Dem Congressman: Obama Confused About Power to Reschedule Pot

[LunarRay]

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?

Regarding the bolden bit...

When the President acts under the authority delegated to him by the Congress he is on the strongest ground... as per Justice Jackson's 'three tiers' opinion.

I've looked for the actual Congressional debate on the issue... not yet found but... The wording seems to indicate the FDA's input after a finding by the Attorney General or by the Attorney General alone in some cases a change in status can be made... included or dropped altogether (if they no longer are made). At least that is what I think it indicates...

Obama is wrong that Congress has to Act... They could... like change the tax code, for instance but it is for the IRS to interpret the law and implement it.... same for the Drug thing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

There's no equivalency in this case. The Executive Branch was explicitly given the authority to make these decisions. That's part of the job.

 

[Fern]

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?
-snip-

No, it's not if what's been reported about the issue is accurate.

"The whole point of the law is to set up a process for scheduling of drugs and delegate it to the executive branch so Congress doesn't have to concern itself with that level of minutia," Riffle says.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

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.

It's amazing what weak little bitches the Democrats are.

"Waaah, we can't do what we want because Rush Limbaugh will be mean to us!"

I have this sneaking suspicion that more Democrats watch FOX News than Republicans do. You fools needs your daily outrage, and FOX is more than happy to sell it to you.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, it's not if what's been reported about the issue is accurate.



Fern

Who's Riffle?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Obama is wrong that Congress has to Act... They could... like change the tax code, for instance but it is for the IRS to interpret the law and implement it.... same for the Drug thing.

His usual approach is to blame Congress for what Obama has direct control over. He did that with the NSA if I recall. That Congress isn't taking responsible action gets Obama off the hook, even when he has the Constitutional and legislative authority plainly stated. If that fails, he usually falls back on political pragmatism. Obama couldn't call for an investigation on the prior actions of the previous administration because the Republicans wouldn't like it an it risked him losing some ground politically. Hundreds of thousands dead, and fear of a negative effect in the polls determines there will be no justice, nor even a clear accounting of the facts.

Have I touched on any of his tactics yet?

 

[Fern]

Who's Riffle?

It's in the OP's post.

Fern

 

[LunarRay]

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.

I suppose I'm in favor of Alabama making its laws for its population within the parameters of rational societal norms.
I sway a bit every now and then on what is rational regarding States Rights.

In this case, I find there to be a misconception regarding MJ. It seems to be both medicinal and like booze depending on the way it is prepared and what 'breed' it is and other factors. IF it is ok for folks to drink booze then MJ should be in the same category. It is unlike cigarettes but similar as well.

I don't use MJ but have seen the benefits it provides... I favor it for anyone who wishes to use it and Obama needs getting some legal advice and sort the mess out.
In California, we have medicinal ok but yet have the feds busting down the means for appropriately certified folks from getting it....

Spooky legalism at a distance....

 

[Matt1970]

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?

Good lord son, you are the one putting words in Obama's mouth. What he said was in plain English. Nowhere in anything he said did he say he had no intention of acting w/o Congress. He said "what is and isn’t a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress" when infact Congress already decided it's the job of the attorney general via the 1970 Controlled Substances Act which grants the attorney general the power to place it "under the schedule he deems most appropriate." This is very plain English for those willing to see it.

 

[Fern]

This appears to be the relevant section of the law:

PART B - AUTHORITY TO CONTROL; STANDARDS AND SCHEDULES

§ 811. Authority and criteria for classification of substances.

(a) Rules and regulations of Attorney General; hearing

The Attorney General shall apply the provisions of this subchapter to the controlled substances listed in the schedules established by section 812 of this title and to any other drug or other substance added to such schedules under this subchapter. Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, the Attorney General may by rule -

(1) add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he -
(A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and
(B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed; or
(2) remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule.

Rules of the Attorney General under this subsection shall be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing pursuant to the rulemaking procedures prescribed by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5. Proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of such rules may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on his own motion, (2) at the request of the Secretary, or (3) on the petition of any interested party.

http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm

Looks like Congress made it clear in the law itself that they want this to be a job for the AG or the Secretary of Health and Human Services, not themselves.

Fern

 

[LunarRay]

His usual approach is to blame Congress for what Obama has direct control over. He did that with the NSA if I recall. That Congress isn't taking responsible action gets Obama off the hook, even when he has the Constitutional and legislative authority plainly stated. If that fails, he usually falls back on political pragmatism. Obama couldn't call for an investigation on the prior actions of the previous administration because the Republicans wouldn't like it an it risked him losing some ground politically. Hundreds of thousands dead, and fear of a negative effect in the polls determines there will be no justice, nor even a clear accounting of the facts.

Have I touched on any of his tactics yet?

Yes! But... sorta an aside from the absence of thrust in his ... ummm weakness...
The tactician don't drive the boat... Not once in any America's Cup have I seen the helmsman give up control of the tiller and blame it on the trimmer... to continue the allegory... The owner gives the power to steer the boat to the helmsman and we are the owners through the Congress. We have spoken and it is for Obama to drive the dam boat....

 

[TerryMathews]

"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?

