The New York Times calls on US to legalize marijuana

[Tudo]

The New York Times calls on US to legalize marijuana

CNBC.com staff | @CNBC
<TIME class=datestamp itemprop="datePublished" datetime="2014-07-26T18:32:14-0400">1 Hour Ago</TIME>CNBC.com

The New York Times on Saturday called for the United States government to end its ban on marijuana.
In the first of a series of forthcoming articles on the subject, the publication's editorial board said that while "there are no perfect answers to people's legitimate concerns about marijuana use... neither are there such answers about tobacco or alcohol."
The Times equated the ban on marijuana to 13 years of Prohibition in the U.S., and argued it should be legal for people ages 21 and older.
"Creating systems for regulating manufacture, sale and marketing will be complex. But those problems are solvable," the Times said.

To read the full piece from The New York Times, click here.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101869651

 

[mack 10]

About time.

 

[resinryder]

"Creating systems for regulating manufacture, sale and marketing will be complex. But those problems are solvable," the Times said.

Allow people to grow it themselves. This takes the monetary value away so no one makes a cent off of it. Not a damn thing complex about that!! The only thing people would be able to purchase would be different strains in seed form just like buying cucumber seeds out of a gardening catalog. That probably makes to much sense and the rich wouldn't get richer from it so I'm guessing it wouldn't be an option.

 

[Sforza]

About time a reputable publication pointed out the fact that cannabis is far more benign than alcohol, which is legal, has no medicinal value, and does untold damage to individuals and society. But drinking a small amount of alcohol can be enjoyable and enhances social settings, just like smoking marijuana can be enjoyable and can enhance social settings. In any case, adults should be able to make their decision to use or not use either product without fear of going to jail.

 

[Soulrebel239]

It's been a long time coming. The big wigs only see $ in legalizing like they did years back with prohibition.

 

[Payaso]

BREAKING NEWS!

Sunday's Editorial in the New York Times:

Repeal Prohibition, Again

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

It took 13 years for the United States to come to its senses and end Prohibition, 13 years in which people kept drinking, otherwise law-abiding citizens became criminals and crime syndicates arose and flourished. It has been more than 40 years since Congress passed the current ban on marijuana, inflicting great harm on society just to prohibit a substance far less dangerous than alcohol.

The federal government should repeal the ban on marijuana.

We reached that conclusion after a great deal of discussion among the members of The Times’s Editorial Board, inspired by a rapidly growing movement among the states to reform marijuana laws.

There are no perfect answers to people’s legitimate concerns about marijuana use. But neither are there such answers about tobacco or alcohol, and we believe that on every level — health effects, the impact on society and law-and-order issues — the balance falls squarely on the side of national legalization. That will put decisions on whether to allow recreational or medicinal production and use where it belongs — at the state level.

We considered whether it would be best for Washington to hold back while the states continued experimenting with legalizing medicinal uses of marijuana, reducing penalties, or even simply legalizing all use. Nearly three-quarters of the states have done one of these.

But that would leave their citizens vulnerable to the whims of whoever happens to be in the White House and chooses to enforce or not enforce the federal law.

The social costs of the marijuana laws are vast. There were 658,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012, according to F.B.I. figures, compared with 256,000 for cocaine, heroin and their derivatives. Even worse, the result is racist, falling disproportionately on young black men, ruining their lives and creating new generations of career criminals.

There is honest debate among scientists about the health effects of marijuana, but we believe that the evidence is overwhelming that addiction and dependence are relatively minor problems, especially compared with alcohol and tobacco. Moderate use of marijuana does not appear to pose a risk for otherwise healthy adults. Claims that marijuana is a gateway to more dangerous drugs are as fanciful as the “Reefer Madness” images of murder, rape and suicide.

There are legitimate concerns about marijuana on the development of adolescent brains. For that reason, we advocate the prohibition of sales to people under 21.

Creating systems for regulating manufacture, sale and marketing will be complex. But those problems are solvable, and would have long been dealt with had we as a nation not clung to the decision to make marijuana production and use a federal crime.

In coming days, we will publish articles by members of the Editorial Board and supplementary material that will examine these questions. We invite readers to offer their ideas, and we will report back on their responses, pro and con.

We recognize that this Congress is as unlikely to take action on marijuana as it has been on other big issues. But it is long past time to repeal this version of Prohibition.

 

[dddaver]

Things finally seem to be moving along at a good clip, just never fast enough for me. This all should never have happened. All this jumping on the bandwagon of the inevitable is great but how about granting amnesty for all those unjustly convicted during this huge miscarriage of justice?

 

[FunkBomb]

Resinryder hit the nail on the head with this legalization issue.

The logical conclusion to this entire issue is control and money - the underlying reason government exists. Look at the ridiculous "medical programs" in hardline liberal states on the East Coast. The production and distribution is entirely controlled by the state. Any by the way it is still illegal to grow it yourself. Coincidence? Not at all.

-Funk

 

[Paddi]

Good reading, and also mentioned in the radionews here

I hope my country (Denmark) will follow the Winds blowing in US


P

 

[Sforza]

"Even worse, the result is racist, falling disproportionately on young black men, ruining their lives and creating new generations of career criminals."

By the NYT standards, even worse, the "result" is sexist as well! LOL!

At least they got the part about pot being much less harmful than alcohol part correct.

 

[Sforza]

"But that would leave their citizens vulnerable to the whims of whoever happens to be in the White House and chooses to enforce or not enforce the federal law."

But I thought that the President takes an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, i.e. faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States?

