|
This is why the rest of the world makes fun of our (U.S.A.) education system. Fake-Edit: Not the only reason of course.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
Twiin posted:Being in possession of North America territory doesn't make you a North American country. Meh, if the Kingdom of the Netherlands called for Marijuana legalization, that would be a few islands in North America where you can blaze up. Close enough for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Meh, if the Kingdom of the Netherlands called for Marijuana legalization, that would be a few islands in North America where you can blaze up. Close enough for me. Fair enough. I didn't actually include non-sovereign countries so probably you should add Aruba, Curacao, Sint Maarten, and Greenland to that list.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:This is why the rest of the world makes fun of our (U.S.A.) education system. If you ain't directly bordering the good ol' US of A, you ain't worthy of being a North American.  So, what does everyone think is going to be the response from Holder?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
I usually think North America, Central America, and South America. Well, whoops. EDIT: Twiin posted:For posterity: Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Mar 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I usually think North America, Central America, and South America. Well, whoops. This is actually what most people think 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Twiin posted:Fair enough. I didn't actually include non-sovereign countries so probably you should add Aruba, Curacao, Sint Maarten, and Greenland to that list. Also St. Pierre and Miquelon, and Bermuda!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
I'm as pro-legalization as you can get, but this issue is sticky. CO and WA (and any medical marijuana state) are breaking federal law. If these states were instead denying the vote to minorities, or even ignoring Medicare laws, the Feds would crush them. They'd have to crush them. We'd all want them to crush them. But MJ? Totally different. A law is a law. Once you start looking the other way on some laws but not others, you undermine the entire edifice of government. As such, I hope the Feds do act - and reschedule or de-criminalize. Let our business flow!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
That's why the former DEA leaders aren't happy. If DoJ drags its feet and more states legalize, it puts more and more pressure on the Feds to follow suit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Riven posted:That's why the former DEA leaders aren't happy. If DoJ drags its feet and more states legalize, it puts more and more pressure on the Feds to follow suit. And I'm cool with that. It just pains me to have to agree with all the ex-Drug Czars that the Feds should be doing something. They're right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
redshirt posted:And I'm cool with that. It just pains me to have to agree with all the ex-Drug Czars that the Feds should be doing something. They're right. I imagine holder's response is going to be "Its sequester. I have to save money, and there are bigger issues than potheads." If he even issues a response at all. I mean at this point with the congress we have, its going to take a supreme court reversal on Gonzales before we see Federal Marijuana laws removed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
redshirt posted:I'm as pro-legalization as you can get, but this issue is sticky. CO and WA (and any medical marijuana state) are breaking federal law. If these states were instead denying the vote to minorities, or even ignoring Medicare laws, the Feds would crush them. They'd have to crush them. We'd all want them to crush them. But MJ? Totally different. Um no, that is not the same thing. In fact, it is so far not the same thing that I honest to god cannot believe you thought this was even one percent correct. And undermining the law is the entire point. It should be undermined. It needs to be undermined. It needs to be swallowed into the depths of the center of the earth along with every rear end in a top hat who ever put up even the tiniest bit of resistance to legalization. Once you start enacting and enforcing tyrannical laws that ruin or end lives over something as utterly harmless as marijuana, you have undermined the law and the entire government. I have absolutely no problem breaking laws as long as I don't get caught because of things like marijuana laws proving that the government isn't making laws to protect or help citizens, but to harm them and control them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
His point is that it's not a good thing for the federal government to arbitrarily decide to enforce or not enforce its own laws. The right answer would be for marijuana to be re-scheduled at the federal level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Um no, that is not the same thing.....Once you start enacting and enforcing tyrannical laws....
