Medical pot policy changed

[kallend 1,640]

Feds will not prosecute in states where pot is legal for medical use.

A little common sense from DC.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8315603.stm

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[birdshit 0]

Quote

Feds will not prosecute in states where pot is legal for medical use.

A little common sense from DC.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8315603.stm

Woo hoo! One step closer to legalization!

Maybe DZ.com will stop putting the partnership for a drug free america ads on the site? You know, the one with the big pot leaf? Pot isnt the problem in this country, it is meth, coke, crack and heroine..

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Feds will not prosecute in states where pot is legal for medical use.

A little common sense from DC.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8315603.stm

I'll believe it when I see it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[imnotlost 0]

One little step in this gigantic game of tug-o-war between the two parties.

Hope it keeps building. It's a shame to even think about this so called "War on Drugs". Such a waste

[normiss 622]

Agreed...and it apparently depends on where in the supply chain you choose to be.
Suppliers targeted

So they don't want to go after the consumers, just the supply. Apparently after they eradicated cocaine from the planet by crippling the South American suppliers, they feel it will work just as well with weed. Oh wait. Never mind! THAT didn't work either did it???

How many more BILLIONS will we waste in this "War"?
How many more billions in economic value and taxation will we ignore?
California is the worst of all places...prosecute some while accepting sales and income tax from others?

Stoopid politicians.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Stoopid politicians.

Absolutely - the defining characteristic of the breed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Feds will not prosecute in states where pot is legal for medical use.

A little common sense from DC.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8315603.stm

I think they are cowards - if they want to do it correctly, then they should delete the fed laws on the topic, not ignore them, and allow the states to have their rights to set laws as they should in this subject.

Not prosecuting law weakens us even when we agree with the intent. They did this the lazy way which is a clear indicator that they didn't apply common sense, they only applied a political tactic.

Praising this means you only care about the result, and not the process.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Well said - I agree.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Well said - I agree.

I'd like to hear Lawrocket's perspective on it. Before the thread gets cluttered with all the potheads posting "this is the most just action taken in the history of mankind" and then rehashing all the same comments we've seen a billion times already.



I have no problem with the states choosing whether pot is legal or not.

I do have problem with a policy statement that says we are not enforcing any law.


this might be a very interesting thread on legal process

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Well said - I agree.

I'd like to hear Lawrocket's perspective on it.


I have no problem with the states choosing whether pot is legal or not.

Neither do I - it *should* be a state issue until/unless it crosses state lines - unfortunately, Fed.gov has a little problem with, shall we say, over-zealously interpreting the inter-state commerce clause.

Quote

I do have problem with a policy statement that says we are not enforcing any law.

Agreed - either enforce it as it's written or get rid of it, enough of the 'we're just going to ignore that' crap.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Absolutely. I have serious problems with a President who says that he is not going to enforce laws. It's his friggin job.

Take a stand to get the law changed. Until then you are the Chief Executive. I'm a bit fed up with politicians not doing their jobs and not enforcing laws because they don't like them.

Yet another example of agreeing with the substantive policy but being embittered about HOW this policy change is effected.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

rehashing

Pothead.

[freefal 0]

I think this is the most just action taken in the history of mankind! Who wants some brownies!!!
Sorry Bill, I had to say it!

You bring up a very good point though and it's the main piece of the legalization/decriminalization/etc. puzzle that I find myself scratching my head about.

My initial thought it is that decriminalization for possession of "small" amounts is the way to go in order to lessen the load on the criminal justice system, the financial load on tax payers, etc. But the two problems with that argument are:
One, what about the suppliers with "large" amounts? Why is it fundamentally wrong for them to possess a large amount of something but it’s ok for someone else to have a small amount?
And two, your argument that decriminalization is basically ignoring a law. We (the government of the people by the people) need to either make it legal to possess something or make it illegal. Saying “It’s illegal… but we won’t punish you for it” doesn’t really make much sense.

"Ignorance is bliss" and "Patience is a virtue"... So if you're stupid and don't mind waiting around for a while, I guess you can have a pretty good life!

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Absolutely. I have serious problems with a President who says that he is not going to enforce laws. It's his friggin job.

Take a stand to get the law changed. Until then you are the Chief Executive. I'm a bit fed up with politicians not doing their jobs and not enforcing laws because they don't like them.

Yet another example of agreeing with the substantive policy but being embittered about HOW this policy change is effected.

This just sounds to me like the way to do it as either a) a trial run to 'see how it goes' - so that you don't undo a bunch of legislation that then you'd have to re-draft or b) the way to get this done without pissing off the sectors of the population that would be up in arms about having the laws actually changed.

