Vermont Democrats Scrub Pot Bill

[nakedfrog]

I'm opposed to the stalling inherent in your position of "we need more research before we can do anything." If serious interactions existed between cannabis & other substances we'd already know about them simply from data we already have.

It's like Republicans investigating Benghazi, fer chrissakes.

I am definitely pro-legalization, but I don't think we have an accurate picture of interactions because people are probably significantly less likely to be up-front about their pot usage when it's illegal.
I think it may also be beneficial to acknowledge that there are levels of OD--for example, you can drink too much and be incapacitated and puking, and not die. Similarly, while it may take a vast amount of weed to kill a person, it's not that difficult to ingest sufficient quantities to cause duress.
These concerns will, of course, be easier to address if it's rescheduled, but to present it as this perfect miracle drug that can do no harm isn't a very realistic depiction either.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So what? The US has been in violation of the treaty since 1996 when CA allowed MMJ.




Bullshit. The claim is not "no harm possible". The claim is no demonstrable harm despite the claims that this or that "may" or "might" occur. Yeh, sure, cannabis might interact with the chemistry of the mold in blue cheese to cause reefer madness but I kinda doubt it. We'll probably need clinical trials to be sure, but that would involve actually using cannabis, which is basically unobtanium for researchers.



Researchers have been mining the data from CO for 4 years & from MMJ states since 1996. The prohibitionists' conclusions? "Might" "Maybe" "We just don't know for sure" & "It could happen" so don't do that, because... well, just because we don't know everything. Never mind that legalization has shown itself to be superior public policy in the States where it's been implemented.

You avoided my points entirely. Congrats. I argued about this with you saying that Obama could have gone through the process I accurately provided and you defended his inaction. Now you talk about prohibitionists which had nothing to do with the existing legal authority. In truth Obama by ignoring his obligations to the people of this nation acted as a prohibitionist. No one could have prevented his actions as authority comes from law and that law is based on treaty.

I argued for legal means to free people from onerous consequences and you defended political expediency instead. I explicitly called for this and properly separated the safety issue. By legally allowing freedoms from Draconian laws access for medical inspection would have been a complete non issue, no more than studying benzodiazepines.

You argue, but not well, against reality. Stop with alternative facts.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am definitely pro-legalization, but I don't think we have an accurate picture of interactions because people are probably significantly less likely to be up-front about their pot usage when it's illegal.
I think it may also be beneficial to acknowledge that there are levels of OD--for example, you can drink too much and be incapacitated and puking, and not die. Similarly, while it may take a vast amount of weed to kill a person, it's not that difficult to ingest sufficient quantities to cause duress.
These concerns will, of course, be easier to address if it's rescheduled, but to present it as this perfect miracle drug that can do no harm isn't a very realistic depiction either.

Meh. I certainly haven't represented cannabis as a miracle drug. The primary use of cannabis has always been as a mild intoxicant & analgesic. In that it's easily the least harmful of all commonly used intoxicants.

 

[Jhhnn]

You avoided my points entirely. Congrats. I argued about this with you saying that Obama could have gone through the process I accurately provided and you defended his inaction. Now you talk about prohibitionists which had nothing to do with the existing legal authority. In truth Obama by ignoring his obligations to the people of this nation acted as a prohibitionist. No one could have prevented his actions as authority comes from law and that law is based on treaty.

I argued for legal means to free people from onerous consequences and you defended political expediency instead. I explicitly called for this and properly separated the safety issue. By legally allowing freedoms from Draconian laws access for medical inspection would have been a complete non issue, no more than studying benzodiazepines.

You argue, but not well, against reality. Stop with alternative facts.

Yeh, blame Obama for 80 years of prohibition & a rigged game in the federal bureaucracy. And never mind that cannabis was outlawed at the federal level in 1937, long before the treaty of 1961. Our policy created the treaty, not vice versa.

Voters in CO & WA forced a choice on Obama & Holder. They could pull a Romney or use it to advance the cause of legalization, which is what they did. The simple truth is that prohibition cannot be reasonably enforced w/o state & local assistance, something that no longer exists here or in other legalized states. They recognized that we broke prohibition & acted accordingly.