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
So I don't know if this has been posted here yet, but the Hawaii senate has passed a bill that would decriminalize marijuana
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 07:18
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:So I don't know if this has been posted here yet, but the Hawaii senate has passed a bill that would decriminalize marijuana This is a good thing. I imagine the reason Obama's administration is dragging its feet on this issue is the fear that Democrats will lose their hold on some of these states if they crack down on the marijuana laws. The more states that decriminalize it, the harder it will become for Holder et al to keep sentiment from turning against them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:His point is that it's not a good thing for the federal government to arbitrarily decide to enforce or not enforce its own laws. The right answer would be for marijuana to be re-scheduled at the federal level. Descheduled, as iirc there's no scheduling requirement that allows explicit recreational use. For medical marijuana yeah that would be fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Why doesn't Obama get ahead of the libertarian wing of the GOP and just reschedule it to IV or something? He doesn't even need to deschedule it completely yet. Hell, I'd imagine even the Fox News' of the world wouldn't have a total field day with a rescheduling attempt if only because it's absolutely critical for the GOP to win over the libertarian side of the part if they want to stay viable in national elections.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Why doesn't Obama get ahead of the libertarian wing of the GOP and just reschedule it to IV or something? He doesn't even need to deschedule it completely yet. Hell, I'd imagine even the Fox News' of the world wouldn't have a total field day with a rescheduling attempt if only because it's absolutely critical for the GOP to win over the libertarian side of the part if they want to stay viable in national elections. While he would take a lot of flak for this, he should just say, "Out of concern for recent state efforts we feel a need to seriously consider the negative effects of marijuana," etc. and just commission a study that isn't rigged to come up with bullshit that really would recommend Schedule V or whatever, then say that he appreciates non-partisan science but is still concerned about the Demon Weed so he'll only move it to IV.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:While he would take a lot of flak for this, he should just say, "Out of concern for recent state efforts we feel a need to seriously consider the negative effects of marijuana," etc. and just commission a study that isn't rigged to come up with bullshit that really would recommend Schedule V or whatever, then say that he appreciates non-partisan science but is still concerned about the Demon Weed so he'll only move it to IV. The current congressional method would be perfect. Suddenly make devil weed the Next Big Thing threatening our country, hold a lot of hysterical hearings condemning WA, CA, and other hippie states that culminates with a bill that pays for a big study and hooplah and reschedules MJ afterwards, only to let it sunset without making any real decisions about rescheduling it. Bill sunsets, the problem goes away, and noone had to actually do anything. Yay! EDIT: VV Reading by the actual value of classifications, it would pretty much have to be descheduled to remove the legal hurdle. I'm worried about it being knocked down a peg or two (hey, we changed the schedule to reflect it's actual danger, all you activists can go home!) to remove the strongest arguments (#1 is obviously wrong) without removing the legal hurdle. Sort of like the New Deal, while being a good first step, closed the door to further improvements. Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Mar 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Why doesn't Obama get ahead of the libertarian wing of the GOP and just reschedule it to IV or something? He doesn't even need to deschedule it completely yet. Hell, I'd imagine even the Fox News' of the world wouldn't have a total field day with a rescheduling attempt if only because it's absolutely critical for the GOP to win over the libertarian side of the part if they want to stay viable in national elections. Because if it was Schedule IV: Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in schedule III or IV, which is a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 301 et seq.), may be dispensed without a written or oral prescription in conformity with section 503(b) of that Act (21 USC 353 (b)). Such prescriptions may not be filled or refilled more than six months after the date thereof or be refilled more than five times after the date of the prescription unless renewed by the practitioner. And if it was Schedule V: No controlled substance in schedule V which is a drug may be distributed or dispensed other than for a medical purpose. This would mean that you couldn't just go and buy some weed. Putting it in Schedule IV or V would make the laws in Washington and Colorado that say "yeah everyone over 21 can just go and buy weed" still in violation of federal law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Because if it was Schedule IV: Realistically though it would take some pressure off the government to do anything about it, in part because simply growing would not ipso facto violate the law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Realistically though it would take some pressure off the government to do anything about it, in part because simply growing would not ipso facto violate the law. Kind of? If Washington and Colorado are still selling it sans prescription (and doing due dilligence and tracking where every leaf sold comes from) they still should be hit by the DoJ if it is schedule IV. The pressure would be to hit slightly different targets, but ultimately it would still