United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Obama Signs Executive Order, Pardons Drug Offenders, Removes Pot as Schedule 1 Drug
Source:
Counter Current News
URL Source: http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/ ... ns-executive-order-schedule-1/
Published: Apr 1, 2016
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2016-04-01 13:18:09 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 23949
Comments: 83
As his second presidential term comes to an end, Barack Obama, an admitted pot smoker, finally came to terms with the fact that locking people in a cage for possessing a plant that makes them happy is criminal. On Friday morning, the President issued Executive Order 21302, effectively pardoning all non-violent drug offenders and ordering their release. Also contained within the text of EO 21302 is an addendum which removes cannabis from the Food and Drug Administration’s scheduling protocol under the Controlled Substance Act. Instead of simply bumping cannabis up to a level 4 or 5 classification, the executive order removed it entirely. In a press conference Friday morning, Obama apologized for not acting sooner, but noted that his hands were tied because much of the government exists solely to enforce the war on drugs. “We understand that this move will undoubtedly eliminate thousands of government jobs who rely on the war on marijuana,” Obama said. “However, we cannot continue locking people up for possessing it.” Obama went on to note that in spite of marijuana prohibition, a cache of studies exists which show the incredible healing power of cannabis. “While some people will undoubtedly be happy that marijuana is now legal for recreational use, the medicinal benefits associated with this plant will serve humanity for decades to come,” Obama said. Adding, “now that doctors and scientists will be able to study marijuana without fear of police action, we can only imagine what lies in store for cannabis research.” As the Free Thought Project has pointed out before, cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells, save the lives of countless epileptic children, treat PTSD, heal bones, treat brain trauma, and a slew of other uses science is only beginning to understand. While this news is indeed heartening, it begs the question, “why has it taken until now to do this?” During Friday morning’s press conference, Obama addressed this concern. “Many of you will say that this should have happened years ago. However, it has been an uphill battle against a pharmaceutical industry who vehemently opposed legalizing marijuana,” Obama said, shocking members of the press. “What’s more,” he continued, “prisons and police unions have deep pockets, and their political influence runs deep.” Obama ended the press conference quoting Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, saying, “The war on drugs is a war on people. A criminal record for a young person for a minor drug offence can be a far greater threat to their well-being than occasional drug use.” As reporters leapt from their seats to ask more questions, Obama simply smiled and turned to walk away. Before he got all the way out of the camera’s view, he turned around, stepped back to the podium, grabbed the microphone and yelled, “April Fools!” Unfortunately, the rational, logical, humane, cost-effective and peaceful solution to so many problems in the US today, as described above — is fictional. Obama has no desire to end the war on drugs, much less the war on pot. The special interests who line the pockets of politicians who perpetuate the war on drugs have far too much power. Despite talking a big game in July of last year about releasing non-violent drug offenders, Obama has only managed to free a handful of people. However, there are tens of thousands of non-violent drug offenders locked in steel cages across this country, many of them are in for possession alone. The slow and rusty cogs of the bureaucratic leviathan can’t turn fast enough. For every non-violent drug offender the president frees, five more are thrown in. Why? It is much easier to walk out on the street corner and shakedown a teenager who may have an illegal plant in his pocket than it is to examine the evidence in a rape or murder case. The so-called “Private” Prisons know this and have subsequently found their niche in this immoral war on drugs. The term Private Prison is a farce from the get-go. A truly Private prison would not be solely funded by taxpayer dollars. These Private prisons are nothing more than a fascist mixture of state and corporate, completely dependent upon the extortion factor of the state, i.e., taxation, as a means of their corporate sustenance. A truly Private prison would have a negative incentive to boost its population for the simple fact that it is particularly expensive to house inmates. On the contrary, these fascist, or more aptly, corporatist prisons contractually require occupancy rates of 95%-100%. The requirement for a 95% occupancy rate creates a de facto demand for criminals. Think about that for a second; a need or demand for people to commit crimes is created by this corporatist arrangement. The implications associated with demanding people commit crimes are horrifying. Creating a completely immoral demand for “criminals” leads to the situation in which we find ourselves today. People, who are otherwise entirely innocent, are labeled as criminals for their personal choices and thrown in cages. We are now witnessing a vicious cycle between law enforcement, who must create and arrest criminals, and the corporatist prison system that constantly demands more prisoners. If you want to know who profits from ruining lives and throwing marijuana users in cages, we need only look at who bribes (also known as lobbies) the politicians to keep the war on drugs alive. Below is a list of the top five industries who need you locked in a cage for possessing a plant in order to ensure their job security. What does it say about a society who’s resolute in enacting violence against their fellow human so they can have a job to go to in the morning? The person who wants to ingest a substance for medical or recreational reasons is not the criminal. However, the person that would kidnap, cage, or kill someone because they have a different lifestyle is a villain on many fronts. The good news is that the drug war’s days are numbered, especially seeing that it’s reached the White House, and they are taking action, even if it is symbolic. Evidence of this is everywhere. States are defying the federal government and refusing to lock people in cages for marijuana. Colorado and Washington served as a catalyst in a seemingly exponential awakening to the government’s immoral war. Following suit were Oregon, D.C., and Alaska. Medical marijuana initiatives are becoming a constant part of legislative debates nationwide. We’ve even seen bills that would not only completely legalize marijuana but deregulate it entirely, like corn. As more and more states refuse to kidnap and cage marijuana users, the drug war will continue to implode. We must be resilient in this fight. If doing drugs bothers you, don’t do drugs. When you transition from holding an opinion — to using government violence to enforce your personal preference, you become the bad guy. Don’t be the bad guy. Only through a lesser ignorance and the spreading of information will those who continue to enforce this immoral war be exposed as the tyrants they are. The time is now for politicians and police to wake up and decide which side of history they want to be on — do they want to be remembered as the ones who courageously took a stand and refused to enforce immoral laws, or, do they want to be remembered as the ones who kidnapped, caged, and killed people for a plant that can cure cancer? It’s time to make a choice. Locking up drug users has proven to be quite the profitable venture.