I guess the NYT thinks that it is perfectly OK for the President to pick and choose which laws to uphold and which ones to ignore. That is a slippery slope.

 

[Sforza]

Things finally seem to be moving along at a good clip, just never fast enough for me. This all should never have happened. All this jumping on the bandwagon of the inevitable is great but how about granting amnesty for all those unjustly convicted during this huge miscarriage of justice?

Better yet, how about granting damages to those subjected to this huge miscarriage of justice?

 

[Bulldog420]

I guess the NYT thinks that it is perfectly OK for the President to pick and choose which laws to uphold and which ones to ignore. That is a slippery slope.

The NYT and Obama think that. Disgracing our country.

 

[high life 45]

After cannabis is legalized, we should all start working towards legalizing theraputic use of psychedelics.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Allow people to grow it themselves. This takes the monetary value away so no one makes a cent off of it. Not a damn thing complex about that!! The only thing people would be able to purchase would be different strains in seed form just like buying cucumber seeds out of a gardening catalog. That probably makes to much sense and the rich wouldn't get richer from it so I'm guessing it wouldn't be an option.

Sure just like with beer or wine, people make it at home and so no one makes any money from it? Except for Budweiser and Gallo?
The problem is that few drinkers make their own beer or wine, in the near future the same will be for legal Cannabis, everyone will just pick it up at the 7-11 with a bag of chips, ice cream, some beers, and a box of buds or pre-rolled joints. Should people that spend years to create a new variety and offer seeds or clones make any money for their years of work? Or do you really want to "take the monetary value away so no one makes a cent off of it."??
I think you will find more then a few growers would object to that!
It is fine with me, I would love to see great Cannabis at a hundred dollars a dw Kg by the whole plant, then it is cheap enough to use as raw materials for dry sift hash. But I know a whole lot of people are still depending on the income from Cannabis. Work is worth a return, it is just the return not be so absurdly high if legal. Compare to other greenhouse grown crops and you get an idea of the net profit per square foot per year in a green house for various crops. That % profit is normal in the veggie greenhouse industry and they get by year after year. Cannabis could be grown in the ground in greenhouses or outdoors and sold so that large fresh plants that yield 1Kg dry weight were self picked at christmas tree style farms. Pick your own plant and take it home to dry, $100. The future is clear....
-SamS

 

[Jhhnn]

"But that would leave their citizens vulnerable to the whims of whoever happens to be in the White House and chooses to enforce or not enforce the federal law."

But I thought that the President takes an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, i.e. faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States?

I guess the NYT thinks that it is perfectly OK for the President to pick and choose which laws to uphold and which ones to ignore. That is a slippery slope.

The NYT and Obama think that. Disgracing our country.

Federal law makes no distinction between medical and recreational cannabis. With that in mind, you might want to reconsider which presidents have been "disgracing" our country.

 

[Coba]

The NYT approves of federally legalizing marijuana. That must mean it's Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. approved ...

Since 1967, the company has been listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol NYT. Of the two categories of stock, Class A and Class B, the former is publicly traded and the latter is held privately --- largely (nearly 90%) by the descendants of Adolph Ochs, who purchased The New York Times newspaper in 1896.

While other families have had more power for a time—the Roosevelts and the Kennedys come to mind—their time of great power eventually waned. By contrast, the Ochs/Sulzberger dynasty has had a seat at the table in every administration since Adolph Ochs helped put William McKinley in the White House. The family has effectively occupied an ex officio cabinet post that has been a family birthright, passed intact from generation to generation. There is nothing comparable in American history. Source

This is big.

 

[armedoldhippy]

Better yet, how about granting damages to those subjected to this huge miscarriage of justice?

even better, how about giving the jobs back to people that lost them due to drug testing? personally, I do not WANT to go back to my last job though... working in an explosives plant for incompetent morons is, to say the least, nerve-wracking.

 

[armedoldhippy]

Sure just like with beer or wine, people make it at home and so no one makes any money from it? Except for Budweiser and Gallo?
The problem is that few drinkers make their own beer or wine, in the near future the same will be for legal Cannabis, everyone will just pick it up at the 7-11 with a bag of chips, ice cream, some beers, and a box of buds or pre-rolled joints. Should people that spend years to create a new variety and offer seeds or clones make any money for their years of work? Or do you really want to "take the monetary value away so no one makes a cent off of it."??
I think you will find more then a few growers would object to that!
It is fine with me, I would love to see great Cannabis at a hundred dollars a dw Kg by the whole plant, then it is cheap enough to use as raw materials for dry sift hash. But I know a whole lot of people are still depending on the income from Cannabis. Work is worth a return, it is just the return not be so absurdly high if legal. Compare to other greenhouse grown crops and you get an idea of the net profit per square foot per year in a green house for various crops. That % profit is normal in the veggie greenhouse industry and they get by year after year. Cannabis could be grown in the ground in greenhouses or outdoors and sold so that large fresh plants that yield 1Kg dry weight were self picked at christmas tree style farms. Pick your own plant and take it home to dry, $100. The future is clear....
-SamS

I like growing, but it would be cool to walk through a pot farm & pick one out. "OOOH, here is a GORGEOUS fat little indica! and the tag on it says "from 5 to 8% CBD!. i'll take THIS one..." I like the way you think, Sam!

 

[bentom187]

HR 2306 that was introduced by Ron Paul and Barney Frank would be a nice template to start with. It removes it from the Controlled Substances Act.

This is a classic.

Ron Paul On Legalizing Drugs! PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!
[YOUTUBEIF]c4Eca-INIOw[/YOUTUBEIF]