Obama Tries to Rewrite His History of Promising Forbearance for Medical Marijuana Suppliers

  • Thread starter oscar169
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
jyip

jyip

807
93
To get kinda/soerta back on track.... I just wanted to point out that..contrary to the title of this thread, Obama nor anyone else has ever given the nod TO the "suppliers" of MMJ...so there's no way anyhting has been rewritten, nor has anyone changed positions...other than the patients, that is, many of whom don't see MMJ as a way to self-medicate....but see it instead as a way to selfishly fill their own pockets and make bank. (which was never the intent of MMJ)​
intersting post, first thing i thought was how corrupt big pharm is so i guess it is fitting that the next big savior (mmj) be corrupt as well,,,, it is the nature of humans,,,,its adriving force behind all, it is not God, it's love of money, really dude

btw, please excuse the typos, i know how to spell , mylaptop sucks n smoking dont help either,,lol
 
jyip

jyip

807
93
So I guess in short, I simply do not agree that every politician and therefore the whole game itself is rigged, to a degree sure, but entirely no.

dude, its jus like the mafia, if you stand in the way, you dissappear or whatever , but people of powr easily roll over the unfortunates, and if they can't they buy someone who can, this is life, do not be fooled by it
 
sanvanalona

sanvanalona

1,878
263
dude, its jus like the mafia, if you stand in the way, you dissappear or whatever , but people of powr easily roll over the unfortunates, and if they can't they buy someone who can, this is life, do not be fooled by it
If you think that life is that simple than I would say you are the one being fooled....its not black or white.
 
Darth Fader

Darth Fader

1,195
163
I think whoever wrote the article has let it go completely over their head that Obama does not have complete control over every administration which moves forward with these prosecutions. It's as he says--he doesn't have the capacity to circumvent laws which have been approved by congress and signed into law by a president. That isn't in his list of presidential powers.

What he can do is try to "steer" his administration away from these things--but he cannot turn and actually command a subordinate of his to stop doing something which is lawful. What he's attempting to do is make congress the bad guy--because in truth they are the only ones with actual power afforded them under the law to circumvent those laws. What we, as Americans, have done is we've allowed congress to convince us that the president is the king of the USA (even though the right spent a huge amount of time fighting this notion under bush--and vice versa with how the democrats attacked him as gop do Obama now).

If you want to reprimand somebody on this issue--reprimand congress, who could walk into the building tomorrow and pass a bill legalizing MMJ for all states.

These are the people with power.

Now if they were to do that and then Obama were to veto the bill--then he would be a snake and a liar. Failing that, he's been neither on this issue.

It's his job to sign or veto bills, to direct the military, and to concern himself with foreign affairs--it is not his job to walk every American through a 4th grade understanding of how our system of government works.

Just because he doesn't take time out of his schedule to explain to everyone what his job is on this issue (and the scope of what he's allowed to do)--does not make it his fault that the rest of the country doesn't get it.

The laws which govern presidential power are publicly available--and anyone who takes the time to actually read them (so that they'll know what the hell they're talking about) will plainly see that Obama's hands are pretty much tied on this issue.

Obama makes the point that he cannot do that, and he's absolutely right. Find me a law on the books which would provide for it and I'll shut my yap--but I'm betting it'll keep flapping as no such law exists.


Prepare to shut yer yap Squiggly, as I believe I have found what you're looking for.

But I have to note that it is sadly comical how your demeaning tone and level of self-assured arrogance is only topped by the stinging irony of how completely ill-informed, aka WRONG, you are.

Obama Justice and Medical Marijuana <----READ

Heck, you could have at least read the simple, easy-to-find wiki link I posted in the Oaksterdam thread. you would have learned the following:


Cannabis could be rescheduled either legislatively, through Congress, or through the executive branch. ...
The Controlled Substances Act also provides for a rulemaking process by which the United States Attorney General can reschedule cannabis administratively. These proceedings represent the only means of legalizing medical cannabis without an act of Congress. Rescheduling supporters have often cited the lengthy petition review process as a reason why cannabis is still illegal.[3] The first petition took 22 years to review, and the second took 7 years. In 2002, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed a third petition.
[edit]​
Rulemaking proceedings


The United States Code, under Section 811 of Title 21,[17] sets out a process by which cannabis could be administratively transferred to a less-restrictive category or removed from Controlled Substances Act regulation altogether.

Please, everyone who "liked" that original post, go back and unlike it. It is nothing more than Obama cheerleading. Please stop apologizing for this two-faced asshat now.
 
