No change in marijuana laws coming, White House says – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
I guess there are too many special interests which are pulling on the federal governments strings.
I figured this could have been an easy win considering public opinion is swaying towards marijuana legalization.
But, no. Marijuana will continue to be listed alongside heroin. Cocaine and methamphetamine are not as bad, though :roll:
No change in marijuana laws coming, White House says – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
I guess there are too many special interests which are pulling on the federal governments strings.
I figured this could have been an easy win considering public opinion is swaying towards marijuana legalization.
But, no. Marijuana will continue to be listed alongside heroin. Cocaine and methamphetamine are not as bad, though :roll:
This shouldn't surprise you. The Obama administration has taken the position that they can ignore any legislation they disagree with so why bother writing new laws or rescinding others when you can just instruct law enforcement to just look the other way. Selective justice is great, isn't it.
No change in marijuana laws coming, White House says – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
I guess there are too many special interests which are pulling on the federal governments strings.
I figured this could have been an easy win considering public opinion is swaying towards marijuana legalization.
But, no. Marijuana will continue to be listed alongside heroin. Cocaine and methamphetamine are not as bad, though :roll:
It is better than non-selective justice. The average US citizen is subject to so many federal, state, and local laws that it is practically illegal to exist.
What's surprising is that anyone who knows about the separation of powers in our tri-partite Federal system could possibly think the President has the power to "change laws."
The power to create Federal law is vested in Congress, and only Congress can repeal or modify any law it makes.
The Supreme Court has the power to interpret whether or not a law enacted by Congress is Constitutional. If SCOTUS finds a law un-Constitutional, then that law (or whatever specific portion identified by Scotus) becomes defunt as legally un-enforceable.
The President and his subordinates only enforce the laws. Therefore, the seated President only has the power to "modify enforcement" of laws while he remains in office. The next President can simply push harsher enforcement when he takes office.
If you want to focus your ire on bad laws needing repeal? Look to Congress and your own Senators and Congressmen.
Actually, changing pot from schedule 1 to schedule 2 would legitimize medical.marijuana immediately.
And that is the DEA's perogative. No law change necessary.
At this point, claiming there is no legitimate medical use is simply lying.
The drug laws won't change from the top down because they don't want to get rid of their best excuse to invade and oppress the lives of millions of Americans. And the last thing the Fed wants is a population becoming self-aware through drug use.
What's going to happen is that it will change state by state until there is enough impetus to bring the states rights clause to SCOTUS and force the Fed to alter its drugs laws. There should not be raids on cannabis dispensaries in states who have decided to permit it.
The research going into things like cannabis and psychedelics for use as medical treatment is showing some really promising results, especially from organizations like MAPS. Eventually the science is going to blow the whole lid off of this thing. We already have workable harm reduction models from countries like Spain and Portugal. We know that decriminalization combined with more harm reduction resources works with amazing effectiveness.
The drug laws won't change from the top down because they don't want to get rid of their best excuse to invade and oppress the lives of millions of Americans. And the last thing the Fed wants is a population becoming self-aware through drug use.
What's going to happen is that it will change state by state until there is enough impetus to bring the states rights clause to SCOTUS and force the Fed to alter its drugs laws. There should not be raids on cannabis dispensaries in states who have decided to permit it.
The research going into things like cannabis and psychedelics for use as medical treatment is showing some really promising results, especially from organizations like MAPS. Eventually the science is going to blow the whole lid off of this thing. We already have workable harm reduction models from countries like Spain and Portugal. We know that decriminalization combined with more harm reduction resources works with amazing effectiveness.
What's surprising is that anyone who knows about the separation of powers in our tri-partite Federal system could possibly think the President has the power to "change laws."
The power to create Federal law is vested in Congress, and only Congress can repeal or modify any law it makes.
The Supreme Court has the power to interpret whether or not a law enacted by Congress is Constitutional. If SCOTUS finds a law un-Constitutional, then that law (or whatever specific portion identified by Scotus) becomes defunt as legally un-enforceable.
The President and his subordinates only enforce the laws. Therefore, the seated President only has the power to "modify enforcement" of laws while he remains in office. The next President can simply push harsher enforcement when he takes office.
If you want to focus your ire on bad laws needing repeal? Look to Congress and your own Senators and Congressmen.
The point is that the president isn't advocating for a change in federal law with regards to marijuana legalization in the way that he would, say, same-sex marriage. While the President cannot change the laws, he can outline legislative proposals, ask specific lawmakers to sponsor bills, and garner support for bills.
So your focus is on marijuana? Maybe because it has "medicinal uses" and is less harmful than liquor or cigarettes? Well I agree with you in part, but I disagree that marijuana is a special case when the same standards can be applied to other drugs. For example pure MDMA has been shown to have highly beneficial effects in psychological counseling and is also less harmful than either liquor or cigarettes. Then the halucinogens are useful for religious rituals, and also less harmful than liquor or cigarettes.
The issue should be decriminalization and legalization for ALL drugs. Then just hold them to the same regulatory standards as over-the-counter and behind-the-counter drugs.
Meanwhile the focus should still be on Congress and not the President.
I'm pretty sure the White House neither makes or changes laws or drug classifications. Their only move here is whether to enforce and to what degree.
You would think with all the wasted money we throw at the 'War on Drugs', this would have vast Republican support....
Pretty sure congress has to sign off on that.
The only thing the Republicans love more than blowing hot air about spending money is spending money on legislating morality.
The only thing the Republicans love more than blowing hot air about spending money is spending money on legislating morality.
...demand society take full responsibility for their own choices in life...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?