Hey Abbie! How goes it?
I must admit, I love this thread, as it spurs sometimes quite heated debate. The way I see that's a good thing.
As far as PB's issue with Obama, the only thing we can expect our new prez to do is accept MMJ. But to my understanding, that would have to be done on a state-by-state leve, yes? With the Federalies stance on cannabis, I see it highly unlikely that they will adopt MMJ across the board, so I believe the best we can hope for is state by state acceptance. IF/WHEN the day comes MMJ is legalized across the us, maybe then something can be done on the 'cure' end of things without worry of govt retribution. And that's a big maybe. I just don't see our govt accepting ANYTHING for a cure for anything. The asshats on capitol hill, the senate, congress, etc are paid well by SIG's and lobbyists for big pharma to keep cannabis illegal JUST for the reason of profits. They don't give a damn about ppl dying,... now or ever.
It kinda brings us to a kunundrum of sorts,.. an immovable force meeting an immovable object. Who is going to give?
While I will continue to fight the good fight, I see that we will, for a very long time, have to continue our reaserch and recreation with cannabis covertly, keeping in the shadows to save our own freedom. I just don't see Obama getting involved in the issue at all. Maybe I'm wrong... I hope I am wrong, but I'm prepared to continue to do the best I can to spread the good word until my dying day.
I just can't see taxpayers allowing the eternal waste of our OWN money on a war that can never be won.
Can we???
In the begining of the Iraq war, The Great Shrub had a good bit of public approval, but as time passed, and more and more began to see the ravages of that war, and inevitably, after the winless aspect of a losing battle began to set into the American consciousness, he lost support. It took less than 7 years (or so) for that to happen. It took the loss of over 4000 or so lives.
This 'war on pot' was started by Nixon in the early 70's, and nearly 40 years later, FORTY YEARS! And likely trillions of dollars since the start of that 'war', we still fight it.
For me, it begs the question, "how much longer will this madness continue". Or better yet "how much longer CAN it continue"?
Is this insanity curable?
Exactly what basis should we present a case for change in federal marijuana policy?
That folks feel like tokin' up?
We, the people, can not directly make this change. We are left to the mercy of the people that we elect.
And at this time there has been no change at all between Bush and Obama. That is within the context of federal marijuana policy. Obama is allowing exactly the same thing that Bush did.
Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank youJust a fact PB,
clinical phase 2 trials with human subjects has been done on Meth and Opiate addicts. As long as research protocols do not prescribe or provide and only investigate effects of illicit users , it would seem that we should be able to examine existing cannabis using populations as well. The Tashkin meta study is a good example of one we should be spewing everywhere. UCLA (DARC) are heavy hitters ito D&A research. Good 'ol made-in-the-USA research from a well reputed institution would seem to have more bite in terms of it's ability to influence drug policy nationaly.
Also, last year i think SAHMSA or NIDA (or both) funded a multi-million dollar cannabis study that was awarded to UCSD. Anyone here k now the status?
Not compelling enough to take action ASAP.Back burner reason.1.That the original classification is made on bad non-valid science.
Not compelling enough to take action ASAP.Back burner reason.2.There is abundant valid science that supports declassification
Not compelling enough to take action ASAP. But should be.Back burner reason.3. This is a Democracy (for sake of argument) and the majority sentiment should be reflected in our laws and policies.
Not compelling enough to take action ASAP.Back burner reason.4 That we are no longer willing to accept inaction and the right wing conserva-speak contaminate the water anymore.
Not compelling enough to take action ASAP. Back burner reason.5. That our States........fuck.
What existing federal law are you referring to?Abbie .. Obama doesn't need to enact new laws. All he has to do is order the DEA to obey existing law.
What existing federal law are you referring to?
Federal law
Federal law originates with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to enact statutes for certain limited purposes like regulating interstate commerce. Nearly all statutes have been codified in the United States Code. Many statutes give executive branch agencies the power to create regulations, which are published in the Federal Register and codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. Regulations generally also carry the force of law under the Chevron doctrine. Many lawsuits turn on the meaning of a federal statute or regulation, and judicial interpretations of such meaning carry legal force under the principle of stare decisis.
In the beginning, federal law traditionally focused on areas where there was a express grant of power to the federal government in the federal Constitution, like the military, money, foreign affairs (especially international treaties), tariffs, intellectual property (specifically patents and copyrights), and mail. Since the start of the 20th century, aggressive interpretations of the Commerce and Spending Clauses of the Constitution have enabled federal law to expand into areas like aviation, telecommunications, railroads, pharmaceuticals, antitrust, and trademarks. In some areas, like aviation and railroads, the federal government has developed a comprehensive scheme that preempts virtually all state law, while in others, like family law, a relatively small number of federal statutes (generally covering interstate and international situations) interacts with a much larger body of state law. In areas like antitrust and trademark, there are powerful laws at both the federal and state levels that coexist with each other.
Under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), there is no general federal common law. Although federal courts can create federal common law in the form of case law, such law must be linked one way or another to a particular federal constitutional provision, statute, or regulation (that was enacted as part of the Constitution or after). Federal courts lack the plenary power possessed by state courts to simply make up law in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law. Only in a few narrow limited areas like admiralty law has the Constitution expressly authorized the continuation of English common law at the federal level (meaning that in those areas federal courts can continue to make law as they see fit, subject to the limitations of stare decisis).
Good points. Nobody is coming down on doctors who obviously over prescribe or drug companies that must be too lax on controlling the flow of their very dangerous drugs. Seems to me it's all about money with them and between our elected officials who don't control these situations for public safety. But heaven forbid you grow a little of that evil marijuana. As long as jackass physicians like Obama's Sonjay Gupta say things like "why do you think they call it dope" we're a long way off. I'd like to hear what Mr Jackass is going to do as SG about the huge problem with kids getting their hands on illegal narcotics. Talk about "dope", I can't wait to see his agenda for the public good. Chances are he'll look like a dope to those that see what's really going on.It's also important to note that today, many younger drug users are abusing prescription narcotics, but you don't see ANYONE looking to ban those side-effect laden drugs. Or even working that much harder at education on how to keep them out of the hands of the unauthorized.
It should also be noted the amounts of money that would be saved from prosecuting cannabis users numbering in the 3/4 of a million yearly. Less strain on the legal system, less spent on housing and feeding cannabis users as well. I'm sure that figure would exceed BILLIONS
The current federal controlled substance act is in violation of itself.What existing federal law are you referring to?