
White House Indicates Potential Crackdown on Recreational Marijuana - cnp
http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/2017/02/white-house-indicates-potential-crackdown-recreational-marijuana
======
rubyn00bie
Here's an article that references the study they're likely referring to:
[https://www.rt.com/usa/359655-marijuana-laws-opioid-
usage/](https://www.rt.com/usa/359655-marijuana-laws-opioid-usage/)

The jist is: measuring opioid usage in people after a fatal car crash, states
with medical marijuana had much lower rates of opioid usage. I haven't read
the study, and while that measurement may be a bit dubious (pun?) I think the
conclusion is probably correct.

A lot of people don't do illegal drugs, but will gladly and happily do legal
ones. Opioids are legally prescribed and incredibly addictive, making them
ripe for abuse by people who wouldn't normally be "drug addicts." With
marijuana being legal it provides a non-addictive means of pain relief that's
a much more pleasant and safe alternative to opioids. Hell even acetaminophen
is vastly more dangerous than marijuana (and a cause of liver failure).

I think what Spicer said in the article is insane. I can only hope states
fight back tooth and nail if the federal government attempts to "crack down."
Marijuana is one of the few drugs we can do that's nearly harmless... Well,
relative to any other drug we can do (alcohol or tobacco).

Edit: updates for grammar and clarity (damn you autocorrect!).

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
The opioid crisis is a product of, ironically, crackdowns on opioid abuse. For
people with chronic pain, opioids may be the only option to live with it, and
they need frequent doses. If it gets hard to acquire them because of “abuse-
preventing” bureaucracy, they are forced to turn to the black market, not out
of addiction, but dependency for pain relief.

There is a benefit to legal marijuana that it might be chosen instead of
harder drugs, perhaps, but I don't think it should be mixed up with
painkillers, which are their own issue.

~~~
jseliger
That's not the argument of Quinones's book _Dreamland_ :
[http://seliger.com/2016/10/04/review-dreamland-true-tale-
ame...](http://seliger.com/2016/10/04/review-dreamland-true-tale-americas-
opiate-epidemic-must-read-grant-writers), and _Dreamland_ , like most other
books and articles I've seen, argues that availability and over-prescribing
have been major contributors to the crisis.

~~~
zkms
Except people only started dying when crackdowns intensified on legal,
pharmaceutical, sources and prescribers of opioids.

Crackdowns on "pill mills" and "overprescribing doctors" is what denies people
a safe and legal source of pharmaceutical-grade opioids and forces them onto
the black market of illegal, overpriced, and fentanyl-contaminated opioids.

Also crackdowns on "over-prescribing" invariably lead to people who experience
chronic pain being denied medical access (or being subjected to extremely
invasive and degrading treatment to weed out "drug seekers").

The DEA cracking skulls over opioids and investigating doctors is literally
the only reason illicit fentanyl even is a thing. I am so very doubtful that
skull-cracking and door-kicking will miraculously work after decades of it not
working.

Do you want even nastier and even more potent (per unit volume) opioids than
fentanyl? Because more prohibition (and yes, investigating and prosecuting
doctors is absolutely a component of opioid prohibition) is just gonna give
that result.

~~~
jseliger
If you care about this issue you should really read the book, which addresses
all of the points you raise in detail.

~~~
creaghpatr
I just finished it last week, there were a lot of 'holy shit' moments along
the way.

------
remarkEon
>But Spicer said that there is a big difference between medical and
recreational marijuana, commenting that “When you see something like the
opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the
last thing we should be doing is encouraging people.”

Pretty mind-numbing to see people still peddling gateway theory. Is there any
real link between recreational pot and opioid addiction in any meaningful,
causative way?

~~~
elchief
53% of British Columbians have tried marijuana, and 2.4% use opioids. Not much
of a gateway...

