Drug legalization thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Drug legalization thread

DeadmansReach: Mar 7, 2006; Thinks Jewish converts should be genocided to make room for the "real" Jews.

Put this anti-Semite on ignore immediately!

TenementFunster posted:

maybe they aren't lying and you're the disgusting one?

No, I'm pretty sure the other 40 threads on the front page are just a smoke screen for RON PAUL 420. Radish sees us for what we really are.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 16:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 04:09

TenementFunster: Feb 20, 2003; The Cooler King

Ron Paul White Pride 420 Worldwide

# ? Jan 18, 2014 16:49

BottledBodhisvata: Jul 26, 2013; by Lowtax

DeadmansReach posted:

It's frankly quite obvious that posters in a forum like D&D only care about easy access to drugs and don't give a drat about social issues like the prison industrial complex or racism.

I care about easy access to drugs. Vote for me, 2033.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 16:51

empty whippet box: Jun 9, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

DeadmansReach posted:

It's frankly quite obvious that posters in a forum like D&D only care about easy access to drugs and don't give a drat about social issues like the prison industrial complex or racism.

This would still actually be a perfectly good reason to support legalization.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 17:18

District Selectman: Jan 22, 2012; by Lowtax

Cakebaker posted:

I'm not really sure what people are on about saying the anxiety is due to people fearing getting busted, I have never been afraid that will happen but when I get really high I get very anxious and uncomfortable, and I'm probably one of the least anxious people on the planet. I know many who are the same way and for most people I know who have stopped or only smoke very occasionally that's their stated reason as well.

I think it's mainly due to natural tolerances to cannabis varying much more than tolerance to alcohol, weed being really strong these days, and trying to keep up with others. It took me a long time to realize that weed is incredible as long as I smoke like a fifth of what everyone else does, I'm just a lightweight.

I also find you develop a tolerance to the anxiogenic effects faster than to the nice effects, so yeah basically start very very small and slowly work your way up. Some people like to get incredibly stoned while some prefer the weed equivalent of the buzz off of two or three beers, you just gotta find your sweet spot.

I really hope legalization will bring out niche products like really low-THC strains, I'd like to smoke a nice joint but as it is I roll my spiffs with like 90% tobacco because otherwise they would wreck me.

I know people who used to be able to smoke but can't anymore, and I also know a few who've gone the other way and "learned" how to smoke. I've never known anyone who felt anxiety because of the legality of smoking. The people I know who can't smoke seem unable to handle the unfiltered access to their own mind. They have issues they need to work out, and being that high allows them to see themselves as they really are. This is much more common in psychedelics, but weed is so strong these day, I'd compare the experience of being really really high to a psychedelic experience, like mushrooms. If you can't/don't smoke, your tolerance is so low, just smoking a small amount can get you really really high.

Anyway, when people tell me they get anxious/paranoid smoking weed, I generally read that as them telling me weed brings some issues in their life they don't want to confront up to the surface. Weed is really good for that, but you need to be ready. Anecdotally: one of my friends who used to smoke as a young trouble free student has been unable to smoke for the last five or so years. Not surprisingly, her spoken excuse was anxiety and feeling uncomfortable. I'd told her that she needed to go smoke alone, so she could handle the things that were bubbling up and making her uncomfortable, and she was finally able to convince herself to go do that. She came out of it learning a lot of things she'd been hiding from herself, and now actively works on improving those aspects of her life. She also feels comfortable smoking again, and I believe it's because she's confronted those issues head on instead of hiding them in her subconscious.

I know this all sounds very hippy dippy, but I've felt it myself, and seen it in others. When someone says they can't smoke weed, they are precisely the person who needs to smoke weed the most.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 17:39

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

I can honestly say without a shadow of a doubt that weed has only ever caused me anxiety due to its legality. Like irrational "oh my god was that a cop I saw that car twice its a cop" paranoia, where I've never felt that before and haven't felt it since a few months after I got a card. I think it was in large part compounded by the smoking in public aspect, it has been a long time since I've done things like smoke behind a random dumpster. Legal or not, there's not really any reason to be paranoid when one is inside an apartment.

I've definitely known people who've had full on panic attacks every time they got high, not trying to speak for everyone, just figured I'd volunteer my anecdote counterexample.

# ? Jan 19, 2014 06:52

empty whippet box: Jun 9, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Try having a cop knock on your apartment door and then tell me there's no reason to be paranoid.