Going on about the "legal" means to end federal prohibition is utterly pointless, given that they're impossible to use, that the federal bureaucracy simply will not cooperate. They just go around in patterns of circular reasoning like your own. Congress will eventually be forced to act & Obama's actions only hasten the day it will happen.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yeh, blame Obama for 80 years of prohibition & a rigged game in the federal bureaucracy. And never mind that cannabis was outlawed at the federal level in 1937, long before the treaty of 1961. Our policy created the treaty, not vice versa.

Voters in CO & WA forced a choice on Obama & Holder. They could pull a Romney or use it to advance the cause of legalization, which is what they did. The simple truth is that prohibition cannot be reasonably enforced w/o state & local assistance, something that no longer exists here or in other legalized states. They recognized that we broke prohibition & acted accordingly.

Going on about the "legal" means to end federal prohibition is utterly pointless, given that they're impossible to use, that the federal bureaucracy simply will not cooperate. They just go around in patterns of circular reasoning like your own. Congress will eventually be forced to act & Obama's actions only hasten the day it will happen.

You are channelling Spicer again. Note that originally mentioned that for about half a century this process existed, but Obama was the one who decided to turn a blind eye to states violating law when Obama could have removed the majority of problems by rescheduling. He stuck his foot in it and should have followed up with his legal authority. Who needed to break Obama as with Prohibition? No one, because Prohibition has zero to do with it. It is solely about the power which the administrative branch has and have had. CO and WA forced a choice? Clearly not to remedy the problem at the federal controlled substance level. They turned their backs on their proper legal authority. There is no cooperation need. You think the DEA is going to kill a sitting President over it? You pointedly deny authority which exists and embrace every arrest made because of MJ being highly controlled. This is on Obama and his defenders, you. No Spicer, the buck was on his desk and he failed the people. I put the facts up and you counterfactual appeals do not stand scrutiny. Trump supporters do just this.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are channelling Spicer again. Note that originally mentioned that for about half a century this process existed, but Obama was the one who decided to turn a blind eye to states violating law when Obama could have removed the majority of problems by rescheduling. He stuck his foot in it and should have followed up with his legal authority. Who needed to break Obama as with Prohibition? No one, because Prohibition has zero to do with it. It is solely about the power which the administrative branch has and have had. CO and WA forced a choice? Clearly not to remedy the problem at the federal controlled substance level. They turned their backs on their proper legal authority. There is no cooperation need. You think the DEA is going to kill a sitting President over it? You pointedly deny authority which exists and embrace every arrest made because of MJ being highly controlled. This is on Obama and his defenders, you. No Spicer, the buck was on his desk and he failed the people. I put the facts up and you counterfactual appeals do not stand scrutiny. Trump supporters do just this.

And more bullshit. The President cannot reschedule drugs by decree. He can only call upon the bureaucracy to do so. There is a rather elaborate song & dance routine & the bureaucrats won't dance.

Obama wasn't the first to turn a blind eye on state level cannabis legalization. That was Bill Clinton in 1996 when CA introduced MMJ, followed by GWB as that process continued from state to state. Federal law has prohibited cannabis all along regardless of the purpose. The law draws no distinction between medical & recreational use.

Your accusation that I embrace anybody being arrested is scurrilous, similar to Trump's raving about crooked Hillary. If it were my say, cannabis would be no more regulated than any agricultural product other than retail sales to minors.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And more bullshit. The President cannot reschedule drugs by decree. He can only call upon the bureaucracy to do so. There is a rather elaborate song & dance routine & the bureaucrats won't dance.

Obama wasn't the first to turn a blind eye on state level cannabis legalization. That was Bill Clinton in 1996 when CA introduced MMJ, followed by GWB as that process continued from state to state. Federal law has prohibited cannabis all along regardless of the purpose. The law draws no distinction between medical & recreational use.

Your accusation that I embrace anybody being arrested is scurrilous, similar to Trump's raving about crooked Hillary. If it were my say, cannabis would be no more regulated than any agricultural product other than retail sales to minors.

And there we have it. Complete obfuscation and deflection. You are saying that Holder will decline to enforce existing federal law and tell Obama to fuck off if asked to request the HHS to pursue this, or that the HHS will do the same. Just what kind of people in the cabinet did Obama put into place that would defy a lawful procedure? GWB? 1937? Bill Clinton? They didn't choose to use the mechanisms either, but while "the Revolution" you proclaim in part being due to Obama, the rest of the nation imprisons people based in large part of the scheduling of MJ and federal law as the basis.

Countless thousands locked up while you defend the honor of those who were responsible, particularly your "champion".

