Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Government United States

US Officials Look To Move Marijuana To Lower-Risk Drug Category 220

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has recommended easing restrictions on marijuana, a department spokesperson said on Wednesday, following a review request from the Biden Administration last year. Reuters reports: The scheduling recommendation for marijuana was provided to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) on Tuesday as part of President Biden's directive to HHS, the spokesperson said. "As part of this process, HHS conducted a scientific and medical evaluation for consideration by DEA. DEA has the final authority to schedule or reschedule a drug under the Controlled Substances Act. DEA will now initiate its review," a DEA spokesperson said.

Marijuana is currently classified as a schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning it has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, along with drugs like heroin and LSD. HHS is recommending reclassifying marijuana to say it has a moderate to low potential for dependence and a lower abuse potential, which would put it in a class with ketamine and testosterone.
"If marijuana classification were to ease at the federal level, that could allow major stock exchanges to list businesses that are in the cannabis trade, and potentially allow foreign companies to begin selling their products in the United States," notes Reuters.

While marijuana remains illegal on the federal level, nearly 40 U.S. states have legalized it in some form. According to a survey last year from the Pew Research Center, "an overwhelming share of U.S. adults (88%) say either that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use by adults (59%) or that it should be legal for medical use only (30%)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Officials Look To Move Marijuana To Lower-Risk Drug Category

Comments Filter:
  • Marijuana Amnesty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Thursday August 31, 2023 @09:21PM (#63813737)
    Its about time that the federal govt declare a marijuana amnesty. There are thousands of people in jail for selling Marijuana or consuming marijuana or on secondary charges where the smell of marijuana was used to conduct a search which would have been illegal otherwise. As the feds have now admitted outlawing Marijuana was a mistake, the consequences of that mistake should be corrected too. Its not right to have publicly listed companies selling marijuana while there are still people in jail for the same actions.
    • Indian legalization (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Thursday August 31, 2023 @09:25PM (#63813747)
      Further India where MJ had been part of Hindu religious rituals for thousands of years need to re-legalize it. India only banned some forms of MJ under the Raegan administrations pressure. As US has now admitted it was a mistake no reason for India to keep the ban. When the ban came into effect Indian MJ or Indica was the best but in the last 40 years California grown MJ has become the best. That is a competitive advantage lost in the international market.
      • by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:15PM (#63813821)

        Yeah that was a bad bad time for the world of drugs. The DEAs international efforts pretty much singlehandedly turned mexicos drug trade from "Weed growing farmers occasionally hooking up with low level gangsters to move shit across the border" into the full blown multi billion dollar cartels that plague mexico to this day.

        The "war on drugs" has cost millions of lives plunged entire regions of south and central america into crime and destitution, funded terrorists and dictators and left millions of drug users at permanent risk of imprisonment , or in some countries worse, and beyond the reach of medical intervention.

        All because politicians on both sides of the divide refuse to learn the lessons of the prohibition era. And the galling thing is, those fuckers know it. They just dont wanna fix it, becuase "tough on crime" gets votes, even though innevitably tough-on-crime just makes crime worse.

        • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday September 01, 2023 @07:45AM (#63814465) Homepage Journal

          They just dont wanna fix it, becuase "tough on crime" gets votes, even though innevitably tough-on-crime just makes crime worse.

          That's one reason, but a more serious reason is that the war on drugs produces a lot of funding that they don't want to give up. It also provides a lot of opportunities for cops to conduct otherwise illegal searches. And of course, let us not forget ASSET FORFEITURE.

          • by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Friday September 01, 2023 @09:39AM (#63814735)

            This.

            Prohibition profits the drug cartels, the police, and any politicians taking bribes from either.

            Hell, the War on Drugs was begun explicitly to allow the federal government to crack down on hippies, black activists, other counter-culture groups that were vocally opposing the Vietnam War and other government abuses at home. They can't vote you out of power from prison.

            • I'm still trying to figure out why it took a Constitutional Amendment to make alcohol illegal (and another one to rescind the first one)....