# ? Jan 19, 2014 07:55

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Yeah that sounds hella lovely I probably wouldn't answer, it just cuts the probabilities down a ton. My paranoid instincts still use probability okay deal with it.

# ? Jan 19, 2014 08:29

Cakebaker: Jul 23, 2007; Wanna buy some cake?

District Selectman posted:

I know people who used to be able to smoke but can't anymore, and I also know a few who've gone the other way and "learned" how to smoke. I've never known anyone who felt anxiety because of the legality of smoking. The people I know who can't smoke seem unable to handle the unfiltered access to their own mind. They have issues they need to work out, and being that high allows them to see themselves as they really are. This is much more common in psychedelics, but weed is so strong these day, I'd compare the experience of being really really high to a psychedelic experience, like mushrooms. If you can't/don't smoke, your tolerance is so low, just smoking a small amount can get you really really high.

Anyway, when people tell me they get anxious/paranoid smoking weed, I generally read that as them telling me weed brings some issues in their life they don't want to confront up to the surface. Weed is really good for that, but you need to be ready. Anecdotally: one of my friends who used to smoke as a young trouble free student has been unable to smoke for the last five or so years. Not surprisingly, her spoken excuse was anxiety and feeling uncomfortable. I'd told her that she needed to go smoke alone, so she could handle the things that were bubbling up and making her uncomfortable, and she was finally able to convince herself to go do that. She came out of it learning a lot of things she'd been hiding from herself, and now actively works on improving those aspects of her life. She also feels comfortable smoking again, and I believe it's because she's confronted those issues head on instead of hiding them in her subconscious.

I know this all sounds very hippy dippy, but I've felt it myself, and seen it in others. When someone says they can't smoke weed, they are precisely the person who needs to smoke weed the most.

What? No. I'm sure it's like that for some people, but you can't turn everything into some Freud poo poo.
Weed can be anxiolytic and anxiogenic, it all depends on the person, dose and situation. The people I'm talking about, including myself, can handle their mushrooms just fine.

All I'm saying is that for a lot of people who have tried smoking and don't enjoy it it's because even a few puffs off a really strong spliff could be their own personal equivalent of killing a bottle of vodka in an hour. That's just not pleasant for anyone, no psychoanalysis needed.

Non anxiety related example, a lot of people don't like to smoke while out clubbing. That makes sense if smoking implies getting massively stoned since dancing for six hours in a cramped space full of drunk people isn't all that easy or fun if you're just longing for the couch. However, a puff every half hour will absolutely enhance that experience massively while not really slowing you down or making you end your night early. For some reason a lot of people seem to have this imagined polarity of sober vs high as a kite even though one isn't needed, making them dismiss weed in situations where they probably would enjoy it if they used it appropriately.

# ? Jan 19, 2014 14:16

MixMasterMalaria: Jul 26, 2007

quote:

President Obama waded into the controversial politics of marijuana in an interview published Sunday, saying he�s not convinced pot is �more dangerous than alcohol� and arguing it�s �important� to allow recent legalization efforts in Colorado and Washington State to proceed.

�As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life,� the president told the New Yorker�s David Remnick. �I don�t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.�

The president even argued marijuana is less dangerous �in terms of its impact on the individual consumer.�

Still, �It�s not something I encourage, and I�ve told my daughters I think it�s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy,� he added.

The president also said he�s troubled by racial disparities in the application of marijuana laws.

�Middle-class kids don�t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,� he explained. �And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.�

Mr. Obama ascribed some element of hypocrisy to lawmakers who�ve stiffened penalties against pot use despite some probable experimentation of their own.

�We should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing,� the president said.

Mr. Obama seemed to welcome recent efforts to legalize the drug for recreational use in Washington and Colorado �because it�s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.�
Despite the fact that marijuana use is still illegal under federal law, the government announced in August last year that it would not halt the legalization efforts then underway in those two states � part of an effort to re-prioritize drug enforcement resources.

In the interview, the president also lent credence to opponents of legalization, however, saying advocates of full legalization have likely overstated their case by framing the change as a �panacea� for many social ills.

And he nodded at the �slippery slope� argument commonly voiced by foes of more permissive drug laws, wondering where the line will eventually be drawn.

