the 3rd meeting of the revolutionary council in the early days after the fall of the last major capitalist states) roll around on the floor laughing and chewing LSD bubble-gum.

My serious point is that we should not be concerned with policing some abstract population. For the most part people abuse substances of any kind if they are miserable and life is alienating and seems pointless. I don't care about morality, policing others, let's liberate ourselves from alienation, exploitation, and wasted lives/energy and there will be less incentive for people to become obsessive over numbing/stimulating themselves with drink or drugs or shopping or adrenaline or empty sex or weight-lifting or junk-food or tv or gambling or what have you.

willowtooth

3rd March 2017, 15:14

Marijuana only costs 6 bucks a kilo in the DPRK, that's alot

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/north-korea-is-stoned-all-the-time-which-explains-a-lot

ckaihatsu

6th March 2017, 20:48

She was a senator - now she's a political prisoner

http://dingo.care2.com/c2p/mirandacampaigns/delima-petition-wide.jpg

Free Leila de Lima from wrongful imprisonment!

Sign Now (http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AxJpw/zSLf/t8hl)

Chris,

Leila de Lima is a human rights lawyer and senator in the Philippines. She's spent her entire career fighting for justice. And now she's a political prisoner.

Urge the Philippines to release Leila de Lima now. Sign the petition! (http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AxJpw/zSLf/t8hl)

The Philippines is drowning in blood. Starting last year, President Duterte has decided to fight drugs in the worst way possible: by murdering drug users and small dealers. Only a few people have dared to raise their voice in the Philippines to criticize this violence and inhumanity. And one of them is Leila de Lima.

De Lima has tirelessly denounced the bloody war on drugs, which has claimed thousands of lives. Last year, she led a Senate probe to investigate extrajudicial killings in President Duterte's drug crackdown. This past Tuesday, she pointedly criticized President Duterte. By Thursday, the police had issued a warrant for her arrest.

The government claimed she was receiving money from drug traffickers, but that doesn't match the facts. De Lima has always had an exemplary record, and her only crime seems to be voicing her dissent. Human rights organizations around the world agree: this is political persecution. President Duterte is using harsh drug laws to silence voices critical of his administration.

It's time for people across the globe to unite to help Filipinos like Leila de Lima, who want to protect human rights and bring an end to Duterte's bloody tyranny. Help free Leila de Lima so she can continue her important work in defense of human rights. Sign the petition demanding that the Philippine government release her immediately! (http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AxJpw/zSLf/t8hl)

Thank you for all that you do,

Miranda B.
The Care2 Petitions Team

Sign Now (http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AxJpw/zSLf/t8hl)

To stop receiving this newsletter, visit:

or send a blank email message to:

Care2.com, Inc.
275 Shoreline Drive, Suite 300
Redwood City, CA 94065
http://www.care2.com

(A)

6th March 2017, 21:44

Today; Laws that regulate drug use are ineffective; harmful and costly.
Someday soon; Cannabis use will be more common then tobacco use.
Personally; Cannabis is a medicine that has measurable positive effects and I will defend its use like I would defend the use of any life improving medication.

The Intransigent Faction

14th March 2017, 00:44

Canada's "Prince of Pot", Marc Emery, and his wife were recently arrested en route to a cannabis festival in Spain. There have also been raids of pot dispensaries.

What strikes me about the public response is fetishization of law for the sake of law. There's no questioning as to the purpose of laws against use of marijuana...simply a tautology, "the law is the law."

That's a broader attitude that will need to be challenged by the left to make any progress on this and many other issues. We need adaptable social conventions that suit a functional purpose for society, not codified abstractions determined through a formal, alienating process.

We don't need laws to be conscious that running down the street and hitting random neighbours over the head with a spiked baseball bat, for example, is dangerous antisocial behaviour and should be prevented. Illegality is a redundancy---such behaviour is not wrong because its illegal, but because it impedes the functioning of society by unduly threatening people. That law-for-law's-sake condemns this behaviour is incidental, for it can also condemn behaviour that would be in the people's best interests.

ckaihatsu

14th March 2017, 13:24

Just mention the history of *alcohol* prohibition....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

trustyoursources

14th March 2017, 16:35

What would force America to adopt it on a National level? I live in Indiana I fear that the backwardness of the heart land will never allow this state to do it on their own.

ckaihatsu

14th March 2017, 19:08

What would force America to adopt it on a National level? I live in Indiana I fear that the backwardness of the heart land will never allow this state to do it on their own.

The thing that comes to mind is an article I came across a few years ago when the Obama gay marriage thing was going on -- it either implied or explicitly mentioned that the U.S. legalized gay marriage due to international 'peer pressure' (my wording).

http://theweek.com/articles/465579/13-countries-where-gay-marriage-legal-updated

I think it would be similar for *any* civil-rights-type issue under the existing bourgeois framework -- social norms would have to officially change in the most advanced (Western) countries to kick off a ripple effect everywhere else, potentially.

(I don't subscribe to or endorse The Week magazine.)

The Intransigent Faction

17th March 2017, 06:16

Just mention the history of *alcohol* prohibition....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

No, for the love of God, no.

I mean, it depends on how you go about that.

Sure, there's a debate about the effectiveness of prohibition as well, but all too often when alcohol's mentioned I've seen that degenerate into "lol my drug is safer than your drug."

Just make sure you show why prohibition's ineffective. Don't just say "Why not ban alcohol, too?"

Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. ;)

ckaihatsu

17th March 2017, 13:29

No, for the love of God, no.

I mean, it depends on how you go about that.

Sure, there's a debate about the effectiveness of prohibition as well, but all too often when alcohol's mentioned I've seen that degenerate into "lol my drug is safer than your drug."

Just make sure you show why prohibition's ineffective. Don't just say "Why not ban alcohol, too?"

Well, in my previous post I raised the issue of *civil rights*, as in 'it makes no sense for a specialized government force to merely *claim* to have a better grip on substances that are powerful and potentially lethal to the individual'.

For *any* given drug what matters most is *awareness* and knowledge, something that the government has been *far less than forthright* about -- there's far more to be monetarily gained by creating an artificial dichotomy between 'legal' and 'illegal', and by manipulating the illicit market so as to play cops-and-robbers around it, for high profits and careers (but with market-associated deaths).

Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. ;)

(Not sure if you're being ironic or not.)

Wikipedia is good for a basic *literacy* about whatever subject, but, sure, one should research deeper if they want to.

willowtooth

17th March 2017, 18:46

No, for the love of God, no.

I mean, it depends on how you go about that.

Sure, there's a debate about the effectiveness of prohibition as well, but all too often when alcohol's mentioned I've seen that degenerate into "lol my drug is safer than your drug."

Just make sure you show why prohibition's ineffective. Don't just say "Why not ban alcohol, too?"