              Yet pot and other drugs were made illegal with the stroke of a pen????

      • Ironically, a lot of countries actually banned it or increased penalties due to pressure from the US government in the 80s and 90s. One more way that US imperialism has made the world a much worse place.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Eunomion ( 8640039 )
      It's about time the federal government declare a total and absolute end to Richard Nixon's Drug War on Americans. I'm tired of these legions of degenerate animals assaulting the rule of law in the name of something a fucking dictator made up to go after hippies.
      • There are some bad drugs that actually shouldn't be legal, though.
        • by Eunomion ( 8640039 ) on Thursday August 31, 2023 @11:00PM (#63813921)
          None of them have proven as bad as the war against them. Not a single one. Objectively.
          • That's a big [citation needed]. I know a lot of people who got messed up by drugs.
            • Okay, how many of them were messed up by the police and 'justice' system because of the drugs?
              How many of them were messed up because of contaminated drugs?
              How many of them were harmed because of actions to avoid the police due to the drugs?

              We have like a million people behind bars in the USA due to drugs, and it prevents approximately zero use.

            • by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Friday September 01, 2023 @03:01AM (#63814137)

              That's a big [citation needed]. I know a lot of people who got messed up by drugs.

              By making the possession of these drugs a felony we "help" these people that were messed up by drugs by keeping them locked up with rapists and murders for years, then letting them out into the world with a felony on their record so they can't get student loans, join the military, or get gainful employment by any of a number of means. We set them on a path where about the only jobs they can get are unskilled and semi-skilled labor, which likely leaves them with at best a lower middle class lifestyle. Should they fall into depression over this and fall back to drug use to take the edges of the shitty life they are living then they run the risk of repeat of time in jail, another felony on their record, and back to looking for work without an education or useful work experience.

              Ever notice on the news reports that people are never charged with merely possessing drugs? It is always, "with intent to deliver". That's done on purpose.

              Drug laws were written to catch those dealing drugs, not the addicts. But because of the "war on drugs" there's an implied "intent to deliver" if there's enough drugs to be split in half, as in "one for you and one for me". You see? If you have more drugs on you than you'd consume all at once then you are assumed to be a dealer. As if people only buy enough groceries at a time for the next meal, so if you are caught with a loaf of bread then you clearly intended to deliver bread slices to 20 different people. And if you only bought one slice of bread then you must have intended to cut the slice in half to deliver to two people, or eat half the slice and then sell the other half. If the quantity of the drugs is large enough to divide up to give to others then there's an implied "intent to deliver", and that means they can detect drugs somewhere because if there's more than one molecule then there's enough to divide up and deliver to many others.

              I'm all about going after those dealing in drugs without the proper licensing and such but the way the laws have been interpreted there's no real distinction between those caught in addiction and the dealers abusing their addiction for profit.

            • I know a lot of people who got messed up by drugs.

              Anecdotal evidence fail.

              You don't know the people who got messed up by the war on drugs, and you think your personal experience is relevant.

              It is not, sir.

              • heres some anecdotal evidence from my own life

                100% of pot smokers I know feel their lives are better with pot, and my opinion will forever be that it is objectively not. That's a hill I will die on.

                Though I appreciate the billable hours constantly resetting their passwords every long weekend.

                • As long as you know that your anecdotal evidence is equally worthless, that's great. If you think it's meaningful, then you're the one who's forgetting something... every day. It doesn't even take you a long weekend.

                  Some of the smartest, best organized, most productive people I have known have been pot smokers. But I know that's irrelevant, because I'm one person and I don't know enough people well enough to have enough information to make statistically significant statements based on my experience.

          • Legalizing all drugs by making everything OTC? It would be one thing if we could be sure they didn't give it to someone against their will and that overuse of antibiotics would decrease their effectiveness for everyone else, but I don't think that's possible.

