Think Progress calls out President Obama and his Pot bullshit

[Ichingcarpenter]

Even after President Obama’s recent comments that marijuana is not less dangerous than alcohol and that the state legalization measures are an “important move,” he declined to comment Friday on whether he believed the federal government should reclassify the drug from its current status as a dangerous substance with no accepted medical value, and said such a change certainly won’t come from his office.



When asked during an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper whether he would consider changing marijuana’s designation as a Schedule I narcotic, Obama said making that decision is a “job for Congress.” And when Tapper pointed out that the Drug Enforcement Administration has the power to reschedule drugs, Obama said, “It’s – it’s not – it’s not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws under – undergirding those determinations… ”
In a tweet Wednesday, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy said the attorney general can change the drug’s designation, but that it is “not likely given current science.”

Tapper later asked whether Obama would support a change in the schedule. Obama didn’t respond directly, but cited scientific research in saying, “But the broader point, I stand by my belief, based, I think, on the scientific evidence, that marijuana, for casual users, individual users, is subject to abuse, just like alcohol is and should be treated as a public health problem and challenge.”

The current scheme for classifying controlled substances does not treat marijuana anything like alcohol. While marijuana is listed as Schedule I, the most restrictive of the five designations under the Controlled Substances Act, alcohol and tobacco are not on the schedule at all. Highly addictive and potent drugs, meanwhile, including cocaine, opium poppy, morphine, and codeine, are listed as Schedule II, designated for those drugs that have a high potential for abuse and dependence, but which have “a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.” The synthetic version of THC, known as dronabinol, is listed as Schedule III, even though THC is the ingredient in cannabis that causes psychoactive effects.



http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/31/3232871/obama-wont-executive-action-marijuana-supports-public-health-approach/

[xchrom]

1. du rec.

[leeroysphitz]

2. “not likely given current science.” So it's science's fault!

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. Which is saying

we don't look at science


In 2012, marijuana arrests as a percentage of all drug arrests dipped very slightly from 49.5% in 2011 to 48.3% last year. This puts the total number of marijuana arrests at about 749,825 (compared to 757,969 arrests in 2011). 87% of these arrests were for possession only, meaning that about 658,231 Americans were forced into handcuffs last year for nothing more than simple possession. Another 91,593 were arrested for sale or manufacturing charges.

That means a marijuana consumer is arrested for possession every 48 seconds. In the time it took you to read this short blog post, another marijuana consumer was taken to jail. Meanwhile, the occurrences of violent crime ticked up to 1,214,462 reported incidents, an increase of 0.7% over 2011 totals.

- See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2013/09/16/us-marijuana-arrests-remain-largely-unchanged-in-2012/#sthash.U1E2hOg2.dpuf

[another_liberal]

4. If the President hadn't admitted he smoked pot as a kid . . .

He might have been able to do something. As it stands, though, were he to come out in favor of legalization, the Republicans would have a field day with it. He would be cast as the American Rob Ford by every Conservative talk show in the country: "Is he smoking again? And no, folks, I do not mean tobacco!"

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. Change the schedule for it

its a no brainer. Its not heroin or cocaine and cannabis does not fit each of the three statutory criteria for Schedule I.

[another_liberal]

28. I agree completely, that should be done.

The question is can this President politically afford to do so at this time. He has to pick his battles carefully.

[Ichingcarpenter]

32. Mean Republicans... must not upset them

they might be mean.

[Le Taz Hot]

46. Politically what?

He's not running for anything and not likely to ever run for anything again. There's no danger here, only his obligation to Big Pharma and the PIC.

[another_liberal]

53. I think he still has two years in his term.

There are a few things he would kind of like to get done for us during that time. No President has the power and Congressional support to do everything that he might want to see done. Perhaps President Obama thinks initiatives like extending unemployment benefits and reasonable gun control are more important than you and I getting to buy pot at the store?

