6 ms·

I would have bet money Obama would have moved it to Schedule III before leaving office.

bluejekyll 9y ago
I suppose he knew it would just be reverted by the next president? It is disappointing. Are any cases on their way to the Supreme Court yet?
- smt88 9y ago
  The Supreme Court does not decide the legality of individual drugs.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    And to be sure, neither does the president. The entire scheduling regime is under the DEA's power. http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489509471/dea-rejects-attempt-to-loosen-federal-restrictions-on-marijuana http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489509471/dea-rejects-attempt-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...
    - bluejekyll 9y ago
      Isn't the DEA under the authority of the Executive branch, i.e. the President?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - rhizome 9y ago
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/26/can-eric-holder-change-the-federal-drug-classification-of-marijuana/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/... explains the situation pretty well. Relevant commentary, I think: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali...
        bluejekyll 9y ago
        Wow, they're hamstrung: > HHS determined that marijuana has a “high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” leading the DEA to reject the petition in 2011. The petition was filed nearly a decade earlier, in 2002. So based on a request from 2002, they decided in 2011 not to act, which continues to restrict research, which makes it harder to get evidence to support a new petition... Sometimes you gotta just love government's ability to tie itself in knots.
        rhizome 9y ago
        It's worse than that: HHS has to tell the DEA "there is a medical use for this" for the DEA to reschedule something at their command. The trick? Schedule I prohibits federal funds from being used for research, so how is HHS ever going to be able to do the work to conclude there is a medical use for a Schedule I substance?
  - will_pseudonym 9y ago
    Gonzales v. Raich seems to me like exactly that. "Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
    - amalcon 9y ago
      (I am not a lawyer, etc) Gonzalez vs. Raich was not a ruling on the specific drug. It was a ruling on whether or not Congress (and, by extension, the executive) can apply the interstate commerce clause to the regulation of drugs, even if they don't cross state lines. It's also a pretty straightforward consequence of Wickard v. Filburn, which is basically the same thing for wheat in the 1940s.
  - bluejekyll 9y ago
    They decide law. The drug laws could be challenged, no?
    - smt88 9y ago
      No. SCOTUS cannot legislate. They could rule that all drug laws are illegal, but they couldn't change the schedule for marijuana. As far as I know, no US court would seriously consider a lawsuit that would invalidate drug regulation, so SCOTUS will never see such a case.
      - bluejekyll 9y ago
        Yes, I'm not actually debating that. But the issue that I think the Court will need to freshly weigh in on is the fact that state law and federal law are in direct oposition to each other in many states now. Now, of course the Supreme Court will come down and say federal government law supersedes state law, as the constitution specifies. I'm no lawyer, but I do think there would be a nuanced way to argue that the states should have the freedom to self-regulate, as long as they don't distribute across borders. I know there is case law that has already said that the Feds have jurisdiction even in this case, but it still could be argued.
- 0x00000000 9y ago
  Would the next president really have the motivation to revert it? Aside from pharma lobbying I don't see why they would. I also have a very skewed concept of how the American public as a whole views marijuana but I can't imagine it is overwhelmingly negative
  - mwfunk 9y ago
    Well, the current president's Attorney General believes marijuana is just barely less bad than heroin. Not an exaggeration, not putting words in his mouth. You're right that the American public in general is fine with it, but evangelicals (and social conservatives in general) have a much greater voice in our government than their numbers in the general population would merit.
    - bluejekyll 9y ago
      According to Gallup it wasn't until 2011 that more than 50% thought it should be legal: http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.as... That claims it's up to 60% now.
will_pseudonym 9y ago
I would have gladly taken that bet. He had 8 years to do so if he wanted to.
- kevmo 9y ago
  At the end of the day, he was just the same old establishment president. Didn't move the needle on mass incarceration, furthered crony capitalism.
  - metamet 9y ago
    Was he really though? In this presidential burger, he is a far cry from both Bush and Trump.
    - DanielBMarkham 9y ago
      My rule is this: give it 20 years. 40 is even better. We are just now getting able to look at the Nixon and Ford administrations. With any president, there are a ton of people who love them and a ton of people who hate them -- no matter what they were actually like. To be able to dispassionately talk about their strengths, weaknesses, and legacy requires some time. Most of those folks have to die off.
    - rdtsc 9y ago
      Perhaps. However looking at why people expected and hoped for and what they got from his presidency I can see how he gp's point stands. It kinda makes me sad the best we have to say about him after 8 years is well he is not Bush. I had really bought into the whole hope and change rhetoric. But maybe it was my fault for being so gullible...
      - lern_too_spel 9y ago
        He had one Congress that wasn't controlled by Tea Party fanatics. With that Congress, he was able to pass universal healthcare (a feat that eluded even Bill Clinton) and Dodd-Frank while simultaneously battling a financial crisis that would have gotten much worse otherwise. The things that armchair politicians think presidents should squander political capital on (remember, marijuana legalization still isn't popular in most of America) astound me. With the number of ACA repeal attempts he had to fight, that Obama finished his presidency with only a single government shutdown is a wonder in itself.
StevePerkins 9y ago
He waited until halfway through his lame duck term to "evolve" his views on marriage equality, only after critical mass has obviously been reached. You're shocked that he didn't also stick his neck out for marijuana legalization, which didn't consistently pass the 50% polling threshold until just last year? Every time a Republican wins the White House, people instantly put on rose-colored glasses regarding the previous Democrat in office (e.g. Bill Clinton was Jesus during the Bush administration, and it was two decades before people started criticizing his criminal justice record). No, Obama didn't embrace drug decriminalization. He was too busy bombing Syria and expanding the surveillance state. "Better than the current guy" does not mean a politician was on the right side of everything.
- muhfuhkuh 9y ago
  But it does mean "better than the current guy", though. So, he is better. Better than the man before (who started the wars in the ME, but in the countries who didn't plan and execute 9/11 oddly), and better than the man after (who pals around and holds globes together with the country where 80% of the 9/11 terrorists were born).
  - StevePerkins 9y ago
    Well "muhfukuh", I can't believe that Amy Adams didn't win the Golden Globes for "Arrival" this year. (I mean, if we're just latching on to a word or phrase in the previous post, to talk about things irrelevant to its point for cheap upvotes...)
    - jbooth 9y ago
      No, he actually went right after your implied (to me and muhfuhkah, at least) argument. Your argument is that we should aspire to merely "just better than the other guys", with the subtext that Democrats aren't really any better than Republicans. 'muhfuhkah' pointed out that it IS better. Which is worth pointing out in a two party system. We just watched a whole bunch of people make your same arguments, saying Obama wasn't perfect so whatever they're all the same, and as a result we elected a guy who's much worse in every possible way. Great job, everyone.

