The White House's Response, and My Refute

On July 21, I sent a letter to the White House. This is the second open letter I've written to President Obama on the subject of cannabis legalization. I sent the first in December of last year, and have not yet received a response. This is highly unusual, and I do feel it has received attention. It can be found here.

The second letter has been by far the most popular blog post I've ever written. It can be found here.

On August 5th I received a response from the White House staff, about 2 weeks after I sent my letter, as is the normal response time. Here is their response:

Thank you for writing.  The Obama Administration is committed to developing policies based on science and research, and the Federal Government has been funding and reviewing studies to better understand marijuana’s effects on individuals, public health, and safety. 

This Administration opposes marijuana legalization, and our policy approach focuses on improving public health and safety through prevention, treatment, support for recovery, and innovative criminal justice strategies to break the cycle of drug use and crime.  A considerable body of evidence shows that marijuana use, especially chronic use that begins at a young age, is associated with serious health and social problems.  

Studies also reveal that marijuana potency has tripled since 1990, raising serious public health concerns.

At the same time, we share public concerns about ensuring limited Federal enforcement resources are dedicated to pursuing our highest enforcement priorities, such as preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing the sale of marijuana by criminal enterprises and gangs, preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana, and preventing drugged driving and other adverse public health consequences.  We will also closely monitor implementation of marijuana legalization in individual States and prevent the diversion of marijuana to States that have not legalized its use, sale, or distribution.  Outside of its highest enforcement priorities, the Federal Government has traditionally relied on State and local agencies to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws.

Like many people, we are also interested in the potential marijuana components may have in providing relief to individuals diagnosed with certain serious illnesses.  That is why we support ongoing research into evaluating what components of the marijuana plant may be used as medicine.  To date, though, neither the FDA nor the Institute of Medicine have found smoked marijuana to meet the modern standard for safe or effective medicine for any condition.

Thank you for making your voice heard.  You can learn more about the President’s approach to drug control atwww.WhiteHouse.gov/ONDCP.

Sincerely,

The White House

***Here's my response to them:


Dear White House mail room staff,

Thank you for the timely response to my letter. It is good to hear that the Administration committed to basing policy on science, but it's disappointing to hear such outdated and inaccurate information used to back up its positions. 

I have written a line-by line refute of your response on my blog, with links to the data, study, or review whenever possible.

Thank you for proving my point: the Administration needs to update it's information and stance on cannabis prohibition. I await your response.

***Here is my refute:

First they claim that a "considerable body of evidence shows that marijuana use, especially chronic use that begins at a young age, is associated with serious health and social problems."

On the subject of chronic use on health, this study tells us it's about as bad as not flossing, but no other health issues were noted. Cannabis is not a cause of mental disorders and has even been shown to improve symptoms in bipolar patients without additional cognitive impairment. Use of cannabis is associated with better outcomes in brain injury patients and lower mortality rates in heart attack victims. It has been shown to slow the spread of cancer and synthetic THC appears to kill leukemia. I have yet to see a recent study that reveals any of the "serious health problems" the Administration referenced, and unlike virtually all other drugs, cannabis overdose is not fatal. Regardless of it's potential benefits, something being unhealthy, addictive, or intoxicating is not grounds for its prohibition, as demonstrated by alcohol and tobacco.

I'd like to point out that legalization has been associated with a decline in teen use, as reported by the CDC, and supported by this study and this study. And this study looked at teenaged twins and found no direct connection between marijuana use and IQ decline. Here's another with similar results. It needs to be noted that alcohol is the gateway drug, not cannabis, as so long has been claimed. Thus we see that harsh prohibition laws do not actually protect teens.

They mention "social issues". This study says work absences decline when cannabis is legalized. It diminishes aggressivenes. The legalization of cannabis is also associated with explosive economic growth, creating jobs in a new billion-dollar industry in Colorado, and amazing tax revenue. Medicare spends less when cannabis is available, too. Ultimately, there is no instance when a black market is preferable to a regulated one. Regulation solves the problems of "preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing the sale of marijuana by criminal enterprises and gangs, preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation" that the Administration said they are worried about. They want to "stop the cycle of crime?" They need to stop criminalizing it. 

 The myth that cannabis potency has tripled is based on incomplete information, which is backed up by statements from a July 2004 report from the EMCDDA. Also, the THC content of a plant varies dramatically based on quality of care. There has traditionally been little transparency into government approved growing, until Sen. Elizabeth Warren got involved. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand also exposed that the NIDA monopoly on research cannabis production is unwarranted. Controlling the only available research material severely limits sample diversity, and any good scientist knows that skews results. In 2011 I wrote to Harry Reid about labs that reported receiving very low quality test samples from the NIDA, containing a shredded mix of the entire plant rather than cured flowers, and will look again for those references. 