[Le Taz Hot]

59. So, let's say he decides to remove cannabis from

Schedule I to, say Schedule III (best scenario is to remove it altogether). What do you think will happen? Congress will block any legislation he proposes? They're doing that now. Hurt Democratic candidates in the 2014 election? Surveys have said over and over again that most Americans are for legalization, or at least de-criminalization, To reschedule or remove from the scheduling would GAIN the Democrats votes. There is no upside here, so why is he doing it? Answer: Because he's beholden to Big Pharma and the PIC. It's the only explanation and that right there is why I have such a low opinion of him as President.

[another_liberal]

63. Perhaps you are right . . .

I doubt, though, that his motivation is that simple, let alone that banal.

[Le Taz Hot]

69. Banal or not, it's the only explantion that makes sense.

Feel free to posit another.

[mimi85]

6. Exactly! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Why is that? Clinton copped to toking, as did W Bush, Laura Bush, Al and Tipper Gore

and plenty of others. I also offer that the Republicans have 'a field day' if Obama orders lunch or says good morning to his wife, so since they are always riled up, why not let them rile about something worthwhile to Americans?
Do you really believe there is some set of words and behaviors Obama could use to please the Republicans, and that this should be his goal?

[another_liberal]

26. Did Clinton come out for legalization while he was President?

Did any of the others while they were in public office?

It is one thing for a straight person in power to back legalization, but if an admitted user does so it will be depicted by their opponents as an attempt to, "Satisfy their life-long addiction."

[Le Taz Hot]

50. When Clinton was president, there was not over 50%

of the country in favor of legalization. Public sentiment for cannabis in 1994 is very different from public sentiment in 2014. And again, you're pulling the "but the Republicans won't like is if we do that." Responders have repeatedly pointed out that the Republicans are going to hate him no matter what he does, so why not, you know, grow a pair and reschedule it.

[another_liberal]

54. The question was posed by Bluenorthwest . . .

I was just responding with what I thought might be a valid explanation.

[Le Taz Hot]

62. I understand but this is a message board

which means anyone is free to hop in on a conversation. As with you, I was also responding with what I thought might be a valid point.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. And here is the question I put to you, you go first as I asked you first.

Do you really believe there is some set of words and behaviors Obama could use to please the Republicans, and that this should be his goal?

[another_liberal]

88. Of course not . . .

And that is not what I was saying. What I did try to explain is that, in all likelihood, President Obama wants very much to legalize pot on the national level; however, like all Presidents before him, he is limited in his actions by what is politically possible.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. And what the fuck is with the word 'admitted'? You mean he included, unprompted and

unforced, information about his use of not only cannabis but also cocaine when he was a young man in a book he wrote for profit? Why do you think he included his snorting up of lines?

[another_liberal]

22. I had not known the bit about cocaine. That was smart though.

If he did it, and had tried to hide the fact, McCain would have ridden the story like a birthday pony. Pot is one thing, cocaine is quite another. Best to get that kind of thing out in the open voluntarily.

[NCTraveler]

21. That doesn't make sense.

Guy smoked some weed and is now president. We worry way too much about the right wing. The country is on our side. They will be even more on our side as the rw comes out swinging against a little smoke as if it were Bin Laden coming to get us.

[another_liberal]

33. "We worry way too much about the right wing."

You make a good point; however, "We" are not trying to govern the country and provide for the American people's needs in the face of enormous forces of greed and reactionary bigotry. I wish he could do what is suggested on this string, but I will cut the President some slack if he feels that is not the cause to champion at this time.

[NCTraveler]

35. "if he feels that is not the cause to champion at this time."

He is being left in the dust of leaders. Not just on this issue, but many issues. Why does he keep talking about it if he is not championing it. I don't think you are watching the Justice Department and the White House. You seem a little disconnected.

[another_liberal]

37. Surely we agree on the basic facts of this issue?

Is it really necessary, therefore, to insult one another?

[NCTraveler]

45. Nothing there was an insult.

There have been times where I have been disconnected from an issue and still tried to comment on it. Often doesn't turn out well. Just because you haven't been following and are somewhat disconnected from the issue, which is very clear from your post, does not mean it is an insult in any way.

[another_liberal]

47. It is not I who is "disconnected."

You know nothing about me, and, yes, I did take offense.

