Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Google)   How's that 'marijuana is schedule 1 with no medicinal values' working out for you, Uncle Sam? What's that, you patented it? WHY YOU... woob woob woob woob *repeatedly slaps own face*   (google.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, Uncle Sam, applied research, oxidants, neurodegenerative diseases, oxidative stress, autoimmune diseases, University of Jerusalem, filing date  
•       •       •

21253 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2012 at 10:23 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



206 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-11-15 08:55:59 AM  
i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-11-15 08:59:16 AM  
Oh, a wise guy!
 
2012-11-15 09:05:02 AM  
FTFA: Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.

Sorry, Mr. Stoner Parkinson's Guy, no getting high for you!

Also: Cannabidiol is unscheduled in the US. However tetrahydrocannabinols, both naturally and synthetically occurring, are currently classified under Schedule I of the US Controlled Substances Act.

/also also: the patent has "cannabidiol" mis-spelled.
 
2012-11-15 09:25:11 AM  
I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.
 
2012-11-15 09:44:06 AM  

xanadian: Oh, a wise guy!


thank you for posting that, i seriously had no idea what was going on in that headline. until i read your post i thought subby was interrupted by dub step or something.
 
2012-11-15 10:25:10 AM  

xanadian: Cannabidiol


So we need to smoke...marijuandiol?
 
2012-11-15 10:25:30 AM  

thomps: xanadian: Oh, a wise guy!

thank you for posting that, i seriously had no idea what was going on in that headline. until i read your post i thought subby was interrupted by dub step or something.


stoogestep
 
2012-11-15 10:27:08 AM  
Why, I aughtta ... *raises hand*
 
2012-11-15 10:27:39 AM  

xanadian: FTFA: Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.

Sorry, Mr. Stoner Parkinson's Guy, no getting high for you!

Also: Cannabidiol is unscheduled in the US. However tetrahydrocannabinols, both naturally and synthetically occurring, are currently classified under Schedule I of the US Controlled Substances Act.

/also also: the patent has "cannabidiol" mis-spelled.


You may not know the answer, but what about Marinol? .. which I believe is synthetic THC and is Schedule III ..
 
2012-11-15 10:28:13 AM  

Trance354: Why, I aughtta ... *raises hand*


*eyepoke*
 
2012-11-15 10:28:34 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.


You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?
 
2012-11-15 10:28:47 AM  

loonatic112358: thomps: xanadian: Oh, a wise guy!

thank you for posting that, i seriously had no idea what was going on in that headline. until i read your post i thought subby was interrupted by dub step or something.

stoogestep


It doesn't rise to stoogestep until Moe plays the saw with Curley.
 
2012-11-15 10:29:58 AM  

Private_Citizen: loonatic112358: thomps: xanadian: Oh, a wise guy!

thank you for posting that, i seriously had no idea what was going on in that headline. until i read your post i thought subby was interrupted by dub step or something.

stoogestep

It doesn't rise to stoogestep until Moe plays the saw with Curley.


or when one of them clumsily drops the vase
 
2012-11-15 10:30:32 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.


Then why would he ramp up the drug war (making more raids than the Bush administration during his first term) if he was just going to legalize it in his second term?
 
2012-11-15 10:30:59 AM  

detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?


I don't think he promised that at all
 
2012-11-15 10:32:11 AM  
How can you patent a naturally occurring process? I can see patenting something you invented, but not a substance that is produced naturally. I'm sure I'm missing something

/rushes off to patent Thirst and Hunger
 
2012-11-15 10:32:57 AM  
The receptors in the brain are different than in other parts of your body such as the lymph system and spleen. If God didn't intend for us to use the stuff then why did he wire us up for it directly? Everybody together now: "IT'S TIME TO GET THE COPS OFF DRUGS!"
 
2012-11-15 10:33:28 AM  
bibliophilica.files.wordpress.com

What a Cannabinoid might look like
 
2012-11-15 10:33:30 AM  

detritus: You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?


Well Obama knows the dangers of weed first hand. One day, you're toking up, and the next, you a Kenyan anti-colonalist bent on turning America into a socialist nightmare.

Would you want that for your kids?
 
2012-11-15 10:33:33 AM  

detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?


When a majority of the states have made medicinal marijuana legal, I think the fed is going to have to reconsider its position.
 
2012-11-15 10:33:57 AM  

detritus: You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?


He's not in his second term yet.

Hydra: Then why would he ramp up the drug war (making more raids than the Bush administration during his first term) if he was just going to legalize it in his second term?


I didn't say legalize, I said take cannabis off the Schedule I listing. He can do that without Congress, which is why I believe it's likely in his second term.
 
2012-11-15 10:34:10 AM  
Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard.
 
2012-11-15 10:34:10 AM  
Is this "Random Patent X from 2003 gets a Fark greenlight Day?" If so, I'm off to the archives - I've got a hot tip on a blanket that you can wear and walk around in.
 
2012-11-15 10:34:38 AM  
Marinol is the pharmaceutical industry's (Eli Lilly) answer to those who might use pot to relieve pain and nausea from AIDS, chemo, etc. No other company has done more to block the use of medical marijuana than Lilly.

Mr Obama's record on medical marijuana is shameful. He's far worse than Bush was. All for politics. But he's the Hope guy.
 
2012-11-15 10:35:06 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.


What did we tell you about people going to the mat for causes in which they do moult believe?
 
2012-11-15 10:35:09 AM  

GanjSmokr: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

When a majority of the states have made medicinal marijuana legal, I think the fed is going to have to reconsider its position.


It is even legal in DC!

/thought the headline was a dubstep reference as well
 
2012-11-15 10:35:13 AM  

thomps: xanadian: Oh, a wise guy!

thank you for posting that, i seriously had no idea what was going on in that headline. until i read your post i thought subby was interrupted by dub step or something.


oh man, dr. pepper up the nose never felt so hilarious
 
2012-11-15 10:35:49 AM  

emersonbiggins: I've got a hot tip on a blanket that you can wear and walk around in.


WHAT SORCERY IS THIS?!
 
2012-11-15 10:35:59 AM  
Not surprised.
 
2012-11-15 10:36:35 AM  
Eric Holder: *sticks fingers in ears, "la la la la la, I can't hear you, la la la la"
 
2012-11-15 10:36:37 AM  

thomps: Private_Citizen: loonatic112358: thomps: xanadian: Oh, a wise guy!

thank you for posting that, i seriously had no idea what was going on in that headline. until i read your post i thought subby was interrupted by dub step or something.

stoogestep

It doesn't rise to stoogestep until Moe plays the saw with Curley.

or when one of them clumsily drops the vase


Nice!

-Here comes the Boom!
 
2012-11-15 10:36:40 AM  
thomps Smartest
Funniest
2012-11-15 09:44:06 AM


xanadian: Oh, a wise guy!

thank you for posting that, i seriously had no idea what was going on in that headline. until i read your post i thought subby was interrupted by dub step or something.



You speak for me, as well
 
2012-11-15 10:37:39 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: detritus: You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

He's not in his second term yet.

Hydra: Then why would he ramp up the drug war (making more raids than the Bush administration during his first term) if he was just going to legalize it in his second term?

I didn't say legalize, I said take cannabis off the Schedule I listing. He can do that without Congress, which is why I believe it's likely in his second term.


IF it happens. And I say IF. It'll be between the 2016 election and Jan 20, 2017. No way he hands the Repubs an issue for either the midterms or the next presidential election.

I don't think it will happen, but that's how it could.
 
2012-11-15 10:38:46 AM  

GanjSmokr: When a majority of the states have made medicinal marijuana legal, I think the fed is going to have to reconsider its position.


I think the recreational use provisions recently passed are going to force some sort of court action before we get to that point... hopefully that doesn't shut the whole thing down.
 
2012-11-15 10:38:47 AM  

detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?


That isn't what he promised.
 
2012-11-15 10:38:58 AM  
Sounds like cannabidiol is the Curly Joe Besser of the drug world.
 
2012-11-15 10:39:00 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

What did we tell you about people going to the mat for causes in which they do moult believe?


Not*

Hurrr
 
2012-11-15 10:39:59 AM  
Needs more n'yuck.
 
2012-11-15 10:40:24 AM  

Hydra: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

Then why would he ramp up the drug war (making more raids than the Bush administration during his first term) if he was just going to legalize it in his second term?


votes.
 
2012-11-15 10:40:44 AM  
I prefer to get my cannabinoids from naturally occurring sources in their natural delivery vehicle.
 
2012-11-15 10:41:01 AM  

iron_city_ap: How can you patent a naturally occurring process? I can see patenting something you invented, but not a substance that is produced naturally. I'm sure I'm missing something

/rushes off to patent Thirst and Hunger


Take Penicillin as an example. penicillin is a naturally occurring chemical, so you can't patent it. What you CAN patent is a method of treatinga bacterial infection using an appropriate dose of penicillin.

This patent isn't for the chemical, it is for the method of treating symptoms using the chemical.

/a patent thread in the politics tab? ::grabs popcorn::
 
2012-11-15 10:41:24 AM  
legalizing cannabis would be a huge job creator
 
2012-11-15 10:42:16 AM  

Nightsweat: IF it happens. And I say IF. It'll be between the 2016 election and Jan 20, 2017. No way he hands the Repubs an issue for either the midterms or the next presidential election.


And on goes the cycle of it never happening. Much like marriage equality, public opinion on the issue has accelerated towards liberty, except in the case of cannabis, party affiliation has even less of a divide on the issue.
 
2012-11-15 10:44:28 AM  
so cannabis is Schedule I and thus pure evil distilled into physical form. it has no valid uses, it'll rot reality itself...and it's going to destroy the universe if not locked down tight.

But at the exact same time, it's got a ton of valid medical uses, is amazingly harmless AND the US government wants to completely own it so as to make oodles of cash off its sale and use to everyone in the world.

do I have that right? is this the view of our government?
 
2012-11-15 10:45:04 AM  

Godscrack: [bibliophilica.files.wordpress.com image 320x240]

What a Cannabinoid might look like



Some people are vegitarians.
He's a humanitarian.
 
2012-11-15 10:45:58 AM  
I believe our was written somewhere that the reason Obama has stepped up enforcement is because in CA the medical use law they wrote has zero enforcement our regulation in it. Anyone can get it for any reason. Since local law has no teeth for anything, they call in Federal and the only thing they have is the "hammer".

I expect that CO with it's many restrictions and laws will be different.
 
2012-11-15 10:48:13 AM  
auto-co-wrecks ftw
 
2012-11-15 10:48:34 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.


He better do it quick before this cop finishes pulling me over.
 
2012-11-15 10:48:53 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.



Ikr. Getting at least 1 good thing out of 8 years is all I ask too.
 
2012-11-15 10:49:01 AM  

enry: Trance354: Why, I aughtta ... *raises hand*

*eyepoke*


Curly Save.
 
2012-11-15 10:49:33 AM  

loonatic112358: thomps: xanadian: Oh, a wise guy!

thank you for posting that, i seriously had no idea what was going on in that headline. until i read your post i thought subby was interrupted by dub step or something.

stoogestep


The Curly Shuffle!
 
2012-11-15 10:50:16 AM  
well, that's one way to hep reduce the debt
 
2012-11-15 10:50:20 AM  
Weird. It's like subby painted a target on his head to draw Three Stooges fans.

