smg77 posted:

This is art:
https://twitter.com/mic/status/763699896218185728

smg77 posted:

This is art:
https://twitter.com/mic/status/763699896218185728

Grundulum posted:

Source your quotes. Which one of washingtonsblog, beforeitsnews, theflippintruth, or therussophile did you scrape this from?

Kennel posted:

Stereotype posted:

Yeah I also hate people who insist that not only is weed not bad, it is actually very good!! Drugs aren't good for anyone, but alcohol is CLEARLY terrible for everyone (very probably worse than weed) and I'm pretty sure we learned in 1933 that trying to stop people from getting hosed up doesn't work.

I mean, even RIGHT NOW it is being proven that giving people a less harmless drug prevents big issues with "hard"er drugs.

Mainly with meth:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/25/these-places-banned-booze-now-theyre-dealing-with-something-far-worse/

But also having a room full of drunks would be way worse than a room full of stoners

rscott posted:

I think this checks out


Also while we're on the name for the Trump fascists I'm partial to bronyshirt myself

smg77 posted:

This is art:
https://twitter.com/mic/status/763699896218185728

quote:

 “On other campaigns, we would have to scrounge for crumbs,” says a senior Clinton adviser. “Here, it’s a fire hose. He can set himself on fire at breakfast, kill a nun at lunch and waterboard a puppy in the afternoon. And that doesn’t even get us to prime time.”

Lotka Volterra posted:

Weed is good.

Grundulum posted:

Thanks for bringing this up. It seemed like far and away the shakiest part of the majority's opinion when I read through as EwokEntourage requested. It reads like something a child might try: "Go clean your room" "You didn't specify whether I had to clean my desk and/or the floor, so technically by cleaning my desk I did what you asked".

If appealed to the Supreme Court, I have to imagine that this is what the arguments will focus on, because it seemed pulled out of the air for the sole purpose of ruling in favor of the telcos.

I suppose this is what Antonin Scalia must have felt like when reading the opinions that progressively legalized same-sex marriage.

roymorrison posted:

so let me get this straight weed isn't bad or good, it just is...maaaan?

you sound like a loving stoner moron

smg77 posted:

This is art:
https://twitter.com/mic/status/763699896218185728

EwokEntourage posted:

Yea I'm sure they pulled a well known cannon of construction and a 25 year old Supreme Court case out of the air to base their decision on.

Also lol at complaining that a loving federal appeals court is "rules lawyering".

Phone posted:

You're defending telcos who are upset that they can't have their cake and eat it too.

Like sending you to the gulag is out of the question, I banish you to 10 years of calling up Comcast customer support.

AmiYumi posted:

How do you as a politician respond to Trump's "Obama and Hillary founded ISIS, repeat x3" in any way besides "these are the ramblings of a crazy person and we hope Donald gets professional help soon"? I know there isn't anyone on the R side with principles, so how are they trying to spin it instead?

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

"He was clearly talking about their policies," is already the Very Serious Both Sides MSM response.

Nevermind that we should absolutely not give Trump the benefit of context.

EwokEntourage posted:

Yea I'm sure they pulled a well known cannon of construction and a 25 year old Supreme Court case out of the air to base their decision on.

Also lol at complaining that a loving federal appeals court is "rules lawyering".

Jimbozig posted:

Did you know that laws can be dumb and bad but also legal? And that it is the job of the courts to decide what is legal, not what is good?

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

"He was clearly talking about their policies," is already the Very Serious Both Sides MSM response.

Nevermind that we should absolutely not give Trump the benefit of context.

greatn posted:

My favorite thing about Trump supporters is they don't know they're losing.

Shifty Pony posted:

And preemption isn't something that should be taken lightly or applied liberally.

FAUXTON posted:

I wish I had Photoshop skills strong enough to change "TIME" into "NICE" on that cover.

greatn posted:

My favorite thing about Trump supporters is they don't know they're losing.

WampaLord posted:

Don't worry, Trump decided to Double Down x2 on it.

https://twitter.com/HallieJackson/status/763726772278099968

Kennel posted:

FAUXTON posted:

I wish I had Photoshop skills strong enough to change "TIME" into "NICE" on that cover.

Phone posted:

Oh, they know that they're losing. They're just that dril tweet in physical form.

E: that dril tweet
https://twitter.com/dril/status/134787490526658561

quote:

Obama Administration Set to Remove Barrier to Marijuana Research

The Obama administration is planning to remove a major roadblock to marijuana research, officials said Wednesday, potentially spurring broad scientific study of a drug that is being used to treat dozens of diseases in states across the nation despite little rigorous evidence of its effectiveness.

