Recreational marijuana isn't going to become medicine and never was. People will be incentivized not to take them concurrently, and the medical user population will gradually become divorced from the recreational population. Much like people who actually need high dose antiplatelet therapy don't buy aspirin over the counter.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
My hope is the classification helps a bit in the other direction while not affecting the push for recreational.
Trying to get actual information is impossible for the medical user
" So is this Sativa better than this one for someone who also has ETMD?"
"Dude yo, dude they are so dankity dank dude that dude mcdude dude dude"
( Or at least that's all my brain heard from the clerk)
They'll definitely put a stop to these "clinics"
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Why would ubiquitous medical lead to the death of recreational?
How many prescription drugs can you name that are also available as a recreational product? I can't go to a pill shop and buy from a menu up general uppers and downers for funsies.
I cannot see how this would coexist as both a controlled prescription substance and something you can buy to smoke at Uncle Ike's. It doesn't work that way.
Some drugs are available as prescriptions and also OTC for certain purposes, like ibuprofen.
Some are also available as pretty-much-unregulated supplements, like yohimbine.
Still others are available in raw forms for whatever use you like, such as caffeine or theobromine.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I have a power point on how to make heroin at work
Silly me
yeah you can just smoke raw dried opium. it is also not hard to grow, though more difficult than growing weed.
but yeah you can grow morphine in your backyard.
This is becoming somewhat of a digression, but raw poppy sap is not the same thing as opium, and growing poppies for personal use is about as practical as growing one's own hops to service an alcohol dependency; impractical to the extreme, unless you happen to have a bunch of empty farmland and don't mind inputting a lot of time and energy.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Marijuana advocates who hoped the cascade of states moving to legalize medical marijuana would soften the federal stance on the drug faced disappointment Thursday as the Drug Enforcement Administration announced it will keep marijuana illegal for any purpose.
Marijuana will remain a Schedule 1 substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Substances in Schedule 1 are determined by the Food and Drug Administration to have no medical use. States that allow marijuana for medical use or legalize recreational use remain in defiance of federal law.
The announcement to be published Friday in the Federal Register relaxes the rules for marijuana research to make it easier for institutions to grow marijuana for scientific study. The DEA currently authorizes just one grow facility in Mississippi.
In reaching its conclusion, the DEA said a Health and Human Services evaluation shows marijuana has no ‘‘currently accepted medical use’’ because "the drug’s chemistry is not known and reproducible; there are no adequate safety studies; there are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts; and the scientific evidence is not widely available."
"There is no evidence that there is a consensus among qualified experts that marijuana is safe and effective for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder," the report added.
"At this time," the DEA concluded, "the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy."
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I wouldnt expect them to bump it down from a s1 drug just yet.
I thought mj was S1 by statute, not policy, so Congress would need to pass something to change its schedule?
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I thought mj was S1 by statute, not policy, so Congress would need to pass something to change its schedule?
No, basically congress scheduled it by statue, but also gave the DEA the power to (re)schedule drugs. Obama could have literally had this rescheduled by fiat.
+2
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
It is a position that is going to become harder and harder to enforce as more states legalize.
I'm betting they're (White House and politicians in general) waiting until there's more states that are legal than not before they switch everything up.
Although honestly they should decriminalize it on the federal level and then leave it up to the states at the moment. This current position screeches of there being more than a few old school fuckos who happily keep a few bottles of scotch in their work desk while decrying the effects of marijuana on the young peoples.
I wouldn't be surprised if the choice to not re-classify marijuana was made as a political move.
Like, if it was taken off S1, it would give Republicans ammunition to throw, never mind the reality.
During an election where democrats can easily reach independents is definitely a reason it might be politically smart to wait.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
I dislike playing politics with something that is factually proven to have health benefits for a -large- amount of people in this country and that has caused a large amount of suffering via a justice system that for years disproportionately punished people who had any amount of marijuana on their person with lengthy and unjustified prison sentences.
I dislike playing politics with something that is factually proven to have health benefits for a -large- amount of people in this country and that has caused a large amount of suffering via a justice system that for years disproportionately punished people who had any amount of marijuana on their person with lengthy and unjustified prison sentences.
Sure, but fuck up and lose this election and you could see a decade of progress get rolled back.
I dislike playing politics with something that is factually proven to have health benefits for a -large- amount of people in this country and that has caused a large amount of suffering via a justice system that for years disproportionately punished people who had any amount of marijuana on their person with lengthy and unjustified prison sentences.
So it goes.
+4
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
I dislike playing politics with something that is factually proven to have health benefits for a -large- amount of people in this country and that has caused a large amount of suffering via a justice system that for years disproportionately punished people who had any amount of marijuana on their person with lengthy and unjustified prison sentences.
Sure, but fuck up and lose this election and you could see a decade of progress get rolled back.
