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.

(LA Weekly)   Obama administration seeks to move Marijuana from Schedule 1 classification. Fark: It will require Congressional cooperation   (laweekly.com) divider line 126
    More: Unlikely, Obama, Obama administration, Dana Rohrabacher, decriminalization, Drug Policy Alliance, Michele Leonhart, United States House Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder  
•       •       •

5323 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2014 at 2:04 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



126 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-05 05:55:36 PM  

Lokasenna: GBB: It was never made illegal because it was harmful.  It was made illegal the same way alcohol was made illegal: because of the way people behaved while using it.  In the 20's, boozehounds were annoying as fark and the straights couldn't stand it.  Sure, you'll blame taxes as a financial motivation, and moonshine as a health concern.  But, it really comes down to flappers and drunks.  The only reason prohibition was repealed was because the behavior caused by prohibition was worse that before prohibition.  Look at how they regulated the shait out of it after repeal.

Alcohol was made illegal because of the religious right, who insisted that using it *at all* was sinful and responsible for the decay of our society. Never mind that, whenever alcohol is condemned in the Bible, it's because someone made an ass of themselves, fell out of their pants, and their son walked in and was all "LOL HEY FAMILY CHECK THIS shiat".

Pot was made illegal for two reasons, both of which are fairly well-documented, and both of which are garbage.
1) Pot makes your daughter sleep with black men, and black men are scary. Just like how jazz was scary black music that got your blood all hot and unChristian.
2) Hemp was a threat to the paper industry, being cheaper and able to grow just about anywhere.


There were a whole hell of a lot more people than the religious right involved in getting prohibition started.
 
2014-04-05 05:58:54 PM  

Isitoveryet: If this happens, all those marijuana heads will start snorting heroin. Gateway drug & all that.


The majority of hardcore drug users used pot before crack, so it must be a gateway.

Just like candy bars, which most drug users ate in life prior to giving handjibbers for crack.
 
2014-04-05 06:01:32 PM  

leevis: Lokasenna: GBB: It was never made illegal because it was harmful.  It was made illegal the same way alcohol was made illegal: because of the way people behaved while using it.  In the 20's, boozehounds were annoying as fark and the straights couldn't stand it.  Sure, you'll blame taxes as a financial motivation, and moonshine as a health concern.  But, it really comes down to flappers and drunks.  The only reason prohibition was repealed was because the behavior caused by prohibition was worse that before prohibition.  Look at how they regulated the shait out of it after repeal.

Alcohol was made illegal because of the religious right, who insisted that using it *at all* was sinful and responsible for the decay of our society. Never mind that, whenever alcohol is condemned in the Bible, it's because someone made an ass of themselves, fell out of their pants, and their son walked in and was all "LOL HEY FAMILY CHECK THIS shiat".

Pot was made illegal for two reasons, both of which are fairly well-documented, and both of which are garbage.
1) Pot makes your daughter sleep with black men, and black men are scary. Just like how jazz was scary black music that got your blood all hot and unChristian.
2) Hemp was a threat to the paper industry, being cheaper and able to grow just about anywhere.

There were a whole hell of a lot more people than the religious right involved in getting prohibition started.


They gave women the vote that was the biggest cause of alcohol prohibition.
 
2014-04-05 06:35:12 PM  
Obamaphones, Obamadrones, Obamarijuana... Is there anything Magic-Barack can't do?
 
2014-04-05 06:44:08 PM  

Lokasenna:

Alcohol was made illegal because of the religious right



rro



Sorry, princess. Prohibition was passed by Progressive busybodies from the Left and the Right. What is charmingly referred to as the Congo church (Congregationalists) could never be referred to as the "Religious Right" even in the worst viper's fevered dope dream. Busybodyism doesn't know a left/right axis.
 
2014-04-05 06:51:15 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-05 06:56:59 PM  

zepher: hubiestubert: BravadoGT: Obama's wrong about this.  The law allows the AG to reclassify it to another category without Congressional approval.

So why is he dragging Congress into it?  He has more legal authority to re-schedule pot than, say, extending the deadline for Obamacare or arbitrarily granting exemptions to it.

To nail down specific Congresscritters on their vote. It's called strategy. You get a vote that will cast these strong, freedom loving, Libertarian loving souls voting against something that they claim to support. I will not be surprised if the House tries to bury their turn on this.