It's Woo woo woo, not woob woob woob
 
2012-11-15 10:50:39 AM  
This is similar to resveritrol being found in red wine. Sure it's there, but to get to thereputic levels you'd have to drink so much wine you'd die. You'd have to smoke enough pot to turn you into a drooling toadstool before you got any theraputic effect from cannabidiol.
 
2012-11-15 10:50:46 AM  

Weaver95: so cannabis is Schedule I and thus pure evil distilled into physical form. it has no valid uses, it'll rot reality itself...and it's going to destroy the universe if not locked down tight.

But at the exact same time, it's got a ton of valid medical uses, is amazingly harmless AND the US government wants to completely own it so as to make oodles of cash off its sale and use to everyone in the world.

do I have that right? is this the view of our government?


Meh. Heroin is schedule II, and yet we have OxyContin, Percocet, and even a "safe for hospital use" version of INJECTABLE HEROIN (like you'd find on the streets of Baltimore, only without the rat poison). The only difference here is that pot is Schedule I, so it looks a little crazier.

It's all crazy, though.
 
2012-11-15 10:50:52 AM  

nmrsnr: iron_city_ap: How can you patent a naturally occurring process? I can see patenting something you invented, but not a substance that is produced naturally. I'm sure I'm missing something

/rushes off to patent Thirst and Hunger

Take Penicillin as an example. penicillin is a naturally occurring chemical, so you can't patent it. What you CAN patent is a method of treatinga bacterial infection using an appropriate dose of penicillin.

This patent isn't for the chemical, it is for the method of treating symptoms using the chemical.

/a patent thread in the politics tab? ::grabs popcorn::


I think you're missing it. This is noteworthy because the US govt's patent is exactly what you're saying they can't do. The patent title is "cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants". that's like patenting "drinking water will keep you hydrated", "consuming vitamin C prevents scurvy".

Also, this goes against the b.s. position that cannabis has no medicinal value.
 
2012-11-15 10:51:07 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.


We'll see. He seems to be doubling down though. He might pivot. He might not. I don't think he's too keen on losing political capital for him or his party trying to make weed legal.

Its gonna take some time.
 
2012-11-15 10:51:27 AM  

Weigard: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

He better do it quick before this cop finishes pulling me over.


Just eat your stash.


www.yahooka.com


/meow
 
2012-11-15 10:52:16 AM  

aug3: well, that's one way to hep reduce the debt


Two ways really; taxes and the savings from not incarcerating pot smokers.
 
2012-11-15 10:52:20 AM  

odinsposse: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

That isn't what he promised.


I am not sure about you, but I fail to grasp the distinction between stopping federal raids in medical marijuana states and "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]." Those dispensaries are operating within the law in their states and he is using Justice Department resources tp shut them down.

While is is against federal law, has is also full of shiat when he says that he cannot tell the Justice Department what laws to enforce, what he means is that he is unwilling to spend the political capital to do so.

/Obama supported
//He is full of shiat when it comes to his actions/words WRT medical marijuana
 
2012-11-15 10:56:02 AM  

sprawl15: xanadian: Cannabidiol

So we need to smoke...marijuandiol?


I can get that in a store, right?
 
2012-11-15 10:56:16 AM  

quantum_csc: odinsposse: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

That isn't what he promised.

I am not sure about you, but I fail to grasp the distinction between stopping federal raids in medical marijuana states and "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]." Those dispensaries are operating within the law in their states and he is using Justice Department resources tp shut them down.

While is is against federal law, has is also full of shiat when he says that he cannot tell the Justice Department what laws to enforce, what he means is that he is unwilling to spend the political capital to do so.

/Obama supported
//He is full of shiat when it comes to his actions/words WRT medical marijuana


You're cherry picking. Here's what he said in the article:

"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana," Obama said. "I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana -- and the reason is, because it's against federal law."

It's the "against federal law" part that he's using as the rationale for going after the commercial grower.

Personally, I think he's going after the big fish. I think if you're a small player, keep quiet, don't make waves, the feds wouldn't go after you. Or they might.
 
2012-11-15 10:58:18 AM  

raerae1980: sprawl15: xanadian: Cannabidiol

So we need to smoke...marijuandiol?

I can get that in a store, right?


Cannabidiol is one of the active constituents in cannabis; as well as THC .. So if you consume cannabis, you'll get both the THC and cannabidiol.
 
2012-11-15 10:59:08 AM  
Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs?
 
2012-11-15 11:00:02 AM  

xanadian: Oh, a wise guy!


nyuk nyuk
 
2012-11-15 11:01:22 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.



Term two?

I doubt it. Maybe in the third trimester.
 
2012-11-15 11:02:37 AM  

nmrsnr: iron_city_ap: How can you patent a naturally occurring process? I can see patenting something you invented, but not a substance that is produced naturally. I'm sure I'm missing something

/rushes off to patent Thirst and Hunger

Take Penicillin as an example. penicillin is a naturally occurring chemical, so you can't patent it. What you CAN patent is a method of treatinga bacterial infection using an appropriate dose of penicillin.

This patent isn't for the chemical, it is for the method of treating symptoms using the chemical.

/a patent thread in the politics tab? ::grabs popcorn::


Cool. Now I know how to word my applications. Treat thirst with liquid and Hunger with food. I promise not to charge TOO much in royalty fees.
 
2012-11-15 11:02:44 AM  

beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?


More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.
 
2012-11-15 11:04:04 AM  

AeAe: quantum_csc: odinsposse: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

That isn't what he promised.

I am not sure about you, but I fail to grasp the distinction between stopping federal raids in medical marijuana states and "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]." Those dispensaries are operating within the law in their states and he is using Justice Department resources tp shut them down.

While is is against federal law, has is also full of shiat when he says that he cannot tell the Justice Department what laws to enforce, what he means is that he is unwilling to spend the political capital to do so.

/Obama supported
//He is full of shiat when it comes to his actions/words WRT medical marijuana

You're cherry picking. Here's what he said in the article:

"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana," Obama said. "I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana -- and the reason is, because it's against federal law."

It's the "against federal law" part that he's using as the rationale for going after the commercial grower.

Personally, I think he's going after the big fish. I think if you're a small player, keep quiet, don't make waves, the feds wouldn't go after you. Or they might.


There are some NorCal medical growers on another forum I follow - the smart ones keep their heads down and don't get too big.
 
2012-11-15 11:04:50 AM  

emersonbiggins: I've got a hot tip on a blanket that you can wear and walk around in.


I'm too stupid to figure a blanket out. You mean there's a better way?!?
 
2012-11-15 11:05:25 AM  

Dr Dreidel: beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?

More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.


I read that Rhode Island and Maine state legislatures are drafting a law to legalize as well. I thought that was interdasting.
 
ows
2012-11-15 11:06:08 AM  

iron_city_ap: How can you patent a naturally occurring process? I can see patenting something you invented, but not a substance that is produced naturally. I'm sure I'm missing something

/rushes off to patent Thirst and Hunger


MONSANTO would like a word with you. and if you've been hoarding seed, why they'll, they'll sue the shiat out of you, thats what.
 
2012-11-15 11:06:35 AM  

Dr Dreidel: beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?

More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.


And the Right does not give a fark about the 9th Amendment.
 
2012-11-15 11:09:50 AM  

xanadian: FTFA: Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.

Sorry, Mr. Stoner Parkinson's Guy, no getting high for you!

Also: Cannabidiol is unscheduled in the US. However tetrahydrocannabinols, both naturally and synthetically occurring, are currently classified under Schedule I of the US Controlled Substances Act.

/also also: the patent has "cannabidiol" mis-spelled.


Two different things no?
 
2012-11-15 11:10:37 AM  
I never expected a Dr. to reccomend medicinal maryjane to me. That is exactly what happened to me about three months ago. I never even approached the subject, but that is what happened. Unfortunately I live in a state that does not offer a legal dispensary. So I tried the current pharmaceutical option: Marinol. It sucks.
 
2012-11-15 11:11:00 AM  

Dr Dreidel: beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?

More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.


If you're referring to Arkansas in that last sentence, did you look at how close the vote tally was? And that it was the first attempt to get it passed?
 
2012-11-15 11:11:21 AM  

actualhuman: And the Right does not give a fark about the 9th Amendment.


And they only care about the 10th when they can use it to legislate bigotry and restrictive laws. "Abortions? Leave it up to the states!" "Racial discrimination? STATES RIGHTS." "Regulations on interstate commerce pertaining to the sale and purchase of health insurance? Oh, you better believe that States rights applies."
 
2012-11-15 11:11:44 AM  
Legalize Shemp.

Damn mobile, can't post image.
 
2012-11-15 11:12:29 AM  

spentshells: xanadian: FTFA: Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.

Sorry, Mr. Stoner Parkinson's Guy, no getting high for you!

Also: Cannabidiol is unscheduled in the US. However tetrahydrocannabinols, both naturally and synthetically occurring, are currently classified under Schedule I of the US Controlled Substances Act.

/also also: the patent has "cannabidiol" mis-spelled.

Two different things no?


Really good point. Isn't "cannabinoid" the general term for all active constituents in cannabis? Both cannabidiol and THC are cannabinoids.
 
2012-11-15 11:12:44 AM  

GanjSmokr: When a majority of the states have made medicinal marijuana legal, I think the fed is going to have to reconsider its position.


Except that goes against the entire thrust of the federal government since the 1850s.
 
2012-11-15 11:13:46 AM  

AeAe: Dr Dreidel: beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?

More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.

I read that Rhode Island and Maine state legislatures are drafting a law to legalize as well. I thought that was interdasting.


In Maine it's the same bill Diane Russell has been pushing since last term. She also ran for Speaker of the House and if you want to use it as a straw-poll on this bill (she's fairly progressive across the board but cannabis is what she's gotten the most press for) it doesn't look good. However it was also a four way speaker race so anything is possible.

Here's a shiatty article from the Portland Sun that only quotes pot activists: http://www.portlanddailysun.me/index.php/newsx/local-news/8111-russell -back-with-pot-legalization-bill
 
2012-11-15 11:13:57 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Eric Holder: *sticks fingers in ears, "la la la la la, I can't hear you, la la la la"


The headline below this one identifies you as Bobby Jindal, FYI.
 
2012-11-15 11:14:02 AM  
I'm not at all Hopey that the President will get all CHANGEY on the schedule 1 status. It's just another way in which my President is a hypocrite.

/Would be so pleased
//to be proved
///wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
2012-11-15 11:15:28 AM  

quantum_csc: I am not sure about you, but I fail to grasp the distinction between stopping federal raids in medical marijuana states and "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]." Those dispensaries are operating within the law in their states and he is using Justice Department resources tp shut them down.


I think you heard what you wanted to hear in that line. Obama didn't say he wasn't going to prosecute medical marijuana users. He didn't say he was leaving drug prosecutions up to the states. He said, basically, that he wasn't going to make states use resources to do it since it was legal according to state law. He probably knew even then that he couldn't ignore such large and open violations of federal law.
 
2012-11-15 11:15:57 AM  

This text is now purple: GanjSmokr: When a majority of the states have made medicinal marijuana legal, I think the fed is going to have to reconsider its position.

Except that goes against the entire thrust of the federal government since the 1850s.


And no President whose first name dosen't begin with a B has ever gone on to win re-election after having been mentioned on Twitter.
 
2012-11-15 11:16:11 AM  

actualhuman: AeAe: Dr Dreidel: beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?