Mississip Hip

Mississip Hip

976
143
whoopsie........lol.........

So the president really CAN accomplish things when he wants?......:rolleyes:

Hush yo mouth boy..........:p
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
Prepare to shut yer yap Squiggly, as I believe I have found what you're looking for.

But I have to that note that it is sadly comical how your demeaning tone and level of self-assured arrogance is only topped by the stinging irony of how completely ill-informed, aka WRONG, you are.

First I'd like to point out that I've only been logically and sarcastically demeaning where I've been attacked--I view this as fair. I could simply attack back if I wasn't interested in conversation, believe me I've got more asshole material than I have well though out arguments if you really would like me to open that can of worms. Beyond that I'd like to say that you're engaging in a bit of the pot calling the kettle black--but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

Moving on with the debate:

I feel like you didn't read the very article which you cited.

The president states very clearly

I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it’s against federal law. I can’t nullify congressional law. I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, “Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books” . . . .


The only tension that’s come up – and this gets hyped up a lot – is a murky area where you have large-scale, commercial operations that may supply medical marijuana users, but in some cases may also be supplying recreational users. In that situation, we put the Justice Department in a very difficult place if we’re telling them, “This is supposed to be against the law, but we want you to turn the other way.” That’s not something we’re going to do.

What I've asked for you to produce is the "promise" or "commitment" that the president made which goes counter to what's been happening. Failing that I'd like you to produce evidence of him either purposely doing something which goes against his stated position, or willfully ignoring a reasonable solution to the problem which is available to him (there is no such solution except for the self-confounding rescheduling procedure you've presented--which I tear asunder below).

Yes--the attorney general can reschedule marijuana, but I think you've failed to see a cascading terrible problem which doing so would introduce in this country.

MJ, despite its schedule, has been moved to a more lenient status in most localities in the united states. For instance--in my hometown it is the same class misdemeanor as jaywalking if you're caught with a half ounce or less in one bag. I am not from a medical state--and even with this leniency my local corrections system is inundated with MJ offenders.

I hail from Cook County Illinois--where something like 65% of all arrests made are drug arrests, this is the highest percentage in our great country and has been for some time (according to the last time I checked the numbers). You might say I grew up "in the thick of it". In a medical state where LEO is actually fairly lenient and understanding of this issue (if you disbelieve this I invite you to Chicago for some perspective)--perhaps this would work out. In Illinois, all hell would break loose--a truth that Obama is probably very well acquainted with being a former Illinois Senator. That said, Illinois is not the only place that would burn if this happened--so it's not a favoritism issue, it just happens to have been one that would've been front-and-center for the president to easily see.

What you are proposing is that marijuana be rescheduled as a narcotic--all of these statutes be upended, and we further inundate the system with people who do not deserve to be in prison for making a personal decision of sound mind and body.

Rescheduling would cause more problems than it would solve and the President knows that--even if you do not. You are thinking of a country that we can build from the bottom up--when in fact our country is like a very complicated and long-running game of Jenga (or Jumbling Towers for us poor folk). You must be certain that the block you adjust or move will not bring the tower down (or compromise its structural integrity).

You might also consider that if he reschedules it now--and then Mitt becomes president, he'll be free to prosecute every single MJ offender in the country as strongly as you can a heroin or cocaine offender (same minimum sentences, etc.). This is insanity at its best. While I don't blame you for failing to see the problem with this, because many people fail to see it, it doesn't change that this is in fact a glaring problem with this "solution"-- and this is only one of the many problems (What happens when the pharmaceutical industry takes hold? Who will distribute it? Who gets to grow it? Lots of room for fuck-ups here.)

So as it turns out, no--you haven't found the thing that will get me to shut my yap. It still does not exist. The only schedule change I want to see (or that any of us should want to see) is one that removes cannabis from scheduling altogether. Of course you'll forgive me if I complete my counterargument by noting that "it is sadly comical how your demeaning tone and level of self-assured arrogance is only topped by the stinging irony of how completely ill-informed, aka WRONG, you are."

Prediction:

Now you will:

1. Look really hard for an example of what I've actually asked for--all for naught, as it's not there.

2. Make some other points which may be valid, but don't really address the glaring problem with a thread entitled "Obama tries to go back on his promise of...." which does not quote or cite any promises whatsoever.

Or

3. You'll be defensive and/or angry and accomplish less than you would doing #2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal
Mississip Hip

Mississip Hip

976
143
I feel like doing a Howard Cosell imitation.

