Measure to Reschedule Marijuana-Federal

[Jhhnn]

You are quite obviously unaware or prefer to disregard the history of Prop 215 in California. Rec usage was certainly not the intent of the average voter in '96, and the usurping of the legislation from medical to obvious recreational usage has done far more to endanger mmj's continued existence than it has to pave the way for legalization. All you have to do is take a look at the backlash in virtually any of the communities in Northern California to see this. As was proven in the last feeble attempt to broaden things in California, rec users are anything but a substantial force in the voting booth.

Oh, please. Every rec user in CA voted for 215 if they voted at all. Many signed & circulated petitions to get it on the ballot, as well. Rec users don't vote against MMJ legalization, which is more than can be said when the positions are reversed.

Norcal communities cynically oppose regulated legalization because proposals so far undermine their economies which are based on the current MMJ statutes & also on the export of a helluva lot of marijuana to other parts of the country. Mere fact. CA starts from a different place than CO, so activists there need to find ways to best serve competing interests, give them all part of what they want. I realize they haven't figured that out & certainly wouldn't presume to know how they might.

In that they may well lag behind other parts of the country as this unfolds. If nothing else, CO legalization leaves more Norcal outdoor for the rest of the country.

 

[rives]

My point was that 215 passed because the majority of the voting populace came together to legalize medical usage, primarily out of compassion for HIV and cancer patients. It had absolutely nothing to do with recreational usage and in fact, many voters were very concerned about it becoming a pathway for recreational usage. I can guarantee you that the possibility of opening the door to rec usage cost more votes than it gained.

You obviously know nothing about "NorCal communities" or their opposition - the people who "cynically oppose regulated legalization" were the growers, not the general public, and again, growers who vote are a tiny minority. The opposition to mj in the vast majority of Northern California has nothing to do with trying to keep an underground economy going, it's from people who have had their lifestyle adversely affected by growers moving into their communities. I would be willing to bet that 215 would have a very tough time being passed today in rural NorCal. The people who actually vote, as well as write letters to the editor and have high levels of community involvement, are pretty unimpressed. For example, the following article has just been updated to say "UPDATED: Marijuana grower arrested for allegedly starting Bully Fire, Cal Fire says". Watch the comments section for the next day or so to get a measure of the area's support for mj legalization.....

http://www.redding.com/news/local-news/vegetation-fire-burning-in-igo-area

 

[Jhhnn]

My point was that 215 passed because the majority of the voting populace came together to legalize medical usage, primarily out of compassion for HIV and cancer patients. It had absolutely nothing to do with recreational usage and in fact, many voters were very concerned about it becoming a pathway for recreational usage. I can guarantee you that the possibility of opening the door to rec usage cost more votes than it gained.

So what? Californians are clearly more enlightened today, 18 years later. If they're not, then the CA MMJ community has done a poor job of selling cannabis in general. That's particularly true in light of the very thin veneer MMJ puts over what would be described as recreational use most anywhere else.

You obviously know nothing about "NorCal communities" or their opposition - the people who "cynically oppose regulated legalization" were the growers, not the general public, and again, growers who vote are a tiny minority. The opposition to mj in the vast majority of Northern California has nothing to do with trying to keep an underground economy going, it's from people who have had their lifestyle adversely affected by growers moving into their communities. I would be willing to bet that 215 would have a very tough time being passed today in rural NorCal. The people who actually vote, as well as write letters to the editor and have high levels of community involvement, are pretty unimpressed. For example, the following article has just been updated to say "UPDATED: Marijuana grower arrested for allegedly starting Bully Fire, Cal Fire says". Watch the comments section for the next day or so to get a measure of the area's support for mj legalization.....

http://www.redding.com/news/local-news/vegetation-fire-burning-in-igo-area

Having read the comments, few concern themselves with MJ at all, let alone with legalization.

The other side of it reads like this-

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1011.gravois.html

 

[catbuds]

Sam, every time a poll is taken, the percentage of citizens in favor of legalization goes up a point or two. Seen the latest results?
- I'm talking citizens, politicians are another issue. There have been many coming over to our side too, but unfortunately, not the ones in the right places, & not enough if them! The more we deliver 'The Message', the sooner we'll get what we want, need, & deserve! We should all be activists, & it isn't time to back up & relax just yet! KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT!

