Democrats call for ‘pathway’ to marijuana legalization

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Democratic Party endorsed a "reasoned pathway to future legalization" of marijuana and called for the drug to be downgraded in the Controlled Substances Act, in a tense and unexpected victory for supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Going into the platform committee meeting, Sanders's campaign had no new language about marijuana. The senator from Vermont had favored state-to-state legalization efforts, and the language approved by the drafting committee called for "policies that will allow more research on marijuana, as well as reforming our laws to allow legal marijuana businesses to exist without uncertainty."

But on Saturday afternoon, the committee brought up an amendment that would have removed marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act. David King, a lawyer and Sanders delegate from Tennessee, argued that marijuana was added to the act — giving the drug the same legal classification as heroin — during a "craze" to hurt "hippies and blacks." The amendment, however, was headed for defeat, with some committee members worrying that it went too far and undermined state-by-state efforts to study decriminalization.

Arguments stopped when committee members proposed swapping in the language of a rival amendment — one that merely downgraded marijuana from Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substance Act and included the undefined "pathway" to legal status.

When the vote was called, 81 of the 187 committee members backed the downgrade amendment — and just 80 opposed it. A roar of applause went up from the seats where people not on the committee were watching the votes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/09/democrats-call-for-pathway-to-marijuana-legalization/#comments

Think the GOP is going to do anything? Outside of the rare evangelical quoting Genesis who never get their way I never see anything from them.

[Th'Pusher]

Eight years ago this would have been a massive wedge issue republicans could have used to bludgeon the democrats. Today, not so much.

[boutons_deux]

We all know party platforms are bullshit, like TX Repugs' state platform to secede.

I have no doubt that if a de-schedule/legalization bill was put to a vote, Repugs would block it (the PIC pays Repugs to keep the knitters, browns filling jails and prisons).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We all know party platforms are bullshit, like TX Repugs' platform to secede.

I have no doubt that if a de-schedule/legalization bill was put to a vote, Repugs would block it (the PIC pays Repugs to keep the knitters, browns filling jails and prisons).

It influences what they try to do collectively in legislative session. It's a tool for leadership if they choose to use it.

The Texas GOP doesn't have secession in it's platform.

[boutons_deux]

It influences what they try to do collectively in legislative session. It's a tool for leadership if they choose to use it.

The Texas GOP doesn't have secession in it's platform.

Nope, but its self-ridiculing that Repugs would even discuss something totally unConstitutional, but Texas has already seceded once.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nope, but its self-ridiculing that Repugs would even discuss something totally unConstitutional, but Texas has already seceded once.

Given that it's not on their platform wgaf? Have anything substantive to add or just more mindless partisan nonsense?

[ducks]

So they think if they to make the drug legal they can by the people votes that have no brains left after taking the drugs?

[Wild Cobra]

So they think if they to make the drug legal they can by the people votes that have no brains left after taking the drugs?

LOL...

It isn't going to increase the number of stoners significantly.

[boutons_deux]

LOL...

It isn't going to increase the number of stoners significantly.

It didn't in Holland. The people who really want mj are getting it now.

[boutons_deux]

One striking chart shows why pharma companies are fighting legal marijuana

There's a body of research (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/14/how-medical-marijuana-could-literally-save-lives/) showing that painkiller abuse and overdose are lower in states with medical marijuana laws. These studies have generally assumed that when medical marijuana is available, pain patients are increasingly choosing pot over powerful and deadly prescription narcotics. But that's always been just an assumption.

Now a new study, released in the journal Health Affairs (http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/35/7/1230), validates these findings by providing clear evidence of a missing link in the causal chain running from medical marijuana to falling overdoses. Ashley and W. David Bradford, a daughter-father pair of researchers at the University of Georgia, scoured the database of all prescription drugs paid for under Medicare Part D from 2010 to 2013.

They found that, in the 17 states with a medical-marijuana law in place by 2013, prescriptions for painkillers and other classes of drugs fell sharply compared with states that did not have a medical-marijuana law. The drops were quite significant: In medical-marijuana states, the average doctor prescribed 265 fewer doses of antidepressants each year, 486 fewer doses of seizure medication, 541 fewer anti-nausea doses and 562 fewer doses of anti-anxiety medication.