�When it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound,� he said. �And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues. If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, �Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of cocaine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka,� are we open to that? If somebody says, �We�ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn�t going to kill you or rot your teeth,� are we O.K. with that?�

This seems like a watershed moment in the legalization movement. Factual issues notwithstanding (is his speechwriter unaware of the fact that we do have finely calibrated doses of meth that we RX for ADHD?), having the president come out in support of CO/WA's efforts is a significant turn of events.

# ? Jan 19, 2014 23:52

Demon Of The Fall: May 1, 2004; Nap Ghost

Then he needs to loving reschedule it and stop loving around. Until then his words mean jack and poo poo.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 00:06

Fuckt Tupp: Apr 19, 2007; Science

Full marijuana legalization: "A Finely Calibrated Dose of Meth"

I mean, the cocaine example is even dumber, since cocaine has legal medical uses as a numbing agent.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 00:14

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

Internet Webguy posted:

Full marijuana legalization: "A Finely Calibrated Dose of Meth"

I mean, the cocaine example is even dumber, since cocaine has legal medical uses as a numbing agent.

It's usually called desoxyn.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 00:16

Ballz: Dec 16, 2003; it's mario time

Demon Of The Fall posted:

Then he needs to loving reschedule it and stop loving around. Until then his words mean jack and poo poo.

Is that something that can be done with an executive order, or would it have to go through Congress?

# ? Jan 20, 2014 02:05

Inspector Hound: Jul 14, 2003

Demon Of The Fall posted:

Then he needs to loving reschedule it and stop loving around. Until then his words mean jack and poo poo.

This is true, but it's still loving crazy to me that a sitting president said that. It seems like the next few years will be the sweet schadenfreude of watching a few efforts to get the horse back in the barn followed by the south being forced to accept some form of legalization.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 02:44

Demon Of The Fall: May 1, 2004; Nap Ghost

Ballz posted:

Is that something that can be done with an executive order, or would it have to go through Congress?

I thought he could easily do it with an executive order, someone correct me if I'm wrong though.

Inspector Hound posted:

This is true, but it's still loving crazy to me that a sitting president said that. It seems like the next few years will be the sweet schadenfreude of watching a few efforts to get the horse back in the barn followed by the south being forced to accept some form of legalization.

True, but now that he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected, I wish he would go ahead and pull the trigger. Especially now that Colorado has shown some early successes in their efforts. Southern states will definitely be the last to move forward in this direction, sadly.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 02:52

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Demon Of The Fall posted:

True, but now that he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected, I wish he would go ahead and pull the trigger. Especially now that Colorado has shown some early successes in their efforts. Southern states will definitely be the last to move forward in this direction, sadly.

He doesn't have to worry about elections, but his successor does. It'd be pretty funny if he descheduled* it during his post election lame duck period though.

*Because if it's scheduled at all then it's illegal to sell recreationally

# ? Jan 20, 2014 03:16

Full Battle Rattle: Aug 29, 2009; As long as the times refuse to change, we're going to make a hell of a racket.

The CSA will just ratify a law that states that Cannabis may only be legally enjoyed by 'god fearing white folk, and white boys that, honest, don't mean no harm. White.'

# ? Jan 20, 2014 04:23

The Maroon Hawk: May 10, 2008

Colorado and Washington now have one more argument in favor of their marijuana legalization being a success: both states are sending teams to the Super Bowl this year :v:

The Maroon Hawk fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Jan 20, 2014

# ? Jan 20, 2014 04:27

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Time to place bets on which hack sportswriter is the first to make a "Weed is a performance enhancing drug" joke.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 04:43

The Maroon Hawk: May 10, 2008

WampaLord posted:

Time to place bets on which hack sportswriter is the first to make a "Weed is a performance enhancing drug" joke.

I wouldn't be too surprised if it's happened already.

The number of bad marijuana puns in the next two weeks is probably going to be staggering.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 04:50

Brave New World: Mar 10, 2010

The Maroon Hawk posted:

Colorado and Washington now have one more argument in favor of their marijuana legalization being a success: both states are sending teams to the Super Bowl this year

Super "Bowl", indeed.

Consider that this week, both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid AND the motherfuckin' POTUS himself said that "weed ain't so bad". This was a watershed week, whether you realized it or not.

Brave New World fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Jan 20, 2014

# ? Jan 20, 2014 05:03

more friedman units: Jul 7, 2010; The next six months will be critical.

