|
Yeah, that's fair. I do think there should be allowance for state experimentation on drug laws, but I'd prefer it comes through a repeal of the CSA (or at least through descheduling of certain drugs) than through waivers. Although then you face the situation of drug use being legal in most states except really conservative ones, and the feds having to wrest back control. So yeah, I guess I think if this bill had enough votes to succeed, then at that point you might as well just deschedule (unschedule?) marijuana.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
Baloogan posted:I think we need an uptight old white person in the presidential chair to get some real federal reefer reform; in the same way only Nixon could go to China. But seriously I get where you're coming from with this. I dunno if it's entirely necessary, though, or if it would even work. I can definitely see his (now) ex-supporters calling him a doddering old cutthroat who no longer respects/practices the perceived moral lifestyle they voted him in over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
If I were Obama or the Democrats, I would get on top of re-wording the federal drug policy as soon as possible to allow for states to legalize marijuana. Neither ignoring what the states do nor actively fighting against them is in their best interest. In both cases I think it undermines the power of federal law: in the former you look weak, in the latter oppressive (and the Republicans will have a field day). Really, they need to take care of this before the Republicans start running around comparing this to abortion. And that's why I think the media won't kill this thing as some previous posters have suggested (and I usually tend to be pessimistic too). It benefits the Republicans more keeping this issue alive and fighting for states' rights. I also don't think the move toward legalization (or at least decriminalization) will die because our current drug policy is simply unsustainable. It's the way of the universe that unsustainable things collapse eventually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 08:57
|
|
|
The media (sans Fox News but there you go) loves legalization, just yesterday CNN reported on the legalization and what it means, and instead of spending the whole time spreading fear about injecting 3 marihuana and having a heart attack, they were throwing out puns like "Legalization: no longer a pipe dream" "Will other states juana legalize?" and "Legalization: spreading like a weed." They missed a lot of pun potential with the word "grassroots" but I think people are overestimating how much the media hates weed. The media thinks weed is hilarious. Americans love weed. Do weeds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
Brave New World posted:It appears that you believe that a non-negligible number of people that smoke pot not only do so at work, but specifically are liable to do so at jobs with serious safety concerns. Do I have this right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 13:38
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Yeah, that's fair. I do think there should be allowance for state experimentation on drug laws, but I'd prefer it comes through a repeal of the CSA (or at least through descheduling of certain drugs) than through waivers. Although then you face the situation of drug use being legal in most states except really conservative ones, and the feds having to wrest back control. Most states already have at least one law on the books that bans marijuana. Even if the federal government descheduled marijuana, it would still be illegal in every state but WA and CO now (e: plus however many states have medicinal use laws)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
Xeom posted:Here is my prediction and people can make fun of me if they want. Why have the feds been so silent then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
I've heard that all that really needs to happen is for cannabis to move to schedule II, thereby eliminating most funding and incentive for federal level drug enforcement. Is this true?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I've heard that all that really needs to happen is for cannabis to move to schedule II, thereby eliminating most funding and incentive for federal level drug enforcement. Is this true? Cocaine is Schedule II so, no
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
The feds care a shitload more about using DEA agents to fight meth and other drugs than they do about marijuana.800peepee51doodoo posted:Cocaine is Schedule II so, no Yeah, it's by prescription only. The feds bust up places and people who sell prescription drugs without valid reasons all the time too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I've heard that all that really needs to happen is for cannabis to move to schedule II, thereby eliminating most funding and incentive for federal level drug enforcement. Is this true? The problem is that people don't know what the schedules actually mean; they just know that schedule I means super mega bad and illegal. Schedule I drugs (heroin, desomorphine/krokodil): high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use, lack of accepted safety under medical supervision Schedule II drugs (cocaine, fentanyl, morphine): high potential for abuse, accepted medical uses, abuse may lead to hardcore dependence Schedule III drugs (vicodin, anabolic steroids, ketamine): less potential for abuse than schedules I+II, medical uses, abuse can lead to low physical dependence or high psychological dependence Schedule IV drugs (shitload of benzodiazepines, valium, klonopin, etc): low potential abuse compared to other scheduled substances, accepted medical use, abuse has low potential for dependence At the very least, marijuana is absolutely not a schedule I drug because it has definite medical uses which the government has acknowledged by patenting the use of THC as a neuroprotectant and antioxidant that site posted:The following examples show that both nonpsychoactive cannabidiol, and psychoactive cannabinoids such as THC, can protect neurons from glutamate induced death, by a mechanism independent of cannabinoid receptors. Cannabinoids