Malia Obama Closes Out Her Wild Summer With A Bong!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Very true and good info. You have to have possession of the MJ so you can get the tax stamp and possession is illegal so no tax stamp for anybody without jail time. Sounds like a great idea.

You didn't mention the DOJ/Executive branch is in charge of the DEA though. Obama is the Chief Executive in charge of the Executive branch. Rescheduling/de-scheduling is absolutely in his purview. He could do it all by himself, no executive orders necessary. The DEA, being a part of the Executive branch, would have to follow his orders or face reprimand.

You also didn't mention the difference between rescheduling and outright legalizing. As I said in my previous post, even Sch.5 drugs are illegal to sell without approval/license. Taking them off the schedule list is apparently as simple as a flick of the DEA admin's signature but we never get that.

a reply to: thov420

You quoted or responded to the article that went over all of these things, so I just assumed you had read the article. Was I wrong?

a reply to: Sremmos80

The president is the Chief executive of this nation. Everything falling under the executive branch is his business. The DEA, being a part of the executive branch, is his prerogative.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did read it. Here's a quote:

If the DEA Administrator decided that the drug had “accepted medical use,” that would move it to Schedule II, making cannabis legally available by prescription. Selling it without a prescription would remain the same crime it is today. (Recall that coc aine and methamphetamine are Schedule II drugs.) But prescriptions can only be written for FDA-approved drugs. And the FDA can’t approve “marijuana,” because “marijuana” isn’t something that can be put through clinical trials. The New Drug Application would have to be for a specific cannabis preparation, to be given in a specific dosage regimen via a specific route of administration for the treatment of a specific condition. That “new drug” could be a single molecule a combination, an herbal preparation, or an extract. In any case, it would have to have a known and reproducible chemical composition and be produced using “Good Manufacturing Practice.” Producing cannabis without FDA approval would still be the illegal manufacture of a Schedule II controlled substance.

So because it's not FDA-approved, it can't be rescheduled unless it's in a standardized pill form provided by a corp with lab tests and clinical trials. Which isn't going to happen because MJ doesn't grow pills. Sure they can make pills with MJ ingredients, but then it's no longer a plant and becomes a drug.

You're still ignoring the rest of my claim.

a reply to: thov420

Here has been my position from the beginning. Obama isn't doing enough to legalize pot. He certainly CAN do more, HOWEVER it isn't as simple as people make it out to be. Government is VERY compartmentalized, there are checks and balances to contend with and there is much partisan resistance to anything Obama tries to do.

Plus. Ultimately Congress makes the laws. If Congress deems that marijuana is illegal then illegal it remains and Obama has to keep it scheduled under the DEA scheduling program. That's how it works. I know this is an inconvenient fact about this and you guys want to pretend I'm an O-bot who can't find fault with Obama, but its true. Obama's hands ARE partially tied here. But I will say again I DO wish he'd be more vocal about marijuana legalization and try to push Congress to take action.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: slapjacks

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: slapjacks

In what state do you live paraphernalia is legal, but pot still isn't?

I didn't say it was legal. but I've been to the local head shop a few times and saying "bong" has never been an issue. You can also get stopped with a "bong" and be fine, as long as you have no resin in it you're fine.

That's what I was talking about before. The resin makes it paraphernalia. If you have resin then you will be arrested/fined. It is legal to own a water pipe that you smoke tobacco out of, and until you actually smoke pot out of it, you can claim it is for smoking tobacco. I made all this clear very early in the thread.

Yeah, but you clearly misrepresented what he/she said (e.g. "put words in their mouth"), when you asked, "in what state do you live paraphernalia is legal, but pot still isn't?"; the poster simply said, "shoot, not in my neck of the woods..." in response to your declaration that if one utters the word "bong" in a head shop you'll be "kicked out immediately ", which isn't an absolute, moreover, the reply/post you intentionally twisted makes no imitation - it seems abundantly clear it was a response to referring to a "bong" - that paraphernalia is legal and pot is, so why bother? You keep addressing the issue (legalization vis-a-vis descheduling) with calls to read the linked material you have provided, but, for whatever reason, you undermine your credibility in reaching those cohorts of people you wish to elucidate/inform by misrepresenting other's words to drive home a point you keep back-slapping yourself over, which is rather trivial when addressing the issue. Why is that? It stands to reason, that if you want clarity and a clear path forward, the last thing you would do is intentionally misrepresent what one has said. I am disappointed because as mentioned earlier, you'd be a top-shelf candidate for something like FSME on 'The War On Drugs'. At any rate, it was cleared up by the poster themselves and paraphernalia is the least of the hurdles that must be faced in a complete descheduling.

I agree with the notion that the POTUS could have done great deal more in a move towards federal decriminalization at the simple possession level (14-45 grams seems reasonable). On the other hand, as you have noted, unilateral rescheduling of cannabis by the POTUS would be near impossible, if for no other reason than electoral suicide in his first term. His reluctance to push hard in his second term was buoyed by the 'experiments' in West Coast States that administered and regulated legal cannabis. Below is a rather long, but informative piece on Obama's take on legal cannabis:

When I asked Obama about another area of shifting public opinion—the legalization of marijuana—he seemed even less eager to evolve with any dispatch and get in front of the issue. “As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.” Is it less dangerous? I asked. Obama leaned back and let a moment go by. That’s one of his moves. When he is interviewed, particularly for print, he has the habit of slowing himself down, and the result is a spool of cautious lucidity. He speaks in paragraphs and with moments of revision. Sometimes he will stop in the middle of a sentence and say, “Scratch that,” or, “I think the grammar was all screwed up in that sentence, so let me start again.”

