Reply With Quote
lol boutons defending the ability of the US Treasury to punish banks who do business with (legal at the state level) pot dispensaries.
true colors.
boutons the drug warrior.
Heck restricts the govt ability to police/prosecute banks, IN LOCKSTEP with Repug/tea bagger/VRWC strategy to emasculate govt.
lol boutons defending the ability of the US Treasury to punish banks who do business with (legal at the state level) pot dispensaries.
true colors.
what?lol boutons defending the ability of the US Treasury to punish banks who do business with (legal at the state level) pot dispensaries.
true colors.
don't you read your own posts? don't forget, others can...Heck restricts the govt ability to police/prosecute banks
prosecuting banks for doing business with legal (at the state level) pot dispensaries? topicality, o?
RIF, "Heck restricts the govt ability to police/prosecute banks", RIF.
My point is that the Repugs voted FOR Heck because it RESTRICTS (SELECTIVELY) LAW ENFORCEMENT by the DEM EXEC from interfering with the Repugs' owners and their profits.
drug warrior when it suits you, like i said
You Lie
Link where I'm FOR the drug war.
Repugs voting for HECK aren't AGAINST the drug war, they get $Ms from BigAlcohol and BigPharma and BigPolice and BigPIC to be FOR the drug war. The Repugs are FOR their benefactors the BigBanks.
you criticize Republicans for allowing banks to do business with pot dispensaries. do you prefer the status quo ante?
two separate issues, my confused little .
Repugs don't GAF about mj, or your status quo ante. They only care about, in HECK, blocking the Exec's law enforcement, and enriching/protecting their banking benefactors.
you're the one who's cracked my friend: you pretend to be on both sides of the fence.
absolutely not. I'm talking about the Repugs, not myself
tens of thousands could have their sentences shortened retroactively:
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/21/drug...ransformation/Amid all the far-flung examples given about the Obama administration’s hatred for the rule of law and the “imperial presidency,” there’s one issue that’s largely flown under the radar: Eric Holder and the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s attempts to reduce the prison sentences of non-violent drug criminals during the administration’s second term.
The Sentencing Commission, which recommends guidelines for federal crimes that judges look to when applying sentences, voted earlier this year to alter its formula for certain non-violent drug trafficking sentences — in effect lowering those sentences. Those guidelines go into place this November, barring congressional action to block them.
On Friday, the Sentencing Commission made an even more dramatic move: it voted, unanimously, to apply full retroactivity of the new guidelines to those sentenced before they go into effect. Once again, unless Congress gets in the way, some 46,000 prisoners — about a quarter of the federal prison population — will be able to pe ion judges to have their sentences reduced, perhaps by a matter of years.
I hope shortened means "release immediately", but I'm sure the for-profit PIC has 100s of lawyers lined up to challenge, string out every case.
NYT calls for legalization: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...f=opinion&_r=3
Hopefully the movement continues to gain steam. Tobacco and alcohol lobbyists, at least I assume, are the main opposition to legalization. The revenue + money saved from legalization are just too overwhelming for any reasonable opposition IMO.
there's no requirement that support of opposition to anything has to be reasonable, but yeah. it should be a no-brainer.
No doubt but you'd think without reasonable opposition, something will eventually come to fruition. I think in the next 5 years there will be nationwide legislation on legalization (not just decriminalization). I think bigpharma will even play a role in that since more research is being done on anti-cancer effects of THC.
Blumenauer is my representative, and I voted for him in the last election.
https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th...house-bill/689
https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th...house-bill/501
Legalize pot? Feds could at least loosen up on medical marijuana
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opini...728-story.html
Texas Sheriff's Association comes out against legalization...shocking
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/07/29/t...-of-marijuana/
marijuana is a business, a quota filler, for law enforcement.
huge oversight on my part when I labeled tobacco and alcohol lobbyists as the main opposition. Neglected to think about law enforcement and their sizable drug enforcement budgets.
Prison Industrial Complex, prison staff unions, also have interest in max prisoners.
Some for-profit prisons are built under contract stipulaitng that the govt will keep the prisons at some %age occupancy, or pay a penalty to the prison corporation.
Filling the prisons up with poor, young blacks, browns, and mandatory heavy sentences, etc. make USA a ing wonderful civilization (if your pocketing the tax payer $Ms).
There was a juvenile judge in PA who got a kickback for every kid he sent to jail, pretty much destroying the kids' job and life opportunities.
See How Easy It Would Be for the Obama Administration to Reschedule Marijuana
Marijuana is currently listed as a Schedule I drug, classifying it as a having no acceptable medical value, which creates a lot of legal issues for those needing medical marijuana. It was put in that schedule decades ago by Congress, but the Obama administration has the power to move it to a more appropriate classification at any time.
The recent executive decision to move Hydrocodone Combination from Schedule III to II shows how it works, this same basic process could be used to move marijuana from Schedule I to II, III or IV.
From the DEA press release:The executive branch doesn’t just theoretically have the power to reschedule any drug without Congress, it is actually expected to use this power as needed based on the latest research. As we see here, drugs get moved to a lower or higher schedule all the time by the executive branch.
When Congress passed the CSA in 1970, it placed HCPs in Schedule III even though it had placed hydrocodone itself in Schedule II. The current analysis of HCPs by HHS and the DEA shows they have a high potential for abuse, and abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. Adding nonnarcotic substances like acetaminophen to hydrocodone does not diminish its abuse potential. The many findings by the DEA and HHS and the data that support these findings are presented in detail in the Final Rule on the website. Data and surveys from multiple federal and non-federal agencies show the extent of abuse of HCPs.
For example, Monitoring the Future surveys of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders from 2002 to 2011 found that twice as many high school seniors used Vicodin®, an HCP, nonmedically as used OxyContin®, a Schedule II substance, which is more tightly controlled.
In general, substances placed under the control of the CSA since it was passed by Congress in 1970 are scheduled or rescheduled by the DEA, as required by the CSA and its implementing regulations, found in le 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Scheduling or rescheduling of a substance can be initiated by the DEA, by the HHS Assistant Secretary of Health, or on the pe ion of any interested party.
Since there is plenty of research showing marijuana has potential medical uses, it is basically a dereliction of duty for Attorney General Eric Holder to not reschedule marijuana, but instead of doing his job when it comes to marijuana rescheduling the administration has mostly fought and dragged its heels at every turn. Holder’s refusal to do so is a decision, which he effectively admitted; it’s not about legal constraints or science but about politics.
http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/20...ule-marijuana/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-25-2014 at 07:41 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions