|
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).. IIRC, they supposedly have a 'scientific study' justification for marijuana being illegal wherein they set bales of weed on fire and pumped it through a gas mask to monkeys till they died of oxygen deprivation, which they claimed was marijuana toxicity. This study has yet to be re-evaluated. I'm saying this off the top of my head so I reserve the right to have gotten it completely the gently caress wrong and I'm gonna go see if I can freshen up on it, but I believe that is the story.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
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. The government isn't bound to follow all the laws. They do not. This is reality. This is for real. This is real life. Posing this as a hypothetical is false. It's like saying, "What if Hitler killed himself, so he never faced trial for his crimes?" He did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 09:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted: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). I would disagree, I don't think it is anything like gay marriage. The overall attitude towards pot in this country is ambivalence, while gay marriage is polarizing. I think this administration is doing some serious thinking about this issue because, if you look at it, going after CO and WA is kind of a loser, or at least there isn't much to gain. The progressive base would hate it because they almost universally support full legalization. The conservative opposition would oppose it, either because of states rights or because he's a black man president. The rest of the country doesn't care enough one way or the other. The only people that do care are those that have some financial incentive, so in the plus column you have the prison industrial complex and the prison and police unions, maybe. The fact that the administration didn't immediately slam down hard on CO and WA the instant they confirmed that the resolutions passed is pretty telling, to me. redhirt posted: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. They can criticize all they want but the executive branch is the one that makes decision on enforcement and as far as I can tell there is no compelling reason that the administration has to enforce every law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:They can criticize all they want but the executive branch is the one that makes decision on enforcement and as far as I can tell there is no compelling reason that the administration has to enforce every law. This is correct, there is no compelling reason to go after everyone who breaks every federal law that is still on the books. The point that the letter is making though is that there is a compelling reason to go after Colorado and Washington at the moment. And to be quite honest it is right. If the DoJ decides to not give a poo poo (like they are doing currently) and more and more states legalize it, if a time comes around when a new DoJ staff do give a poo poo, they are going to have a much harder time doing something about it. It might have to go to the Supreme Court again, and the longer they wait, the more likely Gonzales is to be overturned. If that happens their anti-marijuana stance is pretty hosed. I don't really think that marijuana should be illegal at the federal level, and I don't care if the DoJ is hosed on later enforcement when there's a regime change, but the letter is correct that the DoJ does have a really loving good reason to consider enforcing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:This is correct, there is no compelling reason to go after everyone who breaks every federal law that is still on the books. The point that the letter is making though is that there is a compelling reason to go after Colorado and Washington at the moment. And to be quite honest it is right. If the DoJ decides to not give a poo poo (like they are doing currently) and more and more states legalize it, if a time comes around when a new DoJ staff do give a poo poo, they are going to have a much harder time doing something about it. It might have to go to the Supreme Court again, and the longer they wait, the more likely Gonzales is to be overturned. If that happens their anti-marijuana stance is pretty hosed. On the other hand, the scenario you describe is the most plausible way for the Feds to eventually say, "Welp, nothing we can do about it" while being able to claim to be anti-pot the whole time, which is by far the most realistic scenario for legalization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Marijuana Joint Committee created in Colorado Legislature. http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2013/03/08/marijuana-joint-committee-created-in.html quote:“The Joint Select Committee on the Implementation of the Amendment 64 Task Force’s Recommendations is directed to evaluate the work of the task force, to solicit public feedback regarding the task force’s recommendations, and to refer legislation to the General Assembly for consideration based on the task force’s recommendations,” Morse said in a release. “They wrote that the goal is to make the process as ‘transparent as
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:On the other hand, the scenario you describe is the most plausible way for the Feds to eventually say, "Welp, nothing we can do about it" while being able to claim to be anti-pot the whole time, which is by far the most realistic scenario for legalization. Gotta agree with this. Doing absolutely nothing about this issue is the safest strategy for any Democratic administration. Also: Ha ha, joint committee, ho ho