The process is outlined and the parties involved. They are Cabinet level politically appointed officers put in place to carry out a President's vision as long as it is legal to do so. In this case it was the lack of vision they followed. Trump certainly isn't going to do a damn thing and the negligence of non action will weigh heavily on many. That is your preference, so be it.

 

[Smoblikat]

That's not scientific research, and perhaps you don't know but how these things work is an area of my professional expertise. Do the proper study and you will find the issues. Now how signifcant they are? Well we don't know, do we? Besides why would you be opposed to scientists doing the same protocols to establish safe use? Because we don't like science?

Because youll have to retest the tests. And do further tests, just to be sure. Youll then have to retest the retest for any controls you hadnt thought of before, retest that. 50 years later youre still testing a ghost and weed remains illegal. See the problem?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because youll have to retest the tests. And do further tests, just to be sure. Youll then have to retest the retest for any controls you hadnt thought of before, retest that. 50 years later youre still testing a ghost and weed remains illegal. See the problem?

The only problem is confusing scheduling and scientific studies. The latter is not needed for controlled purposes. It's not even relevant. So once the schedule changes it's easier to do the science just like was done with every other drug entity in use. There is no reset, it's just following up while in use which is what we do with things like blood pressure meds anyway. This is business as usual for safety puroses.

Edit- to clarify, the science of safety is completely removed from the science concerning scheduling. There are precisely two and only two for that purpose. Is a substance more addictive relative to other substances. In the case of MJ the evidence is definitely no. The other is if MJ has any medical use and the evidence is absolutely certain that it does. Therefore there is no justification on the basis of established science to have MJ as a highly controlled substance. This is the only thing HHS could arrive at and the AG is legally compelled to accept the judgment of the HHS. It would take a conspiracy far beyond "Obama ordered wiretaps on Trump" to think that two agencies with a record for respect of their superiors, law and science plotting to sabotage Obama.

It would have worked but it's too late now.

 

[Jhhnn]

And there we have it. Complete obfuscation and deflection. You are saying that Holder will decline to enforce existing federal law and tell Obama to fuck off if asked to request the HHS to pursue this, or that the HHS will do the same. Just what kind of people in the cabinet did Obama put into place that would defy a lawful procedure? GWB? 1937? Bill Clinton? They didn't choose to use the mechanisms either, but while "the Revolution" you proclaim in part being due to Obama, the rest of the nation imprisons people based in large part of the scheduling of MJ and federal law as the basis.

Countless thousands locked up while you defend the honor of those who were responsible, particularly your "champion".

The process is outlined and the parties involved. They are Cabinet level politically appointed officers put in place to carry out a President's vision as long as it is legal to do so. In this case it was the lack of vision they followed. Trump certainly isn't going to do a damn thing and the negligence of non action will weigh heavily on many. That is your preference, so be it.

You're deep into dishonesty now. Earlier you were going on about more research, medical uncertainty, drug interactions & blah-blah in the style of prohibitionists, which are exactly the excuses used by the bureaucracy to keep cannabis schedule 1. But now it's all Obama's fault, as if he hasn't done more to further legalization than any of his predecessors.

It's not as if cannabis legalization was ever part of Obama's agenda prior to it being thrust upon him. And it wasn't like he was prepared to go to war with the bureaucracy & Congress over it, either. He rather put it in terms of States' Rights, the venue in which advocates have been winning since 1996. He knowingly enabled that entirely with the Cole memo & Congress followed along at a distance with the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment. Realistically, there's no going back from where we are now.

After that it's on the States. If people there vote for pot Nazis, they'll have pot Nazis regardless of federal law. if not, the Feds will leave them alone, or would until Trump & Sessions started talking shit.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're deep into dishonesty now. Earlier you were going on about more research, medical uncertainty, drug interactions & blah-blah in the style of prohibitionists, which are exactly the excuses used by the bureaucracy to keep cannabis schedule 1. But now it's all Obama's fault, as if he hasn't done more to further legalization than any of his predecessors.

It's not as if cannabis legalization was ever part of Obama's agenda prior to it being thrust upon him. And it wasn't like he was prepared to go to war with the bureaucracy & Congress over it, either. He rather put it in terms of States' Rights, the venue in which advocates have been winning since 1996. He knowingly enabled that entirely with the Cole memo & Congress followed along at a distance with the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment. Realistically, there's no going back from where we are now.