 

[rives]

So what? Californians are clearly more enlightened today, 18 years later. If they're not, then the CA MMJ community has done a poor job of selling cannabis in general. That's particularly true in light of the very thin veneer MMJ puts over what would be described as recreational use most anywhere else.




Having read the comments, few concern themselves with MJ at all, let alone with legalization.

The other side of it reads like this-

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1011.gravois.html

So what? Just pointing out your standard circular arguments.

I link an article from today's paper, and you link a 4-year old fluff piece. Check the comments in a day or so - the article was just updated. Oh, regarding your article - in case you aren't aware of it, Prop 19 lost and there was no new initiative on the 2012 ballot. So much for inevitability.

Sam is absolutely correct - if the opportunity arises to get cannabis rescheduled, it would be idiotic to hold out for full legalization. The simple reality is that voters are fickle, and we almost always wind up riding a pendulum back and forth.....

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Oh, so we needed each other until prohibition forces gave you a little upskirt shot & you're ready to jump in bed with 'em.

I'm all for activists exercising their best judgement when dealing with their own state politics. Rescheduling cannabis at the federal level likely won't change their success ratio one teensy bit. Schedule 1 classification hasn't stopped their efforts in other states.

Prohibitionists are completely cornered by outright legalization in CO & WA. They're starving because they can no longer exploit fear of the unknown. Vague understandings of Amsterdam & MMJ have weakened the impact of fear mongering & lies, shifting public opinion enormously. Many people have moved from accepting Anslinger's propaganda completely to doubting it to various degrees. They still have doubts, questions & concerns about legalization. CO is addressing those concerns at both a factual & perceptual level. We're getting it right, winning them over, like this-

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-...y-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2035

Here in CO, we won the marijuana war, and now we're winning the Peace. It really is a victory for nearly everybody. As the numbers continue to come in about what we've done, we'll topple prohibitionist arguments entirely. The only reason there's not a lot of media coverage is that there's really not much to cover, not that they aren't paying attention. It's pretty boring for them, just the way we want it. Watch what happens when the numbers are in for the full year of 2014. Activists everywhere will have a helluva lot more ammo than they've ever had and an even more receptive electorate. If Colorado is what legalization looks like, lots of people will want it and lots of others will be willing to get out of the way. Nearly all those people will be in favor of MMJ at the very least.

Prohibitions are fucking snakebit, fer crissakes. Don't do anything that might help 'em.

"Here in CO, we won the marijuana war"
No, you have won an important battle, not the war, wise up....
If the feds want to at any time or if the Republicans win the presidential election in the 2016 we will see what happens in Colorado, we will see how legal it is in the eyes of the Feds....

Ps What is you age? I am 65 if you care. I attended my first legalize Cannabis march in 1965 in Calif. while we have come a long way we still have much further to go. Tax, regulate and reschedule, Schedule 5 is best but I would take 3, that is much more change then the events in Colorado which can be taken away in a minute by the Feds if they want to. I am for real change not just a tolerated one like here in the Netherlands where year by year they taken away all the rights because they were not rights they were just allowed and tolerated a lot like the Feds view Colorado, and they can change their minds at any time. Here in the Netherlands it started with lowering the total number of coffee shops, then they went after ones to close to schools etc, then they went after non Dutch trying to stop them from using the coffee shops, now it is a limit on Cannabis products of 15% THC, what can I say? Why make hash out of 20% THC Cannabis that is going to be limited to only 15% THC? Insane, it is obvious that more damage is caused by the act of smoking then using Cannabis, so they make it so you have to smoke twice the Cannabis to get the same effects, brilliant, and it shows how much they really care about people smoking Cannabis, they do not care they just want to stop all Cannabis use and they can't so they make up all kinds of stupid laws so they can tell the voters what a great job they are doing, sure great... What happened to harm reduction??? What happened to integrating fringe members of society into the mainstream? It is all gone.... Cannabis should have been fully legalized on the Federal level here back in 1972 and that should of included legal wholesale production, I mean coffee shops here can sell 5 grams to a person but can only have 500 grams on premises and have no legal way to buy it and no producer has a way to legally supply coffee shops, how stupid is that?
That is how I feel about you not wanting to reschedule, what a waste, I don't know what to say, except you are really missing the big picture, I am sure all the prohibitionists agree with you, don't change the Schedule 1 to 3 or 5, why do you think they feel that way? Maybe you need to reconsider your reasons and realize if you are in the same boat as the prohibitionists maybe you need to get out? I doubt you will change until it is to late and see what is really happening, but then it is to late. I actually hope you are right, as if you are not then we will have many many more years of Cannabis prohibition. And under Federal law All Cannabis use, production, selling, transporting is illegal in Colorado, no matter what you think.
-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Thank you. Your perspective is quite welcome. You may be entirely correct, but I see CO legalization forcing a complete paradigm shift, a whole new way for all of us to view cannabis use. It's like electronic watches, cell phones & the internet- irresistible.

