Obama's comments were published in The New Yorker magazine, after he was grilled on shifting public opinion about marijuana and its recent legalisation in several US states.

"As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life," Obama said.

"I don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol."

Obama said he has warned his daughters Sasha and Malia that "I think [smoking pot is] a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy".

The president said he is more troubled by the disproportionate rate of marijuana-related arrests and incarcerations between different racial and economic groups, and called for fairer treatment.

"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."

Colorado and Washington states recently voted in favour of legalising marijuana, creating recreational markets for the drug.

However, Obama stopped short of calling for marijuana to be federally legalised, arguing that the "experiment" taking place in the two states may prove to be "a challenge".

He argued marijuana legalisation could cause "some difficult line-drawing issues", possibly leading to increased acceptance of "harder drugs" that have more profound social consequences.

Point?

No real point to speak of. Just another ones, point of view.

Hoppy.

Well their teams DID go to the Superbowl - coincidence?  :)

Oh heck... why not TAX the stuff.. people are gonna smoke it anyhow so why not collect taxes on it like we do on beer.. Everyone has a CHOICE - do it or don't.  :-*

Pot is no more dangerous than alcohol.

Earthquakes are no more dangerous than tsunamis.

Cat 5 hurricanes are no more dangerous than atomic bombs.

It doesn't make any of them safe.

AussieBrian wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 10:33am:

Pot is no more dangerous than alcohol. Earthquakes are no more dangerous than tsunamis. Cat 5 hurricanes are no more dangerous than atomic bombs. It doesn't make any of them safe.

  Other than Pot is safer than alcohol your analogies verge on ridiculous.




            Potter

wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 11:28am:

Other than Pot is safer than alcohol your analogies verge on ridiculous.

I never said pot is safer than alcohol. Neither did President Obama say pot is safer than alcohol.

Kindly check your quotes before quoting them.

Interesting how he can say that based on his own experience alone. Surely a scientific / medical result should be based on published, peer reviewed medical research?

Mike NZ wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 5:08pm:

Interesting how he can say that based on his own experience alone. Surely a scientific / medical result should be based on published, peer reviewed medical research?

'More dangerous' is subjective and impossible to quantify. 

Quote:

"I don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol."

Same thing I said 40 years ago, when California had a proposition on the ballot to legalize the stuff.


Quote:

The president said he is more troubled by the disproportionate rate of marijuana-related arrests and incarcerations between different racial and economic groups, and called for fairer treatment.

That's because more poor kids try to make a living dealing drugs instead of going to school.  That's why, after generations of government programs to give them a hand up, they remain poor.

32% of traffic fatalities were alcohol related last year.  Do we want to add a proportionate number due to DUI with pot? I guess that would lower the percentages for alcohol, though wouldn't it?

I am a proponent of medicinal use of marijuana, but I am not in favor or legalizing recreational use.  I know the arguments that it is as safe as alcohol, but I've also seen the tremendous number of lives ruined by alcohol.  I've also seen and heard the argument to tax it like alcohol, but for every dollar in taxes taken in from alcohol over 10 dollars in services are required.  that argument doesn't wash.

Jerry

Bob P wrote,
That's because more poor kids try to make a living dealing drugs instead of going to school.  That's why, after generations of government programs to give them a hand up, they remain poor.

It's the same here, in oz.

Hoppy.

I hate to pour gasoline on a fire....but......

Marijuana is allegedly illegal in California....we spend BILLIONS every year enforcing that law...yet the street price continues to plummet, anyone who understands the law of supply and demand realizes this means we are NOT doing anything with those BILLIONS of dollars we spend. So my question, do we continue to spend those billions and billions of dollars, because that's the way we've always done it? I can certainly think of a lot more deserving areas to spend those billions....that's not even taking into account the potentials in new taxes........food for thought.

Joe

Well said Joe. 

I question whether the long term tax income will be anywhere near the projections. Putting a hefty 28% tax on it (like Colorado) will make this expensive product more attractive to buy on the street - in lieu of retail. There is already a complex black market supply network in place.