            We should probably take into consideration the bad decisions some people would inevitably make and I include my younger self in that. Of course some people would commit suicide where otherwise they wouldn't have or would have failed. And some people

            • For those dealing with chronic pain there's no weaning off the drugs and living a better life. It's being weaned off the drugs and left in constant pain, where any demands to be treated for pain is met only with accusations of an addict trying to get high. There's many ailments where there is no cure, only managing the symptoms. Pain is such a common symptom of illness that every visit to a health care provider starts with asking if there is pain, if so then where and how bad. Going into an ER screaming

              • That's probably why NLaAC said "hopefully", not "will". Though you do bring up a good point. Okay, I know basically how to make heroin. It used to be a prescription drug. Made in industrial quantities, it should be in the same price range per dose as OTC aspirin. I'd estimate the cost to be around $100 to supply an addict with a year's supply.

                As such, yes, we could easily afford to give every opioid addict sufficient heroin to drive every opioid dealer bankrupt(other than the legal Uncle Sam). No law

            • I don't mean end control, but the enforcement mechanism of control should be entirely financial unless there's negligence involved.
    • You have public companies running prisons getting $50K per year per inmate - in for years for simple possession on three-strikes.

      The cannabis Prohibition was never about crime, it's about corporate profits.

      Justice would look like Treason trials for everybody who was/is complicit.

      (and to be clear, it's really rare for weed to improve one's life, so stay away if you can.)

      Yet hanging the prison-for-profit bureaucrats is unlikely to happen. Perhaps we can swap out the weed inmates.

      • Hanging is too kind ... make them experience their own facilities with their prior employment being made well-known.
    • There was a federal pardon for simple possession at least: https://www.whitehouse.gov/bri... [whitehouse.gov]
    • Its about time that the federal govt declare a marijuana amnesty. There are thousands of people in jail for selling Marijuana or consuming marijuana or on secondary charges where the smell of marijuana was used to conduct a search which would have been illegal otherwise. As the feds have now admitted outlawing Marijuana was a mistake, the consequences of that mistake should be corrected too. Its not right to have publicly listed companies selling marijuana while there are still people in jail for the same actions.

      What really grinds my gears here is the admission that it was a mistake, with zero effort AT ALL to fix that mistake. Lowering it's risk category doesn't reverse anything that's been done in the name of the war on drugs. And why would they fix it? It only really affects poor people. You never hear of a rich bastard busted with weed going to jail or prison for it. It's another way to keep the plebes in line. Hate your life enough to do drugs? If you get caught, we'll make sure you hate it even more! PROGRESS

      • It's baby steps. First you get it legalized, THEN you can start pushing to suspend/revoke the sentences for everybody currently incarcerated for it.

        You think it's bad for this? The "legal system" is so indoctrinated into "procedure" that you might as well be pulling teeth trying to get them to release factually innocent people. Their justification will generally be along the lines of "but they were duly convicted and got their appeals already!" Despite new evidence of the Perry Mason sort, where he alwa

    • Its about time that the federal govt declare a marijuana amnesty. There are thousands of people in jail for selling Marijuana or consuming marijuana or on secondary charges where the smell of marijuana was used to conduct a search which would have been illegal otherwise

      One thing is for certain - the laws governing marijuana have destroyed many more lives than the use of marijuana has, or ever will.

    • by Ecuador ( 740021 )

      As the feds have now admitted outlawing Marijuana was a mistake

      I'm sorry, but if you read up on it it was never a mistake. It was intentional, by design, to serve a specific purpose.

      Tobacco is much more addictive, but not the right communities were smoking it for making it illegal to be of any use at the time.

  • Long overdue (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baloo Uriza ( 1582831 ) <baloo@ursamundi.org> on Thursday August 31, 2023 @09:22PM (#63813739) Homepage Journal
    By like, an entire Republican Southern Strategy. And the only reason they and Nixon were in favor of it was because it was associated (fairly or not) with the latino and black communities, since they couldn't just openly jail people for not being white.
    • Re:Long overdue (Score:5, Informative)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:19PM (#63813827)

      We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.

      Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

      ~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon

    • Re: Long overdue (Score:5, Informative)

      by jcochran ( 309950 ) on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:27PM (#63813845)

      Why are you blaming Nixon and such for activities that started long before they came into power. The shit storm started around 1910 when the government calling cannabis marijuana in order to emphasize its "foreign" nature. The campaign was completed with the Marijuana Tax act in 1937, which was replaced with the Controlled Substances Act in 1970. You _might_ be able to blame the 1970 action on Nixon, but good luck on blaming the prior 60 years on him as well. But you are correct in blaming racism, just totally wrong on how far back that racism went.

      You might also want to lookup William Randolph Hearst's part in the issue. As it turns out, his wood pulp paper production was being threatened by hemp based paper, so he printed quite a bit of "yellow journalism" in his newspapers to sway public opinion on the subject.

      • You bring up a good point. I tend to blame Reagan for a lot of institutional homophobia and the basis for the right having a complete inability to deal with a pandemic, and I tend to blame the southern strategy for Reagan.
    • by DewDude ( 537374 )

      I got news for you...the new strategy is "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN". Our state decriminalized marijuana under one administration...but sadly some people using good-intentions backdoored a delay to recreational sales. The new administration doesn't like the decriminalized marijuana. In fact they flat out don't like legislation given the fact they've defied our legislature numerous times for the sake of law and order. Right to privacy in the state of Virginia? The state ruled the fourth amendment is invalid

  • lungs? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by iggymanz ( 596061 )

    We spent decades getting most people to quit smoking so there would be less lung cancer and emphysema, now smoking is going up because of legalized pot.

    Can't you potheads make mj brownies or some other way of getting the thc in?

    • Re:lungs? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:06PM (#63813811) Homepage

      I made the mistake of making that same point on the politics sub of Reddit; it went over about as well as you'd expect (I can only assume there are a lot of potheads on Reddit).

      Mostly, my take on it is that pot smoke is an extremely unpleasant odor and since Florida made medicinal pot legal, I've been noticing it outside in my neighborhood and have gone into stores where people absolutely reek of it on their clothing. According to the folks over on Reddit, I must just be imagining things because almost everyone who uses pot sticks completely to edibles and nobody smokes the stuff anymore, no sir-re-bob!

      Normally I'm all for people doing whatever the hell they want to their own bodies, but there's still that whole "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose", or in this case, your right to smell like you've rolled in roadkill skunk ends at my nose.

      • Edibles smell too, fwiw.
        • Edibles made with raw flower by baking certainly do, the flower contains a ton of terpines naturally and yes, especially if you bake them, they smell. On the other hand, synthetic edibles only smell if the manufacturer added flavor/aroma terpines to it. By default, they're just gummy bears with a tiny amount of thc added. If you stacked up the total amount of THC in the average 1 gram gummy, you'd mistake it for a single tiny sugar crystal on the outside - and it itself doesn't smel.
        • But edibles don't expose others to carcinogenic and organ irritating smoke.

      • I like edibles and vapes, but I also smoke and I see a lot of people buying flower instead of edibles or vapes. Maybe the Redditors mean the people in their circle of friends. I don't smell it often where I live and I can't smell it when my next door neighbors vape on their back porch which I'm pretty sure they do every evening. I definitely smell it sometimes though - occasionally in traffic. Then again even before legalization I saw a few people smoking in cars and probably smelled it once or twice.

    • In my experience most people, especially on the younger-than-me end who use seem to greatly prefer concentrates, vapes and edibles over plain ol' smoking weed. The market for non-combustion devices is pretty wild.

      • No one is using those things in parks, public buildings, stations buses, and trains here. Entitled potheads are lighting up and making us including children breath their carcinogens.

    • We spent decades getting most people to quit smoking so there would be less lung cancer and emphysema, now smoking is going up because of legalized pot.
      Can't you potheads make mj brownies or some other way of getting the thc in?

      I remember discussing here years ago the UCLA study that showed not just no increase in cancer rates among cannabis flower smokers, but in fact a decrease. But here you are, stoking drug war propaganda. Why would you promote lies? Just to try to get mod points? How fucking pathetically needy.

      • Why don't you check places that use peer reviewed science such as Mayo clinic and get back to us.