[NCTraveler]

57. You are almost correct. What I know about you is what you post.

I was directly referencing your post, which you have veered away from due to "feeling" attacked. I just don't see the attack. Commenting on an issue you are disconnected from isn't always a bad thing. Normally education follows. That is the great thing about DU. It is very educational when you aren't up to date on an issue. My original reply to you was very fair, was meant to foster discussion, and was directly related to your post. I really can't help your "perceived" offense or lack of understanding on the topic. Reading up on an issue helps a lot.

[another_liberal]

64. I'm glad to know . . .

You're a big enough person to take responsibility for your actions.

[NCTraveler]

79. We should all be. That brings us back to...

That brings us back to the issue at hand before you sidetracked us. The administration needs to take responsibility for its actions. Not be scared of the rw as you suggest they are. What other issues should the president hide from due to fears of the rw talk shows?

"He might have been able to do something. As it stands, though, were he to come out in favor of legalization, the Republicans would have a field day with it. He would be cast as the American Rob Ford by every Conservative talk show in the country: "Is he smoking again? And no, folks, I do not mean tobacco!""

With your thought process, the president could never take a stand on anything unless it appeases the rw. The American Rob Ford. Seriously. Your concern is that Rush will call him the American Rob Ford. Your excuse for him is out of fear of Rush?

[another_liberal]

86. You exaggerate, repeatedly, but that is your prerogative.

Have fun.

[cali]

25. that's a cheap excuse for his dissembling. and it's absolute nonsense

[another_liberal]

29. That's just how I see his reasoning.

I thought I was entitled to my opinion?

[NCTraveler]

36. A little more harsh than what I said up thread.

But same sentiment.

[djean111]

42. So what? He is NOT running again. They hate him anyway. So - so what?

His personal stuff and/or "legacy" should have nothing to do with this.

[truebluegreen]

49. By that standard, none of the last three Presidents

or a whole bunch of congresscritters would or will be able to weigh in on the issue.

The right will attack President Obama for any thing--as the joke goes, if he walked on water they would claim he couldn't swim--and he will never run for any office again so who cares? He is free to do the right thing.

[another_liberal]

90. Except that Congressional mid-term elections are this year.

To get anything done in regard to legislation, he has to help Democrats hold the Senate and try to retake the House. Otherwise, any action he takes on legalization could be neutralized by Republicans in Congress.

[truebluegreen]

91. Changing marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III

is an administrative act and has nothing to do with Congress. And Republicans running both houses are powerless without Obama's signature on whatever they do.

There's always an election coming up. It is not an excuse for lack of action unless the only thing our elected representatives care about is their own next election.

ETA: Besides, consider the implications of Republicans trying to roll back a desperately-needed reform. Once in place these things tend to stay in place...like Obamacare. Bad as it is, it is very difficult politically to think about taking away existing benefits.

[another_liberal]

93. I sincerely hope you are proven right on this point.

I have far too many friends who have been cruelly punished for getting caught with even very small amounts of grass.

[truebluegreen]

95. That's the worst thing about it:

it was designed from the beginning to target the people Nixon/Republicans didn't like.

Long past time to fix it.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

78. The right-wing accused the Clintons of murder. Surely Obama...

can handle being labeled a "pothead" by people who DON'T matter. PRESIDENT Pothead, that is -- it certainly didn't hold him back. This timid Democrat approach is completely foreign to me ... who fucking cares what Republicans will have a field day with?

A majority in this country now support legalization (older/Southern/white/Republicans are the holdouts -- screw 'em). The "War on Drugs" is racist. Obama could emphasize tax revenue and the positive economic impact of legalization. Midterms are coming up, and while many on DU poo-poo legalization, it would bring young and indie voters to the polls, many of whom sat out in 2010.

This really is a no-brainer.

[another_liberal]

89. I do not disagree with any of that.

Perhaps it is just a matter of timing, and we will see him take the actions you suggest in the coming months. He may do so after the mid-term elections, waiting only so as to not take a chance on rocking the boat for his Congressional supporters running for office in those more conservative, Southern States.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

97. The timing couldn't be more perfect...

ride the Colorado and Washington wave.