The Administration expressed concern about drugged driving, but as we know from alcohol and allergy medicine, inebriative qualities are not grounds for prohibition of a substance. Additionally, the U.S. National Roadside Survey found that cannabis was not linked to higher crash risks, compared to how even legal levels of alcohol significantly increase danger. Supporting the findings of the USNRS, this review found that risk associated with cannabis was previously overstated.

In conclusion, the stale arguments in favor of prohibition are quickly dismantled when looking at the studies and data published in the last 6 months. There is no legitimate reason for cannabis to be illegal, prohibition does not protect the people from anything, black markets fuel crime and teen use, old government statistics are inaccurate, and the risks and effects don't seem nearly as negative as once claimed.

It's time for the Administration to update their information. Prohibition has failed, and legalization is a wild success in Colorado, etc. Fix the injustice, accept the $28 Billion tax the people actually want to pay, and let's deal with this as a health issue instead of a criminal one.

An open letter to President Obama on marijuana legalization

Dear Mr. President Obama,

I recently signed a petition regarding the acting DEA chief, which has since gathered over 125,000 signatures as of this writing, and have been eagarly awaiting a response from the White House. I hope your delayed response is due to deep consideration on the matter.

 I have decided to write this letter because I am not entirely satisfied with the scope and wording of the petition- I feel much was left unsaid.
Several congress members have also sent you a letter on the subject, which makes several of the important points the petition didn't address so I won't waste the words repeating theirs.

Mr. President, you have said in the past that young people should be concerned about climate change, jobs, the economy, war and peace, and that marijuana legalization should not be our highest priority. I absolutely agree those are important concerns. But someone needs to point out that the marijuana industry in Colorado has been the most successful economic and jobs booster the country has seen since the recession, and the state has profited to extremes.

 If we should be worried about climate change and the environment as you have stated, we should allow farmers to grow industrial hemp- it's a green source of biofuel, bioplastics, construction materials, paper products, clothing, food, and more. A cheap, drought resistant crop, it would stimulate our economy from farmer to consumer.

 There is no good reason this plant should be illegal. There is nothing negative about marijuana that isn't also true about alcohol or cigarettes, except its legal status, a draconian double standard. The mere fact that it is illegal creates far more problems in the world and costs the country much more money than if it were a taxable commodity. The only ones who benefit from this system are Big Money groups.

 I understand you may be concerned about the stereotypical stigma of being our first African-American president and legalizing marijuana, and the role model you present to your daughters. But the status quo is based on Victorian morality to which most of the country no longer ascribes, propaganda and corruption from Big Money, and a legacy of racism as demonstrated by the very use of the word "marijuana," as opposed to "cannabis" or "hemp."

 I have no doubt you read the recommendation to legalize from the Global Commission on Drug Policy in 2011, signed by many respected world leaders and intellectuals. They agree: it's really in the best interest of the people. But if you're unwilling to effect that, please at least overhaul the DEA so it no longer hinders progress. If the government seriously thinks that medical marijuana involves smoking the "leaves" as the acting DEA chief said, and that's what is being sent out as research grade marijuana, it's no wonder we're getting skewed results from government approved science- it's the wrong part of the plant. Research grade marijuana needs to equal the standard of medical grade marijuana buds available in dispensaries. Period.

Thank you for your time and consideration. This affects millions of Americans in our everyday lives, and we depend on you to do the right thing.

Respectfully yours,

Raven Wildchild

Quantum Physics and Spirituality

This is a "vintage" blog from my Facebook notes, posted June 24, 2010.

~*~*~*~
I knew for quite some time that quantum physics has proved many ideas familiar to the metaphysical community. Documentaries such as "What the Bleep Do We Know?" and "The Secret" have helped bring these ideas to the scientifically-minded public. Until now, though, I was unfamiliar with this particular writing, and it pleases me greatly. :)

The following is the epilogue of "What is Life?" (1944) by theoretical physicist Erwin Schrodinger, in which he proves both the existence of the Divine and the metaphysical theory of Oneness. Yes, it's a bit of a doozie to read through, but I find it exhilarating!

~*~*~*~

As a reward for the serious trouble I have taken to expound the purely scientific aspects of our problem sine ira et, studio, I beg leave to add my own, necessarily subjective, view of the philosophical implications.

According to the evidence put forward in the preceding pages the space-time events in the body of a living being which correspond to the activity of its mind, to its self-conscious or any other actions, are (considering also their complex structure and the accepted statistical explanation of physico-chemistry) if not strictly deterministic at any rate statistico-deterministic.
But there is a randomness requirement for mind to break the causal chain of determinism
To the physicist I wish to emphasize that in my opinion, and contrary to the opinion upheld in some quarters, quantum indeterminacy plays no biologically relevant role in them, except perhaps by enhancing their purely accidental character in such events as meiosis, natural and X-ray-induced mutation and so on — and this is in any case obvious and well recognized.

