Can I Support Marijuana Legalization Without Violating The Word Of Wisdom?

[DavidB]

deleted

Edited November 28, 2012 by DavidB

[thesometimesaint]

The Executive branch regularly decides which laws to enforce and which ones not to enforce. The oath the President takes says,

So, the oath is to execute the office of the Presidency, not execute the laws. The office of the Presidency, as the Executive branch, includes the prosecution of laws. The prosecution of laws includes the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, i.e. who to prosecute and for what. Prosecutors exercise that discretion all the time. There is nothing sticky about the President deciding not to prosecute Federal laws that conflict with State laws.

As the Chief Executive it is the job of the President to execute the law.

[Nathair/|\]

El Presidente has already instructed the DEA and DOJ to not seek out marijuana prosecutions in states where the People have voted to legalize some use of marijuana. The only exception to seeking out prosecutions in these states, is when the DEA or DOJ suspects the marijuana distributor/facility/whathaveyou is in violation of that particular states laws.

Here in my state, a man is facing 80 years on federal trafficking charges after complying with all state laws for medical marijuana laws.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/medical-marijuana-provider-finds-little-support-for-challenge-of-federal/article_447a2c48-3748-11e2-98aa-001a4bcf887a.html

[DavidB]

Here in my state, a man is facing 80 years on federal trafficking charges after complying with all state laws for medical marijuana laws.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/medical-marijuana-provider-finds-little-support-for-challenge-of-federal/article_447a2c48-3748-11e2-98aa-001a4bcf887a.html

This old news but new news to me:

Speaking with Rolling Stone,the president tried to explain his original comments, claiming that the recent pressure on dispensaries and providers was in line with his intent.

"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana," Obama said. "I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana -- and the reason is, because it's against federal law."

The president continued: "I can't nullify congressional law. I can't ask the Justice Department to say, 'Ignore completely a federal law that's on the books.' What I can say is, 'Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.' As a consequence, there haven't been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes."

So says the president who will not enforce DOMA

[thesometimesaint]

This old news but new news to me:

So says the president who will not enforce DOMA

That he does and it is problematic. At least until the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional, or Congress changes the law.

[ERayR]

It's not on the same line as smoking or alcohol in addiction. most people who smoke it do so on an irregular basis. It's less common for someone to build up a personal need or habit to smoking marijuana:

"Compared to other substances, marijuana is not very addicting. It is estimated that 32% of tobacco users will become addicted, 23% of heroin users, 17% of cocaine users, and 15% of alcohol users. Cocaine and heroin are more physically harmful and nicotine is much more addictive. It is much harder to quit smoking cigarettes than it is to quit smoking pot."

http://www.psycholog...juana-addictive

With luv,

Bd

Thats all well and good but tell someone who is addicted that they can't be addicted because pot just isn't addictive.

[Calm]

Thats all well and good but tell someone who is addicted that they can't be addicted because pot just isn't addictive.

Saying it's less common is not saying that they can't be addicted, only that the danger is less statistically speaking. That may not comfort someone who is on the wrong side of the stats, but we allow many things that are lethal to smaller percentages of people to be sold with and without restrictions such as penicillin and peanuts.

[Bob Crockett]

BlueDreams:

Marijuana isn't addictive. However I'll agree with the rest of your statements.

Tell that to the authors of the DSM-IV-TR guide, which has a number of mental disorders relating to cannabis psychosis, abuse and addiction.

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with taking a libertarian view that marijuana ought to be decriminalized.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Sky]

I live in Colorado, which was one of the states that had the marijuana legality question on the ballot. I voted no - or in other words, against it becoming legal. My reasoning was simply that our society has enough vices already; we don't need to add another one. I also have a sibling who was addicted to this stuff for many years, which negatively effected his health. It also prevented him him from serving a mission and being fully active in the Church.

[slamarwi]

The type and severity of addiction potential varies by chemical composition of both the substance used and the user. Just because cannabinoids are potentially less active and physically addictive than commonly abused alkaloids, does not mean that we should think they are harmless.

Two wrongs do not justify three... just sayin

het beste - lwiscombe

[slamarwi]

@Blue Dreams

There is a great deal of addiction / withdrawal data for Cannabis. But don't take my word for it. It's 4:20, time to hold your breath : )

Quantifying the clinical significance of cannabis withdrawal. http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/2304976

Het beste - lwiscombe

[Stargazer]

My state (Washington) voted to legalize recreational use of marijuana this month. The state govt is gearing up to start licensing dealers. I don't know when it will come into effect, but law enforcement has already backed off on enforcing the old prohibition, and some pending MJ-only cases have been dismissed. It's all getting so very laid-back already.