Also, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. ;)

My drug is safer than your drug, thats the whole point you can get high off fermented feces but its not safe. Even cocaine and heroine are relatively safe compared to alot of the alternatives out there. The fact that marijuana is safer than alcohol is the reason why its so popular and that argument might not work with people who think alcohol (or even red meat) should be banned, but with them its an entire argument about personal rights, state enforcement, victimless crimes etc. but when you have Jeff sessions claiming marijuana is just as bad as heroin, the FACTUAL knowledge that it is in fact less harmful than heroin is just as important in a legal discussion as it is in a discussion as to what substance where going to get high on tonight before going out.

btw wikipedia is totally reliable just because some kids like to prank their class when their assigned some obscure topic doesn't mean it's not reliable

ckaihatsu

29th March 2017, 19:19

According to Sessions, marijuana is comparable to heroin

http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/petition_images/petition/819/338742-1490389234-wide.jpg (http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AxsON/zSqb/t8hl)
Attorney General Sessions: Marijuana use is NOT comparable to heroin addiction

Sign Now (http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AxsON/zSqb/t8hl)

Chris,

Something is really off with this quote from Attorney General Jeff Sessions: (http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AxsON/zSqb/t8hl)

"[I] am astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana — so people can trade one life-wrecking dependency for another that's only slightly less awful."

To compare marijuana use with heroin addiction is not only insulting to all those afflicted by the tragic opioid epidemic, but it's also just plain ignorant.

About 13,000 Americans died from heroin overdoses in 2015 alone. In that same year, not one single person overdosed on marijuana (just like every other year, actually). Is that really "only slightly less awful"?

Attorney General Sessions needs to rescind this statement and make sure that he reviews the facts before making any drug policy decisions. (http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AxsON/zSqb/t8hl)

Contrary to what Sessions said, extensive research suggests that legalizing marijuana has led to decreases in opioid overdoses. Plus, the tides are changing when it comes to marijuana use. Marijuana is now legal in 23 states, and growing research proves its medicinal use is vast.

For Attorney General Sessions to ignore the facts in favor his own misguided belief system is really dangerous. He must rescind his statements about marijuana use and face reality.

Please help counter what Sessions said by signing this petition. We need as many people as we can get to pressure and make sure Sessions checks peer-reviewed research before making any more comments or decisions about drug policy. (http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AxsON/zSqb/t8hl)

Thank you,

Alex B.
The Care2 Petitions Team

To stop receiving this newsletter, visit:

or send a blank email message to:

Care2.com, Inc.
275 Shoreline Drive, Suite 300
Redwood City, CA 94065
http://www.care2.com

willowtooth

29th March 2017, 22:55

Canada announces it will legalize recreational cannabis, by July 2018. Possibly as early as April 20th this year :)

https://qz.com/942770/recreational-marijuana-will-be-legal-across-canada-by-july-1-2018-justin-trudeau-says/

The Intransigent Faction

29th March 2017, 23:31

Well, in my previous post I raised the issue of *civil rights*, as in 'it makes no sense for a specialized government force to merely *claim* to have a better grip on substances that are powerful and potentially lethal to the individual'.

For *any* given drug what matters most is *awareness* and knowledge, something that the government has been *far less than forthright* about -- there's far more to be monetarily gained by creating an artificial dichotomy between 'legal' and 'illegal', and by manipulating the illicit market so as to play cops-and-robbers around it, for high profits and careers (but with market-associated deaths).

There's money to be gained by the for-profit prison industry, perhaps, but is it really accurate to say that the state somehow profits from prohibition more than it would from effectively replacing black market drug dealers?

Wikipedia is good for a basic *literacy* about whatever subject, but, sure, one should research deeper if they want to.

Not really. This is probably a topic for another thread (I remember posting about it ages ago, as well), but Wikipedia is the go-to for lazy research because it's pushed to the top of the results in Google. It's easily abused, whether in the form of hoaxes that go unnoticed for an extended period, or biased portrayals of history, among other things. It's best, perhaps, for most of the natural sciences, but there are much better sources with greater substance for those willing to look even a little harder.

Back to marijuana, what would you say about reports showing its legalization in Colorado has led to more hospital visits by kids exposed to the drug, as well as an increase in traffic accidents? Even the liberal argument of "bodily sovereignty" suggests that freedom stops when it infringes on another's freedom. For those of us concerned about society as a whole, who won't just shrug our shoulders at those harms, there have to be ways to address this.

Canada announces it will legalize recreational cannabis, by July 2018. Possibly as early as April 20th this year :)

https://qz.com/942770/recreational-marijuana-will-be-legal-across-canada-by-july-1-2018-justin-trudeau-says/

They've said July 1 2018, and they won't be letting up on crackdowns on dispensaries selling it prior to legalization.

That's also just federal legalization. The actual distribution will depend upon decisions by the provinces, and they're dragging their feet until it's actually legal.

ckaihatsu

30th March 2017, 15:33

There's money to be gained by the for-profit prison industry, perhaps, but is it really accurate to say that the state somehow profits from prohibition more than it would from effectively replacing black market drug dealers?

I would say the state definitely profits *politically*, akin to its 'War on Terrorism', while, all the time, it's not conducting itself appropriately / seriously for *either*, since it *benefits* whenever it can pose as society's defender from either contrived social ill.

---

Wikipedia is good for a basic *literacy* about whatever subject, but, sure, one should research deeper if they want to.

Not really. This is probably a topic for another thread (I remember posting about it ages ago, as well), but Wikipedia is the go-to for lazy research because it's pushed to the top of the results in Google.

*Or* one can just go-to the entry for the topic that one is looking for. I find it valuable for its encyclopedic range and concise wording.

It's easily abused, whether in the form of hoaxes that go unnoticed for an extended period, or biased portrayals of history, among other things. It's best, perhaps, for most of the natural sciences, but there are much better sources with greater substance for those willing to look even a little harder.

Sure, I'm not advising anyone to *forgo* deeper research, but I'd rather have Wikipedia around as a basic resource than *not* have it.

Back to marijuana, what would you say about reports showing its legalization in Colorado has led to more hospital visits by kids exposed to the drug, as well as an increase in traffic accidents?

I think these are the inevitable side-effects of mainstreaming -- there will have to be an adjustment period for *everyone*, and that *should* include a more-definitive progressive *society-wide* narrative / approach to the issue of marijuana and drug usage generally.

Even the liberal argument of "bodily sovereignty" suggests that freedom stops when it infringes on another's freedom. For those of us concerned about society as a whole, who won't just shrug our shoulders at those harms, there have to be ways to address this.

Well, there are also tens of thousands of *deaths* due to cars, etc., and yet society sees this human cost as being necessary and worth-it for the benefit of personalized transportation year after year.

The table below is a list of motor vehicle deaths in the United States by year. In 2014, 32,675 people were killed in 29,989 crashes, an average of 90 per day.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Jimmie Higgins

30th March 2017, 16:17

ckaihatsu

30th March 2017, 18:05

In Oakland possession was decriminalized a few years ago and at the same time police attempted to start "gang curfews" which provided legal cover to stop people for fitting a gang profile... you know, being Asian and driving certain kinds of cars, being a Latino with long hair, being a black man and having dreads. I think this was a bargain to ensure that the political aims of the "war on drugs" could remain even without the most common excuse: I thought I smelled/saw something so I stopped them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We *should* just be calling it 'stereotyping' -- 'profiling', while accurate, is still too much of a concession of meaning....

