Except the Obama administration didn't remove weed from the Schedule 1 list, they just said they weren't going to enforce federal law in certain states. They were still enforcing the federal statutes in states that didn't change their laws.

It was a political move to curry favor in already blue states by the Obama administration.

There is some debate as to the power of the executive branch to legalize weed, but there is no debate that Congress holds the ultimate power to decide the issue. If Congress passes a law legalizing marijuana the only way the executive branch can stop it is through veto. If the executive branch simply reclassifies it then it's subject to being prohibited with a change in administrations or by Congress actually doing it's job and passing a law.

Well, there are some Republicans that are in favor of Mary jane. That is for medical purposes for people who have very bad side affects of the medical drugs. There is some type of chemicals in the weed that seems to block seizures in people. They are looking at how they could use that in part of a new drug for seizures.

(01-04-2018 05:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, there are some Republicans that are in favor of Mary jane. That is for medical purposes for people who have very bad side affects of the medical drugs. There is some type of chemicals in the weed that seems to block seizures in people. They are looking at how they could use that in part of a new drug for seizures.

About 70% of the weed monkeys I know are Republicans.

(01-04-2018 05:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, there are some Republicans that are in favor of Mary jane. That is for medical purposes for people who have very bad side affects of the medical drugs. There is some type of chemicals in the weed that seems to block seizures in people. They are looking at how they could use that in part of a new drug for seizures.

Then they need to force Congress to address the issue once and for all instead.

(01-04-2018 02:35 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Bad idea.

yup....it's a dumb as wanting cuummm from comey.

what a ******* retarded strategical move.....

fokk him and and fokk bammers.....

#geauxGA!

(01-04-2018 05:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 05:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, there are some Republicans that are in favor of Mary jane. That is for medical purposes for people who have very bad side affects of the medical drugs. There is some type of chemicals in the weed that seems to block seizures in people. They are looking at how they could use that in part of a new drug for seizures.

Then they need to force Congress to address the issue once and for all instead.

so why don't they???

this one is beyond ******* stupid.....and it has nothing to do with that fact that I rarely enjoy such....

these stupid 'pundits' don't have a fokking clue what they're talking about....,.not one gd fokking clue....

(01-04-2018 05:47 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 05:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 05:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, there are some Republicans that are in favor of Mary jane. That is for medical purposes for people who have very bad side affects of the medical drugs. There is some type of chemicals in the weed that seems to block seizures in people. They are looking at how they could use that in part of a new drug for seizures.

Then they need to force Congress to address the issue once and for all instead.

so why don't they???

this one is beyond ******* stupid.....and it has nothing to do with that fact that I rarely enjoy such....

Because Congress critters are only looking out for themselves and their re-election chances. They know that taking a stand on this issue, either for or against, is going to cost them votes and they don't want to do that. It's why the gutless bastiges punted on repealing Obamacare and why they never address any of the hard issues.

Someone seems to be highly pissed at the moment.

(01-04-2018 05:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 05:47 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 05:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 05:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, there are some Republicans that are in favor of Mary jane. That is for medical purposes for people who have very bad side affects of the medical drugs. There is some type of chemicals in the weed that seems to block seizures in people. They are looking at how they could use that in part of a new drug for seizures.

Then they need to force Congress to address the issue once and for all instead.

so why don't they???

this one is beyond ******* stupid.....and it has nothing to do with that fact that I rarely enjoy such....

Because Congress critters are only looking out for themselves and their re-election chances. They know that taking a stand on this issue, either for or against, is going to cost them votes and they don't want to do that. It's why the gutless bastiges punted on repealing Obamacare and why they never address any of the hard issues.

this is where DJT needs to step up to the plate.....

it's not about the smoke....it's easily about what you can do within mfg......

but nobody will address that issue;....

and to your posit, we now have micro breweries in the 'sip and 5%/vol

fk'n dipshites.....you really have no idea how much this pisses me the fookkkk offfff....

fk laura and her cross that means zero.....that stupid biatch doesn't have a fokkkiubng clue

edit: I'm in iMach mode on this one.....please forgive...

(01-04-2018 03:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 03:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 03:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 02:35 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Bad idea.

Again, it's never a bad idea to eliminate a branch of the government from exceeding it's authority. Even when you agree with the overreach.

I gotta go with Kap on this one. I personally don't have a problem with it, but if it's the law it needs to be enforced. That's what separates us from the rest, we enforce the laws no matter who is in charge

"The people of _____________ County want law and order, just not too much law and order." - the sheriff of my county back in the 60s. He was a wise man.