More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.

I read that Rhode Island and Maine state legislatures are drafting a law to legalize as well. I thought that was interdasting.

In Maine it's the same bill Diane Russell has been pushing since last term. She also ran for Speaker of the House and if you want to use it as a straw-poll on this bill (she's fairly progressive across the board but cannabis is what she's gotten the most press for) it doesn't look good. However it was also a four way speaker race so anything is possible.

Here's a shiatty article from the Portland Sun that only quotes pot activists: http://www.portlanddailysun.me/index.php/newsx/local-news/8111-russell -back-with-pot-legalization-bill


Here's a Reason article. Don't know if it's any better. Link
 
2012-11-15 11:16:22 AM  

iron_city_ap: nmrsnr: iron_city_ap: How can you patent a naturally occurring process? I can see patenting something you invented, but not a substance that is produced naturally. I'm sure I'm missing something

/rushes off to patent Thirst and Hunger

Take Penicillin as an example. penicillin is a naturally occurring chemical, so you can't patent it. What you CAN patent is a method of treatinga bacterial infection using an appropriate dose of penicillin.

This patent isn't for the chemical, it is for the method of treating symptoms using the chemical.

/a patent thread in the politics tab? ::grabs popcorn::

Cool. Now I know how to word my applications. Treat thirst with liquid and Hunger with food. I promise not to charge TOO much in royalty fees.


Closer, though you still have prior art issues. Now, if you wanted to claim a method of treating dehydration comprising intravenously injecting a saline solution, and you were the first one to do it, then yes, I say you can patent treating thirst by giving someone water.

AeAe: the title doesn't matter at all. It could be titled "Seriously You Guys, I'm Patenting Breathing" but if the claims were about cancer treatments it could still get a patent.
 
2012-11-15 11:17:31 AM  

beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs?


Amazing how they want all manner of Federal regulation on consumer goods....except the products they like.
 
2012-11-15 11:17:49 AM  

odinsposse: quantum_csc: I am not sure about you, but I fail to grasp the distinction between stopping federal raids in medical marijuana states and "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]." Those dispensaries are operating within the law in their states and he is using Justice Department resources tp shut them down.

I think you heard what you wanted to hear in that line. Obama didn't say he wasn't going to prosecute medical marijuana users. He didn't say he was leaving drug prosecutions up to the states. He said, basically, that he wasn't going to make states use resources to do it since it was legal according to state law. He probably knew even then that he couldn't ignore such large and open violations of federal law.


Pretty much, then the part that HuffPo calls "shifting away from marijuana" is him using weasel words to say he's okay with other people talking about it but won't be using any political capital himself.
 
2012-11-15 11:19:00 AM  
It's outrageous that anyone would promote the use of a mood altering drug in the US. 

lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-11-15 11:22:17 AM  

Rindred: Dr Dreidel: beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?

More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.

If you're referring to Arkansas in that last sentence, did you look at how close the vote tally was? And that it was the first attempt to get it passed?


OK, and? Does that mean it didn't pass? What does that mean for the 47% (IIRC) that voted against CO's new law? My point is that "libs" appear to be on the same side as the civil libertarians on this one, contrary to b_p's implication, while the more conservative among us (or "among our states") could take a lesson.

That wasn't a suggestion that 100% of libs are pot-smoking awesomeness and conservatives are 100% authoritarian - that's a silly statement.

AeAe: I read that Rhode Island and Maine state legislatures are drafting a law to legalize as well. I thought that was interdasting.


Also, it looks like Congress is going to (try to) specifically exempt states with their own legalization bills from the Controlled Substances Act. With the GOP's focus on "the will of the people" it becomes very hard for them to say the results of a ballot referendum aren't valid (though there is precedent).

// fark Bob Barr with a GTMO inmate's dinner tray
 
2012-11-15 11:23:35 AM  

nmrsnr: iron_city_ap: nmrsnr: iron_city_ap: How can you patent a naturally occurring process? I can see patenting something you invented, but not a substance that is produced naturally. I'm sure I'm missing something

/rushes off to patent Thirst and Hunger

Take Penicillin as an example. penicillin is a naturally occurring chemical, so you can't patent it. What you CAN patent is a method of treatinga bacterial infection using an appropriate dose of penicillin.

This patent isn't for the chemical, it is for the method of treating symptoms using the chemical.

/a patent thread in the politics tab? ::grabs popcorn::

Cool. Now I know how to word my applications. Treat thirst with liquid and Hunger with food. I promise not to charge TOO much in royalty fees.

Closer, though you still have prior art issues. Now, if you wanted to claim a method of treating dehydration comprising intravenously injecting a saline solution, and you were the first one to do it, then yes, I say you can patent treating thirst by giving someone water.

AeAe: the title doesn't matter at all. It could be titled "Seriously You Guys, I'm Patenting Breathing" but if the claims were about cancer treatments it could still get a patent.


Did you read the abstract? The title of the patent is pretty descriptive of the abstract. I'm no patent guy, but it seems to me the patent is essentially that cannabinoids have all these medicinal properties ...
 
2012-11-15 11:24:14 AM  

Dr Dreidel: beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?

More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.



Doesn't excuse Obama's action/inaction.
 
2012-11-15 11:31:19 AM  

enry: Trance354: Why, I aughtta ... *raises hand*

*eyepoke*


*slaps other two Stooges with one stroke*

*backhand*

*grabs their heads, konks them together* *hollow coconut sound*

nnngggaaa nnngggaaa nnngggaaa!!!
 
2012-11-15 11:35:05 AM  

Amos Quito: Dr Dreidel: beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?

More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.


Doesn't excuse Obama's action/inaction.


Are you following me around baiting me in fark threads? I count 3 times in the last 2 days you've tried to get a rise out of me. Still not gonna happen.

But to respond - no one mentioned Obama's DoJ or personal position. I brought it up because I meant to include a statistical takedown, showing that half of us voted Obama and half (or an even 45-45% split with 10% undecided) of Americans think legalization is a good idea. That suggests a much muddier split than libs/cons, though I included some other counter-examples to help him see.

// Obama is wrong on this one
// and yet I voted for him anyway, almost as though his platform was the closest legitimate one that matched my own philosophy
 
2012-11-15 11:39:31 AM  
Hemp good

THC the devil's own brew
 
2012-11-15 11:40:21 AM  

AeAe: xanadian: FTFA: Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.

Sorry, Mr. Stoner Parkinson's Guy, no getting high for you!

Also: Cannabidiol is unscheduled in the US. However tetrahydrocannabinols, both naturally and synthetically occurring, are currently classified under Schedule I of the US Controlled Substances Act.

/also also: the patent has "cannabidiol" mis-spelled.

You may not know the answer, but what about Marinol? .. which I believe is synthetic THC and is Schedule III ..


THC is not the ony active ingrediant in marijuana. Many people find Marinol to be either ineffective or less efective than the combination of cannibinoids that naturally occure in the plant. This is especially true for some people on chemotherapy who need marijuanna to keep food down.

There is no reason to keep marijuana on Schedule 1. The FDA and AMA have had over a hundred years to do studies, but those in power claim that they need to do more studies to determine that there are no unknown side effects before allowing medical use. There are drugs that are known to be addictive, abused, and that have horrible side effeects that are allowed all the time, and they have been studied less than marinjuanna. There is no good medical reason for the FDA's stance on this issue.
 
2012-11-15 11:42:15 AM  
Cannabinoids, not marijuana, subby. Get a grip.
 
2012-11-15 11:51:28 AM  

AeAe: nmrsnr: iron_city_ap: nmrsnr: iron_city_ap: How can you patent a naturally occurring process? I can see patenting something you invented, but not a substance that is produced naturally. I'm sure I'm missing something

/rushes off to patent Thirst and Hunger

Take Penicillin as an example. penicillin is a naturally occurring chemical, so you can't patent it. What you CAN patent is a method of treatinga bacterial infection using an appropriate dose of penicillin.

This patent isn't for the chemical, it is for the method of treating symptoms using the chemical.

/a patent thread in the politics tab? ::grabs popcorn::

Cool. Now I know how to word my applications. Treat thirst with liquid and Hunger with food. I promise not to charge TOO much in royalty fees.

Closer, though you still have prior art issues. Now, if you wanted to claim a method of treating dehydration comprising intravenously injecting a saline solution, and you were the first one to do it, then yes, I say you can patent treating thirst by giving someone water.

AeAe: the title doesn't matter at all. It could be titled "Seriously You Guys, I'm Patenting Breathing" but if the claims were about cancer treatments it could still get a patent.

Did you read the abstract? The title of the patent is pretty descriptive of the abstract. I'm no patent guy, but it seems to me the patent is essentially that cannabinoids have all these medicinal properties ...


::sigh::

the title can be "Seriously You Guys, I'm Patenting Breathing" and the abstract can read "You know? Breathing? That thing you do with your lungs to keep alive? Yeah, I'm totally patenting that." But if the CLAIMS are about a novel cancer treatment it'll still get a patent.
 
2012-11-15 11:55:22 AM  

MFAWG: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

I don't think he promised that at all


I don't recall that promise either.
 
2012-11-15 11:57:20 AM  

detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?


Hoping for Change?
 
2012-11-15 11:58:38 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Amos Quito: Dr Dreidel: beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?

More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.


Doesn't excuse Obama's action/inaction.

Are you following me around baiting me in fark threads? I count 3 times in the last 2 days you've tried to get a rise out of me



Are you kidding? LOL! Actually, I find you to be quite reasonable.

I just happened to agree with beta_plus' constitutionality comment, and think that Obama is a hypocrite on this issue. You responded, and I responded.

And yes, I held my nose and voted for him too, but he gets no quarter from me on the issues.
 
2012-11-15 11:59:27 AM  
You can not patent something that grows naturally or its specific compounds. You can however patent a one off chemically altered version of said chemicals. this will in no way have an effect on pot legalization and sales of the plant itself patent or no patent.
 
2012-11-15 12:02:07 PM  

Hydra: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

Then why would he ramp up the drug war (making more raids than the Bush administration during his first term) if he was just going to legalize it in his second term?


here's a little civics lesson for ya. MJ is still illegal under federal law. Obama can't do jack against any DEA offices going about their job to legally regulate this stuff. He can't legally tell them to ignore the law. He can't make it legal by himself. Congress has to do it. And most of them are afraid to touch it.
 
2012-11-15 12:03:04 PM  
I'd love to see it legalized, but I have no illusions about our Governments failure to admit that it is wrong on the subject. Look at alcohol prohibition. Yes, they eventually learned their lesson, but it took over 40 years after prohibition was lifted before you could brew beer at home (Thanks Jimmy Carter, I enjoy my right to brew my own beer!)

I'm not getting my hopes up, and even if it were legalized on the Federal level, I expect it to only be available from State approved/run outlets with few choices and mediocre quality. I expect that growing it for personal use will still remain illegal, as was beer brewing after prohibition.

I've been smoking it since '77 and availability has never been a problem. Legalization would be great, but my contingency plan has been working for 35 years
 
2012-11-15 12:04:14 PM  
i.imgur.com 

Just think of the money that could have been made...
 
2012-11-15 12:07:21 PM  

detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?


Maybe his opinion will 'evolve' as the liberal madia puts in when he changed his mind regarding homo marriage. Which he has also done absolutely nothing about also.
 
2012-11-15 12:07:27 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.


