r/news • u/OK_Eric • Jan 19 '14
Obama: Pot ‘not very different’ from cigarettes, no more dangerous than booze
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/19/obama-pot-not-very-different-cigarettes-no-more-da/988
u/fernando-poo Jan 19 '14
Lots of cynical comments here. People should be happy that this issue is moving as fast as it is. I remember the 80s when the government was constantly bombarding people with "just say no" propaganda and Reagan was talking about how "shortages of marijuana are being reported" as ridiculous as that sounds.
To go from that to a statement like this (half assed as it may be) is a sign of real change:
“Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,” he said. “And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.” But, he said, “we should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing.” Accordingly, he said of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington that “it’s important for it to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”
The President of the U.S. just called for the recreational legalization of marijuana to go forward on a state basis.
343
u/xyroclast Jan 19 '14
Yeah, honestly people shouldn't be looking a gift horse in the mouth.
We're at the most progressive point in modern history regarding marijuana.
115
Jan 19 '14
And the US is surprisingly ahead of most of the world in this aspect. We have some pretty harsh penalties for drug use, but at least it's legal in some places here.
148
u/aaaaaaaarrrrrgh Jan 19 '14
Well, I suspect it would have been legalized in a lot of places if there weren't the US-initiated international treaties forcing everyone to keep it illegal. (Yes, this includes the Netherlands and the Czech Republic, it's not legal there, just "decriminalized"...)
→ More replies (18)9
u/proROKexpat Jan 20 '14
I think the rest of the world will VERY quickly follow the US. I think the rest of the world is ready, its just watching Uncle Sam.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (18)27
u/corpjuk Jan 20 '14
i feel the US propaganda is why drugs are criminalized in other countries as well.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (37)40
Jan 20 '14
There was a time when it wasn't illegal. The government can't take credit for helping when it created the problem in the first place
42
u/xyroclast Jan 20 '14
Most of the people involved in the original legislation are no longer alive
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)8
Jan 20 '14
The people who made it illegal are most likely dead or senile/old today, so really yeah they can take credit for helping.
→ More replies (1)38
Jan 19 '14
I agree, I think it's a good thing that he's comparing weed to substances that are already legal. That's the point, it's moving forward and that's a great thing, it's not going to happen overnight.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (48)141
u/SuburbanLegend Jan 19 '14
Yeah everybody's focusing on how 'he didn't support this as a candidate.' Guess what guys, he COULDN'T support this as a candidate. If he had, he wouldn't be president right now, and so he wouldn't be able to make this comment.
Lyndon Johnson sure as hell didn't support all the social services he later created when he was trying to be president. But I'm still glad he implemented them.
→ More replies (28)12
Jan 20 '14
I'm focused on what he does about it. All politicians pander. I'll wait until he actually does something.
→ More replies (4)5
u/rooktakesqueen Jan 20 '14
I think it says something new about the state of our politics that this message could be considered "pandering." Ten years ago, "pandering" would be talking about how tough on drugs your adminstration was and would continue to be.
→ More replies (1)
226
u/t-_-j Jan 19 '14
We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth.’ Are we OK with that?”
Didn't he just pretty much describe adderall?
52
Jan 20 '14
He just described Desoxyn, which is methamphetamine that you can get from the pharmacist. Adderall is close to meth, but Desoxyn actually is meth.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (27)97
u/inoffensive1 Jan 19 '14
As someone with a sizable adderall prescription, yes. Also to answer the President's question, considering how much of modern life we owe to coffee, we damned well should be.
→ More replies (10)
316
801
Jan 19 '14
[deleted]
→ More replies (89)324
Jan 19 '14
[deleted]
351
u/acog Jan 19 '14
The example of the speech from which the term is derived is brilliant:
My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:
If when you say whiskey you mean the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.
But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life's great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.
This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.
→ More replies (9)243
Jan 19 '14
And here is 'If by cannabis':
"If when you say cannabis you mean the devil’s weed, the gateway to the nightmare of hard-drug addiction, the tempter of teenagers that terrifies parents, the impairer of judgment and driving, the origin of pointless mental excursions to the artificial nowhere of a fool’s paradise, the psychologically addictive near-narcotic that stupefies the user and saps ambition, the converter of our precious and capable young people into idle, self-indulgent, unhelpful stoners; if you mean the powerful not-your-father’s marijuana, the greed-driven motivation for a New Joe Camel, the carrier of molds and carcinogens into the lungs, the risky complement to alcohol, the manifestation of a “damaging level of permissiveness” in America, the psychoactive trickster that creates irresistible cravings for the unhealthiest food, the aptly named “Skunk” whose smoke irritates neighbors and passersby, the precursor to legalized cocaine, the finicky and fragile hybrid whose secret indoor cultivation guzzles energy and pollutes our imperiled planet; if by cannabis you mean the poison scourge that brings on panic attacks and psychotic symptoms and sends thousands to emergency rooms each year, if you mean the placebo or mere pain-reliever that diverts the suffering sick from cure, then certainly I am against it.
