1. What does SSTB mean? See our glossary of acronyms.
    Dismiss Notice

Cannabis News

Discussion in 'Cannabis News and Activism' started by vtac, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. Adobewan

    Adobewan Well-Known Member

    So Cal
    Unfortunately it's not about what they know, it's about knowing it and choosing reelection and continuing to foster their next career perks over the benefit of the population.
    That applies to the Democrats as well. The Republicans do seem to be the big evil, but the Democrats have their evils, plus they consistently appear incompetent. Not getting Merrick Garland in, the presidential election, the Kavanaugh hearings, .. hard not to lose faith.

    I can only image the masterful attack the Republicans would have launched on Obama had he done nearly any one of the things we find appalling about our current president(mocking a handicapped journalist, disrespecting McCain, "Grab them by the ...").
    It would have been merciless, misleading(although it wouldn't have to be had he really done these things),... and likely successful.
    I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Democrats to save us.

    Further craziness and to bring it back to the title of the thread: Trump, not Obama, may be the President to decriminalize cannabis.
    I think I woke up in the "Mirror, Mirror" universe.
    florduh, howie105 and cybrguy like this.
  2. CarolKing

    CarolKing Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur

    I’m not picking a side but the republicans have allowed our president to do whatever he pleases. They are the majority in the house and senate and hold most the cards. Just get out and vote some of these SOBs out of office if you don’t like them.
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
    florduh likes this.
  3. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    I agree that the Dems are incompetent and weak. I don't agree that they are equally "evil" or stupid. A Dem Senator would never bring a snowball onto the Senate floor to try and "disprove" climate change. A GOP Senator did just that.

    Hopefully Democrats understand that no matter how reasonable they attempt to be, the other side will STILL paint them as pro-crime socialists. Republicans NEVER worry about seeming to extreme to centrists. I'm only in my early 30's, and the GOP's swing to the far right I've witnessed in my lifetime is just crazy to think about.

    I agree. Obama didn't want the first black President to "legalize" weed. As if that prevented him from being painted as a far left socialist.

    There is a benefit to having Trump in office. Due to his cult-like following, if he decriminalizes weed, the base will just go along with it. When I was growing up, Republicans hated Russia and loved free trade. Now I hear Republicans talking about how tariffs are great and Russia isn't so bad.

    Trump could totally get away with Federal decriminalization.
    bignoze likes this.
  4. macbill

    macbill Gregarious Misanthrope

    The Evergreen State
    Marijuana growers wrestle with cannabis' high-tech, industrial future
    You can't hand-prune the plants for a $32 billion business.

    You'd have thought marijuana legalization would have made life easier for pot growers in areas like Northern California with decades of expertise.

    Instead, cannabis cultivators are grappling with industrialization issues as production that once was hidden in closets and deep forests becomes just another part of American agribusiness.

    "You can take the genome of marijuana and put into yeast, then put that yeast into a bucket of water and sugar," Rosenthal said. "You're going to get that same THC in five days. That's the future. It's not going to be grown under the lights and sun, it's going to be grown in a bucket."

    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
  5. pxl_jockey

    pxl_jockey Well-Known Member

    Thanks @macbill first time I’ve said “yuck” about something cannabis related. Well done sir!
    Copacetic and cybrguy like this.
  6. cybrguy

    cybrguy I mean really, WTF

    The future of Cannabis in America could easily go in some funny/nasty directions as people become laser focused on the $$ instead of the product. I'm all in on creativity, but I worry about the influence of plain old greed.
    We need to be vigilant about who gets to make the decisions and what their motivation really is. Take a look at the meth and fentanyl "industries" out there for an idea about how bad it could get...
    Copacetic, pxl_jockey and macbill like this.
  7. Adobewan

    Adobewan Well-Known Member

    So Cal
    Legal home brew is what I hang my hopes on.
    If it's legal to produce your own beer at home(more harmful, yada, yada, yada), once cannabis is federally legalized, I can't see a sustainable way for the oppressors to justify banning home grown.
    But hey, this is America...
  8. MinnBobber

    MinnBobber Well-Known Member

    IMO, it will be a tough fight to get rec (adult) homegrow. If MN does not allow homegrow for med mj patients, they sure aren't likely to give to adult legal users IF we ever approve rec/adult use here??

    Politicians and the two legal growers love the current system---no home grow allowed and for example, tangerine oil with 1200 mg of cannabis costs $229..... I thought rape was illegal--this is economic rape.
    That company offers 3 choices on their products: THC > CBD, CBD = THC, and THC < CBD.
    You really can fine tune your med needs with those awesome options- NOT :(

    Diligence is needed as rec and medical cannabis programs can be legal but so anti-customer that they
    are really really bad.