Just carry your retail receipt to "prove" that the taxes were paid on that ounce.

Others will just grow their own to avoid the tax.

Sure, there may be some savings due to a reduction in "the war on drugs" but the law enforcement and judicial system will still be straining because of other drugs. Are they really going to lay off people because the drug problem is gone?

My point isn't about whether pot is good or bad. It's about the money - is legal pot really going to give the state coffers a huge windfall?

Marc

Excellent points Marc. As with the end of prohibition, many will brew their own....grow their own!!!...but many will buy Marlboro pre rolled and filtered pot because of the HUGE advertising blitz they'll put on! The fixed costs of courts and law enforcement won't change, but the cost of incarceration will produce substantial savings. It's going to be very interesting to see how all of this plays out........since in direct violation of the constitution....the federal government still thinks they can dictate to the states whether or not pot it illegal. At least with prohibition, they had the courtesy to make it constitutionally correct by passing an amendment! ;)

Joe

Aye good points.
Beyond any potential monetary gain it is reinstatement of personal freedom.
It amazes me the number of sheep who want the government and their special interest handlers to regulate our lives.

As much as I hate to admit it......I agree with Joe. 8-)

In California all one has to do is walk around Venice or Pacific Beach to know that it is allready legal.  Sure they use the "medical" cover but you can walk into any of the shops, get a note from the resident Doc and buy your herb.  One stop shopping.

Lobster wrote on Jan 21^st, 2014 at 6:36pm:

Mike NZ wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 5:08pm: Interesting how he can say that based on his own experience alone. Surely a scientific / medical result should be based on published, peer reviewed medical research? 'More dangerous' is subjective and impossible to quantify.

No it isn't. That's why we do toxicity testing in rats, which isn't directly analogus to humans, but we're speaking about two drugs that have been widely researched.
We only have an estimated lethal dose of dronabinol (the S3 legal version of THC or marinol that is extracted and made from cannibas) which is 30mg/kg. the study that 'pedia refernces says that for a 170 pound man to die from THC, you would have to infuse roughly 960 capsulses (I believe 10mg capsulse) intravenously to kill yourself.
This dosage is so high that is essentially impossible to kill yourself with dronabinol or THC. A lethal dose of ethyl alcohol  can start at .4 but has a higher probability at .5 and higher. Generally, the average person will never get this high of a BAC. but alcoholics (and given the moderate libility of ethyl alochol) this is totally possible to have happen. To be fair, it isn't the ethyl alcohol that's ruining your body, it's the metabolites of it.
Now you aren't using them in the same way, generally. I would argue that smoking cannibas is probably about as dangerous and cigarette smoke until the jury is back on if the active constitutes of cannibas prevent cancers and other problems caused by inhaling carcinogens.
If you managed to kill yourself from smoking pot, it wouldn't be from THC, it would be from the other shit that's in cannibas smoke.

so yeah, pot is less dangerous than alcohol and we totally can measure and quantify the toxicity of various drugs (morphine has a minimum lethal dose of 200mg)

idorko wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 7:01am:

Lobster wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 6:36pm: Mike NZ wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 5:08pm: Interesting how he can say that based on his own experience alone. Surely a scientific / medical result should be based on published, peer reviewed medical research? 'More dangerous' is subjective and impossible to quantify.  No it isn't.

Yes it is.  Toxicity is one of a dozen factors one might use to define 'dangerous'.
I can do two hits of strong weed and be incapable of safely driving a car in 10 minutes.  Cannot do that with alcohol, thus by that measure weed loses.
As I said... it is subjective. 

About the best study I saw that tries to quantify the total picture was from Lancet a few years ago.  A summary can be found here:
START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE

Weed is, as expected, quite far down on the list.  I didn't expect booze to be at the top though.   