North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan (D) trails her closest opponents by 7% and 4% because the majority in this state HATE Obamacare. But the majority in this state support legalization. Those *pot* voters could make a difference, especially if economic benefit/tax revenue are touted. I know many on this site are blinded by their hatred of Libertarians and refuse to believe that, but it's the truth. I forget which states have really iffy Senate races in addition to NC -- AK, AR and LA? I'm pretty sure Alaskans would go for pot, not sure about Arkansans and Louisianans.

What's going to generate excitement to get people to the polls to vote FOR something? I guarantee that NC voters will flock to the polls to vote AGAINST something -- Obamacare. It's going to be an interesting election, and the boat needs to be rocked. That the problem with too many Democrats: timidity.

[jopacaco]

7. I don't like being misinformed by the president

President Obama knows that the DEA and the Attorney General can reschedule drugs. They have done it more than a dozen times in his administration. I prefer an honest answer to questions rather than placing the blaime on Congress. Everytime someone lies to me, I trust them less.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. You have not been misinformed by President Obama ...

you are being misinformed by a simplistic "press", and a bunch of people that don't understand that laws are complex things.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4422881

[cali]

27. absolute baloney. is there anything that you wouldn't support Obama on?

He lied. DEAL. Politicians lie. He's not a fucking saint. He's a tough politician and he lies.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. You say "baloney"; but ...

the law says otherwise.

We agree ... President Obama IS a tough politician and politicians DO lie ... we just haven't seen an instance where President Obama has lied, at least not on this matter.

[Le Taz Hot]

55. The law states that the president

can add any substance to the DEA's schedule. It' show cannabis ended up as a Schedule I substance, Nixon put it there. What a president can add a president can remove, or at least move.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Sorry, the President is incorrect and it's not the press but elected Democrats instructing

him about the facts.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., tells U.S. News it's "very clear" that the law "actually permits reclassification administratively."

"I don't dispute that Congress could and should make the change, but it's also something the administration could do in a matter of days and I hope they will consider it," says Blumenauer, who is currently circulating a letter among colleagues asking Obama to do so. Eight members of Congress have signed the letter so far.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/01/31/obama-confused-about-power-to-reschedule-pot-advocates-say

Go read the Controlled Substance Act, get your facts in order and if you can figure out a fact based argument, come present it. Facts are facts. The laws are what they are, and the CSA allows both Congress and the AG to reschedule any or all drugs. That is simply the way it is. The President is incorrect.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. I have read the CSA, several time ...

and included in the CSA is the Section (d) exception that takes the AG's rescheduling authority away ... an AG cannot administratively contradict International Treaties (Neither can the President).

Like you, Rep. Blumenauer, D-Ore, is incorrect on this matter. READ THE LAW and the Constitution of the United States.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. There is no treaty that dictates scheduling of cannabis.

Which is why you don't cite one.

[RainDog]

82. But your reading of the Single Convention is incorrect

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024425076#post81

The Single Convention has no bearing on scheduling of any substance in the U.S.

But you're correct that the law regarding this has been done in such a way that it's a tangled mess of lies. The law, unfortunately, was not based upon reality, however. It was based upon Nixon's enemies list.

That's a shitty foundation for any law.

[truebluegreen]

51. +1

And welcome to DU.

[Jesus Malverde]

76. Welcome (back) to Du!

[ananda]

9. Potato chips are subject to abuse.

Anything is subject to abuse.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. As Obama illustrates, the truth is subject to abuse.

nt

[Brewinblue]

11. The man is too smart

to possibly believe the bullshit that he spews!

[B Calm]

13. the last 3 presidents smoked pot and not one of them has done

anything to legalize it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. This narrative has been refuted ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4422881

It's not as simple as simpletons would have it.

That said ... I don't know what the "spokeman" was tweeting about ... and I suspect neither did the spokesman.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. The Controlled Substances Act provides for a rulemaking process by which the AG

can reschedule a substance administratively. These proceedings represent the only means of legalizing medical cannabis without an act of Congress.
The Controlled Substance Act comes from Nixon era, and those of you late to this issue will not be able to refute those who have been informed about it since Dicky was Tricky. Name calling will not help you because this is a matter of actual law.
Rescheduling can be done by Congress or by the AG, the process for the AG is available for anyone to read, learn and know if they are not comfortable making things up, blustering and throwing insults as a replacement for knowledge.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Ummm, wrong ...