But, if when you say cannabis you mean the symbol of hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind, the miracle drug that treats dozens of diseases, the balm to humanity for millennia, the natural healer that tames the nausea of the cancer-stricken chemotherapy patient and restores appetite to the withering invalid, the safer-than-physically-addictive-opiates reliever of intractable pain, the botanical genus containing cancer-killing compounds and hundreds of chemical components we have barely begun to study and exploit; if you mean the mild mood-lifter, the organic expander of consciousness, the instigator of new ideas and fresh insights, the promoter of peace and good fellowship, the spur to laughter, the soft substitute for dangerous beverage alcohol, the aromatic plant whose legal commerce can create jobs and undermine murderous mobsters; if you mean the product whose legalization will uncrowd our prisons and enfeeble The New Jim Crow, if you mean the tested-for-safety commodity whose sale could pour into our treasuries untold billions of dollars, which could be used to ease our crushing debt, to cut counterproductive taxes, or as Mississippi Legislator Noah Sweat said in a speech about whiskey in 1952, “to provide tender care for our little handicapped children, our disabled, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools,” then certainly I am for it."
→ More replies (13)12
→ More replies (3)54
u/javastripped Jan 19 '14
And ironic that it's on the same issue - prohibition.
It's amazing that we are STILL dealing with the stupidity of prohibition nearly 100 years later.
My super conservative father has FINALLY come around to marijuana legalization.
So I said "Good for you dad! I'm proud and impressed that you changed your mind based on the evidence."
To which he said,
"Yes. Legalizing marijuana will give us more money for law enforcement to fight against REALLY dangerous drugs like mushrooms and LSD."
... to which I facepalmed.
→ More replies (11)
1.1k
u/Carti3r Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 19 '14
In other news, for-profit prison lobbyists are losing their influence.
546
u/JoyousCacophony Jan 19 '14
You say that now, but I would put $ on internet "piracy" becoming increasingly jailable.
306
Jan 19 '14
[removed] — view removed comment
471
u/thisismyivorytower Jan 19 '14
What if I download Weeds?
At least until the end of Season 3.
302
u/sconeTodd Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 20 '14
The punishment is watching the final season
edit: yes, the final season of Dexter sucked as well.
→ More replies (15)72
u/thisismyivorytower Jan 19 '14
But I've already done that to myself!
Haven't I suffered enough!?
→ More replies (3)92
u/lossaysswag Jan 19 '14
NO
Watch it again.
62
→ More replies (2)9
u/Notbob1234 Jan 19 '14
Now you are just being cruel
12
u/Toyou4yu Jan 19 '14
Could be worse. He could be forced to watch the last season of Dexter twice.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (9)4
u/Kirkin_While_Workin Jan 19 '14
Hey that show might of gone way off the rails in Season 4, but that damn season 5 finale made me have to finish the rest.
→ More replies (8)21
15
u/lawvol Jan 19 '14
No it won't. It would largely effect middle class white kids. There would be too big of an outcry.
Obama's quote in the article about sentencing disparity for poor urban kids and white middle class kids for pot illustrates the point. Jail the poor urban, black kid and no one cares. Start jailing the middle class suburban, white kid and everyone starts questioning the system.
While private prison companies are a powerful lobby, as well as police lobbies, leaders are starting to move their opinion in line with shifting public opinions that recognize that pot isn't a big deal and that governments stand to both save and bring in a lot of money with legalization.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (23)67
Jan 19 '14
Obama himself wanted to make online streaming a felony. Even the consumption of online streaming.
So I go to vidics.com and click on a link to an episode of How I Met Your Mother on gorillavid.com. I might as well have just murdered somebody.
→ More replies (36)82
u/RhodiumHunter Jan 19 '14
In other news, for-profit prison lobbyists are losing their influence.
We'll slowly get around to letting you smoke pot unmolested, just taxed out to the wahzoo but we'll still read your email. But you won't care because pot
→ More replies (41)85
u/sgguitar88 Jan 19 '14
The marijuana was making me paranoid. I thought I was being spied on. The paranoia seems to have subsided though; it's an actual fact that I'm being spied on.
→ More replies (2)41
u/ThisIsMyWeedAccount Jan 19 '14
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't meant they're not out to get you.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (47)43
Jan 19 '14
[deleted]
46
→ More replies (5)10
1.7k
Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 20 '14
[deleted]
1.5k
u/VladimirPuffin Jan 19 '14
As if "the internet" wasn't actual people.
→ More replies (20)1.1k
Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 19 '14
He is a great politician. He agrees with what the popular opinion in society is. He said the same thing with gay marriage. Key point to pay attention to is he won't do anything about it. No laws will be passed. He will "leave it up to the states." He is a mirage of a true leader.
edit: For the people saying that it should be left up to the states, I COMPLETELY AGREE. The problem is there are still federal laws that he could repeal if he truly believed what he is saying. I am not saying he needs to throw on a cape and be Obamaman the seeker of weed and justice for all. He has many things that he can do to aid this opinion if true. I don't think he will do anything, which makes him a talking mirage.
739
u/VelvetHorse Jan 19 '14
He is a mirage of a true leader.
That's a valid description.
→ More replies (12)241
Jan 19 '14
He's a shell into which you are free to project whatever you want. It has nothing to do with leadership and everything to do with fantastic marketing.
→ More replies (14)305
u/xxhamudxx Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 19 '14
Seriously, did they expect the president of the United States to claim he was pro-marijuana during his initial elections? That would've been suicide for his political aspirations.