The police and prison corporations know that without the war on drugs, this windfall of money, cars, and houses — ceases to exist.
When does this vicious cycle end?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-43) not displayed.
.
.
.
#44. To: misterwhite (#42)
Which your source says 24.6% of drinkers do - and we're still looking at only a subset of those who drink to get high.
If that's a subset, then where are the rest?
F'rinstance, the folks who drink 5 or more alcoholic drinks on the same occasion on only 1 day out of more than 30 days.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
I don't care how often they smoke. My point was, when they smoke they smoke to get high.
You flip-flop as well as your fearless leader The Donald. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
That's binge drinking and we covered that. You said binge drinking is only a subset of those who drink to get high. I'll ask again. Where's the rest?
Since my analogous observations during a 35 year period don't support that conclusion... It is the habit among mentally pathological people that when they meet someone of similar pathology they will not recognize the delusions they share as being delusions. Until you get strait, which highly improbable, you'll be blind to the same approximate pathology in other people.
F'rinstance, the folks who drink 5 or more alcoholic drinks on the same occasion on only 1 day out of more than 30 days. That's binge drinking Not according to your link. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Since you've abandoned discussion for ad hominem: Piss up a rope, you ignorant asshole. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Well, that'll teach me to give you a link to statistics. Like giving a loaded gun to a 2-year-old. According to the link: "... defines binge drinking as drinking 5 or more alcoholic drinks on the same occasion on at least 1 day in the past 30 days ..." "On at least one day" includes one day, does it not? Are you from this country? Do ... you ... understand ... our ... language?
Isn't there some gay porn site you could go hang out at?
One or two drinks is enough to make a person "high". Are you two assclowns going to continue your absurd assertion that most people don't drink to get high? In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much I never made the claim that ALL cops were against the WOD.
In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Roscoe (apparently) also approves of drugging women in order to get laid. Roofies?
In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much According the the link I provided, that number is five.
You just keep tap dancing. You're getting good with all that practice.
You just keep tap dancing. Please provide a link to where I ever made the claim that ALL cops are opposed to the WOD. Oh - you can't? Then shut your dick-holster. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much He thought I said "latinos" and asked if they were roofers (he misspelled it). A lot of roofers are latinos, you know.
Which part of "more than" is giving you trouble? Are you from this country? Do ... you ... understand ... our ... language? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Oh - so that means I can safely get behind the wheel of a car and drive without any fear of being cited for impaired driving if I have only four drinks? God grief are you serious? In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Sure he did. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Every time the subject of cops and drugs comes up, you haul out your tired old link to L.E.A.P. So you're saying it's not "all". Well, now's your chance to clarify. Is it "most", "some", "a few", what?
Wrong as usual - your link does not use the term "high" nor any synonym and therefore makes no statement about how many drinks make a person high. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
With just a little effort, you could avoid making yourself look like a fool. I gave you the link. "NIAAA defines binge drinking as a pattern of drinking that brings blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels to 0.08 g/dL. This typically occurs after 4 drinks for women and 5 drinks for men—in about 2 hours."
White knight
The link defines it as "illegal to drive". You don't like it, tough shit. You got a better definition then let's hear it.
You see some statistical significance for an individual who has 5 drinks on one occassion every, say, 10 years? Look up the word "contrarian". Then look in the mirror.
Talking backwards?
Splain me how you do that.
Do what? Be insanely clever? Post hilarious yet intellectual responses? Be right all the time? Awww, shucks. Tweren't nuthin'.