remain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Hey guys, I'm as anti-slavery as anybody here but federal law says we have to return fugitive slaves to their rightful masters. I hate being in this position of agreeing with plantation owners but the right thing to do is to have the federal government repeal the fugitive slave act. The law is the law and by not following the law these northern states are undermining the legitimacy of the federal government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:While he would take a lot of flak for this, he should just say, "Out of concern for recent state efforts we feel a need to seriously consider the negative effects of marijuana," etc. and just commission a study that isn't rigged to come up with bullshit that really would recommend Schedule V or whatever, then say that he appreciates non-partisan science but is still concerned about the Demon Weed so he'll only move it to IV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Marihuana_and_Drug_Abuse
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Hey guys, I'm as anti-slavery as anybody here but federal law says we have to return fugitive slaves to their rightful masters. I hate being in this position of agreeing with plantation owners but the right thing to do is to have the federal government repeal the fugitive slave act. The law is the law and by not following the law these northern states are undermining the legitimacy of the federal government. In this analogy rescheduling (as opposing to descheduling) marijuana would be analogous to freeing slaves but not making them citizens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:In this analogy rescheduling (as opposing to descheduling) marijuana would be analogous to freeing slaves but not making them citizens. Are you suggesting that there will be an 80+ year gap between rescheduling and descheduling?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Are you suggesting that there will be an 80+ year gap between rescheduling and descheduling? I'm saying that rescheduling doesn't really fix the problem if it's still illegal to recreationally sell marijuana and there are mandatory minimum sentences attributed to having marijuana illegally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:In this analogy rescheduling (as opposing to descheduling) marijuana would be analogous to freeing slaves but not making them citizens. The point of the analogy was to highlight the absurdity of the claim that changing bad laws can only happen from the top down and that states acting on their own to stand up against oppressive, racist and fundamentally inhuman federal legislation is the same thing as supporting Jim Crow. There is a huge difference between opposition to the CSA or, say, DOMA, legislation that is intentionally about denying people's rights, and things like the Civil Rights Act that are specifically about protecting people's rights. I wasn't really looking for a close analogy for comparing slavery to the drug war specifically, just that laws are all but meaningless in a discussion about justice. If a law is unjust it needs to be opposed by any means available.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:The point of the analogy was to highlight the absurdity of the claim that changing bad laws can only happen from the top down and that states acting on their own to stand up against oppressive, racist and fundamentally inhuman federal legislation is the same thing as supporting Jim Crow. There is a huge difference between opposition to the CSA or, say, DOMA, legislation that is intentionally about denying people's rights, and things like the Civil Rights Act that are specifically about protecting people's rights. I wasn't really looking for a close analogy for comparing slavery to the drug war specifically, just that laws are all but meaningless in a discussion about justice. If a law is unjust it needs to be opposed by any means available. In the end though the CRA was passed from the top down. A Government can't really function if it's not bound to follow the laws, and acting arbitrarily in terms of laws that it deems "just" or not seems like a scary precedent. In other words, why is your standard of "just laws" the correct one and not someone else's? What if the Government decides another version of "just" is correct instead of yours? Is that better than having the Government forced to act only according to the laws, regardless of how good or bad they may be?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:In the end though the CRA was passed from the top down. A Government can't really function if it's not bound to follow the laws, and acting arbitrarily in terms of laws that it deems "just" or not seems like a scary precedent. First, I'm not talking about the function of government, I'm talking about justice. Second, I think I made it pretty clear with the "does this law oppress people y/n?" criteria for what constitutes just law. I think any reasonable person could agree with that for the most part. As for the rest, governments are not required to enforce every law and there are any number of reasons why they would enforce some and not others and still be perfectly consistent. In this case, it may be that the administration finds the current MJ laws odious but doesn't have the political ability to change them. Alternatively, some right wing administration may not want to enforce aspects of the CRA, for instance, but would be forced to because the political fallout would be too strong otherwise. I don't think its a controversial statement to say that governments aren't actually bound so much by law as they are to what they can get away with politically. Sometimes that's a good thing and should be embraced as such.