Not a chance. Far too many are getting fat off the "war".

The status quo will remain.
 
2012-11-15 12:29:41 PM  

nmrsnr: the title can be "Seriously You Guys, I'm Patenting Breathing" and the abstract can read "You know? Breathing? That thing you do with your lungs to keep alive? Yeah, I'm totally patenting that." But if the CLAIMS are about a novel cancer treatment it'll still get a patent.


The title can be "Method of swinging on a swing", and the abstract can read "A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other.", and the claims can be about a method of swinging on a swing from side to side by alternately pulling on the chains, and there can be prior art from pretty-much everybody who's ever sat in a swing (almost certainly including the patent examiner themselves), but it'll still get a patent.

Patent law is completely broken in this country. The patent examiners are overloaded and will approve pretty much anything no matter how obvious, unpatentable, and rife with prior art it is, just to get it off their desks. Then once it gets to the courts, it's all about who has the biggest, loudest, most expensive lawyer and the deepest pockets to keep them talking. And in many cases, the most lobbyists and paid-off politicians.
 
2012-11-15 12:31:01 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Hydra: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

Then why would he ramp up the drug war (making more raids than the Bush administration during his first term) if he was just going to legalize it in his second term?

here's a little civics lesson for ya. MJ is still illegal under federal law. Obama can't do jack against any DEA offices going about their job to legally regulate this stuff. He can't legally tell them to ignore the law. He can't make it legal by himself. Congress has to do it. And most of them are afraid to touch it.



Sorry, but the DEA under the USDOJ which answers directly to the Executive Branch (Obama).

He can call off the DEA dogs if he so chooses.
 
2012-11-15 12:33:48 PM  
But but but brown people's drug are so dangerous. Not like the wet Irish medicines.  Keep the drugs of the undesirables undesirable.
 
2012-11-15 12:37:12 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Hydra: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

Then why would he ramp up the drug war (making more raids than the Bush administration during his first term) if he was just going to legalize it in his second term?

here's a little civics lesson for ya. MJ is still illegal under federal law. Obama can't do jack against any DEA offices going about their job to legally regulate this stuff. He can't legally tell them to ignore the law. He can't make it legal by himself. Congress has to do it. And most of them are afraid to touch it.


He could order that it be a low priority--e.g. only to be pursued after every other federal crime has been solved. Maybe it could be worded that all other federal crimes be given attention first, and that the MJ law be fully enforced just as soon as all higher priority crimes have been enfored.

To me, it seemed like he promised to use his executive power to make sure that federal resources were focused on other areas first (with the result being very litte enforcement on medical MJ). He failed to deliver. He cannot make it legal, but he could redirect focus to more important crimes. He didn't. Promise broken.

/I voted for him too.
//Mitt doesn't even give empty lip service to issues I care about.
 
2012-11-15 12:37:46 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: This is similar to resveritrol being found in red wine. Sure it's there, but to get to thereputic levels you'd have to drink so much wine you'd die. You'd have to smoke enough pot to turn you into a drooling toadstool before you got any theraputic effect from cannabidiol.


Challenge accepted
 
2012-11-15 12:40:55 PM  

TheSwissNavy: Mr Obama's record on medical marijuana is shameful. He's far worse than Bush was. All for politics. But he's the Hope guy.


Walk it off, Francis.
 
2012-11-15 12:45:13 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: He's not in his second term yet.


He said 'four years', not 'first term'. It's close enough to round, especially considering we're in the lame duck period now.

I didn't say legalize, I said take cannabis off the Schedule I listing. He can do that without Congress, which is why I believe it's likely in his second term.

He's won re-election, he's free to do stuff very unpopular to certain segments of society whenever he wants.

Nightsweat: IF it happens. And I say IF. It'll be between the 2016 election and Jan 20, 2017. No way he hands the Repubs an issue for either the midterms or the next presidential election.


Actually, I'd say that now would be a very good time to do it - it's as far away from a midterm election as you can get, and people have 4+ years to forget about the issue before the next presidential, and he's not seeking re-election.

nmrsnr: Take Penicillin as an example. penicillin is a naturally occurring chemical, so you can't patent it. What you CAN patent is a method of treatinga bacterial infection using an appropriate dose of penicillin.


You missed a method. You can patent methods to isolate, extract, and purify penicillin into a form suitable for use in medicine. That's actually the more common patent. In at least some 'gene patents', the patent isn't actually on the gene, it's on the process used to detect the gene.

Hobodeluxe: here's a little civics lesson for ya. MJ is still illegal under federal law. Obama can't do jack against any DEA offices going about their job to legally regulate this stuff. He can't legally tell them to ignore the law. He can't make it legal by himself. Congress has to do it. And most of them are afraid to touch it.


As head of the executive branch, he has the ability to tell the DEA to not expend resources fighting MJ. He might not be able to legalize MJ, or even prevent 'all' enforcement of the law, but it's well within his power to redirect(well, tell somebody else to do it) resources to enforcing drug prohibition on other drugs. Meth, Heroin, Cocaine, etc... It's also part of his powers to reschedule it from I to III, which would instantly legalize 'medical marijuana' in all 50 states on a federal level. State laws might take a bit longer.
 
2012-11-15 12:59:54 PM  

Aunt Crabby: There is no reason to keep marijuana on Schedule 1. The FDA and AMA have had over a hundred years to do studies, but those in power claim that they need to do more studies to determine that there are no unknown side effects before allowing medical use. There are drugs that are known to be addictive, abused, and that have horrible side effeects that are allowed all the time, and they have been studied less than marinjuanna. There is no good medical reason for the FDA's stance on this issue.


It's not the FDA that schedules substances. That's a DEA responsibility. Many years ago a DEA administrative judge recommended the rescheduling of pot, but the agency ignored the recommendation. It would be simple for Obama to instruct the DEA head to reschedule. If he didn't want to do it... well, he serves at the President's whim.
 
2012-11-15 01:01:04 PM  

Firethorn: As head of the executive branch, he has the ability to tell the DEA to not expend resources fighting MJ.


Sounds like a wise move if your funding is suddenly cut by some sort of, I dunno, sequestration or something.

Firethorn: He might not be able to legalize MJ, or even prevent 'all' enforcement of the law, but it's well within his power to redirect(well, tell somebody else to do it) resources to enforcing drug prohibition on other drugs


I think we came to the conclusion in a recent thread that all it would take is a letter from the Secretary of Health & Human Services (I think) to shut the whole thing down. However, we'd then have some really awkward explaining to do on the national stage with regards to certain treaties.
 
2012-11-15 01:02:04 PM  

Hobodeluxe: here's a little civics lesson for ya. MJ is still illegal under federal law. Obama can't do jack against any DEA offices going about their job to legally regulate this stuff. He can't legally tell them to ignore the law. He can't make it legal by himself. Congress has to do it. And most of them are afraid to touch it.


This is incorrect.
 
2012-11-15 01:04:39 PM  

knobmaker: Aunt Crabby: There is no reason to keep marijuana on Schedule 1. The FDA and AMA have had over a hundred years to do studies, but those in power claim that they need to do more studies to determine that there are no unknown side effects before allowing medical use. There are drugs that are known to be addictive, abused, and that have horrible side effeects that are allowed all the time, and they have been studied less than marinjuanna. There is no good medical reason for the FDA's stance on this issue.

It's not the FDA that schedules substances. That's a DEA responsibility. Many years ago a DEA administrative judge recommended the rescheduling of pot, but the agency ignored the recommendation. It would be simple for Obama to instruct the DEA head to reschedule. If he didn't want to do it... well, he serves at the President's whim.


I thought HHS and/or ONDCP had something to do with it too.
 
2012-11-15 01:05:36 PM  
You want good turnout for the mid-term elections? Put legalizing pot on the ballot. the 18-25 group will turn out in droves.
 
2012-11-15 01:09:58 PM  

DeaH: You want good turnout for the mid-term elections? Put legalizing pot on the ballot. the 18-25 group will turn out in droves.


The one thing you can count on about the youth vote is that you can never count on the youth vote.
 
2012-11-15 01:12:07 PM  
Cannabis could be rescheduled either legislatively, through Congress, or through the executive branch. Congress has so far rejected all bills to reschedule cannabis. However, it is not unheard of for Congress to intervene in the drug scheduling process; in February 2000, for instance, the 105th Congress, in its second official session, passed Public Law 106-172, also known as the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reed Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000,[15] adding GHB to Schedule I.[16] On June 23, 2011, Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Ron Paul introduced H.R. 2306,[17] legislation that would completely remove cannabis from the federal schedules, limiting the federal government's role to policing cross-border or interstate transfers into states where it remains illegal.

The Controlled Substances Act also provides for a rulemaking process by which the United States Attorney General can reschedule cannabis administratively. These proceedings represent the only means of legalizing medical cannabis without an act of Congress. Rescheduling supporters have often cited the lengthy petition review process as a reason why cannabis is still illegal.[3] The first petition took 22 years to review, and the second took 7 years. In 2002, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed a third petition.
[edit]
 
2012-11-15 01:14:32 PM  

special20: TheSwissNavy: Mr Obama's record on medical marijuana is shameful. He's far worse than Bush was. All for politics. But he's the Hope guy.

Walk it off, Francis.


Yeah, really, what bullshiat all this talk about Obama going after medical marijuana is. Based on what I have read, the DEA busted a couple of MJ dispensaries that were not following the law (essentially operating like pot bars. No user of medical MJ has been arrested since Obama took office in 2009. He has asked Eric Holder to refrain from this and Holder has. And all he can do is ask. The Attorney General is independent of the Office of the President. As the president said when asked about this in his recent press conference, he said only that he is oath-bound to uphold the laws of the US. Were he to do otherwise would leave him vulnerable to impeachment. But haters have to hate, so none of this means anything to them. Maybe they should secede.
 
2012-11-15 01:15:46 PM  

gweilo8888: nmrsnr: the title can be "Seriously You Guys, I'm Patenting Breathing" and the abstract can read "You know? Breathing? That thing you do with your lungs to keep alive? Yeah, I'm totally patenting that." But if the CLAIMS are about a novel cancer treatment it'll still get a patent.

The title can be "Method of swinging on a swing", and the abstract can read "A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other.", and the claims can be about a method of swinging on a swing from side to side by alternately pulling on the chains, and there can be prior art from pretty-much everybody who's ever sat in a swing (almost certainly including the patent examiner themselves), but it'll still get a patent.

Patent law is completely broken in this country. The patent examiners are overloaded and will approve pretty much anything no matter how obvious, unpatentable, and rife with prior art it is, just to get it off their desks. Then once it gets to the courts, it's all about who has the biggest, loudest, most expensive lawyer and the deepest pockets to keep them talking. And in many cases, the most lobbyists and paid-off politicians.


Ah yes, the terrible "method of swinging on a swing" which, by the way, was reexamined and rejected. The problem with that, and "the exercising a cat" patent, from an examination perspective, is what proof is there of prior art? When was the last time you saw a book, paper, article, etc. Which describes swinging on a swing in weird ways? It probably is in hundreds of home movies, but before YouTube how are you supposed to find them?

The patent system has problems, and legitimate ones at that, but most of the ones people complain about in these threads really aren't the big problems, or even generally a failure of the system.
 
