Cannabis Gaining Acceptance Everywhere But The White House

except at Cabinet and staff meetings.

ugh there's nothing we can do about the situation but wait for either a democratic decision, or a protest, whether it be peaceful or violent, in favor of the legalization of marijuana. Once that occurs, i'll be on the bandwagon, but fuck this ranting about how unfair shit is when u know it wont do any good. Go to washington D.C. on April 20th one year and join the protests that have been going on for decades.
~Zach

As much as I support legalization of marijuana, McLellan does make a point that asking for full-out legalization may be too much of a first step, and perhaps the initial focus should be on eliminating jail-time as a punishment for marijuana use, and instead instilling a fine, just like getting a parking ticket. Financially, it would be beneficial for government entities in both raising revenue and reducing costs (less prisoners to pay for). This type of law went into effect this year in Massachusetts, so it is possible for the states to lobby for this. It still conforms to the federal notion that marijuana is illegal, but without the overly harsh and unjust penalty of locking someone up for using it. Let's first go for this, and use it as a stepping stone for full-on legalization down the road. At the very least, we have to get the stoners out of jail. That in an of itself is a crime.

He also makes a point in that he agrees with using law enforcement resources on more serious issues, like violent crime. Targeting people for marijuana use should not even be on the radar for police. Ideally, if we can't legalize it for now, it should stay in this gray area like jaywalking or driving 3 miles over the speed limit, where technically it's illegal, but they're not going to bust you for it. Seriously, what's the big deal?

Now where I fundamentally disagree with McLellan is when he states marijuana is not good for you as a fact. That's not a fact, that's not even true. There is more scientific evidence that says marijuana, in fact, IS good for you than evidence to suggest it's not (which is none). What's even more offensive is that he says marijuana is not good for society and he uses that as a reason to keep it illegal. Oh really? And on what basis are you saying that? Would you say alcohol is also not good for society? We can all agree, it's nice to relax with a drink every now and then. We can also agree it's nice to relax with a bowl every now and then too, if anything it's better, because you don't have to worry about that god-awful hangover the next day. And alcohol actually has proven health risks. Marijuana does not. Oh, and there's that little thing called drunk driving. So how is it that marijuana is not good for society, but alcohol is? Would we really be better off without it? I think not.

If it wasn't for all the trashey pothead smokers you wouldn't be sitting in front of your computer with the latest software surfing the net. High tech is run by and weed is enjoyed by the vast majority of the people in the high tech business. morons

It continues to amaze me the outright lies that the government officials continue to use. The main argument for the prohibition supporters is always about the kids. Nobody with half a brain, or any brain at all for that matter, thinks that the legalization movement is targeting kids. It is actually the opposite. Legalized and regulated marijuana laws will actually help to keep it away from kids. Just ask any kid what is easier for them to obtain; pot, alcohol, or cigarettes. The answer is pot because it is not regulated. So with that argument exposed as a complete lie they have to just go back to how they need to keep incarcerating millions of people for there own good to protect them from themselves because pot has totally destroyed there brains. If you put the old movie “Reefer Madness” back in the theaters the prohibitionists would again claim that it is a true and factual movie. LOL What a screwed up society we live in.

President Flash is a tight ass, that's why.

Obama smoked dope.

these stuck up devils snorting powders, popping pills more than a little bit but cannibus which grows next to apples is illegal contradictions like the contradictions in religions there gods they serve but its legal to go to the movies and watch reinactments of blood thirsty murders, rapes and slayings (satanic) isnt illegal. beer and liquor stores every block, street and avenue in america get caught drinking they present you with jail time and fines more contradictions which the devil insists its for the good of american people those who do know we should not waste time getting upset just do the right thing spiritually
F.ornicate
U.nder
C.hristian
K.nowledge
the
law

I never said I was above anyone. And if not liking the smell of pot makes me a snob, I couldn't be happier to be a snob. Gee, do you like the taste of brussel sprouts or mayonnaise? If you don't like the taste or eat those things, in your eyes, that justifies me calling you snob

I'm just saying about marijuana what people have been saying about cigarette smoke for decades -- IT STINKS very badly...

For the person that claimed he didn't like smelly vaginas. Who does?? That's what choice and condoms are for.

Not everywhere. It's still not at all popular on the right for example. It's a lot bigger than it has been though. It's not just the white house that is skeptical according to the article. Most legislators in general have a dim view of this one.

Also medical marijuana and legalization are different things. I for example see a potential value in medical marijuana and continued research, but the claimed benefits of legalization so far look very illusionary and questionable.

PAINT IT GREEEEEEN!

To be honest, I think the only reason why Obama isn't pushing for federal legalization yet is because he has alot more to worry about... say, the war, the health bill, etc.

Give him some time, and he'll probably get onto the issue soon enough...

Pot is going to end up settled at the state level, one or two states every so often will decriminialize and legalize medical use that eventually federal officals will not enforce the laws on the books when two thirds of all states pass pot reform legislation.

Michigan is awesome! I'm glad the are representing the Midwest!

Come on Illinois be next!

Uhh ,perhaps cannabis, weed, marijuana, pot, whatever you want to call it would have gained more acceptance from the get go, IF IT DIDN'T SMELL LIKE PIG POO. Maybe I'll just FART around people that smoke this nasty ass stuff for fun and nothing else, and see how they like it

Pollack: In my own public health work, I don’t really do that much with marijuana. It’s striking to me that marijuana is such a touchstone of drug policy debate.

McLellan: It’s the center of the universe. Yeah (laughs). With all the really serious problems that we’ve got facing us–prescription drug use probably among the top, and you know, name the other drugs, why we’re spending this time on this nonsense about medical marijuana and legalization. It’s the damnest thing to me. I can’t get over it. It’s almost as though there were a contingent of people out there really eager to keep it at the front of the newspapers. Well, it isn’t us. We don’t want it there.