Generalizations-Characterizations

http://s6.postimg.org/rtrvqqoz5/2714844340046342459_Quxppf_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/dakqpbvu5/full/)

willowtooth

31st March 2017, 04:18

Back to marijuana, what would you say about reports showing its legalization in Colorado has led to more hospital visits by kids exposed to the drug, as well as an increase in traffic accidents? Even the liberal argument of "bodily sovereignty" suggests that freedom stops when it infringes on another's freedom. For those of us concerned about society as a whole, who won't just shrug our shoulders at those harms, there have to be ways to address this. i could not keep up with propaganda against marijuana if i tried. the sheer amount of lies told are almost impossible to count, much less list here. The hospital thing is obviously a lie since marijuana is completely non-toxic, it takes 10,000 grams to kill a lab mouse, salt is more dangerous. So while I dont doubt an overprotective mother might've taken her child to the hospital, because he was chewing on a bud there was no need to in fact it was probably good for him, but when you have people like the attorney general telling you its a more dangerous substance than heroin i cant blame them.

the traffic accident sounds like a lie i know traffic accidents were down after legalization in CO, but even if it wasn't it shouldn't matter, correlation doesn't not equal causation. If traffic accidents were down you wouldn't be allowed to make that argument in favor marijuana to these people, so its complete utter bullshit. They do however like to manipulate data to get a favorable result so they might've taken a 3-4 year block at a time and say that in a 37 month period or whatever accidents were up compared to a previous 37 month period. but thats because theyre looking to make the argument beforehand. no legal authority I know of has made any conclusions about that subject, but im 100% sure 50-100 anti-drug "thinktanks" came up with some bullshit saying it was. one of their favorites is to use "marijuana related incidents" so an accident where the person was blind drunk and high on heroin and the passenger in the backseat had a small bag of marijuana in their pocket, counts as a "marijuana related incident". Marijuana does not really effect your ability to drive. Medical marijuana patients literally smoke everyday before work. You can give someone high as balls on weed a sobriety test and they will pass, it's been proven that not getting enough sleep is more dangerous. I would personally smoke a kilogram of marijuana and a drive a car before I would drive after 3 beers.

I know anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, but i used to have a 45 min commute and I would smoke every day on my drive back home, I never so much as scratched the paint on my car. I've never been in an accident in my life. unlike a friend of mine who got drunk drove his car to the store with his kids in the backseat slammed into 2 cars less than 1 mile from his house injured 8 people and is doing 5 years in prison right now

in fact most people will tell you driving while high on weed makes you a slower more careful driver. So coffee actually is more dangerous than marijuana since you are more likely to speed and drive erratic when your "high" on caffeine. So any arguments about bad driving or hospitalizations is garbage propaganda created by people with an agenda who are twisting facts to suit theories.

http://norml.org/faq

The Intransigent Faction

2nd April 2017, 02:08

I would say the state definitely profits *politically*, akin to its 'War on Terrorism', while, all the time, it's not conducting itself appropriately / seriously for *either*, since it *benefits* whenever it can pose as society's defender from either contrived social ill.

True, the U.S. government readily exploits any kind of moral panic. Still, while I don't have hard numbers on hand to back this up, marijuana prohibition just doesn't seem anywhere near as politically expedient as it once was.

Further, the state can prohibit or regulate things because of actual harm they cause, though more for "functionalist" reasons than any serious humanitarian concern. It seems more like an issue of conservative ideological inability to adapt policy (albeit driven by certain policymakers standing to profit from the status quo) than an active attempt by the state to profit directly (as far as i'm aware, it would profit more tangibly from legalization).

---

*Or* one can just go-to the entry for the topic that one is looking for.

Which is exactly what renders Wikipedia redundant at best and damaging at worst, given my point above.
The Wikipedia article on the Waco siege, for example, may as well have been written by McVeigh himself.

I think these are the inevitable side-effects of mainstreaming -- there will have to be an adjustment period for *everyone*, and that *should* include a more-definitive progressive *society-wide* narrative / approach to the issue of marijuana and drug usage generally.

Fair enough.

Well, there are also tens of thousands of *deaths* due to cars, etc., and yet society sees this human cost as being necessary and worth-it for the benefit of personalized transportation year after year.

This analogy is so overused and frankly, ridiculous. Marijuana =/= cars. "Why not ban cars?" really has no bearing whatsoever on the impact of marijuana legalization and how to address the immediate consequences more effectively.

It's also a rather odd point to make in response to:

what would you say about reports showing its legalization in Colorado has led to more hospital visits by kids exposed to the drug, as well as an increase in traffic accidents?

ckaihatsu

2nd April 2017, 14:26

True, the U.S. government readily exploits any kind of moral panic. Still, while I don't have hard numbers on hand to back this up, marijuana prohibition just doesn't seem anywhere near as politically expedient as it once was.

Further, the state can prohibit or regulate things because of actual harm they cause, though more for "functionalist" reasons than any serious humanitarian concern. It seems more like an issue of conservative ideological inability to adapt policy (albeit driven by certain policymakers standing to profit from the status quo) than an active attempt by the state to profit directly

(as far as i'm aware, it would profit more tangibly from legalization).

You're showing topic-drift -- my comments on state "profit" were this:

I would say the state definitely profits *politically*

...Which you acknowledged with this:

True, the U.S. government readily exploits any kind of moral panic.

I myself wouldn't make the new-state-revenue-from-weed argument because I'm not a nationalist and I have no interest in what the state of the state's coffers happen to be at any given moment (more-to-the-point is in what *directions* the state spends its money on).

I stand by my 'civil rights' position regarding this issue.

---

*Or* one can just go-to the entry for the topic that one is looking for.

Which is exactly what renders Wikipedia redundant at best and damaging at worst, given my point above.
The Wikipedia article on the Waco siege, for example, may as well have been written by McVeigh himself.

So 'going directly to the encyclopedic / Wikipedia entry that one wants' is what 'renders Wikipedia redundant at best and damaging at worst' -- and what other point did you want to include here -- ?

---

I think these are the inevitable side-effects of mainstreaming -- there will have to be an adjustment period for *everyone*, and that *should* include a more-definitive progressive *society-wide* narrative / approach to the issue of marijuana and drug usage generally.

Fair enough.

---

Well, there are also tens of thousands of *deaths* due to cars, etc., and yet society sees this human cost as being necessary and worth-it for the benefit of personalized transportation year after year.

This analogy is so overused and frankly, ridiculous. Marijuana =/= cars. "Why not ban cars?" really has no bearing whatsoever on the impact of marijuana legalization and how to address the immediate consequences more effectively.

You're jumping to spurious conclusions that are outside of the comparison itself.

