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 94
    More: Fail, Uncle Sam, applied research, oxidants, neurodegenerative diseases, oxidative stress, autoimmune diseases, University of Jerusalem, filing date  
•       •       •

21231 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2012 at 10:23 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-15 09:25:11 AM
5 votes:
I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.
2012-11-15 10:44:28 AM
4 votes:
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 10:41:24 AM
4 votes:
legalizing cannabis would be a huge job creator
2012-11-15 10:28:34 AM
4 votes:

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 02:40:59 PM
3 votes:

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 11:19:00 AM
3 votes:
It's outrageous that anyone would promote the use of a mood altering drug in the US. 

lh5.googleusercontent.com
2012-11-15 10:40:44 AM
3 votes:
I prefer to get my cannabinoids from naturally occurring sources in their natural delivery vehicle.
2012-11-15 10:37:39 AM
3 votes:

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 10:33:57 AM
3 votes:

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 10:32:57 AM
3 votes:
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 10:30:32 AM
3 votes:

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 05:28:54 PM
2 votes:
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 03:48:10 PM
2 votes:

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 03:07:11 PM
2 votes:

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 03:06:21 PM
2 votes:

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 02:39:56 PM
2 votes:
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 02:00:46 PM
2 votes:
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 01:14:32 PM
2 votes:

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 10:50:46 AM
2 votes:

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 10:42:16 AM
2 votes:

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 10:34:38 AM
2 votes:
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 10:33:28 AM
2 votes:
bibliophilica.files.wordpress.com

What a Cannabinoid might look like
2012-11-15 11:28:26 PM
1 votes:
www.allposters.com
2012-11-15 08:47:03 PM
1 votes:

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 06:44:51 PM
1 votes:

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 06:22:36 PM
1 votes:

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 06:06:38 PM
1 votes:

jigger: Congress has to do that.


I'm not sure that they do. But I'm all ears.
2012-11-15 04:55:27 PM
1 votes:
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 04:36:45 PM
1 votes:

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 04:35:19 PM
1 votes:

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 04:34:24 PM
1 votes:

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 04:16:50 PM
1 votes:

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 04:09:56 PM
1 votes:

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 03:31:37 PM
1 votes:

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 03:28:43 PM
1 votes:

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 03:28:07 PM
1 votes:

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 03:19:34 PM
1 votes:

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 03:14:33 PM
1 votes:

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 03:01:21 PM
1 votes:

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 02:59:54 PM
1 votes:

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 02:57:57 PM
1 votes:
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 02:49:38 PM
1 votes:

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 02:45:18 PM
1 votes:

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


Really?

upload.wikimedia.org
2012-11-15 02:42:08 PM
1 votes:

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 02:32:47 PM
1 votes:

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 02:27:42 PM
1 votes:

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 02:21:18 PM
1 votes:

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 02:13:14 PM
1 votes:

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 02:10:50 PM
1 votes:

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 02:04:55 PM
1 votes:

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 01:58:05 PM
1 votes:

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 01:48:33 PM
1 votes:

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 01:34:36 PM
1 votes:

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 01:22:39 PM
1 votes:

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 01:19:39 PM
1 votes:

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 01:12:07 PM
1 votes:
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 01:09:58 PM
1 votes:

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 01:05:36 PM
1 votes:
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 12:40:55 PM
1 votes:

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 12:37:12 PM
1 votes:

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 12:31:01 PM
1 votes:

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 12:04:14 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com 

Just think of the money that could have been made...
2012-11-15 12:03:04 PM
1 votes:
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 12:02:07 PM
1 votes:

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 11:59:27 AM
1 votes:
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 11:51:28 AM
1 votes:

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 11:40:21 AM
1 votes:

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 11:22:17 AM
1 votes:

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 11:17:31 AM
1 votes:

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 11:16:11 AM
1 votes:

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 11:14:02 AM
1 votes:
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 11:13:46 AM
1 votes:

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 11:11:44 AM
1 votes:
Legalize Shemp.

Damn mobile, can't post image.
2012-11-15 11:11:21 AM
1 votes:

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 11:10:37 AM
1 votes:
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.
ows
2012-11-15 11:06:08 AM
1 votes:

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 10:59:08 AM
1 votes:
Hows that crapping all over the 9th and 10th Amendments working out for you libs?
2012-11-15 10:58:18 AM
1 votes:

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 10:52:20 AM
1 votes:

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 10:45:58 AM
1 votes:
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 10:45:04 AM
1 votes:

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

What a Cannabinoid might look like



Some people are vegitarians.
He's a humanitarian.
2012-11-15 10:41:01 AM
1 votes:

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 10:40:24 AM
1 votes:

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 10:39:59 AM
1 votes:
Needs more n'yuck.
2012-11-15 10:38:46 AM
1 votes:

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 10:36:40 AM
1 votes:
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 10:33:33 AM
1 votes:

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 10:33:30 AM
1 votes:

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 10:32:11 AM
1 votes:
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 10:30:59 AM
1 votes:

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 10:27:39 AM
1 votes:

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 10:25:10 AM
1 votes:

xanadian: Cannabidiol


So we need to smoke...marijuandiol?
2012-11-15 08:59:16 AM
1 votes:
Oh, a wise guy!
2012-11-15 08:55:59 AM
1 votes:
i0.kym-cdn.com
 
Displayed 94 of 94 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report