In other words, Obama doesn't give two shiats about actually moving MJ out of schedule 1 he just wants to use it as a political weapon.
He's hoping that he can gain a few libertarian and hippie votes by lying about what it would take to move MJ off schedule 1 and try and catch a few Republicans voting against it so the DNC and can run endless ads and the MSM can crow about the GOP relentlessly this fall.
Even though I am totally against the criminalization of MJ if I was a GOP Congressman I would refuse to vote on it based on the fact that Obama doesn't need a single Congressional vote to move MJ off schedule 1.

I guess you're perfectly fine with the political posturing instead of any real action.


I think you raise some interesting points, but let me play devil's advocate...

Assume for a moment that Obama does want to get MJ off of schedule 1, maybe just so medical research can start happening.

If he just moves it using his executive powers, the right will, once again, start screaming about abuse of powers and bullying his agenda onto the American people etc., etc., etc. They'll be able to frame the criticisms the way they want by pointing out that Obama didn't attempt to work with Congress, which represents the people. They'll be able to say that no framework for this specific drug (in terms of research, etc.) was established by Congress.

Rather than making a grab for a few libertarian votes, he might be trying to shield his fellow Democrats from the shiat-storm that would follow them into the mid-terms if he were to act unilaterally. He'd have nothing to lose since he can't run again, but his fellow Democrats would suffer any backlash.

Go one step further and assume that Obama does want to move MJ towards legalization. What he's doing can allow for a government discussion on the merits of the idea rather and one that can't be shouted down based on him rescheduling it without engaging Congress.

So, it may be that rather than typical political posturing, Obama is trying to raise the issue in a way that doesn't enrage conservatives or galvanize opposition to his fellow Democrats. Watching Republicans squirm as they try to juggle personal liberty vs. restriction while balancing on lobbyists vs. tax revenues would just be a bonus, I suppose.

/not trying to white-knight for Obama, just offering an alternative idea
 
2014-04-05 07:18:50 PM  

GBB: It all comes down to marketing and presentation.

The reason why legalizing marijuana is so difficult is because of public perception.  It was never made illegal because it was harmful.  It was made illegal the same way alcohol was made illegal: because of the way people behaved while using it.  In the 20's, boozehounds were annoying as fark and the straights couldn't stand it.  Sure, you'll blame taxes as a financial motivation, and moonshine as a health concern.  But, it really comes down to flappers and drunks.  The only reason prohibition was repealed was because the behavior caused by prohibition was worse that before prohibition.  Look at how they regulated the shait out of it after repeal.

The stoners are basically causing the straights to freak out and the way they act override any health benefits that it actually provides.  Same with oxycontin.  It has legitimate uses, but once people start abusing it, selling it, and create a counter-culture around it, it gets shut down.

So, if anyone ever wants this "movement" to move along any faster, I would suggest finding a way to tone down the stoner attitude surrounding the issue.  Cheech & Chong, Harold & Kumar, and Jay & Silent Bob are not going to help anyone understand that marijuana helps chemo patients with their appetites.  And, no one is going to believe a legitimate drug comes in "flavors" like "Super Cush" and "Raspberry Delight" or requires a glass device in the shape of a naked dragon-woman hybrid to administer.

Sure, these things shouldn't matter, but they do.  You have the unfortunate task of convincing the squares that this stuff they hate and don't understand is harmless and has actual benefits.  Don't make your job harder.  Wise up a little.  Clean up the image, and I'll bet this would go a lot smoother and faster.


Actually, it was made illegal because some guy at an assembly of plutocrats who had no personal or scientific knowledge of cannabis piped up at the last minute and said " Hey, shouldn't we ban that Marihuana stuff?  I heard it makes the darkies think they're as good as white men. " And many huzzahs were had by all.

It's still illegal because of the cash it makes for the few and general momentum / propaganda.  Most 'stoners' are responsible, hard working folk.

/true story
 
2014-04-05 07:31:31 PM  

skinink: Inhale to the Chief!


That made me snort coffee. Luckily I have a tablet now. Damn you fark for forcing me to buy one.
 
2014-04-05 08:02:48 PM  
I think it was around 1970 that marijuana was classified with the hard drugs.  The guy who did it said that they didn't know much about it, so they needed to classify it with the bad stuff until they could do some research.  Then of course the classification prevented any research from being done.
 
2014-04-05 08:05:38 PM  

Mugato: zepher: He's hoping that he can gain a few libertarian and hippie votes

Yeah, have to score that enormous voting block.