After that it's on the States. If people there vote for pot Nazis, they'll have pot Nazis regardless of federal law. if not, the Feds will leave them alone, or would until Trump & Sessions started talking shit.

The facts were presented and you chose to make alternate truths. I'm telling you what could have been done, Congress notwithstanding and bureaucrats not withstanding, unless you are suggesting that Holder was a secret Refer Madness believer and Obama was afraid of him.

Prohibition, Nazis, bureaucrats, the facts were told early on. There is no dishonesty on my part. You've decided to act like Trump and Spicer, ignoring truths with "why doesn't anyone focus on the important things, Obama's wiretaps".

It's all laid out early on and you have presented no argument other than lack of leadership and will. OK, I can accept that.

 

[Jhhnn]

The facts were presented and you chose to make alternate truths. I'm telling you what could have been done, Congress notwithstanding and bureaucrats not withstanding, unless you are suggesting that Holder was a secret Refer Madness believer and Obama was afraid of him.

Prohibition, Nazis, bureaucrats, the facts were told early on. There is no dishonesty on my part. You've decided to act like Trump and Spicer, ignoring truths with "why doesn't anyone focus on the important things, Obama's wiretaps".

It's all laid out early on and you have presented no argument other than lack of leadership and will. OK, I can accept that.

That's highly inaccurate, as are your comments in general. The AG cannot command that HHS violate their own rigged protocols to send him a report allowing rescheduling of cannabis. That's not how it works. It works like this-

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...-marijuana-and-why-its-unlikely-anytime-soon/

Congress, of course, can do what they want regardless of any scientific basis whatsoever, which is how they've handled it for 80 years.

In the meanwhile, legalization forces are winning within the arena of States' Rights & will keep on winning where we can. Some places will choose to be backwards & repressive as always. Federal law won't change that one bit because States are not obligated to follow it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's highly inaccurate, as are your comments in general. The AG cannot command that HHS violate their own rigged protocols to send him a report allowing rescheduling of cannabis. That's not how it works. It works like this-

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...-marijuana-and-why-its-unlikely-anytime-soon/

Congress, of course, can do what they want regardless of any scientific basis whatsoever, which is how they've handled it for 80 years.

In the meanwhile, legalization forces are winning within the arena of States' Rights & will keep on winning where we can. Some places will choose to be backwards & repressive as always. Federal law won't change that one bit because States are not obligated to follow it.

Here's the diagram of how this works and it follows the law.

Clearly the AG can begin the process and the HHS is obliged under law to evaluate the state of the art and report back to the AG. Now the only way this would not happen is the fantasy scenario of two appointed secretaries during Obama's tenure willfully disobeying a legal process for their own nefarious plans.

I'm going to let you rant because facts aren't working with you, but please don't be critical of Trump or Spicer for doing what you are right now.

Everyone else can read treaties laws and the diagram unless they prefer alternative facts.

 

[Jhhnn]

Here's the diagram of how this works and it follows the law.

Clearly the AG can begin the process and the HHS is obliged under law to evaluate the state of the art and report back to the AG. Now the only way this would not happen is the fantasy scenario of two appointed secretaries during Obama's tenure willfully disobeying a legal process for their own nefarious plans.

I'm going to let you rant because facts aren't working with you, but please don't be critical of Trump or Spicer for doing what you are right now.

Everyone else can read treaties laws and the diagram unless they prefer alternative facts.

Well, yeh, but the DEA was tapped by the FDA to review cannabis just last year. The answer was no.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dea+marijuana+review&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Do you really think that the AG can dictate the results or go against their recommendations?

If you do, you might be a Trump voter.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, yeh, but the DEA was tapped by the FDA to review cannabis just last year. The answer was no.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dea+marijuana+review&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Do you really think that the AG can dictate the results or go against their recommendations?

If you do, you might be a Trump voter.

I'm getting off here so one last reply against my better judgement. You completely disregard the law yet again. The SECRETARY of the HHS, who is appointed by the President IS THE FDA'S BOSS. THE LAW (god I hate having to resort to caps) OBLIGATES the HHS to review. This is NOT optional and the FDA would be in VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHED LAW if it were to refuse. The DEA being a separate entity cannot command the FDA but you bet your ass the law can and would if the process were invoked.

You really need to stop inventing specious reasons to invalidate explicit and demonstrated facts of law. Stop being Trump.