|
Space Pussy posted: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. There's still quite a bit of misinformation on all drugs in general, even Alcohol and the humble NSAID. Either from willful ignorance, misinformation drives like early DARE or just a plain lack of knowledge. Abstinence only education sucks. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Jan 20, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
computer parts posted:It's actually more restricted in New Jersey or Pennsylvania than Alabama. Really? Cause the ABC is kinda restrictive, can't buy liquor except through them. Package store have to buy wholesale from them, and wholesale is literally cost + freight where retail at an ABC store is cost+freight+tax.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted: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. Right, but that still requires findings on (1), (4), and (5) from HHS. I don't see how executive order can override the scientific opinions on which the various parts of the Executive Branch are supposed to make their decisions. At least, I'm not aware of any precedent for that sort of thing -- although I'd be curious to be made aware of one if you have one in mind. If anything Massachusetts v. EPA suggests the opposite: that executive agencies are not permitted to make their decisions on public policy grounds when Congress has specified the considerations on which they must form their regulations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:Alcohol is illegal to sell throughout much of the south in the year of our lord twenty and fourteen That's just the free market encouraging you to make your own! ...wait, what, that's illegal too? Oh son of a
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Right, but that still requires findings on (1), (4), and (5) from HHS. Read the text carefully. The exact quote: "The Attorney General shall ... 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 ... 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". Yes, HHS gets to make findings on certain things. As a separate part of the job, they also make recommendations as to whether the drug meets the criteria sufficiently to warrant scheduling, and if so they recommend a schedule into which it should be placed. There is no quantitative scale here, it's left as a holistic decision to the Secretary, and we're presuming a President (and by association his cabinet) who is making a policy decision to de-schedule in the first place. Really I doubt the AG would go hardline against the President's agenda either, even if they are one of the more independent actors within the Executive branch. But regardless, if the Secretary recommends that a drug not be scheduled, it full stop cannot be scheduled. That mechanism exists so that in case an AG wants to go off the deep end and claims something harmless is actually really awful (say, someone's chemo medicine) the Secretary of HHS can make a policy decision to shut it down. If the Secretary examines the actual harms of marijuana and says "yeah, not that bad, I recommend no schedule" then the only way to stop him is to get Congress to explicitly reschedule (after which the de-scheduling process can begin anew, if desired), or to fire him and reconfirm a new Secretary. The shortest way to put it is that the smooth operation of the drug war machinery assumes that Hunter S Thompson has not been given the levers of power. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
I'm not sure why I'm experiencing the Baader-Meinhof effect with Hunter S. Thompson, but that aside, I think we're not that far off in our readings. The point I'm getting at is that the secretary is instructed by the act of Congress on which basis she must make her recommendation and the Supreme Court has previously held that those instructions are mandatory. While I agree that in principle a unitary executive could, by fiat declare THC and marijuana unscheduled, rule of law dictates a process by which they must do so and requires the Secretary to either make scientific findings that any reasonable observer would conclude are not true, or to say that they would act contrary to those findings. I think far more effective and far more likely (although still unlikely given the current Congress) is an amendment to Section 903 granting the AG the authority to issue waivers for state legalization experiments. Brandeis' laboratories of democracy and such.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:
Alcohol fits pretty clearly into that list; without consistent application of this law, it's pretty clear that marijuana prohibition is a form of cultural oppression. Either get it consistent by prohibiting alcohol (never going to happen again), or lots of drugs need to be rescheduled/legalized, not just marijuana. Rescheduling without changing the schedules would make alcohol illegal, though. Edit: I think a good metric would be "would you suck rancid dick to get another hit and/or risk death due to withdrawal if you stop?". That kinda still requires alcohol to be illegal, though. EightBit fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Didn't the DEA commission a study of marijuana's effects in the 80s that determined that it was super benign and recommended that it should be immediately descheduled? That document should hold a lot of sway in this argument, as it shows a branch of the federal govt already investigated the drug and found it safe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
For whatever it's worth, I've been in co since Friday for unrelated reasons and personally I've never had a harder time fining weed than in Denver. I've scored weed from a lot of places and nowhere has it been more frustrating and confusing than here. If I were staying any longer I'd be looking on the black market at this point. Every medical shop is mislabeled recreational but when you get there they are hostile and rude and won't even talk to you without seeing your rec card, and if you do find a recreational shop it's hours are not listed, incorrect or they are simply out of pot. Seems like it is going to take a long time before this poo poo actually works on any meaningful level to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:For whatever it's worth, I've been in co since Friday for unrelated reasons and personally I've never had a harder time fining weed than in Denver. I've scored weed from a lot of places and nowhere has it been more frustrating and confusing than here. If I were staying any longer I'd be looking on the black market at this point. Every medical shop is mislabeled recreational but when you get there they are hostile and rude and won't even talk to you without seeing your rec card, and if you do find a recreational shop it's hours are not listed, incorrect or they are simply out of pot. Seems like it is going to take a long time before this poo poo actually works on any meaningful level to me. Sounds like you're going to need to apply for some jobs at the dispensaries. These rude people that you're encountering are just way out of line! So, what do you do when you can no longer handle the stress? Join them! After you land the job, not only will you get potential discounts on weed, you will be able to join their masses and give people rude looks and tell them rude things. Especially if they don't have their rec card.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
