4 ms·
It's actually much too little far too late, we should not be praising any effort that falls short of full federal legalization.
by titfortat 4y ago
It's actually much too little far too late, we should not be praising any effort that falls short of full federal legalization.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 4y agoI disagree, I believe that we should reward, positively, the behaviors that we would like to see from the government, such as simple proclamations such as this. edit: tit for tat, as your username promotes
- vlan0 4y agoI agree, it's not what we'd like to see. But It does not have to be binary. We must celebrate all wins, no matter how small.
- tssva 4y agoThe President doesn't have the power to legalize marijuana by proclamation. He has ordered the DEA, FDA and HHS to review the classification of marijuana under the notice and comment rulemaking process defined in the Controlled Substances Act. That is the limit of what he can do under the CSA.
- infamouscow 4y agoThese agencies can say cannabis has medical benefits and reschedule it just as easily as they decided to make it schedule I.
- pvarangot 4y agoWeed is scheduled by Congress, the agencies can only add substances to the schedules temporarily for "public health reasons" and there's some weed derived stuff or analogues that have been added that way but marihuana in and of itself is illegal because congress passed a law saying it's illegal: the CSA, 21 U.S. Code § 812 (c) The CSA allows for schedules to be updated and republished annually but agencies can only recommend, the authority to remove something that's scheduled by Congress is only held by Congress.
- infamouscow 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act#Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...
- pvarangot 4y agoThat's wrong, the CSA allows for the executive to temporarily change schedules and only for a matter of safety. The spirit of that part of the law is actually adding more substances and not removing substances that are on the law.
- chatterhead 4y agoThis is not correct. Schedule 1 drugs require UN approval to downgrade; at least according to treaty. The US Congress can pass a law, but they can't undo a treaty they signed only in-part; else the UN has legal standing to contend their unilateral scheduling.
- infamouscow 4y agoTreaties are not permanent, they can be withdrawn or terminated. Also the UN isn't nearly as powerful as you seem to think it is. A substantial amount of the UN's power comes from the USA. Other UN members can pass laws to keep cannabis illegal. There's no reason for the UN to create friction for POTUS on this. But even if there is friction, ask yourself what exactly can the rest of the UN do to stop POTUS. Not many UN member states are in a position to simultaneously care about the UN cannabis treaties and pose sanction threats to the USA.
- chatterhead 4y agoThe UN can file a complaint and have an injunction imposed by the Supreme Court to stop the Executive Order/Law. Would love to see the front page of the NYTimes as the UN stops the Dem Prez from limiting drug schedules. That would be very eye opening for the liberal media and what all these climate change treaties are going to be like and hopefully will be an example as to WHY people fought the Kyoto Protocols.
- aschearer 4y agoDon't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In a time when one political party's leading candidates deny we hold fair elections this is huge. Would said political party do even this much? Unlikely.