Less dangerous, he said, “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer. It’s not something I encourage, and I’ve told my daughters I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.” What clearly does trouble him is the radically disproportionate arrests and incarcerations for marijuana among minorities. “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,” he said. “And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.” But, he said, “we should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing.” Accordingly, he said of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington that “it’s important for it to go forward because it’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.”

As is his habit, he nimbly argued the other side. “Having said all that, those who argue that legalizing marijuana is a panacea and it solves all these social problems I think are probably overstating the case. There is a lot of hair on that policy. And the experiment that’s going to be taking place in Colorado and Washington is going to be, I think, a challenge.” He noted the slippery-slope arguments that might arise. “I also think that, when it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound. And you do start getting into some difficult line-drawing issues. If marijuana is fully legalized and at some point folks say, Well, we can come up with a negotiated dose of coc aine that we can show is not any more harmful than vodka, are we open to that? If somebody says, We’ve got a finely calibrated dose of meth, it isn’t going to kill you or rot your teeth, are we O.K. with that?”

January 27, 2014 - Obama New Yorker Interview

From my perspective, Obama could have pushed this issue in his first term at the expense of a second term, or do as he has long said, "lead from behind", and let the state experiments to continue and do as little to be viewed as an agent provocateur in a very stratified and divided nation with much more consequential social issues. Obama has told the DOJ to back off, but the IRS still wants its cut and the Treasury isn't budging on its banking stance concerning accounts bourne of a federally-criminal enterprise. The POTUS has punted on this issue way to many times and it's time to stop holding our holding our breath for some "change". I don't understand his continued reluctance to clear up the banking and IRS issues and I no longer believe he ever believed cannabis should be descheduled/legal; the rhetoric about small possession incarceration skewing towards minorities, in the above New Yorker excerpt, has been tossed about from the left and the right so, I don't believe he did nearly as much as he could have with his bully pulpit and left wondering if he did anything at all to move the ball forward.

Alas, when the world's 9th (maybe 8th) largest economy makes it legal in November, the next POTUS is gonna have a helluva time putting that cat back in the bag.

More importantly, why is that guy kissing a shoe ?

wait...nvm

She was in a room that had a bong in it.

That's what I see. I don't see her using it though.

Not sure what the fuss is.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FaunaOrFlora
a reply to: imsoconfused

Bongs are legal.

Water pipes are legal, bongs are not. If you walk into a head shop and say the word "bong" they will throw you out immediately.

Not where I live they won't.

Stop spreading false information.

a reply to: thov420

Yes you all keep saying that but that doesn't mean he gets to dictate every singe thing. You all really want him to be the king he is made out to be on this issue...

a reply to: MysticPearl

You might have lax shops but out here in cali the bigger shops do the same thing. Some of them are cool about it, but there will be signs warning you that they can kick you out for it.
It isn't disinformation.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Its obvious that 'you've accepted Obama into your heart'.

But he's on the way out, so why still so blindly & staunchly defend the puppet chump?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Lol bongs are legal

a reply to: ssenerawa

Nope! Federal Law.

Actor Tommy Chong gets nine months for selling pot pipes
He and his lawyers were hoping for a community service sentence as punishment for distributing thousands of bongs and marijuana pipes online through his California company, Nice Dreams Enterprises.

But Chong, famous for such movies as "Up in Smoke" with longtime partner Cheech Marin, is going to prison instead.

U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab yesterday gave him nine months in a federal lockup and fined him $20,000.

As part of the sentence, Chong forfeited his Internet domain name, Chongglass.com, along with $103,514 in cash and all of the drug paraphernalia seized by federal agents during a raid Feb. 24.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You know, we agree and disagree on a lot of things, but you are very knowledgeable and helpful providing links and I'm grateful for that. True, Congress makes the laws, but it's up to the Executive to enforce or not enforce those laws. Obama said he wasn't going to interfere with Cali's MJ legalization, but then the DEA shows up to "enforce" their position, being that MJ is a federal crime. Obama is wholly responsible for that, whether he ordered it or not, being an executive branch department.

a reply to: Sremmos80

"You all" is directed at more than me and implies a group dynamic. Everything I've said here is my own thoughts and opinions. I am not a group and I have no idea which group you're lumping me into but I would guess as a Trump supporter, which I am absolutely not.

So is he not the head of the Executive branch? I don't want him to dictate anything, but to explain why he feels the need to do something based on the people's will. Arbitrarily doing something has way less value than doing something for a reason, even if I disagree with that reason. The head of the Executive branch does mean he gets to dictate to his underlings, also members of the Executive branch. That is part of the checks and balances of the US gov't.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Well in Atlanta. Rolling papers, bongs and many other accessories are legal as day although marijuana isn't

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

They're "Tobacco products"

Sure news... I guess just like talking about Kim Kardashian is news... but really it's not news.

Comparable the Bush daughters just about as out of control or worse maybe?

Presidential daughters should be left out of the insult cycle. Just like I could care less about Hillary's daughter or Trumps kids. Not newsworthy. We should only care about the candidates/presidents. not their families.

originally posted by: amazing
Sure news... I guess just like talking about Kim Kardashian is news... but really it's not news.

Comparable the Bush daughters just about as out of control or worse maybe?

Presidential daughters should be left out of the insult cycle. Just like I could care less about Hillary's daughter or Trumps kids. Not newsworthy. We should only care about the candidates/presidents. not their families.

If they should be left out why throw the Bush daughters in your comment?