~~~
gozur88
Heh heh. When I was growing up there was a big push to prevent kids from
smoking, because smoking was supposed to be the gateway drug to marijuana.
When I got to college I heard the same thing from all the smokers: "I never
had any desire to smoke cigarettes until after I started smoking pot."

~~~
unprepare
likely a result of its questionable legality, since cigarettes are a perfectly
valid reason to smell like smoke.

------
drawkbox
Support for legal marijuana and ending prohibition is up to 60% and over 70%
for democrats and independents, republicans up to 42%[1].

They are fighting a losing battle and most politicians will not go against
that type of landslide polling.

Good luck, 2.4 billion in Colorado, 20,000 new jobs and personal freedoms will
not go away lightly[2].

They could legalize and end prohibition and throw the other side a bone, but
if they pick this fight it will be a huge mistake and an attack on
logical/smart people [3] and public opinion [1].

Prohibition makes the punishment on a non-violent personal action into a
crime, wasting billions (20-50 billion)[4] of tax dollars and funding cartels,
to the tune of 25-50+ billion [5], while harming decent people.

[1] [http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-
marijuana.as...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-
marijuana.aspx)

[2] [http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/26/colorado-weed-
economic-...](http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/26/colorado-weed-economic-
impact-report/)

[3] [http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/22/health/teens-smoking-
drink...](http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/22/health/teens-smoking-drinking-
study/index.html?sr=fbCNN022317teens-smoking-drinking-
study0501AMStoryLink&linkId=34787205)

[4] [https://www.aclu.org/blog/hundreds-economists-marijuana-
proh...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/hundreds-economists-marijuana-prohibition-
costs-billions-legalization-would-earn-billions)

[5]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/03/legal...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/03/legal-
marijuana-is-finally-doing-what-the-drug-war-couldnt/)

~~~
sqeaky
This administration is so weird that I wonder if there isn't a power
Illuminati style group of trolls out there.

Hear me out, I don't think I am crazy. I don't believe this, I just see it as
more and more plausible every news story that comes out of the white house.

What if several of the world's richest, perhaps Gates, Buffet and a few other
like minded kind souls got together. What if they did everything in their
power, legal and illegal, to elect the most preposterous candidate possible.
All the shouting about the election being rigged has people looking for fake
democrats, not trump supporters.

Then they have this candidate do everything the wrong way, and obviously the
wrong way. This is intentional, is should mobilize and unify all the people
against a bunch of idiocy. By the time this is done we will either have
destroy the coastline or we will all understand what CO2 can do.

Instead of trying to shroud BS arguments in a veil of reason-ability like
typical a GOP politician Trump comes out and does the dumbest thing he can for
"his" side of the argument. There are GOP hardliners that back him, but it
seems to taper off as the crazyness continues. Eventually everyone just towing
the line will be unelectable or at least powerless for a brief time and we do
a bunch of objectively smart things like end the war on terror, end the war on
drugs, pass more laws protecting church and state, make sure future presidents
can read, strengthen our healthcare, etc....

But that is just not as simple the other explanation: Americans, my fellow
countrymen, elected someone just as dumb as them.

~~~
ry_ry
This reminds me of the well-known saying...

"Never attribute to a shadowy cabal of illuminati, what can be more easily
explained by incompetence"

~~~
sqeaky
That is exactly how I ended my post.

------
jliptzin
So, Republicans go crazy over Roe v. Wade and the supreme court decision on
gay marriage, citing 'activist' judges going against the will of the people.
Now, recreational marijuana has been put to the people, and in those states
where the majority approved, Republicans want the feds to come in and enforce
prohibition. What happened to the party of small government and states'
rights? The hypocrisy really never ends with the Republican party.

~~~
asdlfkjaklf
Clarence Thomas would agree with you. Hopefully Neil Gorsuch will be in his
mold:

"Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been
bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no
demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can
regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually
anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated
powers.

Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not
"Commerce... among the several States."

[...]

Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the
mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade
or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been
unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession,
and consumption of marijuana.

[...]

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants
for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because
it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article
I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful
limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number
of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under
the guise of regulating commerce."

[...]

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now
regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50
States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York
that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined",
while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."[12]"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich)

~~~
skadamou
I have often wondered about the legal basis for the prohibition on cannabis. I
always assumed it must be the interstate commerce clause but I could never
make out why we needed an amendment to outlaw alcohol.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I could never make out why we needed an amendment to outlaw alcohol.

We didn't. We needed an amendment to ban alcohol in a way which could not be
undone without a subsequent Amendment; the 18th Amendment banned alcohol
itself, it didn't grant Congress discretion to do so.

~~~
unprepare
iirc, we largely ended prohibition because it was giving massive profits to
organized crime

a bit ironic now when we have a president railing against mexican cartels and
promoting prohibition of marijuana.

those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it and all that...

------
moomin
Speaking as someone with no particular interest in using either, I'd much
rather have a neighbour who was a recreational marijuana user than one who was
a a recreational gun user.

But, you know, tastes vary, and apparently the laws reflect a different
aesthetic to mine.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Personally, I'd prefer the recreational gun user. But what I'd _really_ prefer
is _not_ both - not a recreational marijuana _and_ gun user.

~~~
enraged_camel
You should be in favor of alcohol prohibition then, because a drunk gun user
is far, far more dangerous than a high one.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I am in favor of people not mixing alcohol and guns, yes. But I didn't say I
was in favor of marijuana prohibition, so your conclusion does not follow at
all from what I said.