If the narcotics schedule is a job for Congress then so are Obamacare exemptions. You can't have it both ways chief.

So yes, it is not true. Congress delegated the authority back to FDA.

 

[LunarRay]

This appears to be the relevant section of the law:



http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm

Looks like Congress made it clear in the law itself that they want this to be a job for the AG or the Secretary of Health and Human Services, not themselves.

Fern

And, I can't find any mention of the Congressional debate that would alter any fair interpretation of what you posted to mean other than what the plain wording provides.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I suppose I'm in favor of Alabama making its laws for its population within the parameters of rational societal norms.
I sway a bit every now and then on what is rational regarding States Rights.

In this case, I find there to be a misconception regarding MJ. It seems to be both medicinal and like booze depending on the way it is prepared and what 'breed' it is and other factors. IF it is ok for folks to drink booze then MJ should be in the same category. It is unlike cigarettes but similar as well.

I don't use MJ but have seen the benefits it provides... I favor it for anyone who wishes to use it and Obama needs getting some legal advice and sort the mess out.
In California, we have medicinal ok but yet have the feds busting down the means for appropriately certified folks from getting it....

Spooky legalism at a distance....

While I believe that more rational MJ attitudes are needed at the state level I have found that at least in my profession the attitudes of state legislatures often follow cues from DC. Obviously this isn't always the case, but often action begins there and radiates outwards. So far this has not been the case and states are slowly disregarding Federal rules and regulations. At some level I think it's fairly astounding that Colorado has legalized pot. I would think the DEA would have the right to take thousands prisoner. It's interesting to note that many who insist that nullification of federal law is not allowable but remain quiet about this. Well, that's hardly unexpected. It isn't whether the ox gets gored, but whos.

But I digress. If any part of the reasoning for severe penalties are based on what has been determined at the Federal level, removing the Class I designation and calling for a scientific basis to substantiate claims of addiction potential would be highly beneficial. From a rational basis there is no reason for MJ to be scheduled at all. It doesn't change state law, but it sure reduces the basis for state claims of addiction potential.

 

[Matt1970]

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.

Oh I can see why you would want to block him.

 

[CrackRabbit]

This appears to be the relevant section of the law:



http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm

Looks like Congress made it clear in the law itself that they want this to be a job for the AG or the Secretary of Health and Human Services, not themselves.

Fern

Sounds like Obama needs to give Holder and Selibus a swift kick in the pants on the matter then.

 

[LunarRay]

Sounds like Obama needs to give Holder and Selibus a swift kick in the pants on the matter then.

The Senate approved of their nomination and it is their Job... Obama sets the tone and it seems they are tone deaf.... he needs to increase the volume!

 

[Jhhnn]

It's amazing what weak little bitches the Democrats are.

"Waaah, we can't do what we want because Rush Limbaugh will be mean to us!"

I have this sneaking suspicion that more Democrats watch FOX News than Republicans do. You fools needs your daily outrage, and FOX is more than happy to sell it to you.

Not at all. Obama wants it to remain a state issue, at least for the time being. He needs Repubs help in a lot of other areas, basically has to gently cajole & shame them into acting responsibly. Letting them get their blood up over this just makes them more irrational, not less, their usual faux moral indignation being what it is.

Outrage? I'm not the slightest bit outraged by what Obama has done or said. I think the way he's handling this is probably the best way to arrive at legalization, which I favor. Success in CO & WA will likely prompt legalization elsewhere, in those evil blue states, ultimately forcing legalization at he federal level.

So long as it's promoted in terms of States' Rights, right wing authoritarians are shuffled aside, silenced by their own rhetoric.

It's a winning approach so far, and I see no reason to change it.

Once California gets off their ass, it'll be over for all practical intents and purposes. Obama has allowed activists to focus efforts on states where winning is likely rather than diffusing that with a national press battle now.

Meanwhile, I can cruise several local pot shops if I so choose, thanks to the DEA being chained to the bench wrt legalization in my state. More on the way, too, like Starbucks, only better.I can even grow my own in complete anonymity with Colorado law enforcement rendered powerless to stop me by the state constitution. That's what anchors legalization in an utterly profound & permanent way- untold numbers of personal growers just doin' their thing.

Anybody with half a brain can figure out that Obama is opening the gates for backdoor legalization. It's just that finding an angle to attack him for doing so has proved difficult because of the States' Rights strategy adopted.

That's what this thread is about, desperately seeking to find an attack vector linking the evil Obama unfavorably with legalization of cannabis, trying to discredit both.

So far, he's been too smart for that, and I suspect he intends to continue just the way it is for awhile, long enough for CO & WA to show that legalization is sound policy. Once that's done, prohibitionists are totally screwed, Obama's pot policy critics also.

We're winning, and Obama is deftly running interference. At this rate, we'll whup 'em for sure.

 

[LunarRay]

Not at all. Obama wants it to remain a state issue, at least for the time being. He needs Repubs help in a lot of other areas, basically has to gently cajole & shame them into acting responsibly. Letting them get their blood up over this just makes them more irrational, not less, their usual faux moral indignation being what it is.

