Petition Response from whitehouse.gov

[t-dub]

So I signed every pro cannabis petition they had up at whitehouse.gov the other day and got this in response:

What We Have to Say About Legalizing Marijuana

By Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy

When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics. So our concern about marijuana is based on what the science tells us about the drug's effects.

According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health- the world's largest source of drug abuse research - marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has almost tripled over the past 20 years, raising serious concerns about what this means for public health especially among young people who use the drug because research shows their brains continue to develop well into their 20's. Simply put, it is not a benign drug.

Like many, we are interested in the potential marijuana may have in providing relief to individuals diagnosed with certain serious illnesses. That is why we ardently support ongoing research into determining what components of the marijuana plant can be used as medicine. To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition.

As a former police chief, I recognize we are not going to arrest our way out of the problem. We also recognize that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use.

That is why the President's National Drug Control Strategy is balanced and comprehensive, emphasizing prevention and treatment while at the same time supporting innovative law enforcement efforts that protect public safety and disrupt the supply of drugs entering our communities. Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America. And, as we've seen in our work through community coalitions across the country, this approach works in making communities healthier and safer. We're also focused on expanding access to drug treatment for addicts. Treatment works. In fact, millions of Americans are in successful recovery for drug and alcoholism today. And through our work with innovative drug courts across the Nation, we are improving our criminal justice system to divert non-violent offenders into treatment.

Our commitment to a balanced approach to drug control is real. This last fiscal year alone, the Federal Government spent over $10 billion on drug education and treatment programs compared to just over $9 billion on drug related law enforcement in the U.S.

Thank you for making your voice heard. I encourage you to take a moment to read about the President's approach to drug control to learn more.

Resources:

National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
Marijuana Facts (ONDCP)
Drug Abuse Warning Network (HHS)
Treatment Episode Data Set (HHS)
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS)

 

[lepstadder]

We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions

This is due to making it mandatory to commit to a treatment program in lieu of prosecution.

An absurd practice of taking responsible drug users and lumping them in with actual drug addicts who need help.

 

[WatTyler]

Part of me says that you can hardly blame the politicians when their 'expert' advisors are telling them this. The sentence "..he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics " is good and one that anyone would support.

However, I draw a comparison to the debate in the UK, where a year or two ago Professor David Nutt, at the time Chairman of the UK Governments Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, stated that drugs should classified according to an evidence based approach, rather than political prejudice, and that cannabis, though still not harmless, was still demonstrably safer than alcohol and tobacco (and bizarrely enough, though valid, that ecstasy is a statistically safer recreational activity than horseriding!). As this prominent Government Advisor was advocating this at a time when the new UK Prime Minister had described skunk as a "lethal drug" and was reclassifying cannabis from Class C to Class B (much stiffer penalties), his evidence based approach was no longer wanted and he was DISMISSED as Chairman of the Advisory Council!!!!

The UK governments justification for it's law changing since has been that legislation is NOT just about being curtailed to a scientific evidence based justification- otherwise there would be no need for politicians. Instead, they suggest, and perhaps rightfully so, it also includes a ethical/moral element of delivering the public the laws and 'protection' it wants, and in the face of perceived 'uncertainty' over the mental health effects of strong MJ on the young, that included reclassification. (I don't agree with this aspect, obviously, but neither would I want to be governed by scientists without any wider political considerations or concerns)

Not really sure what my point is. The scientific advice given to government is only one part of the battle, and it still needs an open minded government to receive it. We had the good advice in the UK at one point, but the wrong leader at the time. I wonder what would have happened if Professor David Nutt had been a Chief health and drug advisor to the USA government at the time an apparently more open minded Obama had come into office- it could have been the coinciding of the two forces necessary to deliver some change.

---------

Just for your interest, and because graphics are nice, here's Prof. Nutts ranking of different drugs according to their 'harm' (nine different parameters analysed, grouped into 'physical harm' 'dependence' and 'social harm' ). I guess the colours relate to his suggested UK legal classification of the drug (class A, B or C).

 

[canadianlive]

BullCrap F*ck them I hate this part "When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics. So our concern about marijuana is based on what the science tells us about the drug's effects.

There is no point in reading the rest as the 1st paragraph itself says "F*ck you idealistic a**h*les we are not giving up whatever you do, you all suffer with mob attitude and you suck. You chipmunks! think that the day when marijuana is legal is not far right? ha ha go F*ck yourself whomever you put in office doesn't matter HeHeHeeeeee"

When a public petition that is most voted gets this kind of response completely ignoring the verdict of people is ignorance at its best and is horrible. So whose voice will be heard? by ALIENS? you "C**k S**kers" you blatant "B*stards"

To whom it may concern you all will rot in hell pretty soon.

 

[t-dub]

Yes the reply is so smoothly crafted, the distortions quite sublime. Very well done piece and a good indicator of the attitude I fear we can expect from the Feds in the future.

"marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment"

What about tobacco and alcohol?

"To date, however, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition."

This is an out and out lie as the federal government has a patent on cannabis: U.S. Patent # 6630507

Notice how they focus on "smoked" MJ. I would love to take away the politicians martinis and see how they react.



t-dub

 

[TheGreenBastard]

We know from an array of treatment admission information and Federal data that marijuana use is a significant source for voluntary drug treatment admissions

This is due to making it mandatory to commit to a treatment program in lieu of prosecution.

An absurd practice of taking responsible drug users and lumping them in with actual drug addicts who need help.

This. My girlfriend got pinched this summer and was given the option to take a "treatment" program instead of facing a UPM in Upstate NY. The simple fact is that there is simply to much money and to many people employed in the "War on Drugs" to make legalization a viable option. The thousands of non-violent offenders lumped into jail and prison is obscene but simply a result of the privatized prison system and the legal kickbacks that private prison operators can dole out to judges and prosecutors nationwide, for our US buddies at least.

As a historian it's fun to look at the major contributing members/lobby groups that fought to criminalize cannabis back in the 30s and still basically contribute the lion's share of funding to policy makers concerning this subject. Namely the Alcohol, Tobacco, Cotton, and Pharmaceutical lobby's, and today Annheiser-Busch/Inbev and Phillip-Morris as well as Pfizer are some major players in the AdCouncil for Drug Awareness. This doesn't even take into account Federal and local law enforcement agencies kicking money to policy makers and trying to proliferate false information for the mere fact of keeping their jobs.

I'm all for being able to band together and vocalize minority concerns, hell it's what we're doing here. That being said it is unconstitutional to allow funding to be thrown at furthering minority concerns to the effect of ruining millions of lives.

As far as the inherit safety or danger of cannabis I will admit that I am no trained scientist. I am however somone who has struggled with addiction to alcohol and tobacco and I can say those were far more ruinous to my personal situation than good ol' Mary ever was. If I come home and start slugging whiskey I'm almost guarenteed to do or say something I regret and wake up meaner than hell. If I have a little bud that's all I have. A little. And I wake up well rested and fucking hungry. And maybe with some cheese-doodle dust still on my fingers.

Oh by the way Hi guys! Great site, happy to have found it and I'm upgrading my standard binger to a LSV after I rangle some pennies together.

 

[Qbit]

David Nutt's "Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis", published a year ago in The Lancet (the world's leading general medical journal) is available in full here:

http://pdfcast.org/pdf/drug-harms-in-the-uk-a-multicriteria-decision-analysis-1

 

[VWFringe]

Canadianlive, I like your description of how we can read between the lines of this statement, when taken in the context of the outcome of their policies and actions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

We are asking them to take a significant reduction in the scope of their authority,

We are asking them to reduce and restructure the entire judicial system,

We are asking them, here in the U.S., to find eighty-six billion dollars a year from somewhere other than where it's been for a long time now.

It's understandable they'd hunker down to protect their revenue streams.

What is truelly scary is how it spawns true-believers, people who pick up on each new factoid to support the case against, and never question the house of cards itself. These are the people who we hear saying, "it's good they got put into the system, where they can get the help they need," instead of recognizing they won't get help dealing with their problems, just more of the same punishment for their condition.

Institutionalized prejudice and exclusionary policies. Like kicking kids with ADHD out of school for tardies.

They're going to have to be forced to expand their definitions of what's treated by what, and why people are self-medicating. They have enough data to correlate drug use to poverty and stress, but they choose not to see the connection.

This Gil Curly-Q-ski could really start to help wipe out addiction if he'd just pursue helping people instead of acting like a Czar.

 

[t-dub]

The war on drugs is to ensure that drugs do the maximum harm to society. That way the anti-drug movement is self fulfilling and justifying simultaneously.

t-dub

Edit:

David Nutt's "Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis", published a year ago in The Lancet (the world's leading general medical journal) is available in full here:

http://pdfcast.org/pdf/drug-harms-in-the-uk-a-multicriteria-decision-analysis-1

Great article Qbit! Interesting how the #1 drug, at the top of the list, for harm to self and others is alcohol. Even worse than Heroin and Crack. Makes me wonder how much influence Anheuser-Busch has in Washington.

 

[Elluzion]

There response is plain freaking stupid and leaves me sad. I can't believe they say that they have all these people admitted into the 'pot programs' that they MAKE YOU Take. Totally hypocritical..

They don't want to accept its use because they know if it was legal pharmaceutical drug sales would plummit and possibly alcohol and tobacco use too. It makes me sick the things that are going on with this right now.

In the end,,, It is a fucking plant!

 

[Legalize-then-capitalize.]

It really does astound me that some people manage to buy into all the horse shit they are fed. Not just in the U.S. but in Canada, oh definitely in Canada.