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
As a lifelong resident/native of Colorado, I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around this. Yes, I know Amendment 64 happened, and yes, I know personal consumption of pot was pretty much effectively legal already (as long as you weren't stupid about it) but the fact that actual retail marijuana stores may become a reality still hasn't sunk in. I guess it probably won't sink in until the minute I first walk into a dispensary. And what a glorious day it will be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 22:06
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:As a lifelong resident/native of Colorado, I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around this. Yes, I know Amendment 64 happened, and yes, I know personal consumption of pot was pretty much effectively legal already (as long as you weren't stupid about it) but the fact that actual retail marijuana stores may become a reality still hasn't sunk in. I guess it probably won't sink in until the minute I first walk into a dispensary. And what a glorious day it will be. I just moved to CO a few years ago, but it's still really insane to watch elected officials all in suits and ties being stone cold sincere about creating the framework for retail marijuana sales and even going so far as to talk about doing it right to "grow an industry". It's like some small portion of ignorant idiocy in the universe was banished all of a sudden.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:On the other hand, the scenario you describe is the most plausible way for the Feds to eventually say, "Welp, nothing we can do about it" while being able to claim to be anti-pot the whole time, which is by far the most realistic scenario for legalization. Oh absolutely. I think that is a large reason they are currently doing what they are. I can just see the reasoning behind that letter clear as day as well, since it is a very valid point if your interest is in continuing to keep weed illegal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:I just moved to CO a few years ago, but it's still really insane to watch elected officials all in suits and ties being stone cold sincere about creating the framework for retail marijuana sales and even going so far as to talk about doing it right to "grow an industry". I look at it more as people finally pulling their heads out of their collective asses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:I look at it more as people finally pulling their heads out of their collective asses. that's 'collective rear end'  edit: I'm sorry, I thought I was in the TCC thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
spengler posted:that's 'collective rear end' Stay off the joose, spengler!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
I'm kind of amazed at how well the cops have gone along with it. You'd think taking away their favorite magic spell (the incantation is "I smelled pot" and the effect is that you can conjure probable cause from thin air) would be met with more whining.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
It's over just yet... Attorney General to respond "relatively-soon" to Washington and Colorado Marijuana Legalization I'm really unsure of they could do but I can't imagine it'll be ignored.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 12:10
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Marijuana Joint Committee created in Colorado Legislature. I can't be the only one chuckling over the name. On the other hand this is excellent news!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 12:11
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I'm kind of amazed at how well the cops have gone along with it. You'd think taking away their favorite magic spell (the incantation is "I smelled pot" and the effect is that you can conjure probable cause from thin air) would be met with more whining. My friend and I got pulled over in colorado back in Jan. My friend was driving and had some weed in his backpack in the back seat. The cop did the "I smell weed, you guys been smoking weed?" thing. You have no idea how good it felt to say, "We sure do have some, though we haven't been smoking it! Don't worry, it's way under an ounce. Here, take a look." And the cop said "Hey, you're well within your legal rights here. Thanks for knowing the law, keep an eye on it because it may change again. Oh, and thanks for being upfront, you guys have a great day!" It felt like some bizarro world where cops have better things to do than lock up a bunch of people who aren't hurting anyone. A taste of the future! wilfredmerriweathr fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Mar 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 12:59
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:It's over just yet... My guess is they will reiterate that weed is still illegal at the federal level, its a very serious crime, nothing's changed, etc but make no comment on filing lawsuits/injunctions against WA and CO. I hope that's how it goes, anyway. Actually, I hope that they come out saying that they will be reevaluating the scheduling status of marijuana to reflect reason, reality and common decency but well wilfredmerriweathr posted:My friend and I got pulled over in colorado back in Jan. My friend was driving and had some weed in his backpack in the back seat. The cop did the "I smell weed, you guys been smoking weed?" thing. 
