[1024core]

I am so fucking tired of the DEA and the joke it has become. And I will also blame Obama for continuing this mess: as someone who smoked pot heavily in his youth (and still turned out OK), for his administration to continue this lie that cannabis is some super gateway drug and has no medicinal value, is shameful.

Science, bitches! Put aside your religious biases and ask: What does science say?

/rant

[dang]

Please don't post rage rhetoric to HN. Even if your underlying point is right, setting it on fire is bad for the neighborhood.

[xroche]

Reason: the DEA will lose power with less regulated substances. The only goal of some bureaucrats is to collect power, not only because it allows to have a better pay, but because mediocre people are inherently attracted to power itself.

[jbob2000]

They won't just lose power, the whole agency is dead if marijuana is legalized. 82% of illicit drug users are marijuana users (https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-...). If you legalize weed, there's 82% less work for the DEA to do.

[tammer]

The elephant in the room regarding legalization is the overburdened prison system. As we saw with the recent Attica anniversary strikes, organized prisoner resistance is a huge threat to the security and economic status quo. Nothing would galvanize resistance like being incarcerated for a crime which is no longer illegal.

Therefore in a more liberal climate I would expect to see progressive access laws continue to be available to non-impoverished white populations, with the federal schedule remaining intact. Now, I simply expect a return to the old strategies for corralling free labor.

[chimeracoder]

> And I will also blame Obama for continuing this mess

He didn't just continue it; he doubled down on it.

For some reason, Obama receives credit for relaxing laws on medical marijuana, but the reality is the opposite. Obama actually increased the rate of crackdowns on dispensaries in states with medical marijuana, and spent far more on enforcing federal marijuana laws in these states than either Bush or Clinton did[0].

After Amendment 64/Initiative 501 passed in CO and WA respectively, it's true that he didn't take as strong action against them as he could have. But that's a really low bar to apply to the president who said he "inhaled frequently - that was the point", promised to let states decide their own marijuana laws, and (when he ran for Senate in 2004) advocated decriminalization of marijuana laws.

[0] https://www.greenrushdaily.com/2016/02/24/dispensary-raids-r...

[TenOhms]

Follow the money. Pharma has a lot of it, and they're willing to invest in politics to keep what they have and get even more.

[chimeracoder]

> Follow the money. Pharma has a lot of it, and they're willing to invest in politics to keep what they have and get even more.

I don't think it's so simple. Big Tobacco also has a lot of money, and they have even more of an incentive for the federal ban on marijuana to be lifted. They can't really touch it while it's in this grey zone, but it's a huge amount of money that they're itching to get their hands on.

[digler999]

Dont forget alcohol either. A dose of Indica has little mentally-intoxicating effect but a similar muscle-relaxing effect as a pint or 2 of beer (at least for me ), just no calories or potential for dependency.

[Retric]

Tobacco is small compared to Pharma. The average american spends over 1,000$ per year on prescription drugs.

[chimeracoder]

> Tobacco is small compared to Pharma. The average american spends over 1,000$ per year on prescription drugs.

Yes, but medical marijuana is a lot less important to pharmaceutical companies than recreational marijuana is to tobacco companies. Pharmaceutical companies care less about medical marijuana these days than you might think.

And it's not so simple, because it's not so easy to see how money gets directed. For example, Altria is a massive, diversified company (albeit less so since Kraft Foods was split off). They likely see their investment in smokeless tobacco ("e-cigarettes") as a lateral move to help them corner the marijuana market once it's legalized. They also see it as a hedge against the decades-long drop in tobacco usage. But which is it? The answer is "both" - weighing those against each other is tough. And it gets even more tough when you try to consider how much they would have considered the loss of the tobacco business to be a threat back in 2006, when their business also included production of cookies and macaroni & cheese.

These incentives are oftentimes conflicting even within the same company, so from the outside, we can't just say "well, industry $X is larger than industry $Y, so they will get their way". They have to decide that the issue at hand is actually more important to them, which isn't so obvious, and that's even before you get into the fact that those industries may actually overlap.

[pmoriarty]

I really don't see why the alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies can't themselves move in to production and sale of marijuana, once it becomes legal.

In fact, I'd bet this is exactly what will happen. They're even likely to come to dominate the market, much like Google did the phone market once they came out with Android, and Microsoft did the console market once they came out with the Xbox.

[maxerickson]

Were there enough state-legal marijuana business operating under Clinton to make that comparison interesting?

(Bush second term to Obama first term seems like it would be the better comparison available, unless there were titanic policy shifts in the middle of either or both administrations)

[jliptzin]

About half of the voting public only cares about science when it confirms their existing beliefs.

[Analemma_]

It is much, much more than half.

[jliptzin]

I was trying not to sound hyperbolic, but you're probably right.

[tobltobs]

Only about half of the public do understand the difference between science and Fox news.

[Alupis]

> Only about half of the public do understand the difference between science and Fox news.

We can lob hand grenades at each other all day - it's not constructive.

For every Fox News, there is an MSNBC. Heck, there's even Huffington Post.

The actual science surrounding cannabis is difficult to sift through. There's decades of pseudoscience and downright fallacies that have been perpetuated by supporters on both sides of this debate.

The reality is, we're only now really starting to do real research on cannabis and it's various effects (short term, and long term). It's foolish to believe we understand everything about it - because up until recently, it was illegal in most places to even conduct research.

[LordKano]

I agree but it's not just Obama.

Bill Clinton admits that he "tried" to smoke it, I don't think that anyone truly believes that he only made one attempt. George W Bush likely did and at the very least, socialized with people who did.

All three of the Boomer presidents are in the same boat and before them, George HW Bush's life was saved by hemp. It was used in the webbing of the parachute that he used during WWII.

[snomad]

The shot at religion was unnecessary and does not help your point. FYI, I'm agnostic, but anti-religious bias and attacks is no better than racially or gender based attacks.

Also, science is pretty broad. I'm guessing you mean medical science. Social science, depending on area, may agree with the keep illegal stance.

[jliptzin]

I have to disagree with you on that. Attacking religious beliefs is strictly better than racial or gender based attacks. You can't choose your sex or race, but you can choose whether to join (or to leave) a cult and uphold the often ridiculous beliefs that go along with that. People should be berated when they attempt to force upon others the beliefs of their preferred religion which are founded on nothing more than blind faith, science be damned.

[0xfeba]

> anti-religious bias and attacks is no better than racially or gender based attacks.

Why? Why does religion deserve a reserved spot against criticism that race and gender rightfully share?

It's one thing to berate a religious follower, but another to criticize the religion itself.