But most strikingly, the typical physician in a medical-marijuana state prescribed 1,826 fewer doses of painkillers in a given year.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/07/pot_prescriptions4.png&w=1484

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/one-striking-chart-shows-why-pharma-companies-are-fighting-legal-marijuana/

As always, the BigCorp oligarchy owns enough legislators to define public policy, laws, regulations to enrich/protect itself, while 1000s die from the expensive, abused products.

[Pelicans78]

Another thing is physicians usually won't prescribe narcotics or other scheduled medications to patients who test positive for marijuana.

[Clipper Nation]

I'm all for legalized marijuana, but leftists are going to be disappointed when it doesn't make a dent in the prison population.

[baseline bum]

That's horrible that the only legal way to get high in most states involves the harshest of drugs. If weed can drive down demand for opiates I'd be all for 100% legalization. For those who smoke (I haven't in 10 years or so), does vaporization stop the formation of tar to eliminate or at least lessen the chances of developing lung cancer?

[Pelicans78]

That's horrible that the only legal way to get high in most states involves the harshest of drugs. If weed can drive down demand for opiates I'd be all for 100% legalization. For those who smoke (I haven't in 10 years or so), does vaporization stop the formation of tar to eliminate or at least lessen the chances of developing lung cancer?

Enough studies haven't been done yet to determine if vapor is a safer option. There's no evidence right now if it is safe. Evidence shows that e-cig users tend to have more nicotine in their system compared to regular smokers and that there's no evidence of e-cigs helping to reduce cigarette smoking long-term.

[Wild Cobra]

It didn't in Holland. The people who really want mj are getting it now.

Exactly.

[Fabbs]

That's horrible that the only legal way to get high in most states involves the harshest of drugs. If weed can drive down demand for opiates I'd be all for 100% legalization. For those who smoke (I haven't in 10 years or so), does vaporization stop the formation of tar to eliminate or at least lessen the chances of developing lung cancer?
Brownies.

[Wild Cobra]

That's horrible that the only legal way to get high in most states involves the harshest of drugs. If weed can drive down demand for opiates I'd be all for 100% legalization. For those who smoke (I haven't in 10 years or so), does vaporization stop the formation of tar to eliminate or at least lessen the chances of developing lung cancer?

A vaporizer won't stop tars from getting into your lungs. They get hot enough to vaporize the nicotine, or THC, and any associated oily material without burning the plant material it is contained in. You don't have all that harmful sooty burnt material entering your lungs. The vaporized material is them almost fully passed through your lungs membrane.

A much healthier method, though still not 100% healthy.

Probably less harmful that a woman's perfume.

[Harry Callahan]

Nope, but its self-ridiculing that Repugs would even discuss something totally unConstitutional, but Texas has already seceded once.

So. You admit YOU LIE!!!!

You're evolving Boo.

[boutons_deux]

does vaporization stop the formation of tar to eliminate or at least lessen the chances of developing lung cancer

vaporized nicotine doesn't contain the oncogenic tars, but is accompanined by plenty of synthetic chemicals (as with 90%+ of chemicals, almost none have been tested), straight into the bloodstream, that "some reports" say are pathogenic. Pick your poison

[boutons_deux]

Another thing is physicians usually won't prescribe narcotics or other scheduled medications to patients who test positive for marijuana.

Do docs test patients for mj? (but they can't ask patients if they have a gun in the house)

[Pelicans78]

Do docs test patients for mj? (but they can't ask patients if they have a gun in the house)

Absolutely they do routine drug testing in pain management clinics to avoid prescribing chronic pain medicine/scheduled medications to potential drug abusers. Also primary care physicians are recommended to avoid prescribing scheduled medications like Xanax and Adderall to potential abusers so some physicians have in-house drug testing machines which are very cheap to order. Standard of care says scheduled medications should not be chronically prescribed to patient with past or current drug problems.