Trump isn't going to win. That much is certain by now.
0
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
I dislike playing politics with something that is factually proven to have health benefits for a -large- amount of people in this country and that has caused a large amount of suffering via a justice system that for years disproportionately punished people who had any amount of marijuana on their person with lengthy and unjustified prison sentences.
Sure, but fuck up and lose this election and you could see a decade of progress get rolled back.
Trump isn't going to win. That much is certain by now.
Please don't tempt the wrath of the guy from high atop the thing.
I dislike playing politics with something that is factually proven to have health benefits for a -large- amount of people in this country and that has caused a large amount of suffering via a justice system that for years disproportionately punished people who had any amount of marijuana on their person with lengthy and unjustified prison sentences.
Sure, but fuck up and lose this election and you could see a decade of progress get rolled back.
Trump isn't going to win. That much is certain by now.
It's far from certain, just highly probable that Clinton will win. And then there's downballot to consider. It's a bad move politically, especially in an election year.
I dislike playing politics with something that is factually proven to have health benefits for a -large- amount of people in this country and that has caused a large amount of suffering via a justice system that for years disproportionately punished people who had any amount of marijuana on their person with lengthy and unjustified prison sentences.
Sure, but fuck up and lose this election and you could see a decade of progress get rolled back.
Trump isn't going to win. That much is certain by now.
It's far from certain, just highly probable that Clinton will win. And then there's downballot to consider. It's a bad move politically, especially in an election year.
Yeah. Assuming Trump can't win is dangerous, and downballot matters just as much if not more. Let the push continue in the states this year, then after the election we can look at going further.
I dislike playing politics with something that is factually proven to have health benefits for a -large- amount of people in this country and that has caused a large amount of suffering via a justice system that for years disproportionately punished people who had any amount of marijuana on their person with lengthy and unjustified prison sentences.
Sure, but fuck up and lose this election and you could see a decade of progress get rolled back.
Trump isn't going to win. That much is certain by now.
As pointed out in the election thread, approval for legalization is only at 58%. That other 42% doesn't exist solely in one party or the other.
With it be that close, I suspect the real concern is. If part gets legalized, you'll get a set of voters that would begrudgingly vote Clinton right now, decide that reefer madness is a much scarier thing than the risk of Trump start WWIII because some foreign head of state mocked him for having small hands and then asked if he realizes that he some some sort of hairy parasite on his scalp. So they vote for Trump. You'll get another set that might have voted for Clinton, but then it's "ohnoespot!" and they end up staying home or voting third party. Finally, you get another set that would vote Clinton because they think having her as POTUS Is the best shot at getting pot legalized and then when it gets legalized they decide "mission accomplished, I don't need to vote anymore or at least I don't have to strategically vote anymore." So there is a small risk that all of that could compound in a way that cause Clinton to lose or ends up costing the democrats a potential seat pickup or holding onto a vulnerable seat.
I really wish they didn't have to play politics like this, but I think the risks are to high. I also think their is a valid argument that there is much point in doing it now because if they don't win this election, the GOP will swiftly undo the change and it'll take years to put that back in place.
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
edited August 2016
The Democrats hurt themselves enough in the downballots by not contesting a hilarious number of them in the first place (especially this year when we could be flipping seats all over the place). I have no idea why anyone thinks this would make it particularly worse for us in downballot elections that are already written off by the DNC the moment they come up.
I don't think pushing, at least for declassification from schedule 1, is any worse a move than what they're currently doing now.
I dislike playing politics with something that is factually proven to have health benefits for a -large- amount of people in this country and that has caused a large amount of suffering via a justice system that for years disproportionately punished people who had any amount of marijuana on their person with lengthy and unjustified prison sentences.
Sure, but fuck up and lose this election and you could see a decade of progress get rolled back.
Trump isn't going to win. That much is certain by now.
I think you mean "shouldn't win".
You can relax and enjoy your certainty after he's lost.
The Democrats hurt themselves enough in the downballots by not contesting a hilarious number of them in the first place (especially this year when we could be flipping seats all over the place). I have no idea why anyone thinks this would make it particularly worse for us in downballot elections that are already written off by the DNC the moment they come up.
I don't think pushing, at least for declassification from schedule 1, is any worse a move than what they're currently doing now.
Ending marijuana prohibition is something where the support is generational, rather than political. That's why it's a issue down ballot. Even if DWS hadn't picked a piss poor strategy and if the democrats had fielded more people in races they had a chance at. This would still be an issue.
The Democrats hurt themselves enough in the downballots by not contesting a hilarious number of them in the first place (especially this year when we could be flipping seats all over the place). I have no idea why anyone thinks this would make it particularly worse for us in downballot elections that are already written off by the DNC the moment they come up.
