Plenipotentiary Tom

Drug Prohibition: Still Stupid

Recommended Posts

Congresscritter Greg Steube wants to UNDO SOMETHING

https://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/20190921/guest-editorial-shift-on-pot-policy-is-rational-not-radical

Quote

 

In April, Steube sponsored the Veterans Cannabis Use for Safe Healing Act, which would essentially prevent the Department of Veterans Affairs from denying benefits to soldiers who use medical marijuana. Use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is legal in 33 states, including Florida, yet it remains a federal offense.

In keeping with his conservative values, Steube’s reclassification bill is not exactly radical. The bill would downgrade marijuana from Schedule 1 — meaning a dangerous drug, like heroin, that has no medicinal value — to Schedule 3.

As a Schedule 3 drug, marijuana would still be a controlled substance, but it would be legal at the federal level for doctors to prescribe it for patients. Medical marijuana might also be eligible for insurance coverage.

 

It would be a good step in the right direction. I'd "schedule" it the same as tobacco: a product, not a drug, but Steube's bill would at least get rid of the incoherence mentioned in the previous post.

Quote

 

And proponents have a strong case. The fact that marijuana is listed on Schedule 1 is a travesty of long standing.

As Cox reported in “Warriors Rise Up,” when Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act in 1971, marijuana was assigned Schedule 1 status only until it could be reviewed by a special board.

That board, the National Commission on Marihuana (sic) and Drug Abuse, concluded in 1972 that marijuana is not dangerous and urged an end to its prohibition, but the Nixon administration and Congress ignored that recommendation.

So Steube’s proposal might be a small step toward righting a wrong done decades ago, but it’s a step nonetheless.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching a TV show about alcohol prohibition yesterday and they mentioned smugglers using torpedoes that were filled with rum instead of explosives and fired from an old submarine onto Manhattan beaches. A few parts of that seem pretty unlikely to me but it is an amusing thought.

Looking around the net this morning I found a couple of reports of torpedoes being used in Detroit during prohibition.
 

Quote

 

The smugglers concocted both practical and ingenious methods to transport liquor into the state. Boats of all sizes were used, from small rowboats to powerful river crafts that could easily outrun police boats. Jalopies, trucks, airplanes, and railroad freight cars also carried large amounts of alcohol across the border. Clever smugglers rigged electronically controlled torpedoes to cross the river, laid pipes underwater and pumped alcohol into a bottling facility in Detroit, and concealed contraband in every conceivable device-hot water bottles, chest protectors, false breasts, hollowed out eggs and loaves of bread, picnic baskets, shopping bags, and baby carriages.

By 1928 Prohibition was so obviously flawed and controversial that it became a major issue in the presidential campaign. In 1933, with the support of President Franklin Roosevelt, Michigan's governor William Comstock, and other leaders, the Twenty-first Amendment was passed, repealing Prohibition. Michigan was the first state to ratify the amendment on April 10, 1933, and soon the Detroit River was returned to pleasure boats and fishing and commercial vessels whose holds no longer carried illegal liquor.

 

The bolded part seems unlikely but other accounts said the "torpedoes" were actually dragged back and forth using underwater cables, which seems possible.

Raw Data on 250 Liquor Ships Seized during Prohibition near NYC

has this entry:

Quote

Rosie M.B. A British ship seized ten miles from Montauk Point, the ship had aboard twenty torpedoes capable of carrying 50 gallons of liquor each to shore submerged behind speedboats. The crew claimed to have smuggled liquor to shore 74 times before being caught.

This also seems a lot more practical than using an actual submarine and firing the valuable cargo onto a beach. Especially if the "torpedoes" in question were really just barrels, maybe with fairings to make them easier to tow.

Other accounts called the torpedo thing "unsubstantiated."
 

Quote

 

Amusing stories developed of smugglers bringing cartons of eggs, with blown-out eggs filled with whiskey. Life preservers filled with liquor containers if used to save a life would instead cause the person to sink. Wild stories developed such as the unsubstantiated tale that torpedoes filled with liquor roared through the Detroit River between Windsor, Ontario and Detroit each night.

Yet another source of liquor originated from government storehouses intended for medicinal use only. By 1926 one half to two thirds of the original supply had been removed by various means. The plan was for liquor to be released to wholesalers who in turn sold it to drugstores. Physicians could write a prescription for one quart of whiskey per patient per month. Almost anyone could get a prescription for a two-dollar office call fee. There were also thousands of false prescriptions with doctors' names forged. All involved wholesalers, physicians, and druggists had to be licensed. The Prohibition Bureau gave permits to an average of 63,891 doctors annually, and by 1929 over one hundred thousand permits were in force. The physicians wrote over 11 million prescriptions per year.

 

Gee, a crackdown on those doctors would probably have led to people consuming more dangerous concoctions much like we've managed to cleverly substitute fentanyl for oxycontin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Fat Point Jack said:

My bro has a medical marijuana prescription and got a mailing from Make It Legal Florida with a constitutional petition form.

I'm  going to pass them out to my friends.

https://makeitlegalflorida.com/petition/

I collected signatures for one of the medical cannabis petitions last time around. There was also a woman there who was being paid to gather signatures for a competing amendment and two others. Hers was the one that got on the ballot, probably because it was $pon$ored by John Morgan.

Although the ban on some advertising rubs me the wrong way, I will probably sign that one and/or some other ones this time around.

I do have to point out, though, that we shouldn't be doing this. Much like pregnant pigs, this just doesn't belong in our state constitution. The legislature should have already done it and should be doing it now. Having to drag them along using the constitution as a chain sux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have voted against more amendments than for.  It is too bad that I couldn't vote Chicago style on  the pregnant pig amendment.

But sometimes the people have to take it in their own hands. 

Our previous governor, now senator, would not give felons who paid their dues to society for their crimes a hearing on whether or not their rights would be restored.  So we had an amendment to restore those rights.  If that amendment had passed in a previous election, we probably would have a different governor and senator.

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Fat Point Jack said:

sometimes the people have to take it in their own hands. 

Yeah that's why I voted for the medical amendment last time around. It's good that enough people have come around to the libertarian position on cannabis prohibition that we can simply go around our elected reps but we shouldn't have to.

Meanwhile, the US House passed another one

https://reason.com/2019/09/25/the-house-just-voted-to-let-marijuana-businesses-legally-use-banks/
 

Quote

 

...