Anyway, my wife and I both voted to legalize it. Should we turn in our temple recommends?

[Stargazer]

I live in Colorado, which was one of the states that had the marijuana legality question on the ballot. I voted no - or in other words, against it becoming legal. My reasoning was simply that our society has enough vices already; we don't need to add another one. I also have a sibling who was addicted to this stuff for many years, which negatively effected his health. It also prevented him him from serving a mission and being fully active in the Church.

Actually, whether you voted yes or no didn't add to existing vices. Use of MJ has been out of control for decades. A new vice might be some kind of designer mellowness drug that never existed before.

And by the way, what if someone did come up with a new chemical that was euphoric, and not intoxicating, and yet could be demonstrated to have absolutely no negative health side-effects and was not addictive whatsoever. Just humor me. Would you want to keep it illegal? If so, why?

[slamarwi]

You should probably wait until you actually start smoking it or break some other temple denying commandment. I don't think voting is in that category... unless you feel guilty about the "Sustain the Bretheren" clause.

het beste - lwiscombe

[BlueDreams]

@Blue Dreams

There is a great deal of addiction / withdrawal data for Cannabis. But don't take my word for it. It's 4:20, time to hold your breath : )

Quantifying the clinical significance of cannabis withdrawal. http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/2304976

Het beste - lwiscombe

Again, that there can be addiction is not in question. That becoming addicted to any substance is a problem is also not in question. The likelihood of addiction is not as high as with many other drugs, both legal or illegal. And the real point is whether the constraint on a drug that is comparable and at times not as bad as a number of legal addictive substances worth the severe social cost to try and enforce the laws. Common experience from marijuana: ya get high for a little bit. Most of the other risks are small statistically speaking. Even your study that you just mentioned entailed quite a small sample size. The real problems are usually man made: jail time, search and seizures, heavy fines, etc. All of which are still ineffective in doing much of anything because despite the war on drugs, despite being illegal, despite threat of prison and fines and whatever else, it is still the largest cash crop for 12 states. It's still being used plenty. It's worth billions of dollars that are unfettered by taxation or regulation. And on top of all that, you have the problem of the cost in human lives and fractured families, both domestic and internationally....not from the actual drug. It's not exactly easy to OD on marijuana. No because it's illegal!

So I read the mixed bag about the adverse effects of MJ, that are no worse and sometimes less terrible than legal drugs and are really kinda flimsy in some studies, and compare it to the very real, very felt pains from a fruitless drug war and weigh my options. Which one is worse? For me it's the prohibition.

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

@Blue Dreams

There is a great deal of addiction / withdrawal data for Cannabis. But don't take my word for it. It's 4:20, time to hold your breath : )

Quantifying the clinical significance of cannabis withdrawal. http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/2304976

Het beste - lwiscombe

I am not sure why you are responding to Blue Dreams on this. It was The Sometimesaint that stated MJ was not addictive. Blue Dreams stated it was addictive, just less commonly than certain other substances that are currently legal.

[Calm]

It's worth billions of dollars that are unfettered by taxation or regulation.

My view....legalize it and then regulate it as a combination of smoking (for the smoking effects) and drinking (for the altered mind effects) so as to still keep it out of the hands of minors legally and then tax it at the same rate so that there is some social benefit from it. And perhaps with pot, we might be able to pass some laws with bite for DUI or other 'influenced' behaviours as it doesn't have all the social baggage of excuses being made for it that alcohol has.

If we are willing to make lotteries legal with the rationale that something of no redeeming value that I can see can be made beneficial by supplying the government, etc. with income, then why not create a sitiuation where someone besides the criminals are getting monetary value out of pot?

And then use a hefty part of those taxes to educate people to the negative effects of it and help contribute to a social environment that discourages pot use as is being done with smoking tobacco. Take the financial incentive away from the crime element and take the social incentive away from the users.

Now if we can just get social incentives going to stop binge drinking among college age kids, etc.

Of course the problem is with our government that it might see no need to try to educate against something once it is made legal.

Edited November 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

I stand corrected. About 9% of all users develop a dependency.

[slamarwi]

@ calmoriah - My apologies to Blue Dreams, Sometimes I get mixed up