I don't think pushing, at least for declassification from schedule 1, is any worse a move than what they're currently doing now.
Ending marijuana prohibition is something where the support is generational, rather than political. That's why it's a issue down ballot. Even if DWS hadn't picked a piss poor strategy and if the democrats had fielded more people in races they had a chance at. This would still be an issue.
Yup. These things are not either or. You can get killed by both issues downballot at the same time, one compounding in the other.
Is it actually an issue that drives older voters though? There's a lot of things people approve or disapprove of that don't necessarily carry much weight in how they vote. Even much bigger ones than pot. I mean catholics are 50-50 or even slightly D group, and abortion + gay marriage aren't exactly popular in Rome.
Is it actually an issue that drives older voters though? There's a lot of things people approve or disapprove of that don't necessarily carry much weight in how they vote. Even much bigger ones than pot. I mean catholics are 50-50 or even slightly D group, and abortion + gay marriage aren't exactly popular in Rome.
They aren't unpopular among Catholics though. The behaviour you are talking about is not there with Catholics because they don't poll as being terribly anti-abortion. White Catholics barely crack 50% on thinking abortion is morally wrong.
And I'd bet, given how the issue is viewed by the various sides, that there's alot more people who's vote you'd lose over going pro-legalization then there is the other way.
Is it actually an issue that drives older voters though? There's a lot of things people approve or disapprove of that don't necessarily carry much weight in how they vote. Even much bigger ones than pot. I mean catholics are 50-50 or even slightly D group, and abortion + gay marriage aren't exactly popular in Rome.
Catholics in the US tend to not choose to live or die based on what the bishops say, even the bishop of Rome. And the Diocese of Rome doesn't exactly listen to the US catholics polling data.
The thing that is pushing illegalization right now is partly due to how much easier it is to build a coalition of people who are guaranteed to vote for continued illegalization than it is to build a similar coalition for legalization that will do the same. It gets much harder when many of those who might be pro-legalization no longer have the right to vote.
The polling data is just comparing the reletive sizes of the two groups, and the above is one reason why legalization has to be much larger than 58% to work politically.
Is it actually an issue that drives older voters though? There's a lot of things people approve or disapprove of that don't necessarily carry much weight in how they vote. Even much bigger ones than pot. I mean catholics are 50-50 or even slightly D group, and abortion + gay marriage aren't exactly popular in Rome.
It may not drive them, but it could certainly depress enthusiasm and turnout.
Proposition 4 passed in Massachusetts yesterday, meaning marijuana possession will be legal on December 15 for any reason, up to 1 oz on their person (more at home). You won't be able to legally buy marijuana until 2018, as no stores will exist until then, but possession will no longer be a crime in a month.
I believe similar legislation passed in other states too, but I only tracked my home state.
Expect federal crackdowns on this sort of thing next year.
+5
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
California, Massachusetts and Nevada legalized marijuana on Tuesday. This is truly the tipping point. The Federal government can't keep looking the other way for much longer. With trump in office fucking anything could happen.
There's no way the DEA can project enough force to stop legal sale in all these states. The tide is turning.
Bwuh? How hard is it to stop the legal sale of marijuana in those states? These aren't speakeasies. There are big billboards saying "WEED HERE" with big arrows pointing down at the store with weed in the window. It takes very, very little force projection to put a stop to that. It'd be as if there were storefronts with big signs saying saying "underage human-trafficked prostitutes" in downtown Seattle, with a menu of country of origin and age when you walked in the door. They wouldn't stay open long.
Best case if the DEA steps back in is that local police continue to not enforce anything, but the whole business goes back underground. That's still a huge defeat, because the entire point of this experiment is that you have legal, licensed, open retail locations selling legitimate product while the state collects taxes. Once you're back to finding a guy on a bike and hoping he's not a cop, it's all over again.
mcdermott on
+8
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Yeah, if they really wanted to the DEA could shut down literally every pot shop in the country in a single morning. It would all be perfectly legal too. Federal law trumps state law here. Sure it would draw a lot of bad blood but with this administration, fucking anything could happen right now.
Marijuana seems to me like the sort of thing that Trump wouldn't care about in the slightest. He has no stake in the matter, no reason to be offended by it, and the people who he'd be pandering to already voted.
Marijuana seems to me like the sort of thing that Trump wouldn't care about in the slightest. He has no stake in the matter, no reason to be offended by it, and the people who he'd be pandering to already voted.
It would fuck a voting block that, presumably, voted largely for his opponent over him. And states that went, largely, for his opponent over him. And if you look at who he's bringing in to his potential cabinet, there's not a lot of love for legal weed in there from what I can tell. And it's not like it's a high-effort measure he can take to fuck his opponents...he shreds a memo, the end.
Posts
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Trying to get actual information is impossible for the medical user
" So is this Sativa better than this one for someone who also has ETMD?"
