Dem Congressman: Obama Confused About Power to Reschedule Pot

[fskimospy]

That strikes me as a gross overstatement. Many seem to think Obama can make it legal. I don't see that option.

If understand the article correctly Obama can't just make it legal, but can only reschedule it. I.e., it would remain illegal and require a doctor's prescription.

From the article above:

Under current circumstances (banned by international treaties) I see no option for him to remove pot from the schedules, just reassign the schedule.

Fern

What strikes you as a gross overstatement? You seem to be agreeing with me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not sure what Kim Jong Il has to do with this conversation, can you clarify?

As for Obama lying to the American people no, I think he should reschedule it tomorrow. Actually I think he should reschedule all drugs to the lowest level possible because all drugs should be legal.

Regardless, he is doing the wrong thing because of politics. This is because you know just as well as I do that were he to do the right thing, Republicans would attack him mercilessly for it. Failure from all involved.

I don't care much for the man, but I'd support him on this. His regard for politics over all else is a great common evil.

I don't like when he either plays the idiot or lies egregiously.

From a CNN interview:

Tapper: You said that smoking pot was a bad habit but you didn’t think it was any worse for a person than drinking. Now that contradicts the official Obama administration policy, both on the website of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and also the fact that marijuana is considered a Schedule I narcotic, along with heroin and Ecstasy. Now do you think you were maybe talking just a little too casually about it with Remnick in The New Yorker, or are you considering not making marijuana a Schedule I narcotic?

Obama: Well, first of all, what is and isn’t a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress.

Tapper: I think it’s the DEA that decides that.

Obama: It’s not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws undergirding those determinations.

I find it impossible that a reasonably intelligent person in his position could be so incredibly ignorant of the law.

 

[Fern]

What strikes you as a gross overstatement? You seem to be agreeing with me.

First, I wrote quickly and didn't mean to imply that you personally took this as Obama being able to unilateral make pot legal (completely remove it the schedules).

But to think people are going to scream about Obama cramming pot down our throats because it gets rescheduled is over-the-top IMO. It'll still be illegal.

I also don't think the average person even knows what Schedule I, II, II IV and V are. I bet if you asked the 'man on the street' they couldn't tell you which one carried greater penalties etc, Schedule I or V.

While I'd rather it be legalized, and even if Obama could completely remove it I think it needs to be thought out. I.e., how do we make the transition smoothly? How would such a federal move work with existing state laws?

And honestly I think the federal govt's role in this is overstated. They don't bust your average user, just use the fed laws to go after big dealers.

I think the greater impact is felt from laws at the state level. But this illustrates my desire to plan for a change, again how will the feds coordinate with state laws.

Fern

 

[TerryMathews]

You clearly did not read the rest of the thread.

No wow here, lol.

What relevance would later posts have to what you originally wrote?

Did you redefine the word "is"?

 

[fskimospy]

What relevance would later posts have to what you originally wrote?

Did you redefine the word "is"?

That I said I didn't approve of what Obama was doing?

So unless you're trying to redefine the word 'okay', I clearly didn't think it was 'okay'. Are you?

 

[TerryMathews]

That I said I didn't approve of what Obama was doing?

So unless you're trying to redefine the word 'okay', I clearly didn't think it was 'okay'. Are you?

The rest of your post seemed to be excusing the behavior.

 

[fskimospy]

The rest of your post seemed to be excusing the behavior.

This is why you need to read the rest of the thread. You know, the part a few posts later where I explicitly stated that I did not think what he was doing was okay.

So, you were saying?

 

[Jhhnn]

I find it impossible that a reasonably intelligent person in his position could be so incredibly ignorant of the law.

He's not ignorant of the law at all. He didn't offer that he couldn't change it, but rather that he wouldn't w/o Congress.

There's a difference, perhaps too subtle for the usual ravers. Actually parse what was said rather than what you think it means.

 

[TerryMathews]

This is why you need to read the rest of the thread. You know, the part a few posts later where I explicitly stated that I did not think what he was doing was okay.

So, you were saying?

So then would you say you felt the need to clarify your original post?

 

[TerryMathews]

He's not ignorant of the law at all. He didn't offer that he couldn't change it, but rather that he wouldn't w/o Congress.

There's a difference, perhaps too subtle for the usual ravers. Actually parse what was said rather than what you think it means.

He can change it without congress is the point.

 

[fskimospy]

So then would you say you felt the need to clarify your original post?

Not really, it was two separate points about the same issue. I understand WHY Obama might choose to do this, but I still disapprove.

Both of these posts happened long before you wrote what you did, which is why I told you to read the whole thread. Then you tried to get cute and it backfired.

 

[Jhhnn]

He can change it without congress is the point.

Obama never offered otherwise. So where's the lie?