2012-11-15 01:19:39 PM  

AeAe: knobmaker: Aunt Crabby: There is no reason to keep marijuana on Schedule 1. The FDA and AMA have had over a hundred years to do studies, but those in power claim that they need to do more studies to determine that there are no unknown side effects before allowing medical use. There are drugs that are known to be addictive, abused, and that have horrible side effeects that are allowed all the time, and they have been studied less than marinjuanna. There is no good medical reason for the FDA's stance on this issue.

It's not the FDA that schedules substances. That's a DEA responsibility. Many years ago a DEA administrative judge recommended the rescheduling of pot, but the agency ignored the recommendation. It would be simple for Obama to instruct the DEA head to reschedule. If he didn't want to do it... well, he serves at the President's whim.

I thought HHS and/or ONDCP had something to do with it too.


I believe both the FDA and the DEA control the drug schedule. It can also be changed through the legislature. I didn't look up the act. I do remember reading something about the FDA opposing medical marijuana, and getting a AMA quote about needing to study it more.
 
2012-11-15 01:21:15 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: This is similar to resveritrol being found in red wine. Sure it's there, but to get to thereputic levels you'd have to drink so much wine you'd die. You'd have to smoke enough pot to turn you into a drooling toadstool before you got any theraputic effect from cannabidiol.


Challenge Accepted.
 
2012-11-15 01:22:39 PM  

Amos Quito: Dr Dreidel: Amos Quito: Dr Dreidel: beta_plus: Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs half the country?

More than half of the country voted for Obama, and 3 liberal states just voted to let adults choose to get farked up on the happy grass. Oh, and a very red state voted AGAINST medical marijuana.


Doesn't excuse Obama's action/inaction.

Are you following me around baiting me in fark threads? I count 3 times in the last 2 days you've tried to get a rise out of me

Are you kidding? LOL! Actually, I find you to be quite reasonable.


Fair 'nuff. The one in the Israel thread yesterday seemed egregious, though, so I may have overreacted. Whatever - the reason I continued with a response is 'cause you're usually pretty reasonable (except on Israel, but I can live with that) as well.

I just happened to agree with beta_plus' constitutionality comment, and think that Obama is a hypocrite on this issue. You responded, and I responded.

And yes, I held my nose and voted for him too, but he gets no quarter from me on the issues.


Obama isn't a hypocrite on this issue (he's never said he encourages full decrim or anything; just that he'd keep going after big-level federal violators), he's just wrong. Since this is a small part of "the issues" (even though it's a big one for me...*cough*), I can let it slide so long as there isn't a better option on the table. Bernie Sanders stubbornly decided not to run again this year, so I voted ZerobongofartMao "Frank Marshall Davis Junior Junior" BambamzeroBenghazibumbler (which was hell on the write-in portion, I tell ya what).

I held my nose to vote for Ben Cardin (D-MD). No way was Rob "I'm *totally* independent guys, I swear" Sobhani ("independent") or Dan "Nobody knows a damn thing about me, and I'm sure as hell not gonna bother changing that" Bongino (R, even though I know he's former Secret Service) getting a shot at a Senate seat, no matter how invisible Cardin is.
 
2012-11-15 01:23:59 PM  

amundb: Mr. Eugenides: This is similar to resveritrol being found in red wine. Sure it's there, but to get to thereputic levels you'd have to drink so much wine you'd die. You'd have to smoke enough pot to turn you into a drooling toadstool before you got any theraputic effect from cannabidiol.

Challenge Accepted.


Wait, which one? Because the wine thing can kill you for real. Don't do that.
 
2012-11-15 01:34:36 PM  

incendi: amundb: Mr. Eugenides: This is similar to resveritrol being found in red wine. Sure it's there, but to get to thereputic levels you'd have to drink so much wine you'd die. You'd have to smoke enough pot to turn you into a drooling toadstool before you got any theraputic effect from cannabidiol.

Challenge Accepted.

Wait, which one? Because the wine thing can kill you for real. Don't do that.


I thought you can get benefit from drinking 1 glass of red wine a day.. Did that change?
 
2012-11-15 01:35:33 PM  
Way to keep up with 2006, Fark!
 
2012-11-15 01:48:33 PM  

AeAe: incendi: amundb: Mr. Eugenides: This is similar to resveritrol being found in red wine. Sure it's there, but to get to thereputic levels you'd have to drink so much wine you'd die. You'd have to smoke enough pot to turn you into a drooling toadstool before you got any theraputic effect from cannabidiol.

Challenge Accepted.

Wait, which one? Because the wine thing can kill you for real. Don't do that.

I thought you can get benefit from drinking 1 glass of red wine a day.. Did that change?


You get benefits but it's actually from the alcohol. So a beer a day is just as good. Or, if you listen to the Scandinavians three beers a day
 
2012-11-15 01:58:05 PM  

AeAe: quantum_csc: odinsposse: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

That isn't what he promised.

I am not sure about you, but I fail to grasp the distinction between stopping federal raids in medical marijuana states and "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]." Those dispensaries are operating within the law in their states and he is using Justice Department resources tp shut them down.

While is is against federal law, has is also full of shiat when he says that he cannot tell the Justice Department what laws to enforce, what he means is that he is unwilling to spend the political capital to do so.

/Obama supported
//He is full of shiat when it comes to his actions/words WRT medical marijuana

You're cherry picking. Here's what he said in the article:

"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana," Obama said. "I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana -- and the reason is, because it's against federal law."

It's the "against federal law" part that he's using as the rationale for going after the commercial grower.

Personally, I think he's going after the big fish. I think if you're a small player, keep quiet, don't make waves, the feds wouldn't go after you. Or they might.


I agree, that is not what he says in the Rolling Stone interview, but his comments in 2010 are contradictory to the statement he made while campaigning for president in 2008. I will reserve final judgement until after seeing how the Justice Department reacts to the new legalization laws.
 
2012-11-15 02:00:46 PM  
AeAe: You may not know the answer, but what about Marinol? .. which I believe is synthetic THC and is Schedule III ..

You are correct. It requires a prescription, and pisses me off to no end that the government can claim that there's no legitimate medical use for marijuana while approving the sale of Marinol (generic drobadinol). Without insurance it'll cost you upwards of $300 for a month's prescription. With insurance, it's usually off-formulary and will still cost $50-$100 a month, depending on your policy and if you can get your insurance provider to approve it. If they'd approve medical marijuana in my state, I could get the same benefit from THC in its natural form for $20 a month (I'm a lightweight, I admit it).

This stuff is the ONLY thing that has been able to completely get rid of my fibromyalgia pain and not leave me a total zombie like opiates do.
 
2012-11-15 02:04:55 PM  

evilempryss: AeAe: You may not know the answer, but what about Marinol? .. which I believe is synthetic THC and is Schedule III ..

You are correct. It requires a prescription, and pisses me off to no end that the government can claim that there's no legitimate medical use for marijuana while approving the sale of Marinol (generic drobadinol). Without insurance it'll cost you upwards of $300 for a month's prescription. With insurance, it's usually off-formulary and will still cost $50-$100 a month, depending on your policy and if you can get your insurance provider to approve it. If they'd approve medical marijuana in my state, I could get the same benefit from THC in its natural form for $20 a month (I'm a lightweight, I admit it).

This stuff is the ONLY thing that has been able to completely get rid of my fibromyalgia pain and not leave me a total zombie like opiates do.


There's no such thing as fibromyalgia. Just fess up to the fact that you enjoy getting high
 
2012-11-15 02:06:36 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.


I think you're right, but only if impeachment hearings are held. Legalization will certainly take everyone's mind off Benghazi, F&F, and whatever else the administration's been up to.
 
2012-11-15 02:10:50 PM  

evilempryss: AeAe: You may not know the answer, but what about Marinol? .. which I believe is synthetic THC and is Schedule III ..

You are correct. It requires a prescription, and pisses me off to no end that the government can claim that there's no legitimate medical use for marijuana while approving the sale of Marinol (generic drobadinol). Without insurance it'll cost you upwards of $300 for a month's prescription. With insurance, it's usually off-formulary and will still cost $50-$100 a month, depending on your policy and if you can get your insurance provider to approve it. If they'd approve medical marijuana in my state, I could get the same benefit from THC in its natural form for $20 a month (I'm a lightweight, I admit it).

This stuff is the ONLY thing that has been able to completely get rid of my fibromyalgia pain and not leave me a total zombie like opiates do.


Absolutely. It drives me nuts how the government will not admit that cannabis has medical use.

Here's a video of Cong Polis interviewing the DEA administrator just to piss you off. Link
 
2012-11-15 02:13:14 PM  

MFAWG: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

I don't think he promised that at all


He had a similar position on gay marriage as well.
 
2012-11-15 02:17:10 PM  
 
2012-11-15 02:19:55 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: detritus: You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

He's not in his second term yet.

Hydra: Then why would he ramp up the drug war (making more raids than the Bush administration during his first term) if he was just going to legalize it in his second term?

I didn't say legalize, I said take cannabis off the Schedule I listing. He can do that without Congress, which is why I believe it's likely in his second term.


Schedule I down to Schedule II like where cocaine is? Or Schedule III where Asprin is, and you certainly can't manufacture your own Asprin. There is no drug schedule worth putting pot in because it does not require any regulation. The federal controlled substances act specifically excludes alcohol and tobacco from being scheduled as a drug. Nice to know Obama is looking out for the drug companies (and by extension, the tobacco and alcohol companies, two huge supporters and campaign spenders of pot prohibition). It's going to be another fun four years picking on the libtards who didn't elect a libtard.
 
2012-11-15 02:21:13 PM  

I Mash Grains: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

Maybe his opinion will 'evolve' as the liberal madia puts in when he changed his mind regarding homo marriage. Which he has also done absolutely nothing about also.


Yeah, in what, four years? Wishful thinking.
 
2012-11-15 02:21:18 PM  

detritus: There is no drug schedule worth putting pot in because it does not require any regulation.


I completely agree, but progress would be progress, and good is not the enemy of perfect.
 
2012-11-15 02:25:36 PM  
then we could work at making OxyContin unscheduled
 
2012-11-15 02:27:42 PM  

detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: detritus: You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

He's not in his second term yet.

Hydra: Then why would he ramp up the drug war (making more raids than the Bush administration during his first term) if he was just going to legalize it in his second term?

I didn't say legalize, I said take cannabis off the Schedule I listing. He can do that without Congress, which is why I believe it's likely in his second term.

Schedule I down to Schedule II like where cocaine is? Or Schedule III where Asprin is, and you certainly can't manufacture your own Asprin. There is no drug schedule worth putting pot in because it does not require any regulation. The federal controlled substances act specifically excludes alcohol and tobacco from being scheduled as a drug. Nice to know Obama is looking out for the drug companies (and by extension, the tobacco and alcohol companies, two huge supporters and campaign spenders of pot prohibition). It's going to be another fun four years picking on the libtards who didn't elect a libtard.


I say Schedule III, like Marinol. I fail to see why not being able to manufacture aspirin has any bearing on what cannabis should be scheduled as.
 
2012-11-15 02:32:47 PM  

detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: It's going to be another fun four years picking on the libtards who didn't elect a libtard.


Right. Because Romney totally would have had my libtard back.
 
2012-11-15 02:39:56 PM  
Jon iz teh kewl:There's no such thing as fibromyalgia. Just fess up to the fact that you enjoy getting high

Ha! Marinol doesn't give the same high as the natural stuff. From what I've heard, most people who enjoy pot for the high are disappointed by the effects of the pill. If you're taking it for medicinal purposes, though, I think it affects you differently from the get-go. Might have to do a psych paper on that.

