U.S. judge won't remove marijuana from most-dangerous drug list

[kage69]

how much pot did she try to mule? you dont get 5 years in the can for a blunt.

I could be wrong, but I think the odds of you finding someone doing interstate travel in order to acquire a blunt's worth of pot, then to give it away, are exceedingly low.

My guess is the quantity may have had a little help from the notion of trafficking the police would be contemplating after noting her state of residence. Help us out Don, crossing state lines with illegal stuff in a bag counts as trafficking doesn't it?

 

[Jhhnn]

Absolutely. What saddens me most is that marijuana is now known to be at the bottom of harmful drugs by the majority of people, and the politicians know it too. Yet they are destroying homes, families and children's lives by allowing this atrocity to continue. When they finally pull back and say "oops, our bad", not only will those who have been trampled on be forgotten with the hoopla of legalization, but also they will have not been compensated for the time, detention, torture, confiscation and all other physical or emotional traumas associated with enforcement of unrighteous laws. These laws have and still have a vary wide and rippling effect on our society that we need to change ASAP.

And I agree that Congress is not the approval one should look for. Look for your own.

I doubt that anybody was compensated when alcohol prohibition ended, either.

 

[Jhhnn]

speaking of ignorance, it is a proven fact,pot is way stronger today.

The best isn't any better than it ever was. Much of the difference in perceived potency is because of the way it's trimmed & marketed. No sticks, no stems, no big leaves, just flowers.

 

[MrPickins]

speaking of ignorance, it is a proven fact,pot is way stronger today.

And "back in the day" they had to (and did) smoke twice as much of it to get the same high.

If the user is smoking, higher THC concentrations are actually better, because then you have to ingest less smoke for the same effect. (one of the main harms from MJ use being the exposure to smoke)

 

[Ns1]

And "back in the day" they had to (and did) smoke twice as much of it to get the same high.

If the user is smoking, higher THC concentrations are actually better, because then you have to ingest less smoke for the same effect. (one of the main harms from MJ use being the exposure to smoke)

+infinity

The best isn't any better than it ever was. Much of the difference in perceived potency is because of the way it's trimmed & marketed. No sticks, no stems, no big leaves, just flowers.

wat. just no.

 

[Thump553]

Why should only congress have a part in fixing this?
Congress is universally understood to be the least effective and most corrupt part of the legislative branch. They have a 13% approval rating but they are republican so of course, we should run every decision by them. Nothing can be done without congress because "they made the law"? Poker Guy, you have zero idea what you are talking about. That law is 100% unconstitutional. If congress passes a law making broccoli illegal, let's say because congress thinks 'illegals' use it, that is not automatically constitutional just because congress does it.


This judge just prolonged the suffering of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans. In my mind that is treason and she should be charged for her clear complicity in propping up the police state and the drug war under the guise of "protecting the constitution".

This is criminal.

You raise some excellent points about Congress in the past decade or so, but the irrefutable fact of the matter is that under our constitution it is Congress' role and duty to make this sort of decision. Much as I totally disagree with the conclusion reached by this judge (and I suspect she personally disagrees with it as well) it is the only decision she could reach-unless we want our policy decisions to be made by unelected courts rather than the legislature.


If we want our elected officials to stop making stupid policy, or no policy, it's time to replace them at the ballot box.

 

[HTFOff]

I doubt weed today is significantly "stronger" than the weed of yesteryear. However, the availability of "strong" weed has never been greater than today. Also, high THC levels alone doesn't necessarily constitute "powerful" or "desirable" pot.

 

[Darwin333]

I agree with you on that one, but I don't agree with those who wanted the 'fix' to be a judicial ruling. The fix is to change the law or classification, not for some judge to arbitrarily rule a particular classification as unconstitutional.

You are right, I think they should have argued that classification of drugs in general was unconstitutional and they would have, imho, been absolutely correct. Arguing against the reasons of a single drug is a lot different.

 

[Darwin333]

Why should only congress have a part in fixing this?
Congress is universally understood to be the least effective and most corrupt part of the legislative branch. They have a 13% approval rating but they are republican so of course, we should run every decision by them. Nothing can be done without congress because "they made the law"? Poker Guy, you have zero idea what you are talking about. That law is 100% unconstitutional. If congress passes a law making broccoli illegal, let's say because congress thinks 'illegals' use it, that is not automatically constitutional just because congress does it.