The bill was the first stand-alone marijuana legalization bill to pass either chamber of Congress. The SAFE Banking Act—the acronym stands for "Secure and Fair Enforcement"—would shield banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions from being held liable for doing business with marijuana growers and pot shops in states where the drug has been legalized. Under current law, any financial institution that so much as allows a marijuana business to open a business checking account could potentially violate a host of federal banking and drug laws.

"People in states and localities across the country are voting to approve some level of marijuana use, and we need these marijuana businesses and employees to have access to checking accounts, lines of credit, payroll accounts, and more," said Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D–Colo.) during debate on the bill. "Most importantly, this will also reduce the risk of violent crime in our communities. These businesses and their employees become targets for murder, robbery, assault and more by dealing in all cash."

The bill also protects third-party vendors—like plumbers or electricians—that might have to do business with state-legal pot shops.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R–N.C.) called the bill "one of the biggest changes to U.S. drug policy in my lifetime."

But McHenry voted against it, saying that he worries the bill could give drug cartels access to U.S. financial institutions. The SAFE Banking Act, he added, is a "half answer to a much larger question," specifically whether marijuana should remain on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. That's a category that's supposed to only include drugs with "no currently accepted medical use" and "a lack of accepted safety for use"—terms that obviously do not accurately describe marijuana....

 

A half answer is a lot better than no answer.

Letting companies that are in the alcohol business access our financial institutions doesn't give alcohol cartels access mostly because we don't have them. Because alcohol prohibition was ended. Drug cartels today are successful because of prohibition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list of contumacious prosecutors continues to grow

https://reason.com/2019/09/30/indianapolis-top-prosecutor-says-hell-stop-charging-simple-marijuana-possession/
 

Quote

 

Indianapolis' top prosecutor announced Monday that his office will no longer file charges for possession of under an ounce of marijuana.

The policy change by Ryan Mears, Marion County's temporary prosecutor, is the latest move by a big-city district attorney to rein in marijuana prosecutions. Mears also joins a growing list of prosecutors who are beginning to acknowledge the drug war's costly drain on police and court resources.

...

Top prosecutors in other major cities have issued similar policies. In Baltimore, State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced in January that the city would no longer prosecute any cases of marijuana possession.

In Texas, recently elected Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales, whose jurisdiction includes San Antonio, announced in May that his office will no longer prosecute possession of trace amounts of narcotics such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines, and that it would start a "cite and release" policy for marijuana possession of under an ounce. John Creuzot, Dallas County's district attorney, announced in April that his office would not prosecute first-time marijuana offenses or trace amounts of drugs under .01 grams.

Last year, shortly after taking office, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner dropped all marijuana prosecutions and ordered his attorneys to decline drug paraphernalia prosecutions.

Of course, not all of these prosecutors' colleagues in law enforcement are happy about these developments.

"It seems to me a curious strategy to put out a welcome mat for lawbreakers in a community already facing challenges related to crime, homelessness and other social problems stemming from drug abuse," Curtis Hill, Indiana's attorney general, said about Mears' new policy in a statement to the Star.

 

 

But as Mr. Hill's reaction shows, DOING SOMETHING STUPID is a really hard habit to break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

We need to lift the prohibition on killing.

Prohibition never works.


It doesn't work for "victimless" non-crimes like drinking, gambling, smoking weed, etc, that lots of harmless people do with few negative consequences for themselves or anyone else.

It's more than possible to destroy your life through drinking or gambling but prohibiting those "crimes" because a few destroy themselves exacerbates the problem it's trying to solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

It's more than possible to destroy your life through drinking or gambling but prohibiting those "crimes" because a few destroy themselves exacerbates the problem it's trying to solve.

That's really the 'root cause' issue that I agree.

The idea that alcoholism isn't destructive to both consumer and relations is silly and naive.  Rather, we culturally agree that a few people suffering alcoholism is worth less overall than the majority of people "enjoying themselves responsibly."  A utilitarian bargain, through and through.  Great!

Within that construct, how do we minimize harm?  The "war on drugs" model hasn't minimized harm, IMHO.  Time for something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

The idea that alcoholism isn't destructive to both consumer and relations is silly and naive.  Rather, we culturally agree that a few people suffering alcoholism is worth less overall than the majority of people "enjoying themselves responsibly."  A utilitarian bargain, through and through.  Great!

You can view it that way but I think it's about self-ownership. Not sure whether that's a utilitarian thing.

The fact that a policy based on self-ownership works better is nice, but it comes with costs that some societies can't accept, largely on utilitarian grounds.

For example, we've seen the ACLU defending a KKK march through a Jewish neighborhood. In many countries, the answer to that kind of thing is to prohibit it.

Our fourth amendment frequently ties the hands of government and prevents conviction of guilty people. That has costs too, maybe ones that won't withstand utilitarian math.

But expression (and expre$$ion) and privacy are self-ownership things, as is the fourth amendment-derived Her Body, Sometimes Her Choice thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

You can view it that way but I think it's about self-ownership. Not sure whether that's a utilitarian thing.

Self-ownership actually goes the more of the Kantian / Golden Rule route which is why it's so often in conflict with Democracy, which is always a 'utilitarian' compromise.  Now we're about to go down the philosophical rat hole.

The ultimate 'self' centered position is that of the individual.  People can do whatever they want to themselves.  And if that were the end of the story, there wouldn't' be any more conversations.  We'd all live in our own little personal bubbles.  But that's not the end of the story.  Humans, by their nature, are social.  In fact, the people that DON'T need any interaction are the anomalies - even Ted Kandinsky eventually interacted.

So the real debate with regards to liberty is where does the 'self' end and 'society' begin and what should we do about it.  And that's usually a flexible boundary.

The anarchist argument is that the "self" is always will be the individual and extends no further.  There is no interaction or responsibility beyond the individual.  The Libertarian argument is that the self should be as close to the individual as possible, recognizing that it's an approaching limit not an absolute end point.  The most extreme libertarian argument goes further and says any rounding errors belong to the individual which ends up being almost anarchy but not quite.

Modern China, much of Japan, Imperial England, etc. are good examples of where the "individual" is extended all the way out to the borders of the country - either physical or practical through control.  The be 'Japanese' is to represent a certain set of ideals that all individuals should share as a collective aspiration.  To wrap up with Kant - the difference between the "Golden Rule' and the "categorical imperative' is where you draw the circle around the individual.  Is it a single person?  Their immediate family?  Their tribe?  Their country?  The same applies to the Utilitarian model - the greatest good for 'me', for 'us', or for 'everyone'?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bout fucking time

(twiddles thumbs waiting for Michigan to let me expunge my mackinac island smoke break record)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

bout fucking time

(twiddles thumbs waiting for Michigan to let me expunge my mackinac island smoke break record)

I hope they do, but how much practical difference will it make in your life?

On the issue of undoing the harm of the stupid drug war, the best nationally known politicians are Cory Booker and Tulsi Gabbard. Perhaps coincidentally, they're polling like they are libertarians or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FL Legislature Hears Reefer Madness Dinosaur

https://www.cltampa.com/news-views/florida-news/article/21092509/a-harvard-doctor-issued-dire-warnings-to-florida-lawmakers-about-marijuana-this-week
 

Quote

 

The House Health & Human Services Committee on Tuesday heard an hour-long presentation from Harvard Medical School psychobiologist Bertha Madras, who issued dire warnings about the dangers of marijuana use, particularly for youngsters.

“Marijuana is not benign. It is not safe. It is addictive. … It interferes with learning and memory,” cautioned Madras, who specializes in substance use disorders.

Madras delineated a plethora of pot-related hazards. For example, she advised that marijuana use in teenagers can increase the risk of schizophrenia and cause long-term harmful effects in adults.

“It will take years and one or two generations to fully comprehend the consequences. It took our nation more than 20 years to raise alarm bells around the opioid issue. The alarm bells are beginning to come in with marijuana, and we hope people are listening,” she warned.

Madras, who opposes legalization of marijuana, also said she is unconvinced of the medicinal value of pot, which has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and which remains illegal under federal law.

 

It's really not nice to call her a "psycho" biologist but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE4TpnYIsW4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2019 at 4:04 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

I hope they do, but how much practical difference will it make in your life?

 

A shit ton, though less today than yesterday, for reasons I'll share in about a month.

But I can't currently enter Canada because of that stupid thing up in Mackinac that should have been expunged the second medical weed became legal and I got my card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

A shit ton, though less today than yesterday, for reasons I'll share in about a month.

But I can't currently enter Canada because of that stupid thing up in Mackinac that should have been expunged the second medical weed became legal and I got my card.

Did you show them your press credentials and ask them if they know who you are?

:D

It's about time it was legalized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

A shit ton, though less today than yesterday, for reasons I'll share in about a month.

But I can't currently enter Canada because of that stupid thing up in Mackinac that should have been expunged the second medical weed became legal and I got my card.

You're apparently able to find work as a lawyer and I'd guess able to find housing too.

Compared to people who need expungement due to trouble finding work or housing at all, I'm guessing less of a shit ton. They'd probably think "I can't go to Canada" is a pretty first-world type of problem.

It's a problem that should go away, no matter how relatively large or small, but we'll have to wait for politicians to get a bit more libertarian for a while more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks and other companies are canna-curious

https://mjbizdaily.com/big-banking-interest-serve-cannabis-clients-safe-banking-act-passage-u-s-house/

Quote

 

The next step for the SAFE (Secure and Fair Enforcement Banking) Act appears to be a likely Senate committee vote this fall. Senate Banking Chair Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican, indicated he is increasingly positive about getting the bill up for a vote in the full chamber in 2020.

“It is gaining momentum, but what will really move the needle are the proposed rules coming out and what the banks will do then,” said Mike Kennedy, co-founder of compliance software company Green Check Verified, which is based in Connecticut.

“There are ongoing conversations with banks and there are more canna-curious companies.

 

Thinking Canna-Curious Tom might be a fun screen name...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie's Tax And Spend Plan To End Cannabis Prohibition
 

Quote

 

Because this is a Sanders plan, his legalization initiative also calls for more federal spending and regulation. Sanders wants to tax the newly legal marijuana industry to the tune of $50 billion over 10 years, and then spend that revenue on new grant and development programs. This includes $20 billion in grants to "entrepreneurs of color who continue to face discrimination in access to capital." Another $10 billion will be given out as grants to "businesses that are at least 51 percent owned or controlled by those in disproportionately impacted areas or individuals who have been arrested for or convicted of marijuana offenses."

Sanders would establish a separate but similar $10 billion grant program through the U.S. Department of Agriculture to subsidize marijuana grow operations run by people with marijuana arrest or conviction records. Lastly, he would set up another $10 billion community development fund that would "provide grants to communities hit hardest by the War on Drugs."

To prevent "mostly white, mostly male, and already rich 'cannabiz' entrepreneurs" from dominating the industry, Sanders would impose strict, albeit unspecified, market share and franchise caps on marijuana businesses. His plan would also ban tobacco companies and any other corporation that has "created cancer-causing products," or been found guilty of deceptive marketing tactics, from participating in the marijuana industry.

"The idea of preventing tobacco companies from investing in marijuana companies is something that requires some more scrutiny from a constitutional perspective," says Schweich. "If we are regulating them properly, their investors don't really matter."

 

 

He has some good ideas that are long overdue, especially rescheduling, but somehow looks at the Biggest, Most Beautiful Deficit EVER and thinks a plan needs to be made to spend any new revenue that comes in.

Speaking of revenue coming in, the first federal cannabis prohibition was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 which raised no revenue. It raised no revenue because the tax was deliberately set prohibitively high. Reducing the tax rate would likely have resulted in revenue from a legal market (such a Laffer) but that was not the intent. The intent was prohibition and that's what happened. The lesson I would hope Bernie can learn from this is that there's no practical difference between a prohibitively high tax and outright prohibition based on the commerce power when it comes to creating or eliminating a black market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inside America's First Restaurant for Weed

https://reason.com/video/inside-americas-first-restaurant-for-weed/
 

Quote

 

Erika Soto, an industry veteran, works as a "flower host"—a waitress for weed. When guests arrive, she walks them through their options, explains the effects of various strains, and advises them on proper dosage levels. Lowell is an "important" step combating the "negative stigmas that [surround] the subject that is cannabis," Soto told Reason.

"What our ultimate goal is, is to be able to pair the cannabis with the foods. Your flower host would be like a sommelier, and we want the food service to be versed in cannabis as well," says Estanislao, who tells Reason that Lowell has received more than 800 job applications in its first month of operation. "Everybody wants to work here," she says.

 

I think "Budtender" is a better name, but might provoke a response from the famous beer company.

Quote

For now, Lowell could only be located in the city of West Hollywood, which created a special permit for cannabis hospitality businesses. Estanislao and her team are making a big effort to get along with their neighbors. After the rabbi at a nearby synagogue expressed concern that her congregants would be bombarded with marijuana odor, the restaurant installed massive air filters and machines that spray a scent-neutralizing essential oil called Cannabolish.

Hah! I never heard of Cannabolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada hasn't figured out how to get rid of the black market yet.

https://reason.com/2019/10/28/canada-hobbles-legal-marijuana-with-burdensome-rules/

They're making progress, but

Quote

 

Marijuana legalization was supposed to give Canada's cannabis fanciers access to above board and reliable drug sources while providing tax revenue for the government. But one year in, large numbers of Canadian cannabis users continue to rely on underground dealers. Like with U.S. states that have grudgingly legalized marijuana for recreational use, the black market goes on thriving and generating profits because politicians and regulators have hobbled legal businesses and inconvenienced consumers through high taxes and excessive rules.

As a result, Canada's legal market is largely uncompetitive with the long-established black market there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to the spending problems noted above, it appears there are other obstacles to Bernie's plans.

Specifically, he can have the AG reschedule, but not deschedule, cannabis. While I support his descheduling idea, it appears to violate both the Controlled Substances Act and a treaty to which the US is a party.

Quote

 

Since the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs requires its signatories (which include the United States) to criminalize production, possession, and distribution of cannabis for nonmedical purposes, this reference to treaty obligations seems to bar the attorney general from descheduling, as opposed to rescheduling, marijuana. Cannabis "requires a lot of control" under the Single Convention, noted Eric Sterling, executive director of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, who helped write federal drug legislation in the 1980s as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee. "Cannabis is supposed to be controlled like opium and opiates." Then again, Kreit noted, other CSA provisions "seem to contemplate situations where the U.S. does not accept international scheduling determinations."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

In addition to the spending problems noted above, it appears there are other obstacles to Bernie's plans.

Specifically, he can have the AG reschedule, but not deschedule, cannabis. While I support his descheduling idea, it appears to violate both the Controlled Substances Act and a treaty to which the US is a party.

 

lol, list the penalties for violating the '61 treaty, Tom

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Canada hasn't figured out how to get rid of the black market yet.

https://reason.com/2019/10/28/canada-hobbles-legal-marijuana-with-burdensome-rules/

They're making progress, but

 

There are still thousands of 'stills in the US too, and millions of gallons of hooch made annually. They're making progress since 1933, but

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2019 at 7:22 AM, Hypercapnic Tom said:

Bernie's Tax And Spend Plan To End Cannabis Prohibition
 

 

He has some good ideas that are long overdue, especially rescheduling, but somehow looks at the Biggest, Most Beautiful Deficit EVER

 if republicans have stopped complaining about deficits, imagine what a democrat can do now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

There are still thousands of 'stills in the US too, and millions of gallons of hooch made annually. They're making progress since 1933, but

 

i have another batch ready to go this weekend ;-) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

lol, list the penalties for violating the '61 treaty, Tom

 

It never occurred to me to wonder but after looking at the convention I got a great new screen name.

Weird that cannabis is both Schedule 1 and Schedule 4 according to the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2017 at 7:14 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

5 years after this ridiculous raid, the lawsuit filed by the Harte family has been revived.
 

 

And the wheels of justice continue to grind along in first gear in the Harte family case.
 

Quote

 

This month the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that Adlynn and Robert Harte, who lost their case after a jury trial in 2017, were wrongly denied the opportunity to pursue several of their claims against the Johnson County sheriff's deputies who stormed into their home as part of a comically inept publicity stunt.

...

After the Hartes filed their federal lawsuit in 2013, a judge dismissed all of their claims, but a 10th Circuit panel overturned that ruling in 2017. The 10th Circuit's decision included three separate opinions reaching different conclusions based on different reasoning, and the district court had trouble sorting them out. During the ensuing trial, the Hartes were limited to a single federal claim, which hinged on whether the deputies had lied about the field tests. The jury decided that the Hartes had not proven that claim.

In its new decision, the 10th Circuit says the district court erred in limiting the Hartes to that one federal claim. The court has again remanded the case, saying the Hartes should be allowed to pursue three other claims: "(1) whether Defendants properly executed the warrant; (2) whether the deputies exceeded the scope of the warrant by searching for evidence of general criminal activity; and (3) whether the deputies prolonged Plaintiffs' detention, thus subjecting them to an illegal arrest."

In addition to those issues, there is the question of whether the defendants are entitled to "qualified immunity," which depends on whether the relevant case law was sufficiently clear at the time of the raid. So even if the deputies did violate the Hartes' Fourth Amendment rights, that does not necessarily mean they can be held responsible for doing so. Whatever the ultimate outcome, the Johnson County Sheriff's Department has been subjected to well-deserved scorn and ridicule for its lazy, unprofessional, ill-informed, and constitutionally oblivious tactics.

Judge Lucero summed up the case well in 2017. "The defendants in this case caused an unjustified governmental intrusion into the Hartes' home based on nothing more than junk science, an incompetent investigation, and a publicity stunt," he wrote. "There was no probable cause at any step of the investigation. Not at the garden shop, not at the gathering of the tea leaves, and certainly not at the analytical stage when the officers willfully ignored directions to submit any presumed results to a laboratory for analysis. Full stop."

 

Just to save any government agents who may have noticed my purchase of a little hydroponic setup the trouble and shame, it's Romaine lettuce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

It never occurred to me to wonder but after looking at the convention I got a great new screen name.

 

your first screen name that I've enjoyed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

It never occurred to me to wonder 

 

Then don't claim that a plan to deschedule will be impossible.  Try to be correct when you speak.

Have a read of Article 14.  Should the AG be scared of the UN if he or she delists cannabis?  I dunno about you but "The opening of consultations" makes me shudder. 

 

Art. 14

1) a) If... the Board has objective reasons to believe that the aims of this Convention are being seriously endangered by reason of the failure of any...country...to carry out the provisions of this Convention, the Board shall have the right to propose to the Government concerned the opening of consultations or to request it to furnish explanations. If, without any failure in implementing the provisions of the Convention, a Party or a country or territory has become, or if there exists evidence of a serious risk that it may become, an important centre of illicit cultivation, production or manufacture of, or traffic in or consumption of drugs, the Board has the right to propose to the Government concerned the opening of consultations. 

b) After taking action under subparagraph a) above, the Board, if satisfied that it is necessary to do so, may call upon the Government concerned to adopt such remedial measures as shall seem under the circumstances to be necessary for the execution of the provisions of this Convention.

c) {they can propose a study if b) is met} 

d) If the Board finds that the Government concerned has failed to give satisfactory explanations when called upon to do so under subparagraph a) above, or has failed, to adopt any remedial measures which it has been called upon to take under subparagraph b) above, or that there is a serious situation that needs co-operative action at the international level with a view to remedying it, it may call the attention of the Parties, the Council and the Commission to the matter. The Board shall so act if the aims of this Convention are being seriously endangered and it has not been possible to resolve the matter satisfactorily in any other way. It shall also so act if it finds that there is a serious situation that needs cooperative action at the international level with a view to remedying it and that bringing such a situation to the notice of the Parties, the Council and the Commission is the most appropriate method of facilitating such co-operative action; after considering the reports of the Board, and of the Commission if available on the matter, the Council may draw the attention of the General Assembly to the matter.

2. The Board, when calling the attention of the Parties, the Council and the Commission to a matter in accordance with paragraph 1 d) above, may, if it is satisfied that such a course is necessary, recommend to Parties that they stop the import of drugs, the export of drugs, or both, from or to the country or territory concerned, either for a designated period or until the Board shall be satisfied as to the situation in that country or territory. The State concerned may bring the matter before the Council.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

your first screen name that I've enjoyed. 

 

Milliken came up with "importunate" which I think was the best so far.

25 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Then don't claim that a plan to deschedule will be impossible.  Try to be correct when you speak.

Was this part of the article I referenced incorrect?
 

Quote

 

While the CSA does give the executive branch the authority to reclassify marijuana, completely declassifying it is another matter.

"I think it is very unlikely that the attorney general could remove marijuana from the schedules entirely," Alex Kreit, a drug policy expert at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, told me when the issue came up during the Obama administration.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Milliken came up with "importunate" which I think was the best so far.

Was this part of the article I referenced incorrect?
 

 

Pretty much all of the article is incorrect.  Some of it was correct when written, but the real and regulatory worlds today barely resemble those of 2014.  

 

Edit: this part is 100% correct and coincidentally is the issue I am working on today in a Marijuana Banking Pollicy I am drafting for a large client.  This single factor is a huge reason why MRBs are having a hard time making it, and why the black market is still thriving.  Essentially any business that handles marijuana cannot deduct any of the ordinary business expenses that you or I deduct from our income.  The regs allow deduction of Cost of Goods Sold solely to avoid a lawsuit that alleges deprivation of certain property rights, but every other expense is disallowed.

 

Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code prohibits the deduction of business expenses related to "trafficking in controlled substances," but only for drugs on Schedule I or II. If marijuana were moved to, say, Schedule III, that prohibition would no longer apply.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Then don't claim that a plan to deschedule will be impossible.  Try to be correct when you speak.

Have a read of Article 14.  Should the AG be scared of the UN if he or she delists cannabis?  I dunno about you but "The opening of consultations" makes me shudder. 

 

Art. 14

1) a) If... the Board has objective reasons to believe that the aims of this Convention are being seriously endangered by reason of the failure of any...country...to carry out the provisions of this Convention, the Board shall have the right to propose to the Government concerned the opening of consultations or to request it to furnish explanations. If, without any failure in implementing the provisions of the Convention, a Party or a country or territory has become, or if there exists evidence of a serious risk that it may become, an important centre of illicit cultivation, production or manufacture of, or traffic in or consumption of drugs, the Board has the right to propose to the Government concerned the opening of consultations. 

b) After taking action under subparagraph a) above, the Board, if satisfied that it is necessary to do so, may call upon the Government concerned to adopt such remedial measures as shall seem under the circumstances to be necessary for the execution of the provisions of this Convention.

c) {they can propose a study if b) is met} 

d) If the Board finds that the Government concerned has failed to give satisfactory explanations when called upon to do so under subparagraph a) above, or has failed, to adopt any remedial measures which it has been called upon to take under subparagraph b) above, or that there is a serious situation that needs co-operative action at the international level with a view to remedying it, it may call the attention of the Parties, the Council and the Commission to the matter. The Board shall so act if the aims of this Convention are being seriously endangered and it has not been possible to resolve the matter satisfactorily in any other way. It shall also so act if it finds that there is a serious situation that needs cooperative action at the international level with a view to remedying it and that bringing such a situation to the notice of the Parties, the Council and the Commission is the most appropriate method of facilitating such co-operative action; after considering the reports of the Board, and of the Commission if available on the matter, the Council may draw the attention of the General Assembly to the matter.

2. The Board, when calling the attention of the Parties, the Council and the Commission to a matter in accordance with paragraph 1 d) above, may, if it is satisfied that such a course is necessary, recommend to Parties that they stop the import of drugs, the export of drugs, or both, from or to the country or territory concerned, either for a designated period or until the Board shall be satisfied as to the situation in that country or territory. The State concerned may bring the matter before the Council.

 

So, reading that all, it appears that the worst penalty is that other countries can refuse to sell to or buy from the country in violation.

If they so choose as I note the word 'may' used.

In summary, no fixed or, in the case of a big country like the USA, likely penalty.

So a lot ado about nothing if the USA gives up on restricting the sale & use of marijuana.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

So, reading that all, it appears that the worst penalty is that other countries can refuse to sell to or buy from the country in violation.

If they so choose as I note the word 'may' used.

In summary, no fixed or, in the case of a big country like the USA, likely penalty.

So a lot ado about nothing if the USA gives up on restricting the sale & use of marijuana.

FKT

I have never heard of a treaty between nations that had any other kind of penalty, which is why I told CLEAN that it never occurred to me to wonder.

If you cease to abide by the treaty, other parties might do the same. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

But I did get a good screen name out of the deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Pretty much all of the article is incorrect.  Some of it was correct when written, but the real and regulatory worlds today barely resemble those of 2014.  

I agree that there have been changes in laws in various states and have acknowledged that all of the TeamD Presidential candidates are now better than Donald Trump on this issue. That should be damning with faint praise, but I noted with chagrin in this thread in 2015 that Trump was (rhetorically, anyway) the best that the Duopoly had to offer last time around. Then the dumb fuck chose noted drug war dinosaur Jeff Sessions, which is the opposite of his campaign promises if you ask me. He couldn't do the opposite on his stupid wall or his stupid trade war, those promises he has fought to keep, but he's been pretty useless on ending the drug war.

And so has pretty much everyone else in power at the federal level, which is why I'm wondering what changes to the CSA or other regulations relevant to scheduling you might be talking about. Could you be specific on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oklahoma DOES SOMETHING Smart

https://reason.com/2019/11/04/the-largest-single-day-commutation-in-history/

Quote

Oklahoma frees 527 low-level offenders—and saves nearly $12 million.

"Low level" means "mostly drug war" in this context.

Meanwhile, California continues to struggle to free itself from the grip of Reefer Madness.

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-announces-148-arrests-part-statewide-cannabis
 

Quote

 

“Illegal cannabis grows are devastating our communities. Criminals who disregard life, poison our waters, damage our public lands, and weaponize the illegal cannabis black market will be brought to justice,” said Attorney General Xavier Becerra. “This year, our CAMP teams worked tirelessly across the state to vigorously enforce California’s laws against illegal cannabis activity. The California Department of Justice is extremely proud of our partnership with federal, state, and local agencies and we look forward to continuing this necessary work.”

“Combating illegal marijuana cultivation takes dedication, teamwork, perseverance and courage,” said David Bess, Deputy Director and Chief of the Law Enforcement Division for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “I’m immensely proud of the work we accomplished during the year with our county, state and federal partners. Together, we are protecting California’s natural resources and providing another measure of public safety.”

“USDA Forest Service law enforcement in California commend the collaboration and continuing efforts of our task force of partners in the yearly fight against illegal marijuana grows on public lands. This multi-faceted team approach is how we stay successful in mitigating these trespassers and the harmful destruction they intend on our land, water, wildlife and communities,” said Don Hoang, Special Agent in Charge of United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

“CAMP’s joint law enforcement efforts provide an opportunity for a stronger state-federal partnership against the illegal cultivation of marijuana. Together, we share a common goal – to improve public safety and protect our nation’s important natural and cultural resources on public lands,” said Joe Stout, Acting California State Director, Bureau of Land Management.

“We are proud to partner with our local, state, and federal partners in the CAMP program, which not only helps disrupt illegal activity, but assists in safeguarding natural resources and the environment,” said William D. Bodner, Special Agent in Charge, Drug Enforcement Administration. “CAMP provides rotary wing assets and personnel to assist DEA in the eradication of illegal marijuana grows on federal lands.”

“Although cannabis has been legalized for use in California, there is still a large unlicensed black market,” said Robert Paoletti, Coordinator Colonel, California National Guard Counterdrug Task Force.

 

Gee, why is there still a large, unlicensed black market? Possibly because combating illegal marijuana cultivation takes dedication, teamwork, perseverance, courage, and a delusion that the war on weed can be won despite eek a nomix.

The reason voters in so many states have gone around their own legislatures to try to end the stupid drug war is summed up nicely here.

https://reason.com/2019/11/05/californias-war-on-weed-continues-thanks-to-a-red-tape-fueled-black-market/

Quote

 

The Golden State has done such a terrible job at actually legalizing marijuana that even 60 Minutes recently produced a segment on how the bureaucratic and regulatory systems California has put into place continue to foster black markets.

One small legal grower named Casey O'Neill noted he was $50,000 in the red trying to comply with all the regulations—"$2,500 a year for the water board discharge permit. It's $750 a year for the pond permit. It's $1,350 application fee to the county, plus another $675 when they actually give you the permit, annually." When asked about his profits, his response was blunt: "What profits?"

Black markets aren't caused solely by banning a good or service. They're also fostered when the government makes it so hard to legally operate that, unless you have the right government connections, the only way you'll realistically make money is by defying the law.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:


 

Gee, why is there still a large, unlicensed black market?

 

'cause black market is a term that papers and police PR departments love to use to justify spending and seeking money.

To me the word black market means weed that people grow in a place where it is exceedingly easy to grow.

The fuckers with the big grows are criminally trespassing or violating BLM or USFS regulations, they should be pinched for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The fuckers with the big grows are criminally trespassing or violating BLM or USFS regulations, they should be pinched for that.

I have a problem with the people who are using public land, especially to the extent they're polluting. They can also get violent in defending "their" turf, another problem.

I'd just note that you don't see other crops being grown in National Forests. Farming is regulated, but farmers grow everything but weed on private property. If weed farming were regulated and taxed like other crops, I think the number of crops grown illegally in National Forests would drop from 1 to 0. Unfortunately, the regulations and taxes are not like other crops... They're Reefer Madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Canberra laws legalising cannabis breach international law, United Nations warns

The ACT Government has hit back at warnings from the United Nations that legalising cannabis will breach international law, telling the body to instead look at the United States and Canada where the laws go further.

In a letter to the Federal Government sent following recent "concerning" reports, the UNs' International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) reiterated that the legalisation and regulation of cannabis for non-medical use, including in small quantities, were inconsistent with international drug conventions.

Australia, along with more than 200 other countries, signed three international conventions agreeing to certain rules about illicit drug use and restrictions about medications.

But ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr defended the laws that come into effect on January 31, 2020, saying the supply and traffic of cannabis will remain illegal and the UN should turn its attention elsewhere.

"Canada, Colorado and California have cannabis legalisation laws that are much more expansive than the laws passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly last month," Mr Barr said.

"The International Narcotics Control Board's attention would be better focused on those cannabis legalisation regimes rather than the ACT's reforms.

"The [ACT] Government is not encouraging the personal use of cannabis."

A member of the UN board, Professor Richard Mattick, who is also part of UNSW's National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, said the treaties were legally binding and the ACT's cannabis laws were in contravention.

"Allowing citizens in a country to use cannabis for recreational purposes, or non-medical purposes, is not allowed under the treaties," he told RN Breakfast.

Professor Mattick said while the ACT was only proposing to legalise a small quantity of cannabis per adult in Canberra, the amount was not relevant.

"The issue is the letter of the law," he said.

"Many countries do feel very strongly about this, so whilst [some] countries — the United States, Canada, Australia potentially, Uruguay, the Netherlands — are allowing cannabis use, the vast majority of the 200 countries are not in agreement with this.

"It creates a problem when we have a set of rules which we say we should abide by, but we pick and choose which ones we want to abide by.

"It's about the international agreement."

UN concerns come after tit-for-tat between ACT, feds

Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt, who has already sounded his opposition to the ACT's move, said it was clear that the legislation was in breach of the UN convention.

"The Australian Government remains committed to the international drug control regime established by the UN international drug conventions which do not support the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use," Mr Hunt said.

"While many Australians may view cannabis use as harmless, almost a quarter of Australia's drug and alcohol treatment services are being provided to people identifying cannabis as their principal drug of concern, roughly the same number of treatment episodes as for amphetamine use."

Professor Mattick said the role of the board was not to "embarrass" Australia, but it would continue to highlight how the ACT laws do not adhere to the international agreements.

"We are allowing the countries to decide how they will handle this difficult situation," he said.

"How this rolls out is going to be very interesting because it could see a fraying of the international agreement."

The concern from the UN follows a tit-for-tat between the Federal and ACT Governments, adding to confusion over how the laws will be practically enforced when the changes come into effect early next year.