@AeAe: I'm not gonna watch that. I'm in a good mood right now, even without my meds. I don't need you harshing my buzz. :p
 
2012-11-15 02:40:59 PM  

AeAe: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: detritus: You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

He's not in his second term yet.

Hydra: Then why would he ramp up the drug war (making more raids than the Bush administration during his first term) if he was just going to legalize it in his second term?

I didn't say legalize, I said take cannabis off the Schedule I listing. He can do that without Congress, which is why I believe it's likely in his second term.

Schedule I down to Schedule II like where cocaine is? Or Schedule III where Asprin is, and you certainly can't manufacture your own Asprin. There is no drug schedule worth putting pot in because it does not require any regulation. The federal controlled substances act specifically excludes alcohol and tobacco from being scheduled as a drug. Nice to know Obama is looking out for the drug companies (and by extension, the tobacco and alcohol companies, two huge supporters and campaign spenders of pot prohibition). It's going to be another fun four years picking on the libtards who didn't elect a libtard.

I say Schedule III, like Marinol. I fail to see why not being able to manufacture aspirin has any bearing on what cannabis should be scheduled as.


Because I want to farking grow it for myself and be left alone, and not have to go to Walgreens or CVS to pick up a bag? It's a plant. I'd like to have it in my garden along with all the other vegetables and herbs I grow, but can't. Under ANY schedule, this means it will be left in the hands of needless regulation, DEA enforcement and corporate entities who will rape the consumer whether used recreationally or medically.
 
2012-11-15 02:42:08 PM  

Aunt Crabby: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: It's going to be another fun four years picking on the libtards who didn't elect a libtard.

Right. Because Romney totally would have had my libtard back.


Great to hear you can count to two. I saw many more names on the ballot.
 
2012-11-15 02:45:18 PM  

detritus: Or Schedule III where Asprin is, and you certainly can't manufacture your own Asprin.


Really?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-15 02:49:38 PM  

detritus: Under ANY schedule, this means it will be left in the hands of needless regulation, DEA enforcement and corporate entities who will rape the consumer whether used recreationally or medically.


And I farking hate you asshole drug dealers who act like this is worse than sending someone to jail for possessing it. Because unless you have a financial incentive for it to be illegal that position is farking retarded.
 
2012-11-15 02:56:53 PM  

detritus: AeAe: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: detritus: You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

He's not in his second term yet.

Hydra: Then why would he ramp up the drug war (making more raids than the Bush administration during his first term) if he was just going to legalize it in his second term?

I didn't say legalize, I said take cannabis off the Schedule I listing. He can do that without Congress, which is why I believe it's likely in his second term.

Schedule I down to Schedule II like where cocaine is? Or Schedule III where Asprin is, and you certainly can't manufacture your own Asprin. There is no drug schedule worth putting pot in because it does not require any regulation. The federal controlled substances act specifically excludes alcohol and tobacco from being scheduled as a drug. Nice to know Obama is looking out for the drug companies (and by extension, the tobacco and alcohol companies, two huge supporters and campaign spenders of pot prohibition). It's going to be another fun four years picking on the libtards who didn't elect a libtard.

I say Schedule III, like Marinol. I fail to see why not being able to manufacture aspirin has any bearing on what cannabis should be scheduled as.

Because I want to farking grow it for myself and be left alone, and not have to go to Walgreens or CVS to pick up a bag? It's a plant. I'd like to have it in my garden along with all the other vegetables and herbs I grow, but can't. Under ANY schedule, this means it will be left in the hands of needless regulation, DEA enforcement and corporate entities who will rape the consumer whether used recreationally or medically.


So you're saying you can grow your own weed if it's scheduled? honest question, I don't know.
 
2012-11-15 02:57:57 PM  
I'm all for decriminalizing it, but I have to say that I would prefer to have it at the same level of control as alcohol but better controlled than tobacco. I need to know that I'm getting a specific amount of the chemicals I need to control my pain. Sure, I could drink willowbark tea, but the strength varies depending on when it's harvested and under what conditions it's prepared. I like taking a little pill with exactly 81 mg of the medication I need and know that's what I'm getting every time.

And I want it better-controlled than tobacco because if I'm going to start smoking it I don't want it cut with all the crap the tobacco company puts into cigarettes.
 
2012-11-15 02:59:54 PM  

AeAe:
So you're saying you can grow your own weed if it's scheduled? honest question, I don't know.


In some states, if you have a prescription for it, you are permitted to grow a certain number of plants for your personal use. Those are the states that are choosing to not set up central dispensaries.
 
2012-11-15 03:01:21 PM  

evilempryss: In some states, if you have a prescription for it


Because it's Schedule 1, doctors cannot prescribe marijuana, they can only recommend it.
 
2012-11-15 03:03:46 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: evilempryss: In some states, if you have a prescription for it

Because it's Schedule 1, doctors cannot prescribe marijuana, they can only recommend it.


Whatever you want to call the note from the physician that gives you the legal right to be in possession in MM states, I have friends in both California and Colorado who have it. Both choose to buy rather than grow because they have children in their homes and prefer to have better control over how much they have.
 
2012-11-15 03:06:21 PM  

evilempryss: I'm all for decriminalizing it, but I have to say that I would prefer to have it at the same level of control as alcohol but better controlled than tobacco. I need to know that I'm getting a specific amount of the chemicals I need to control my pain. Sure, I could drink willowbark tea, but the strength varies depending on when it's harvested and under what conditions it's prepared. I like taking a little pill with exactly 81 mg of the medication I need and know that's what I'm getting every time.

And I want it better-controlled than tobacco because if I'm going to start smoking it I don't want it cut with all the crap the tobacco company puts into cigarettes.


I want to make a point that "decriminalized" is not the same as "legal". Alcohol and tobacco are legal substances. If cannabis were decriminalized, users would still get penalized possibly in the form of fines or citations.

I support full legalization along with proper and similar controls as alcohol.
 
2012-11-15 03:07:11 PM  

detritus: Aunt Crabby: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: It's going to be another fun four years picking on the libtards who didn't elect a libtard.

Right. Because Romney totally would have had my libtard back.

Great to hear you can count to two. I saw many more names on the ballot.


Did you? I'm not sure that throwing away my vote on a third party presidential candate would help me. I'd rather keep an even worse potential president out of office. Obama may be more moderate than I'd like, and he may break his more liberal promises in the name of compromise and weasel out of admiting it like any politician, but at least he isn't a Republican.
 
2012-11-15 03:08:01 PM  
AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.
 
2012-11-15 03:14:33 PM  

actualhuman: detritus: Under ANY schedule, this means it will be left in the hands of needless regulation, DEA enforcement and corporate entities who will rape the consumer whether used recreationally or medically.

And I farking hate you asshole drug dealers who act like this is worse than sending someone to jail for possessing it. Because unless you have a financial incentive for it to be illegal that position is farking retarded.


LOL, you think if I grew it I would want to sell it? You know nothing about me. I neither have the time or patience to tend to a garden of any significant quantity where I would want to sell it to others. I have a huge incentive for it to be LEGAL so I DON'T have to rely on anyone else.
fark you.
 
2012-11-15 03:16:53 PM  

evilempryss: AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.


OK, what sounds good, a $1,000 fine for every gram? You're not going to jail, you don't get a record, therefore it's decriminalized. Any notion of decriminalization carries limitless, arbitrary fine amounts.
 
2012-11-15 03:19:34 PM  

detritus: Or Schedule III where Asprin is, and you certainly can't manufacture your own Asprin.


I don't know about Asprin, but Aspirin I've synthesized in college chemistry class. It's extremely easy.

The trick is that getting medical grade regents to make the stuff myself is going to cost more than the $5-10 bottle of 250 pills I can grab off the store shelf, which comes with some hefty guarantees for purity and standardization of dose.

From what I remember, the synthesis of Heroin is almost identical(only a couple ingredients are different), which would put legal Heroin in the same cost category per dose. England had a very effective program where they'd prescribe it to addicts - as a result the moment a user got addicted, they could go get a prescription and didn't need a dealer anymore. As a result,dealers couldn't make any money off from it, thus 'free samples' were not to be had, leading to fewer addicts. Heroin is nasty nasty stuff to get off of, in many cases it's better to treat it like the person is like a diabetic and just give them maintenance doses.
 
2012-11-15 03:23:07 PM  

detritus: evilempryss: AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.

OK, what sounds good, a $1,000 fine for every gram? You're not going to jail, you don't get a record, therefore it's decriminalized. Any notion of decriminalization carries limitless, arbitrary fine amounts.


What are you talking about? If it's not a crime to have it, why would there be a fine?
 
2012-11-15 03:28:07 PM  

evilempryss: detritus: evilempryss: AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.

OK, what sounds good, a $1,000 fine for every gram? You're not going to jail, you don't get a record, therefore it's decriminalized. Any notion of decriminalization carries limitless, arbitrary fine amounts.

What are you talking about? If it's not a crime to have it, why would there be a fine?


His point is that if it's decriminalized, a person caught with it would be subject to penalties.

The most desirable situation would be full on legalization.
 
2012-11-15 03:28:43 PM  

AeAe: I want to make a point that "decriminalized" is not the same as "legal". Alcohol and tobacco are legal substances. If cannabis were decriminalized, users would still get penalized possibly in the form of fines or citations.


Indeed. I figure the biggest problem with 'decriminalization' tends to be that only small amounts are no longer 'illegal', thus leaving the production and distribution system in the hands of criminals.

I'd prefer to fully legalize it so I can clean up(and tax) the back end too. That's where a lot of the violence comes from.
 
2012-11-15 03:31:37 PM  

detritus: evilempryss: AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.

OK, what sounds good, a $1,000 fine for every gram? You're not going to jail, you don't get a record, therefore it's decriminalized. Any notion of decriminalization carries limitless, arbitrary fine amounts.


I see that you have no idea of what you are talking about.

In California, possession of less than 28.5 grams may be fined up to $100 and it's treated like a driving ticket (you don't even have to show up to court), and I know of at least one county that told their police that anything less than a couple of grams is worthless to fine, and just ignore it. $100 certainly isn't "limitless;" in fact, the limit is $100.
 
2012-11-15 03:33:22 PM  

nmrsnr: Ah yes, the terrible "method of swinging on a swing" which, by the way, was reexamined and rejected.


And would it have been reexamined and rejected if it hadn't generated all that negative publicity for the patent office? Not on your life. It'd still be a current patent.

The point is, there is next to no attempt to confirm the validity of the patent any more; it's left entirely to the courts, and doing so leaves it entirely to who has the most money.
 
2012-11-15 03:34:42 PM  

AeAe: evilempryss: detritus: evilempryss: AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.

OK, what sounds good, a $1,000 fine for every gram? You're not going to jail, you don't get a record, therefore it's decriminalized. Any notion of decriminalization carries limitless, arbitrary fine amounts.

What are you talking about? If it's not a crime to have it, why would there be a fine?

His point is that if it's decriminalized, a person caught with it would be subject to penalties.

The most desirable situation would be full on legalization.


Okay, maybe it's a sign of how out of touch I've gotten, but that logic makes my brain hurt. How can someone be penalized for something if it's not against the law? O.o

No, I don't need a lesson on that one. I think I want to stay blissfully ignorant while I hoard my Marinol.