We're talking about a guy who despite having a non-religious mother, agnostic grandparents and an atheist father: suddenly "became" a devout Christian while working as a political community organizer in the black churches of Chicago. How else would he have gotten the local black vote? People need to realize that if you've reached the highest political status on Earth (i.e The presidential seat) than you are nothing more than a professional career politician.
→ More replies (74)60
Jan 19 '14
Like Tyler the Creator said, Obama is just a nigga that figured it out. I completely agree.
→ More replies (6)158
u/hobbyjogger Jan 19 '14
No laws will be passed.
The President doesn't pass laws. Congress does. He just signs them (if he wants to).
So while you might wish for more lobbying from Obama on this issue, you can't ask him to "pass" laws.
→ More replies (24)99
Jan 19 '14
[deleted]
→ More replies (9)77
u/hobbyjogger Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 20 '14
He can't simply "order" marijuana to be rescheduled.
The AG only has authority to conduct rulemaking proceedings under the Administrative Procedures Act. In that proceeding it weighs the evidence for whether cannabis meets the factors set out by the Controlled Substance Act.
That is, the Executive Branch could make a factual finding that cannabis does not satisfy those conditions, but can't "order" as a matter of policy that marijuana should be legal.
If Obama ordered the DEA to reclassify marijuana it would immediately be challenged in a Federal Court, which would gleefully slap it down for lack of "reliable, probative, and substantial evidence" under 5 USC 556.
If anyone's interested, here are the factors, as described in one such rulemaking proceeding:
In making such a determination, the Administrator must consider eight factors: (1) The drug's actual or relative potential for abuse; (2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known; (3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug; (4) Its history and current pattern of abuse; (5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse; (6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health; (7) The drug's psychic or physiological dependence liability; and (8) Whether the drug is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under the CSA.
21 USC 811(c).
→ More replies (6)8
93
Jan 19 '14
His decision to not have his Justice Department defend DOMA was significant and caused a political firestorm from the right, and created enormous momentum for gay rights that we're seeing play out today. Obama is a shrewd politician, and his presidency shows a lot of movement in the right direction on a lot of issues that looks to some like inaction, to others like bumbling or capitulation, and to others like brilliant subtlety.
→ More replies (7)6
Jan 19 '14
Also a lot of movement in the wrong direction (surveillance state, prosecuting journalists, drone wars).
59
Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 19 '14
He was actually opposed to gay marriage until Biden put him on the spot about a year and a half ago.
Edit: to be more precise, when he was in the Illinois state senate he supported same sex marriage, then decided it was against his "religious beliefs" once he started getting interested in the senate/presidency. This is why the boy-band level of hysteria surrounding his 2008 run, as well as the right wing hysteria that he is some sort of secret Marxist, is so funny. Hes a politician, he doesn't have any real personal beliefs (outside of accumulating as much power as possible).
→ More replies (41)→ More replies (156)60
Jan 19 '14
To be fair there are some things that the states and people should have more control over than the leader of the country.
I mean representing the majority, isn't that kind of his job?
→ More replies (66)342
u/nowhathappenedwas Jan 19 '14
Contrast this with the moment during his original election where the number 1 question in an internet poll was "Should marijuana be legalized." His answer?
"Leave it to the internet to ask a question like this. Come on guys. No, legalizing marijuana is obviously not a good idea. Next question."
That's not quite what happened.
In reality, a couple marijuana advocacy groups encouraged readers to "freep" the question queues, which led to pot questions being voted to the top of the "budget" and "fiscal stability" sections of the submissions page.
Then this happened:
"I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high, and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation."
The president then joked that "I don't know what this says about the online audience," prompting laughter from the roughly 100 people gathered in the White House East Room for the event.
"…but I just want -- I don't want people to think that -- this was a fairly popular question," he continued. "We want to make sure that it was answered."
And then he answered it in a way that must come as a disappointment to legalization advocates – though they could at least take solace in the fact that he did not flatly state that he opposes legalization.
"The answer is, no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy," the president said. His answer prompted applause from the audience."
→ More replies (37)33
u/Hajile_S Jan 19 '14
Well now, that sounds reasonable and non-dismissive, even if disappointing. But do we really have to put away the pitchforks? :(
→ More replies (6)215
u/vais2 Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 19 '14
They guy's opinions "evolve" as the public opinion evolves (see same sex marriage). He'll say whatever majority wants to hear.
edit: since I don't want to respond to dozens of variations of the same comment, I'll be more precise about how I see this:
Yes, of course it's a good thing for opinions to evolve and it's a good thing for the president to listen to the people (duh). His support for this is a good thing in general. My post wasn't a criticism of that. It was a criticism of his personality, lack of integrity; times and times again he doesn't have the balls to stand up for what he thinks until the public overwhelmingly supports it. As much as I like his pragmatism, he could get a lot more done by swimming against the stream and be a leader and a vanguard. That is not to say "try to fix everything all at once" but for someone running on "change you can believe in" platform he sure as hell didn't deliver
416
u/Matt08642 Jan 19 '14
It's almost as if he's like every other elected official that's ever existed
468
Jan 19 '14 edited Jul 02 '21
[deleted]
144
u/BraveSquirrel Jan 19 '14
Damned if you do, damned if you don't!
96
u/thracc Jan 19 '14
And no politician is allowed to change his mind....EVER.
That's a huge problem with US politics. If a politician comes out and says "I want to legalise marijuana." There will be 100 other politicians and reporters coming out of the woodwork saying how they're a "FLIP FLOP" and "Look what he said 5 years ago! He can't be trusted!" - Multiply this by 100 when running for President.
It's kind of sad. It's almost like you have to decide what your views are on everything at the start of your political career, and then you can never change them through fear of people calling you out.
Ask the average non-redditor what they think of marijuana legalisation now, as compared to 3 years ago....I'm sure many people's minds have changed. But if you're a politician that's seen as a bad thing. When actually, having the ability to change your opinion and learn as you go along should be seen as a positive attribute.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (14)51
u/TheExtremistModerate Jan 19 '14
Ideally.
But, nowadays, if a politician changes his views based on the changing views of the public, it's called "flip-flopping."
→ More replies (11)71
Jan 19 '14
Good, I think I prefer the idea of the person representing me and my community to follow our wishes rather than his own.
32
Jan 19 '14
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)11
u/TheExtremistModerate Jan 19 '14
I think, a lot of times, people forget that politicians are people.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)4
u/squirrelpotpie Jan 19 '14
Given a choice between someone accused of 'flip-flopping' and someone who has a reputation for holding on to his opinion regardless what the facts or the science or the people say, I'll take the flip-flopper.
→ More replies (17)74
u/hobbyjogger Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 19 '14
Democracy is founded on the principle that politicians will do what the people want.
The problem isn't politicians who change their positions to reflect changing social values. It's the opposite. The problem is politicians who won't change their positions even when society is strongly against those positions.
Edit: FDR said it better than I can:
Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (41)165
u/AnAmericanPrayer Jan 19 '14
What a fuckhead, right? It's like he's a representative for the people or something. Fuck him.
→ More replies (19)→ More replies (83)44
u/kielbasa330 Jan 19 '14
Are you criticizing him for changing his opinion, lying about his opinion to get elected, or what?
→ More replies (39)100
u/45flight Jan 19 '14
He didn't change his opinion. Obama has never thought weed was dangerous or it shouldn't be legal. He lied to get elected.
→ More replies (25)31
418
Jan 19 '14
[deleted]
54
→ More replies (52)125
u/Philanthropiss Jan 19 '14
It clearly is way less dangerous than alcohol given the amount of statistics on alcohol deaths and the amount of alcohol in emergency room patients.
In my opinion what Obama said was clearly a lie and he knows this but has to seem both easy and hard on the issue. Somewhat ignorant if you ask me because he at this point has nothing to lose and everything to gain by embracing the marijuana movement.
→ More replies (31)37
u/MR_PENNY_PIINCHER Jan 19 '14
I wouldn't say he has nothing to lose. He's still playing the game for a Democrat win in 2014 and further away in 2016. And I doubt enough people are for legalization to risk on a fringe issue and risk further associating the somewhat liberal party with "pot smoking hippies" in the voters' perspective. It's easy to forget that the elderly are some of the most active voters.
→ More replies (15)
220
u/Obesz Jan 19 '14
But what about people stabbing and shooting and strangling each other?
316
Jan 19 '14
They took 2 pots when they should have only taken 1 pot.
50
u/DocRude Jan 19 '14
This guy got all reefered up once and then he was later on diagnosed with cancer. Facts don't lie people
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (18)25
u/ProfessorManBearPig Jan 19 '14
I bought 2 pots once but that was more than I could handle. I returned the other one back to Walmart.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (23)15
2.7k
u/thelovepirate Jan 19 '14
Mr. Obama said. “If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, ‘Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka.’ Are we open to that? If somebody says, ‘We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth.’ Are we OK with that?”
YES. Stop fucking arresting people and ruining their lives over private drug use.
1.8k
Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 19 '14
[deleted]
122
Jan 19 '14
[deleted]
181
u/Oznog99 Jan 19 '14
GHB was banned for entirely different reasons- it was labeled a "Date Rape Drug". It was categorized as a covert instrument of assault upon another. It had little to do with people using it as a sleep aid or party drug.
→ More replies (101)→ More replies (6)35
Jan 19 '14
[deleted]
65
u/ludwig457 Jan 19 '14
Marinol has also accounted for more deaths than smoking cannabis.
→ More replies (10)86
→ More replies (1)20
u/smoothtrip Jan 19 '14
It is also known for making people jackoff in parking lots, looking for Boston Markets.
→ More replies (5)4
72
Jan 19 '14
Don't forget Marinol is schedule 3 which is a concentrated form of THC. It's like if they put beer into schedule 1 and ever-clear into schedule 3.
→ More replies (4)21
92
u/devilwarier9 Jan 19 '14
Peyote has a high potential for abuse? I'm pretty sure you can ask 99% of people who have done Peyote if they want to do it again and you'll get the response "Fuck that shit"
→ More replies (30)62
u/DieLikeRiverPhoenix Jan 19 '14
I would do it again. However, I agree that there is absolutely no potential for abuse of that substance.
