NY Times asks for Obama and Congressional action on marijuana and its removal from Schedule One

The New York Time editorial board has again come out for marijuana reform, and for more action from Congress and the Obama administration. They also call for the marijuana's removal from Schedule One. The NYTimes, they are a changin'.

www.nytimes.com...

This lead sentence, and the rest of the Editorial, gives Obama a little more 'cover' in his remaining time in office:

Even as support for ending marijuana prohibition is building around the country, Congress and the Obama administration remain far too timid about the need for change.

...and check out the "absurd marijuana policies" sentence:

Instead of standing by as change sweeps the country, federal lawmakers should be more actively debating and changing the nation’s absurd marijuana policies, policies that have ruined millions of lives and wasted billions of dollars. Their inaction is putting businesses and individuals in states that have legalized medical and recreational marijuana in dubious legal territory — doing something that is legal in their state but is considered a federal crime. Many growers, retailers and dispensaries also have to operate using only cash because many banks will not serve them, citing the federal prohibition. Recently, the Federal Reserve denied a master account to a credit union in Colorado seeking to provide financial services to marijuana businesses.

Now we're seeing some traction on the transparency and hit a gear and get SOMETHING good into law.
time for the modern era, get something anything modern in there yezz!!

.
etadd......my gosh my friends...it's friggin 2016 ya know....back in 1972, we figured for sure all the little quirks and errors in society would be worked out by 2001

a reply to: Aleister

In this day and age, it's absolutely ridiculous marijuana is in the state its in with the federal government. Classified as a schedule 1 drug is a joke and the fact they will not remove it, or at best think about removing it, goes to show you how corrupt the system is.

Is shouldn't be classified as such and it shouldn't be illegal.

a reply to: Aleister

When this change becomes an actual federal talking point, expect the UN to raise holy hell over it. I was amazed when we voted for legalization here in Alaska to learn that the UN filed an official greivance about the US allowing states to violate the international drug control treaty of 1961. At that time, the UN went so far as to say the United States was breaking their treaty which, ironically and embarassingly, the USA was largely respondible for 50 years ago. The US at that time was among the most demanding in the UN to a strict international ban on grass.

On the plus side, this issue may very well draw a lot of left-leaning Americans into the "Get the UN out of the US" movement that has, to date, been an almost entirely right-Libertarian movement.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Good point. Most people don't know that the United Nations passed this "back in the day", and that it's UN policy to make sure marijuana stays illegal everywhere. Maybe when Obama leaves office he can take over as Sec. General of the UN (a stretch but not outside the realm of possibility), and reform them from the inside. I expect the Obama administration to do much more on the marijuana front, and the Attorney General/Solicitor General have still not filed an answer to the Supreme Court request for "guidance" on the "Nebraska and Oklahoma v. Colorado" case, which is the one case hanging out there which might derail legalization in the states which pass it. This editorial from the paper of record might assist on that front as well, a Supreme Court case I've been watching since it was filed and am more optimistic as the months go by without that Solicitor General's response.

a reply to: Swills

The system was corrupted long ago, during Harry Aslinger's war on marijuana which the FDRoosevelt administration bought into. Layers are being removed now, and more and more people and opinion leaders are feeling better about openly speaking on the issue and advocating change. I hope this NY Times editorial creates further discussion in the media and within the halls of power in D.C.

originally posted by: Aleister
Maybe when Obama leaves office he can take over as Sec. General of the UN

Good Lord, I hope not! We just need to extract the UN from US policy, IMO. Problem solved. It wouldn't take long before the UN realized that without America's dowry payments and muscle donated to all those UN policies and agencies, the UN is pretty much worthless. All we need is a leader with the backbone to tell the UN "either come to peace with our decisions, or wave goodbye to our support" and the UN would join the program pretty quickly.

a reply to: Aleister

The illegalization of marijuana all began with racism and profit, but in this day and age the fact its still illegal and classified as a drug more dangerous than coke or heroin with no medical uses is absurd but more importantly, a damn lie! When it comes to the federal gov't we are barely peeling off layers. States have been leaps and bounds ahead of this corrupt federal gov't for years now when it comes to decriminalization and legalization of marijuana. It's the corruption at a federal level that keeps marijuana where it's at.