I just want the hypocrisy to end regarding it. The whole "no medical purpose but we cleared a pharmacy to produce it for medical use" thing also makes my brain hurt. I'll send my letters to my new congressman stating my support of legalization of MM and then make plans to move to a state that has the balls to actually implement it, because I don't see it happening here.
 
2012-11-15 03:36:49 PM  
evilempryss: AeAe: You may not know the answer, but what about Marinol? .. which I believe is synthetic THC and is Schedule III ..

You are correct. It requires a prescription, and pisses me off to no end that the government can claim that there's no legitimate medical use for marijuana while approving the sale of Marinol (generic drobadinol). Without insurance it'll cost you upwards of $300 for a month's prescription. With insurance, it's usually off-formulary and will still cost $50-$100 a month, depending on your policy and if you can get your insurance provider to approve it. If they'd approve medical marijuana in my state, I could get the same benefit from THC in its natural form for $20 a month (I'm a lightweight, I admit it).

This stuff is the ONLY thing that has been able to completely get rid of my fibromyalgia pain and not leave me a total zombie like opiates do.

There's no such thing as fibromyalgia. Just fess up to the fact that you enjoy getting high

Agree, It's a joke diagnosis. The respected medical community understands "fibromyalgia" as a typical drug seekers diagnosis. There isnt any medical proof of that quasi condition. I've seen first hand when my wife was dignosed with it... until later it was found she had 2 ruptured, herniated vertibrae.

It's a Dr's admission of "I dunno"
 
2012-11-15 03:38:12 PM  

evilempryss: Jon iz teh kewl:There's no such thing as fibromyalgia. Just fess up to the fact that you enjoy getting high

Ha! Marinol doesn't give the same high as the natural stuff. From what I've heard, most people who enjoy pot for the high are disappointed by the effects of the pill. If you're taking it for medicinal purposes, though, I think it affects you differently from the get-go. Might have to do a psych paper on that.

@AeAe: I'm not gonna watch that. I'm in a good mood right now, even without my meds. I don't need you harshing my buzz. :p


weed destroys. the real purpose of life is to be gay
even if you're in pain. just shut up and be GAY
 
2012-11-15 03:48:10 PM  

xanadian: FTFA: Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.

Sorry, Mr. Stoner Parkinson's Guy, no getting high for you!

Also: Cannabidiol is unscheduled in the US. However tetrahydrocannabinols, both naturally and synthetically occurring, are currently classified under Schedule I of the US Controlled Substances Act.

/also also: the patent has "cannabidiol" mis-spelled.


Cannabidiol (CBD) is not believed to be psychoactive, so that's probably why. But it has been shown to be largely responsible for marijuana's anti-inflammatory and anti-anxiety effects, which is why synthetic THC pills are not very useful or tolerable due to their side effects.
 
2012-11-15 03:59:45 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Nightsweat: IF it happens. And I say IF. It'll be between the 2016 election and Jan 20, 2017. No way he hands the Repubs an issue for either the midterms or the next presidential election.

And on goes the cycle of it never happening. Much like marriage equality, public opinion on the issue has accelerated towards liberty, except in the case of cannabis, party affiliation has even less of a divide on the issue.


media.reason.com

Reason would like a word with you. 

/also, stoogestep is an awesome concept
//my prediction, legalized in 2013. Don't believe me? Think Obama is too chicken shiat? Look at DADT. Easy. This one will be even easier, and be a huge boon in 2014.
 
2012-11-15 04:01:58 PM  

gweilo8888: The patent examiners are overloaded and will approve pretty much anything no matter how obvious, unpatentable, and rife with prior art it is, just to get it off their desks.


Since over 90% of applications are initially rejected, I think you're talking out of your ass.
 
2012-11-15 04:03:37 PM  

gweilo8888: The point is, there is next to no attempt to confirm the validity of the patent any more; it's left entirely to the courts, and doing so leaves it entirely to who has the most money.


The point is, the above statement is almost entirely, factually, provably incorrect.
 
2012-11-15 04:09:56 PM  

AeAe: I support full legalization along with proper and similar controls as alcohol.


I'm down with this approach, so long as it includes the right to "grow your own", similar to the provisions permitting adults to vint their own wine and brew their own beer.
 
2012-11-15 04:16:50 PM  

Stone Meadow: AeAe: I support full legalization along with proper and similar controls as alcohol.

I'm down with this approach, so long as it includes the right to "grow your own", similar to the provisions permitting adults to vint their own wine and brew their own beer.


/ internet high five
 
2012-11-15 04:32:53 PM  

evilempryss: detritus: evilempryss: AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.

OK, what sounds good, a $1,000 fine for every gram? You're not going to jail, you don't get a record, therefore it's decriminalized. Any notion of decriminalization carries limitless, arbitrary fine amounts.

What are you talking about? If it's not a crime to have it, why would there be a fine?


Decriminalization is not the same as legalization. Decriminalization means it's a civil infraction that carries no jail time, but still carries some sort of punishment, usually a fine, like a traffic ticket. The difference is only the police and a judge know about it, and that matters if you are ever in court for anything more serious and they look through your record.
 
2012-11-15 04:34:24 PM  

evilempryss: Okay, maybe it's a sign of how out of touch I've gotten, but that logic makes my brain hurt. How can someone be penalized for something if it's not against the law? O.o


There is a difference between "not criminal" and "legal". Speeding (less than x miles per hour over the given limit) is not criminal, but it is illegal.
 
2012-11-15 04:35:19 PM  

mgshamster: detritus: evilempryss: AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.

OK, what sounds good, a $1,000 fine for every gram? You're not going to jail, you don't get a record, therefore it's decriminalized. Any notion of decriminalization carries limitless, arbitrary fine amounts.

I see that you have no idea of what you are talking about.

In California, possession of less than 28.5 grams may be fined up to $100 and it's treated like a driving ticket (you don't even have to show up to court), and I know of at least one county that told their police that anything less than a couple of grams is worthless to fine, and just ignore it. $100 certainly isn't "limitless;" in fact, the limit is $100.


It's as limitless as lawmakers want it to be. Not everyone is as fortunate (or unfortunate depending on your view) enough to live in Cali. You honestly don't think Texas or Florida wouldn't attach some serious fines to it? And what happens if you don't pay that ticket for whatever fine it imposes? Jail!
 
2012-11-15 04:36:45 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl:

weed destroys. the real purpose of life is to be gay
even if you're in pain. just shut up and be GAY


Go back to the kids table. Adults are talking.


If I were to ignore any Farkers you would be the first...but here I am replying to you.

facepalm.jpg for me.
 
2012-11-15 04:55:27 PM  
Simply uttering the words "I smell marijuana" is grounds for police to break down your door and shove your bill of rights right up your ass with an unlubricated rubber glove. For that reason alone, the stuff will always be illegal one way or the other. It has little to nothing to do with the pro/con of the "drug" itself. I really think that in the wake of the election outcomes we should pressure Obama heavily on this.
 
2012-11-15 05:05:54 PM  
It's hilarious that the federal government still wants people to take them seriously when they continue to place marijuana in the same category as heroin while simultaneously telling us that marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine.
 
2012-11-15 05:08:13 PM  

Theaetetus: gweilo8888: The patent examiners are overloaded and will approve pretty much anything no matter how obvious, unpatentable, and rife with prior art it is, just to get it off their desks.

Since over 90% of applications are initially rejected, I think you're talking out of your ass.


And 99% probably should have been rejected. But I can see there's little point discussing this, so I won't continue.
 
2012-11-15 05:28:54 PM  
We're getting to the point where you get more votes supporting MJ than opposing it. At that point, schedule 1 goes away.
 
2012-11-15 05:58:09 PM  

odinsposse: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

That isn't what he promised.


The president continued: "I can't nullify congressional law. I can't ask the Justice Department to say, 'Ignore completely a federal law that's on the books.' What I can say is, 'Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.' As a consequence, there haven't been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes."

Yeah, man, those medical marijuana dispensaries are farking people up left and right. Look at the carnage. Better lock them up in prison where they'll be safe.
 
2012-11-15 05:58:45 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.


Congress has to do that.
 
2012-11-15 06:06:38 PM  

jigger: Congress has to do that.


I'm not sure that they do. But I'm all ears.
 
2012-11-15 06:07:49 PM  
Dewey, Cheatem and Howe been in yet? Hesaidthechequewasinthemail. The Sound Effects Guy and his on set sounds; Boink
as well a the dubbed classic sounds, calliope, was the fourth stooge, wolf whistle, and deserved an innovative handclap or clap-board whichever is funnier.
 
2012-11-15 06:18:04 PM  

gweilo8888: Theaetetus: gweilo8888: The patent examiners are overloaded and will approve pretty much anything no matter how obvious, unpatentable, and rife with prior art it is, just to get it off their desks.

Since over 90% of applications are initially rejected, I think you're talking out of your ass.

And 99% probably should have been rejected. But I can see there's little point discussing this, so I won't continue.


"Curse you and your verifiable facts! I'll take my unsupported assertions that really should have been just opinions and go home!"
 
2012-11-15 06:22:36 PM  

evilempryss: Okay, maybe it's a sign of how out of touch I've gotten, but that logic makes my brain hurt. How can someone be penalized for something if it's not against the law? O.o


It's called a civil offense. It's the category that improperly parking your car is under, or in some states speeding less than 10mph over the limit, etc...
 
2012-11-15 06:40:31 PM  

Weaver95: so cannabis is Schedule I and thus pure evil distilled into physical form. it has no valid uses, it'll rot reality itself...and it's going to destroy the universe if not locked down tight.


4.bp.blogspot.com 

/obscure?
 
2012-11-15 06:44:51 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: jigger: Congress has to do that.

I'm not sure that they do. But I'm all ears.


Ok. Well, the Controlled Substances Act lays out the schedule. Marijuana is on the list under Schedule 1. Actually, marihuana is. To remove marihuana from Schedule 1 you have to change the Controlled Substances Act.
 
2012-11-15 07:52:15 PM  
Clever girl...
 
2012-11-15 08:47:03 PM  

sunlion: Simply uttering the words "I smell marijuana" is grounds for police to break down your door and shove your bill of rights right up your ass with an unlubricated rubber glove. For that reason alone, the stuff will always be illegal one way or the other. It has little to nothing to do with the pro/con of the "drug" itself. I really think that in the wake of the election outcomes we should pressure Obama heavily on this.


The tide is turning. Fewer people blindly fear the plant. Law enforcement is gonna need a new bogey man to usurp rights soon.
 
2012-11-15 11:28:26 PM  
www.allposters.com
 
2012-11-16 12:40:46 AM  

Theaetetus: gweilo8888: Theaetetus: gweilo8888: The patent examiners are overloaded and will approve pretty much anything no matter how obvious, unpatentable, and rife with prior art it is, just to get it off their desks.

Since over 90% of applications are initially rejected, I think you're talking out of your ass.

And 99% probably should have been rejected. But I can see there's little point discussing this, so I won't continue.

"Curse you and your verifiable facts! I'll take my unsupported assertions that really should have been just opinions and go home!"


Yeah, no. You've not posted anything I would consider "verifiable". I posted opinion, you posted opinion. If you want to pretend your opinion is somehow more accurate, try backing it up with... I dunno, PROOF?
 