> ... a drunk gun user is far, far more dangerous than a high one.

Source? I could argue that, due to pot still being illegal most places, there
are more people drunk than there are high. One would expect therefore that
there are more gun mishaps involving drunks than people who are high. If you
know of any reasonably rigorous studies that get down to rates per capita per
episode of getting drunk/high, I'd be interested in a reference.

I think we agree on this, though: If you are going to drink or get high, stay
away from guns. If you're going to have guns, stay away from booze _and_
pot...

~~~
tossaway1
There's plenty of evidence that alcohol leads many to aggressive and violent
behavior and a fair amount of evidence that pot has the opposite effect. I
think that's reason enough to belief that a drunk gun user is apt to be more
dangerous than a high (on weed) one.

------
brian-armstrong
There's a trend to many of Trump's decisions so far, which is that they are
punitive. He knows there are things liberals want and support, and he's going
to go after those things. Not because he cares about them, but because it's
important to him to "get back at" his detractors.

~~~
jliptzin
That's a good point, he seems to be a very petty and vengeful person. Just
look at his feud with rosie o'donnell.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP7Lixcc_jQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP7Lixcc_jQ)

------
barneygumble742
Trump says abortion and transgender bathroom use should be a states issue,
then what about recreational marijuana?

His lapdog Chris Christie even called it months ago when he said "enjoy it
while you can..."

~~~
krapp
Typically, Conservatives and Republicans care about states' rights issues when
they believe states will tend to agree with and uphold their values. What
matters to them is ideological purity and political power, not consistency.

~~~
TillE
Everyone is like this; we'll endorse any semi-reasonable means to achieve our
desired ends. Should just be honest about that.

I think in a way, Republican rhetoric ("states' rights", "activist judges",
"small government") is simply lagging behind their actual positions and
values, rather than it being a totally cynical and hypocritical mask. These
are slogans which still sound good and make sense situationally. It's easy to
agree with them without really thinking it through.

------
saboot
What did people expect? I'm sure trump is surrounded by people who have fully
bought into the 'gateway drug' myth. The worst is somehow claiming this will
aid in the fight against opioids. What a joke!

~~~
vkou
It's just as likely that they aren't doing this because they bought into the
gateway drug myth, but because they are waging a culture war.

You can't make it illegal to oppose the president, but you can make half the
people opposing the president criminals for smoking.

~~~
technotony
Which apparently was the original reason behind the war on drugs in the first
place. Source [1] [1]
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-
nix...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-nixon-used-
america-s-war-on-drugs-as-excuse-to-target-anti-war-left-and-black-people-
claims-a6948521.html)

~~~
Meegul
I'd imagine that's exactly what OP was referring to.

------
ap3
How come Republicans/Conservatives want to regulate people but de-regulate
businesses ?

~~~
Spellman
Because Pharma pays more than people?

All snark aside, traditional Republicans are more in favor of societal
stability. And this is achieved, in their mind, via social institutions and a
thriving economy. Thus, their values that align with moral institutions,
corporations (economic and potential societal homogeneity), and a strong
military (both defense and because it shares it's values of a highly
connected, dependent structure of individuals striving for a bigger cause).

I'd recommend reading up on the Moral Foundations Theory, especially the work
looking at the differences between Liberals and Conservatives in light of
this.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory)
[http://www.moralfoundations.org/](http://www.moralfoundations.org/)

------
syphilis2
Marijuana legality is one of the things the the Obama administration should
have settled but never did. I only hope enforcement of the law encourages
movement to finally remove marijuana from the schedule drug list.

~~~
saalweachter
Not that it wouldn't have been nice for Obama to give everyone a little
vacation from pot being on the schedule 1 list, but why do you think it
couldn't have been re-added after Obama left office? Anything one executive
can order the next can un-order.

------
korethr
This is not terribly surprising. For good or for ill, recreational marijuana
use never ceased to be illegal under federal law. And despite the various
states passing laws legalizing it, there was that pesky little Supremacy
Clause in the US Constitution.

It's been kinda annoying that people seemed to forget or ignore that. Hoping
that the fed won't enforce a law was always risky. As we've recently seen, the
political climate can shift suddenly and severely. And now people who think a
law is a Good Thing that should be enforced have the power to do so.