WampaLord posted:

Time to place bets on which hack sportswriter is the first to make a "Weed is a performance enhancing drug" joke.

Started WAY before both games were decided.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 05:50

Moktaro: Aug 3, 2007; I value call my nuts.

TenementFunster posted:

Ron Paul White Pride 420 Worldwide

Now you've done it, now I can't help but see a mashup of Ron Paul and Ron White.

Ron Paul is...Baked Tater.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 05:51

T. Bombastus: Feb 18, 2013

Demon Of The Fall posted:

I thought he could easily do it with an executive order, someone correct me if I'm wrong though.

Descheduling would apparently require breaking an international treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs), which I believe is outside the scope of executive orders.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 05:51

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

T. Bombastus posted:

Descheduling would apparently require breaking an international treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs), which I believe is outside the scope of executive orders.

Treaties are treated the same as laws in the US and any subsequently passed law will take precedence over the treaty. If the power to reschedule stuff was passed after the treaty then the treaty doesn't matter.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 06:06

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

hobbesmaster posted:

Treaties are treated the same as laws in the US and any subsequently passed law will take precedence over the treaty. If the power to reschedule stuff was passed after the treaty then the treaty doesn't matter.

What it looks like is that the Controlled Substances Act was passed in 1970 but the treaty which added cannabis to the anti-opium treaty was passed in 1972, so out of luck there.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 06:12

Moktaro: Aug 3, 2007; I value call my nuts.

Inspector Hound posted:

This is true, but it's still loving crazy to me that a sitting president said that. It seems like the next few years will be the sweet schadenfreude of watching a few efforts to get the horse back in the barn followed by the south being forced to accept some form of legalization.

Eh, the interview was still too Mr. Mackey "Drugs are bad, mmkay?" for my taste. At this point him not saying "Psyche! Shut it all down, stoners!" should be expected, not merely hoped for.

Full Battle Rattle posted:

The CSA will just ratify a law that states that Cannabis may only be legally enjoyed by 'god fearing white folk, and white boys that, honest, don't mean no harm. White.'

Dem Duke boys shore got demselves in a heap 'o trouble with their pot-running!

# ? Jan 20, 2014 06:15

thefncrow: Mar 14, 2001

I wonder if the fact that Obama is commenting and pushing the "weed is not more harmful than alcohol" line might have anything to do with a recent article I read, that suggested that basically the Colorado effort for legalization passed largely on the back of spreading information that weed is less harmful than alcohol.

I'm trying to find the right collection of magic words that would let me find the article in Google (without any luck), but the jist of the article was that the people fighting the CO legalization effort found an interesting statistic that people who believed weed was safer than alcohol were in favor of legalization by something like 75/25. Instead of spending their time promoting things like tax benefits to change people's minds, they instead focused their efforts on spreading the belief that weed was safer than alcohol, because people who internalized that belief tended to come to the conclusion that weed should be legal.

EDIT: Sure enough, found the article just after I posted. How Colorado Disrupted the Drug War

quote:

�Marijuana has been illegal because of the perception of harm surrounding it � that�s how they made it illegal, that�s how it is illegal currently,� Tvert tells me in the shop�s bustling lobby. �Our opponents� goal has been to maintain a perception of harm. So our idea has been to get people to understand that marijuana is not as harmful as they�ve been led to believe, and not as harmful as a product like alcohol that is already legal.�

Despite increasingly absurd attempts by the government�s drug-war apparatus to obscure the obvious truth, decades of medical and social science research on everything from physiological toxicity, to domestic violence to addiction has proven Tvert�s point that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol. But it was only a few years ago that Tvert�s colleague and future mentor at MPP, Steve Fox, happened upon a key political revelation in the reams of survey data about drug policy.

�He was looking at the polling and discovered that of those who think marijuana is safer than alcohol, 75 percent think it should be legal,� Tvert recounts as we wait behind a customer who is interrogating one of the shop�s staff members about THC and CBD content. �In other words, the number one indicator of whether or not you support marijuana being legal is whether you recognize it is safer than alcohol.�

From that revelation came the creation of the group headed by Tvert that was entirely focused on drawing the alcohol-marijuana comparison. Aptly named Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (aka SAFER), it was predicated on a two-step strategy.