EightBit posted:
Alcohol is such a ridiculously large cultural institution that you can't treat it the same way as other intoxicants. It's had a major place in human society since the dawn of human society, and even in cultures that prohibit intoxicants they always mention alcohol by name as something to specifically avoid. Comparing marijuana to alcohol is like comparing Greece to the US and wondering why the latter isn't allowed to default on their debts. It's because in both cases they're playing by a whole different set of rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
EightBit posted:
Alcohol and tobacco are specifically exempted from the CSA at Section 802(6). While I agree with your assessment in principle, that isn't what the law says. I think virtually everyone in this is in agreement about the moral and cultural implications of marijuana prohibition. The disagreements are about interpretation of the existing laws and strategies to change them. wilfredmerriweathr posted:Didn't the DEA commission a study of marijuana's effects in the 80s that determined that it was super benign and recommended that it should be immediately descheduled? That document should hold a lot of sway in this argument, as it shows a branch of the federal govt already investigated the drug and found it safe. I think you're thinking of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse which was created by the CSA in 1970 under Nixon. It reported its findings in 1972 among them being: "[T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance." Needless to say they came back with the wrong answer and were largely ignored. Full report from PMC
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
numbs posted:Sounds like you're going to need to apply for some jobs at the dispensaries. These rude people that you're encountering are just way out of line! So, what do you do when you can no longer handle the stress? Join them! Did you have a point? I'm really confused about what you're trying to say here. Why would I apply for jobs in a state I don't live in? I'm in town for my sister's funeral so if you're trying to make fun of me somehow it's just a little misplaced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
My friends that recently visited summit county told a different story. Plenty of weed and edibles available at assorted high-country shops, albeit at somewhat outrageous prices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I think you're thinking of... He might be thinking of this:    FYI, this document has been cited in SCOTUS: http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2003/2pet/7pet/2003-0040.pet.aa.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
I was a little bummed that there hasnt been much news or movement this week, so i took it upon myself to search for news online, and.... ugh. "DEA agent goes to pot, leaves fed agency for marijuana industry quote:whose career with the Drug Enforcement Administration went up in smoke quote:isn't likely to spark an exodus And another fox news article: High Hopes and Blunt Truths for the $2.3B Legal Marijuana Market Are these conservative writers just stereotypical giggling stoners or something? Slapping their knees while they toss out tired old pot jokes? MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRb_t053SQ Well here is Nancy Grace's opinion on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:I was a little bummed that there hasnt been much news or movement this week, so i took it upon myself to search for news online, and.... ugh. Chill out. The news from last week was pretty loving huge, what with the POTUS saying the pot equivalence of what he said in 2012 regarding SSM. You can't expect every week to be as awesome as that. Baby steps, and all that. However, I do agree very strongly with you that this stereotypical stoner-pun bullshit has to stop, as it's actually detrimental to the cause by keeping those tired old stereotypes alive in the public consciousness. The average pot smoker is anything but Jeff Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High, despite what the editorial page writers perpetuate(Everyone under 35 is going "Who?").
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:For whatever it's worth, I've been in co since Friday for unrelated reasons and personally I've never had a harder time fining weed than in Denver ... Every medical shop is mislabeled recreational but when you get there they are hostile and rude and won't even talk to you without seeing your rec card, and if you do find a recreational shop it's hours are not listed, incorrect or they are simply out of pot. Seems like it is going to take a long time before this poo poo actually works on any meaningful level to me. When I was there I just downloaded the WeedMaps app and it did a pretty good job of showing which places were recreational vs not, and whether or not they were in stock. Just driving around and looking would probably be pretty hit or miss.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
What, if any, effect does marijuana being Schedule I by congressional decree (it was listed as such in the original CSA I believe) on a potential de-scheduling? Does Congress defining it as Schedule I mean that it can't be de-scheduled but by Congress? Or can it be de-scheduled in the normal manner?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Are these conservative writers just stereotypical giggling stoners or something? Slapping their knees while they toss out tired old pot jokes? KIM JONG TRILL posted:Does Congress defining it as Schedule I mean that it can't be de-scheduled but by Congress? Or can it be de-scheduled in the normal manner? What might stop it though is that I don't think it can be scheduled any lower than the equivalent in the Convention on Psychotropic Substances treaty, which is effectively Schedule II or III. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:For whatever it's worth, I've been in co since Friday for unrelated reasons and personally I've never had a harder time fining weed than in Denver. I've scored weed from a lot of places and nowhere has it been more frustrating and confusing than here. If I were staying any longer I'd be looking on the black market at this point. Every medical shop is mislabeled recreational but when you get there they are hostile and rude and won't even talk to you without seeing your rec card, and if you do find a recreational shop it's hours are not listed, incorrect or they are simply out of pot. Seems like it is going to take a long time before this poo poo actually works on any meaningful level to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Look at this stupid thing a doctor said:quote:“Alcohol is a legal substance, and it’s abusable, but the difference in that is that with marijuana use we don’t really understand its effect on the brain longterm,” he said. “In some respects marijuana is more dangerous because of its subtlety. With chronic use, we don’t know what the effect of marijuana will be on the brain or the lungs. I expect fully that we will find more and more harmful side effects, especially from chronic use.” http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20140123/NEWS/301230070/Marijuana-alcohol-risks-debated-during-changing-climate?nclick_check=1