~~~
zeveb
The Supremacy Clause is immaterial, because while — yes — federal law
overrules state law, that only matters if the law itself is constitutional.
The Congress has no authority to ban marijuana from intrastate trade: that
power is simply not given to it anywhere.

~~~
korethr
The Supreme court decided that the Fed could regular intrastate commerce in
Wickard v. Filburn, and that ruling has also been used since to go after
marijuana that stayed intrastate. [1]

I think it's a bullshit interpretation of the text of the Constitution too,
but that doesn't change the current legal landscape, however much I or anyone
else might want it to.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn#Subsequent_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn#Subsequent_developments)

~~~
foo2
Police power was something meant for the states, not the Federal.

Excesses like this are a good reason to advocate for originalists to SCOTUS.

Thankfully, United States v. Lopez (1995) started to reverse things a little.

------
matthewbauer
It will be interesting whether they will respect "states rights" in this case.

~~~
padseeker
States rights is a ruse. The heart decides, and the head justifies. People use
states rights when it is convenient, and toss it aside when it contradicts
their other beliefs.

~~~
jcranmer
Especially because some of the "states' rights" issues involve state
legislatures overruling more local jurisdiction--case in point, transgender
bathroom law.

------
colanderman
Of course they have to push back on recreational drug legalization. Cross-
border drug trade fueled by prohibition is the primary justification for their
signature issue.

"They're bringing drugs..."

~~~
kbar13
you identified why the illegal drug trade is so hot:

> Cross-border drug trade fueled by prohibition

Legalizing marijuana would probably mean more domestic growers, maybe even
blowing up like craft beer did.

~~~
heygrady
Legalization could have deeper economic benefits domestically than just access
to weed [1]. California regulators are looking at legalization from all angles
[2].

[1] [http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-la-
cann...](http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-la-
cannabis-20170212-story.html)

[2]
[http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCNewsDetail.aspx?id=6442452320](http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCNewsDetail.aspx?id=6442452320)

------
losvedir
I totally support this, even as someone who voted to legalize it in MA this
past election.

The current situation where it's legal at the state level and illegal but
"hands off" at the federal is totally ridiculous. Even worse than having
marijuana be illegal is having laws applied randomly and with a sizeable
portion of the population able to be arrested at someone's whim.

I think legalizing at the state level was probably a good strategy to get the
momentum going, but at some point we have to stop it being illegal at the
federal level (individual states can outlaw, that's fine). Hopefully this will
be the impetus to get that done.

------
jbhatab
How could he possibly justify the loss in income and jobs which is a
cornerstone of his platform? Someone should present the economic opportunity
cost to him in a very clear manor and I think the decision will become clear.

~~~
llamataboot
You assume that he is rational.

------
gozur88
I think this is a good idea. Not because I think it's good policy, but because
the current situation is ridiculous and promotes the uneven application of
law. I don't believe federal possession statutes are constitutional, and even
if they were I don't think they're good policy, but laws should either be
enforced or struck from the books.

~~~
scaryspooky
The breadth and depth of federal law and regulation itself supports the uneven
application. Those who have money can find a lawyer. The remainder of us are
chattel kept only for cleaning the toilets of the wealthy.

~~~
gozur88
If the breadth and depth of federal law and regulation supports uneven
application, the solution is to pare back the breadth and depth of federal law
and regulation, not pick and choose which laws you're going to enforce. The
latter leads to a situation where all sorts of draconian laws are passed and
nobody cares because they don't expect those laws to be appllied to _them_.

But that gives the government all the tools it needs to make life a living
hell for people who irritate the mandarins in Washinton. I'd be curious to
know just how many people in federal prison for possessing less than an ounce
of pot are really there for possessing less than an ounce of pot.

------
shams93
If you're disabled they'll stick you on fentynal for $0 on Medicaid, keep you
on opiates for life but medical cannabis has no support for the disabled even
though the side effects are nothing compared to opiates. Lack of Medicaid
funding for medical cannabis is a major driver behind the opiate crisis.

~~~
smhenderson
I am by no means a fan of Trump and I think this crackdown is a terrible idea
but to be fair...

 _Spicer noted that Trump supports medical marijuana and understands that
patients are in pain and facing terminal illness and have a right to medical
marijuana. He also noted the Congressional rider – commonly known as the
Rohrabacher-Farr amendment – was in force and prevents DOJ from intervening in
medical marijuana states._

------
wnevets
and users from HN argued with me saying that trump's admin wasn't anti
marijuana.

~~~
Neliquat
The argument was that Trump wasn't anti-pot, not his cohorts. Trump did in
fact make public pro-legalisation comments starting in the 90s iirc.

~~~
wnevets
and he also made anti-legalization comments.

~~~
WillyOnWheels
You can find evidence of Trump being pro and anti on just about every issue
you can think of, with the exception of immigration.