800peepee51doodoo fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Mar 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
But the only way to make it fully legal (I.E. in line with what CO and WA have done) would be to deschedule it entirely, wouldn't it? Or enact some kind of legislation making cannabis it's own deal or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:But the only way to make it fully legal (I.E. in line with what CO and WA have done) would be to deschedule it entirely, wouldn't it? Or enact some kind of legislation making cannabis it's own deal or something? Yes. Anything that's on a drug control Schedule is by definition not legal to just have, you need a prescription to have it. Or in a few very rare cases, exceptions can be made to buy without prescription but only in limited amounts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:It felt like some bizarro world where cops have better things to do than lock up a bunch of people who aren't hurting anyone. A taste of the future! On December 6th the police actually publicly let people know "we'll look the other way" for the huge party lighting up at the space needle, despite smoking in public still being illegal. Some officers do generally take their duty to the law seriously, so if you aren't breaking it by getting blazed anymore, go forth and blaze responsibly citizen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
What about pre-employment drug testing? Will employers be relaxing cannabis testing or are they expected to double down?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:What about pre-employment drug testing? Will employers be relaxing cannabis testing or are they expected to double down? In Washington, State employees (including from the police force) have been informed that a test positive for cannabis on a pre-employment or random test will no longer be an issue. My work itself has suspended random drug testing entirely until they work something out. That said a post-incident test at my work is still grounds for termination (I work with children so I am not at all bothered by this).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:My guess is they will reiterate that weed is still illegal at the federal level, its a very serious crime, nothing's changed, etc but make no comment on filing lawsuits/injunctions against WA and CO. I hope that's how it goes, anyway. Actually, I hope that they come out saying that they will be reevaluating the scheduling status of marijuana to reflect reason, reality and common decency but well To reiterate, REscheduling is still contrary to real progress on the issue. That would keep the War On Drugs alive & well, and still leave those of us that want to spark up as nothing more than criminals for possessing a scheduled substance. So we can probably count on that being the official response. What we demand is DEscheduling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Brave New World posted:To reiterate, REscheduling is still contrary to real progress on the issue. That would keep the War On Drugs alive & well, and still leave those of us that want to spark up as nothing more than criminals for possessing a scheduled substance. So we can probably count on that being the official response. Well what I demand is the full repeal of the Controlled Substances Act, the disbanding of the DEA, the dismantling of the for profit prison industry and total amnesty for all prisoners of the War on Drugs. Also full communism. Yet I would be legit excited if this administration even hinted that they may change drug policy in even a tiny way because of just how unbelievably awful and entrenched current policy is. They won't though, its a total fantasy. The best result one could reasonably expect at this time is that they won't come down like the hammer of god on WA and CO. If they so much as floated the possibility that maybe they might look at perhaps having a conversation about the legal status of mj it would be a huge huge deal and it is unlikely in the extreme. Maybe in the next few years but definitely not right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:What about pre-employment drug testing? Will employers be relaxing cannabis testing or are they expected to double down? I am moving to Colorado in the next few weeks. In the grand tradition of me hilariously blowing job interviews, I asked an HR rep if the mandatory drug test disqualified applicants for marijuana. Her answer was "It's still federally illegal, and I highly recommend that you don't ask that question again." I'd advise everyone to keep treating pot like something shameful and bad for at least a little while longer (Just to save some face, I still have an interview for this job coming up.) Edit: I'm also trying to get a support badge to enable me to work in a dispensary, but the CO enforcement office says it is no longer making appointments for background checks. The website and telephone number both tell me that if I left them a voicemail message prior to March 7 (I did) they will call me back (they have not) and to just hang up if I haven't. I cannot find any explanation for this online. Is it because everyone and their mom is trying to get a badge right now, or is CO waiting for the DOJ to speak? 800peepee51doodoo posted:Well what I demand is the full repeal of the Controlled Substances Act, the disbanding of the DEA, the dismantling of the for profit prison industry and total amnesty for all prisoners of the War on Drugs. Also full communism. Yet I would be legit excited if this administration even hinted that they may change drug policy in even a tiny way because of just how unbelievably awful and entrenched current policy is. They won't though, its a total fantasy. The best result one could reasonably expect at this time is that they won't come down like the hammer of god on WA and CO. If they so much as floated the possibility that maybe they might look at perhaps having a conversation about the legal status of mj it would be a huge huge deal and it is unlikely in the extreme. Maybe in the next few years but definitely not right now. I feel like this is the most realistic outlook, and it makes me sick because there is a video of Obama suggesting he would be in favor of at least decriminalization. It's obvious now that he was just trying for college kids' votes, but it still leaves a bad taste. vvv Ha, I haven't applied with them yet; I am moving to Denver, I will take that into consideration though. I have heard they don't drug test for that reason, which is something I respect in the same way I respect Dick Cheney being in favor of gay marriage. Edit2 your avatar is Flo how can I trust you vvv. Inspector Hound fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Mar 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 04:53
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:I am moving to Colorado in the next few weeks. In the grand tradition of me hilariously blowing job interviews, I asked an HR rep if the mandatory drug test disqualified applicants for marijuana. Her answer was "It's still federally illegal, and I highly recommend that you don't ask that question again." I'd advise everyone to keep treating pot like something shameful and bad for at least a little while longer (Just to save some face, I still have an interview for this job coming up.) Are you moving to the Springs? Get a job at Progressive, they don't drug test cause the chairman's son is a big pothead 
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Are you moving to the Springs? Get a job at Progressive, they don't drug test cause the chairman's son is a big pothead Though I'm not sure that Progressive's corporate policies have anything to do with his son's choice of leisure activities, Peter Lewis has donated significant amounts of money to various legalization efforts (amongst other things).