�Rather than trying to increase the percentage of people who think marijuana should be legal, we simply tried to increase the percentage of people who understand marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, which would naturally produce an increase in the percentage of people who support legalization,� he says.

quote:

�We had opposition from virtually the entire political establishment,� he tells me. �We faced opposition from law enforcement organizations, and our governor. The previous two governors recorded radio ads against us. Yet, we ended up getting 55 percent of the vote and outperforming Obama�s successful campaign in Colorado. The difference was that, in our campaign, we made it a point to highlight that marijuana is a less harmful product than one most people are already comfortable with � alcohol.�

When Tvert says the word �difference� he is referring to some of those states on the license plates out in the parking lot � places like Nevada and California that seemed better politically positioned than Colorado to legalize marijuana, yet played host to unsuccessful pot-legalization ballot measures.

�In those campaigns, you saw majority support for awhile, and then the last month it dropped when the opposition started scaring the hell out of people and renewing that perception of harm,� he explains. �It�s because those campaigns focused almost entirely on the benefits of regulation and taxes, and not enough on the product itself. When it came down to the end and people had to decide � even people who recognized those policy arguments and thought prohibition isn�t working, they erred on the side of maintaining the status quo because it still seemed a little too scary.�

In Colorado, says, Tvert, �It was the opposite � our polling was always between 48 percent and 52 percent, and it never dropped because people got to the polls and saw their ballots and they heard the opposition saying all these horrible things, but by that time, they had gotten the message that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol. That was the key.�

thefncrow fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Jan 20, 2014

# ? Jan 20, 2014 07:19

cargo cult: Aug 28, 2008; by Reene

Is there any reason to think this isn't any less of a watershed moment than when Obama said roughly the same thing about same sex marriage? I mean the sky hasn't fallen in Colorado and Jesus clearly still love Washington cause they're going to win the Super Bowl

# ? Jan 20, 2014 13:51

uncleTomOfFinland: May 25, 2008

District Selectman posted:

Anyway, when people tell me they get anxious/paranoid smoking weed, I generally read that as them telling me weed brings some issues in their life they don't want to confront up to the surface. Weed is really good for that, but you need to be ready. Anecdotally: one of my friends who used to smoke as a young trouble free student has been unable to smoke for the last five or so years. Not surprisingly, her spoken excuse was anxiety and feeling uncomfortable. I'd told her that she needed to go smoke alone, so she could handle the things that were bubbling up and making her uncomfortable, and she was finally able to convince herself to go do that. She came out of it learning a lot of things she'd been hiding from herself, and now actively works on improving those aspects of her life. She also feels comfortable smoking again, and I believe it's because she's confronted those issues head on instead of hiding them in her subconscious.

I know this all sounds very hippy dippy, but I've felt it myself, and seen it in others. When someone says they can't smoke weed, they are precisely the person who needs to smoke weed the most.

Yes it does. I thought smoking weed made me want to either puke or pass out but guess it turns out I was molested by my imaginary stepfather or something.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 14:08

EightBit: Jan 7, 2006; I spent money on this line of text just to make the "Stupid Newbie" go away.

uncleTomOfFinland posted:

Yes it does. I thought smoking weed made me want to either puke or pass out but guess it turns out I was molested by my imaginary stepfather or something.

The majority of people that try weed don't respond like that. Some people can't smoke, some can't drink without experiencing what you did. Maybe you need to ease into it; nothing worse than your buddies trying to push you too hard and taking hits you can't handle.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 14:28

uncleTomOfFinland: May 25, 2008

EightBit posted:

The majority of people that try weed don't respond like that. Some people can't smoke, some can't drink without experiencing what you did. Maybe you need to ease into it; nothing worse than your buddies trying to push you too hard and taking hits you can't handle.

Of course they don't, I just find statements like weed is good for you and if you don't think it is you must not be doing it right or you have some kind of weird issues very cringeworthy. I fully support legalization and yes I've even played the home game but it's not my drug.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 14:32

Cockmaster: Feb 24, 2002

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

I just find people lying about their motivations sort of disgusting.

For the most part, they're not lying about their motivations so much as doing what they can to motivate others. Because so many people aren't satisfied with the virtually incontrovertible evidence that marijuana is nowhere near harmful enough to justify what the government has been doing.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 16:16

empty whippet box: Jun 9, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

No need to add "virtually", it's absolutely inarguable and the only way to hold the view that they're anywhere near each other in harm is to pull a DEA and simply refuse to listen or talk about it.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 17:34

TenementFunster: Feb 20, 2003; The Cooler King

Inspector Hound posted:

the south being forced to accept some form of legalization.