Federal Government ministers sharply criticised the ACT's move, with some labelling it as "crazy" and a "social crusade" by the territory Labor government.

For its part, the ACT Government has urged the Federal Government to respect "democratic processes of the ACT" and said the legislation was "the will of the people".

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-29/canberra-cannabis-legalisation-breaches-international-law-un/11649088

 

Perhaps the UN should be more concerned with Turkey invading Syria or helping their appointed chair for human rights Saudi Arabia to actually achieve human rights in Saudi Arabia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're good up north here, come skiing and bring your bong....mon.....

image.png.eb93f697e1d3b5f7bc0d5291ba5032ef.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

 

Perhaps the UN should be more concerned with Turkey invading Syria or helping their appointed chair for human rights Saudi Arabia to actually achieve human rights in Saudi Arabia.

As CLEAN noted in 832 above, the UN might open up some consultations on their ass. Or even notify the Partiers. Possibly recommend taking their bongs away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I have a problem with the people who are using public land, especially to the extent they're polluting. They can also get violent in defending "their" turf, another problem.

 I'd just note that you don't see other crops being grown in National Forests. Farming is regulated, but farmers grow everything but weed on private property. If weed farming were regulated and taxed like other crops, I think the number of crops grown illegally in National Forests would drop from 1 to 0. Unfortunately, the regulations and taxes are not like other crops... They're Reefer Madness.

just goes to show that a  known fraud can last for a century thanks to dishonesty, profiteering and outright stupidity of our legislators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of outright stupidity

NYPD DOES SOMETHING Stupid
 

Quote

 

Oren Levy, who sells hemp wholesale through his company Green Angel CBD, claims that a “gung-ho” Fedex driver took it upon himself to report the shipment to the 75th Precinct when it arrived in Brooklyn — despite the fact that the cargo had all the necessary documentation to prove it was legal.

...

On Saturday, cops called Green Angel CBD telling them to come pick up their greenery — but when Levy’s brother Ronen arrived at the station house, cops instead slapped cuffs on him.

A day later, the 75th Precinct tweeted a photo of dozens of large bags of what looks like marijuana with the caption, “Great job by Day Tour Sector E yesterday. Working with FedEx and other local law enforcement, they were able to confiscate 106 Lbs. of marijuana, and arrest the individual associated with the intended delivery.”

Green Angel CBD fired back on Instagram that “This was our shipment. My brother was falsely arrested. Those bags were all hemp. All documents were in each box. The farm also called them to give them all there paperwork proving it’s all hemp ! Please spread the word! We need to let people know we are not criminals!”

“I want it back. It’s 100 percent legal” Levy told The Post adding that he is out up to $30,000 since the cops took the delivery. “I have helped thousands of people — people with cancer, people with autism, pain, arthritis, people with severe skin issues, people who haven’t slept for weeks. We are a legitimate business.”

A Brooklyn criminal judge released Ronen without bail on Sunday, according to court records.

Andrew Subin, a lawyer with the Vermont farm that sold Levy the plants, said a detective from the precinct asked him what the legal THC limit was.

“He was claiming that he didn’t know the legal limit. He said that he needed to do his own test,” Subin said. “We have a test by a certified lab, so I don’t understand why they need to do their own test. This is having a real impact on our client and the buyer.”

Subin’s law partner, Timothy Fair, said the cops have no ground to hold the plants, which can lose their potency over time.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Sessions Again? No thanks.

https://reason.com/2019/11/08/reminder-jeff-sessions-sucks-and-should-be-nowhere-near-government-power/
 

Quote

 

...

Sessions was one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's use of consent decrees to rein in rotten police departments, saying they "undermine the respect for police officers and create an impression that the entire department is not doing their work consistent with fidelity to law and fairness." He was an unwavering subscriber to the "bad apple" explanation for police misconduct, and he outright rejected the possibility that—brace yourself for this, gentle readers—some police departments might incentivize bad policing and shield problem cops from scrutiny.

Sessions admitted he didn't even read the Justice Department's report on unconstitutional policing in Chicago and in Ferguson, Missouri, which is interesting because he also called the reports "pretty anecdotal and not so scientifically based."

...

 

Tough on crime unless the perpetrator has a badge.

Quote

It was an echo of one of Sessions's first major moves as attorney general: He rolled back a 2013 directive by former Attorney General Eric Holder that instructed U.S. attorneys to avoid charges in certain low-level drug cases that would trigger lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. It is prosecutors' duty to seek the maximum sentences on the books, Sessions argued.

Filling up prisons with drug users is going to start working any decade now?

Quote

Sessions also rolled back an Obama-era Justice Department guidance on civil asset forfeiture that restricted when federal authorities could "adopt" local cases. Such adoptions are one of the primary ways state and local police get around stricter state laws on civil asset forfeiture, which allows police to seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity even when the owner is not charged with a crime.

TeamR types are all about property rights, up until it threatens drug war looting.
 

Quote

 

There was no criminal justice reform measure modest enough to escape Sessions' ire. He also opposed the FIRST STEP Act, a sentencing reform bill passed late last year with overwhelming Republican support. The act has resulted in the early release of thousands of federal drug offenders who had been serving draconian crack cocaine sentences. Sessions was reportedly among the faction that lobbied Trump, unsuccessfully, to oppose the bill.

"There are still those who would have you believe we should release the criminals early, shorten sentences for serious federal traffickers, and go soft on crime," Sessions said in a speech last year. "That would be bad for the rule of law, it would be bad for public safety, and it would be bad for the communities across America."

Sessions' influence is still being felt. The Washington Post reported today that federal prosecutors have tried to block hundreds of inmates from being released under the FIRST STEP Act's provisions by mangling Congress's intent and arguing that many offenders don't qualify.

 

He really does still see mass incarceration as a solution, not a problem.
 

Quote

 

As a senator, Sessions was one of the staunchest supporters of mandatory minimum sentences and harsh drug laws—long after many of his GOP colleagues began to question the wisdom of, say, putting a woman with no history of violent crime in federal prison for life for a third drug offense. (That's not a hypothetical. I interviewed a woman who was sentenced to life for trading several bottles of pseudoephedrine to a meth dealer. Her two previous offenses were minor drug crimes that never resulted in prison time. Sessions would prefer that she were still rotting in prison.) 

His preference for harsh sentencing laws is closely tied to his drug war hysteria. Who could forget his claims that using marijuana was "only slightly less awful" than using heroin?

 

I haven't forgotten, nor have I forgotten that "Drug Czars" from both halves of the Duopoly have shared his point of view on the relative dangers of cannabis and heroin. Nor, for that matter, have I forgotten that this absurd view is still the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-Government Weed!