My vote for prez is anyone who will drop this facade and end this nonsense.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not to make this a UN thread, but since, realistically, the U.S. isn't going to resign from it, maybe it can work to help change or revisit this marijuana language in their anti-drug policy. We have to remember that Obama was the head of his high school marijuana club, and in his heart he's probably proud of the fact that he can make some of the changes required to ease the nation's temperament on the issue. If he can influence the UN in some way, more power to him.

a reply to: Aleister

Don't partake in it but my view is if you can walk out into nature and get it because it was naturally here, there is no reason it should be a schedule one narcotic. Not talking about drugs that are then refined, mainly pot and payote

a reply to: Aleister

Here's the problem, I don't trust nor believe in Obama. I feel that he has been a horrible president, worst in my lifetime, certainly. His policies and actions have cost me personally money and liberties. I certainly wouldn't support that moving into the sphere of the UN with little more than a handfull of magic beans and hollow promises.

I feel that the most logical and the most... sovreign way to approach this issue is to decide internally whether or not the US is going to decriminalize and then tell the UN "Deal with it or don't, your thoughts do not matter to us." That's what is holding us back right now, the UN's thoughts *do* matter to Obama and others in DC and it shouldn't be that way, especially not to the detriment of our own nation. Family first, Community second, state third, nation forth, continent fifth, UN dead last is the way the pecking order of "give a damn about what you think" should progress.

a reply to: Aleister

The ratio of advantages to disadvantages with this wonder-plant is staggering. It is self-evident to all and sundry who have knowledge about this plant that it's current legal status not only in the US but many aligned countries is not resultant from it having a negative effect on humans, but it having a negative effect on corporate balance sheets - the private prison system being just one branch prospering from such laws.

This plant does not belong to the government and as long as the individual does not harm anyone else, the government has no right to tell free people what they can and cannot do with this plant.

This plant should enjoy the same legal status as coffee or herbs / plants you buy at a nursery.

Whichever candidates promote the re-evaluation of MJ laws certainly stand a better chance of being elected simply because those individual voters that wish for this plant to become legal come from all walks of life and political persuasions.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY

...it's friggin 2016 ya know...

I see someone has already had 1 toke too many tonight.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I think the fact that states are easing up on it while the lawmakers in DC are not speaks volumes about the issue. The political pandering dollars of Big Pharma go to national level politicians and media, not local. The fact that the discussion is beginning to be hinted at nationally may also be an indication that Big Pharma's money is getting stretched a bit thin between keeping grass illegal while also ensuring the discussion of spree killers avoids being steered towards the fact that they are all on some manner of mind altering chemical cocktail designed to treat untestable illnesses.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Good thing we don't have to hold to any treaties with the UN then huh? What are they going to do? They're nothing without us anyway. Rather than backing down because of the UN we should bring the failed war on drugs and all the human suffering caused by making weed illegal to the UN floor.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well, when Guatemalan President Perez Molina started talking about legalization it wasn't the UN that sent someone to straighten him out, it was the US.

Portugal is a good example the UN excuse for the status of the Marijuana in the USA to be as harsh as it is is just a piss poor reason. I truly believe there is backdoor corporate moves regarding its legality and when large tobacco firmly has an infrastructure setup to muscle out the little guy (by prices of course) you will see a sudden shift in governmental regulations/laws towards legalization. As it stands now, too many "little guys" could really make a killing and become very wealthy in the field of botany if it were legal.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: burdman30ott6



Well, when Guatemalan President Perez Molina started talking about legalization it wasn't the UN that sent someone to straighten him out, it was the US.

Well, I think that went way beyond grass. www.cnn.com... Molina wants it ALL legalized and, let's be honest, how can Obama keep his cartel border war going, ensure the steady flow of new prospective voters, and maintain the CIA stranglehold on Coca in South America and poppy in Afghanistan if all of that stuff is decriminalized?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Aleister

When this change becomes an actual federal talking point, expect the UN to raise holy hell over it. I was amazed when we voted for legalization here in Alaska to learn that the UN filed an official greivance about the US allowing states to violate the international drug control treaty of 1961. At that time, the UN went so far as to say the United States was breaking their treaty which, ironically and embarassingly, the USA was largely respondible for 50 years ago. The US at that time was among the most demanding in the UN to a strict international ban on grass.

On the plus side, this issue may very well draw a lot of left-leaning Americans into the "Get the UN out of the US" movement that has, to date, been an almost entirely right-Libertarian movement.

It's like what GBP/JPY said

It's not 1961 anymore, everything's change. Policies, laws, treaty's etc need to change too.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

True but, in the end it wasn't the UN that seemed to have a problem with it.