Measure to Reschedule Marijuana-Federal

[Jhhnn]

Jesus.

You are so thoroughly indoctrinated in your own bullshit that it defies belief.

If they're not enabling, why is there a new retail pot shop 4 blocks away from my front door & dozens more state wide? How is it that the State of CO has issued hundreds of retail marijuana business licenses? Licensed 11,000 workers? Collected tens of millions in taxes?

Why do MJ businesses now have access to banking?

If the Obama Admin isn't enabling, how can it possibly be that way?

Where did this memo come from & what does it all mean?

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html

It means that one of us isn't accounting for the facts at hand, and it isn't me.

 

[Morcheeba*]

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html

"...For states such as Colorado and Washington that have enacted laws to authorize the production, distribution and possession of marijuana, the Department expects these states to establish strict regulatory schemes that protect the eight federal interests identified in the Department’s guidance. These schemes must be tough in practice, not just on paper, and include strong, state-based enforcement efforts, backed by adequate funding. Based on assurances that those states will impose an appropriately strict regulatory system, the Department has informed the governors of both states that it is deferring its right to challenge their legalization laws at this time. But if any of the stated harms do materialize—either despite a strict regulatory scheme or because of the lack of one—federal prosecutors will act aggressively to bring individual prosecutions focused on federal enforcement priorities and the Department may challenge the regulatory scheme themselves in these states..."


what occurs under a more strict administration when they also control the senate and house and their opinion changes regarding challenging their legalization laws?


peace

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html

"...For states such as Colorado and Washington that have enacted laws to authorize the production, distribution and possession of marijuana, the Department expects these states to establish strict regulatory schemes that protect the eight federal interests identified in the Department’s guidance. These schemes must be tough in practice, not just on paper, and include strong, state-based enforcement efforts, backed by adequate funding. Based on assurances that those states will impose an appropriately strict regulatory system, the Department has informed the governors of both states that it is deferring its right to challenge their legalization laws at this time. But if any of the stated harms do materialize—either despite a strict regulatory scheme or because of the lack of one—federal prosecutors will act aggressively to bring individual prosecutions focused on federal enforcement priorities and the Department may challenge the regulatory scheme themselves in these states..."


what occurs under a more strict administration when they also control the senate and house and their opinion changes regarding challenging their legalization laws?


peace

I appreciate such concerns. OTOH, I see CO legalization as causing a much more rapid rate of change than you appreciate. Public opinion is shifting very rapidly because we remove uncertainty & the fear of the unknown.

The whole thing exists under intense scrutiny by the media along with forces both for & against. We've nothing to hide & we're holding up just fine, thank you very much. Never better, to tell the truth. Well, other than it just becoming so ordinary, so well integrated into CO life that it's gotta get boring for the watchers.

It just works, beautifully. Meticulous documentation at every level substantiates that. Crime. Traffic. Mental Health. ER visits. Death by misadventure. Tax revenue. So forth & so on. It's not perfect, but there's nothing there to support a rollback of the will of the people, likely never will be. By the time the 2016 election comes around, the faux moral crusade of prohibition will have damned few followers. No big name leaders, either, because they'll know there's nobody to lead.

 

[GOATSQUATCH]

what do you prefer? totally legal like a tomato plant or regulated by the government like a food or tobacco or alchohol product?

 

[armedoldhippy]

what do you prefer? totally legal like a tomato plant or regulated by the government like a food or tobacco or alchohol product?

well, tomatoes fall under three scenarios. you can grow your own in your back yard. you can buy them from a local farmer at the farmers market. or, you can buy a tomato at the grocery store where they were inspected & washed, & pay taxes on them. lots of folks do a combo of all three. almost no one makes their own catsup. some folks don't have a green thumb or enough space to grow 'maters. as far as I know, here in Tennessee you can grow your own tobacco & roll your own cigarettes/cigars, not positive. I know for a fact that we can make a certain amount of beer/wine at home legally, if we don't want to buy it. that said, Jack Daniels does not care if I make my own liquor. but I don't want the state liquor control board to have a seat at this particular poker table, nor the pharmaceutical industry. I like the 'mater scenario myself...