For the sake of argument, let me regard this as a fact, as I believe every unbiased biologist would, if there were not the well-known, unpleasant feeling about 'declaring oneself to be a pure mechanism'. For it is deemed to contradict Free Will as warranted by direct introspection. But immediate experiences in themselves, however various and disparate they be, are logically incapable of contradicting each other. So let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, non-contradictory conclusion from the following two premises:

(i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature.

(ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them.

The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I — I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said or felt 'I' — am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Laws of Nature. Within a cultural milieu (Kulturkreis) where certain conceptions (which once had or still have a wider meaning amongst other peoples) have been limited and specialized, it is daring to give to this conclusion the simple wording that it requires. In Christian terminology to say: 'Hence I am God Almighty' sounds both blasphemous and lunatic. But please disregard these connotations for the moment and consider whether the above inference is not the closest a biologist can get to proving God and immortality at one stroke.

In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records to my knowledge date back some 2,500 years or more. From the early great Upanishads the recognition ATHMAN = BRAHMAN (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world. The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was, after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really to assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts. Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas) have described, each of them, the unique experience of his or her life in terms that can be condensed in the phrase: DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God).

To Western ideology the thought has remained a stranger, in spite of Schopenhauer and others who stood for it and in spite of those true lovers who, as they look into each other's eyes, become aware that their thought and their joy are numerically one — not merely similar or identical; but they, as a rule, are emotionally too busy to indulge in clear thinking, in which respect they very much resemble the mystic.

Allow me a few further comments. Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Even in the pathological cases of split consciousness or double personality the two persons alternate, they are never manifest simultaneously. In a dream we do perform several characters at the same time, but not indiscriminately: we are one of them; in him we act and speak directly, while we often eagerly await the answer or response of another person, unaware of the fact that it is we who control his movements and his speech just as much as our own.

How does the idea of plurality (so emphatically opposed by the Upanishad writers) arise at all? Consciousness finds itself intimately connected with, and dependent on, the physical state of a limited region of matter, the body. (Consider the changes of mind during the development of the body, as puberty, ageing, dotage, etc., or consider the effects of fever, intoxication, narcosis, lesion of the brain and so on.) Now, there is a great plurality of similar bodies. Hence the pluralization of consciousnesses or minds seems a very suggestive hypothesis. Probably all simple, ingenuous people, as well as the great majority of Western philosophers, have accepted it.

It leads almost immediately to the invention of souls, as many as there are bodies, and to the question whether they are mortal as the body is or whether they are immortal and capable of existing by themselves. The former alternative is distasteful, while the latter frankly forgets, ignores or disowns the facts upon which the plurality hypothesis rests. Much sillier questions have been asked: Do animals also have souls? It has even been questioned whether women, or only men, have souls.

Such consequences, even if only tentative, must make us suspicious of the plurality hypothesis, which is common to all official Western creeds. Are we not inclining to much greater nonsense, if in discarding their gross superstitions we retain their naive idea of plurality of souls, but 'remedy' it by declaring the souls to be perishable, to be annihilated with the respective bodies?

The only possible alternative is simply to keep to the immediate experience that consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there is only one thing and that what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception (the Indian MAJA); the same illusion is produced in a gallery of mirrors, and in the same way Gaurisankar and Mt Everest turned out to be the same peak seen from different valleys.

There are, of course, elaborate ghost-stories fixed in our minds to hamper our acceptance of such simple recognition. E.g. it has been said that there is a tree there outside my window but I do not really see the tree. By some cunning device of which only the initial, relatively simple steps are explored, the real tree throws an image of itself into my consciousness, and that is what I perceive. If you stand by my side and look at the same tree, the latter manages to throw an image into your soul as well. I see my tree and you see yours (remarkably like mine), and what the tree in itself is we do not know. For this extravagance Kant is responsible. In the order of ideas which regards consciousness as a singulare tantum it is conveniently replaced by the statement that there is obviously only one tree and all the image business is a ghost-story.

Yet each of us has the indisputable impression that the sum total of his own experience and memory forms a unit, quite distinct from that of any other person. He refers to it as 'I'. What is this 'I?

If you analyse it closely you will, I think, find that it is just a little bit more than a collection of single data (experiences and memories), namely the canvas upon which they are collected. And you will, on close introspection, find that what you really mean by 'I' is that ground-stuff upon which they are collected. You may come to a distant country, lose sight of all your friends, may all but forget them; you acquire new friends, you share life with them as intensely as you ever did with your old ones. Less and less important will become the fact that, while living your new life, you still recollect the old one. 'The youth that was I', you may come to speak of him in the third person, indeed the protagonist of the novel you are reading is probably nearer to your heart, certainly more intensely alive and better known to you. Yet there has been no intermediate break, no death. And even if a skilled hypnotist succeeded in blotting out entirely all your earlier reminiscences, you would not find that he had killed you. In no case is there a loss of personal existence to deplore. Nor will there ever be.