I don't think prohibitionists can stop it, very likely not prior to 2017, and by then it'll be too late. OTOH, I have trouble dealing with people who are hung up in the old paradigm of MMJ & are entirely willing to split the movement to serve their own desires.

I don't have an electronic watch, or a cell phone, they are certainly not irresistible, I do use the internet. For you to make sweeping statements that are not true about them or Cannabis is just generalizations, I am a voter I have been every in election from age 21, but many of my friends do not even vote, growers and smokers even less, it is the right wing older conservatives that all vote, less then 50% of all the total eligible voters actually do. They, the old and mostly conservative are ones that do control the reality, not you and yer buddies that get polled.
Oh and I see you as splitting the movement by the way....
Settling for state legal and federal "tolerated Cannabis" what a joke, it is nothing real, it can be taken away by the Fed's in a flash..
Wait till the Feds are led by an anti-Cannabis president, we will see what good Fed "tolerance" is then.
I would not be surprised if the Republicans won in 2016, voters in America seem to vote more to get rid of the people they have had in power long enough to know all their faults, then to put in someone new they like.
But I do not know, I just have my fears, I doubt I would ever vote for a Republican, but I sure will not vote for Hillary, I refuse to vote for any woman that can't give a good blow job, and Bill certainly thought others could do better....He should know, maybe..... Maybe he does not if Hillary does not.
-SamS

 

[paper thorn]

Well, maybe you need to live here to get it. And you in FL. bummer, you guys have it like we here in AZ had it till our mmj law. You guys will get an mmj law too, but it will suck worse than ours does.
Notice. the reschedule attempt is from a Republican who is no friend of cannabis. Why not just put your support behind the 'let states do mj like they want bill?

Think about going to the doc and then going to a pharmacy to buy your pills or other drugs. You really want to buy your pot this way? They will NOT sell weed, only some prepared dose pill or patch.

They do not understand that mmj smokers can regulate their degree of pain care by self titration... by smoking till they get to the desired level.

They understand pills.

Actually, they (all antis) think that there is no such thing as Medical Marijuana. They think that we are all just a bunch of stoners living in our moms basement eating Doritos. They think smoking pot makes you drunk ten times over. They are trying to say, "You want medical? Here's a fucking pill that won't get you high, you hippy piece of shit."

So, don't fall for the lines of people who hate us.


----------
You know, Nevada and AZ will be going legal in 2016. It'll be on the ballots in both states, and will probably pass. I know the mmj law here in AZ passed because of a large number of Republicans voting for it. It made them mad, because we were the early mail ins that put prop 203 over the top, and always go hardcore Republican, so they were scratching their heads about how a bunch of stoners had the foresight to mail in ballots, and from the reddest districts.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Well this is not all true, you can get a doctors script go the pharmacy and buy herbal pot here where I live you could for the last decade. This is because the people here insisted that they needed a regulated legal source for medical Cannabis. 65% of the Cannabis sold in Shops when tested had insecticides and or fungicides, like in the USA, is that really what you want patients to consume? Wonder why they think that we are all just a bunch of stoners living in our moms basement eating Doritos? Who else would be stupid enough to smoke weed with poison all over it?
You are just avoiding the tough issues, in favor of little or no regulation. That does not help patients, it can kill them or at least sicken them.
-SamS

Well, maybe you need to live here to get it. And you in FL. bummer, you guys have it like we here in AZ had it till our mmj law. You guys will get an mmj law too, but it will suck worse than ours does.
Notice. the reschedule attempt is from a Republican who is no friend of cannabis. Why not just put your support behind the 'let states do mj like they want bill?

