-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
DEA Denies Rescheduling Petition
- Thread starter Tony Aroma
- Start date
I'm afraid Wikipedia has it wrong (not the first time). When it doubt, refer to the primary source, in this case the CSA:
Somewhere along the line, I don't know when exactly, the AG delegated this authority to the DEA (the conflict of interest I was referring to). The FDA is not at all involved in scheduling controlled substances. HHS is the one that is supposed to make recommendations to the AG. FWIW, the AG is appointed by the president, to whom he/she answers to.
Man, you just don't get it. Tony Aroma tried to explain it to you in this post. He even quotes the relevant section of the Controlled Substances Act itself, not some wikipedia entry.
I tried to explain it to you in this post.
You keep pointing out that the Controlled Substances Act was an act of Congress. No one is disputing this. The law they passed empowers the Attorney General to reschedule substances. Here is the part of the law they passed that says so, its the same thing Tony Aroma posted:
You seem to like Wikipedia. Here is a quote from the "Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act" page at Wikipedia:
The plan is almost ready...wtf u say?
GW-PHARMA..yes the holder of 27 patent strains in 9 country's has now made the TERMINATOR CANNABIS...HERE..ONE GRAIN OF POLLEN..MICROSCOPIC..AND YOUR FEMALE SEEDS WILL BE THCLESS.....it cost 2-billion dollars..
The gene at locus O allows the production of the initial phenolic precursors (resorcinolic acids). These combine with geranyl pyrophosphate to create the intermediate cannabinoids CBG and/or CBGV, the central precursors for the end-product cannabinoids THC(V), CBD(V) and CBC(V). The functional allele O is co-dominant; O/o hybrids have a low cannabinoid content and o/o plants are cannabinoid-free.
The ratio of propyl- and pentyl cannabinoid precursors is determined by a postulated locus A, which is still under investigation.
The CBG/CBGV intermediate is further processed by the alleles of locus B. BD and BT are co-dominant; the BD gene converts CBG(V) into CBD(V) and the BT gene converts CBG(V) into THC(V). In the BD/BT genotype, codominance allows the expression of a mixed CBD/THC chemotype. Also at this locus, non-functional alleles, designated B0 can exist; these are unable to convert the CBG(V) intermediate and leave the plant with a CBG(V) predominant chemotype.
Locus C is fixed so all plants have CBC synthase activity. CBC synthase competes for the same CBG(V) precursor as the synthases encoded by locus B (THC and/or CBD synthase). In 'normal' Cannabis plants, CBC synthase is only active in the juvenile state. However, our scientists have discovered genetic factors that induce morphological mutations that are associated with a 'prolonged juvenile chemotype'. Prototype CBC production plants carry these factors in combination with B0/B0 at locus B. In these plants CBC synthase has no competition from THC or CBD synthase.
GW-PHARMA..yes the holder of 27 patent strains in 9 country's has now made the TERMINATOR CANNABIS...HERE..ONE GRAIN OF POLLEN..MICROSCOPIC..AND YOUR FEMALE SEEDS WILL BE THCLESS.....it cost 2-billion dollars..
The gene at locus O allows the production of the initial phenolic precursors (resorcinolic acids). These combine with geranyl pyrophosphate to create the intermediate cannabinoids CBG and/or CBGV, the central precursors for the end-product cannabinoids THC(V), CBD(V) and CBC(V). The functional allele O is co-dominant; O/o hybrids have a low cannabinoid content and o/o plants are cannabinoid-free.
The ratio of propyl- and pentyl cannabinoid precursors is determined by a postulated locus A, which is still under investigation.
The CBG/CBGV intermediate is further processed by the alleles of locus B. BD and BT are co-dominant; the BD gene converts CBG(V) into CBD(V) and the BT gene converts CBG(V) into THC(V). In the BD/BT genotype, codominance allows the expression of a mixed CBD/THC chemotype. Also at this locus, non-functional alleles, designated B0 can exist; these are unable to convert the CBG(V) intermediate and leave the plant with a CBG(V) predominant chemotype.
Locus C is fixed so all plants have CBC synthase activity. CBC synthase competes for the same CBG(V) precursor as the synthases encoded by locus B (THC and/or CBD synthase). In 'normal' Cannabis plants, CBC synthase is only active in the juvenile state. However, our scientists have discovered genetic factors that induce morphological mutations that are associated with a 'prolonged juvenile chemotype'. Prototype CBC production plants carry these factors in combination with B0/B0 at locus B. In these plants CBC synthase has no competition from THC or CBD synthase.
Thanks, Tony. I appreciate the additional info. I know wiki is wrong sometimes but IMO the links are valid. Just my opinion, I'm no lawyer.
However, (more opinion) I'm not aware the AG is under the auspices of the executive. IMO, the AG follows the laws on the books. I've read several opinions that offer the president appoints AG, doesn't tell AG what to do. That's why W and Rove got complaints over state AG firings.
I didn't see dag's earlier post with examples of policy changes. He makes a good point, policy can and will be affected by the executive, house and senate respectively. But if we're talking congressional law, the president has to be backed by house and senate.
Some presidents are better at leading than others. If this president can't lead this congress toward reform, he won't get it. And based on everything I've heard with my own ears and read with my own eyes, this guy ain't a reformer. He smoked pot as a young man but that doesn't mean he's sympathetic to us.
However, (more opinion) I'm not aware the AG is under the auspices of the executive. IMO, the AG follows the laws on the books. I've read several opinions that offer the president appoints AG, doesn't tell AG what to do. That's why W and Rove got complaints over state AG firings.
I didn't see dag's earlier post with examples of policy changes. He makes a good point, policy can and will be affected by the executive, house and senate respectively. But if we're talking congressional law, the president has to be backed by house and senate.
