Petition Closed

We the people in order to form a more sensible drug policy...

This petition had 245 supporters

We the people as citizens of the United States of America, in order to form a more sensible drug policy, call for a removal of cannabis as a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Too many Americans are being arrested in dire times. Families are being torn apart and lives are being destroyed as we continue to waste valuable resources. Now is the time to conserve and preserve what we have in this great nation of ours. The Drug War has not only failed but it has put our country at risk. We call on this action for the following reasons:

Job Creation, Economic Boost, Environmental Protection, Drug War Deemed Invalid*, Severability Clause*, Property Rights Violations*, Excessive Imprisonment of Tax-Paying Law Abiding Citizens, Drug Czar Required to Take Any Means Necessary to Oppose Any Attempt to Legalize a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance*, Alternative Medications (2 Medical Patents on Cannabis…Meaning cannabis fails to meet the requirements of a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance.)*, Violations of Civil Rights, Infringements of Privacy, Excessive Use of Law Enforcement Resources in an Unsafe Manner, Eradicates Drug Cartel Profits*, Renewable Energy.

These reasons amongst many others not listed, have come to our attention and should be regarded as valid reasoning for the removal of cannabis as a controlled substance, and that it’s regulations be either medicinal under a doctor’s prescription; or similar to that of alcohol or tobacco.

     *(explained with further detail in the following text)

Most people know that the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP); more commonly known as the “Drug Czar” is an advocate for the government position regarding the drug war. But not everyone knows that he and his office are mandated to tell lies as part of their congressional authorization.

According to Title VII Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998:

Responsibilities: The Director “Drug Czar”

(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that--

(A) is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and

(B) has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

Now, let’s take as a simple example, the issue of medical cannabis. If the government finds that cannabis has “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” or “accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision,” then by law, cannabis cannot remain in Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act, which would immediately legalize it for medical purposes.

However by law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form). Therefore, despite the fact that there is extensive evidence of medical cannabis’s safety and effectiveness (including the fact that even the federal government supplies it to patients), and clearly the drug czar would know about all this information, he is required by law to lie about it.

The job description also means that since he must oppose any attempt to legalize, he has no choice but declare that the drug war is working; that legalization would fail, etc., regardless of any… facts. However, The AP got drug czar Gil Kerlikowske to agree the drug war is a failure. "In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske said. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

On April 2, 2003, Congressman Ron Paul wrote a letter to the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) asking for an investigation into ONDCP lobbying activities and their dissemination of “misleading information” (a polite euphemism for “lying”)


The GAO responded:


     Finally, apart from considerations of whether any particular law has been violated, you have asked whether the Deputy Director’s letter disseminated misleading information in connection with statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana. [...]

     ONDCP is specifically charged with the responsibility for “taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use” of certain controlled substances such as marijuana —- a responsibility which logically could include the making of advocacy statements in opposition to legalization efforts. The Deputy Director’s statements about marijuana are thus within the statutory role assigned to ONDCP. Given this role, we do not see a need to examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director’s individual statements in detail.





     Since lying is in the job description of the ONDCP, there’s no point in bothering to see whether they’re telling the truth. Keep in mind that this requirement to avoid the truth if it interferes with the mission of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is not limited to the current drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, or most recently, John Walters. Unless the law changes, every future drug czar, even if appointed by a President who solidly supports reform measures, will be constrained by the same job description defined by Congress. One may also wonder, of course, if the nature of the job attracts the type of person who perversely enjoys the power of lying to the country.

     Turning this travesty around requires more than the right person for the job. The offending phrases must be struck from the authorizing language (or perhaps a future President will simply not bother to appoint a new czar).

     Given the frequency that the drug czar is quoted in the press  either much of the media is not aware that he and his staff are required to lie, or they simply feel obligated to print what they say despite the falsehoods. After all, don’t all politicians lie some of the time? Yes, but who else is actually required to do so by law?



     Lie (verb)

: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

: to create a false or misleading impression


     The ONDCP staff lies all the time (and specific examples abound all over the web), but not all lies are mere simple statements. One of the most noxious lies (and a common type of lie used by drug warriors) is the intent to deceive through the use of conjoined statements. Here’s an example of the lies, this coming from a White House session:


     Actually Pete, you’ve got the question exactly backwards. Marijuana is a much bigger part of the American addiction problem than most people – teens or adults – realize. There are now more teens going into treatment for marijuana dependency than for all other drugs combined.



     Note the combination of the two sentences. Marijuana is a bigger addiction problem than we realize — there are more teens going into treatment… This is a specific intent to deceive, since the drug czar that the increase of teens in treatment for marijuana has nothing to do with addiction, and everything to do with an increase in governmental referrals. But by placing the two statements together, he attempts to make the lie convincing.


Here’s another example of the conjoined statement lie:

     But marijuana is far from “harmless” it is pernicious. Parents are often unaware that today’s marijuana is different from that of a generation ago, with potency levels 10 to 20 times stronger than the marijuana with which they were familiar.



Here’s another common ONDCP example:


     “Quite a few people think that smoking pot is less likely to cause cancer than a regular cigarette,” reads the ad. “You may even have heard some parents say they’d rather their kid smoked a little pot than get hooked on cigarettes. Wrong, and wrong again,” it continues. “One joint can deliver four times as much cancer-causing tar as one cigarette.” According to ONDCP drug czar John Walters, the idea behind the ads is to “give parents some hard facts that they can use to have informed conversations with their kids about the negative consequences of marijuana. …”


     Sometimes they’ll talk about “carcinogens.” Same idea; the intent is to deceive, to convince people that cannabis causes cancer, something they know is not true; so they fall back on the deception, the lie.


     New drug czar Gil Kerlikowske seems not to even bother trying to hide it. It’s almost as though he doesn’t care. Note his comments in California where the fact of marijuana’s medicinal capability is quite fully accepted.


“Legalization is not in the president’s vocabulary, and it’s not in mine,” he said. [...]


 “Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit,” Kerlikowske said in downtown Fresno…


     Now let’s back things up just a little bit to the drug war being a failure. If something is a complete failure shouldn’t it be severed from the rest of what is working? That brings us to the severability clause in the controlled substances act:








     Pub. L. 106-310, div. B, title XXXVI, Sec. 3673, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1246, provided that: ''Any provision of  this title (see Short Title of 2000 Amendments) held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, shall be construed as to give the maximum effect permitted by law, unless such provision is held to be utterly invalid or unenforceable, in which event such provision shall be severed from this title and shall not affect the applicability of the remainder of this title, or of such provision, to other persons not similarly situated or to other, dissimilar circumstances.''


      If the drug laws were enforceable, we wouldn't lose countless lives and dollars, and have overcrowded prisons, only to have a substantial supply still on the streets after 72 years of prohibition. If it were enforceable, billions of U.S. dollars wouldn't make its way to Mexican and Canadian cartels. The Drug War doesn't prevent drugs from entering our country (or even prison isolation cells, for that matter), the selling or consumption of drugs, the rising crime rates associated with drug trafficking, nor has it ever stopped children from acquiring them. This "war" has continued for over 70 years, and not a single one of its stated objectives have been accomplished.

     Yes, Prohibition is unenforceable, and yes, cannabis has many valid medical benefits.  If it were legalized and taxed (sales tax only, it is NOT a sin), medicinal or otherwise, then that money would all go back into local communities and effectively lower the crime rates there and abroad as well.


     On the one hand, United States federal government officials have consistently denied that marijuana has any medical benefits. On the other, the government actually holds patents for the medical use of the plant.


     Just check out US Patent 663057 titled “Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants” which is assigned to The United States of America, as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services.


 The patent claims that: 


     “Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and HIV dementia.”


This patent was obtained in October of 2003.


     There is also US Patent 7109245 that was issued September 19, 2006 titled “Vasoconstrictor cannabinoid analogs”


The patent discloses that:


     “The present disclosure concerns pharmaceutical compounds and compositions that are useful as vasoconstrictors, and the use of these compounds, for example in the treatment of shock. Septic shock is a type of vasodilatory shock that is often accompanied by a clinical presentation that suggests infection, such as fever, chills, warm, flushed skin, and hemodynamic instability (characterized by a falling and rising blood pressure). Septic shock is an often fatal condition that accompanies severe microbial infections, frequently with gram-negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli (esh-uh-rik-ee-uh koh-lahy), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (soo-doh-moh-nass ah-ridge-in-oh-sa) and Klebsiella or Bacteroides species. Gram-positive bacterial infections can also lead to septic shock, particularly those infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus (staff-ill-oh-kok-us ore-ee-us) and the Pneumococcus (noo-muh-kok-uhs). The bacterial infections can be acquired by routes such as ingestion, personal contact, or trauma, but infections are often nosocomial consequences of therapeutic procedures, including implantation of indwelling catheters or prosthetic devices. Septic shock often occurs in immunocompromised subjects, and therefore has been an increasing problem in recent years because of the increasing number of individuals who are immunocompromised. For example, subjects with HIV disease or who are taking immunosuppressive drugs for the treatment of cancer or organ transplantation rejection are at increased risk of developing septic shock. In view of the above, there exists a need for agents that counteract the vasodilation associated with shock.




     The present inventors (George Kunos and Raj K. Razdan) have demonstrated that abnormal cannabidiol (Abn-cbd) is a selective agonist and cannabidiol is a selective antagonist of an as yet unidentified cannabinoid-like or non-classical receptor distinct from the known cannabinoidreceptors CB1 and CB2. Agonists of these receptors, such as Abn-cbd, are believed to cause vasodilation. Even cannabidiol itself, which is generally an antagonist of the putative receptor, has been found to cause some vasodilation, and it therefore acts as a partial agonist, or mixed agonist/antagonist. It would therefore be desirable to have an agent that acts as a pure, or substantially pure, antagonist at the CB1-like receptor. Such an agent would be particularly useful in the treatment of diseases in which hypotension is the result of the action of endogenous cannabinoids and drug-induced vasoconstriction is desirable, for example in hypotensive states, such as shock. The antagonist would have particular application in vasodilatory shock states, such as septic shock, but it could also be used to achieve selective hemostasis to stop bleeding induced by trauma or surgery.”


     Cannabinoids, for those who were wondering, are a group of chemical compounds found in cannabis that are also referred to as terpenophenolic compounds. One specific cannabinoid compound found in cannabis is tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. This substance gives cannabis its psychoactive effects.


     The US government may hold this patent, but that will not stop their officials from consistently denying the benefits of medical marijuana. An FDA spokesperson, for instance, has claimed that “smoked marijuana has no currently accepted or proven medical use in the United States and is not an approved medical treatment.” I guess she didn’t get the memo.


     It makes you wonder why the U.S. government is so unwilling to admit that marijuana has some valid medical properties. It seems unlikely that there is a popularity issue, especially when 60% of Americans believe that doctors should be allowed to prescribe cannabis. Maybe there are some lobbyists or bigwig campaign contributors that would get a little upset.


     Since one part of the government applied for the patent of medical marijuana, and another part of the government approved that patent, it seems logical to conclude that the federal government knows that cannabis has some valid medical properties.


Furthermore the drug laws can be found invalid through violations of property rights as follows:


     Officials have no right to take life, freedom, or property (life/murder, freedom/enslave, property/theft). Drug laws are invalid as they prohibit ownership of property & violate a right to contract. They’ve slowly increased power of the police to violate other rights of privacy, further property rights infringement procedures where the state keeps the property even if there are no charges pressed against the person the property was stolen from. As the constitution protects our liberty, making it illegal to own property is in conflict to the constitution making these laws invalid. Any enforcement of these laws is punishable under US Code Title 18-Crimes and Criminal Procedures - - Part I-Crimes - - Chapter 13-Civil Rights - - Sections 241&242


     Since you own your life, you are responsible for your own life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. You are also free from the chains of enslavement and cannot be forced to do anything against your will. Any laws that deprive someone of their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by limiting their choices is in direct violation of the concepts of liberty, and as liberty is a protected right under the constitution these laws are invalid.


Now the hard part; how do we get them to admit it? We let them announce it publicly themselves!


     On the morning of the 16th of September 2010 Daniel Pacheco, a Georgetown University student from Colombia and member of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, handed a petition to Kerlikowske at a press conference held at the National Press Club.  The petition asks President Obama to end the war on drugs and legalize cannabis.


     Daniel asked Kerlikowske why he opposed legalizing cannabis, since President Calderon of Mexico has said it could be helpful in fighting the Mexican drug cartels. Kerlikowske stated that since cannabis comprised such a small percentage of drug cartel profits, legalizing it would not have any impact on their activity.


     Under Kerlikowske's reasoning, we never should have repealed Alcohol Prohibition, since alcohol made up less than 50% of Al Capone's overall profits.


     “I don’t think that if they lose a small part of their revenue from legalizing marijuana that they’re going to go to work for Coca Cola or Microsoft,” he chuckled.


     Instead of defending the principle of prohibition, Kerlikowske quibbled with Pacheco’s statistic on how much of the cartel’s revenue comes from cannabis. The number that has been often cited in the press, 58 to 60 percent of cartel revenues, was introduced by ONDCP in 2006. Unfortunately, the history is that it was based on 1997 information. Kerlikowske said, “Everyone that recognizes these cartels clearly understands that their revenues have changed a lot since 1997. There are different drugs, they are involved with different criminal enterprises, so people that continue, and we really reject trying to continue to use a number that is now 13 to 14 years old, about how much money comes from marijuana. So, we strongly believe we see significantly less than the numbers cited from 14 years ago.”


     Testimony to the Senate from both the FBI and DEA, however, confirmed the 60-percent figure in 2010.


     So, the idea here is that since legalizing cannabis won’t put them out of business, we should continue to subsidize part of their business?  Because our prohibition of cannabis leads to the high price Americans pay for weed they could grow themselves, subsidizing the high profits the Mexicans make on the plant, and then our tax dollars subsidize the Merida Initiative that buys more helicopters, drones, surveillance, ammunition, and police to fight the traffickers!  We also help arm both sides of the drug war, with official grants of weapons to the “good guys” and plenty of gun shops just over the border whose guns end up in the hands of the “bad guys”.


     How low a percentage of overall profits must cannabis reap before it’s no longer worth taking that business from the criminals; 30%, 15%, 5%?  Suppose we were talking about crippling Al Qaeda.  Do you suppose if we discovered an easy way to reduce the funding of terrorists by even 5% that our government officials would be dismissing the idea, simply because those terrorists wouldn’t then be forced to work at Starbucks?


     So, since the Mexican criminals are unlikely to go to work for Coca Cola or Microsoft if we take away their puny cannabis profits, we should continue to make criminals out of Americans who smoke a joint; Right Mr. Kerlikowske?


Today: Sean is counting on you

Sean Crystal needs your help with “We the people in order to form a more sensible drug policy...”. Join Sean and 244 supporters today.