~~~
wnevets
exactly, which makes splitting his positions from his administration's a
meaningless endeavor.

------
pklausler
Reason for rolling back transgender bathroom access: STATES' RIGHTS.

Reason for rolling back state legalization / decriminalization laws: ...

------
mnm1
Since all current and just voted recreational states also have a medical
program, most people will probably just get a recommendation from a doctor,
depending on how lax the laws of their state are. If they're not lax, they
will hopefully be changed to be (lawmakers, please see California for a great
example). This will either set back progress and the will of the people, or
hopefully, stage a huge fight where the states stand up for themselves and
demand that this administration respect their constitutions and therefore the
will of the people.

------
padseeker
What a colossal waste of money.

------
frakr
Unfortunately not surprising. Sheldon Adelson provides a lot of $$$ to the
Republican party.

[https://theintercept.com/2016/11/02/sheldon-adelson-
fights-m...](https://theintercept.com/2016/11/02/sheldon-adelson-fights-
marijuana-legalization-while-funding-pro-marijuana-research/)

------
zeveb
What part of the Constitution gives the United States power over marijuana,
recreational or not? If it required amendments to outlaw alcohol and slavery,
why doesn't it require an amendment to outlaw marijuana?

If the United States have no power over marijuana, then the several states, or
the people thereof, retain it.

~~~
linksnapzz
As has been mentioned elsewhere, a 1942 Supreme Court case, (Wickard vs.
Filburn) greatly increased the power that Congress could exercise in pursuit
of regulating "interstate commerce". Pretty much any activity, by anyone,
anywhere, could be put under "interstate commerce". Literally growing your own
vegetables on your own farm could now be regulated by Congress, on the
assumption that if you were growing those vegetables yourself, you wouldn't be
buying them, and would so affect the market price for said vegetables.

Yes, the Supreme Court really did rule that way.

~~~
nickjarboe
And decision was unanimous.

------
foo2
It will be interesting to see what happens if a recreational drug user mounts
a defense based on the 10th amendment -- that the federal govt has no
jurisdiction over intrastate drug use.

100 years ago, we thought a constitutional amendment was necessary to ban a
substance within a state.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It will be interesting to see what happens if a recreational drug user
> mounts a defense based on the 10th amendment -- that the federal govt has no
> jurisdiction over intrastate drug use.

It's already been tried and failed with medical marijuana, Gonzales v. Raich
(2005). And, for that matter, commercial wheat farming, in Wickard v. Filburn
(1942).

It's unlikely recreational marijuana would result in a different result.

~~~
wtbob
> It's already been tried and failed with medical marijuana. And, for that
> matter, commercial wheat farming, in Wickard v. Filburn (1942).

> It's unlikely recreational marijuana would result in a different result.

I dunno, with originalists like Thomas & (hopefully) Gorsuch it's certainly
_possible_. Bad precedent needn't necessarily stand, after all.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I dunno, with originalists like Thomas & (hopefully) Gorsuch it's certainly
> possible.

Compared to Raich (2005), even if Gorsuch flipped from the way Scalia went you
need another vote; Thomas was on the Court then so is no change.

------
kylehotchkiss
"When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many
states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging
people.”

So uh... where's the action on opiate addiction?

~~~
dragonwriter
No, see, because opiate addiction exists, we shouldn't be encouraging people.
Only the premise, not the action in the conclusion, references opiates.

------
AcerbicZero
I have no idea which of Trumps statements on this topic are going to end up
being accurate. All I know is that one side will start mass producing articles
with click-bait titles, and another side will ramp up every possible anti-
marijuana talking point imaginable.

~~~
veli_joza
Mass production of meaningless articles is the worst thing about Trump. It has
saturated the media around the world and further lowered the bar of
journalism. I really hope people (and especially the media) will learn to
ignore him, to take away his power.

------
lucd
That and the reversal on federal use of private prison.. Time to buy private
prison stock...

------
Spooky23
Of course.

The police unions strongly backed Trump and probably helped carry swing
states.

This is patronage.

------
alistproducer2
This is just the political disaster anti-fascists need. The public will be
overwhelmingly opposed to this and will wake a few people up.

------
madengr
I'm in all favor of the fedgov ignoring marijuana laws if they do the same for
gun laws. Unfortunately many who want recreational marijuana legalized want
gun control.

------
eip
Ganja cures the Babylon mind sickness. It shows you the truth.

Truth is the mortal enemy of the state.

For this reason Ganja is and will always be illegal.

They live. We sleep.

------
riffic
Good move! The more they tighten their grip, the more states will slip through
their fingers with relegalization backlash.