 

[Jhhnn]

what do you prefer? totally legal like a tomato plant or regulated by the government like a food or tobacco or alchohol product?

I'd prefer a ride in an interdimensional starship, but there's a helluva lot of work between here & there.

Such is the situation wrt cannabis legalization. We need to create legal environments where people can enjoy & grow their own cannabis, buy it OTC as well. It's not the end of the road but rather the beginning.

We're at the Wright Brothers stage of development in terms of swinging public sentiment & the law towards reason. It blew people's minds at the time, so much so that they were widely derided as fakes & charlatans. Some people wouldn't believe it until they saw it with their own eyes years later.

Legalization is a little different- people know it's real, they just don't know what it means & how it might change the world around them. They're finding out, and they're not finding much bad in it, simply because there's not much bad there. They're also finding a lot of good.

The story of CO legalization is an open book, written in plain & honest language. It is what it is, warts & all, & nobody's trying to hide a thing. There are no ulterior motives or hidden agendas, no conspiracy, none of that. We wanted a better way to deal with the reality of marijuana, the widespread & persistent use of marijuana as an intoxicant, not the myths & propaganda surrounding that. That desire to find a better way is widespread, even among people who do not currently lend active support to legalization. Those people are persuadable.

By all honest indicators, we've found a better way. We make that more obvious with every passing day of life in CO. The results speak for themselves.

Prohibition cannot stand for long against that demonstration of civility, peace & integrity.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

I appreciate such concerns. OTOH, I see CO legalization as causing a much more rapid rate of change than you appreciate. Public opinion is shifting very rapidly because we remove uncertainty & the fear of the unknown.

The whole thing exists under intense scrutiny by the media along with forces both for & against. We've nothing to hide & we're holding up just fine, thank you very much. Never better, to tell the truth. Well, other than it just becoming so ordinary, so well integrated into CO life that it's gotta get boring for the watchers.

It just works, beautifully. Meticulous documentation at every level substantiates that. Crime. Traffic. Mental Health. ER visits. Death by misadventure. Tax revenue. So forth & so on. It's not perfect, but there's nothing there to support a rollback of the will of the people, likely never will be. By the time the 2016 election comes around, the faux moral crusade of prohibition will have damned few followers. No big name leaders, either, because they'll know there's nobody to lead.

Jhhnn,
Your biggest failing is presuming the rest of the countries voters will see it how you do and support Cannabis legalization in every state. As for prohibition having "damned few followers and no big name leaders", I wonder if you have any idea what it is like in states other then CO, WA, CA,? Even the 23 states that support medical use of Marijuana most of them do not allow recreational, only 2, CO and WA. Why is that? I know your opinion is that the change has come so far it can not go back, but as none of the changes are real, meaning they are in fact under the whims of the Feds, who can do what they like, when they like, to any Cannabis business they want to stop anywhere in the USA unless licensed by the FDA and DEA. I want to change that.
I hope you are right, I would hate to see a Neo-right wing conservative Republican president in 2016 wash all your "victories" down the drain. Then what will you have without the tolerance of the Feds? Not much.... All they have to do is bust people and seize assets, bank accounts, property, and all the "legal growers" will run for the hills, sorry they ever filed state or federal taxes based on Cannabis profits, how about making it easy for the Feds to do their job....
All the Feds need is the will.
-SamS

 

[rives]

All the Feds need is the will.
-SamS

Or simply being ambivalent about keeping their overzealous lackeys enforcing policy as professed by the so-called "leadership".

 

[bentom187]

I would like to see laws repealing the law's that make it illegal in the first place, but this isn't bad for those states whom already passed legalization.

Rand Paul Proposes Measure To Shield State Medical Marijuana Laws From Feds

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday filed an amendment in the Senate that would protect states that implement medical marijuana laws, as well as patients and physicians in those states, from federal prosecution.

Paul's Amendment 3630, filed Thursday morning to Sen. John Walsh's (D-Mont.) jobs bill being heard on the Senate floor, allows states to "enact and implement laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of marijuana for medical use" without fear of federal prosecution. There are 33 states that have enacted laws protecting some form medical marijuana.