Think about going to the doc and then going to a pharmacy to buy your pills or other drugs. You really want to buy your pot this way? They will NOT sell weed, only some prepared dose pill or patch.

They do not understand that mmj smokers can regulate their degree of pain care by self titration... by smoking till they get to the desired level.

They understand pills.

Actually, they (all antis) think that there is no such thing as Medical Marijuana. They think that we are all just a bunch of stoners living in our moms basement eating Doritos. They think smoking pot makes you drunk ten times over. They are trying to say, "You want medical? Here's a fucking pill that won't get you high, you hippy piece of shit."

So, don't fall for the lines of people who hate us.


----------
You know, Nevada and AZ will be going legal in 2016. It'll be on the ballots in both states, and will probably pass. I know the mmj law here in AZ passed because of a large number of Republicans voting for it. It made them mad, because we were the early mail ins that put prop 203 over the top, and always go hardcore Republican, so they were scratching their heads about how a bunch of stoners had the foresight to mail in ballots, and from the reddest districts.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm also 65, Sam. The first time I smoked pot was in 1967, lived the life of that & everything else until my life came to a crisis in 1987. It wasn't the pot, but rather the booze & the coke that put me at a life or death crossroads. I continued to smoke pot until sometime in 1988, but found that obtaining it put me right back into the life threatening milieu I was trying to escape. In the meanwhile, I married & raised 2 children. My employer brought in random drug testing under federal mandate, as well. We prospered. Through it all, the wife & I made contributions to NORML & state level efforts, signed the petitions, wrote letters to our representatives whenever the subject warmed up at all. Obviously, I voted for MMJ & for A64. Our level of political involvement has been much higher than most.

I knew & still know people who were involved in the MMJ scene from the start, envied their position to be perfectly honest. When A64 passed, I took a fresh look at it from a personal perspective, realized that the whole drug culture had changed & that we could enjoy cannabis free of all the associated bullshit if I were willing to retire. I did so. I had other reasons as well.

We have our little legal personal grow & buy retail on rare occasion, just for samples to tell the truth. It's what I think everybody should have at the very least, free of the bullshit games people have to play to have MMJ. There's a small army of people very much like us.

What long time activists fail to consider, I think, is the outright complicity from Holder & Obama in all of this, how it plays out against states rights & how CO is just taking the whole thing in stride. That mix is the key to the future.

Politics being as they are, there's no way that any 2016 presidential candidate can not make their position clear during the campaign. Against the back drop of Conservatives' long standing states rights position, prohibitionists in their ranks are rendered impotent & no candidate from their side of it can realistically oppose states rights at all. That's particularly true when the exercise of states rights produces no demonstrable harm & some demonstrable benefits.

Modern prohibitionists have never been forced to deal with the reality of legal cannabis. They could always exploit fear of the unknown instead. The unfolding CO experience strips that away as nothing else possibly could. In the face of intense scrutiny, we're waging the fight in a whole new way, documenting what really is a favorable experience for the whole state. It's not some great social upheaval at all, no massive upswelling of stonedness, at least not that anybody notices. It's already *normal* in a way that's not what the predictors of doom offered at all.

What it shows is that pot smokers are otherwise good citizens- take away the otherwise, and they're just good citizens. That's how we're winning people over. We just needed the chance to prove it.

You're welcome to fight yesterday's battles if you want, I suppose. I am concerned that getting what you want introduces variables that may be counter productive to the greater effort, that's all. Poison pills, so to speak. Hidden agendas.

I also think that perception is shifting at a much faster pace than you might realize because legalization opponents are finding damned little wrong with it despite their best efforts. It shows the difference between knowing the truth as we both have all along and being able to demonstrate the truth as we now are in CO.

I'm privileged to be a part of it.

 

[mofeta]

There's a small army of people very much like us.