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Look at this stupid thing a doctor said: But we definitely know that alcohol has really bad possible long term effects in addition to it's possible really bad short term effects? It's weird to bring it up because no matter how well or not well we understand the effects of marijuana, it seems unlikely that it could be significantly worse than alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Look at this stupid thing a doctor said: The whole article is kinda poo poo. They cite 4 anti-legalization sources but fail to cite any differing opinions. That would be bad enough, but the article is entitled "Marijuana, alcohol risks debated during changing climate". You'd think that to display how there is "debate" over the risks they would include voices from both sides of the debate. I guess that paper is based out of Mississippi, though, so maybe I shouldn't hold them to such high standards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
cafel posted:But we definitely know that alcohol has really bad possible long term effects in addition to it's possible really bad short term effects? It's weird to bring it up because no matter how well or not well we understand the effects of marijuana, it seems unlikely that it could be significantly worse than alcohol. And our lack of data on the long-term effects of marijuana is largely due to it being illegal, combined with the government's utter disinterest in making rational policy decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Considering I was reading a pro-pot site trying to decide what weed-themed name to give the Superbowl, I'm pretty sure it has very little to do being conservative and everything to do with weed being the third-easiest thing to extract cheap laughs from behind farts and sexual innuendo. Since when has international law stopped us from doing anything?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
CapitanAmerica posted:Since when has international law stopped us from doing anything? He's talking about things we can do purely through the Executive branch. Any treaty the Senate has approved automatically becomes federal law, as per the Constitution, and since we're signatories to the Convention on Psychotropic Substances treaty, anything going against it would require an act of Congress to change the law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Idran posted:He's talking about things we can do purely through the Executive branch. Any treaty the Senate has approved automatically becomes federal law, as per the Constitution, and since we're signatories to the Convention on Psychotropic Substances treaty, anything going against it would require an act of Congress to change the law. Not all treaties are self-executing, but I think the CSA has some "shall" language regarding what schedules substances covered by international agreements have to be put on by the AG.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Looks like the feds are going to let dispensaries use banks. This is a big step in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
furiouskoala posted:Looks like the feds are going to let dispensaries use banks. This is a big step in the right direction. Holy poo poo, this is a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
quote:While Holder spoke twice of new "regulations" that were being prepared, a Justice Department spokesman said later that the attorney general was referring to legal "guidance" for prosecutors and federal law enforcement. Such a legal memo wouldn't be enforceable in court and would amount to less than the kind of clear safe harbor many banks say they would want before accepting money from pot businesses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Yeah, those memos don't mean poo poo if a USAO decides they want to shoot some fish in a barrel. This merely continues the trend of 100% rhetorical drug war shifts, just like the Christie and Perry soundbites from earlier this week.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Yeah, those memos don't mean poo poo if a USAO decides they want to shoot some fish in a barrel. This merely continues the trend of 100% rhetorical drug war shifts, just like the Christie and Perry soundbites from earlier this week. I wouldn't understate this though. It's been long in the making, but I think this huge national shift of consciousness has been taking place relatively recently. I can't think of pot being as popular or accepted in the 90's or even the early 2000's. I think it's kind of a big deal that the national conversation can change so rapidly and suddenly have real political effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Idran posted:He's talking about things we can do purely through the Executive branch. Any treaty the Senate has approved automatically becomes federal law, as per the Constitution, and since we're signatories to the Convention on Psychotropic Substances treaty, anything going against it would require an act of Congress to change the law. The President can unilaterally abrogate a treaty though? Carter did it with the Taiwan defense treaty and the Supreme Court abstained from ruling on it since it was a political question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:I wouldn't understate this though. It's been long in the making, but I think this huge national shift of consciousness has been taking place relatively recently. I can't think of pot being as popular or accepted in the 90's or even the early 2000's. I think it's kind of a big deal that the national conversation can change so rapidly and suddenly have real political effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
well if anything i hope this becomes a signal for further legalization across the country. to have an endorsement from the attorney general like that and all the language from obama just make me oddly positive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:The President can unilaterally abrogate a treaty though? Carter did it with the Taiwan defense treaty and the Supreme Court abstained from ruling on it since it was a political question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
Anyone remember DEA chief Michele Leonhart? She's the worthless drug war profiteering fucker who said that cannabis was as dangerous as heroin.quote:DEA chief Michele M. Leonhart slammed President Obama’s recent comments comparing smoking marijuana to drinking alcohol at an annual meeting of the nation’s sheriffs this week, according to two sheriffs who said her remarks drew a standing ovation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
'Noooooo My fat paycheck!' The DEA administration collectively cried, citing debunked science under their breath.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 14:51
|
|