    EDIT: at the other legal grower, 900 mg of oil is $229.
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
    Copacetic and pxl_jockey like this.
  9. pxl_jockey

    pxl_jockey Well-Known Member

    I can’t believe that med. system is considered ethical and humane for patients. How can/did politicians sell this to the people of Minnesota? I know you educated yourself and got really involved, that’s why I’m asking. It’s hard to believe that the voters have let them get away with this obvious scam.
    cybrguy, Copacetic, macbill and 2 others like this.
  10. MinnBobber

    MinnBobber Well-Known Member

    Minnesota med mj program is so bad and difficult to correct as it must come directly from state legislators--a ballot initiative is NOT allowed here.
    IMO, the anti-cannabis members figured MMJ is going thru so let's make it as bad as we can, and they did a masterful job of fucking up a great idea.
    Our state plan includes bureaucratic hurdles, costly to sign up and costly renewals, very few locations of the two providers, only two providers but each with their "territory" so effectively 2 monopolies = big big prices, no homegrows, no "nasty flowers"/ just concs, very few conditions even qualify AND it was a bigtime battle to finally get PTSD added and this year autism (multiple hearings and testimony and hurdles with most requests squashed).

    So, many of our state reps can now say, shut the fuck up, you've got a mmj program, please go away....
    State sent out a survey to all patients and I read every single comment submitted (hundreds of pages) and top 5 issues were cost, cost, cost, cost, and it costs too f 'in much. Yet, when I asked for average cost per patient, the state hasn't made them
    submit this easy amount.
    One person had a monthly cost of $6000, like a $200 gram of oil a day---proper dose for brain cancer therapy :(
    Who the hell can afford that????

    MN desperately needs full legal to fix our cruel mmj system
  11. Nina

    Nina Well-Known Member

    I agree if it's legal then banning home-grown is too obviously a ruse to protect the profits of big business

    @MinnBobber that does sound absolutely dreadful:disgust:
    cannabis users in Minnesota must be furious :cuss:
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 14, 2018
    C No Ego and pxl_jockey like this.
  12. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    the new Norm = Biosynthetic cannabinoids from yeast... once that takes off expect the lowly flower to be craft only
    macbill and looney2nz like this.
  13. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Everyone seems to think Trump is the key to any legislation on cannabis reform next year.


    Which party is going to take a leadership role in advancing marijuana reform after the midterm elections? It depends on who you ask.

    On Thursday, both Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) indicated that their respective party would be backing legislation to change federal cannabis laws in the months after November’s critical election. Rohrabacher said that he’d received assurances that the White House would support reform efforts during the 116th Congress, which begins in January.

    “It could be as early as spring of 2019, but definitely in the next legislative session,” he said, noting that President Donald Trump planned to keep his promise to support a bipartisan bill to protect legal states from federal interference.

    Later, Blumenauer—a close colleague of the Republican congressman when it comes to cannabis reform efforts—said that Democrats would promote legislation to change cannabis laws in the first half of 2019 if his party retakes the House.

    “With Democrats in control, we will be able to have the legislative process work and we’ll see more progress in a relatively short order, I think.”

    “These will be some of the easiest things to do in the first six months of a new Congress because they’re supported by the public, the legislation is already teed up and ready to go,” Blumenauer said in an interview with Bloomberg. “It’s one of these areas of progress that will show we can get our act together and move forward.”

    “It doesn’t have to be the top priority. It’s simpler than health care or global warming. And it’s supported by the public. I think it’s a no-brainer. I think it moves in the next six months.”

    Blumenauer seems to be breaking somewhat from his party’s leadership. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), for example, said last month that top Democrats haven’t yet “talked about” promoting federal marijuana legislation if the party retakes the House in the midterm elections. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) also suggested that the fate of federal cannabis reform would depend, in part, on the will of the president.

    “I don’t know where the president is on any of this,” Pelosi said. “So any decision about how we go forward would have to reflect where we can get the result.”​
    macbill and unsorted like this.
  14. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Based on what you posted only Rorabacher, Putin's favorite Congressman who should be out of a job next year, thinks Trump is the key to Cannabis reform.

    I am cautiously optimistic. Trump has an ability to convince the Republican base to support non-traditional Right Wing positions like tariffs and love for Mother Russia. He absolutely could push through decriminalization and get away with it. No other Republican President could.

    But you have to balance that with the fact that the Trump Admin just put together a sham commission that is looking to paint cannabis legalization in a bad light. Trump could just as easily use the cherry picked data from the commission to say cannabis is dangerous and shouldn't be legalized:

    "Have you SEEN what's coming out on this weed stuff?!?! It's BAD NEWS folks. We don't need this stuff in our country. I believe that VERY STRONGLY. So we'll see"

    It could go either way at this point. Cautiously optimistic though. Lots of Democrats are running on legalization or decriminalization this year. Donnie could take the wind out of their sails by coming out "VERY STRONGLY" for weed.

    But in the words of our Dear Leader "we'll see what happens!"
    looney2nz and macbill like this.
  15. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    And, Pelosi.
    "Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) also suggested that the fate of federal cannabis reform would depend, in part, on the will of the president."

    Hoyer has not even talked of it yet.

    As to the commission you feel is a sham, the Trump Administration is taking comments:

    The federal government wants your input on whether marijuana should be reclassified under global drug treaties to which the U.S. is a party.

    Specifically, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is asking for public comments about the “abuse potential, actual abuse, medical usefulness, trafficking, and impact of scheduling changes on availability for medical use” of cannabis and several other substances now under international review.

    Under current U.S. federal law as well as global drug policy agreements, marijuana is classified in the most restrictive category of Schedule I. At home, that means it is considered illegal and not available for prescription, while research on its potential benefits is heavily restricted. Cannabis’s international status means that nations who are signatories of drug control treaties are not supposed to legalize it, though that hasn’t stopped Canada and Uruguay from doing so.

    Public comments on marijuana’s effects and legal status “will be considered in preparing a response from the United States to the World Health Organization (WHO) regarding the abuse liability and diversion of these drugs,” Leslie Kux, FDA’s associate commissioner for policy, wrote in a Federal Register filing published on Wednesday. “WHO will use this information to consider whether to recommend that certain international restrictions be placed on these drugs.”

    WHO’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) is meeting in Geneva next month to consider the classification of marijuana and other substances, and is now seeking to “gather information on the legitimate use, harmful use, status of national control and potential impact of international control,” the United Nations body said in a notice excerpted in the FDA filing.

    Earlier this year, ECDD determined that cannabidiol (CBD), a component of marijuana shown to have medical benefits without intoxicating properties like other cannabinoids such as THC, should not be scheduled under international drug control conventions.

    “CBD has been found to be generally well tolerated with a good safety profile,” the UN body found in its critical review. “There is no evidence that CBD as a substance is liable to similar abuse and similar ill-effects as substances…such as cannabis or THC, respectively. The Committee recommended that preparations considered to be pure CBD should not be scheduled.”

    The body also agreed to undergo an in-depth critical review of the marijuana plant and its resins and extracts, as well as THC itself. That new review is what triggered the FDA’s request for public comment on Wednesday.

    The Trump administration sought public comments from interested parties in advance of an earlier UN pre-review on marijuana as well.

    “Any comments received will be considered by [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] when it prepares a scientific and medical evaluation for drug substances that is responsive to the WHO Questionnaire for these drug substances,” the new FDA notice says. “HHS will forward such evaluation of these drug substances to WHO, for WHO’s consideration in deciding whether to recommend international control/decontrol of any of these drug substances.”

    Legalization advocates are hopeful that a hard look at the data on marijuana’s effects will inevitably lead to a pro-reform conclusion.

    “A careful review of the relevant science does not now, nor has it ever, supported a hard-line approach to cannabis scheduling. Cannabis’s abuse potential relative to other substances, including legal substances like alcohol, tobacco and prescription medications, does not warrant its continued criminalization under either U.S. or international law,” Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, said in an email. “By any rational assessment, cannabis prohibition is a disproportionate public policy response to behavior that is, at worst, a public health concern. But it should not be a criminal justice matter and international laws should no longer classify it as such.”

    Mason Tvert, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, agreed.

    “The time has come for marijuana to be removed from the federal drug schedules. There is no longer any doubt that it has significant medical value, and the science is clear that it is less harmful than many legal medical products,” he said. “While marijuana is not harmless — few, if any, products are — it poses less harm than alcohol to consumers and to society. The U.S. led the world into the quagmire of cannabis prohibition, so it should lead the world out of it by descheduling cannabis and implementing a more evidence-based policy.”

    That said, the feds aren’t planning to make any cannabis recommendations to the UN panel ahead of its review meetings next month.

    “Instead, HHS will defer such consideration until WHO has made official recommendations to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which are expected to be made in mid-2018,” the Federal Register notice says. “Any HHS position regarding international control of these drug substances will be preceded by another Federal Register notice soliciting public comments.”