Some presidents are better at leading than others. If this president can't lead this congress toward reform, he won't get it. And based on everything I've heard with my own ears and read with my own eyes, this guy ain't a reformer. He smoked pot as a young man but that doesn't mean he's sympathetic to us.
I
IE2KS_KUSH
Re: DEA Denies Rescheduling Petition
Shamelessly stealing a quote and twisting it to my own use,
If you want Obama's sympathy look in the dictionary between shit and syphilis that's where you will find your sympathy.
So the answer is fuck him grow,grow,grow your fucking asses off everyone biz as usual.
Shamelessly stealing a quote and twisting it to my own use,
If you want Obama's sympathy look in the dictionary between shit and syphilis that's where you will find your sympathy.
So the answer is fuck him grow,grow,grow your fucking asses off everyone biz as usual.
I never said the prez couldn't work with the machine and advance reform. I said he isn't a switch you can throw and get this ball rolling w/o congressional order that overrules the current powers-that-be.
Your primary argument (he will reform) has morphed to (he can reform). He can scratch his ass or he can work with mechanisms he can't legally dictate.
You've referenced documents that state AG determines scheduling. However, CSA states it's the DEA and FDA. I've already said I'm no lawyer but (nobody) is leading reform excepting a couple of representatives from MA and TX. Pretty much means nobody wants it, at least as far as lawmakers go.
If your somewhat new argument was plausible, the reform lobby would be working the president and the AG. However, they're lobbying the very establishments that CSA appointed.
And this is a mock scenario of how Obama became a false messenger on mmj reform.
Have you ever opened your door and the visitor stuck his toe between the door and the frame, keeping you from closing it? But that's ok, you've got the chain bolted and the visitor can't advance.
But this visitor busts the door off the frame and insists his toe in the door means he can barge on in. And you're supposed to be unopposed because you allowed the visitor to stick his foot in your doorway.
Obama said he wouldn't go after states that had laws on the books. Immediately afterward, he said it was still federally illegal. Some of you folks have to point to specifics instead of the whole message.
I don't like the message in the subsequent memos any more than the next guy. However they seem to coincide with the president's initial comments that state-legal doesn't necessarily mean federally-legal when folks are making bank and busting down that door I was talking about.
I know you don't like it, I don't either. But hoping something will happen that pretty much won't isn't a positive use of energy.
IMO, well spend more time working against the system than working with it. Active reform advocates are focusing on DEA and that's a CSA mandate.
Ultimately, congress holds the keys. If anybody gets their orders changed, it could be introduced by the executive, the house or the senate. Ultimately all three will have to gel.
No, no, no...
DB the quote I gave (it's the same as Tony Aroma's) IS A CUT AND PASTE FROM THE ACTUAL CSA ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WEBSITE!!! It references the Attorney General of the United States , not state AG. It gives Holder the power to reschedule.dagnabit is correct about the Executive Order concept too.
I can read the same thing you're reading, mofeta. You're getting other stuff I posted mixed up ref: state AG. I just make the point that the DEA ruling is being appealed, not the AG's. To make your point, you'd have to assume the AG wants reform. That's faith not fact. You also have to ignore that reform activists are pursuing the DEA, not the AG. These guys have lawyers, I'd hate to think 4 decades of lobbying was directed at the wrong agency.
How did W get the power to invade a country that didn't threaten us? He got congress to give him the power before he acted. W might have started wheels turning before the fact but Congress went along with it.
How did W get the power to invade a country that didn't threaten us? He got congress to give him the power before he acted. W might have started wheels turning before the fact but Congress went along with it.
OK. I thought you were saying he couldn't do it even if he wanted too. Also, I wasn't saying that I thought there was much chance of this happening or that it was a worthwhile avenue of pursuit. Holder and Obama obviously don't have what it takes to make this work, namely cajones and a strong love of liberty.
Yes. Yes I found this post very helpfull. This is their position towards us fuckem. So we need the same attitude fuckem.
so now we all understand..
the executive has the power to direct the agencies/officials involved in the implementation/enforcement but chooses to allow the draconian policies to continue.
is this either from a lack of compassion for our plight or a fundamental belief that we deserve to be imprisoned?
the executive has the power to direct the agencies/officials involved in the implementation/enforcement but chooses to allow the draconian policies to continue.
is this either from a lack of compassion for our plight or a fundamental belief that we deserve to be imprisoned?
well he did manage to declare afg. a "combat zone" without congress..
specifically the air space above afg. whereupon he commenced tactical strikes BEFORE congressional approval.
but that is another thread.
of course bush was a traitor and a war criminal as has been every president since carter including BHO..
hell as far back as jfk?
The fact that its taken 4 decades, without any results kinda shows that it was the wrong approach, don't you think?
Obama suggests repealing tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals. His suggestion will only raise their taxes back to the levels they were paying when Bill Clinton was in office. (10 years ago.)
The media and republicans turn this into: Obama wants to raise taxes! Obama wants to destroy the economy.
Now imagine that he reschedules MJ tomorrow. How do you think they'll spin it? "Obama doesn't care about law and order! Obama cares more about 'druggies' than he does about the economy and our hardworking police force!"
If he's going to do anything, it'll be after the election. Just the realities of politics, folks. If we don't like it, perhaps we should do something to change the system and take the power back.
Which position would you choose if your reelection was likely to be decided by less than 5% of the voters? Somewhere in the center? Somewhere safe? Or would you rock that boat long and hard?
I'm disappointed too... just trying to be realistic in my disappointment.
the right one.
the one that does not imprison non violent victimless "criminals"
the only one.
the one that'll turn that 5% into 15%
Either that or the system isn't budging, excepting sporadic state-decrim.