[justinb138 0]

Amen.

While I agree with intent, the fact that federal laws can be selectively enforced at the president's whim is somewhat disconcerting.

Either admit that the law is flawed and change it, or enforce it.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Absolutely. I have serious problems with a President who says that he is not going to enforce laws. It's his friggin job.

Take a stand to get the law changed. Until then you are the Chief Executive. I'm a bit fed up with politicians not doing their jobs and not enforcing laws because they don't like them.

I look forward to reading the mandamus action you intend to file to compel the AG to enforce.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think they are cowards - if they want to do it correctly, then they should delete the fed laws on the topic, not ignore them, and allow the states to have their rights to set laws as they should in this subject.

Same sort of half assed actions that brought us Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And saying you won't prosecute just means that during this Administration you can rely on that, the next one can easily undo it, like the ping pong game with federal funded abortion services.

Fortune had a very long article on the subject in a recent issue, suggesting that the medical pot shops have shown the model that could be used in legalization.

[normiss 622]

We continue this "tradition" with non-stop commercials for chemicals that can potentially kill us.
We selectively pick and chose the drugs that we're allowed to consume based primarily on monetary value.
So long as they are "prescription", they're ok....even when the side effects are worse than the condition being treated.
But pot on the other hand...which is less harmful than the other primary sedation of choice, is bad?

It's rather hard to logically explain this to children when they ask about all the drug commercials on TV.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I look forward to reading the mandamus action you intend to file to compel the AG to enforce.

I'm gonna have a helluva time finding a client who will allege actual injury.

"This president's actions in failng to enforce this law make me wanna puke."
"Yeah? Well, this will help alleviate your nausea."
"No. I don't mean literally. I simply can't see how a president can just refuse to enforce a law."
"Can't see? This is a proven glaucoma cure, dude."
"You're driving me crazy!"
"This stuff is an effective treatment for mental health issues."
"Forget it."
"Did I mention it has shown promise in treating Alzheimer's?"
"SHIT!"
"And treatment of bowel diseases."
"Listen, you fucking stoner."
"Yeah, man. Fucking stoners is awesome. They relax and jus get uninhibited."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I'm gonna have a helluva time finding a client who will allege actual injury.

Standing, eh? Pfft. Be the plaintiff yourself. Apparently Fresno's property and violent crime rates are measurably higher than that of California as a whole. (Source.) So the failure to enforce drug laws contributes to the criminal element, which endangers you, your family and your business, and costs you extra money in insurance premiums, security measures and counseling for anxiety. Ergo: standing.

[Nightingale 0]

I would very much like to see legalization of medical marijuana, as it's an option I'd like to explore for treatment of my migraines, but until it's legal under federal law as well as California, it is not an option for me. Currently, I'm stuck using:

Topamax
Ibuprofen
Norco
Imitrex
Relpax
Midrin
Tylenol
Yaz
Petadolex
"mysterious study medication" that is either Inderal or placebo.
Prilosec (to deal with side effects of other meds)

all to treat or prevent migraines!

Topamax, Yaz, Petadolex, and the study medication are to help perevent migraines. They seem to help some.

The Imitrex and Relpax treat the headache, but give me rebound headaches the next day. The ibuprofen treats the rebound headaches and milder migraines, but gave me an ulcer. The prilosec treats the ulcer. Now I use midrin and tylenol in place of ibuprofen sometimes, but too much of that can cause liver damage.

Norco works well for bad headaches, but I can't take that too often, because it's very addictive, and I can't take it when I've already taken midrin or tylenol, because all three contain tylenol.

I am so envious of my friends who just go eat a brownie when they have a migraine.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I would very much like to see legalization of medical marijuana, as it's an option I'd like to explore for treatment of my migraines,


I am so envious of my friends who just go eat a brownie when they have a migraine.

have you tried Wild Turkey?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

I am so envious of my friends who just go eat a brownie when they have a migraine.

have you tried Wild Turkey?

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

I'm gonna have a helluva time finding a client who will allege actual injury.

Standing, eh? Pfft. Be the plaintiff yourself. Apparently Fresno's property and violent crime rates are measurably higher than that of California as a whole. (Source.) So the failure to enforce drug laws contributes to the criminal element, which endangers you, your family and your business, and costs you extra money in insurance premiums, security measures and counseling for anxiety. Ergo: standing.

it also cures that!

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[normiss 622]

I'm sure your liver would prefer marijuana over all that!

No way in hell will I ever put that amount of manufactured chemicals in my body.
I'm sorry that you have to.