Wrong as usual - your link does not use the term "high" nor any synonym and therefore makes no statement about how many drinks make a person high. The link defines it as "illegal to drive". Still wrong. Quote the exact text that makes this alleged definition. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
F'rinstance, the folks who drink 5 or more alcoholic drinks on the same occasion on only 1 day out of more than 30 days. You see some statistical significance for an individual who has 5 drinks on one occassion every, say, 10 years? You see no significance for an individual who has 5 drinks on one occasion every, say, 60 days - he's not someone who drinks to get high? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
See if you can figure that out yourself. Hint: It has to do with .08.
Nope. He's not significant at all. If he was, they'd make a category out of it.
The link defines it ["high"] as "illegal to drive". Still wrong. Quote the exact text that makes this alleged definition. See if you can That's not a quote. figure that out yourself. Hint: It has to do with .08. Still wrong - the site doesn't say one is high only if one is unable to safely drive. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
You see no significance for an individual who has 5 drinks on one occasion every, say, 60 days - he's not someone who drinks to get high? Nope. He's not significant at all. If he was, they'd make a category out of it. ROTFL! Heaven forbid you should in any way think for yourself. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Do you know JR's e-mail address? I'd like to send him a note Your posts are How about taking a break and coming back when you have something to say about the topic?
Finished collecting your scattered teeth yet?
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
That would qualify as binge drinking.
#45. To: ConservingFreedom (#44)
"and we're still looking at only a subset of those who drink to get high."
#46. To: misterwhite (#45)
#47. To: ConservingFreedom (#43)
#48. To: misterwhite (#47)
Any potheads you know only smoke 4 times a month? [...] I don't care how often they smoke.
#49. To: ConservingFreedom (#46)
"F'rinstance, the folks who drink 5 or more alcoholic drinks on the same occasion on only 1 day out of more than 30 days."
#50. To: ConservingFreedom (#41)
My conclusions are based on observations of people using both substances and their correlative thought processes during a fifty year period.
#51. To: misterwhite (#49)
#52. To: rlk (#50)
It is the habit among mentally pathological people that when they meet someone of similar pathology they will not recognize the delusions they share as being delusions. Until you get strait, which highly improbable, you'll be blind to the same approximate pathology in other people.
#53. To: ConservingFreedom (#51)
"Not according to your link."
#54. To: ConservingFreedom (#52)
asshole
#55. To: Roscoe (#54)
#56. To: misterwhite, Roscoe (#33)
"What's the point of using a drug unless you're going to get high?"
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#57. To: misterwhite (#29)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#58. To: Fred Mertz (#55)
(Edited)
Your fixation on gay things rivals that of web site owner Pebbles.
Latinas?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#59. To: Deckard (#56)
"One or two drinks is enough to make a person "high".
#60. To: Deckard (#57)
"I never made the claim that ALL cops were against the WOD."
#61. To: misterwhite (#60)
"I never made the claim that ALL cops were against the WOD."
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#62. To: Deckard, Roscoe (#58)
#63. To: misterwhite (#53)
F'rinstance, the folks who drink 5 or more alcoholic drinks on the same occasion on only 1 day out of more than 30 days.
#64. To: misterwhite (#59)
According the the link I provided, that number is five.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#65. To: misterwhite (#62)
He thought I said "latinos" and asked if they were roofers
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#66. To: Deckard (#61)
"Please provide a link to where I ever made the claim that ALL cops are opposed to the WOD."
#67. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#59)
According the the link I provided, that number is five.
#68. To: Deckard (#64)
"Oh - so that means I can safely get behind the wheel of a car and drive without any fear of being cited for impaired driving if I have only four drinks?"
#69. To: Fred Mertz (#55)
gay things
#70. To: ConservingFreedom (#67)
#71. To: ConservingFreedom (#63)
"on only 1 day out of more than 30 days."
#72. To: Roscoe (#69)
"White knight"
#73. To: misterwhite (#72)
#74. To: Roscoe (#73)
"Splain me how you do that."
#75. To: misterwhite (#74)
#76. To: misterwhite (#70)
#77. To: misterwhite (#71)
#78. To: ConservingFreedom (#76)
"Still wrong. Quote the exact text that makes this alleged definition."
#79. To: ConservingFreedom (#77)
"You see no significance for an individual who has 5 drinks on one occasion every, say, 60 days - he's not someone who drinks to get high?"
#80. To: misterwhite (#78)
#81. To: misterwhite (#79)
#82. To: ConservingFreedom (#81)
asking begging him to take you back. I might even be able to gather a collection here to bribe him.juvenile, nitpicky, irrelevent, off-topic, argumentative , for shit. You add nothing to the conversation.
#83. To: misterwhite (#82)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]