Big difference in A local sheriff turning a blind eye and prioritizing department resources v. The executive branch of the federal government making it public policy to not enforce laws on the book

Smoke away. 0 fricks given.

(01-04-2018 06:11 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 03:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 03:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 03:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 02:35 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  Bad idea.

Again, it's never a bad idea to eliminate a branch of the government from exceeding it's authority. Even when you agree with the overreach.

I gotta go with Kap on this one. I personally don't have a problem with it, but if it's the law it needs to be enforced. That's what separates us from the rest, we enforce the laws no matter who is in charge

"The people of _____________ County want law and order, just not too much law and order." - the sheriff of my county back in the 60s. He was a wise man.

Big difference in A local sheriff turning a blind eye and prioritizing department resources v. The executive branch of the federal government making it public policy to not enforce laws on the book

I think it is pretty much the same thing.

You have to have priorities and show some common sense, especially when you are dealing with limited resources.

As noted in my earlier post (apparently written in invisible pixels), all he's done is revoke the Cole and Ogden Memoranda. In a practical sense, because federal resources are limited, this means little to nothing in terms of enforcement but it probably demotivates banks who might have otherwise worked with growers/dispensers.

First and foremost Sessions basically did nothing other than get it off his desk by punting it the US Attorneys.

Most ain't gonna touch it because most want to run for something or be appointed to something else down the road and pissing off the public that voted for ain't going to be a good look and given the general contrary nature of Americans trying to shut down the will of the voters likely just galvanizes the issue.

I've got a few problems with the whole thing.
#1. The race for super pot and the reliability of the makers of consumables means dosing in "medical" states is unreliable if it is truly medical you should know how many milligrams of each ingredient is present and it shouldn't vary from production run to production run.
#2. With the financial advantage that has been gained by Colorado, Oregon and now Nevada and California (my understanding is the Washington, DC, Alaska and Mass. schemes aren't as fleshed out) there will be HUGE opposition to open things up nationally coming from the established retailers even if it were a change that required a vote in each state to allow sales.

So we are now at a point where the supporters of the current law are a dwindling group and don't want this coming to a vote but the people in states that have approved some form have no real reason to support reforming the law as long as the status quo is maintained and the people selling to them in "recreational states" have very strong incentives to maintain the status quo.

Polls show 90% of Republicans support medical and higher for self-described independents and democrats, while 51% support broad legalization.

Crazy that in our federal system 8 states have said recreational is OK, 22 have approved medical, 15 permit use of the extract CBD which doesn't provide a high and 5 permit no sales, yet the national government cannot adjust to reflect that 30 of 50 states support at least medical and 45 support the use of CBD.

The states have spoken.

Congress needs to act and change the law. It's really that simple. The support is there to do it, Trump ain't going to veto it so what's stopping them?

(01-04-2018 07:52 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Congress needs to act and change the law. It's really that simple. The support is there to do it, Trump ain't going to veto it so what's stopping them?

b/c the hemp side changes a shiteload of thingys how mfg develops moving forward......

toss in the idiots that don't have a fk'n clue what they're talking about relative to addiction, and it's the perfect stratus quo butt-fk'n.....

I'm so finished with this topic......

fk 'em all......what a cf of dipshites.....

it's so gd simple.....

Legalize it or at least decriminalize it. Tomorrow, if not today. And that includes hemp.

(01-04-2018 06:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 06:11 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 03:33 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 03:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 03:19 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Again, it's never a bad idea to eliminate a branch of the government from exceeding it's authority. Even when you agree with the overreach.

I gotta go with Kap on this one. I personally don't have a problem with it, but if it's the law it needs to be enforced. That's what separates us from the rest, we enforce the laws no matter who is in charge

"The people of _____________ County want law and order, just not too much law and order." - the sheriff of my county back in the 60s. He was a wise man.

Big difference in A local sheriff turning a blind eye and prioritizing department resources v. The executive branch of the federal government making it public policy to not enforce laws on the book

I think it is pretty much the same thing.

You have to have priorities and show some common sense, especially when you are dealing with limited resources.

Sure, but to publically say we are not going to enforce the law is foolish. If we don't enforce law A why enforce Law B?

My initial reaction was total dismay...but...after thought it is pretty clear this administration is now intent on dismantling all of King Zed's policies. This is just another one on a long list. I don't think it will impact one iota what the states have done in regard to Cannabis. There is simply too much money at stake...too many good paying jobs at stake...and the most important thing...TOO MUCH MONEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STEAL.