I suppose he knew it would just be reverted by the next president? It is disappointing. Are any cases on their way to the Supreme Court yet?

smt88 9y ago
The Supreme Court does not decide the legality of individual drugs.
- rhizome 9y ago
  And to be sure, neither does the president. The entire scheduling regime is under the DEA's power. http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489509471/dea-rejects-attempt-to-loosen-federal-restrictions-on-marijuana http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489509471/dea-rejects-attempt-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...
  - bluejekyll 9y ago
    Isn't the DEA under the authority of the Executive branch, i.e. the President?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - rhizome 9y ago
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/26/can-eric-holder-change-the-federal-drug-classification-of-marijuana/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/... explains the situation pretty well. Relevant commentary, I think: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali...
      - bluejekyll 9y ago
        Wow, they're hamstrung: > HHS determined that marijuana has a “high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” leading the DEA to reject the petition in 2011. The petition was filed nearly a decade earlier, in 2002. So based on a request from 2002, they decided in 2011 not to act, which continues to restrict research, which makes it harder to get evidence to support a new petition... Sometimes you gotta just love government's ability to tie itself in knots.
        rhizome 9y ago
        It's worse than that: HHS has to tell the DEA "there is a medical use for this" for the DEA to reschedule something at their command. The trick? Schedule I prohibits federal funds from being used for research, so how is HHS ever going to be able to do the work to conclude there is a medical use for a Schedule I substance?
- will_pseudonym 9y ago
  Gonzales v. Raich seems to me like exactly that. "Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
  - amalcon 9y ago
    (I am not a lawyer, etc) Gonzalez vs. Raich was not a ruling on the specific drug. It was a ruling on whether or not Congress (and, by extension, the executive) can apply the interstate commerce clause to the regulation of drugs, even if they don't cross state lines. It's also a pretty straightforward consequence of Wickard v. Filburn, which is basically the same thing for wheat in the 1940s.
- bluejekyll 9y ago
  They decide law. The drug laws could be challenged, no?
  - smt88 9y ago
    No. SCOTUS cannot legislate. They could rule that all drug laws are illegal, but they couldn't change the schedule for marijuana. As far as I know, no US court would seriously consider a lawsuit that would invalidate drug regulation, so SCOTUS will never see such a case.
    - bluejekyll 9y ago
      Yes, I'm not actually debating that. But the issue that I think the Court will need to freshly weigh in on is the fact that state law and federal law are in direct oposition to each other in many states now. Now, of course the Supreme Court will come down and say federal government law supersedes state law, as the constitution specifies. I'm no lawyer, but I do think there would be a nuanced way to argue that the states should have the freedom to self-regulate, as long as they don't distribute across borders. I know there is case law that has already said that the Feds have jurisdiction even in this case, but it still could be argued.
0x00000000 9y ago
Would the next president really have the motivation to revert it? Aside from pharma lobbying I don't see why they would. I also have a very skewed concept of how the American public as a whole views marijuana but I can't imagine it is overwhelmingly negative
- mwfunk 9y ago
  Well, the current president's Attorney General believes marijuana is just barely less bad than heroin. Not an exaggeration, not putting words in his mouth. You're right that the American public in general is fine with it, but evangelicals (and social conservatives in general) have a much greater voice in our government than their numbers in the general population would merit.
  - bluejekyll 9y ago
    According to Gallup it wasn't until 2011 that more than 50% thought it should be legal: http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.as... That claims it's up to 60% now.