Ahh, you hit it right there. This is the essential element in preference cascades. With modern communications (internet etc), like-minded folks can find each other, and this engagement causes a synergetic, positive feedback loop that is hard to stop. A friend of mine calls this the "Army of Davids" effect. There is a good book with this title.

What long time activists fail to consider, I think, is the outright complicity from Holder & Obama in all of this, how it plays out against states rights & how CO is just taking the whole thing in stride. That mix is the key to the future.

It is not clear to me what you mean by this. Clarify and expand, please.

Politics being as they are, there's no way that any 2016 presidential candidate can not make their position clear during the campaign. Against the back drop of Conservatives' long standing states rights position, prohibitionists in their ranks are rendered impotent & no candidate from their side of it can realistically oppose states rights at all. That's particularly true when the exercise of states rights produces no demonstrable harm & some demonstrable benefits.

This is good analysis. The current libertarian streak on the right is a very good thing. I am doing my best to foster this movement. My results/findings locally (Arizona), bode very well for the future.

Modern prohibitionists have never been forced to deal with the reality of legal cannabis. They could always exploit fear of the unknown instead. The unfolding CO experience strips that away as nothing else possibly could. In the face of intense scrutiny, we're waging the fight in a whole new way, documenting what really is a favorable experience for the whole state. It's not some great social upheaval at all, no massive upswelling of stonedness, at least not that anybody notices. It's already *normal* in a way that's not what the predictors of doom offered at all.

What it shows is that pot smokers are otherwise good citizens- take away the otherwise, and they're just good citizens. That's how we're winning people over. We just needed the chance to prove it.

You hit the other (the main, most important, really) element in this. Public opinion.

Tell me what strategy or event would advance our objectives on this most important of fronts in the battle, than rescheduling? Leave aside any considerations of ulterior motives or secondary effects on the administrative regulation (FDA/DEA) involved, I would like an answer confined to a consideration of the overall state of public opinion and the modulation of such.

You're welcome to fight yesterday's battles if you want, I suppose.

I fight my battles until I win them. Without exception. This has served me very well.

I'm privileged to be a part of it.

Ahh, the sweet smell of civility, humility and gratitude! What a productive attitude. Very good.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ahh, you hit it right there. This is the essential element in preference cascades. With modern communications (internet etc), like-minded folks can find each other, and this engagement causes a synergetic, positive feedback loop that is hard to stop. A friend of mine calls this the "Army of Davids" effect. There is a good book with this title.



It is not clear to me what you mean by this. Clarify and expand, please.

The Obama Admin's complicity is obvious. They not only reversed long standing marijuana policy, they did it by reversing long standing policy wrt the supremacy of federal law & their obligation to assert it. Had they instead filed suit & sought an injunction against retail, they would have easily won. That's a slam dunk.

They did that by turning the states rights rhetoric of the Right against them. Obama stole their issue, leaving them speechless. They knew they were screwed when it was framed in those terms. There was a bit of faint mewling from the ever hateful HOR in their little "Enforce the Law!" routine, more obligatory than anything else. Meanwhile, enough saw the handwriting on the wall to vote with Dems to protect MMJ.

This is good analysis. The current libertarian streak on the right is a very good thing. I am doing my best to foster this movement. My results/findings locally (Arizona), bode very well for the future.

You hit the other (the main, most important, really) element in this. Public opinion.

That's the part where CO is taking it in stride. Among non-participants, legalization is becoming a non-event. Lots of people were just kinda holding their breath, waiting for stupid shit to happen. That's being replaced by "Wait. What? I thought this was supposed to be a big deal. Where's the big deal? Why isn't this a big deal? Why is it all so normal? Why were we ever doing that in the first place?" "Hey, tax money, and I'm not paying it!" "The news says there's investment. Jobs."

CO stoners & entrepreneurs are doing their part to stay cool. Well, and it's not like pics of stoner events have the same sort of lurid impact on conservatives as vids of San Francisco's Gay Pride Parade, either. When we had 2 very weird fatalities related to edibles, regulators & providers went right to work on it & the Media put a positive spin on the effort, the education & the new packaging requirements. Technology helps, too, with personal vaporizers becoming ubiquitous in the entertainment district along S Broadway & also at events. I saw a lot of them at Red Rocks Friday night. They're the even more effective equivalent of a brown paper bag around a 40. Neat & discreet.

