U.S. Supreme Court: Federal Law Does Not Pre-empt State MMJ Law

[RainDog]

6. I agree - but the reason a majority want the law to change is because of the science

Which is interesting because there is an entire bureaucracy that exists, at the federal level, whose entire purpose is to create propaganda to influence American's opinion on this issue. That's the Office of National Drug Control Policy

That's why the Drug Czar exists. The U.S. spends a lot of amount of money on failed propaganda. Tax payers support an office dedicated to lying to the American people, no matter what facts indicate.

By law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form) of illicit drugs.[12] According to the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998"[13] the director of the ONDCP

(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 -- 1. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and 2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

So, we have a federal bureaucracy dedicated to lying about this issue. And yet, they have failed because the science and people's experiences do not match their propaganda.

via wiki -

In August 2001, the office told a Congressional committee that its National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign "has been the most visible symbol of the federal government's commitment to drug prevention," and that the office was "investing $7 million a year in performance measurement to determine the effectiveness" of the campaign. The statement by said "We believe there is a strong body of evidence that indicates the campaign is working, as planned, to change drug attitudes, intentions and use."[17]

In 2002, according to a multiyear study by the research firm hired by the office, teenagers exposed to federal anti-drug ads were no less likely to use drugs for having viewed them, and some young girls said they were even more likely to give drugs a try. Walters blamed poor ads that weren't resonating with teenagers. Walters promised in Senate testimony in 2002 that he would show results within a year or admit failure, and Congress agreed to extend the campaign through 2003 while cutting funding for the ads from $170 million in 2002 to $150 million in 2003. An entirely new advertising campaign was created.[18]

In February 2005, a research company hired by the office and the National Institute on Drug Abuse reported that the government's ad campaign aimed at dissuading teens from using marijuana, a campaign that cost $1.4 billion between 1998 and 2006, did not work: "greater exposure to the campaign was associated with weaker anti-drug norms and increases in the perceptions that others use marijuana." The research company was paid $42.7 million for the five-year study. After the February 2005 report was received, the office continued the ad campaign, spending $220 million on the anti-marijuana ads in fiscal years 2005 and 2006.[19]

This is another example of how prohibition, as national policy, is bad policy.