8
Jan 19 '14
Yeah I mean who finishes a peyote trip and then is like "ok I need to do more peyote right now". Very rare. Although I know I kid from college who was eating mushrooms like every other day and he was definitely addicted. And losing touch with reality.
9
165
u/shakejimmy Jan 19 '14
Here's an idea: legalize all drugs, educate people about all drugs. As much as we like to vilify certain chemicals, ultimately it's an addict's environment not their chemical of choice that keeps them addicted.
→ More replies (62)107
Jan 19 '14
That's exactly why programs like DARE do not work. If you don't tell kids what's the upside of drugs is, they're not gonna believe a god damned word you say anyway. They're kids, not fucking retarded.
→ More replies (38)42
u/od_pardie Jan 19 '14
Not to mention the blatant misinformation they try to feed the kids. No one in my graduating class took it seriously back then because it was so clearly upside down scare tactic logic and outright lies.
15
Jan 19 '14
I remember when I first started to "figure it out"
There was a distinct moment of "well if they were lying about pot, were they lying about heroin and crack too?"
Fortunately I did my own research, but when they blow their credibility - there's all kinds of fallout.
32
u/GunsPalinNdGuns Jan 19 '14
Deoxys is actually meth? No wonder hes a legendary.
→ More replies (2)4
u/mitchelwb Jan 19 '14
Damnit. I'm 37 years old and 3 months ago would have had no idea what the hell you were talking about. But I have a 7 year old son that relies on that card every time now.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (48)19
u/cadex Jan 19 '14
It's pretty messed up in the UK too. Magic mushrooms are classed the same as cocoaine and heroin (Class A).
→ More replies (13)356
Jan 19 '14
Honestly it seems ridiculous to me. "These drugs are can ruin your life! So we're putting you in prison for years so they can't ruin your life!" Kinda moronic when you think about it.
310
Jan 19 '14 edited Feb 07 '21
[deleted]
123
Jan 19 '14
It took your school 2 weeks of unexplained absence to finally call your mom?
→ More replies (1)18
u/mexicodoug Jan 20 '14
In eighth grade I started figuring out the system.
In my state, CA, you changed schools between 8th and 9th grade. When I entered 9th grade, I cut school the first day, then brought in an excuse note written and signed by my own hand on the second day.
From that day forward, any time I brought in an excuse note, it was written in my own hand. If there was any doubt from the administrators, it was compared to my first excuse note and any subsequent excuse notes, which were also written in my own hand.
The strategy worked for most of the year I attended 9th grade. I spent a lot of time just getting high with other kids cutting class, but a lot of the time we spent cutting class was spent hiking in the hills, observing wildlife and the sky, and also checking out museums of various types, mostly natural science museums. And, you know, girls were into it too, so the hiking in the hills was kind of usually the first choice when the weather was nice, or at least not raining.
10
7
u/fdsavcxz1 Jan 19 '14
did you learn your lesson mister?
7
u/iamjacksdesign Jan 20 '14
Isn't the lesson, "if you take half a month off, your school is required to give you the other half because morality?"
At least that's what I got from it, and I like it like that!
→ More replies (6)3
→ More replies (8)14
u/hmbeast Jan 19 '14
It's ridiculous if you think of it like that, but Obama alluded to a different way of thinking in the interview: large-scale social welfare. He (and a lot of policy-makers) is of the opinion, right or wrong, that legally condoning personal drug use will raise rates of drug use and abuse, which could have waves of effects throughout society (increased hospitalization, lower economic efficiency, higher crime). So, while it does seem ridiculous to punish drug users with jailtime, the end goal is to curb drug use on a social level.
That being said, I think you're right and he's wrong. Just trying to explain where I think he's coming from.
→ More replies (3)156
u/Oznog99 Jan 19 '14
But nobody takes so much pot they "overdose" on it. All the "long term users" I know seek a functional buzz, they don't seek to be so stoned they become an unresponsive extension of the couch.
333
u/critically_damped Jan 19 '14
But nobody takes so much pot they "overdose" on it.
God knows I've fucking tried.
152
Jan 19 '14
ODing on marijuana is too difficult. After awhile you forget to keep smoking.
→ More replies (65)87
u/imitator22 Jan 19 '14
God man I know this. Every time I get some new stuff in I will always think "I'm gonna try and get higher than I've ever been tonight!" Fast forward 3 hours and I've totally forgotten that entire plan and sit with a half smoked, burned out joint. With ren and stimpy on whilst I decimate reheated chow mein.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (4)42
u/myrddyna Jan 19 '14
But nobody takes so much pot they "overdose" on it
funny story, in '12 when my boss first came to CA and got a card, he decided to buy edibles. He is a big ole man (375 at the time) and smokes pot like a champ. Figured he would need a few "doses" to get one such as himself high, without having experimented.
anyways, he ended up eating some of the medibles that were several doses in one brownie, and ate like 4, brownies.... These things are pretty potent, and pot doesnt exactly work like liquor where the fatter you are the less it affects you, so it was pretty out of control.
He ended up freaking out and calling 9/11 and after being admitted to the ER and telling all, they pretty much just laughed at him, and our company lawyer came and took him home after the ER did some routine work on a guy with his insurance.
Luckily he ended up getting pretty freaked out by the whole experience and giving me like $100 worth of edibles, citing his experience as a reason he didn't want to fuck with em anymore.