I'm *not* saying 'ban cars', I'm saying -- in line with the 'side-effects of mainstreaming [marijuana]' observation / line above, that society has to have an internal dialogue about what human costs it's willing to pay for the mainstream approach to this-or-that social practice. But, as we all know here, that's most-likely *not* going to happen since capitalist society is a *too-emergent* and brain-dead macro phenomenon that follows from the paradigmatic premise of 'individual-based gain, preferably for profits'.

The alternative to the waste of human time and effort in driving massive numbers of individual / small-group / small-load vehicles (redundancy of effort) would be the *automation* of such, or driverless vehicles, basically, on the near-horizon. A more politically-principled (revolutionary) approach would be post-capitalist liberated-workers building entirely new mass transportation infrastructure all over the world, to an even and energy-and-logistically-efficient standard (my musings have brought me to potential below-ground and parallel above-ground systems of *conveyor belts* for the direct-distribution of any and all goods, and for individual human transport, in compartments, above).

---

It's also a rather odd point to make in response to:

what would you say about reports showing its legalization in Colorado has led to more hospital visits by kids exposed to the drug, as well as an increase in traffic accidents?

Everything new in capitalism tends to be 'Oh, okay, now we're dealing with *this*', instead of 'What should we be doing better as a global society, and to what standards, exactly, and when'.

willowtooth

3rd April 2017, 12:11

True, the U.S. government readily exploits any kind of moral panic. Still, while I don't have hard numbers on hand to back this up, marijuana prohibition just doesn't seem anywhere near as politically expedient as it once was.
nixon didn't outlaw drugs because he wanted make that sweet private prison money he did it because...

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon

industrial hemp as well

https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/hemp-101-what-is-hemp-whats-it-used-for-and-why-is-it-illegal

ckaihatsu

16th April 2017, 18:01

http://newatlas.com/report-marijuana-health-effects/47366/?li_source=LI&li_medium=default-widget

HEALTH & WELLBEING

Massive marijuana report reveals drug's many health effects

John Anderson John Anderson January 13, 2017

http://img-3.newatlas.com/cannibis-2.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&ch=Width%2CDPR&fit=crop&h=347&q=60&rect=0%2C106%2C1620%2C912&w=616&
Cannabis and its many effects on users are described by a massive report that looks at 10,000 scientific studies (Credit: hanohiki/Depositphotos)

There's been no shortage of studies conducted over the years on the effects of marijuana use. But the focus of those studies can be as varied as their conclusions, making it a challenge to wade through the reams of information and get a full read on the drug. A new and lengthy report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine seeks to remedy this by examining more than 10,000 scientific abstracts of cannabis studies published since 1999, reaching nearly 100 conclusions.

Like the many studies, the report issues a mixed bag of good, bad and inconclusive results. Some of the more significant conclusions are on the therapeutic effects of cannabis and its ability to considerably reduce chronic pain symptoms in adults. It also finds that marijuana use likely increases the risk of developing schizophrenia, various psychoses and social anxiety disorders. The scientists involved with the report point out areas where research is lacking, and suggest ways to improve such scientific efforts while enhancing data collection in support of this research.

SICK OF ADS?

More than 700 New Atlas Plus subscribers read our newsletter and website without ads.

Join them for just US$19 a year.MORE INFORMATION

With the growing acceptance and legalization of both medical and recreational marijuana use, getting a clear view of the effects of the drug, both harmful and beneficial, has never been more needed from a public health standpoint. "The lack of any aggregated knowledge of cannabis-related health effects has led to uncertainty about what, if any, are the harms or benefits from its use," states Marie McCormick, chair of the report committee and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. "We conducted an in-depth and broad review of the most recent research to establish firmly what the science says and to highlight areas that still need further examination. As laws and policies continue to change, research must also."

A nationwide survey found that 22.2 million Americans age 12 and older used marijuana in the past 30 days. Ten percent of use is solely for medical purposes and 90 percent primarily recreational, with 36 percent using it for both. Since 2002, the number of regular users (citing use in the past month) has increased steadily from 6.2 to 8.3 percent.

Regarding medical benefits, the report finds that oral cannabinoids (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other chemical compounds) helped to prevent and treat nausea and vomiting that typically results from chemotherapy. It also helped reduce back spasms in adults with multiple sclerosis.

As for negative outcomes, using marijuana before driving increases the risk of a car accident. The report also finds a greater risk of ingestion (and poisoning) by children in states that had legalized medical marijuana.

Some good news for marijuana users: there's no evidence that smoking cannabis increases your risk of lung, head or neck cancer, like tobacco use does. But smoking marijuana on a regular basis will lead to more respiratory issues, such as chronic bronchitis, cough and phlegm production. At the same time, regular exposure to marijuana smoke may promote anti-inflammatory activity within the immune system.

Marijuana use is generally not good for mental health – users are more likely to report thoughts of suicide, while it can increase symptoms for individuals with bipolar disorder. But a history of cannabis use can help those with schizophrenia and other psychoses perform better on learning and memory tasks.

There is moderate evidence to suggest that using marijuana can lead to substance abuse and dependence on other drugs. Additionally, the younger you start using marijuana, the greater the likelihood of developing problem cannabis use. It's also not surprising that learning, memory and attention are impaired immediately after using marijuana, though there's no evidence of any negative long-term effects in those cognitive functions after you stop smoking.

Source: National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine

TAGS #DRUGS #MARIJUANA
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
SHOW 12 COMMENTS

COPYRIGHT © GIZMAG PTY LTD 2017
TWITTER
FACEBOOK
RSS
FLIPBOARD
GIZMAG IS NOW NEW ATLAS

ckaihatsu

26th April 2017, 15:06

Congress: Walls Won't Work

Drug Policy Alliance

Chris,

President Trump and Congress are currently negotiating on a spending bill to keep the government funded. Trump’s proposed border wall is taking center stage.

The White House claims the wall is a “very important tool in stopping drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth.”

We’ve heard this kind of drug war hysteria before. Have we learned nothing?

Mandatory minimum sentencing, militarized police, bans on medical research. We’ve seen many absurd things proposed in the name of fighting drugs. We can now add a border wall to the list.

The United States’ oppressive drug war fuels racial profiling, border militarization, violence against immigrants, intrusive government surveillance and widespread detentions and deportations. Our global war on drugs has contributed to the deaths of over 100,000 Mexicans since 2006.

A border wall isn’t the solution. An embrace of evidence-based solutions is.

Tell Congress it’s time for drug policies grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights, not fear and prejudice. (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=3&ms=Mjg3OTYzNjIS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTAyMzY1NTgzOAS2&mt=1&rt=0)

Until the U.S. addresses addiction and problematic substance use, the production and distribution of drugs will not diminish. No matter how many walls we build.

There’s an overdose epidemic in this country, and the White House is correct to be concerned. But if President Trump is actually committed to preventing overdose deaths he should propose investments in health-based solutions.

Medication-assisted treatment, naloxone access, syringe programs, legal access to marijuana, and a host of other evidence-based initiatives. That’s where we should start.