But that isn't what they tried to argue. If they would have argued that congress didn't have the right to classify drugs of any sort you would be absolutely right. They didn't argue that though, they argued that congress wrongfully classified a certain drug.

This judge just prolonged the suffering of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans. In my mind that is treason and she should be charged for her clear complicity in propping up the police state and the drug war under the guise of "protecting the constitution".

I don't know about the treason on the judges part but I do agree with the first sentence.

 

[Jhhnn]

This. Whether you think it should be legal, schedule 1, schedule 2, whatever isn't relevant. The judge basically said there's nothing unconstitutional about the fact that it was classified as sched 1 under a law passed by congress and signed by the president.

The law can be changed or those encharged with classification can change it, but it doesn't make sense for a judge to deem a classification "unconstitutional" just because there's disagreement over what classification (if any) is appropriate.

That's *not* what she said. She said she didn't have the authority to challenge the constitutionality of an act of congress, so she kicked it upstairs to the 9th circuit who does.

She sends along an enormous amount of evidence showing that cannabis does have legit medical uses & therefore should not be schedule 1.

Following the govt's line of reasoning, congress has the right to place any drug on schedule 1 & keep it there even in the absence of any evidence to support that classification, evidence to the contrary be damned.

 

[Darwin333]

That's *not* what she said. She said she didn't have the authority to challenge the constitutionality of an act of congress, so she kicked it upstairs to the 9th circuit who does.

She sends along an enormous amount of evidence showing that cannabis does have legit medical uses & therefore should not be schedule 1.

Following the govt's line of reasoning, congress has the right to place any drug on schedule 1 & keep it there even in the absence of any evidence to support that classification, evidence to the contrary be damned.

What should be questioned is the right of Congress to "schedule" any substance that a free man decides, entirely on his own accord, to put into his own body. If we can not decide what we put into our own bodies, are they truly ours to begin with?

 

[balloonshark]

More lives have been ruined by the government demonizing and cracking down on users than weed itself has ever done.

This is a fact. We send people to jail for possessing a substance that is less dangerous than alcohol. That person gets out of jail and now has problems finding a decent job. Now that person has to rely on government assistance to get by. All of the above is payed for by the taxpayers.

 

[NoStateofMind]

What should be questioned is the right of Congress to "schedule" any substance that a free man decides, entirely on his own accord, to put into his own body. If we can not decide what we put into our own bodies, are they truly ours to begin with?

That reminds me of something I recently heard on a podcast. Listen to Prof CJ 43:17 - 46:10. He basically says you own your car more than you do your own body.

 

[Jhhnn]

What should be questioned is the right of Congress to "schedule" any substance that a free man decides, entirely on his own accord, to put into his own body. If we can not decide what we put into our own bodies, are they truly ours to begin with?

What should be questioned is the desire to broaden a narrow winnable argument into one that is not winnable- making the perfect the enemy of the good.

The effort to legalize cannabis has been a 50 year upstream struggle that would have drowned long ago if it were dragging the anchor you suggest proponents should have been carrying all along.

 

[fskimospy]

What should be questioned is the right of Congress to "schedule" any substance that a free man decides, entirely on his own accord, to put into his own body. If we can not decide what we put into our own bodies, are they truly ours to begin with?

While I broadly agree that people should have that right, I also agree with Congress's ability to regulate the possession and consumption of some substances.

I don't think people should be able to take antibiotics whenever they want, for example. We don't need stupid people breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria. I also think that other substances that are toxic and such unless used carefully should be regulated.

It's why I think all drugs should be legal, but manufacture and use should not be unregulated. (Age limits, requirements on purity, directions of use, etc, etc)

 

[NoStateofMind]

While I broadly agree that people should have that right, I also agree with Congress's ability to regulate the possession and consumption of some substances.

I don't think people should be able to take antibiotics whenever they want, for example. We don't need stupid people breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria. I also think that other substances that are toxic and such unless used carefully should be regulated.

It's why I think all drugs should be legal, but manufacture and use should not be unregulated. (Age limits, requirements on purity, directions of use, etc, etc)

China allows over the counter purchase of antibiotics and their civilization hasn't collapsed yet due to a 'superbug'. But I'm sure we should have that doomsday scenario any day now right?

 

[sm625]

Eventually enough people will stand up and say they've had enough of this crap. But until that day there is decades of propaganda and conditioning to overcome. The very concept of taking real meaningful action has been lost on this generation and the last few generations before it. The entire mindset on the deepest core level is what needs to change. Everything about the way people think and perceive the world. It's all broken. People today are much too passive, much too tolerant of injustice. Bred to be raped. And raped is what they are.

