New York Times Editorial Board Calls For Legalization Of Marijuana
By Andrew Hart
The Huffington Post

NEW YORK: -- The most authoritative paper in the United States has put its weight behind the federal legalization of marijuana, a momentous endorsement in the prolonged fight to end to the criminalization of marijuana that has been in place since 1937.

Debuting what is to be a six-part series, The New York Times editorial board called for an end to the "prohibition" of marijuana, saying the current ban "[inflicts] great harm on society just to prohibit a substance far less dangerous than alcohol." The interactive series is to run from July 26 to August 5, beginning with Saturday's editorial, "High Time: An Editorial Series on Marijuana Legalization." An accompanying blog post by editor Andrew Rosenthal stated the decision to back legalizing marijuana was "long in the making," and "as more and more states liberalized their marijuana laws in open defiance of the federal ban, it became clear to us that there had to be a national approach to the issue."

The board argues that after weighing the pros and cons of legalization, the scale tips in favor of ending the ban. The Times acknowledges that there are concerns about certain forms of marijuana use, including that by minors. Thus, the board advocates for restricting sales of marijuana to those under the age of 21. Addressing other health, social and legal concerns, the board writes that "there are no perfect answers ... but neither are there such answers about tobacco or alcohol." But as the Times argues, the concerns are outweighed by the "vast" social costs of marijuana laws.

Full story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/26/new-york-times-marijuana_n_5623972.html

-- HUFFINGTON POST 2014-07-28

 

The Huffington Post ...    

 

Apparently it is still illegal across the whole of the US, but the federal Gov't is allowing a trial in a few selected States.

.

New York Times calls for marijuana legalization

Washington (AFP) - The New York Times called for the legalization of marijuana, in a bold editorial comparing the federal ban on cannabis to Prohibition.

The prestigious publication said pot laws disproportionately impact young black men and that addiction and dependence are "relatively minor problems" -- especially when compared with alcohol and tobacco.

"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," the newspaper said.

"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."

Noting that the editorial board reached its conclusion after much discussion, The Times described the social costs of marijuana laws as "vast."

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/york-times-calls-marijuana-legalization-005840456.html

-- YAHOO! NEWS 2014-07-28

Banning MJ is ridiculous, as long as alcohol and tobacco are sold legally!

Good to see that New York Times is now advocating and willing to ''let the grass grow under its feet.''

 

''Huffington Post'' soon no doubt to known as the Puffington Post.

It was only made illegal in the USA so that they could deport Mexican fruit-pickers so that they could be replaced by US citizens.

At the bottom of that article was pics of 50 known, famous marijuana users.  Talk about diverse and bipartisan.  The list included Rush Limbaugh, GW Bush, President Obama, Sarah Palin, Martha Stewart, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc.  The dems and reps might actually agree about something.

I thought that Bill Clinton didn't inhale?

and also made illegal because of influential Pharmaceutical companies that cannot sell their meds, if no one gets sick,, imagine an all in one cure for Cancer and other major health problems, that will take them out  

At the bottom of that article was pics of 50 known, famous marijuana users.  Talk about diverse and bipartisan.  The list included Rush Limbaugh, GW Bush, President Obama, Sarah Palin, Martha Stewart, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc.  The dems and reps might actually agree about something.

 

Sarah Palin ... say it isn't so.

 

She's my poster girl ... 
 

I thought that Bill Clinton didn't inhale?

 

You are correct, it was Monika who swallowed.

 

I thought that Bill Clinton didn't inhale?

 

You are correct, it was Monika who swallowed.

 

 

No, she was a spitter. If she swallowed, there wouldn't have been any evidence on that blue dress.

Scott post # 8

I thought that Bill Clinton didn't inhale?

 

 

Blow that for a game mate 

 

Bill Clinton,? Should his favouritr monika moniker be William Clinton 

The Huffington Post ...    

 

Apparently it is still illegal across the whole of the US, but the federal Gov't is allowing a trial in a few selected States.

.

When this is legal the no American will leave America to be a Tourist

This will keep Americans home 

Will the people of Thailand, both those in power and the masses, acknowledge and follow?

The only place they actually NEED to legalize it is Washington, D.C., but that is a federal district.

 

The people there need a chill pill of some sort!

The police want to decriminalize it at minimum, the majority of the population feel the same way.

The only people that are against it are the politicians as they are too scared to be labelled "soft on drugs".

The police want to decriminalize it at minimum, the majority of the population feel the same way.

The only people that are against it are the politicians as they are too scared to be labelled "soft on drugs".

 

Regular police, yes. DEA? Nope. It is not in their interest to legalize MJ.

You should see some of thevdeos on Congressional hearings on this when DEA officials are pressed on MJ.

"It should stay illegal because it is dangerous."

"Is it more dangerous than Heroin? All drugs are dangerous"

blablabla...