After losing more than 52,000 people to drug overdose deaths in 2015, it’s clear we need a new approach. It’s time to take drug use out of the criminal justice system and start treating it as a health issue.

The federal government has spent more than a trillion dollars on oppressive drug war strategies over the past forty years. Yet, drugs remain cheap and widely available.

A border wall isn’t going to prevent overdose deaths. It’s not going to fix our nation’s drug problems. It’s just another sad example of the drug war increasingly becoming a war against immigrant communities.

Please take action now. (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=4&ms=Mjg3OTYzNjIS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTAyMzY1NTgzOAS2&mt=1&rt=0)

Sincerely,

Michael Collins
Deputy Director of National Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance

Take Action (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=7&ms=Mjg3OTYzNjIS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTAyMzY1NTgzOAS2&mt=1&rt=0)

Facebook (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=9&ms=Mjg3OTYzNjIS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTAyMzY1NTgzOAS2&mt=1&rt=0) Twitter (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=5&ms=Mjg3OTYzNjIS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTAyMzY1NTgzOAS2&mt=1&rt=0)

You have received this email because [email protected] is a member of the Drug Policy Alliance mailing list.

Unsubscribe from this mailing list. - Contact Us. (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=10&ms=Mjg3OTYzNjIS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTAyMzY1NTgzOAS2&mt=1&rt=0)

Drug Policy Alliance
131 West 33rd St., 15th Floor New York, NY 10001

jdneel

28th April 2017, 21:58

The Federal Government doesn't care what the people think or want. Not only is it threatening enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized it, it has determined possession of CBD oil, which doesn't even get people high, is a federal offence.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

ckaihatsu

14th May 2017, 14:23

Drug war escalation has begun….

Drug Policy Alliance

Chris,

Today, Attorney General Jeff Sessions called on his prosecutors to pursue harsh sentences for people charged with nonviolent drug offenses. Sessions’ memo rescinds policy instituted by former Attorney General Eric Holder, which avoided draconian mandatory minimums for many drug offenses.

This is a disastrous move that will increase the prison population, worsen racial disparities in the criminal justice system, and do nothing to reduce drug use or improve public safety. We won't let Sessions take our country back to the 1980s by escalating failed drug war policies.

Sign our petition to the Department of Justice urging them to rescind this memo immediately. It’s time to adopt smart drug policies instead of resurrecting the failed tactics of the past. (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=5&ms=MjkwMjU2ODMS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MTY5Mzk1NQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

We warned you about Sessions when he was nominated for Attorney General, and throughout his confirmation hearings. We knew he’d be a nightmare for drug policy and criminal justice reform.

The memo Sessions issued today leaves no doubt that he and the Trump administration are going to escalate the drug war. We are doing everything in our power to stop them. But we need your help.

Demand the Department of Justice rescind this memo. Stand against this attempt to return to failed drug war policies that don’t work – add your name to our petition right now. (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=3&ms=MjkwMjU2ODMS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MTY5Mzk1NQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

Jeff Sessions’ push for long mandatory minimums will destroy the lives of countless people, and tear apart families and communities.

Together, we must fight back against the “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” mentality that made the United States the number one incarcerator in the world.

Sincerely,

Michael Collins
Deputy Director, National Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance

Take Action (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=9&ms=MjkwMjU2ODMS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MTY5Mzk1NQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

facebook (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=11&ms=MjkwMjU2ODMS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MTY5Mzk1NQS2&mt=1&rt=0) twitter (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=6&ms=MjkwMjU2ODMS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MTY5Mzk1NQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

You have received this email because [email protected] is a member of the Drug Policy Alliance mailing list.

Unsubscribe from this mailing list. - Contact Us.

Drug Policy Alliance
131 West 33rd St., 15th Floor New York, NY 10001

pastradamus

14th May 2017, 23:25

willowtooth

15th May 2017, 08:54

Ahhhhhh.... Ganja. A powerful drug that never agreed with me, no matter how much I tried. Seriously, it fucked me up every time. I've never been one to say " this is completely harmless", like a lot of others do. I used to smoke quite a bit of hash/weed (sometimes even mixed together) and I never enjoyed it, I always panicked and felt terribly. If anyone decides to tell me this is OK and not a problem drug I shall fight them, I shall fight them and I shall kill them.
you have to start slow you can't just start smoking hash on your first try, I do worry about some of these dispensaries that sell really high quality high potency marijuana to first time smokers especially things like hash oil and edibles. It's like going to a bar when you've never had a drop of alcohol in your whole life, and the bartender lines up 12 shots of overproof rum, instead of just recommending a light beer.

You should try smoking lower grade marijuana, the panicky feeling is likely coming from high sativa content, which long term users prefer to use in the daytime as it can improve alertness and has less of a drowsy effect but on newer users it can cause a high strung paranoid panicky feeling.

ckaihatsu

17th May 2017, 18:27

Sign the petition: Say 'No' to Sessions' War on Drugs

Jeff Sessions is trying to bring back the War on Drugs.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fs.newsweek.com%2Fsites%2Fwww.newsw eek.com%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fembed-lg%2Fpublic%2F2017%2F04%2F21%2Fjeff-sessions.jpg&f=1 (https://act.colorofchange.org/sign/no_sessions_war_on_drugs/?t=1&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h)

Tell Congress: We can't repeat the horrific mistakes of the past. Block Sessions.

TAKE ACTION (https://act.colorofchange.org/sign/no_sessions_war_on_drugs/?t=2&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h)

Chris--Jeff Sessions is trying to reignite the War on Drugs, but we can't let him. (https://act.colorofchange.org/sign/no_sessions_war_on_drugs/?t=3&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h)

Just this morning, Sessions released a memo ordering all 94 U.S. Attorneys to seek out the harshest possible sentences for drug offenses--undoing years of work and reversing the historic policy reforms of former Attorney General Eric Holder.1

Mandatory minimum sentencing disproportionately affects and targets Black people and has been widely condemned for years. A review of federal mandatory sentences showed that Black people are given mandatory minimum sentences at the HIGHEST rate--more than any other group of people.2 Not only is mandatory minimum sentencing racist, research has proven that it’s completely ineffective in curbing drug use.3 The only real purpose this serves is to fill prisons with our people and fill the pockets of private prison companies. Almost HALF of the entire federal prison population consists of people serving time for drug offenses.4

We need to shut down this clear attempt to fuel mass incarceration, but we have to act fast. Momentum is building against Sessions--even GOP senator, Rand Paul acknowledged the racist history of mandatory minimums and denounced Sessions’ move.5 Now, we’re calling on Congress to block Sessions’ attempts to reignite the War on Drugs. Sentencing reform has bipartisan support in Congress and if we apply enough pressure, we can make sure Sessions can’t dismantle the gains we’ve made in ending mass incarceration. Will you sign the petition?