    In addition to marijuana and its components, the WHO committee is also reviewing several synthetic cannabinoids, fentanyls and other substances.

    FDA has hinted that international rescheduling of marijuana and its components could influence changes to its legal status here at home.

    This month, FDA publicly released a letter it sent to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) earlier this year suggesting that CBD should be completely removed from federal control.

    Cannabidiol has a “negligible potential for abuse” and has a “currently accepted medical use in treatment,” the agency found.

    But, because of international drug treaty obligations, FDA conceded that the substance needs to be scheduled, concluding that it should be placed under the least-restrictive category of Schedule V.

    “If treaty obligations do not require control of CBD, or if the international controls on CBD change in the future, this recommendation will need to be promptly revisited,” FDA wrote in its analysis to DEA.

    That document, dated in May, preceded the WHO’s determination that CBD should not be globally scheduled, and was part of the federal government’s approval and rescheduling last month of CBD-based drug Epidiolex, which is used for severe epilepsy disorders. It is not clear why the U.S. government subsequently decided to place FDA-approved CBD medications in the federal Schedule V, with an appeal to global treaties that the UN now says shouldn’t schedule the substance.

    For now, FDA is accepting public comments on marijuana and the other substances currently under UN review via the web until October 31. Interested parties can also submit written comments via mail.

    Ultimately, WHO will make a scheduling recommendation for marijuana to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who oversaw the enactment of drug decriminalization as Portugal’s prime minister, a policy he has touted in his current capacity.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
    macbill likes this.
  16. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Her quote was

    “I don’t know where the president is on any of this, So any decision about how we go forward would have to reflect where we can get the result.”

    I don't know if that quote supports the claim that everyone believes Trump is the key to cannabis reform. To me, it sounds like she's saying he could just as easily be an impediment.

    I think Gardner could hold Trump's feet to the fire on this issue. But "we'll see what happens"

    I'm still disturbed about the Trump Admin's secret Commission to Demonize Weed. The leaked documents specifically said “Staff believe that if the administration is to turn the tide on increasing marijuana use there is an urgent need to message the facts about the negative impacts of marijuana use, production, and trafficking on national health, safety, and security." No one from the Admin has denied these reports.

    It's possible Trump has no involvement with the commission and it's being pushed by the traditional Steady State Republicans who are actually running the Executive Branch. But who knows.

    At the end of the day, who gives a shit what Trump says he'll sign or not.

    If Gardner and Warren can get a bill through both Houses that simply says the Feds won't interfere with legal States... Don has to sign it.

    There have been more than a half dozen reasonable "legalization" bills introduced in the past year. None of them go anywhere. This shit has to stop. We've known since the fucking Nixon Admin that cannabis possession shouldn't be an arrestable offense.

    Nothing to do with my feelings:

    "The prevailing marijuana narrative in the U.S. is partial, one-sided, and inaccurate,” says a summary of a July 27 meeting of the White House and nine departments. In a follow-up memo, which provided guidance for responses from federal agencies, White House officials told department officials, “Departments should provide … the most significant data demonstrating negative trends, with a statement describing the implications of such trends.”
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
    C No Ego likes this.
  17. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member


    Notably, Trump did not say the solution is more commutations, although those would certainly be welcome. "There has to be a reform, because it's very unfair right now," he said. "It's very unfair to African-Americans. It's very unfair to everybody."

    Trump had high praise for criminal justice reforms in Texas and Georgia, which in recent years have seen falling crime rates even as they reduced their prison populations. "They really have done a tremendous job with reform," he said.

    These comments, which may seem surprising from a man who has consciously cultivated a tough-on-crime image, reflect the influence of people Trump respects, people like his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a supporter of the conservative reform organization Right on Crime. And yes, people like Kanye West and Kim Kardashian.

    That influence could be crucial in the ongoing debate about federal sentencing reform. Last May the House overwhelmingly approved the FIRST STEP Act, a collection of modest prison reforms aimed at reducing recidivism and promoting reintegration. The bill is on hold in the Senate, where Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) is demanding that it include sentencing reforms as well.

    The latest proposal would incorporate into the FIRST STEP Act four elements of Grassley's Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. The amendments would widen the "safety valve" that lets some drug offenders escape mandatory minimum sentences, narrow the criteria for mandatory minimums that apply to repeat drug offenders, clarify that escalating sentences for drug offenders who have guns require prior convictions, and retroactively apply the shorter crack cocaine sentences that Congress approved in 2010.