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 05:36
|
|
tk posted:Though I'm not sure that Progressive's corporate policies have anything to do with his son's choice of leisure activities, Peter Lewis has donated significant amounts of money to various legalization efforts (amongst other things). He's a bomb thrower of a chairman. We have guidelines at work to talk about when people call in pissed about him, because he also donates big money to the ACLU (which according to callers I've talked to, is a Nazi organization bent on destroying America). But yeah, it's a fairly decent mega corp to work for as far as benefits and employee policies go, not the least of which is their drug test policy.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:My friend and I got pulled over in colorado back in Jan. My friend was driving and had some weed in his backpack in the back seat. The cop did the "I smell weed, you guys been smoking weed?" thing. Something else I've been thinking about is how it will once again be safe to take weed with you onto airplanes. The TSA agents are searching you and your bags but they can't arrest you. They have to call the local/state cops if they find drugs. Local/state cops won't arrest you for breaking federal laws. Even if state laws say it's illegal to transport out of state you won't crossed a state line until your flight has left the airport.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
size1one posted:Something else I've been thinking about is how it will once again be safe to take weed with you onto airplanes. The TSA agents are searching you and your bags but they can't arrest you. They have to call the local/state cops if they find drugs. Local/state cops won't arrest you for breaking federal laws. Even if state laws say it's illegal to transport out of state you won't crossed a state line until your flight has left the airport. They can still have you arrested once you land in another state though. That's pretty easy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Well what I demand is the full repeal of the Controlled Substances Act, Do you know what's on the CSA? It's not just weed and cocaine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:They can still have you arrested once you land in another state though. That's pretty easy. What if they just pull you aside and put you in a designated toking area before you leave?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:They can still have you arrested once you land in another state though. That's pretty easy. Yeah pretty much this. Blaze up in the parking garage at Sea-Tac, it'll make the TSA screening go by easier anyhow. Edit: Come to think of it, they will probably just not let you board if you have weed on you, or confiscate it. Its up to each airline (with some federal regs) what they allow on their airline, and I don't think many of them are going to be like "sure bring an oz with you."
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Edit: Come to think of it, they will probably just not let you board if you have weed on you, or confiscate it. Its up to each airline (with some federal regs) what they allow on their airline, and I don't think many of them are going to be like "sure bring an oz with you." Couldn't they get in legal trouble if they were to knowingly let people use their service to illegally transport stuff?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
I don't live in California or anything, but from what I understand there are at least some airports, like SFO that will let you board domestic flights with cannabis if you're a medical user. It's on you as to the legality once you land, but you'll get through to your destination fine. I would imagine it's going to be similar in states where it's legal. Or at least, it'll be the states setting the policy and not the feds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Maybe the airports will do what some places do with alcoholic drinks and have people go "that's not allowed on,
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Do you know what's on the CSA? It's not just weed and cocaine. Yes, and? The CSA was specifically written to control recreational drugs and that is its primary purpose. I feel pretty confident it could be scrapped and replaced with sane legislation to regulate prescription drugs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Yes, and? The CSA was specifically written to control recreational drugs and that is its primary purpose. I feel pretty confident it could be scrapped and replaced with sane legislation to regulate prescription drugs. Why would you need to scrap it and replace it to regulate prescription drugs, when that's most of what it covers? There's a built in mechanism to remove drugs from the restricted lists even.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Why would you need to scrap it and replace it to regulate prescription drugs, when that's most of what it covers? There's a built in mechanism to remove drugs from the restricted lists even. Because the scheduling system is absurd and set up specifically for recreational drugs and not for prescription drugs. The scheduling criteria hinges on "potential for abuse" and whether or not it is considered addictive. These aren't really criteria that are important for regulating prescription drugs but are important when trying to restrict recreational drugs. If we were able to end the war on drugs and legalize all street drugs, the CSA wouldn't even make sense. A ton of drugs are currently available by prescription only yet are not scheduled, because they are not drugs that would be used recreationally. Even poo poo like accutane, which is highly controlled because it can cause horrible birth defects is not subject to the CSA because it does not have potential for abuse. About the only reason I could see to keep the CSA, assuming the goal is to end the war on drugs, is to satisfy treaty agreements but since when does the US give a poo poo about treaties?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 02:28
|
|