will_pseudonym 9y ago

I would have gladly taken that bet. He had 8 years to do so if he wanted to.

kevmo 9y ago
At the end of the day, he was just the same old establishment president. Didn't move the needle on mass incarceration, furthered crony capitalism.
- metamet 9y ago
  Was he really though? In this presidential burger, he is a far cry from both Bush and Trump.
  - DanielBMarkham 9y ago
    My rule is this: give it 20 years. 40 is even better. We are just now getting able to look at the Nixon and Ford administrations. With any president, there are a ton of people who love them and a ton of people who hate them -- no matter what they were actually like. To be able to dispassionately talk about their strengths, weaknesses, and legacy requires some time. Most of those folks have to die off.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    Perhaps. However looking at why people expected and hoped for and what they got from his presidency I can see how he gp's point stands. It kinda makes me sad the best we have to say about him after 8 years is well he is not Bush. I had really bought into the whole hope and change rhetoric. But maybe it was my fault for being so gullible...
    - lern_too_spel 9y ago
      He had one Congress that wasn't controlled by Tea Party fanatics. With that Congress, he was able to pass universal healthcare (a feat that eluded even Bill Clinton) and Dodd-Frank while simultaneously battling a financial crisis that would have gotten much worse otherwise. The things that armchair politicians think presidents should squander political capital on (remember, marijuana legalization still isn't popular in most of America) astound me. With the number of ACA repeal attempts he had to fight, that Obama finished his presidency with only a single government shutdown is a wonder in itself.

StevePerkins 9y ago

He waited until halfway through his lame duck term to "evolve" his views on marriage equality, only after critical mass has obviously been reached. You're shocked that he didn't also stick his neck out for marijuana legalization, which didn't consistently pass the 50% polling threshold until just last year? Every time a Republican wins the White House, people instantly put on rose-colored glasses regarding the previous Democrat in office (e.g. Bill Clinton was Jesus during the Bush administration, and it was two decades before people started criticizing his criminal justice record). No, Obama didn't embrace drug decriminalization. He was too busy bombing Syria and expanding the surveillance state. "Better than the current guy" does not mean a politician was on the right side of everything.

muhfuhkuh 9y ago
But it does mean "better than the current guy", though. So, he is better. Better than the man before (who started the wars in the ME, but in the countries who didn't plan and execute 9/11 oddly), and better than the man after (who pals around and holds globes together with the country where 80% of the 9/11 terrorists were born).
- StevePerkins 9y ago
  Well "muhfukuh", I can't believe that Amy Adams didn't win the Golden Globes for "Arrival" this year. (I mean, if we're just latching on to a word or phrase in the previous post, to talk about things irrelevant to its point for cheap upvotes...)
  - jbooth 9y ago
    No, he actually went right after your implied (to me and muhfuhkah, at least) argument. Your argument is that we should aspire to merely "just better than the other guys", with the subtext that Democrats aren't really any better than Republicans. 'muhfuhkah' pointed out that it IS better. Which is worth pointing out in a two party system. We just watched a whole bunch of people make your same arguments, saying Obama wasn't perfect so whatever they're all the same, and as a result we elected a guy who's much worse in every possible way. Great job, everyone.