[Wild Cobra]

vaporized nicotine doesn't contain the oncogenic tars, but is accompanined by plenty of synthetic chemicals (as with 90%+ of chemicals, almost none have been tested), straight into the bloodstream, that "some reports" say are pathogenic. Pick your poison

Before I stopped smoking cigarettes, I went to ones that were all natural. No processing chemicals.

They are out there you know.

Winston

American Spirit.

Others too, but I don't know off the top of my head.

[Pelicans78]

Before I stopped smoking cigarettes, I went to ones that were all natural. No processing chemicals.

They are out there you know.

Winston

American Spirit.

Others too, but I don't know off the top of my head.

But still, there's no guarantee that E-cigs are any safer long-term than regular cigs. Sure, its marketed that way, but not enough research has been done.

[Wild Cobra]

But still, there's no guarantee that E-cigs are any safer long-term than regular cigs. Sure, its marketed that way, but not enough research has been done.

Common sense says they are safer, because they do not put the burnt carbonaceous material in your lungs.

Can you provide evidence they are not less safe?

[boutons_deux]

Before I stopped smoking cigarettes, I went to ones that were all natural. No processing chemicals.

They are out there you know.

Winston

American Spirit.

Others too, but I don't know off the top of my head.

added chemicals in processing? there's plenty of nasty chemicals in "natural" burning leaves and (bleached) paper wrapping them.

"natural" cigarettes are "healthier"! :lol

[Pelicans78]

Common sense says they are safer, because they do not put the burnt carbonaceous material in your lungs.

Can you provide evidence they are not less safe?

Of course not, but there's still not enough evidence to say it's definitely safer than regular cigs. But studies show people have more nicotine in their system and it doesn't show to reduce regular cigarette smoking. Even though they don't put the same tar, they put other chemicals instead.

[ElNono]

But still, there's no guarantee that E-cigs are any safer long-term than regular cigs. Sure, its marketed that way, but not enough research has been done.

I won't argue about this because you're right about the long-term effect being unknown, and you can take this strictly as a personal experience, but after switching from analog to e-cigs about 5 years ago, the difference is night and day at least as far as tar is concerned. Tar accumulation between gum and teeth when smoking regular cigarettes is huge and causes gum disease on almost everybody that smokes. There's no traces of tar at all with e-cigs.

That doesn't imply they don't fuck you up some other way, but at least as far as tar is concerned, they appear to be, at least, a substantial upgrade health-wise.

[boutons_deux]

no need to argue or guess

search "e-cig research", plenty of studies have been done.

[Pelicans78]

no need to argue or guess

search "e-cig research", plenty of studies have been done.

Not enough to definitely declare that they're safer or worse than regular cigs.

[Wild Cobra]

Of course not, but there's still not enough evidence to say it's definitely safer than regular cigs. But studies show people have more nicotine in their system and it doesn't show to reduce regular cigarette smoking. Even though they don't put the same tar, they put other chemicals instead.

Anyone who thinks its an aid to stop smoking is nuts.

[boutons_deux]

Not enough to definitely declare that they're safer or worse than regular cigs.

how about just the concept of sucking maybe 10s of untested, hot, synthetic chemicals into your lungs and directly into bloodstream? Any caution recommended?

[Pelicans78]

how about just the concept of sucking maybe 10s of untested, hot, synthetic chemicals into your lungs and directly into bloodstream? Any caution recommended?

It's not recommended at this time as a substitute for regular cigs.

[Harry Callahan]

I'm glad I never started smoking legal or illegal substances.

Watching my dad's health go down the tubes with messed up lungs and eventually cancer was enough evidence the legal smoking is bad.

I've heard theories both ways regarding the MJ smoking and its relative harm to users.

The E-cigs are another consideration/option. They are less obnoxious for people walking in the same area, but I have no idea if they are "Safer" for the user.

[spurraider21]

Smoking cigarettes and even e-cigs is just plain retarded. Health aside, you just don't gain enough from it. At least there's a desirable effect with weed.

I don't smoke but it should be legal. I'm also looking forward to legalization so I can stop hearing people talk about legalization