The new policy is expected to sharply increase the supply of marijuana available to researchers.

And in taking this step, the Obama administration is further relaxing the nation’s stance on marijuana. President Obama has said he views it as no more dangerous than alcohol, and the Justice Department has not stood in the way of states that have legalized the drug.

For years, the University of Mississippi has been the only institution authorized to grow the drug for use in medical studies. This restriction has so limited the supply of marijuana federally approved for research purposes that scientists said it could often take years to obtain it and in some cases it was impossible to get. But soon the Drug Enforcement Administration will allow other universities to apply to grow marijuana, three government officials said.

While 25 states have approved the medical use of marijuana for a growing list of conditions, including Parkinson’s, Crohn’s disease, Tourette’s syndrome, Alzheimer’s, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, the research to back up many of those treatments is thin. The new policy could begin to change that.

“It will create a supply of research-grade marijuana that is diverse, but more importantly, it will be competitive and you will have growers motivated to meet the demand of researchers,” said John Hudak, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

The new policy will be published as soon as Thursday in the federal register, according to the three officials, who have seen the policy but spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it.

It is unclear how many additional universities would receive licenses to grow marijuana, but the new policy does not set a cap on the number who could qualify. Any institution that has an approved research protocol and the security measures needed to store dangerous drugs can apply.

Researchers will still have to receive approval from federal agencies to conduct medical studies of marijuana, including from the D.E.A. and the Food and Drug Administration. Those whose projects are funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse will also need its consent.

But drug policy advocates, experts and researchers predicted that increasing the number of institutions growing marijuana will have a significant practical effect. The University of Mississippi’s monopoly on that role has been a barrier.

“It’s clear that this was a significant hurdle in limiting the quantity of clinical research taking place in the U.S.,” said Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Researchers often had difficulty getting some kinds of marijuana, including ones with large amounts of THC, the main ingredient in the drug that gets people high. Under the University of Mississippi monopoly, Mr. Hudak of Brookings said: “If you were a researcher who thought a product with high THC would help someone with a painful cancer, you were out of luck. You couldn’t access high THC marijuana in the same way you could buy it in a market in Colorado,” where it is legal.

As recently as June, Dr. Steven W. Gust, a special assistant to the director of National Institute on Drug Abuse, had disagreed with critics who say the monopoly has stifled research. “In the past, NIDA has been able to provide marijuana for every federally qualified research project,” he said recently in an emailed response to questions.

Earlier this year, the D.E.A. had suggested that it would possibly remove marijuana from the list of the most restricted and dangerous drugs by end of June. But this week, the agency did not take such a step.

Dr. Orrin Devinsky of the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at New York University Langone Medical Center called it “deeply disappointing” that the agency had not done so. He said the scientific data overwhelmingly indicated it should not be listed as such a dangerous drug.

The federal government still classifies marijuana as a highly addictive drug without medical value, as it has for 46 years. The D.E.A. did not say when it will answer two petitions demanding a change of that policy, filed separately in 2009 and 2011.

Others were relieved that the D.E.A. had moved to allow more institutions to grow marijuana for research, but not taken it off the list of the most dangerous drugs.

“They’re looking at the science, taking a nuanced view,” said Kevin A. Sabet, a former Obama administration drug-policy adviser and president of the group Smart Approaches to Marijuana. “It’s a good day for science.”

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

The DEA isn't going to reclassify pot this year, but immediately after they announced that Obama said he is gonna use YOUR TAX DOLLARS to grow ganja.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/science/obama-administration-set-to-remove-barrier-to-marijuana-research.html

WampaLord posted:

Don't worry, Trump decided to Double Down x2 on it.

https://twitter.com/HallieJackson/status/763726772278099968

Grundulum posted:

I don't have a problem with the test that the Circuit Court applied; I just think it was incorrectly applied. It is crystal clear to me that a directive to promote infrastructure investment makes no distinction between public and private ventures (absent some context elsewhere, which I did not notice in the opinion), in the same sense that a law saying that car headlights must be functional clearly applies to both the left and right headlight. The claim of "rules lawyering" is that in order to arrive at their conclusion, the court had to invent ambiguity in the text almost out of whole cloth.

Edit to add: under the court's reasoning, how can we be sure that the FCC is even supposed to promote private infrastructure investment? It doesn't explicitly say "private" in section 706, so it must not be allowed!

quote:

Furthermore, nowhere in the general charge to “promote competition in the telecommunications market” is a directive to do so by preempting a state’s allocation of powers between itself and its subdivisions.

Jimbozig posted:

Did you know that laws can be dumb and bad but also legal? And that it is the job of the courts to decide what is legal, not what is good?