 

[BoberFett]

The reason Obama isn't reclassifying it himself is that 10 seconds after he did it we would have five threads in here titled "KING OBAMA SHOVES WEED DOWN AMERICA'S THROAT". Obama isn't being honest about his powers to reschedule marijuana, but I do understand why he would want bipartisan, congressional buy-in.

Jesus Hume Christ, you're one of the worst apologists to disgrace this forum.

"Waaah, poor Obama, he can't do ANYTHING because of the P&N forum on AT!"

 

[TerryMathews]

Jesus Hume Christ, you're one of the worst apologists to disgrace this forum.

"Waaah, poor Obama, he can't do ANYTHING because of the P&N forum on AT!"

Watch out, he "clarified" his post later...

 

[BoberFett]

It would be unforgivable if such a remedy which could address an unending stream of wrongs going back many decades would be refused because it might cause some political backlash. That hardly mattered with the Mandate, did it?

It's the Broken Window Fallacy at the grandest level. The War on [Insert Bogeyman here] is simply a poorly thought out job program.

 

[fskimospy]

Watch out, he "clarified" his post later...

I didn't clarify anything. I do like how angry you are at me that you didn't bother to read the thread though.

 

[fskimospy]

Jesus Hume Christ, you're one of the worst apologists to disgrace this forum.

"Waaah, poor Obama, he can't do ANYTHING because of the P&N forum on AT!"

You gotta read the whole thread too, brotha. Talk to TerryMatthews.

hahaha.

 

[Matt1970]

He's not ignorant of the law at all. He didn't offer that he couldn't change it, but rather that he wouldn't w/o Congress.

There's a difference, perhaps too subtle for the usual ravers. Actually parse what was said rather than what you think it means.

This is a prime example of you only seeing exactly what you want to see.

 

[Jhhnn]

Jesus Hume Christ, you're one of the worst apologists to disgrace this forum.

"Waaah, poor Obama, he can't do ANYTHING because of the P&N forum on AT!"

Deliberately obtuse often? The 5 threads would just be a small portion of the raving from the right, a symptom of the usual astroturfed Obama hate. Every high dollar right wing mouthpiece in America would be on it like stink on shit, and their flock would be raving in four part harmony right behind 'em.

 

[LunarRay]

We have several States that don't cotton to no MJ allowable scenario. A federal re-listing of MJ would put State law in jeopardy to the extent they don't want to allow it.

We have importation law which refers to Sch what ever restrictions and a federal change would affect that bringing an inflow of MJ under NAFTA and other treaties... as I read them.


I'd create an Executive Order that narrowly allows States to deem the Sch as advisory but all other restrictions remain intact... Not too sure I could do it given the US Code is convoluted.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is a prime example of you only seeing exactly what you want to see.

I'm so glad I blocked him. There's nothing he won't apologize for and he's far wrong. The CSA was designed so that Congress would NOT be fiddling around with any of this. It was delegated to two entities, the DEA and FDA, Executive branch that is.

He failed pharmacy law, miserably.

But he's always forgiven just about everything because you know the Republicans might not like him so he has to do what they want.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is a prime example of you only seeing exactly what you want to see.

Hardly. It's just an example of the usual suspects making leaps of faith to arrive at erroneous conclusions.

There are only 3 sentences-

"Obama: Well, first of all, what is and isn’t a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress."

Is that not true? Can congress not change the classification of cannabis?

"Obama: It’s not something by ourselves that we start changing."

He didn't say he couldn't, but that he had no intention of acting w/o Congress.

"Obama: No, there are laws undergirding those determinations."

There are, indeed, laws pertaining to that.

Which of those sentences is untrue?

Or did you form your opinion beforehand based on what somebody else said rather than what Obama said?

You know, in typical right wing echo chamber fashion?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We have several States that don't cotton to no MJ allowable scenario. A federal re-listing of MJ would put State law in jeopardy to the extent they don't want to allow it.

We have importation law which refers to Sch what ever restrictions and a federal change would affect that bringing an inflow of MJ under NAFTA and other treaties... as I read them.


I'd create an Executive Order that narrowly allows States to deem the Sch as advisory but all other restrictions remain intact... Not too sure I could do it given the US Code is convoluted.

Many state laws follow federal. If this creates a mess then it forces action, and heaven knows we need it. It's hard to imagine that the general outcome would be greater penalties.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm so glad I blocked him. There's nothing he won't apologize for and he's far wrong. The CSA was designed so that Congress would NOT be fiddling around with any of this. It was delegated to two entities, the DEA and FDA, Executive branch that is.

He failed pharmacy law, miserably.

But he's always forgiven just about everything because you know the Republicans might not like him so he has to do what they want.

And you know the intent of the lawmakers at the time how, precisely?

Was Obama wrong when he said Congress could change it? Did they render themselves powerless?

 

[shortylickens]

He's not confused. He and Bush made it abundantly clear they just dont care about the whole checks and balances system.