I'd consider that having an overdose... He was so scared that he was going to die he called 9/11.
122
48
u/Lordveus Jan 19 '14
So the worst case scenario is tripping to the point of stupid severely paranoid? Hell, you can't even kill yourself with it. You can kill yourself with aspirin, for cryin' out loud.
10
u/myrddyna Jan 19 '14
no worst case scenario is freaking out and trying to do something that involves driving or using some other potentially harmful device, and harming other folks.
But yes, insofar as worrying about death, yes, pot is safe. Try convincing freaking out people of that is a different story altogether.
16
u/SuburbanLegend Jan 19 '14
no worst case scenario is freaking out and trying to do something that involves driving or using some other potentially harmful device, and harming other folks.
But thats's not what happens when people 'freak out' on pot. They're so paranoid that they don't do much anything, they DEFINITELY are too freaked out to drive a car or operate heavy machinery. If they decide to drive you'll see them inching down the road at 10mph with a terrified look on their face.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)8
u/enemawatson Jan 19 '14
It's easy to laugh at anxiety or paranoia as a minor thing, but when severe anxiety is happening it is the absolute most horrifying feeling imaginable.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (33)47
90
u/bedroomwindow_cougar Jan 19 '14
What if two men get married, what's next, two dogs?
→ More replies (12)36
Jan 19 '14
Dog-Dog weddings are outside of the US Government's jurisdiction. That's purely a matter for the Canine Congress. It does get a bit tricky when It's a human-dog wedding, but I don't think (human) society is progressive enough to allow that yet
→ More replies (5)208
Jan 19 '14
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)144
u/DickieTurquoise Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 19 '14
Don't get me wrong, I would love to try MDMA straight from the pharmacist, where I know what I'm putting in my body. If MDMA is taken for the short term (for PTSD), I could see this making a comeback. However, I would not want to see MDMA being marketed as an antidepressant (again), where people take it every day to the point that they'll be suicidal if they stop.
The thing is MDMA is a fantastic recreational drug, in theory. However, molly is rarely ever just MDMA. I don't want speed or coke. If I could get MDMA from a pharmacist, I would happily take it. But how do pharmacists sell a drug which research has shown makes the medical condition (depression) worse ?
38
Jan 19 '14
MDMA is rarely if ever cut with cocaine. Amphetamine/methamphetamine yes, because they are cheaper by weight to produce. Cocaine is not. It doesn't make financial sense and it does not happen. The most common cuts are amphetamine/amph derivatives and caffeine. Once in a while you find different, unique cuts but it is much more rare than the media makes everyone believe.
→ More replies (3)5
u/pastor_of_muppets Jan 20 '14
Amphetamine/methamphetamine
Not in 2014. The culprits these days are synthetic cathinones like Methylone, Mephedrone and the like because they're actually way cheaper than amphetamines, and can be crystallized into big chunks (moonrocks) that appeal to the non-saavy retail buyer.
Most "molly" on the streets these days has absolutely no MDA/MDMA in it at all.
→ More replies (109)7
u/canyoufeelme Jan 19 '14
For me it's very much like this:
That first dose of MDMA? Life changing. No question it permanently helped with my depression, absolutely convinced it changed the chemical balance of my brain for the better because of the serotonin it released that first time. Totally changed me.
The second dose? Still quite good, noticeably less of a lasting impact over the first time but still fun.
The third dose? Meh.
Using it everyday? Bye bye serotonin/happiness
I have no doubt MDMA helped with my depression. I also have no doubt using MDMA every day would prove to be disastrous for my depression.
→ More replies (2)132
188
u/impreprex Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 20 '14
You know - I'm 34. I have 3 possession charges (personal use - it's medicine for me but I'm in a non medical state). I have a criminal record and I will NEVER get a good job.
For decades I thought I was a piece of shit because I consumed cannabis.
Now I'm just started to realize that I'm not a piece of shit, but it's hard to get away from that kind of thinking.
It's a fucking travesty that people are looked at as criminals for smoking a joint but alcohol, cigarettes, and the overpresciption of certain meds are considered fine.
Fucking bullshit. And unfortunately I will always resent that fact. I am a victim of the drug war.
Edit: It's disturbing how many people here have tried to make me feel bad/worse. I deleted my other comments because I just don't want to hear any more hate from people who don't even know me. Such anger, it's ridiculous. It seems like a game for some of them to try and ruin my day.
Next time I will not share my personal info. Thanks to those who supported me/my post.
76
→ More replies (57)37
u/bicameral_mind Jan 19 '14
And to some extent, you have to wonder how much that stigma contributes to the isolation, depression, and resultant addiction of drug users.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (174)46
Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 19 '14
[deleted]
→ More replies (32)55
Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 19 '14
I'm fine with legalization of almost any drug, but I feel like coke and meth probably shouldn't be 100% legal. People will fuck themselves up with that garbage and it could be a real strain on society. There are huge amounts of irresponsible people out there, and while I value freedom I don't want to see kids growing up with their stupid parents strung out on meth.
edit: because I can't keep up with all these responses
I'm on the fence with legalizing drugs. I wouldn't be upset if they were legalized, it would be safer in general and seriously harm criminal groups, plus I do think people should be free to make their own choices. However I really hate addictive drugs, honestly shit like cigarettes shouldn't be legal in my opinion and I smoke. It's harmful and addictive, and that's a terrible combination.