Tell me what strategy or event would advance our objectives on this most important of fronts in the battle, than rescheduling? Leave aside any considerations of ulterior motives or secondary effects on the administrative regulation (FDA/DEA) involved, I would like an answer confined to a consideration of the overall state of public opinion and the modulation of such.

In the realm of public opinion, rescheduling would be helpful, no doubt. Probably not as much as advocates think, however. Even my 83 year old mother & her friends know that marijuana won't kill anybody. She's pretty crippled up from arthritis & some other stuff, depends on fentanyl patches to make life bearable. One of her neighbors has a med card, encourages her to try pot as an adjunct when she needs it. She may yet, but she's always been stubborn.

The thrust of my POV on that is just to be careful what you wish for, because secondary effects are inevitable, hidden agendas & unanticipated consequences rampant at the higher level of federal law.

I fight my battles until I win them. Without exception. This has served me very well.

I understand that. OTOH, we opened up a new front in the larger struggle with outright legalization in CO, and we're winning quite handily in the ways & for the reasons I've laid out, probably some others I haven't even considered. Re-classification pales in comparison to the sea change we've set in motion. We're destroying the rationale for classification of cannabis as a "drug" at all, replacing it with one more akin to the rationale around alcohol. We don't need the rationale of "medicine". We replace it with the rationale that people have the right to use a relatively harmless intoxicant in a responsible way.

Ahh, the sweet smell of civility, humility and gratitude! What a productive attitude. Very good.

I enjoy the right to get high if I feel like it & to to grow a little for myself w/o fear, to fade into my own little rather ordinary life. I guard that by staying legal, by being a good citizen. If I'm trying to lead at all, it's only by example. Everybody should have that.

 

[igrowone]

The Obama Admin's complicity is obvious. They not only reversed long standing marijuana policy, they did it by reversing long standing policy wrt the supremacy of federal law & their obligation to assert it. Had they instead filed suit & sought an injunction against retail, they would have easily won. That's a slam dunk.

They did that by turning the states rights rhetoric of the Right against them. Obama stole their issue, leaving them speechless. They knew they were screwed when it was framed in those terms. There was a bit of faint mewling from the ever hateful HOR in their little "Enforce the Law!" routine, more obligatory than anything else. Meanwhile, enough saw the handwriting on the wall to vote with Dems to protect MMJ.
...

there have been quite a few posts about this legal square off
if a suit was filed to oppose retail, what would they win?
ability to enforce federal law upon retail? they already have that
now could they have gotten the state law voided? or something similar
a more difficult legal issue, i don't know the answer
bottom line, state law enforcement has changed, and it will be difficult to legally coerce the state into enforcing federal MJ law
not that they want a state enforcing federal law(normally)

 

[Jhhnn]

there have been quite a few posts about this legal square off
if a suit was filed to oppose retail, what would they win?
ability to enforce federal law upon retail? they already have that
now could they have gotten the state law voided? or something similar
a more difficult legal issue, i don't know the answer
bottom line, state law enforcement has changed, and it will be difficult to legally coerce the state into enforcing federal MJ law
not that they want a state enforcing federal law(normally)

Federal law trumps state law, but only when the feds assert that right. A lawsuit & injunction against retail marijuana would prevent state regulation & the collection of state taxes on marijuana products. It would serve as fair warning to deter any would be entrepreneurs. As he promised, I have no doubt that Romney's DEA would break down the door before they ever opened it, bring down the hurt big time just so that everybody else gets the idea. They'd RICO the dog along with everything else.

Carried to the SCOTUS, they'd win that suit every time. They already have Gonzales vs Raich as precedent.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Jhhnn,
I think we are in agreement on many issues past and present, were we differ is your opinion that once the nations voters have seen Colorado no politician can stand against it. Nonsense, you keep forgetting who the voters in America are, they are not a even percentage of the population, they are older. more conservative, and they have lots of money to sway voters that have not made up their minds. If everyone voted in America you might be right, but they do not and getting all to vote is maybe harder then even legalizing Cannabis for children, not to say that was your intention, just an example.
I still believe all of this could disappear over night, if a right wing anti-Cannabis president gets elected in 2016, I could be wrong, so could you be wrong, time will tell.
I still stick to real change, not one that is not real change only a window dressing as the Feds still out trump the states regardless of what you feel, although in the post directly above you seem to agree with me. I am talking about reality, who has the power not just the ability to do so as long as the Feds say it is ok, wink wink wink. I say real change is needed Reschedule from 1 to 3 or 5, transfer the power to control Cannabis in to states hands like with alcohol, and a few more like tax and regulate.
Until then we are just living a fantasy to think this is real, it might well become real, but it is not yet. As long as the Feds can trump at will.
-SamS

