|
Post by audiomr on Dec 6, 2016 12:54:25 GMT -5
There are still plenty of old men -- Sessions, for example -- who genuinely believe that marijuana is itself a dangerous drug not to mention a gateway to even worse. You'd think the battles of the '60s would have subsided by now, but I guess my generation is a tenacious lot. Mr. Sessions is right, at least in part. Cannabis used improperly can be a dangerous drug, but you can say the same about many, many prescription drugs; that is why they are not available to the general public without a prescription. Cannabis is, and remains, a Schedule I drug which means that 99% of physicians writing scripts for "medical marijuana" are breaking federal law and could find themselves without a license to prescribe drugs (most drug licenses are for Schedules II and higher, but not Schedule I). Given the sheer explosion of the medical marijuana business where state law had made it legal either a whole lot of people in California and Colorado have cancers or other serious illnesses, or else there are a lot of recreational users with a friendly physician. It is not that FDA is against the active agents in cannabis, it is that they haven't been formulated and proven to be consistently effective. Some company will take the next step and do the testing, and that company will get an approved NDA indicated for all sorts of diseases. Either we operate with a properly regulated pharmaceuticals market, or we need to go back to the days before the FDA was created and let anybody sell what they want (that didn't work so well). You can't have it both ways. Safer than alcohol. It's crazy that it's a Schedule I drug. Practically anything used improperly can be dangerous. Anyhow, Congress has given a pass for medicinal marijuana in states that legalize it, so doctors in those states are in the clear. Not so for recreational marijuana, though. That business relies on enforcement discretion on the part of the Justice Department, which is probably going to go awy.
|
|
|
Post by audiomr on Dec 6, 2016 12:57:45 GMT -5
Quote from above: It is not that FDA is against the active agents in cannabis, it is that they haven't been formulated and proven to be consistently effective. Some company will take the next step and do the testing, and that company will get an approved NDA indicated for all sorts of diseases. Either we operate with a properly regulated pharmaceuticals market, or we need to go back to the days before the FDA was created and let anybody sell what they want (that didn't work so well). You can't have it both ways.
Reply: Catch 22. The quoted individual is saying all the correct words. Too bad the individual does not know the laws the way they are written prevent this. "NIDA has a congressional mandate to study substances of abuse AS SUBSTANCES OF ABUSE. We are the national institute ON DRUG ABUSE NOT for Drug abuse. So we can not give you marijuana to see if it has a medicinal benefit."
23 minutes into the video.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ukz7YfStkI
Quote: Cannabis is, and remains, a Schedule I drug which means that 99% of physicians writing scripts for "medical marijuana" are breaking federal law and could find themselves without a license to prescribe drugs (most drug licenses are for Schedules II and higher, but not Schedule I).
Reply: The quoted individual does not know physicians are licensed by state law? healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/02/18/doctors-without-state-borders-practicing-across-state-lines/ The quoted individual does not know morphine sulfate and heroin are the same thing? As Attorney general, Sessions knows the real story on state and UNITED STATES jurisdiction? I think if there was something the UNITED STATES could do about the states rights in this matter it would have been done. Look at when this movement of states rights all came about. It came about after information could be disseminated and individuals figured out states could do this with out the UNITED STATES being able to stop the states rights. Chances are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA population have been dumbed down about what national and state laws really say.
Drugs / Substances listed in DEA Schedule I include: •Heroin (diacetylmorphine) •LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide) •Marijuana (cannabis, THC) •Mescaline (Peyote) •MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or “ecstasy”) •GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyric acid) •Ecstasy (MDMA or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine) •Psilocybin •Methaqualone (Quaalude) •Khat (Cathinone) •Bath Salts (3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone or MDPV)
State law is subservient to federal law, just as local law is subservient to state law.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Dec 6, 2016 13:14:07 GMT -5
Quote from above: It is not that FDA is against the active agents in cannabis, it is that they haven't been formulated and proven to be consistently effective. Some company will take the next step and do the testing, and that company will get an approved NDA indicated for all sorts of diseases. Either we operate with a properly regulated pharmaceuticals market, or we need to go back to the days before the FDA was created and let anybody sell what they want (that didn't work so well). You can't have it both ways.
Reply: Catch 22. The quoted individual is saying all the correct words. Too bad the individual does not know the laws the way they are written prevent this. "NIDA has a congressional mandate to study substances of abuse AS SUBSTANCES OF ABUSE. We are the national institute ON DRUG ABUSE NOT for Drug abuse. So we can not give you marijuana to see if it has a medicinal benefit."
23 minutes into the video.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ukz7YfStkI
Quote: Cannabis is, and remains, a Schedule I drug which means that 99% of physicians writing scripts for "medical marijuana" are breaking federal law and could find themselves without a license to prescribe drugs (most drug licenses are for Schedules II and higher, but not Schedule I).
Reply: The quoted individual does not know physicians are licensed by state law? healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/02/18/doctors-without-state-borders-practicing-across-state-lines/ The quoted individual does not know morphine sulfate and heroin are the same thing? As Attorney general, Sessions knows the real story on state and UNITED STATES jurisdiction? I think if there was something the UNITED STATES could do about the states rights in this matter it would have been done. Look at when this movement of states rights all came about. It came about after information could be disseminated and individuals figured out states could do this with out the UNITED STATES being able to stop the states rights. Chances are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA population have been dumbed down about what national and state laws really say.
Drugs / Substances listed in DEA Schedule I include: •Heroin (diacetylmorphine) •LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide) •Marijuana (cannabis, THC) •Mescaline (Peyote) •MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or “ecstasy”) •GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyric acid) •Ecstasy (MDMA or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine) •Psilocybin •Methaqualone (Quaalude) •Khat (Cathinone) •Bath Salts (3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone or MDPV)
State law is subservient to federal law, just as local law is subservient to state law. Are you sure? Are you schooled in the law? Have you studied all the changes that occurred after the bankruptcy in the 30's? I just wonder if the population has been so dumbed down, that we do not actually understand the power structures of The UNITED STATES vs the states. As far as I can understand, THE UNITED STATES is actually the district of Columbia. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 is an Act of Congress that repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and established a new territorial government for the whole District of Columbia.
District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871
Do you have further insite?
Text of the Tenth Amendment The text of the Tenth Amendment is very short and says the following: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Tenth Amendment is very similar to an earlier part of the Articles of Confederation. These articles said that every state would keep their freedom, independence, jurisdiction, rights, and sovereignty.
There is a reason the federal government has not stopped the states and cannabis. What is it?
I hope I am not making this up. It may have something to do with this? www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsHtUWpa5wk
|
|
|
Post by esstan2001 on Dec 6, 2016 15:19:23 GMT -5
Driven by need for speed and limited resources. This is why EpiHale is not at the front of the queue. Sorry. Meant to say "this is why EpiHale is at the front of the queue. Is there a way to edit one's own posts on this board? you can edit for the first hour? (I think) after you post. There will be an edit post button in the upper right corner only for you.
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Dec 6, 2016 16:41:46 GMT -5
State law is subservient to federal law, just as local law is subservient to state law. Are you sure? Are you schooled in the law? Have you studied all the changes that occurred after the bankruptcy in the 30's? I just wonder if the population has been so dumbed down, that we do not actually understand the power structures of The UNITED STATES vs the states. As far as I can understand, THE UNITED STATES is actually the district of Columbia. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 is an Act of Congress that repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and established a new territorial government for the whole District of Columbia.
District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871
Do you have further insite?
Text of the Tenth Amendment The text of the Tenth Amendment is very short and says the following: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Tenth Amendment is very similar to an earlier part of the Articles of Confederation. These articles said that every state would keep their freedom, independence, jurisdiction, rights, and sovereignty.
There is a reason the federal government has not stopped the states and cannabis. What is it?
I hope I am not making this up. It may have something to do with this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsHtUWpa5wk
Peppy, it is correct (as audiomr said) that where state law and federal law conflict, then federal law controls. It's called the supremacy clause. As for the notion that the "United States is actually the District of Columbia" - i'm sure you aren't intentionally making it up, but maybe you're misinterpreting something you read. The federal government has chosen not to prosecute people who are in compliance with state law regarding medical and recreational cannabis but who are in violation of federal law. The current administration had a major role in the decision not to allocate resources prosecuting such citizens. With the new administration, that may change and that's why some people are concerned about the choice of Sessions as Attorney General, as his views on cannabis are outdated to put it politely.
|
|
|
Post by brotherm1 on Dec 6, 2016 16:56:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Dec 6, 2016 17:04:55 GMT -5
Your logic as to why the feds SHOULDN'T step in makes complete sense, but good sense has not driven federal cannabis policy. It's a no brainer for the fed to leave the states alone on this, and furthermore to enact similar changes to the federal code. In addition to your fiscal points, imagine how much money in the budget would be freed up by not incarcerating petty weed "criminals". However, read what Jeff Sessions has said about cannabis and you'll see the words of a guy who is pretty clueless about it, for him it's a mission to end cannabis use and our well reasoned logic is not persuasive to him.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Dec 6, 2016 17:11:22 GMT -5
Are you sure? Are you schooled in the law? Have you studied all the changes that occurred after the bankruptcy in the 30's? I just wonder if the population has been so dumbed down, that we do not actually understand the power structures of The UNITED STATES vs the states. As far as I can understand, THE UNITED STATES is actually the district of Columbia. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 is an Act of Congress that repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and established a new territorial government for the whole District of Columbia.
District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871
Do you have further insite?
Text of the Tenth Amendment The text of the Tenth Amendment is very short and says the following: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Tenth Amendment is very similar to an earlier part of the Articles of Confederation. These articles said that every state would keep their freedom, independence, jurisdiction, rights, and sovereignty.
There is a reason the federal government has not stopped the states and cannabis. What is it?
I hope I am not making this up. It may have something to do with this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsHtUWpa5wk
Peppy, it is correct (as audiomr said) that where state law and federal law conflict, then federal law controls. It's called the supremacy clause. As for the notion that the "United States is actually the District of Columbia" - i'm sure you aren't intentionally making it up, but maybe you're misinterpreting something you read. The federal government has chosen not to prosecute people who are in compliance with state law regarding medical and recreational cannabis but who are in violation of federal law. The current administration had a major role in the decision not to allocate resources prosecuting such citizens. With the new administration, that may change and that's why some people are concerned about the choice of Sessions as Attorney General, as his views on cannabis are outdated to put it politely. It is very confusing. ( I was schooled here in the USA. I have a 4 year college degree. (Not Law) I thought I understood. Consider our teachers did not know, we have been dumbed down.)
Therefore, the "United States of America" now refer to
the 50 States of the Union, and the term "United States"
refers to the federal government.
The term "United States" is the term that is used consistently now
throughout Title 28 to refer to the federal government domiciled
in D.C. There is only ONE PLACE in all of Title 28 where the
term "United States of America" is used, and there it is used
in correct contradistinction to "United States":
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html
I do not recall learning in history class that the united states of American filed for bankruptcy in 1933 www.usa-the-republic.com/emergency%20powers/United%20States%20Bankrupt.html that's when things changed. My high school teacher didn't tell me.
|
|
|
Post by audiomr on Dec 7, 2016 15:07:31 GMT -5
Are you sure? Are you schooled in the law? Have you studied all the changes that occurred after the bankruptcy in the 30's? I just wonder if the population has been so dumbed down, that we do not actually understand the power structures of The UNITED STATES vs the states. As far as I can understand, THE UNITED STATES is actually the district of Columbia. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 is an Act of Congress that repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington and Georgetown and established a new territorial government for the whole District of Columbia.
District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Organic_Act_of_1871
Do you have further insite?
Text of the Tenth Amendment The text of the Tenth Amendment is very short and says the following: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Tenth Amendment is very similar to an earlier part of the Articles of Confederation. These articles said that every state would keep their freedom, independence, jurisdiction, rights, and sovereignty.
There is a reason the federal government has not stopped the states and cannabis. What is it?
I hope I am not making this up. It may have something to do with this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsHtUWpa5wk
Peppy, it is correct (as audiomr said) that where state law and federal law conflict, then federal law controls. It's called the supremacy clause. As for the notion that the "United States is actually the District of Columbia" - i'm sure you aren't intentionally making it up, but maybe you're misinterpreting something you read. The federal government has chosen not to prosecute people who are in compliance with state law regarding medical and recreational cannabis but who are in violation of federal law. The current administration had a major role in the decision not to allocate resources prosecuting such citizens. With the new administration, that may change and that's why some people are concerned about the choice of Sessions as Attorney General, as his views on cannabis are outdated to put it politely. Right. Although I believe the situation is somewhat different for medicinal marijuana versus recreational, in that Congress created an exemption for medicinal marijuana in states that legalized it. Not the same situation for recreational, where it's been a matter of enforcement discretion, which could immediately be revoked by the incoming administration.
|
|
|
Post by audiomr on Dec 7, 2016 15:08:42 GMT -5
You're assuming a level of rationality that probably isn't in play.
|
|
|
Post by audiomr on Dec 7, 2016 15:30:45 GMT -5
Peppy, it is correct (as audiomr said) that where state law and federal law conflict, then federal law controls. It's called the supremacy clause. As for the notion that the "United States is actually the District of Columbia" - i'm sure you aren't intentionally making it up, but maybe you're misinterpreting something you read. The federal government has chosen not to prosecute people who are in compliance with state law regarding medical and recreational cannabis but who are in violation of federal law. The current administration had a major role in the decision not to allocate resources prosecuting such citizens. With the new administration, that may change and that's why some people are concerned about the choice of Sessions as Attorney General, as his views on cannabis are outdated to put it politely. It is very confusing. ( I was schooled here in the USA. I have a 4 year college degree. (Not Law) I thought I understood. Consider our teachers did not know, we have been dumbed down.)
Therefore, the "United States of America" now refer to
the 50 States of the Union, and the term "United States"
refers to the federal government.
The term "United States" is the term that is used consistently now
throughout Title 28 to refer to the federal government domiciled
in D.C. There is only ONE PLACE in all of Title 28 where the
term "United States of America" is used, and there it is used
in correct contradistinction to "United States":
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html
I do not recall learning in history class that the united states of American filed for bankruptcy in 1933 www.usa-the-republic.com/emergency%20powers/United%20States%20Bankrupt.html that's when things changed. My high school teacher didn't tell me.
"United States" is merely shorthand for "United States of America." They mean the same thing. The first link you provided just details the form in which declarations are to be sworn when made outside the country ("without") versus inside the country ("within"). In other words, if you were in Canada making a sworn statement intended for a U.S. jurisdiction, you would use the first form, to indicate that any perjury would be adjudicated under U.S. law. If you were actually in the U.S. when making it, the extra verbiage is unnecessary since U.S. law would automatically apply. The second link is to what appears to be a crackpot document, of which there is no shortage on the Web. Your high-school teacher didn't tell you that the U.S. filed for bankruptcy (filed to whom, one might ask) because it didn't happen. The District of Columbia is a special district that does not reside in any state, and Congress exerts more direct control of it than it does of any other part of the United States. That does not mean that federal control does not extend beyond the Potomac, however!
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Dec 7, 2016 15:44:12 GMT -5
When I tried to understand this at some level, what the video said, The UNITED STATES in capital letters is a corporation. The USA incorporated after the first bankruptcy in 1933. This is a legal nomenclature. The video also said the UNITED STATES became or is the district of Columbia. Trying to learn from this and trying to see it through..... Frankly way to difficult for my poor understanding. I was trying to search for the legal reason the States thought they could grow and sell Marijuana. It seems only the government is legally able to grow marijuana in/at Mississippi, university of Mississippi.
I know we all think we know how it works. we were born here, schooled here. The law though, the law is different. Making things more difficult after the bankruptcy admiralty, law became involved was the story told, and England at some level. Consider, just consider, we have ALL have been dumbed down. Marijuana for sale in states under BUSH not touched. Just sayin. I do not know. I think there may be a chance that we were schooled incorrectly.' Baba, and legals, help... I am drowning.
(Interesting that the USA became a military industrial complex and England are closest alliance.)
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Dec 7, 2016 18:10:06 GMT -5
When I tried to understand this at some level, what the video said, The UNITED STATES in capital letters is a corporation. The USA incorporated after the first bankruptcy in 1933. This is a legal nomenclature. The video also said the UNITED STATES became or is the district of Columbia. Trying to learn from this and trying to see it through..... Frankly way to difficult for my poor understanding. I was trying to search for the legal reason the States thought they could grow and sell Marijuana. It seems only the government is legally able to grow marijuana in/at Mississippi, university of Mississippi.
I know we all think we know how it works. we were born here, schooled here. The law though, the law is different. Making things more difficult after the bankruptcy admiralty, law became involved was the story told, and England at some level. Consider, just consider, we have ALL have been dumbed down. Marijuana for sale in states under BUSH not touched. Just sayin. I do not know. I think there may be a chance that we were schooled incorrectly.' Baba, and legals, help... I am drowning.
(Interesting that the USA became a military industrial complex and England are closest alliance.)
With all due respect, your post above has numerous inaccuracies, but it's unclear what problem you're even trying to solve. If you simply want to know the "legal reason States thought they could grow and sell marijuana" then you probably don't need to watch those youtube videos or bogus websites. There's no single legal reason like a statute or a case to reference. The states believe it is a matter of state law, but it doesn't mean the fed will agree. There are many issues in which gray areas exist relating to the Supremacy Clause and federal preemption. Law students and professors argue about these things, and lawyers earn fees litigating them, so don't feel bad that it's confusing to you. It's confusing to all of us, and not just with pot laws - state vs federal law can come into play with many issues, including criminal, immigration, health care, same sex marriage, abortion...
|
|
|
Post by falconquest on Dec 7, 2016 19:05:27 GMT -5
And all this time I thought we were just trying to sell a product that helps diabetics. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Dec 7, 2016 19:46:00 GMT -5
When I tried to understand this at some level, what the video said, The UNITED STATES in capital letters is a corporation. The USA incorporated after the first bankruptcy in 1933. This is a legal nomenclature. The video also said the UNITED STATES became or is the district of Columbia. Trying to learn from this and trying to see it through..... Frankly way to difficult for my poor understanding. I was trying to search for the legal reason the States thought they could grow and sell Marijuana. It seems only the government is legally able to grow marijuana in/at Mississippi, university of Mississippi.
I know we all think we know how it works. we were born here, schooled here. The law though, the law is different. Making things more difficult after the bankruptcy admiralty, law became involved was the story told, and England at some level. Consider, just consider, we have ALL have been dumbed down. Marijuana for sale in states under BUSH not touched. Just sayin. I do not know. I think there may be a chance that we were schooled incorrectly.' Baba, and legals, help... I am drowning.
(Interesting that the USA became a military industrial complex and England are closest alliance.)
With all due respect, your post above has numerous inaccuracies, but it's unclear what problem you're even trying to solve. If you simply want to know the "legal reason States thought they could grow and sell marijuana" then you probably don't need to watch those youtube videos or bogus websites. There's no single legal reason like a statute or a case to reference. The states believe it is a matter of state law, but it doesn't mean the fed will agree. There are many issues in which gray areas exist relating to the Supremacy Clause and federal preemption. Law students and professors argue about these things, and lawyers earn fees litigating them, so don't feel bad that it's confusing to you. It's confusing to all of us, and not just with pot laws - state vs federal law can come into play with many issues, including criminal, immigration, health care, same sex marriage, abortion... Thank you Cretin. You are helping me. Can we put our finger on the reason states believe it is a matter of state law? I know you said there is no single legal reason or case to reference. Why did States believe it is a matter of State law?
I am aware audiomr said, "Right. Although I believe the situation is somewhat different for medicinal marijuana versus recreational, in that Congress created an exemption for medicinal marijuana in states that legalized it. Not the same situation for recreational, where it's been a matter of enforcement discretion, which could immediately be revoked by the incoming administration."
|
|