• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House does not intend on changing federal marijuana laws

zstep18

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
1,770
Reaction score
537
Location
Somewhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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:

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
And not only does the House require a majority of the majority, they very often require 218 out of the majority. We don't need no stinking Dem votes. Trouble is, this LOON thinking got us our last downgrade on the TAD and will give us our next one later this year.
 
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.

It depends mainly on whether you are the one selected. ;)
 
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.
 
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.

I won't argue with you about that. ;)
 
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.

Oh that would be so nice but I think it'll be a dozen years or so before the government catches up. :mrgreen:
 
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.

One thing most valuable to the country is allowing states to become "test kitchens" on policy. If something works, then it becomes an example for other states to follow. The states that have legalized pot for medicinal purposes are increasingly showing the rest of the country the problems that are arising with that decision. These so called cannabis dispensaries have been found to be engaged in drug trafficking. Fed sting operations show their willingness to disperse the pot to more than those using it for medicinal purposes. Often the pot then gets trafficked across state borders where it is illegal to be in possession of the substance for any reason. No longer is the threat at the border of Mexico and the U.S. for drug trafficking, but the state that has the misfortune of sharing a border with one that does is being left with a greater cost in law enforcement/prosecutions etc. It has gotten so bad for the neighboring states of Colorado, that legislation has been proposed by states like Kansas and Nebraska to force Colorado (which has such dispensaries) to reimburse them for the additional costs their pot laws are creating in their states. Another thing we citizens are also observing from those who have allowed cannabis dispensaries, is the increase in the use of pot in teenagers. Just a fluke? Here's a link from Colorado who would know best the adverse affects of having cannabis dispensaries in their communities.
Research shows adverse effects of marijuana on teens as drug use among students appears to be rising | EdNewsColorado

So good luck on that whole states rights thing.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
The House majority is republican.

You would think with all the wasted money we throw at the 'War on Drugs', this would have vast Republican support....
 
But the government doesn't create jobs......
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

Legalization of all drugs? Marvelous! It might work if we lived in a society where personal responsibility was demanded of its citizenry. Legalizing mind altering substances for all when half of the population currently doesn't know the definition of what personal responsibily entails sounds lethal for those who already are forced to pick up the tab to clean up the messes of the feckless. With your scenario I can see the writing on the wall. With such drugs readily available the next thing on the agenda would be the need for increase funding for entitlements such as drug rehabilitation. And with more drug addicts in our midst we can surely count on the need for more food stamps, government housing, and social services because a drug addict will spend his money on his drugs before he puts food on the table for his children. Yeah marvelous f******* idea you have there!
 
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.

The DEA determines drug schedules.
 
You would think with all the wasted money we throw at the 'War on Drugs', this would have vast Republican support....

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.

Also, they want to make sure we have the military capability of blowing up the entire world over and over and over again.

When you add it all up, it really doesn't leave much left of the current federal budget.
 
The only thing the Republicans love more than blowing hot air about spending money is spending money on legislating morality.

Is it morality or a case of common sense? Unless you are willing to demand society take full responsibility for their own choices in life, then your argument for legalizing drugs is hollow and is like a double amputee, no legs to stand on.
 
...demand society take full responsibility for their own choices in life...

Yes.

That's essentially my position.

I'm all for a reasonable social "safety net".

Everyone falls on hard times once or twice in their life and as a civilized society we owe it to ourselves to provide a moderate failsafe against utter destitution.

But we need to cut the strings on our social safety hammock yesterday.
 
Back
Top Bottom