Pollack: There’s a culture war in which marijuana is one of the key fronts.

McLellan: People make a living debating this on stage. You know? That’s hard for me to believe, that there’s a living to be made going around debating about marijuana’s benefits and why you ought to legalize drugs and crap like that. It’s just like a silly discussion to me.

Well….A few personal observations:

-- Mr. McLellan certainly is ‘old school’ when it comes to endorsing the existing drug war dynamic that when his fellow citizens use illegal drugs to ’save’ them they are best arrested and drawn into the criminal justice system;

-- Like his predecessors at ONDCP, notably former drug czars McCaffrey and Walters, McLellan mocks medical cannabis and the public’s mass acceptance of it as one of the choices that a physician and patient can employ as a safe, non-toxic medicine;

-- Mr. McLellan claims that the current administration does not want to necessarily incarcerate cannabis consumers en mass (how charitable!);

-- Mr. McLellan appears genuinely amazed if not chagrined that there are citizens who exist that disagree with the prohibition of cannabis; that there are actual organizations of citizen-stakeholders advocating for alternatives to the self-evidently failed status quo of cannabis prohibition, complaining that some ‘make a career’ of advocating for obviously needed policy changes.

I suggest Mr. McLellan pause for a moment, look around his ONDCP office, and fully realize that he, and tens or thousands of anti-drug bureaucrats and law enforcement personnel employed by the federal government (ie, ONDCP, DEA, NIDA, Customs, TSA, Border Patrols, VA, SAMSHA, NDIC, EPIC; and hundreds of government organs funded by the taxpayers, like CADCA, NFIA and Partnership for a Drug-Free America) are careerists as well….However, unlike reformers, who employ privately donated dollars (maybe $15-$20 million donated in total to all drug policy reform groups annually), Mr. McLellan and his other career prohibitionists employ tens of billions annually of taxpayer’s money.

Calling the kettle black does not get one far in Washington, DC.

-- Maybe most disturbing, and a notion I’ve never heard advanced before by any drug policy official or law enforcement representative, Mr. McLellan believes that there is to be more revenue collected by arresting nearly a million cannabis consumers a year than by actually taxing the commercial cultivation, sales and consumption of cannabis (and of course the windfall enjoyed by society when billions of taxpayer dollars are no longer wasted annually trying to enforce a clearly unenforceable prohibition via mass arrests, prosecutions, incarcerations and probation services).

NORML supporters and cannabis law reform advocates in general need to realize that while there is a discernible cannabis law reform zeitgeist these days to be sure, unfortunately, existing at the top of government management charts, are government employees who are still very resistant to any real degree of cannabis law reform, and who favor arresting cannabis consumers en mass rather than taxing them like the consumers of alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical products.

Ugh...

McLellan: A very tough question. I’m still very new at this. And I don’t speak entirely for the office, so I’ll give you my personal reactions. In the narrow scope of things, the idea of being judicious about the use of your federal prosecutorial resources is first of all the Attorney General’s call and second of all probably smart. You’ve got a rapist and a marijuana user. Who are you going to go after? OK.

But, I’m disappointed that it was done with such drama, and that ONDCP and DoJ did not better-coordinate the policy’s release and answer questions about it side by side. For the first 3 or 4 days, the policy was spun in the media as a stalking horse for legalization and political activists claimed it meant all these things that it didn’t. That happened in part because we didn’t have a clear, coordinated message across the government. This administration, certainly including ONDCP and the Department of Justice, opposes marijuana legalization and believes that it’s worth it to try to reduce availability of marijuana. Normally we work well together on that and a bunch of other issues. We just didn’t work very well together on this one, in my opinion.

The issue of marijuana has been interestingly framed by legalization activists. It’s been framed as, “Marijuana’s not bad for you. In fact, it’s really medically good for certain people.” That was extremely cleverly done, because we could debate that all day long with existing evidence. How bad is marijuana? Is it as bad as alcohol? Does it even have some medical benefits for people that have nausea or glaucoma and all that?

Well, that’s not what’s at issue. What’s at issue is: there are efforts being made to increase the availability, and thus the use, the penetration if you will, of marijuana use. In order to show that availability expansion efforts are sensible and that we should reverse policies and laws and everything else, it seems to me the argument to be proven is, “It’s good for you.” That should be the standard, rather than “Marijuana’s not that bad.” Name for me another substance that you would say, “It’s not that bad, so let’s reverse state laws. Let’s increase availability to a product that really is targeted to young people.” For that, you should have to prove that it’s genuinely good, not just “not that bad”.

And our position is very simple on this, and I think, frankly, you can’t refute it. Marijuana is not good for you. You have to get that one exactly right. I didn’t say, “Marijuana’s not that bad.“ I said, “Marijuana’s not good for you.” And more people using marijuana is not good for society. And I believe these to be facts, by the way….

It is possible to reduce availability, not eliminate, but reduce availability. It’s already been done. It is possible to prevent abuse of marijuana, and it’s possible treat marijuana and other drug addictions. If you do those things, you have a better socially functioning society.

The other artful thing that’s been done by advocates about marijuana is that it has been pitched on one side of the base, “You know, marijuana’s not that bad for you. OK? And by the way, the only alternative to legalization is mass incarceration, which is really bad and it’s really expensive and all that.”

It’s a beautifully crafted, misleading argument. Our argument’s entirely different. Nobody wants mass incarceration of marijuana users. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph–what a waste of money that is. But, marijuana’s not good for you. So we need policies that keep marijuana illegal, are sensible, and that reduce availability and use of marijuana. And those policies–unlike the current legalize and tax proposals being floated –could generate revenue for the public. A city or state could generate a lot of revenue through fines for marijuana users.