Lobster wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 11:28am:

idorko wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 7:01am: Lobster wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 6:36pm: Mike NZ wrote on Jan 21st, 2014 at 5:08pm: Interesting how he can say that based on his own experience alone. Surely a scientific / medical result should be based on published, peer reviewed medical research? 'More dangerous' is subjective and impossible to quantify.  No it isn't. Yes it is.  Toxicity is one of a dozen factors one might use to define 'dangerous'. I can do two hits of strong weed and be incapable of safely driving a car in 10 minutes.  Cannot do that with alcohol, thus by that measure weed loses. As I said... it is subjective.  About the best study I saw that tries to quantify the total picture was from Lancet a few years ago.  A summary can be found here: START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE Weed is, as expected, quite far down on the list.  I didn't expect booze to be at the top though.

Yes, we all understand driving intoxicated is bad, who was advocating that? If you are responsibly using intoxicants and not operating heavy machinery or getting behind the wheel, cannibas has a low toxicity, which is what the law says you have to do.
Will it stop people from driving high or driving drunk? nope, but in that case it's irresponsible use of the machinery that caused the death, drugs may have been a factor, but that doesn't make use of the drug dangerous. It makes doing certain activities while intoxicated dangouers.

18 Members of Congress Call on Obama to Reschedule Marijuana



By: Jon Walker Wednesday February 12, 2014 8:15 am



Tweet2192
 




Obama has claimed incorrectly he does not have the power to reschedule marijuana

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) along with seventeen other members of Congress sent a letterto President Obama asking him to reschedule marijuana. The letter requests that Obama “instruct Attorney General Holder to delist or classify marijuana in a more appropriate way, at the very least eliminating it from Schedule I or II.”

Currently marijuana is classified as Schedule I. It is the highest scheduling and classifies marijuana as having no accepted medical value according to the federal government. Any drug’s schedule can be changed by new legislation from Congress or unilaterally by the executive branch. The latter is how the issue of drug scheduling is most often handled.

These members of Congress believe having marijuana as Schedule I “perpetuates and unjust and irrational system,” and ignores the medical evidence. Given that Obama personally said he thinks marijuana is less dangerous that alcohol they feel it makes “no sense” for him to continued to keep it Schedule I.

So far President Obama has aggressively fought to keep marijuana Schedule I and even repeatedly lied about his ability to make this change. His administration has battled in court efforts to compel them to reschedule marijuana and effectively ignored a rescheduling petition from several sitting governors.

Hopefully, now with even some in Congress pushing for him to take action on rescheduling Obama won’t be able to pretend this isn’t his responsibility.

Hoppy wrote on Feb 12^th, 2014 at 8:56pm:

Given that Obama personally said he thinks marijuana is less dangerous that alcohol...

That's not true. He said he doesn't believe it's more dangerous than alcohol.

There's a big difference.

My opinion (for what it's worth) alcohol and pot both have medicinal good things about them. But people are going to abuse them just like they do everything else.

And I don't believe one is worse than the other (if not abused). BUT driving after either is STUPID.

My brother died with cancer. After Chemo pot was about the only thing that helped him and I think that's when I got to be an opponent of legalizing it.

But we've had a hard fast "law" in our house since our son was small.. "If you have a drink (of any kind) you WILL NOT get behind the wheel of any vehicle!"

Pot has a lot of medicinal uses but it has a stigma associated with it and so IT'S BAD and shouldn't be allowed. BS!

It's been the same thing with S'hrooms. And I think that's been proven to have some great medicinal help for people, but they must be bad because you can get high on them.

In my opinion, the drug companies are going to lobby against anything that's going to interfere with their "high priced" drugs that don't really help people and do more harm than something as simple as pot or mushrooms. And they've got the money to keep them illegal.

End of rant!   :-*

This is an excellent show about Marijuana. It changed my views 100%. Although I will never support recreational use and I now support it 100% medicinally only....
Please take the time to watch this from start to end.
I was 100% against pot my whole life until I watched this and learned friends of mine who are sick with MS use it.
Please keep an open mind and a box of kleenex for the tears.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts after watching it.
This is not about CH and pot, its about sick people and pot.
Please watch, thank you

START PRINTPAGEMultimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or END PRINTPAGE