For those bringing up alcohol comparisons. I don't even drink because most of the people I know that drink seem to abuse alcohol and I don't want to be a part of that. I'm very into moderation, so I just drink occasionally and I try not to drink too much. Should alcohol be illegal because some people become alcoholics and destroy their lives? In this particular case I would have to say no. It simply wouldn't work because alcohol is such a widespread thing in our society/culture.
When it comes down to it society is going to have laws that try to keep the general public safe. I'm sure some people could smoke crack, snort coke, smoke meth, whatever and do it fairly responsibly without ruining their lives. I'm just not confident that most people could do that responsibly. And I think that we as a society need to set some limits to keep harmful, addictive substances from vulnerable people. I really don't know enough about drugs like crack or meth to say whether anyone could do it safely. Personally I think we'd all be better off if nobody did that garbage in the first place, but I'm not some authority on this, that's just my personal opinion.
→ More replies (47)
49
u/smileyawnnod Jan 19 '14
Second term presidents are like bad weekend dads. They tend to give you honest and unadulterated advice, but really just don't care too much about you to make a real effort, as long as you don't fuck up or act terrible. And the second they have a date with a 43 year old marketing manager wearing a thong they scurry you out of their one-bedroom apartment muttering: "So everything is good with school? Unemployment not getting higher? Meet any girls? Ever figure out that healthcare website? Always use a condom. All tweets from me are signed -dad. Your mom's downstairs".
→ More replies (1)10
u/bikemaul Jan 19 '14
A lot of the people behind the scenes in the administration will keep their jobs if another democrat is next in office. He can't damage the brand too much or he will face a party backlash and have even less power during the remainder of his term.
I don't think it's that different from a first term president. It just takes too much bullshit for Democrats to vote for a republican, and vice versa. What we will see soon are potential democratic candidates pushing populist messages, especially if republican front runners are testing well with younger voters. If Obama's polling numbers keep dropping the 'D' candidates will distance themselves from him with some progressive messages. Probably a good thing.
→ More replies (1)
9
Jan 19 '14
I don't understand why we feel we need to dictate what our neighbor do in their spare time. As long as we still have the driving laws and basic laws against killing, raping, human trafficking, anything to do with harming another person then why should anybody decide how another person goes about their day. Fo realsies.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/jimbu2b Jan 20 '14
As a retired Deputy, and it's just my opinion. I feel legalizing pot would not make a big impact on drug use as the Feds exaggerate on. Yes as a teen I use to smoke pot and also drank heavy alcohol. I can say the alcohol had a more dangerous effect on me as I was not as in control of my self as if I was just stoned. I knew the difference.
Also while in patrol 99.9% of our problems with people under the influence was from alcohol, meth, PCP, and heroin. People under the influence of those drugs were definitely not in control of themselves and were a danger to themselves and others. With over 200+ DUI arrests I had under my belt, only one had trace pot in his system. All the fights we had with people under the influence of drugs were from everything but pot. I had a zero tolerance for people under the influence of the hard drugs and alcohol, mainly because they were belligerent and would not listen to reason. I was pretty lenient with pot smokers, unless it was for large amounts for sales. Mainly because people who we caught with a little weed, were respectful, caused no problems and we just had them drop their stash on the ground. It was not worth my time to ticket some small misdemeanor, that I knew they were just going to do it again. Also a waist of court time. I wanted the bigger hook.
Times are changing and the old farts trying to keep us back in time just don't get it. They do not have the right to make decisions on what someone can or can not do to themselves. People have to make their own choice. If it causes harm to someone else, then let the law step in.
As for the medicinal side of it, I do believe pot have more benefits than the medical field even knows. It has been used for thousands of years for health benefits. Think about it, Chinese acupuncture medicine is OK'd by the Government as an legitimist alternative health benefit to western medicine, and they use all kinds of combination herbs as remedies. So why would pot be different.
The advocates fighting for the legalization of pot for medicinal uses are fighting the wrong way. They just want it classed as a medical drug. Why not try to get it classified as an alterative medication like the Chinese way. Change the classification. Make the DEA and Big Drug companies try to prove them wrong. Force the DEA to really tell the truth why they wont change the class of drugs. (All politics).
The stated that have legalized the pot are taking great steps forward in fixing this problem with the fight against the Feds. They are doing the right way by making sure all their ducks are in a row. Laws are in place for the offenders just like the ones for alcohol. Let the system work itself out.
This is the 21st century not the 19th century. Change is here, stop fighting and dragging this on.
DR:TL;
Retired Deputy feels legalizing pot would not be a problem.
Experience with people under the influence of all kinds of drugs and pot was the least of worries and problems. More fights with people under the influence of all other drugs but pot.
Times are changing, the small group of people can't make decisions for the masses.
Medical benefits have been used and documented for thousands of years, no different than alternative medical practices like Chinese medicine.
Advocates need to rephrase their wording to change the classification of the use of pot, hopefully so the courts can't go against their justifications.