"Dude yo, dude they are so dankity dank dude that dude mcdude dude dude"
( Or at least that's all my brain heard from the clerk)
They'll definitely put a stop to these "clinics"
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/breaking-down-medicinal-value-sativas
Some drugs are available as prescriptions and also OTC for certain purposes, like ibuprofen.
Some are also available as pretty-much-unregulated supplements, like yohimbine.
Still others are available in raw forms for whatever use you like, such as caffeine or theobromine.
This is becoming somewhat of a digression, but raw poppy sap is not the same thing as opium, and growing poppies for personal use is about as practical as growing one's own hops to service an alcohol dependency; impractical to the extreme, unless you happen to have a bunch of empty farmland and don't mind inputting a lot of time and energy.
But it will happen.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
No, basically congress scheduled it by statue, but also gave the DEA the power to (re)schedule drugs. Obama could have literally had this rescheduled by fiat.
I'm betting they're (White House and politicians in general) waiting until there's more states that are legal than not before they switch everything up.
Although honestly they should decriminalize it on the federal level and then leave it up to the states at the moment. This current position screeches of there being more than a few old school fuckos who happily keep a few bottles of scotch in their work desk while decrying the effects of marijuana on the young peoples.
Like, if it was taken off S1, it would give Republicans ammunition to throw, never mind the reality.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
During an election where democrats can easily reach independents is definitely a reason it might be politically smart to wait.
Sure, but fuck up and lose this election and you could see a decade of progress get rolled back.
So it goes.
Trump isn't going to win. That much is certain by now.
Please don't tempt the wrath of the guy from high atop the thing.
It's far from certain, just highly probable that Clinton will win. And then there's downballot to consider. It's a bad move politically, especially in an election year.
Yeah. Assuming Trump can't win is dangerous, and downballot matters just as much if not more. Let the push continue in the states this year, then after the election we can look at going further.
As pointed out in the election thread, approval for legalization is only at 58%. That other 42% doesn't exist solely in one party or the other.
I really wish they didn't have to play politics like this, but I think the risks are to high. I also think their is a valid argument that there is much point in doing it now because if they don't win this election, the GOP will swiftly undo the change and it'll take years to put that back in place.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I don't think pushing, at least for declassification from schedule 1, is any worse a move than what they're currently doing now.
I think you mean "shouldn't win".
You can relax and enjoy your certainty after he's lost.
Ending marijuana prohibition is something where the support is generational, rather than political. That's why it's a issue down ballot. Even if DWS hadn't picked a piss poor strategy and if the democrats had fielded more people in races they had a chance at. This would still be an issue.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Yup. These things are not either or. You can get killed by both issues downballot at the same time, one compounding in the other.
And as you can see here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx
It's very skewed based on age. And guess who votes most.
They aren't unpopular among Catholics though. The behaviour you are talking about is not there with Catholics because they don't poll as being terribly anti-abortion. White Catholics barely crack 50% on thinking abortion is morally wrong.
And I'd bet, given how the issue is viewed by the various sides, that there's alot more people who's vote you'd lose over going pro-legalization then there is the other way.
Catholics in the US tend to not choose to live or die based on what the bishops say, even the bishop of Rome. And the Diocese of Rome doesn't exactly listen to the US catholics polling data.
The thing that is pushing illegalization right now is partly due to how much easier it is to build a coalition of people who are guaranteed to vote for continued illegalization than it is to build a similar coalition for legalization that will do the same. It gets much harder when many of those who might be pro-legalization no longer have the right to vote.
The polling data is just comparing the reletive sizes of the two groups, and the above is one reason why legalization has to be much larger than 58% to work politically.
MWO: Adamski
I believe similar legislation passed in other states too, but I only tracked my home state.
Bwuh? How hard is it to stop the legal sale of marijuana in those states? These aren't speakeasies. There are big billboards saying "WEED HERE" with big arrows pointing down at the store with weed in the window. It takes very, very little force projection to put a stop to that. It'd be as if there were storefronts with big signs saying saying "underage human-trafficked prostitutes" in downtown Seattle, with a menu of country of origin and age when you walked in the door. They wouldn't stay open long.
Best case if the DEA steps back in is that local police continue to not enforce anything, but the whole business goes back underground. That's still a huge defeat, because the entire point of this experiment is that you have legal, licensed, open retail locations selling legitimate product while the state collects taxes. Once you're back to finding a guy on a bike and hoping he's not a cop, it's all over again.
It would fuck a voting block that, presumably, voted largely for his opponent over him. And states that went, largely, for his opponent over him. And if you look at who he's bringing in to his potential cabinet, there's not a lot of love for legal weed in there from what I can tell. And it's not like it's a high-effort measure he can take to fuck his opponents...he shreds a memo, the end.