The Democrats are so desperate to not lose the majority they're going after every last vote they can.
They're willing to lie and cheat to keep their power, like every other politician.
 
2014-04-05 08:12:07 PM  

geek_mars: zepher: hubiestubert: BravadoGT: Obama's wrong about this.  The law allows the AG to reclassify it to another category without Congressional approval.

So why is he dragging Congress into it?  He has more legal authority to re-schedule pot than, say, extending the deadline for Obamacare or arbitrarily granting exemptions to it.

To nail down specific Congresscritters on their vote. It's called strategy. You get a vote that will cast these strong, freedom loving, Libertarian loving souls voting against something that they claim to support. I will not be surprised if the House tries to bury their turn on this.

In other words, Obama doesn't give two shiats about actually moving MJ out of schedule 1 he just wants to use it as a political weapon.
He's hoping that he can gain a few libertarian and hippie votes by lying about what it would take to move MJ off schedule 1 and try and catch a few Republicans voting against it so the DNC and can run endless ads and the MSM can crow about the GOP relentlessly this fall.
Even though I am totally against the criminalization of MJ if I was a GOP Congressman I would refuse to vote on it based on the fact that Obama doesn't need a single Congressional vote to move MJ off schedule 1.

I guess you're perfectly fine with the political posturing instead of any real action.

I think you raise some interesting points, but let me play devil's advocate...

Assume for a moment that Obama does want to get MJ off of schedule 1, maybe just so medical research can start happening.

If he just moves it using his executive powers, the right will, once again, start screaming about abuse of powers and bullying his agenda onto the American people etc., etc., etc. They'll be able to frame the criticisms the way they want by pointing out that Obama didn't attempt to work with Congress, which represents the people. They'll be able to say that no framework for this specific drug (in terms of research, etc.) was established by Congress.

Rather than maki ...


With the over 32 times Obama has unilaterally changed Obamacare and after his 'I got a pen and a phone' comment I seriously doubt he's worried about being seen as abusing his power.
Never forget that every last move Obama makes is based on political motive.
He makes the most of the Chicago style political machine.
 
2014-04-05 08:16:50 PM  

Nabb1: unyon: eurotrader: Why the AG needs anything from congress to reschedule marijuana other than an excuse to continue doing nothing is unclear. Treaties just require it remains a controlled substance. Holder could be going with the standard approach of appearing to want to do something or wanting to blame the house republicans for blocking him but the law does not seem to require it. A mid-terms run up stunt is the most likely answer. The link goes to the law on what only AG Holder has to do. A report and request to lower the schedule have been already submitted with accompanying report supporting the lowering and all they require is a signature from Holder.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/811

Having congress come out against rescheduling it would be great for driving the youth vote to the polls in 2014.  frkkit- the GOP pioneered using the wedge issue to drive turnout.  This looks to be one of those goose/gander situations.

This. They don't care about substantive reform.


Au contraire. They care very much about substantive reform. How do you get substantive reform? You kick the motherfarking obstructionist Republicans and TeaTards out of Congress.

How do you kick them out in a midterm year? You get people to "WAKE THE FARK UP!" (thanks, Sam) and get the vote the Fark out.

Seems like excellent strategy to me, actually.
 
2014-04-05 08:19:03 PM  
zepher:

The Democrats are so desperate to not lose the majority they're going after every last vote they can.
They're willing to lie and cheat to keep their power, like every other politician.


Good. Let's hope they succeed.
 
2014-04-05 09:17:59 PM  
Sheeit...

If a 10% voter block wanted bestiality legalized, the Democrats would make it an election issue just to get the votes....then kick it to whatever portion of the government at the time is run by Republicans for a NO....so they can run back to that 10% and say "we tried but those mean old wepubwicans just wont give you equal rights.....you pig-farkers"
 
2014-04-05 09:20:50 PM  
So.... not one of you has noticed that Obama never said anything and this is a subby fail? This was a short excerpt from Eric Holder's recent grilling in front of Congress, because Republicans aren't wasting taxpayer dollars by endlessly demanding answers until they get the ones they want. They're trying to trap him into saying he won't enforce all Federal laws, and use that as a wedge issue to play on "Democrat hypocrisy and dereliction" etc, as is clear if you watch more of the interview. This is only going to get worse as election fever heats up.

Obama's actual stance is still a big f-you to MJ users.
 
2014-04-06 12:18:26 AM  

archichris: Sheeit...