The amendment also prohibits prosecution of patients and physicians in those states for violating federal laws against the drug.

"What we're trying to do is look at the law and allow states that have changed their laws and have allowed medical marijuana to do so, for doctors to be able to prescribe and for people to be able to get those prescriptions without being worried about the federal government coming in and arresting them," Brian Darling, Paul's communications director, told The Huffington Post.

To date, 23 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical use. Another 10 have legalized CBD, a non-psychoactive ingredient in cannabis frequently used to treat epilepsy, for limited medical use or research. Still, the federal government continues to ban the plant, classifying it as a Schedule I substance with "no currently accepted medical use."

In June, Paul introduced a Senate amendment to the Justice Department budget bill that would restrict DEA agents and federal prosecutors from using allotted funds to pursue providers of medical marijuana and patients using it in states that have legalized its use. A similar version of the amendment, co-sponsored by Reps. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.) and Sam Farr (D-Calif.), surprised even longtime supporters of marijuana policy reform when it passed in the House in May.

But Darling argued that Paul's new measure could provide additional protections beyond that which the Rohrbacher-Farr amendment offers.

"The effort before was to defund prosecutions -- so it would block the federal government from prosecuting until that appropriations bill runs out about a year later," Darling said. But Paul's amendment, Darling explained, would provide a more permanent framework of protection for states that enact medical marijuana laws.

"It would protect the states' rights to make those decisions about medical marijuana that wouldn't expire when the appropriations bill comes back up," Darling said.

Due to ongoing partisan gridlock in the Senate, it appears unlikely that Paul's amendment will get a vote. However, Darling said that Paul's office is prepared to pursue other legislation that may not be identical to the amendment, but would be in the same spirit.

 

[bentom187]

Drying up their revenue stream isn't a bad tactic either.

Sen. Paul Introduces the FAIR Act

Jul 24, 2014


WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul yesterday introduced S. 2644, the FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration) Act, which would protect the rights of citizens and restore the Fifth Amendment's role in seizing property without due process of law. Under current law, law enforcement agencies may take property suspected of involvement in crime without ever charging, let alone convicting, the property owner. In addition, state agencies routinely use federal asset forfeiture laws; ignoring state regulations to confiscate and receive financial proceeds from forfeited property.

The FAIR Act would change federal law and protect the rights of property owners by requiring that the government prove its case with clear and convincing evidence before forfeiting seized property. State law enforcement agencies will have to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property. Finally, the legislation would remove the profit incentive for forfeiture by redirecting forfeitures assets from the Attorney General's Asset Forfeiture Fund to the Treasury's General Fund.

"The federal government has made it far too easy for government agencies to take and profit from the property of those who have not been convicted of a crime. The FAIR Act will ensure that government agencies no longer profit from taking the property of U.S. citizens without due process, while maintaining the ability of courts to order the surrender of proceeds of crime," Sen. Paul said

Click HERE for the FAIR Act legislation text.

 

[igrowone]

Drying up their revenue stream isn't a bad tactic either.

Sen. Paul Introduces the FAIR Act

i think i can hear squeals of pain, no more piggy bank?
one of the more outrageous 'laws' out there
this is why a goodly number of site members vote Libertarian

 

[bentom187]

I am thankful for that. Hopefully the rest of the country follows suit.

 

[Stonified]

It's a step in the right direction. Cannabis has been listed under schedule 1 for decades, so I think reclassifying cannabis to schedule 2 is worth supporting.

 

[Vivianna]

Should be legal in cali!!

 

[lumberjack.mr]

Thank you for this information. I am a terminal patient myself, stuck in a state that this would greatly impact! I cant do much of anything anymore , but I can still write and VOTE !

 

[lumberjack.mr]

great post and im really thankful for the info; at the risk of sounding like an idiot

great post and im really thankful for the info; at the risk of sounding like an idiot

Hello , how do I find which rep in texas to write to, there are several listed..