Rescheduling can be done by Congress or by the AG, the process for the AG is available for anyone to read, learn and know if they are not comfortable making things up, blustering and throwing insults as a replacement for knowledge.

The AG cannot re-schedule anything in contradiction of an International treaty, i.e., the section (d) exception to the AG's rescheduling authority.

And speaking of "comfortable making things up, blustering and throwing insults as a replacement for knowledge" does ignoring pertinent parts of the law count as a replacement for knowledge, or is that then just making things up?

[Bluenorthwest]

38. You are incorrect.

Several Democratic members of Congress are in the process of explaining the law to Obama and Holder. I'm citing a Democratic Representative from my State and the actual Controlled Substance Act, you are citing yourself. No link, nothing to even try to support that which you are repeating and repeating even as others present to you facts, citations, the law of the land, the voice of other Democrats....you just repeat what you already said which was incorrect the first, second and third times you said it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. So ...

the Section (d) exception means what, exactly?

The process is "A", except in the event of "B." When "B" applies, then "A" is changed.

It really is that simple.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Can you cite a treaty in which the US agrees to keep cannabis

scheduled as having no medical value? This is not about legalization of cannabis, but about the placement on the schedule as lacking all medical use. There is no treaty under which the US promises to schedule any drug in any particular way. You do not cite such a treaty in your numerous posts because there is no such treaty. Reschedule does not legalize, it permits medical use and State laws to decide this. Legalization is a separate issue entirely.
No treaty the US has signed requires cannabis to remain Schedule One. It is that simple.

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. Okay ...

that is an argument that I had not considered/researched.

I was arguing with the assumption that advocates calling for rescheduling were calling for rescheduling cannabis, as to drop it from the schedule. And to be honest ... I think you will agree that that represents the majority rescheduling advocate view.

But that said, international Drug Control Treaties do prescribe the process for rescheduling drugs. I will research this matter further, and respond.

[Bluenorthwest]

72. The OP and discussion are about rescheduling and the processes to do that.

There is no treaty that requires the US to schedule cannabis on Schedule One. It is that simple.
And as I said, you cite nothing because you have nothing to cite. Considering the good people who are arrested for cannabis and the huge percentage of them who are young minority men I feel this discussion deserves utter and total honesty. No one should be playing with 'assumptions' about others. Those who play word games do so with young people's lives as fodder. I will not take part in such a thing.

[Chathamization]

80. Yeah, it's kind of amazing people here are trying to excuse inaction

And as someone pointed out in another thread:

Executive Order

A presidential policy directive that implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty.

[RainDog]

81. The Single Convention isn't binding if it contradicts a nation's constitutional laws

The AG most certainly can reschedule unilaterally, apart from Congress. Congress can reschedule, as can the DEA.

Rescheduling has nothing to say about the legality of a substance since legal drugs are part of the schedule - while others are not - because of lobbying by those drug makers - for instance - cigarettes and alcohol.

The constitutionality of the drug schedule for cannabis can be questioned by the unequal application of the law since Congress has appropriated funds to D.C. to enact their medical marijuana law, voted on by the citizens there more than a decade ago. By enacting the law, Congress has implicitly acknowledged that the drug scheduling for cannabis is incorrect because marijuana is available as a medical product.

Holder should simply remove cannabis from the drug schedule because Congress has already indicated cannabis does not belong there by their actions - he can say he is aligning the schedule with existing law.

Portugal has decriminalized all drugs. The Netherlands simply ignores drug use and chooses not to prosecute drug use as a crime.

Different nations have argued that the Single Convention discusses drug trafficking, not individual possession, and different nations have different penalties for possession at this time - there is no uniform penal code, internationally, for any drug.

Different nations are refusing to abide by the single convention - as in the case with Uruguay, which legalized marijuana. Canada and Israel are also in violation of the single convention by negotiating with Uruguay for that nation to grow marijuana for the medical uses of marijuana in those countries - i.e. those countries are explictly violating the "trafficking" portion of the single convention by becoming "drug traffickers" themselves by contracting to purchase marijuana on a large scale.

The Single Convention was an invention of the U.S. in order to shore up its own drug laws. There's nothing sacrosanct about it and it is routinely interpreted as various nations see fit.

[Cerridwen]

60. "Refutation" refuted. (edited)

"{EO}...implements or interprets a federal statute, a constitutional provision, or a treaty."

edited to fix broken formatting.

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. Can you provide a word or 16 that preceed that snippet? ...

I have no idea what that means.

[Cerridwen]

68. Fixed in post. Broken formatting. n/t

[nilesobek]

16. PBO might be waffling a bit on this issue for now.

He could clarify his overall position by bringing some of his craft WH beers out to Wa. State, light up a big blunt of legal weed and smoke it on national tv during the super bowl.

[kelliekat44]

17. Today's pot is not your daddy's pot. And Obama is entitled to opinions just as we are. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

18. That's such a hilarious, meaningless right wing trope.

nt

[HappyMe]

30. Is there a Reefer Madness II?

Because that sounds like it would be included in it.

[B Calm]

71. I smoked pot since 1969. Today's pot is no different than

what I smoked years ago. The only difference is, you don't have to smoke as much to get the same high as I did years ago.

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. Says Obama

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., tells U.S. News it's "very clear" that the law "actually permits reclassification administratively."

"I don't dispute that Congress could and should make the change, but it's also something the administration could do in a matter of days and I hope they will consider it," says Blumenauer, who is currently circulating a letter among colleagues asking Obama to do so. Eight members of Congress have signed the letter so far.


Schedule I drugs are deemed to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical value.

Blumenauer says it's clear marijuana doesn't belong in the highest schedule alongside heroin and LSD. He says it does have accepted medical value in 20 states and Washington, D.C., where its use for certain conditions is permitted, and that it's relatively safe compared to other drugs – notably cocaine and methamphetamine, which are ranked Schedule II.

Among the benefits of rescheduling pot, Blumenauer says, is easing banking restrictions for state-permitted recreational and medical marijuana shops, which mainly deal in cash because banks fearing federal penalties refuse their business.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/01/31/obama-confused-about-power-to-reschedule-pot-advocates-say

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Earl is a great Democrat and he is correct where the President is so painfully wrong.

nt

[fredamae]

20. The Science Is Here

DEA ALJ in 1988 issued this Findings of Fact:
"5. This is a remarkable statement. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. Estimates suggest that from twenty million to fifty million Americans routinely, albeit illegally, smoke marijuana without the benefit of direct medical supervision. Yet, despite this long history of use and the extraordinarily high numbers of social smokers, there are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.

6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around

1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in onemarijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity.


16. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care."

http://www.ccguide.org/young88.php


And What About the FEDERAL Medical Marijuana Program? Huh? They haven't tracked and studied these people after growing and supplying Them Cannabis Medicine by Mail all these decades?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassionate_Investigational_New_Drug_program

[RainDog]

83. Exactly. The scientific research already exists in the records of our nation

There is no need for further research and the claim that research that demonstrates medical value does not exist is a lie.

[ProSense]

40. Maybe

So the federal government remains in a holding pattern, with Obama refusing to do anything and Congress not expected to make progress anytime soon. One of the bills pending in the House but not introduced in the Senate would end prohibition, which means marijuana would be removed from the Schedules entirely.

Many have pointed to Obama’s recent comments as a reason why he should take executive action to exercise the power he retains to change a policy that is inconsistent with his position. “If the president truly believes what he says about marijuana, he has a moral imperative to make the law match up with his views and the views of the majority of the American people, without delay. He should initiate the long overdue rescheduling of marijuana today,” Marijuana Majority Chairman Tom Angell told ThinkProgress.

But the significance of even Obama’s shift in rhetoric should not be dismissed, doubling down on a position Friday that just a few years ago would have seemed inconceivable. “We’re going to see what happens in the experiments in Colorado and Washington,” he said. “… (T)he incarceration model that we’ve taken particularly around marijuana, does not seem to have produced the kinds of results that we’ve set.”