Tell Congress: Don’t let Sessions reignite the War On Drugs. Pass a bill to change federal sentencing laws and reverse Sessions’ harsh sentencing mandate. (https://act.colorofchange.org/sign/no_sessions_war_on_drugs/?t=4&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h)

It’s no surprise Sessions wants to pack our people into prisons, because Trump cut a deal with the industry that would profit most from it: private prison companies. Campaign finance advocates have filed federal complaints challenging the hundreds of thousands in illegal campaign contributions that GEO Group, one of the largest private prison companies in the country, gave to Trump’s campaign.6 So it’s absolutely no secret why one of the first things Sessions undid was the ban on federal private prisons. And given his statement that he needed to meet the "future needs of the federal correctional system," it’s even more evident why he would push for longer and harsher prison sentences.7

Sessions is trying to ensure as many people are incarcerated for as long as possible by ordering prosecutors to send people to prison with a one-size-fits-all approach, instead of allowing prosecutors to determine what makes the most sense based on the circumstances of each case. His guidance forces prosecutors to determine sentences based solely on the amount of drugs found. What does that mean? It means that someone facing a drug charge for the very first time, with no prior convictions, no violent history, could face life in prison simply because of the quantity of drugs they have.

Demand Congress take a stand against racist sentencing laws and shut down Sessions’ attempts to fuel mass incarceration. (https://act.colorofchange.org/sign/no_sessions_war_on_drugs/?t=5&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h)

Sharanda Jones is one of the people who was subjected to these unfair and cruel sentencing laws. In the late 90s, Sharanda was subject to a targeted attack on Black residents of Terrell, Texas that led to the arrest of more than 100 Black people for low-level crack cocaine offenses. In an effort to expand the government informant program, prosecutors gave deals to people who snitched and pushed for cruel and unusual sentences for those who didn’t. Sharanda didn’t snitch on a couple she knew who was dealing drugs, and though there was never any evidence that she ever possessed or sold drugs, and this was her first offense ever, she was sentenced to LIFE in prison.8 Luckily, she gained clemency and was released by the Obama administration. If not, she would still be in prison today.

We can’t let Sessions cause even more pain for Black families by unfairly throwing people away under these cruel laws.

Sign the petition. (https://act.colorofchange.org/sign/no_sessions_war_on_drugs/?t=6&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h)

Until justice is real,

-- Rashad, Arisha, Scott, Clarise, Anay, Malaya, Enchanta, Katrese, and the rest of the Color Of Change team.

References:

1. "Jeff Sessions Rolls Back Obama-Era Drug Sentencing Reforms," The Huffington Post, 05-12-2017
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/7923?t=8&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h

2. "The impact of mandatory minimum penalties in federal sentencing," Sentencing Project, 01-01-2016,
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/7924?t=10&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h

3. Ibid.

4. "Number of People Serving Time For Drug, Violent, Property, and Other Offenses In US Prisons," US Dept of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, 12-01-2016,
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/7925?t=12&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h

5. "Dr. Rand Paul Releases Statement on Attorney General's Action on Mandatory Minimums," Rand Paul, United States Senator for Kentucky, 05-12-2017
https://act.colorofchange.org/go/7926?t=14&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h

6. "Pay-toPlay on Full Display? Private Prison Contractor Reaps Benefits from Illegal Campaign Spending," The Campaign Legal Center, 04-17-2017
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/7927?t=16&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h

7. "Jeff Sessions Believes Private Prisons Help Meet the 'Future Needs of the Federal Correctional System'," The Root, 02-23-2017
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/7928?t=18&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h

8. "From A First Arrest To A Life Sentence," The Washington Post, 07-15-2015
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/7929?t=20&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h

Color Of Change (http://act.colorofchange.org/go/3829?t=22&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h) is building a movement to elevate the voices of Black folks and our allies, and win real social and political change. Help keep our movement strong. (https://act.colorofchange.org/go/7581?t=23&akid=7479.872082.EcA_4h)

If you're absolutely sure you don't want to hear from Color Of Change again, click here to unsubscribe.

ckaihatsu

28th May 2017, 17:59

May Newsletter

Top Story: Jeff Sessions Escalates Drug War and Urges Prosecutors to Seek Harsher Sentences (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=18&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

Attorney General Jeff Sessions called on his prosecutors to pursue harsher sentences for people charged with drug law violations in a memo issued this month. Sessions’ memo rescinds policy instituted by former Attorney General Eric Holder, which discouraged draconian mandatory minimums for some drug offenses.

We warned you about Sessions when he was nominated for Attorney General, and throughout his confirmation hearings. We knew he’d be a nightmare for drug policy and criminal justice reform. The memo Sessions issued this month leaves no doubt that he and the Trump administration are escalating the drug war.

Read More (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=7&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

http://contentz.mkt7185.com/ra/2017/36608/05/29162377/CarlHart.png

DPA Board Member's Life Threatened for Speaking Out Against Philippines President Duterte

Drug Policy Alliance Board Member and Columbia neuroscientist Dr. Carl Hart visited the Philippines to speak at a drug policy forum hosted at the University of the Philippines earlier this month. At the forum, Hart called into question the false drug science being espoused by the Philippine authorities to justify their murderous war on drugs.

In response, The Manila Times published a racist cartoon about Dr. Hart and President Duterte made disparaging and insulting remarks, calling him a “son of a b**** who has gone crazy.” Fearing his life was in danger, Dr. Hart cut short his planned two-week visit and left after only five days to return home. Read more. (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=24&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

Stories from the Blog

Trump Will Not Nominate Rep. Tom Marino as Drug Czar (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=16&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

President Donald Trump will not be nominating Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA) to be director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (colloquially referred to as the “drug czar”). This is a major victory for the Drug Policy Alliance, which launched a campaign to prevent Marino from being nominated. Marino’s nomination seemed all but certain just a few weeks ago, but a flurry of news stories on his extremist views put pressure on the Administration to go in a different direction.

--

No Humanity in São Paulo's Violent Crackdown on Cracolândia (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=23&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

At dawn, a neighborhood in the center of São Paulo, Brazil awoke to a violent and unanticipated onslaught of nearly a thousand police officers, who descended on residents – many of whom were homeless and many of whom use drugs – with dogs, tasers, and rubber bullets. The area had come to be known as Cracolândia (“Crackland”), and the officers had been sent by São Paulo’s Mayor João Doria to destroy one of the world’s exemplary harm reduction programs, De Braços Abertos (“With Open Arms”).

--

Federal Court Strikes Down 90's Era "Cocaine Mom" Law (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=1&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

A federal court in Wisconsin struck down a regressive drug war law from 1997, commonly referred to as Wisconsin’s “Cocaine Mom” statute. The law allowed the state to seize control of women and detain them in jail or other locked facilities, and force expectant mothers into inappropriate treatment without their consent if they use – or even disclose past use of – any amount of alcohol or an illegal drug. The Court ruled the law unconstitutional and immediately stopped its enforcement statewide.

--

New York Times Glosses Over Harms of Alcohol Prohibition in India (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=14&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

Last month, the New York Times published an article declaring the prohibition of alcohol in the Indian state of Bihar a success. The article skims over that fact that 42,000 people have been arrested and are awaiting trial, in a state where nearly a third of all human rights complaints relate to police and prisons.