are also be shown to be potent antioxidants capable of preventing ROS toxicity in neurons. If I were forced to choose a schedule for marijuana, it would have to be schedule IV, but that would still be a stretch since marijuana is objectively less harmful than alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:If I were forced to choose a schedule for marijuana, it would have to be schedule IV, but that would still be a stretch since marijuana is objectively less harmful than alcohol. I don't think that would work either. I don't know of any scheduled drugs that are available on demand over the counter without a prescription. Marijuana needs to be descheduled completely. Also while we're at it, the Controlled Substances Act needs to be repealed, the DEA needs to be disbanded and all prisoners held on drug charges need to be released and pardoned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I don't think that would work either. I don't know of any scheduled drugs that are available on demand over the counter without a prescription. Marijuana needs to be descheduled completely. Also while we're at it, the Controlled Substances Act needs to be repealed, the DEA needs to be disbanded and all prisoners held on drug charges need to be released and pardoned. While they're at it, deport those who worked for the DEA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
Yeah that's all well and good for fantasy world, but here in reality we have a government that puts weed in the same category as heroin and MPPP. To change that, the government would have to admit that they were totally and utterly wrong, and that may well start some huge riots. People have had their lives destroyed from the illegality of marijuana, I doubt the family members of some stoner rotting in prison would take too kindly to big brother saying "oops our bad! guess weed's not such a life ruiner after all! (also we're not letting anyone out of jail because gently caress you)" I think the best we can hope for is making marijuana schedule IV. Everything else results in bloodshed and destruction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Yeah that's all well and good for fantasy world, but here in reality we have a government that puts weed in the same category as heroin and MPPP. To change that, the government would have to admit that they were totally and utterly wrong, and that may well start some huge riots. People have had their lives destroyed from the illegality of marijuana, I doubt the family members of some stoner rotting in prison would take too kindly to big brother saying "oops our bad! guess weed's not such a life ruiner after all! (also we're not letting anyone out of jail because gently caress you)" Nobody is going to riot and murder over weed in America, at least non-criminal elements won't. Republicans Aren't hanging from lamp posts every 2 years, I think most will forgive the government if it just leaves people the gently caress alone with their reefer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:I think the best we can hope for is making marijuana schedule IV. Everything else results in bloodshed and destruction. Actually, I think the best we can hope for is selective enforcement from the feds and more states voting to legalize in the future. If/when enough states have decided they've had enough of prohibition then maybe in a few decades congress will formally deschedule pot. Seriously, look at how long anti-miscegenation and anti-sodomy laws stayed on the books unenforced before they were finally repealed or found unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:The problem is that people don't know what the schedules actually mean; they just know that schedule I means super mega bad and illegal. I was interested so I threw this together:  Which shows the harm score from here vs the US scheduling. Alcohol and tobacco are assigned 5 as they are unscheduled but the trend still is that the more highly scheduled a drug is the safer it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
Not sure if this has been posted, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEkLIlDN3UI No more arrests in Seattle, and they're dropping prosecution of possession cases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Nobody is going to riot and murder over weed in America, at least non-criminal elements won't. Republicans Aren't hanging from lamp posts every 2 years, I think most will forgive the government if it just leaves people the gently caress alone with their reefer. As one of the many Republicans who voted to legalize pot in Washington, (with no intent to ever smoke it myself) I would hope not to end up swinging from a lamp post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 21:57
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:Not sure if this has been posted, but Wow. That's awesome. gently caress the war on drugs, and gently caress jail time for bud. It'd be amazing if the states erode it from underneath the fed.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:Not sure if this has been posted, but
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
BunnyBunny posted:As one of the many Republicans who voted to legalize pot in Washington, (with no intent to ever smoke it myself) I would hope not to end up swinging from a lamp post. You've been punished enough living in Obama's Socialist America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
BunnyBunny posted:As one of the many Republicans who voted to legalize pot in Washington, (with no intent to ever smoke it myself) I would hope not to end up swinging from a lamp post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
Gothy McAngstydie posted:The media (sans Fox News but there you go) loves legalization, just yesterday CNN reported on the legalization and what it means, and instead of spending the whole time spreading fear about injecting 3 marihuana and having a heart attack, they were throwing out puns like "Legalization: no longer a pipe dream" "Will other states juana legalize?" and "Legalization: spreading like a weed." They missed a lot of pun potential with the word "grassroots" but I think people are overestimating how much the media hates weed. The media thinks weed is hilarious. Americans love weed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Blunt the Drug Cartels with Legalization 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