2012-11-16 01:06:18 AM  

incendi: DeaH: You want good turnout for the mid-term elections? Put legalizing pot on the ballot. the 18-25 group will turn out in droves.

The one thing you can count on about the youth vote is that you can never count on the youth vote.


Not just that. You cant even trust them to even be 18-25. Remember the 18-25 year olds who voted for Obama in 2008? Well, they are all 22-29, every one of them.
 
2012-11-16 01:14:16 AM  
Huirr pot turns people into loosers
hurrrrrr
 
2012-11-16 01:24:53 AM  
Not that it matters, but I lived 55 years of my life not knowing that the three stooges were Jewish. They were just so Stoogish that how could I have percepted it.
 
2012-11-16 03:03:23 AM  

Frederick: sunlion: Simply uttering the words "I smell marijuana" is grounds for police to break down your door and shove your bill of rights right up your ass with an unlubricated rubber glove. For that reason alone, the stuff will always be illegal one way or the other. It has little to nothing to do with the pro/con of the "drug" itself. I really think that in the wake of the election outcomes we should pressure Obama heavily on this.

The tide is turning. Fewer people blindly fear the plant. Law enforcement is gonna need a new bogey man to usurp rights soon.


Bath salts.
 
2012-11-16 08:26:37 AM  

gweilo8888: Theaetetus: gweilo8888: Theaetetus: gweilo8888: The patent examiners are overloaded and will approve pretty much anything no matter how obvious, unpatentable, and rife with prior art it is, just to get it off their desks.

Since over 90% of applications are initially rejected, I think you're talking out of your ass.

And 99% probably should have been rejected. But I can see there's little point discussing this, so I won't continue.

"Curse you and your verifiable facts! I'll take my unsupported assertions that really should have been just opinions and go home!"

Yeah, no. You've not posted anything I would consider "verifiable". I posted opinion, you posted opinion. If you want to pretend your opinion is somehow more accurate, try backing it up with... I dunno, PROOF?


Proof.
 
2012-11-16 01:34:11 PM  

Theaetetus: Proof.


Yeah, no.

* Information is six years or more out of date

* Information pertains to 16 specific art units, which is a tiny and meaningless sample

* Even in that extremely limited sample, most art units listed come nowhere near your claimed 90% rejection rate

* First rejection is hardly indicative of whether or not fundamentally flawed patents go on to be issued. There are many, many reasons a patent application could be temporarily bumped that have nothing to do with whether the patent was properly checked for prior art or the obviousness test.

Other, more recent, data from the same source (albeit again extremely limited in scope and covering only 25,000 applications) shows that in some technology centers, there is as high as an almost 80% grant rate on patents. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/05/uspto-grant-rate-by-technology -center.html

So no, bzzt, you fail. Go back and try again. Come back with real proof this time please, not a pathetically tiny, outdated, and meaningless sample that doesn't actually show what you claimed, or admit you made up the "90% of applications are initially rejected" statistic.
 
2012-11-16 02:52:36 PM  

whidbey: Huirr pot turns people into loosers
hurrrrrr


well, they definitely aren't usually as uptight 
; )
 
2012-11-16 04:06:28 PM  

gweilo8888: Theaetetus: Proof.

Yeah, no.

* Information is six years or more out of date


But representative, unless you have better data.

* Information pertains to 16 specific art units, which is a tiny and meaningless sample

[Citation needed]

* Even in that extremely limited sample, most art units listed come nowhere near your claimed 90% rejection rate

Sorry, 85%. They also come nowhere near your claimed 0% rejection rate.

* First rejection is hardly indicative of whether or not fundamentally flawed patents go on to be issued. There are many, many reasons a patent application could be temporarily bumped that have nothing to do with whether the patent was properly checked for prior art or the obviousness test.

It does, however, refute your statement that:
"The patent examiners are overloaded and will approve pretty much anything no matter how obvious, unpatentable, and rife with prior art it is, just to get it off their desks."
If they're rejecting the vast majority of applications, then they aren't "approving pretty much anything". In fact, it's the opposite.

Incidentally, it shows a misunderstanding of how their "desks" work - rejecting an application also gets it off their desk. They'd be just as happy if applications went abandoned.

Other, more recent, data from the same source (albeit again extremely limited in scope and covering only 25,000 applications) shows that in some technology centers, there is as high as an almost 80% grant rate on patents. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/05/uspto-grant-rate-by-technology -center.html

Very different data - that one is "issued/issued+abandoned", which reflects final dispositions only. It has nothing to do with initial rejection rate.
Also, with your pedantic whining about my chart showing an average of 85% rather than 90%, I'm disappointed to see you saying "in some technology centers, there is as high as an almost 80% grant rate" when your chart shows one such center, the next being not even 70%, and the average being closer to 55%. If you're going to be a hypocrite, try not to make it so obvious.

So no, bzzt, you fail. Go back and try again. Come back with real proof this time please, not a pathetically tiny, outdated, and meaningless sample that doesn't actually show what you claimed, or admit you made up the "90% of applications are initially rejected" statistic.

You may criticize the timing and size of the sample, but no, you can't claim it doesn't show what I claimed, nor can you attempt to claim I made up the statistic. The sample is proof of what I said. You can argue about the adequacy of the proof, but to entirely deny that the statistic exists and that I must have made it up? Sorry, no. Reality doesn't work that way.

Additionally, you've still failed to support your statement at all. Even your own data shows that the statement "the patent examiners... will approve pretty much anything" is false. Heck, I don't need to waste time searching for more evidence to tear down your statement, since your own evidence shreds it.
So, feel free to admit that your statement was false. I won't hold my breath, though. Even if you lack the courage to admit when you're wrong, anyone can see that your own evidence contradicts you.
 
2012-11-16 06:22:12 PM  

Theaetetus: But representative, unless you have better data.


Wow. We might as well call it quits, when you can't even admit that bad data is no better than no data at all.

[Citation needed]

It is stated right on the very page you linked to. However:

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/classification/art/1611-1763.j s p
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/classification/art/1764_2681.j s p
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/classification/art/2763_2913.j s p
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/classification/art/2914_3715.j s p
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/classification/art/3721_3783.j s p

Even you aren't going to claim that the 16 art units cited are anything except a microscopic sample compared to the number that exist, are you? Hell, if you use your brain, you could probably find a few dozen patented inventions just on your desk that wouldn't be covered by a single one of those 16 art units.

Sorry, 85%. They also come nowhere near your claimed 0% rejection rate.

So you can't understand a simple bar chart, either, eh? Or do you just have a fundamental inability to admit when you're making up statistics?

I count five out of 16 bars below 75% (as clearly marked on the chart), six below 80%, 9 below 85%, and 11 out of 16 below 90%.

Out of the quite possibly cherry-picked 16 categories from your out-of-date, unreliable source based on a tiny sample size, only five out of 16 bars matched the "over 90%" figure you pulled out from between your rear cheeks. Admit you made the figure up, and let's move on.

It does, however, refute your statement that:
"The patent examiners are overloaded and will approve pretty much anything no matter how obvious, unpatentable, and rife with prior art it is, just to get it off their desks."
If they're rejecting the vast majority of applications, then they aren't "approving pretty much anything". In fact, it's the opposite.


It does no such thing. There's every chance those "rejections" all went on to be approved, because we're not talking about final rejections, we're talking about first rejections with no indication of why they were rejected, even if you ignore the fact that your figures are total crap in the first place.

Incidentally, it shows a misunderstanding of how their "desks" work - rejecting an application also gets it off their desk. They'd be just as happy if applications went abandoned.

It's a little-known fact you've uncovered here. The number of people who refile a patent after the patent has already been approved is identical to the number of people who refile a patent that was rejected on the first try. Stunning!

Except they don't. If the examiner approves the patent, that patent will not be back on their desk any time soon. If they deny it, they can pretty much guarantee it will be resubmitted in short order, with a couple of words changed.

Very different data - that one is "issued/issued+abandoned", which reflects final dispositions only. It has nothing to do with initial rejection rate.

And we have never been talking about initial rejection rate. We have been talking about final approval rate. Well, until you tried to wave completely unrelated, nonsense figures around as a distraction.

Also, with your pedantic whining about my chart showing an average of 85% rather than 90%, I'm disappointed to see you saying "in some technology centers, there is as high as an almost 80% grant rate" when your chart shows one such center, the next being not even 70%, and t ...

Hah! You know what? I clearly stated that "some" technology centers have as high as an almost 80% grant rate, and that chart shows that some (ie. one or more) do.

You claimed that the OVERALL rejection rate was over 90%, when the graph you showed as evidence of this suggested the exact opposite -- that even in a possibly cherry-picked sample, the majority of rejection rates were WELL below 90%.

So yeah, get a life. Even your best attempt to back yourself up clearly shows your "over 90%" figure was pulled out of your ass. I can't be bothered discussing this any more if you can't even admit that simple fact.
 
2012-11-16 07:27:48 PM  
Whatever you say, Mr. "'Rejecting an application over and over and over and over and over until finally allowing it, after many narrowing amendments' is the exact same as 'approving pretty much everything'"
 
2012-11-16 09:55:39 PM  
Theaetus, if the patent process works so well, why is "One Click Shopping" patentable? If the system worked for the ultimate good of society as a whole, no medical procedure would ever be given a patent (drugs and equipment are different then a medical technique). In fact, I would question why there are software patents when copyright seem to be a better fit. Many patent applications may be rejected, but it seems like if companies hire a persistent lawyer, they still eventually get patents on things that should never be granted patents.

/Just My Opinion (TM)
//Slashies patent pending
 
2012-11-16 10:49:20 PM  

Aunt Crabby: Theaetus, if the patent process works so well, why is "One Click Shopping" patentable?


Because, despite what Fark or Slashdot will tell you, that patent didn't actually claim "clicking once". When you paraphrase something, by definition, you are framing it in language that is easier to understand... So of course, when you paraphrase a patent about utilizing shared data in a shopping cart model system, you are going to frame it in easy to understand language that makes it sound obvious.
For example... Toyota Prius? Not an internal combustion engine and fuel cell DC-motor driving a planetary gear constant drive transmission, but a "gas-electric car". And cars, gas, and electricity are all known, so it's obvious, right? Any time you paraphrase to "simplify" the invention, you're going to describe it in terms of the known, obvious parts, and that's going to cause you to miss the actual invention.

The one-click patent has been reexamined several times, with all of the best prior art the EFF could throw at it, and always been found to be different and nonobvious. O'reilly put a $10,000 bounty out there for prior art... And after several years, withdrew it.

If the system worked for the ultimate good of society as a whole, no medical procedure would ever be given a patent (drugs and equipment are different then a medical technique).

Why should procedures be different than drugs or equipment? If you're concerned about "ultimate good", then why say that life-saving drugs can be patented? If you agree that there's an interest in encouraging companies to invest in research, then why exempt procedures?

In fact, I would question why there are software patents when copyright seem to be a better fit.

Tell that to TinyTower... Or Crush the Castle. It's trivial to make similar software these days.

Many patent applications may be rejected, but it seems like if companies hire a persistent lawyer, they still eventually get patents on things that should never be granted patents.

What the persistent lawyer does is narrow the claims until the claimed subject matter, unlike the original application, is patentable. If I claim a power supply, that's not patentable. If I claim a battery pack, that's not patentable. If I claim a battery pack using a new chemical combination, that is patentable. And if it were claimed originally, it should have been allowed too.
 
Displayed 206 of 206 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report