 

[bringyalungs]

it needs to be removed from the scheduling, can someone please start a petition on change.org see what they will say after 160K petitions.

 

[igrowone]

Federal law trumps state law, but only when the feds assert that right. A lawsuit & injunction against retail marijuana would prevent state regulation & the collection of state taxes on marijuana products. It would serve as fair warning to deter any would be entrepreneurs. As he promised, I have no doubt that Romney's DEA would break down the door before they ever opened it, bring down the hurt big time just so that everybody else gets the idea. They'd RICO the dog along with everything else.

Carried to the SCOTUS, they'd win that suit every time. They already have Gonzales vs Raich as precedent.

seldom does the Federal side decline to assert the right
i do recall the threats that were made as Prop 19 seemed close to passing
and that was as you described, arresting any state officials involved
i don't believe the sentiment inside the halls of DOJ changed, same people mostly
i do believe they had done a thorough analysis of SCOTUS outcomes
and my guess is they saw downside risk, just what that risk would be i would love to know

 

[Jhhnn]

seldom does the Federal side decline to assert the right
i do recall the threats that were made as Prop 19 seemed close to passing
and that was as you described, arresting any state officials involved
i don't believe the sentiment inside the halls of DOJ changed, same people mostly
i do believe they had done a thorough analysis of SCOTUS outcomes
and my guess is they saw downside risk, just what that risk would be i would love to know

They didn't have to analyze SCOTUS outcomes to determine downside legal risk of filing suit. There isn't any, had they chosen to enforce federal law. Here's the marijuana specific precedent-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Obama & Holder *chose* not to enforce federal marijuana law wrt well regulated cannabis markets in CO & WA. Specifically-

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html

It's the biggest break for cannabis users since Clinton did the same for MMJ when California voted in prop 215 in 1996. I think it's even bigger.

 

[igrowone]

They didn't have to analyze SCOTUS outcomes to determine downside legal risk of filing suit. There isn't any, had they chosen to enforce federal law. Here's the marijuana specific precedent-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Obama & Holder *chose* not to enforce federal marijuana law wrt well regulated cannabis markets in CO & WA. Specifically-

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/August/13-opa-974.html

It's the biggest break for cannabis users since Clinton did the same for MMJ when California voted in prop 215 in 1996. I think it's even bigger.

it's a good thing, i was prepared for the big federal legal challenge
which hasn't happened, may not happen, but no guarantee on that
no argument on the federal law trumping state, that's a lock
but Prop 215 wasn't nullified, it stayed state law, just that DOJ/DEA could screw with it at their pleasure
so they could have locked down Colorado with a DEA 'invasion'
and creating an awkward situation with state law enforcement
i don't believe that Obama/Holder were that nice to us, but that's just my own opinion

 

[armedoldhippy]

opinion polls keep trending in the direction we need. last Gallup poll I saw had support among voters at over 85% on medical cannabis, & around 53% on outright legalization. just a few more medical states, a couple more legalization battles won, & a few more dinosaur politicians retiring/dying & we will be looking across the river at the Promised Land. like Moses, some of us will not get to cross that river, but the battle must still be fought. unless something horrible happens, the wall WILL fall. in my opinion, the biggest fight is yet to come. removing cannabis from drug-testing for jobs, I think, is going to be a much nastier fight than what we have seen so far. corporate pricks cannot discriminate against folks on the basis of race, national origin, religion, physical handicaps, etc. only folks left for them to kick are cannabis users, so they will really want to be able to kick shit out of us like they have been doing since Tricky Dick started this fucking "war on drugs". until there is a fair & reliable test showing intoxication instead of use, it will be an uphill fight...