        Evidence is that pot smoking increases risk of cancer especially lung cancer.

        Let me guess, you're a pothead

    • Yes. Check edible sales and get back to me. All the suburban mommies who'd not light a fatty do love some gummies....
      • But in trains, stations, malls and public buildings people and myself are having to breath (illegally lit up) pot smoke.

  • The real question. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eunomion ( 8640039 ) on Thursday August 31, 2023 @09:49PM (#63813783)
    Putting marijuana in Schedule I is not a matter of opinion, it's an outright lie. Under the law, DEA has been perjuring themselves for decades. Investigate that and hold them accountable.
    • Nixon's dead.
      • The people who've kept doing Nixon's will aren't. Put them in front of a committee, get them sworn in, and ask them why they have sworn legally binding documents claiming that marijuana is as dangerous as heroin and crack.
        • Do people even know what "heroin" means? It means "illegal diamorphine", because if it is prescribed by a physician then it's called "diamorpine". It isn't prescribed in the USA though, because reasons. There's a drug that is prescribed, one twice as potent per gram, called hydromorphone or dilaudid. Have a look on how heroin compares: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          I'm sure people have heard this before, "It's the dose that makes the poison." There is nothing wrong with heroin, except that the defi

          • Mmm-hmm. Destroying the cartels is pretty straightforward too: Anyone who can convince a doctor they're addicted to something, will get prescribed it. Works very well in the few countries that have tried it. Demand for the hard stuff among non-addicts is relatively small, and couldn't support massive paramilitary criminal organizations. But then the prisons would empty out too, and the streets would become safe (not safer; SAFE period), which is the ultimate nightmare of the power elite.
    • As I recall, under the law the DEA and FDA share jurisdiction on defining how drugs are scheduled. The DEA isn't likely to reschedule marijuana since marijuana makes up a large portion of their workload. Rescheduling marijuana would make a large portion of the DEA redundant. I don't recall if the FDA can act on rescheduling marijuana alone, but if they can then it's unlikely they'd do so based on pressure from many different angles or many reasons.

      As I recall the DEA is largely redundant as it is now bec

      • Americans reserve the right to pursue prosecution on those who used perjury and criminal conspiracy to cause large numbers of murders, false incarcerations, and other atrocities on the basis of nothing but some psycho's political program.
      • You may be right or wrong on how drugs are scheduled, but I have to point out that weed is one of the few drugs that congress itself scheduled. As in the DEA and FDA have zero choice in the matter anyways until congress either reschedules it or releases control.

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday August 31, 2023 @09:57PM (#63813797)
    Then both meth and fentanyl. I think it's painfully obvious that the scheduling is entirely political never mind the fact that we literally have Nixon's own people repeatedly admitting that they started the drug war to attack their political enemies on the left....

    It's one of those things that when you find out it's hard to believe it's true because it's so insane. Then again the CIA really did sell crack cocaine in the inner City to fund death squads in South America and Ronald Reagan really did arrange for American hostages to be held longer to win an election.

    All these things are verifiable facts and it literally sounds like I'm trolling as I type them out here. .
  • Stop pretending like you can regulate anything except the masses. Anyone with resources can do what they want. And always will.

    Remove your own bias here. Start recording data and use data to judge if punishment helps or hurts. Then change it over time...

    • Start recording data and use data to judge if punishment helps or hurts.

      Here's some data you will conveniently ignore or make excuses how it's not relevant.

      Cannabis Use Disorder is on the rise [cnn.com], both in the U.S. and around the world including Netherlands, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and France.

      Marijuana users have significantly higher levels of heavy metals [cnn.com] in their bodies than non-users. “Compared to non-users, marijuana users had 27% higher levels of lead in their blood, and 21% higher

  • by _0x0nyadesu ( 7184652 ) on Thursday August 31, 2023 @10:22PM (#63813833)

    Federal Law prohibits anyone from being in possession of a Schedule I or II drug while also in possession of a firearm. Not just at the federal level. California has the same laws too.