If a 10% voter block wanted bestiality legalized, the Democrats would make it an election issue just to get the votes....then kick it to whatever portion of the government at the time is run by Republicans for a NO....so they can run back to that 10% and say "we tried but those mean old wepubwicans just wont give you equal rights.....you pig-farkers"


Hm, not so much, the thing about pig-farking is that there's a little thing called consent - that's why we disapprove per-se.

OTOH, with cannabis legalization, no one is LOSING any rights and no one is being harmed by the law, rights are being restored in fact.
 
2014-04-06 01:22:08 AM  

Enemabag Jones: Smeggy Smurf,
Fartbongo will have the support of the libertarians in this.

You may find that some of the core beliefs of people that associate themselves with the libertarian party have shifted since about 2008.

Link
Many fewer briefly tempting and left wing, lots more consistent, too smart for science.


Your link is drunk and went home.  Try that one again.

I'm not concerned with the johnny come lately libertarians.  I myself made the switch only a few years ago back in 2007.  As long as their focus is only on protecting life, liberty and property then any differences can be reconciled.  Even the gap between those that espouse the non aggression principal and those like me that believe in the judicious use extreme violence early to avoid a larger conflict later.
 
2014-04-06 01:45:34 AM  
You know they're running out of reasons to support their side when people's dogs getting sick as a result of eating edibles is one of the concerns...I'm of the school of thought that you probably shouldn't leave food out that your dog might eat if that's going to cause problems but then again, I don't own a dog.
I'm just glad that after 80 years of propaganda, lies, and destroyed lives we're even having this discussion instead of the "Drugs are illegal because they're bad and they're bad because they're illegal" mentality of thinking.
I'm also liking the idea that people will have to take a vote on this because it'll give people a chance to actually have to take a position and defend it and it'll expose the "FREEDOM!" that they don't trust individuals to make their own choices and don't actually deserve freedom.
 
2014-04-06 02:21:27 AM  

foxyshadis: So.... not one of you has noticed that Obama never said anything and this is a subby fail? This was a short excerpt from Eric Holder's recent grilling in front of Congress, because Republicans aren't wasting taxpayer dollars by endlessly demanding answers until they get the ones they want. They're trying to trap him into saying he won't enforce all Federal laws, and use that as a wedge issue to play on "Democrat hypocrisy and dereliction" etc, as is clear if you watch more of the interview. This is only going to get worse as election fever heats up.

Obama's actual stance is still a big f-you to MJ users.


A fark you, or maybe just a political reality?

Obama did drugs and admitted why. I highly doubt he is for the drug war on a personal level.

So he has two choices:
1. Earn his party zero future votes and reschedule pot himself, and cost them votes from the prohibitionists.
2. Put a pin in it until the population comes around enough that legislators come around or lose their seats.

It sucks that with a two party system in a country with 300 million people there isn't a president who does exactly what I personally want, so I understand the frustration.
 
2014-04-06 03:17:50 AM  

rbuzby: I think it was around 1970 that marijuana was classified with the hard drugs.  The guy who did it said that they didn't know much about it, so they needed to classify it with the bad stuff until they could do some research.  Then of course the classification prevented any research from being done.


Feds started their own grow at the U.of Miss and had ID'ed 300+ `activities'.  They then pushed cash out the door for research into what mix & match of said chemicals would kill the most monkeys and rats.  This period extended for no more than 5yrs.  The sponsor wan't buying any `good news' and  as the scientists couldn't provide the corpses and enough `man boobs', the `war' was turned over to the propagandists.

Nixon's own handpicked Shafer Commission (Shafer was a Federal Prosecutor out of PA & the `Scientists' were chosen for their `conservative' approach) recommended Federal Decriminalization in 1972 (read it - it's Yogi Berra approved).  Nixon was P*ssed, Operation Intercept was initiated and the FBNDD morphed into the DEA.

Marinol/Dronabinol (synthetic Delta Nine THC) has been Schedule III since 2009 (read the package insert - `don't drive until you know how it affects you' - not unlike the warning on a bottle of Benadryl).  Anyone can petition to change a drug's Schedule (big pharma/prez get more traction).  Yeah, Marinol has an LD50, so, stick to the easy to titrate inhaled preps of the plant.

Read up on the guy that has been getting 9oz (300 cigs) from the Fed Pot farm, since 1982 (over 300,000 `joints'), he's still gainfully employed as a stockbroker.  The Feds have refused his, and the other patients in the Compassionate Use cohort, repeated requests to be examined/tested for long term effects of use (feds don't want to know - the patients had their own diagnostics performed - other than acute bronchitis from the smoking - NADA, nothing, nothing other than improved ability to lead normal lives).