 

[MrPickins]

China allows over the counter purchase of antibiotics and their civilization hasn't collapsed yet due to a 'superbug'. But I'm sure we should have that doomsday scenario any day now right?

Are you seriously arguing that misuse of antibiotics doesn't cause antibiotic resistant bacteria to develop?

Or are you arguing that they're not that bad?

In either case you're wrong.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Are you seriously arguing that misuse of antibiotics doesn't cause antibiotic resistant bacteria to develop?

Or are you arguing that they're not that bad?

In either case you're wrong.

I'm merely pointing out that the apocalypse alluded to above hasn't happened yet even though there's basically a lab experiment happening in China to which we could look for evidence of this impending disaster. Yet we don't see that. What does this tell me? Not that it doesn't cause mutations (I'm not qualified to answer that and I doubt you are either) but rather that the impact/likelyhood of such mutations are severely overblown.

 

[TechBoyJK]

speaking of ignorance, it is a proven fact,pot is way stronger today.

Not it is not 'proven fact' that 'pot is stronger today'. You simply can't just say 'pot is stronger'. It's simply too generic. There's increased availability, increased production techniques, etc. It's not like pot magically got stronger. There's been potent weed available for thousands of years. What weed is stronger? Sativa? Indica? What strand of Indica? Who grew it? What generation is it?

It's no different than claiming alcohol is stronger. Where's the alcohol from? Who brewed it? What kind of alcohol is it? If I sampled beer 20 years ago, and then I sampled vodka today, of fucking course the 'alcohol' is stronger. Duh.

There's far too many kinds of pot to paint potency so generally. The entire idea of 'pot is more dangerous now' is 100% based in ignorance. If you understand how cannabis works, you won't say something so generic.

If I say 'fruit tastes terrible', isn't that a little too generic? Considering the wide variety of fruit available today, saying 'fruit tastes bad' means nothing.

So in short, no, it's not proven fact.

 

[bigi]

...I don't think people should be able to take antibiotics whenever they want, for example. We don't need stupid people breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria. I also think that other substances that are toxic and such unless used carefully should be regulated. ...

Well, sort of. Whether you like it or not, 80% of antibiotics produced ends up in the meat you eat.

So, yes you can't just take any antibiotics you feel like but you'll get it anyway.

 

[hal2kilo]

The best isn't any better than it ever was. Much of the difference in perceived potency is because of the way it's trimmed & marketed. No sticks, no stems, no big leaves, just flowers.

Ah, yes, reminds me of a little future advertisng spoof from a National Lampoon comdedy album. Circa 1970.

"No stems , no seeds that you don't need, Alcapoco Gold is bad ass weed!" 😀

 

[OutHouse]

The best isn't any better than it ever was. Much of the difference in perceived potency is because of the way it's trimmed & marketed. No sticks, no stems, no big leaves, just flowers.

ok i posted links from studies done by university lab testing and Federal testing proving that pot today is more potent than "back in the day" but for some idiotic reason you know better and want to argue it.

ill play your silly game, post your facts and sources. prove me wrong.

 

[OutHouse]

Not it is not 'proven fact' that 'pot is stronger today'. You simply can't just say 'pot is stronger'. It's simply too generic. There's increased availability, increased production techniques, etc. It's not like pot magically got stronger. There's been potent weed available for thousands of years. What weed is stronger? Sativa? Indica? What strand of Indica? Who grew it? What generation is it?

It's no different than claiming alcohol is stronger. Where's the alcohol from? Who brewed it? What kind of alcohol is it? If I sampled beer 20 years ago, and then I sampled vodka today, of fucking course the 'alcohol' is stronger. Duh.

There's far too many kinds of pot to paint potency so generally. The entire idea of 'pot is more dangerous now' is 100% based in ignorance. If you understand how cannabis works, you won't say something so generic.

If I say 'fruit tastes terrible', isn't that a little too generic? Considering the wide variety of fruit available today, saying 'fruit tastes bad' means nothing.

So in short, no, it's not proven fact.

i posted links saying it is stronger by creditable sources. who is your sources, is it personal use? maybe you have had too much.

 

[gochi123]

What irritates me is that as a society we have these issues -- just do as you please without harming anyone alright!?

is that too much to ask.