    I don't understand how anyone can claim this is constitutional but then no one actually cares about the constitution.

    I'm in suburban / rural-ish California where there are a lot of pro gun Republicans so I always find it funny how they will toke up on the weekends then show off their gun collections all the while completely ignoring that they could get fucked at any time. But they are white so *shrug*

  • Biden is a hardcore drug warrior who's only very slightly moderated on his extreme positions, mostly by not interfering like the Obama administration with hands-off policies coming from Congress and harm reduction initiatives. And that's mostly for show. His appointments to the DEA and DOJ have not reflected any actual desire to change drug policy. The DEA has already had rescheduling petitions it's fought in court for decades; lack of evidence has never been the issue. They've been rejecting all proof of m
    • by turp182 ( 1020263 ) on Friday September 01, 2023 @12:24AM (#63814009) Journal

      Biden's positions seem hardcore but they make sense through his lens. His son almost died and really struggled with drug abuse.

      I get it. It took hospital and rehab to get me past alcohol (3 years coming up on Dec. 4). Almost died and all of that (lost two weeks of time). Rehab was transformative.

      Anyway, Biden has bore witness to terrible addiction. His views on drugs are shaped by this direct experience.

      Regarding marijuana, he probably still thinks "gateway drug" when it's nothing of the sort. That's my guess.

      The DEA is guarding budget and doesn't want to eat crow about being in the wrong for so long (I bet that's the correct order).

      But hey, marijuana is legal in many places and it's a good thing. Far safter than alcohol, WAY safer (there can be certainty of death with alcohol situationally).

      The answer is simple and we'll get there, it will be treated like alcohol. This means some states will be more strict. There will be dry areas (there are).

      It would be comical to visit a KY pot grower where you couldn't sample or purchase the product, similar to distilleries there.

      • Regarding marijuana, he probably still thinks "gateway drug" when it's nothing of the sort. That's my guess.

        Then he's not "thinking" at all, and we should demand better from our elected officials.

        It would be comical to visit a KY pot grower where you couldn't sample or purchase the product, similar to distilleries there.

        That's how dispensaries are in California now. Everything is sealed up and you can't even smell the product before buying. And the prices are higher than anyone going in there for weed. The only thing it's worth buying from a club is extract. Everything else is not only much cheaper but also much BETTER on the grey market. Club weed is almost always total fucking trash because it's insufficiently cured. I'm not buying th

  • I found out that Congress passed some law restricting federal funds from being used to enforce federal marijuana bans in states that made marijuana possession and use legal. That's pretty spineless. Either marijuana should be legal or it should not. Carving out enforcement by states like that is an unequal enforcement of the law and should have been deemed in violation of the US Constitution. But to challenge anything in court requires first getting convicted of the crime at issue. If anyone pushes too

    • by DewDude ( 537374 )

      No. They're not. There's a whole group of them that want to literally make anyone who uses marijuana a traitor. There is a group that want to see not just stronger federal laws but they want to actually see life sentences for simple posession. These are the ones that are rapidly gaining power by echoing hate and racism.

      In case you haven't noticed...that sadly will get you a lot of places...especially when you empower those people to commit acts and then do everything to protect those people after they viola

  • You have to unschedule it. Putting it in the lower category just further enshrines it as a crime, because now it's clear on the books that it's a violation of federal law to buy/sell/trade in it. This sounds to me like those campaigns to 'raise the speed limit, but abolish the 5 mph grace that most cops seem to afford.' It just means more people are considered speeders now, and they have a legal reason to pull more people over who were already driving that fast under somewhat ambiguous circumstances before.
    • by DewDude ( 537374 )

      Actually, lowering the schedule doesn't further enshrine it as a crime. It already is a crime. Putting it in a lower category actually helps. It's like the cop might not be able to pull you over if your tags are a day or two out of date. They can still technically issue you a ticket; but [they're not] supposed to pull you over for it. They can only tack that on to a ticket if a primary reason for stopping was met...like speeding.

      Be real...if there are levers in government to be pulled...they will be pulled.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Working...