Outrage? I'm not the slightest bit outraged by what Obama has done or said. I think the way he's handling this is probably the best way to arrive at legalization, which I favor. Success in CO & WA will likely prompt legalization elsewhere, in those evil blue states, ultimately forcing legalization at he federal level.

So long as it's promoted in terms of States' Rights, right wing authoritarians are shuffled aside, silenced by their own rhetoric.

It's a winning approach so far, and I see no reason to change it.

Once California gets off their ass, it'll be over for all practical intents and purposes. Obama has allowed activists to focus efforts on states where winning is likely rather than diffusing that with a national press battle now.

Meanwhile, I can cruise several local pot shops if I so choose, thanks to the DEA being chained to the bench wrt legalization in my state. More on the way, too, like Starbucks, only better.I can even grow my own in complete anonymity with Colorado law enforcement rendered powerless to stop me by the state constitution. That's what anchors legalization in an utterly profound & permanent way- untold numbers of personal growers just doin' their thing.

Anybody with half a brain can figure out that Obama is opening the gates for backdoor legalization. It's just that finding an angle to attack him for doing so has proved difficult because of the States' Rights strategy adopted.

That's what this thread is about, desperately seeking to find an attack vector linking the evil Obama unfavorably with legalization of cannabis, trying to discredit both.

So far, he's been too smart for that, and I suspect he intends to continue just the way it is for awhile, long enough for CO & WA to show that legalization is sound policy. Once that's done, prohibitionists are totally screwed, Obama's pot policy critics also.

We're winning, and Obama is deftly running interference. At this rate, we'll whup 'em for sure.

With the Supremacy Clause and the Federal Law it can't be a State Issue alone to the extent the State issue is at odds with the Federal Law.

 

[Jhhnn]

With the Supremacy Clause and the Federal Law it can't be a State Issue alone to the extent the State issue is at odds with the Federal Law.

Which all sounds great, except that his enemies can't attack Obama or legalization on those grounds, given their voluminous support of States' Rights.

In that regard, they have no standing. None of them can condemn Obama for not enforcing federal law in WA & CO... Not credibly, anyways.

As this unfolds, I don't think they'll be able to attack legalization, either, because I think it will work out extremely well. A year from now, the naysayers' voices will likely be swept away entirely by public opinion.

I suspect that many of his political opponents also realize that this experiment in CO will likely succeed & that there's not a damned thing they can do about it other than set themselves up for ridicule down the road. They're sitting on the bench right next to the DEA, except that they're doing so for different reasons.

 

[Jhhnn]

If the narcotics schedule is a job for Congress then so are Obamacare exemptions. You can't have it both ways chief.

So yes, it is not true. Congress delegated the authority back to FDA.

Straight for the duh-version of false equivalency. Might want to check your premises.

 

[Jhhnn]

While I believe that more rational MJ attitudes are needed at the state level I have found that at least in my profession the attitudes of state legislatures often follow cues from DC.

Well, yeh, and so what?

None of this has followed cues from DC at all, nor has it had anything to do with state legislatures. Both CO & WA legalized on the basis of citizen initiatives.

I suspect that will continue. As part of the state constitution, A64 cannot be legislated away. As long as it's there, Colorado law enforcement is powerless to act outside that mandate & the DEA sure as Hell can't effectively enforce federal law against personal growing all by themselves. The attempt would raise all sort of equal protection due process issues, and they'd play Hell finding Colorado Juries who would convict.

What Obama's detractors may be missing is that this could easily be a set up. If they all keep harping that he can do it if he wants to, they just box themselves into a corner when & if he does.

They're already abandoning their last line of defense.

 

[Jhhnn]

This appears to be the relevant section of the law:



http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm

Looks like Congress made it clear in the law itself that they want this to be a job for the AG or the Secretary of Health and Human Services, not themselves.

Fern

Please. I'd encourage everybody to read all of section B, not just your excerpt, then tell us all how clear it really is.

I think it's important to remember that being empowered doesn't mean compelled. Obama does not have to act on this at all any more than he already has. He's made it clear that he doesn't want to go there w/o Congress, neatly deflecting it back to... the state level, where activists are winning, and where any state instituting MMJ or legalization will be protected from the DEA by the White House.

We'll keep winning, too, if this can be played on the field of states' rights. The chances of losing are greater at the national level, always have been, which is why that's being avoided.

I'm content with the direction & the progress so far. The real objective is to present the next Admin with an irreversible fait accompli, successful citizen sponsored legalization in several states, fostered & enabled by the Obama Admin.

Call it what you want, cast whatever aspersions you will, but that's really what's happening as far as I'm concerned. It's an extremely shrewd set of moves from the Obamites, likely to be a lasting strategic victory for Dems & personal freedom in this country.

 

[TerryMathews]

Straight for the duh-version of false equivalency. Might want to check your premises.

How is that a false equivalence? Both are laws where the ability to modify is delegated to the executive branch.

If that is a false equivalence, then there can never be an equivalent. If that is the case, then you are quite a narrow minded liberal.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

so you are ok with Dear Leader lying to the American people if it serves his interest?

Calling him Dear Leader makes you look like a fool.

Which is disappointing. Usually I like your posts in OT.