You guys make me realize how dumb I am.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal
sanvanalona

sanvanalona

1,878
263
Squiggly: While I agree that rescheduling can cause problems such as, the invitation of Pharmaceutical companies, but I disagree that it would carry the same sentence guidelines as cocaine and heroin, heroin is already scheduled 1. What you are claiming now is that if it were rescheduled than there would be too many unforeseen consequences, while you are right to a degree it seems to change the whole corse of the discussion. What you claimed or at the very least implied was that presidential powers would not allow for Obama to do anything about mmj, especially when you claimed his "hands are tied". Darth Fader did a good job of pointing out that that is not the case, and in fact something very easily can be done. Now, though you are arguing the market ramifications and potential abuse in drug sentencing if marijuana is rescheduled and that is a different argument is it not? As far as the rescheduling goes, I assume that if rescheduling was done properly than it may be scheduled 5 if at all, the same as Robitussin AC. Of course mandatory minimums would not apply to cannabis, and of course local legislation could still be enacted to make cannabis a low law enforcement priority as it can happen now while it is schedule 1, right? I am not trying to get into a long debate here as it would be highly unnecessary, but in short I think you are changing the argument from Presidential power to economic market ramifications if cannabis were rescheduled.
 
Darth Fader

Darth Fader

1,195
163
Squiggly: ...
...you claimed his "hands are tied". Darth Fader did a good job of pointing out that that is not the case, and in fact something very easily can be done.

Exactly, thank you for pointing out this very clear and unambiguous point. Squiggly makes a valiant attempt at saving face though through dissembling and subterfuge.

The president states very clearly ...

I don't care what he states. He is a politician, aka professional liar. My post was a direct response to your defense of the man; specifically, that "his hands are tied", a false theme which you've reiterated several times.

What I've asked for you to produce is the "promise" or "commitment" that the president made which goes ...

NO, you're dissembling. What you asked for, that I specifically responded to, was "a law that provides for it".

"anyone who takes the time to actually read [the laws] will plainly see that Obama's hands are pretty much tied on this issue.
Find me a law on the books which would provide for it and I'll shut my yap."

And now I've done EXACTLY that. Amazing that you're still talking. The law I cited allows him to reschedule or remove it completely. So now, please, have some class. Man up and admit that you were wrong. Or at least live up to your word and drop it.

Everything else you wrote is seriously a bunch of crap as well, no offense. Really. I would say the same while passing you the j bro. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
Alright I know when I'm beat.

Yes--the president's hands are not tied.

He can totally do something which is completely counter-productive, would destroy our country and make thing 10x worse on this issue, and is a completely asinine idea considering the previous conditions.

Yes, you are right.

He is against MJ because he doesn't make it akin to heroin.

What you're doing is called playing semantics--and I'm game. While what you say is true--it does not in any universe represent an actual logical reason why the president is shitty and should be derided. Because I was too specific, I lose the debate--but it doesn't change that this is not a solution and he's done the best he can.

I'll shut my yap as promised--but you haven't won. You've done the same thing you claim I did and snuck your way out. I make valid points and you find a loop hole which still doesn't address the real issue at hand.

Sounds like a republican to me.

It hasn't mattered from the start--you're so dead set on ousting the president that you're blind to the fact he's powerless and congress is what matters. I actually hope republicans win for the next 20 years, so they can drive the country into the ground and finally prove their worth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal
Mississip Hip

Mississip Hip

976
143
Cmon guys...dont get too ugly..

We are all on the same team.
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
Cmon guys...dont get too ugly..

We are all on the same team.

Ugliness is making a shit point to combat a good argument with one obviously unintended flaw.

My intention is to get to the truth--the real reason things are the way they are. No one seems interested in that anymore, and I mean no one. It's not about this board, it's about this country--and it's honestly disgusting to me. I come from a family which has sacrificed for this country a great deal during times of war. I was raised with this in mind. I cannot believe this is free speech my family and friends have died for. The kind which almost pokes fun at the idea of making things better.

Win no matter what, disregarding reality. Let's see how far this shit gets us. If conversation and public opinion are any indicators--we are fucked. I suggest everyone get their children into some Mandarin classes.

Others intentions seem to be to talk shit about the president unabated at all costs and avoid any type of real truth seeking. Why make sense when you can make points?