Drug Policy in the News

NPR: Vermont's Governor Vetoes Recreational Pot Bill (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=12&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

Reason: Trump's Medical Marijuana Threat Contradicts the Law and His Own Position (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=11&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

NY Daily News: Addicted to the War on Drugs (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=3&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

ABC: Pot Convictions Go Up in Smoke with California Legalization (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=2&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

Popular Science: Study: Magic Mushrooms are the Safest Drug (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=5&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

http://contentz.mkt7185.com/ra/2017/36608/05/29162377/MDMA_drugfactvid_600.png (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=4&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

Watch Now: DPA Releases Four Drug Facts Videos

Alcohol and other drugs are inevitably part of our lives in some way, sometimes whether we like it or not. Despite their ubiquity, when you scratch the surface there’s often a lot that people don’t know about how individual drugs work, why they’re illegal (or not) – and especially about how to stay safe if they choose to use a substance.

The Drug Policy Alliance is working to change that, so we produced a series of four short videos about MDMA, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. Watch the videos now! (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=9&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

http://contentz.mkt7185.com/ra/2017/36608/05/29162377/2017Reform.png (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=8&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

2017 Reform Conference — Nominate a Reformer

Last month, registration officially opened for the International Drug Policy Reform Conference from October 11-14 in Atlanta. If you haven’t registered yet, make sure you do it soon to get the early bird rate and save $100. (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=19&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

One of the most exciting and important aspects of the Reform Conference is the Achievement Awards (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=17&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0) ceremony, where we honor reformers who have made exceptional accomplishments in eight award categories – ranging from science and medicine to law and education. Nominate a reformer (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=15&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0) by June 30th to help us select which exceptional people should receive awards in October!

facebook (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=21&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0) twitter (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=10&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

You have received this email because you are a member of the Drug Policy Alliance mailing list.

Drug Policy Alliance
131 West 33rd St., 15th Floor New York, NY 10001

Unsubscribe - Contact Us (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=13&ms=MjkxNjIzNzcS1&r=MTMzNzExNDI5NzEyS0&b=0&j=MTA0MzUzODU5MQS2&mt=1&rt=0)

The Intransigent Faction

28th May 2017, 22:42

You're showing topic-drift

I don't see how. We as revolutionary leftists may not care about the state revenue argument, but it is certainly relevant to the political profitability of legalization for a bourgeois government. In any case, yes, I acknowledged such a state's tendency to create/exploit moral panic.

So 'going directly to the encyclopedic / Wikipedia entry that one wants' is what 'renders Wikipedia redundant at best and damaging at worst' -- and what other point did you want to include here -- ?

What? The ability to go directly to an encyclopedic source renders Wikipedia redundant at best and damaging at worst, as a superfluous middleman which pushes reliable sources further down in search results. That's the point.

You're jumping to spurious conclusions that are outside of the comparison itself.

I'm *not* saying 'ban cars',[/QUOTE]

Of course I didn't mean you were actually suggesting banning cars, but cars seem like an odd choice for an analogous argument about the human cost of mainstreaming marijuana given the latter's link to increased accidents (if you wish, there's an hour-long CBC podcast I could link to which involves numerous interviews on this issue).

I'm saying -- in line with the 'side-effects of mainstreaming [marijuana]' observation / line above, that society has to have an internal dialogue about what human costs it's willing to pay for the mainstream approach to this-or-that social practice. But, as we all know here, that's most-likely *not* going to happen since capitalist society is a *too-emergent* and brain-dead macro phenomenon that follows from the paradigmatic premise of 'individual-based gain, preferably for profits'.

The alternative to the waste of human time and effort in driving massive numbers of individual / small-group / small-load vehicles (redundancy of effort) would be the *automation* of such, or driverless vehicles, basically, on the near-horizon. A more politically-principled (revolutionary) approach would be post-capitalist liberated-workers building entirely new mass transportation infrastructure all over the world, to an even and energy-and-logistically-efficient standard (my musings have brought me to potential below-ground and parallel above-ground systems of *conveyor belts* for the direct-distribution of any and all goods, and for individual human transport, in compartments, above).

Everything new in capitalism tends to be 'Oh, okay, now we're dealing with *this*', instead of 'What should we be doing better as a global society, and to what standards, exactly, and when'.

Yeah, sure, fair points. The current system unarguably squanders our resources, potential and lives. We do need to talk about the human costs of a mainstream approach (to drugs, to the environment, etc.) and the "solutions" it offers.

ckaihatsu

29th May 2017, 13:17

Wikipedia is good for a basic *literacy* about whatever subject, but, sure, one should research deeper if they want to.

Not really. This is probably a topic for another thread (I remember posting about it ages ago, as well), but Wikipedia is the go-to for lazy research because it's pushed to the top of the results in Google.

*Or* one can just go-to the entry for the topic that one is looking for. I find it valuable for its encyclopedic range and concise wording.

Which is exactly what renders Wikipedia redundant at best and damaging at worst, given my point above.
The Wikipedia article on the Waco siege, for example, may as well have been written by McVeigh himself.

So 'going directly to the encyclopedic / Wikipedia entry that one wants' is what 'renders Wikipedia redundant at best and damaging at worst' -- and what other point did you want to include here -- ?

What? The ability to go directly to an encyclopedic source renders Wikipedia redundant at best and damaging at worst, as a superfluous middleman which pushes reliable sources further down in search results. That's the point.

So what is this unspecified 'encyclopedic source' that you're saying should be preferred over Wikipedia -- ?

Your main concern looks to be about Wikipedia pushing other sources down in the search rankings because of one (or more) Wikipedia entries on any given subject(s). This is a *spurious* concern because any researcher would only have to go past *1* search page of results, at worst, to skip the Wikipedia entries, if they want to -- you make it sound downright *onerous* and your line here is sounding increasingly *biased* against Wikipedia, for whatever reason.

I continue to maintain that Wikipedia is a *good* source, especially for introductory / literacy purposes, and I have no problems with additional research expanding to include other sources beyond Wikipedia.

---

You're jumping to spurious conclusions that are outside of the comparison itself.

I'm *not* saying 'ban cars',

Of course I didn't mean you were actually suggesting banning cars, but cars seem like an odd choice for an analogous argument about the human cost of mainstreaming marijuana given the latter's link to increased accidents (if you wish, there's an hour-long CBC podcast I could link to which involves numerous interviews on this issue).

Cars cause accidents, and drug usage can lead to accidents, too -- how is that not an apt comparison -- ? -- !

I'm saying -- in line with the 'side-effects of mainstreaming [marijuana]' observation / line above, that society has to have an internal dialogue about what human costs it's willing to pay for the mainstream approach to this-or-that social practice. But, as we all know here, that's most-likely *not* going to happen since capitalist society is a *too-emergent* and brain-dead macro phenomenon that follows from the paradigmatic premise of 'individual-based gain, preferably for profits'.