Alcohol is illegal to sell throughout much of the south in the year of our lord twenty and fourteen

# ? Jan 20, 2014 20:39

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

TenementFunster posted:

Alcohol is illegal to sell throughout much of the south in the year of our lord twenty and fourteen

It's actually more restricted in New Jersey or Pennsylvania than Alabama.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 20:42

Space Pussy: Feb 19, 2011

What annoys me about the Obama quote is that marijuana is nowhere near as dangerous as Alcohol and this has been known for decades. It's like he's trying not to offend those god-fearing alcoholics that never voted for him.

Demon Of The Fall posted:

Then he needs to loving reschedule it and stop loving around. Until then his words mean jack and poo poo.

But what would all those medical marijuana raiding feds do with the downtime?

EightBit posted:

The majority of people that try weed don't respond like that. Some people can't smoke, some can't drink without experiencing what you did. Maybe you need to ease into it; nothing worse than your buddies trying to push you too hard and taking hits you can't handle.

Err, SMOKE in general can cause people to feel like that, which is probably what happened.

People really need stop using the word 'smoking' when referring to marijuana like they're synonymous. There are other ways to receive the effects besides combustion.

Space Pussy fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jan 20, 2014

# ? Jan 20, 2014 20:47

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

Demon Of The Fall posted:

I thought he could easily do it with an executive order, someone correct me if I'm wrong though.

True, but now that he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected, I wish he would go ahead and pull the trigger. Especially now that Colorado has shown some early successes in their efforts. Southern states will definitely be the last to move forward in this direction, sadly.

There are two ways drugs can be scheduled: either by congress through the Controlled Substances Act or amendments thereto, or by the DEA under regulatory authority granted the Attorney General by the CSA. A DEA regulation could probably be shaped by executive order, although standard notice-and-comment procedures might apply (someone with more knowledge of administrative law could weigh in here). However, the AG must make findings to de-schedule a compound on the basis of:

quote:

(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.

There is no "bad public policy" authority delegated by congress. I think it would be very hard to argue that people don't abuse (i.e., use recreationally) (1) marijuana, that it hasn't been abused (used) historically (4) or that this abuse (use) isn't of broad scope, long duration, and significant frequency (5). I doubt this particular substance could be de-scheduled without Congressional intervention. As for re-scheduling it, it's in schedule I, not because it's particularly dangerous but because there are no (broadly) accepted medical uses for it. There are also a number of treaty obligations that might be implicated.

# ? Jan 20, 2014 21:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 04:09

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

KernelSlanders posted:

There are two ways drugs can be scheduled: either by congress through the Controlled Substances Act or amendments thereto, or by the DEA under regulatory authority granted the Attorney General by the CSA. A DEA regulation could probably be shaped by executive order, although standard notice-and-comment procedures might apply (someone with more knowledge of administrative law could weigh in here). However, the AG must make findings to de-schedule a compound on the basis of:
[snip]

No, the AG does not need to make findings at all. If the Secretary of Health and Human Services recommends that a substance not be controlled, the AG must deschedule it, full stop.

quote:

(b) Evaluation of drugs and other substances

The Attorney General shall, before initiating proceedings under subsection (a) of this section to control a drug or other substance or to remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules, and after gathering the necessary data, request from the Secretary a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance. In making such evaluation and recommendations, the Secretary shall consider the factors listed in paragraphs (2), (3), (6), (7), and (8) of subsection (c) of this section and any scientific or medical considerations involved in paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) of such subsection. The recommendations of the Secretary shall include recommendations with respect to the appropriate schedule, if any, under which such drug or other substance should be listed. The evaluation and the recommendations of the Secretary shall be made in writing and submitted to the Attorney General within a reasonable time. The recommendations of the Secretary to the Attorney General shall be binding on the Attorney General as to such scientific and medical matters, and if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance. If the Attorney General determines that these facts and all other relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse such as to warrant control or substantial evidence that the drug or other substance should be removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings for control or removal, as the case may be, under subsection (a) of this section.

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/811.htm

It's not quite as simple as "the President can do it unilaterally", but cabinet positions generally don't openly oppose the President's policy choices.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jan 20, 2014

# ? Jan 20, 2014 21:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Drug legalization thread

«‹›266 »