Quote

CTPharma, a Connecticut company that supplies cannabis products to dispensaries under that state's medical marijuana program, recently announced that it is collaborating with researchers at Yale University on a federally approved study of CBD and THC as treatments for pain and stress. This appears to be the first time that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has signed off on a medical study involving U.S.-grown cannabis from a source other than the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), heretofore the only legal supplier of marijuana for research in this country.

That's actually kinda yuge news. The few people grandfathered into a fed research program by Saint Ronald in the 1980's have always had to get government-grown weed and to the extent researchers could get weed at all (a very limited extent) it came from the same place.
 

Quote

 

Researchers have long complained about the quality and variety of Uncle Sam's cannabis, which is grown at the University of Mississippi under an exclusive contract with NIDA. They have also noted that NIDA marijuana cannot be used for commercial purposes, which means it cannot be used in Phase III clinical trials, the last step before FDA approval of a new medicine. The drug that subjects take at that stage has to be the same as the drug that will be sold to patients once the medication is approved.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which for years refused to license additional suppliers of marijuana, changed its mind in 2016, the last year of the Obama administration, when it announced that it would start accepting applications from would-be growers. But under the Trump administration, the DEA has dragged its feet in fulfilling that promise. As of August, Mike Riggs noted, the DEA had received 33 applications, but so far it has not granted any licenses.

 

It depends what the meaning of "accepting applications" is, doesn't it? If the applications are received and put in a box forever, they've been accepted, right?

Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cajun Cannabis
 

Quote

 

Despite being a historically conservative state, Louisiana first legalized medical marijuana back in 1978. It amended the law in 1991, then left the program to wither on the regulatory vine, with the Department of Health failing to appoint a Marijuana Prescription Review Board or to draw up contracts with national groups for production and distribution.

That began to change in 2015, when Republican state Sen. Fred Mills, a pharmacist and the former executive director of the Louisiana Board of Pharmacy, sponsored legislation to implement the distribution of medical cannabis to patients. In 2016, Mills sponsored a second law that laid out the program's specifics. Both bills eventually passed the state House and Senate and were signed into law by former Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal. In early August, Louisiana officially became the Deep South's first state to dispense medical marijuana.

In theory, the program is working...

 

I want to move to Theory. I hear everything works there.

Quote

The Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry has licensed just two growers—GB Sciences and Ilera Holistic Healthcare—to contract with the agricultural departments at Louisiana State University and Southern University, respectively, to produce medical cannabis for the entire state. As of this writing, only LSU's operation is producing medical marijuana; Southern University's first crop isn't expected until later this year.

I'm kinda surprised to learn of the LSU operation.
 

Quote

 

"I've always testified that this should be a decision 100 percent between a physician and a patient, and if somebody has a debilitating condition, then why should government get in the way?" Mills says.

...

Mills hopes increased social acceptability will eventually push the program forward. He points to how former Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco's family recently went public about her using medical marijuana on her deathbed earlier this year. "Her family really attributes medical marijuana to her quality of life," Mills says.

 

I've mentioned a similar experience in my own family. As we age and more and more Boomers are not OK, more of us will be personally affected by stupid prohibition laws trying (and failing) to dictate how we care for our loved ones at the end of their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two-thirds of Americans support marijuana legalization

Quote

Two-thirds of Americans say the use of marijuana should be legal, reflecting a steady increase over the past decade, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. The share of U.S. adults who oppose legalization has fallen from 52% in 2010 to 32% today.

The accompanying chart shows the trend has been going on a lot longer.

marijuana01.jpg?resize=623,1024

I was part of that 16% in the late 1980's. Being shouted down by a vocal majority of prohibition proponents didn't change my mind then. Maybe it will start working one day...

The stupid drug war remains mostly a TeamR project.

marijuana02.jpg?resize=640,1263

Is it wrong to point that out?

marijuananew.jpg?resize=640,841

Hmm... Maybe OK, Silent should be a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old habits die hard.

Joe Biden Clings To "Gateway Drug" Theory
 

Quote

 

...

During a town hall in Las Vegas on Saturday, Biden said states should be free to legalize marijuana but once again reserved judgment about whether national prohibition should be repealed. "The truth of the matter is, there's not nearly been enough evidence that has been acquired as to whether or not it is a gateway drug," he said. "It's a debate, and I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally. I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it….It is not irrational to do more scientific investigation to determine, which we have not done significantly enough, whether or not there are any things that relate to whether it's a gateway drug or not."

Contrary to Biden's implication, there has been a lot of research on this question during the last half-century or so. While studies have consistently found an association between cannabis consumption and use of other illegal drugs, the nature of that relationship remains controversial, and it probably always will.


 

The federal prohibition program precludes state-level legalization, which is why cannabusinesses can't access financial services used by truly legal businesses.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cory Booker gave the rusty weather vane a shove

https://reason.com/2019/11/20/cory-booker-just-crushed-joe-biden-over-his-tepid-support-for-marijuana-legalization/
 

Quote

 

...

It came during a segment of the debate focused on how the various Democratic candidates could best appeal to African-American voters—a demographic that figures to be critical for Biden, particularly in the early primary in South Carolina.

Booker argued that Biden's tepid stance on marijuana should be disqualifying. Calling the war on drugs "a war on black and brown people," the New Jersey senator pivoted to criticize candidates who have not experienced first hand the devastating consequences of the drug war.

"There are people in Congress right now that admit to smoking marijuana, while our kids are in jail for those drug crimes," Booker said to widespread applause from the Atlanta crowd. For Booker, it was yet another strong debate moment—though good performances in past debates have not helped him rise in the polls.

To his credit, Biden responded by calling for the decriminalization of marijuana and for releasing from people incarcerated for marijuana offenses. That's good.

But it also adds to the notion that, as Reason's Matt Welch has written, Biden is a "rusty weather vane" who can be trusted to eventually point in the direction of the prevailing political winds—but that's hardly leadership. If he were to become president, and Congress put a marijuana legalization bill on his desk, there's a good chance Biden would sign it. But would he lift a finger before then? That's the major concern.

...

 

My guess: he'd be as motivated to end the stupid drug war as noted Choom Gang member Obama was. Meaning, too busy promoting the stupid gun war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Meaning, too busy promoting the stupid gun war.

literally no one who has kids in school thinks that the war to keep their kids from getting killed is stupid, including people who don't believe in gun regulation.  The sooner you realize this, the sooner your arguments might make sense to parents of school age kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now