Federal: Measure Introduced To Reschedule Marijuana
Virginia Republican Morgan Griffin has introduced legislation, HR 4498, in Congress to reclassify cannabis under federal law from a schedule I to a schedule II controlled substance.
The Act seeks to prohibit the federal government from interfering in the possession and distribution of marijuana in states where physicians are permitted to authorized cannabis therapy.
The measure awaits action from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Rescheduling marijuana will loosen existing restrictions on medical marijuana research. It was also allow physicians greater freedom to authorize marijuana as a therapy. It would also clear the way for financial institutions to begin partnering with state-authorized marijuana establishments.
By any objective analysis, cannabis does not meet the criteria of a schedule I controlled substance — a classification that equates the potential harms of marijuana with those of heroin. Further, with 21 states and the District of Columbia now permitting for the physician-authorized use of cannabis, it is not accurate for federal law to maintain that the plant “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”
HR 4498 falls short of NORML’s ultimate goal of removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act altogether. However, it is one of a growing number of legislative measures pending in Congress to significantly amend federal marijuana laws, including:
HR 499: the Ending Marijuana Prohibition Act
HR 689: the States' Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act
HR 1523: Respect State Marijuana Laws Act
NORML will keep you updated when/if these measures move forward.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/about/membership
•
• These are some of the Congressional Members who will vote on HR 4498, it has to get out of Committee first, a well reasoned letter to one of these Congressmen or women can make a difference. If your Congressman is on the list you can click on their name if you have gone to the above site and a provision for a personal letter can be obtained. Letters work, less than 5% of the electorate even know who their Congress People are and they will figure you actually represent a block of voters who just might vote for them and you are politically aware of them. Let Congressman Morgan Griffin know that you appreciate his bill and won’t forget it, strokes work.
•

E&C Membership
Republican Members
Democratic Members
Fred Upton (MI)- Chairman
Henry Waxman (CA) - Ranking Member
Ralph Hall (TX)
John D. Dingell (MI)
Joe Barton (TX)*- Chairman Emeritus
Frank Pallone Jr. (NJ)
Ed Whitfield (KY)
Bobby L. Rush (IL)
John Shimkus (IL)
Anna G. Eshoo (CA)
Joseph R. Pitts (PA)
Eliot L. Engel (NY)
Greg Walden (OR)
Gene Green (TX)
Lee Terry (NE)
Diana DeGette (CO)
Mike Rogers (MI)
Lois Capps (CA)
Tim Murphy (PA)
Michael F. Doyle (PA)
Michael C. Burgess (TX)
Jan Schakowsky (IL)
Marsha Blackburn (TN)*- Vice Chairman
Jim Matheson (UT)
Phil Gingrey (GA)
G. K. Butterfield (NC)
Steve Scalise (LA)
John Barrow (GA)
Bob Latta (OH)
Doris O. Matsui (CA)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA)
Donna Christensen (VI)
Gregg Harper (MS)
Kathy Castor (FL)
Leonard Lance (NJ)
John Sarbanes (MD)
Bill Cassidy (LA)
Jerry McNerney (CA)
Brett Guthrie (KY)
Bruce Braley (IA)
Pete Olson (TX)
Peter Welch (VT)
David McKinley (WV)
Ben Ray Lujan (NM)
Cory Gardner (CO)
Paul Tonko (NY)
Mike Pompeo (KS)
John Yarmuth (KY)
Adam Kinzinger (IL)
*
Morgan Griffith (VA)
*
Gus Bilirakis (FL)
*
Bill Johnson (OH)
*
Billy Long (MO)
*
Renee Ellmers (NC)
*
*
*
*

 

[lumberjack.mr]

thank you..

thank you..

the information speaks volumes about the way politics has gone out of control and is no longer " fpr the people , by the people "..

Hello , how do I find which rep in texas to write to, there are several listed..

It's a step in the right direction. Cannabis has been listed under schedule 1 for decades, so I think reclassifying cannabis to schedule 2 is worth supporting.

I am thankful for that. Hopefully the rest of the country follows suit.

i think i can hear squeals of pain, no more piggy bank?
one of the more outrageous 'laws' out there
this is why a goodly number of site members vote Libertarian