 

Nearly half of people incarcerated for drugs are MJ related. A lot of prisons are privately run. Do you think they are interested in less customers?

No.

There are too many lobbies who are opposed to legalization, besides the groups opposed to drugs for ethical/religious reasons.

 

If California and NY manage to legalize recreational use for over 21s, it will be a watershed moment, but resistance will increase significantly.

I thought that Bill Clinton didn't inhale?

 

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone enjoying some recreational pot. But I find very little to respect about smoking without inhaling. Is the story that he was so naive as to believe that a lungful of marijuana smoke was something to be avoided and yet so weak-willed that he was pressured into it anyway? Weird...

This article confirms what I have always suspected...what the NY Times editorial staff ingest during their coffee breaks.

It's clearly the trend. Not only liberals but also the "libertarian" segment of the not so liberal. Of course the government should TAX it. Duh! Why wouldn't they? Just like booze and ciggies, but LESS toxic.

 

Just as legalization of same sex marriage was already decided at a federal level (all such state marriages are now fully recognized federally) it is time for the federal government to make such a federal decision on the marijuana issue.

 

Of course, by "now", the U.S. system being the painfully SLOW U.S. system, probably means 20 years.

They need to legalize it in Thailand and get some better quality seed.

They need to legalize it in Thailand and get some better quality seed.

Thailand isn't known to be an international leader in such matters. 

The police want to decriminalize it at minimum, the majority of the population feel the same way.

The only people that are against it are the politicians as they are too scared to be labelled "soft on drugs".

 

Agree that this is how it used to be.  Politicians would be labeled "soft on crime" and the opposition would crucify him/her by saying he/she wanted to give drugs to kids.  But politicians shift like the wind, and the wind certainly is shifting.  As long as some crazy sh*t doesn't happen in Colorado and Washington, I feel the rest of the country moving towards legalization.
 

 

The police want to decriminalize it at minimum, the majority of the population feel the same way.

The only people that are against it are the politicians as they are too scared to be labelled "soft on drugs".

 

Agree that this is how it used to be.  Politicians would be labeled "soft on crime" and the opposition would crucify him/her by saying he/she wanted to give drugs to kids.  But politicians shift like the wind, and the wind certainly is shifting.  As long as some crazy sh*t doesn't happen in Colorado and Washington, I feel the rest of the country moving towards legalization.
 

 

 

Some crazy sh*t is already happening.

 

The media is just too stoned to cover it and report on it.

 

They need to legalize it in Thailand and get some better quality seed.

Thailand isn't known to be an international leader in such matters. 

 

For those of us who were partaking in the 70's, the Thai Buddha stick was world class weed by any measure.

 

 

They need to legalize it in Thailand and get some better quality seed.

Thailand isn't known to be an international leader in such matters. 

 

For those of us who were partaking in the 70's, the Thai Buddha stick was world class weed by any measure.

 

Hopefully the species are still growing somewhere, either in the wild or by some people, so that when Thailand follows the legalization trend in U.S.A. they can be reproduced.

 

I always thought Thai stick was dipped in something so perhaps it wasn't really that great of a strain in its natural state.

The last thing the US needs is legal dope. Just because other harmful substances are legal, does not make a good argument for legal dope. I smoked far more than my fair share when younger and I can say without a doubt that I was an underachieving, lazy loser until I stopped.

Yes, a lot of young type A personalities have partaked in many substances. People like Clinton, Bysh and etc., however, would not have accomplished what they accomplished had they continued ingestion. I would not have gotten through undergrad, much less law school, had I not stopped.

The look who has smoked argument is less logical than the guns don't kill people argument, but those doing one hits out of the honey bear (ala Brad Pitt in true Romance) are like "ahh hahuhuh yeah maaannnn, Clinton smoked weeedd sooo pass that doobahhh."

I think that some people think that legalizing pot is somehow advocating its use.   

 

I used pot when I was younger, but it never really agreed with me.   It made me quite paranoid.   As an adult I tried it occasionally, but it had the same affect.   

 

On a trip to Amsterdam, I also tried it.   It was legal there, but I still got paranoid.   

 

I am assuming that I would still get paranoid.   So I'll probably pass on the doobie when it comes my way, legal or not.   

I think that some people think that legalizing pot is somehow advocating its use.   

 

I used pot when I was younger, but it never really agreed with me.   It made me quite paranoid.   As an adult I tried it occasionally, but it had the same affect.   

 

On a trip to Amsterdam, I also tried it.   It was legal there, but I still got paranoid.   

 

I am assuming that I would still get paranoid.   So I'll probably pass on the doobie when it comes my way, legal or not.   

Totally agree!

More paranoia and you have to pay for it? You can keep it!

It's kind of like gay marriage.

Just being for legalization of it doesn't mean YOU are actually gonna marry a dude.

Even if you're gay.