Why can't I live in Colorado or Washington? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:This is what people on this forum don't understand. At least in Colorado the only reason this passed is because conservatives voted for it overwhelmingly. The only people I met who were against it also self-identified as liberal. That can't be the case, seeing as how it passed with a spread of 4 or 5 points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:This is what people on this forum don't understand. At least in Colorado the only reason this passed is because conservatives voted for it overwhelmingly. The only people I met who were against it also self-identified as liberal. I can't find an exit poll that correlates with political stance but here are the presidential and 64 by country result maps.   I would say there is enough geographic correlation to say that Obama supporters probably also supported 64.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
Except for that giant city called Colorado Springs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Except for that giant city called Colorado Springs. El Paso county went against 64 and for Romney. Edit: I was looking for Colorado Spring specific results and I all I can find is the City Counsel passed a resolution condemning 64. It sounds like your thesis that "conservatives overwhelmingly supported 64" is extremely spurious unless you show some actual data that aren't a few of your friends. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Nov 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVedreyiK5U
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:El Paso county went against 64 and for Romney. To be fair, 64 lost in El Paso by only 1.2% compared to the President's 21% loss. A decent amount of Republicans must have voted for 64, but the amendment was definitely carried by Obama voters state wide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:El Paso county went against 64 and for Romney. thats not candy posted:To be fair, 64 lost in El Paso by only 1.2% compared to the President's 21% loss. A decent amount of Republicans must have voted for 64, but the amendment was definitely carried by Obama voters state wide.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
That's one person. I'm not arguing that no conservatives supported it but all the evidence shows that being conservative makes you more likely to oppose 64. The only breakdown I can find in an exit poll is by age.  Yet again the more the conservative demographics oppose legalization. I know this is more correlation != causation on my part but all the evidence I see seems to contradict what you're saying. NathanScottPhillips posted:The maps you posted show 7 districts for 64 that voted against Obama. Also El Paso county (only part of the Colorado Springs metro area) was less than the split for Obama. 51% of the state voted for Obama, 55% voted for 64. The conclusion I would make is that 64 was more popular than Romney but voting for Obama still correlates positively with voting for 64. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Nov 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:That's one person. Dusseldorf posted:The conclusion I would make is that 64 was more popular than Romney but voting for Obama still correlates positively with voting for 64.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:There is no context for that graph, so I'm not sure what it represents. From what I can tell every demographic in Colorado supported 64 except people 65 and older. It's a CNN exit poll It shows that people 65 and older, which is the only age demographic that strongly supports Romney also strongly opposed Measure 64.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Again, many conservatives in Colorado voted for Obama. Yes, but you said. NathanScottPhillips posted:This is what people on this forum don't understand. At least in Colorado the only reason this passed is because conservatives voted for it overwhelmingly. The only people I met who were against it also self-identified as liberal. Many is not "overwhelming". The data seems to show that the majority of conservatives, albeit slim, probably opposed 64. I haven't seen data which shows conclusively that you are wrong but all the data opposes what you are saying. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Nov 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
quote:The problem is that people don't know what the schedules actually mean; they just know that schedule I means super mega bad and illegal. ...It's worth noting that claiming morphine as having accepted medical use while also claiming that heroin has no medical use is actually insane, because they are basically the same drug (opium-derived pain killers). Heroin in most applications is actually less addictive & less destructive than morphine is, but since politicians of the era were loving morphine junkies, heroin was labeled Schedule I while morphine was labeled Schedule II. I just like to mention this during narcotics discussions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Yes, but you said. http://fciruli.blogspot.com/2012/01/conservatives-predominate-in-us-and.html Yes, Colorado's majority supported Obama. Colorado's majority also supported 64. Colorado's majority also considers themselves conservative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
The Ender posted:...It's worth noting that claiming morphine as having accepted medical use while also claiming that heroin has no medical use is actually insane, because they are basically the same drug (opium-derived pain killers). Heroin in most applications is actually less addictive & less destructive than morphine is, but since politicians of the era were loving morphine junkies, heroin was labeled Schedule I while morphine was labeled Schedule II. Bayer losing it's patent on Heroin had way more to do with it becoming illegal than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 02:12
|
|