...Senator Sanders or Warren can introduce this in the Senate. They'd get a jump on Rand Paul.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. Pat Leahy has been the Democrat most active in the Senate thus far

He called and held the first Judiciary Committee hearing on legalization last year, the hearing took place in September. Sanders, Warren not really active on this as of now, and Rand Paul is not even worth a mention, if you feel compelled to cite a Republican, I'd go with John McCain who last fall said he was wondering if we should just legalize it as it seems that is the will of the people. Paul's positions on this are contrived and hollow, and he has never actually advocated legalization of cannabis and he's despised in the medical marijuana community for spouting ignorant and dated opinions about cannabis. He does not care for it. In the extreme. Is he important to you somehow? Why do you expect that Warren would advocate this issue? Never heard a word out of her East Coast self on this issue. Where do you get that she's a player in this? I've never heard such a thing.

[Le Taz Hot]

43. A president (Nixon) ordered cannabis' Schedule I designation

after Congress gave the Presidency the power to do this. What one president can schedule, another can re-schedule. As has been the case too many times to recall, he's on the wrong side of this issue. We need a president with ganas and the ability to LEAD instead of follow where his corporate masters order.

[Ichingcarpenter]

52. A manager

A manager makes peace with his times and situation, seeking the best he can get; a leader changes them, including the tone of the conversation and the assumptions and direction of the deal.

[truebluegreen]

56. Even worse, Nixon did it after tossing out a study he ordered

that recommended de-criminalization. But that wouldn't have allowed him to go after people he didn't like.

http://www.csdp.org/news/news/nixon.htm

[ProSense]

61. Jared Polis introduced a bill to end marijuana prohibition...

Jared Polis introduced a bill to end marijuana prohibition. Why isn't there a Senate version?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024425676

[KG]

66. an issue the prez could get on the right side of history about.

dang, for awhile there in 2008, he almost had be believing he was gonna be a force for real change.

[RedstDem]

75. nothing will change until the pro pot lobby has more $$$$ than the anti pot...

America is money.

[djean111]

77. There is actually an international treaty - Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961.

The UN was miffed when Uruguay legalized pot - because they broke the treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs

Here's the thing - are there repercussions for Uruguay? What repercussions would affect the United States? (I am guessing nothing significant).

The bigger picture, as regards to treaties - Obama and Hillary are quite fond of NAFTA and the TPP. What treaties do is say hey, (the treaty controls your laws, your country) - you, as a country, cannot change or create laws that address, no matter how nebulously (like, say, a law that affects an investor state's profits by saying no to fracking), another nations's profits.

THIS is the sort of thing Obama and Hillary are dragging us into - we cannot change a law because there is a treaty.
Sucks, doesn't it.
Wonder why Obama did not bring up the "treaty" part of his no, no statement.
As far as anyone raking Obama over the coals or whatever because he smoked pot - why on earth give a shit about that? Is he running for office again? Should people currently unable to buy cannabis for medical purposes or recreational use, being hounded by police, feel that it is okay because we have to protect Obama?

(edited to correct country)

[Vattel]

84. He is such a wuss sometimes.

He can't get much through Congress to help the economy. So why not take the right stand here and run with it?

[Doctor_J]

85. Showing his lack of spine (again). He'll fast track TPP, but won't touch mj

His corporate puppetmasters want TPP, so he jumps on that.

[jsr]

87. Big Pharma is watching.

Pain meds are a big business.

[L0oniX]

92. Being in prison can be a health risk too Mr. President!

[Marr]

94. And give away a perfectly good social issue? C'mon.

Third Way politicians survive on issues like this. These issues are their only means of distinguishing themselves from the other servants to right-wing plutocrats, who run as Republicans. The establishment will drag it's feet on this for as long as possible, because there's money and political hay to made in doing so. When public sentiment is overwhelmingly, undeniably in favor of it, Third Way types like Obama will "evolve" their position and claim to have led us there.

[woo me with science]

96. kick