The alternative to the waste of human time and effort in driving massive numbers of individual / small-group / small-load vehicles (redundancy of effort) would be the *automation* of such, or driverless vehicles, basically, on the near-horizon. A more politically-principled (revolutionary) approach would be post-capitalist liberated-workers building entirely new mass transportation infrastructure all over the world, to an even and energy-and-logistically-efficient standard (my musings have brought me to potential below-ground and parallel above-ground systems of *conveyor belts* for the direct-distribution of any and all goods, and for individual human transport, in compartments, above).

Yeah, sure, fair points. The current system unarguably squanders our resources, potential and lives. We do need to talk about the human costs of a mainstream approach (to drugs, to the environment, etc.) and the "solutions" it offers.

Yes, because as long as drug usage is criminalized the (capitalist) system is effectively saying that there's no active *social* policy over it, as in how one should *approach* drugs, etc.

From what I can gather the recent decriminalization and mainstreaming steps around marijuana, for example, have taken many by surprise, and I've heard distinct claims of 'damage' (or maybe it's reactionary political opportunism) coming from some -- which I take as resulting from this overall void of social policy regarding now-mainstreamed recreational marijuana. In other words it seems to be the formerly uninitiated, now newly experimenting in the mainstream, yet being outside of any drug-positive *culture* for their forays. The *mainstream* culture is a social void on this point because all it did was *decriminalize*, and not *normalize* / socialize with any promotion of grassroots cultural initiatives, or normative social policy, around the same.

Motor vehicles, by comparison, have been around for much longer and there's a whole industry, including government oversight, around their regulation and usage.

47,055 drug overdose deaths occurred in the United States in 2014. Since 2000, the drug overdose death rate has gone from 6.2 per 100,000 persons in 2000 to 14.7 per 100,000 in 2014.[21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_overdose#Epidemiology_and_statistics

The table below is a list of motor vehicle deaths in the United States by year. In 2014, 32,675 people were killed in 29,989 crashes, an average of 96[1] per day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

ckaihatsu

14th June 2017, 17:17

California should not help Trump and Sessions on their pot crusade

https://dingo.care2.com/c2p/kelseyb/CApot.jpg (http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AXofS/ztBA/t8hl)

Make California a Marijuana Sanctuary State

Sign Now (http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AXofS/ztBA/t8hl)

Chris,

In California, using marijuana, medicinally or recreationally, is almost completely legal. However, this is at odds with federal law. Now, California is considering becoming a "sanctuary" state for marijuana users. This means that California would not allocate any state resources to help enforce federal laws regarding marijuana use.

Sign this petition to support California in becoming a sanctuary state for marijuana users! (http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AXofS/ztBA/t8hl)

President Trump and Attorney General Sessions often get laser focused on non-issues like marijuana use, which puts California pot users at risk.The passage of this law would mean that if Sessions and Trump decide to "crack down" on pot, California will not help them out on enforcement at all.

State authorities have a lot more important things to do than chase down people using marijuana, which is one of the least harmful substances, legal or not. It is silly that California has been using any of their local resources to enforce such an arbitrary federal law. The bill, known as AB 1578 by Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer of Los Angeles, just needs to go through the Senate, the Public Safety Committee and then to Governor Jerry Brown.

Sign to support this important bill! (http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AXofS/ztBA/t8hl)

Thank you,

Kelsey B.
The Care2 Petitions Team

SIGN NOW > (http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AXofS/ztBA/t8hl)

To stop receiving this newsletter, visit:

or send a blank email message to:

Care2.com, Inc.
275 Shoreline Drive, Suite 300
Redwood City, CA 94065
http://www.care2.com

RedSerb

14th June 2017, 18:01

As long as it's not overused it should do good.

guevarism

15th June 2017, 09:33

So at last alt right officially marks its start sniffing weed campaign

ckaihatsu

30th July 2017, 13:58

Breaking: Senate Protects Medical Marijuana

Drug Policy Alliance

Chris,

Our movement just scored a major victory in the fight against Jeff Sessions' Justice Department.

This morning, the Senate Appropriations Committee renewed an amendment (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=4&ms=Mjk5NDU5NzgS1&r=NTY3OTU1MzgzOTUyS0&b=0&j=MTA4MzM4MTMyNgS2&mt=1&rt=0) that blocks the Justice Department from undermining state medical marijuana laws.

The amendment passed by voice vote and individual votes were not recorded. Voice votes are normally used for non-controversial issues. This shows how far our issue has come over the last few years.

The amendment has yet to be included in the final appropriations bill, but we're confident it will — it has each year since 2014.

Jeff Sessions personally requested (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=7&ms=Mjk5NDU5NzgS1&r=NTY3OTU1MzgzOTUyS0&b=0&j=MTA4MzM4MTMyNgS2&mt=1&rt=0) that Congress eliminate this amendment. He wanted free reign to prosecute medical marijuana providers and patients.

But thanks to supporters like you, Congress said no. You made your voice heard, and now Sessions can't go after medical marijuana programs — at least for the next year.

This is a huge victory, but our fight continues.

Sessions still has the authority to use draconian mandatory minimum sentences at the federal level. He can still increase the use of civil forfeiture against those who can’t afford to fight back. He can still wreak havoc on the eight states that have recreational marijuana laws.

Sessions still has the authority to escalate the war on drugs and destroy countless lives and communities.

If you’ve yet to become a monthly donor to our cause, please consider becoming one today (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=11&ms=Mjk5NDU5NzgS1&r=NTY3OTU1MzgzOTUyS0&b=0&j=MTA4MzM4MTMyNgS2&mt=2&rj=MTA4MzM4MTMyNgS2&rt=0). In times like these, we need all the help we can get. A small monthly gift (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=9&ms=Mjk5NDU5NzgS1&r=NTY3OTU1MzgzOTUyS0&b=0&j=MTA4MzM4MTMyNgS2&mt=2&rj=MTA4MzM4MTMyNgS2&rt=0) goes a long way.

Thanks for standing by our side. Together, we must work tirelessly to dismantle the war on drugs, one law at a time.

Sincerely,

Michael Collins
Deputy Director of National Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance

facebook (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=8&ms=Mjk5NDU5NzgS1&r=NTY3OTU1MzgzOTUyS0&b=0&j=MTA4MzM4MTMyNgS2&mt=1&rt=0) twitter (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=3&ms=Mjk5NDU5NzgS1&r=NTY3OTU1MzgzOTUyS0&b=0&j=MTA4MzM4MTMyNgS2&mt=1&rt=0)

You have received this email because [email protected] is a member of the Drug Policy Alliance mailing list.

Unsubscribe from this mailing list. - Contact Us (http://links.drugpolicy.mkt7185.com/ctt?kn=10&ms=Mjk5NDU5NzgS1&r=NTY3OTU1MzgzOTUyS0&b=0&j=MTA4MzM4MTMyNgS2&mt=1&rt=0).

Drug Policy Alliance
131 West 33rd St., 15th Floor New York, NY 10001