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:First, I'm not talking about the function of government, I'm talking about justice. Second, I think I made it pretty clear with the "does this law oppress people y/n?" criteria for what constitutes just law. I think any reasonable person could agree with that for the most part. As for the rest, governments are not required to enforce every law and there are any number of reasons why they would enforce some and not others and still be perfectly consistent. In this case, it may be that the administration finds the current MJ laws odious but doesn't have the political ability to change them. Alternatively, some right wing administration may not want to enforce aspects of the CRA, for instance, but would be forced to because the political fallout would be too strong otherwise. I don't think its a controversial statement to say that governments aren't actually bound so much by law as they are to what they can get away with politically. Sometimes that's a good thing and should be embraced as such. It *is* currently political suicide (federally) to support marijuana though. The political inertia is swinging that direction, but right now we're about where we were in 2003 regarding gay marriage: some states had legalized it, but there's also a great potential for a reactionary force (several states within a year or so explicitly banned gay marriage in their constitutions). This is getting away from the original topic though, which is that there's no reason that the government shouldn't prosecute people for having marijuana without a prescription versus any other schedule V drug if they rescheduled it as such.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:The point of the analogy was to highlight the absurdity of the claim that changing bad laws can only happen from the top down and that states acting on their own to stand up against oppressive, racist and fundamentally inhuman federal legislation is the same thing as supporting Jim Crow. There is a huge difference between opposition to the CSA or, say, DOMA, legislation that is intentionally about denying people's rights, and things like the Civil Rights Act that are specifically about protecting people's rights. I wasn't really looking for a close analogy for comparing slavery to the drug war specifically, just that laws are all but meaningless in a discussion about justice. If a law is unjust it needs to be opposed by any means available. I think you're attacking my point. I get your analogy. And I am 100% in support of individuals rejecting laws they disagree with and they are willing to deal with the consequences. However, States are not individuals, nor is the Federal Government. If the States and/or Feds can simply choose which laws they think are valid, and reject the ones they think are not, then we have anarchy. Or we would soon enough. If a law is immoral/ineffective/impractical/etc, the way to handle it at the state/federal level is to repeal those laws or pass new laws which clarify the matter. Not to simply ignore them. Again, I am 100% for not only marijuana legalization but all drug legalization. I am extremely excited/optimistic at the changes we are seeing, and I think the efforts of the States will shape the eventual Federal response. However, I cannot in good conscience fault the ex-Drug Czars for criticizing the Feds for not enforcing the law, cause they have a point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
I'm ok with Schedule V for now - zero money for enforcement, last priority for the DEA, and little to no jail time for anyone involved in distribution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I'm ok with Schedule V for now - zero money for enforcement, last priority for the DEA, and little to no jail time for anyone involved in distribution. Do you know what a Schedule V drug is? Tiny doses of higher scheduled drugs like opium (Schedule II), codeine (Schedule II), and defenoxin (Schedule I).. Again, what arguments are there to schedule marijuana at all? We don't schedule alcohol or tobacco and those are absolutely worse for you than marijuana, why should we feel compelled to place it in a schedule when there is no need to? If the federal government is going to actually seriously consider facts and scientific research when removing marijuana from schedule I, the only logical conclusion is to deschedule it completely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Do you know what a Schedule V drug is? Tiny doses of higher scheduled drugs like opium (Schedule II), codeine (Schedule II), and defenoxin (Schedule I).. There are none, but reactionaries are going to react.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Do you know what a Schedule V drug is? Tiny doses of higher scheduled drugs like opium (Schedule II), codeine (Schedule II), and defenoxin (Schedule I).. There has never been a lot of consistency in drug scheduling. It's more of a after-the-fact justification for political realities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
I'm having a bit of difficulty finding an answer on the FDA website, but does the FDA regulate herbal products as food, drugs or sometimes both?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
KingEup posted:I'm having a bit of difficulty finding an answer on the FDA website, but does the FDA regulate herbal products as food, drugs or sometimes both? Thanks to a bunch of corrupt legislators in the 90s, they're barely regulated at all! But when they are it's as drugs if they actually do something or are being marketed as doing something, and food if they're being marketed just as food.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
KingEup posted:I'm having a bit of difficulty finding an answer on the FDA website, but does the FDA regulate herbal products as food, drugs or sometimes both? They are treated as dietary supplements or homeopathy usually. There are just requirements that you can't make specific claims/have to give a disclaimer. Marijuana and its active ingredient are too well known to suddenly move it to the same legal territory that basically exists as a concession to the American tradition of snake oil. As for the North America/International Law argument I think we all know who created those laws and wears the pants in this hemisphere 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 03:28
|
|