I find it amusing to think that some employee of the National Institute of Drug Abuse has to crank out 300 cigs a month from that 3.5% THC Umiss shake for this guy:   http://irvinrosenfeld.com/
 
2014-04-06 09:33:13 AM  
I am curious as to how long it will take for the more conservative counties in CO that banned the sale, and therefore collection the tax revenue of recreational sales to pass a "LOL J/K, you can buy weed in our county now" referendum.

Personally, I think that come mid-2015 is when surrounding counties suddenly have school, library, and other municipal projects being funded fully by weed taxes, when the local cops all get brand new cruisers, when the fire department gets to fire engines...a lot of those counties will rush legal sales permits through...
 
2014-04-06 10:26:04 AM  

CRAZY LEE:
 300 cigs at 3.5% THC?  I hope he makes brownies out of it. Smoking it would be a net negative.
Stupid feds dont want to study MJ because basically "they can't handle the truth."

Endive Wombat: I am curious as to how long it will take for the more conservative counties in CO that banned the sale, and therefore collection the tax revenue of recreational sales to pass a "LOL J/K, you can buy weed in our county now" referendum.



Here in the magnificent Evergreen state, at least one of the cities that has refused to allow any legal MJ stores has said they want the state to give them some of the tax revenue from legal MJ, to offset all the horrible expenses they will have to deal with when the legal reefer madness starts.  Even though there wont be any MJ stores there. Fark you, Yakima.
 
2014-04-06 11:32:06 AM  

GBB: It all comes down to marketing and presentation.

The reason why legalizing marijuana is so difficult is because of public perception.  It was never made illegal because it was harmful.  It was made illegal the same way alcohol was made illegal: because of the way people behaved while using it.  In the 20's, boozehounds were annoying as fark and the straights couldn't stand it.  Sure, you'll blame taxes as a financial motivation, and moonshine as a health concern.  But, it really comes down to flappers and drunks.  The only reason prohibition was repealed was because the behavior caused by prohibition was worse that before prohibition.  Look at how they regulated the shait out of it after repeal.

The stoners are basically causing the straights to freak out and the way they act override any health benefits that it actually provides.  Same with oxycontin.  It has legitimate uses, but once people start abusing it, selling it, and create a counter-culture around it, it gets shut down.

So, if anyone ever wants this "movement" to move along any faster, I would suggest finding a way to tone down the stoner attitude surrounding the issue.  Cheech & Chong, Harold & Kumar, and Jay & Silent Bob are not going to help anyone understand that marijuana helps chemo patients with their appetites.  And, no one is going to believe a legitimate drug comes in "flavors" like "Super Cush" and "Raspberry Delight" or requires a glass device in the shape of a naked dragon-woman hybrid to administer.

Sure, these things shouldn't matter, but they do.  You have the unfortunate task of convincing the squares that this stuff they hate and don't understand is harmless and has actual benefits.  Don't make your job harder.  Wise up a little.  Clean up the image, and I'll bet this would go a lot smoother and faster.


Nah. I believe we are close to a tipping point. It isn't me that will need to "get over" Cheech & Chong. It's the prohibitionists.

Essentially what you're saying is that we should ask really, really nicely. That might have made sense 20 years ago. What we did instead was pass Medical MJ laws in about half the states. Many states and cities now have decriminalization for weed as well. Rational people live in those states, and have noticed that their society didn't fall apart. So, it broke down barriers.
 
2014-04-06 11:32:09 AM  

archichris: If a 10% voter block wanted bestiality legalized, the Democrats would make it an election issue just to get the votes....then kick it to whatever portion of the government at the time is run by Republicans for a NO....so they can run back to that 10% and say "we tried but those mean old wepubwicans just wont give you equal rights.....you pig-farkers"


farking chickens is a Republican thing, not a democratic thing.


/Our national pig farker
//Largest economic expansion of the past 30 years.
 
2014-04-06 11:39:52 AM  

stewbert: That might have made sense 20 years ago.


Asking nicely would be a fine solution if the other side weren't busy trying to lock as many people up as possible for as long as possible.  By other side I mean people who support and push the drug war, not every single person who sold on making it illegal.  Even Nixon thought the government's efforts on drug use should be focused on prevention and treatment iirc.
 
Displayed 26 of 126 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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