NY Times asks for Obama and Congressional action on marijuana and its removal from Schedule One

a reply to: Aleister

I'll have to look up the articles. Haven't been here, cuz I had something happen before X-mas, and I mentally checked out for a while. BUT, I will be back more often. I always look for you, the last time I was on, you had posted the first article the NY Times put out, If memory serves me correctly. So be warned, I will be around.

a reply to: thepolish1

I happen to come across this in my feed.
Talks about Colorado and what has happened there since the loosened the tie a bit last year.
They are some pretty serious numbers to be considered now.


thespiritscience.net...

a reply to: buster2010

Truthfully? I want an American President who puts America, our Constitution, and our 320 million citizens Number 1 on ALL decisions made. If a treaty outlives its usefulness to those 3 components, I want a President who will negate that treaty and be willing to use any tool at his disposal as Commander in Cheif and as President to make sure the UN (or any other alliance or individual nation) understands and accepts America's answer.

a reply to: TenFourAnimation

I don't click on all links, can you please summarize what the numbers say? Thanks.

Not specifically about you, but so many posters nowadays just give a link and a short "Look at this" and think that the post is finished. Everyone should take into consideration that what they are doing in writing a post about a link is reporting, like a journalist, on the contents of that link, and if it's in print to include an excerpt. I've linked on too many links from little known sites and suddenly am in ad-ambush land, that's the main reason I limit my clicks.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

If the U.S. Senate passes a treaty I don't think a president can constitutionally just decide to negate it. They probably can ignore it to a point, which is what is occurring in the U.S. on the marijuana question, giving states the choice of how to proceed on it. I saw yesterday that if Marco Rubio is elected he'll close down the legal marijuana business, oh joy.

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: burdman30ott6

If the U.S. Senate passes a treaty I don't think a president can constitutionally just decide to negate it. They probably can ignore it to a point, which is what is occurring in the U.S. on the marijuana question, giving states the choice of how to proceed on it. I saw yesterday that if Marco Rubio is elected he'll close down the legal marijuana business, oh joy.

Of course. Rubio is getting donations from Prison corporation of america. In fact all those against legal MJ are prolly in their pocket. If Obama relly wanty a dem win he will Sign a EO stating no president will be able to outlaw MJ. lol. and according to precedent they NEVER dissolve a EO.

For some reason I do not trust the straight "legalize it" push i am seeing.
don't get me wrong I am a licensed medical mj patient in my state and an advocate for any sort of use a free individual seems apprpriate for themselves...

I am a brewer by trade and have ownership in my brewery. I personally collected all the licenses and do all correspondace with TTB, department of agriculture, IRS, FDA.... and probably more. alcohol is a VERY tightly controlled industry and they have many steps to make sure an average homebrewer cannot just brew up a batch and sell it...

It is my opinion that the only way mj will be legalize. is if they can completely control the I industry and put my small time growing friend out of business.

problem with that is sort of the difference between tomatoes from your friends garden or a farmer's market compared to getting tomatoes at wal Mart. thanks for the regulation but no thanks.
smoking tobacco was not all that bad I until Phillip Morris and others for a hold of it and started adding extra nicotine and other poisons to make it more addictive. just like tobacco. our food. and basically anything overly regulated, say goodbye to quality, purity, honesty regarding ingredients, and suporting local people.

I think I'd rather have my "caregiver" and the local compassion club over full legalizing any day.

This is cool and all, but organizations have been asking the US government to change the marijuana scheduling for a while now. Heck, awhile back, the American Academy of Pediatrics did the same thing.

Doctors Call On DEA To Reschedule Marijuana For Medical Research Purposes

Asking the government to do it isn't going to make them do it though...

a reply to: SteamyJeans

Would you say that the product your brewery puts out lacks quality, purity, honesty regarding ingredients because it is regulated?

Also, full legalization that includes growing your own, leaves quality in the hands of the individual.

a reply to: daskakik

no I would not say that about my brewery. I did not mean to imply that all regulation means lack of quality . BUT in the context of the brewery example, some of the best beer that I have had came from homebrewers that were small and underfunded and not capable of going through all the regulatory process to be able to "legally" sell their product...take a money to make a money sort of thing.

I would hope that legalization would include home growing but I guess I don't trust TPB to allow such free enterprise.

back to brewing analaogy homebrewing became legal relatively recently but many steps put in place to prevent profit being made.

also don't get me wrong I'm want decriminalization I do not want a person to have any legal repreocuasion due to the use of a plant.

imho something as pure and natural as cannabis Will only degrade the more money power and politics get involved. the "grassroots" form of supply and distribution going now works just fine . we don't need Monsanto getting involved. I fear full legalize would just be a Trojan horse of sorts to take control of the entire industry.
(I have no proof they will but is a part of my concern)

originally posted by: SteamyJeans
I would hope that legalization would include home growing but I guess I don't trust TPB to allow such free enterprise.

Nothing wrong with a healthy dose of skepticism.

back to brewing analaogy homebrewing became legal relatively recently but many steps put in place to prevent profit being made.

I was under the impression that most of the states have allowed homebrewing for almost 40 years and the remaining 2 came aboard a couple of years ago. Honestly though it never stopped.

imho something as pure and natural as cannabis Will only degrade the more money power and politics get involved. the "grassroots" form of supply and distribution going now works just fine . we don't need Monsanto getting involved. I fear full legalize would just be a Trojan horse of sorts to take control of the entire industry.
(I have no proof they will but is a part of my concern)

Well, if there was a supply when it was illegal then there will be one if regulations get too heavy.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

At least it's adding to the call from the Peanut Gallery. Getting the New York Times on board does add more weight to the pressure on the Ship of State, which is quickly steadying from its longtime leaning to starboard.

a reply to: daskakik

USA "lifted restrictions " on homebrew ing I'm 1978....fairly recently.

again, I'm all for legalizing just see it as a "be careful what you wish for " or "too good to be true " sort of thing.
also I think cannabis is an amazing plant and I do believe there is some sort of conspiracy to keep it under control ....because that would mean keeping people's minds and other industries under control....or maybe I spend too much time on ATS and wit my "caregiver"... lol

anyway this has been my first "volley" on ATS and as a long timer lurker I appreciate you being easy on me. here's to hoping freedom reigns and cannabis is free for all!

originally posted by: SteamyJeans
USA "lifted restrictions " on homebrew ing I'm 1978....fairly recently.

I know, relatively speaking but still that was 37 years ago. I was thinking that if you had to be 21 to brew a batch back then you would currently be 58 years old.

again, I'm all for legalizing just see it as a "be careful what you wish for " or "too good to be true " sort of thing.

I think that any move forward would be better than none.

To continue using alcohol as an example. Prohobition ended in 1933. Didn't include homebrewing and commercial beer dominated, to this day you can't distill without a permit but it's still better than prohobition.

a reply to: Aleister
All thanks for marijuana being a schedule 1 thing goes to Rockefeller!
Imagine my shock!