It's just one of those things. I'm sure they must feel the same way about me, but I'm left just sitting here shaking my head thinking, "people can't be this dumb, they can't be--I'm moving to fucking France." It's all perspective but sometimes it just feels like people have given up on logic--it's all about knowing what's right these days. Knowing what's best, what all of the answers are.

What would you do? How would you do it better?

Million bucks says you couldn't come up with one possible solution that wouldn't cause more problems than it solved which would be open to the president right now.

I want to know what exactly is the miracle cure for this whole situation would be that Obama could do and then everyone would be happy.

Isn't it true that you just don't like him in general and will say anything to make him look bad? Isn't it true that you can't come up with any such miracle cure? Isn't it true that you'd probably do a worse job?

Go ahead and feel accomplished--but I assure you it is only a feeling. It's one that won't last if Mitt Romney is the next president of the US--at least not as it regards this issue.

If he wins you can expect to hear me talking mad shit about the step-up in raids and such that will surely follow his inauguration. This is one game of chicken I'm sure you wouldn't win :)
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
NO, you're dissembling. What you asked for, that I specifically responded to, was "a law that provides for it".

It's called clarifying meaning--something which apparently is disallowed in this contest of wits.

If we're playing semantics, I suppose it's okay for me to say that by "hands tied" I meant his hands are tied excepting things which do more harm than good. In many cases--this is actually the meaning of the phrase "his hands are tied".

If you're going by plain definition and being arrogant about it (something I've been accused of here)--then what's the point really? Two wrongs make a right now, is it?

You know what the hell I meant, and that this doesn't fit the bill. Reconcile that with yourself however you please. It's obvious you are intelligent, and therefore obvious you will know this is true. Even if I lose in an asinine way, I am happy to know that you know you still failed to make a valid point about the politics--you instead chose to make a point about the specific language I used.

Bravo at your mastery of English--but your civics may need some work. I wouldn't know as you haven't demonstrated any knowledge of them that I can detect outside of what can be copy/pasted from wiki.

You win the argument by default, but I get to still be right--I'm cool with that.
 
Mississip Hip

Mississip Hip

976
143
I would abolish income tax and charge a 20% (or whatever works) sales tax on every penny traded for goods and services.

I would pay for social services to be policed. The government titty would dry up.

End congressional lobbying.

I would find out why the fuck medicine costs so much....and correct the inflated costs. Government research grants fund all of it. They would comply with whatever they were told.

No its not true that I dont like him , in general. He has had the hope of the Left on his shoulders...my hope. I am disappointed.


Are you seriously asking me if I can perform miracles?

I have no clue if I would do a worse job...he sucks pretty bad.



There......a solid TON of bait for you to tear into.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
I would abolish income tax and charge a 20% (or whatever works) sales tax on every penny traded for goods and services.

Seems to easy--but I'm all up for trying new things. My biggest argument with the government is how slowly it moves. We'd be better suited to trying crazy shit like this and changing it to a different idea if it doesn't work than doing nothing.
I would pay for social services to be policed. The government titty would dry up.

Couldn't agree with you more. I grew up surrounded by section 8, lots of abuse here. Anyone who needs it would pass by any policing efforts. Trick would be to not get insane with the rules--stick with some common sense stuff and make an oversight committee.

End congressional lobbying.

If you want this and you don't vote for Barack Obama--you're acting like you don't want this. We don't have a bad and a good option here. We have a terrible option and a better one (that isn't awesome still).

Eating shit is better than eating arsenic. I present to you the current election.

I would find out why the fuck medicine costs so much....and correct the inflated costs. Government research grants fund all of it. They would comply with whatever they were told.

Nope this shit actually just costs this much. I actually know an ass ton about this--my thesis addresses an issue of cost efficiency in a particular drug (for which I have developed, with my professor, a more efficient synthesis).

A hint:

Part of why this costs so much is that when I'm done with school I'll have somewhere in the area of 100K student debt--and I wouldn't even be the highest paid member of a team, but you can bet I'll be starting at around 80K/yr and moving my way on up through the 100's after a few years. Little more school in my case can equal a lot more money--and a company may even end up footing this bill. So they pay to send me to school so they can pay me 80K more/yr.

I'll take it, but it's a shit model. I'd be fine making less if I didn't have such an albatross.

No its not true that I dont like him , in general. He has had the hope of the Left on his shoulders...my hope. I am disappointed.

I actually wasn't talking to you on this one--but your opinion seems heartfelt.


Are you seriously asking me if I can perform miracles?

Nope, I'm telling you that the republican party thinks they can--and that their proof that they'll do a better job is that Obama is not perfect and cannot perform miracles.

I have no clue if I would do a worse job...he sucks pretty bad.

You totally would--it's a difficult job. No offense, I'd be the shittiest president ever. Impeached in like 2 months. I'd totally whip your ass at being bad at it.


I think the failure of the left, now and for a long time running, has been expecting perfection.

The republican party believes in its own perfection--because it's modeled after God's perfect plan for God's perfect country. That's an easy message to get behind for god-fearing folk.

The left believes in pretty much everything else politically (and sometimes the same as above socially). The failure of the left will be in not realizing that the battle is indeed between who want's the bible and family values to be legislated into law--and who does not.

A vote for no one is a vote for family values, prohibitions, censorships, and general wankeriness.
Sadly, most people who would more readily side with the left than the right see no point and don't vote.

If only they could see that they are essentially voting republican. They have no such woes--they are really quite a united party, despite being a smaller and smaller minority of the country with each passing year they still clean house.

If everyone would wake up and realize that its not a conspiracy theory of how they're all puppets. In fact it is a flat out plan for the right to make everyone follow God's infallible word. They don't even try to hide this. It's not the subject of debate--they will tell you to your face.

And yet we want to worry about how the guy we have isn't perfect.

In comparison with THAT? Are you serious?

Mitt Romney?

If John Kerry was a flip-flopper I really don't know what the fuck you call this guy--or Fox news, or most republicans I run into.

I mean dude his saying anything to become president has become so ubiquitous I'm confident in claiming I could have 20 audio clips where he's totally contradicted himself within 10 minutes from now--because he's done so much of this that there must be 20 websites who have compiled all these fuck ups.

He's so bad I don't even think he knows what he believes.

What's really sad is that people don't realize how crucial this moment really is for America (not the election, but the next 20 years). In the next decades we will decide the fate of the next 10 generations of Americans. All the smart money is on us losing our status, the world over.

Somethings gotta give. I can tell you what won't fix it. Richer "job creators".

It's going to be investing in infrastructure--subsidizing manufacturing. Overhauling the education system (or else--so help me), getting our science and technology back in line with countries like Japan and Germany.

All of this bickering and fighting over gay marriage and when life begins and what-the-fuck-ever pays no mind to reality. The world moves fast these days. America moves perhaps the most slowly of any country to react to these changes. Its not sustainable.

We need to agree. We don't. We can't.

We refuse to debate logically and instead are always looking for the "one up". This point is made here so clearly that it could be invisible and I'd still smell it.

Logic is dead. Knowing what's best is alive.

Age of Reason ----> Age of Ego

*golfclap*

/Canada
 
  • Like
Reactions: mal
Mississip Hip

Mississip Hip

976
143
"We done got too smart." :confused:......-W.E.

All I want to know is would you vote for me or not!!!

:p
 
Aerojoe

Aerojoe

486
43
We argue about this all the time, same people zombie supporting obama over and over again. If he has no power to do anything than what is his executive orders that can remove rights and keep people from seeing obamas birth certificate for? no power? or no willpower to choose to stand by his words and his people rather than by his masters. Only people with no power is us, we have the illusion of freedom/power. I don't support people because they are the lesser of 2 evils and support doesn't have to equal to blindly defending them.
 
Dr.Infern

Dr.Infern

23
3
What he can do is try to "steer" his administration away from these things--but he cannot turn and actually command a subordinate of his to stop doing something which is lawful. What he's attempting to do is make congress the bad guy--because in truth they are the only ones with actual power afforded them under the law to circumvent those laws. What we, as Americans, have done is we've allowed congress to convince us that the president is the king of the USA (even though the right spent a huge amount of time fighting this notion under bush--and vice versa with how the democrats attacked him as gop do Obama now).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States#Executive_powers
it is and always has been within the realm of the president's powers that he can issue executive orders to his agencies that are binding as congressional law. if the president wanted, he could just tell the DEA to stop enforcing marijuana law and they would be bound by law to. I too support obama, but not because i like him, but because i know the GOP would be worse. Obama lies in his rolling stone interview not only about what he said with regard to state law on marijuana, but also how he claims his hands are tied. I'm really frustrated about this scenario... and he's still the lesser of two evils... but i don't like him. only politician i have liked so far is my local representative and clinton but he sucked just as bad really. democrats give lip service to being supportive of patients but the proof is in the pudding, squig.
 
Top Bottom