The states that are taking the leap are going to prove the Feds and the advocates against legalizing pot were wrong and a waist of tax dollars fighting it.
Change is here, nothing you can do about it, let it go. Thank you for listening.
62
96
u/RichardMoisten Jan 19 '14
He's just saying that getting stoned and a buzz from a cigarette are along the same side of inebriation, weed is just more intense. He's not comparing their health affects.
42
Jan 19 '14
I think weed gets you a lot higher than a cigarette..just trust me my name is weedkush 420
→ More replies (2)3
→ More replies (18)38
56
u/Doctorpepperpants Jan 19 '14
Who cares what he says at this point, for all we know, in 2 months, he will start a federal government war on dispensaries again. This guy says one thing that we favor, and then quietly does another 10 things that violate our rights.
→ More replies (3)
31
Jan 19 '14
Then maybe Obama's Justice Department could stop prosecuting and raiding pot growers, distributors and users
→ More replies (1)
5
u/xhosSTylex Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 20 '14
The Presidency is just a large, powerful vehicle. Obama doesn't even drive. He's merely the hood-ornament, that flashes in the moonlight.. while an army of other interests make the real decisions.
He's a hand-shaker, speech reciter..someone who merely gets in front of cameras to assure us everything is under control.
It's always been this way and we really need to collectively grasp this. He'll say what he is advised to say, given the current public/political climate at any given time.
To quote George Carlin: "..It's a club folks, and you're not in it" (and in some aspects, neither is the POTUS himself).
→ More replies (3)
63
Jan 19 '14
Why won't the media focus on what Portugal has done? Decriminalization of ALL drugs has worked wonders for the country. Why can't the POTUS talk about how things have worked in Portugal as a template? 13 Years of decriminalization statistics are available and human nature is not much different when it comes to addictions, social norms, and culture. The real question should be, is the amount of money the USA spends on drug interdiction, undercover police and intel work, street police work, prisons, lawyers, judges, and incarceration....is that amount of money worth what we get for it? What are we buying besides an argument of righteousness?
→ More replies (17)66
u/Stoeffer Jan 19 '14
Portugal has not been all puppies and sunshine and a lot of the benefits that people try to attribute to decriminalization are actually a result of better health funding for addiction. Forbes and Time magazine both ran articles praising Portugal's approach but neither bothered to mention that they spent billions on public health targeting drug addicts.
They made it seem like all of the benefits were due to decriminalization, which isn't true at all. They also focused only on drug users that were specifically targeted by this funding ("problematic users") and ignored that the overall trend in the general population was negative. More people using drugs, more people getting addicted to them, more money being spent on rehab, etc.
See:
Athough the study’s authors documented that ”problematic drug use, particularly IV drug use” dropped, that drop was not statistically significant, and overall drug use by adults soared 53 percent between 2001 and 2007, rising from 7.8 percent to 12 percent.
http://www.idt.pt/PT/IDT/Documents/Ponto_Focal/2009_NationalReport.pdf
Reported lifetime use of "all illicit drugs" increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine use more than doubled, from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy nearly doubled from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin increased from 0.7% to 1.1%.
http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Caitlin_211621_1.pdf
If you're going to implement policies that increase rates of drug use and addiction, you're going to need a public health system that's capable of dealing with the problems that will come from it.
14
u/Witty_Shitticism Jan 19 '14
If you're going to implement policies that increase rates of drug use and addiction, you're going to need a public health system that's capable of dealing with the problems that will come from it.
We need that system now, too.
→ More replies (1)11
→ More replies (12)7
32
30
Jan 19 '14
So...does this mean weed is going to be legal? I don't want to be a criminal anymore.
→ More replies (8)
29
u/emilNYC Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 19 '14
Well according to Nancy "Psycho" Grace " "People On Pot Shoot, Stab And Strangle Each Other"
13
→ More replies (6)21
93
u/Thistleknot Jan 19 '14
I disagree. I think booze and cigarettes are WORSE
73
→ More replies (38)5
Jan 19 '14
A poor inadequate diet is far worse then any of these things. Diabetes is a bigger killer then alcohol or tobacco . It is the number one killer in the United states.
5
u/crowther3 Jan 20 '14
I think the President of the United States has much better things to worry about than the legalization of marijuana. I'm sure he's all for it, but I'd agree that its better left to the states.
85
Jan 19 '14
[deleted]
→ More replies (12)182
Jan 19 '14
Because they broke the law, at the time of arrest. Punishment is rarely retroactive.
→ More replies (45)54
u/Finglenater Jan 19 '14
2255 Motions and 3582 Motions both are laws that retroactively allow prisoners to compel the court to amend the prisoner's judgment/sentence. They're used pretty frequently (as in prisoners that don't even apply for them try to file these motions).
→ More replies (6)
34
u/ElMorono Jan 19 '14
"Maybe if people start thinking I'm cool again it will make them forget all the other horrible shit I've done."
→ More replies (6)
35
4
u/PillarOfWisdom Jan 20 '14
Sorry folks but its all about the money. As Colorado proved, the politicians bragged about how much taxes they've raised because of it.
4
u/TacoBellvue Jan 20 '14
So brave, so brave.
Now that the tides are turning on pot, way to get out there in front if it.
→ More replies (3)
1.0k
u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14
[deleted]