    If Trump backs the changes Grassley wants, an amended bill could be approved by the lame-duck Congress after the election. "I believe the president was sincere," says Jason Pye, vice president of legislative affairs at FreedomWorks, which supports sentencing reform. "I was skeptical when the White House began dabbling in this more than year ago. But the White House has been fully engaged on this."...
  18. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    That is one of the good things about Trump. He doesn't have any principles personally, so he could plausibly be convinced of anything. Hopefully the "Law-And-Order" Republicans don't sit him down and give him a Come-to-Supply-Side-Jesus speech though.

    I will say if the President is concerned about prison reform, he should look into ending the failed Drug War. The savings could help pay for the massive hole Congress blew in the Federal Budget, and make his fellow reality TV Star Kardashian friends happy. Win/win.
    MinnBobber likes this.
  19. macbill

    macbill Gregarious Misanthrope

    The Evergreen State
  20. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    I take back what I said. The President does have one closely held principle: making a buck.

    This could work. We sent the wrong hip hop artist to the White House.

    Paging Saint Snoop.

    Whisper, macbill, cybrguy and 2 others like this.
  21. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Sigh. I can't imagine what would get done if the rabid haters stepped back.

    But, to Trump, he has many principles, just not ones you respect. Two you might accept as being true that might help cannabis (Please, not "drug" war.) issues on the federal level are:

    1. Trump has a "buy American" executive order out.
    Yet, we are having to buy pot from Canada for testing due to our complex laws and regulations. If he really wants U.S. citizens to make money here, he should think of the ad put in the Wall Street Journal.

    2. He seems to hate Sessions.
    Sessions seems to hate cannabis.
    Trump likes sticking it to people he hates. I wonder......

    From reading further, I guess we all agree Trump wants U.S. citizens to make a buck.
    GetLeft and macbill like this.
  22. Cosmic Dude

    Cosmic Dude Active Member

    I wouldn't worry too much about the reports of the White House group that sent memos asking for more negative statements about weed. 30 years ago, the White House created an "Office of National Drug Control Policy". You may have heard the head of that office called the "Drug Czar" in the Media. In the job description of the Drug Czar, it literally says "to oppose the legalization of any Schedule 1 controlled substances".
    That's one to think about - EVERY White House has had a person who is paid to stop Congress from legalizing cannabis. NO President has removed the Office or even toned down the job description.
    Anyway, that is the source of the "come up with more negative things to say about cannabis" memos from the White House.
    People also need to consider how many different issues they themselves can deal with, in any given day. Considering what a President needs to deal with, I expect that Trump may never have even met the current "Drug Czar" nor ever have heard about anything that Office is doing. That is probably true of most White House employees. When I worked for a big company in Silicon Valley, I never met the CEO and I'm sure he did not know who I was or what I was doing.
    GetLeft and Megaton like this.
  23. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Literally nothing I said could honestly be construed as rabid or hatred. I've said several times I think the President could plausibly help the cannabis community. I'm also not sure how internet comments are preventing the President from getting anything done.

    I completely agree. Like I said several times, I can see Trump moving in a pro-weed direction more than any normal Republican President ever could. But "we'll see".

    He doesn't hate Sessions for any principled reason. He's just mad Sessions won't use the Justice Department to go after his political enemies. That's like the opposite of having principles. I wouldn't mind seeing "Good People Don't Smoke Pot" Sessions fired. But there is zero evidence Don would all of a sudden nominate a pro-weed AG. Remember, Rudy Giuliani was on his short list in 2016.

    If Trump turns around and decriminalizes weed, I'll give him major props. But "we'll have to see what happens!" It could go either way at this point

    Well I agree, no Admin has been a friend of Cannabis. And it's been widely reported that many in the current White House are working at cross purposes to the President.

    That having been said, I don't recall any recent Admins putting together a commission to push a negative narrative on weed. Look at the leaked documents. The sham commission didn't set out to put together an unbiased, scientific fact based report on cannabis. They are specifically looking for NEGATIVE trends regarding legalization. They started with a conclusion in mind, and are working backwards to find "evidence" that supports that conclusion.

    I'm not ok with our government spending tax dollars to lie to America about weed in 20 fucking 18. And while Trump may not have been aware of the Commission before the leak, he sure is now. If he was mad about his underlings' sham commission, he could've put out a statement saying he will ensure the study will be conducted in an unbiased, fair manner. That didn't happen.
  24. GetLeft

    GetLeft Well-Known Member

    Convection City
  25. macbill

    macbill Gregarious Misanthrope

    The Evergreen State
    We're from the Government. We're Here to Help.
    N.B. government agency offers lessons on how to roll a joint

    FREDERICTON -- It's not exactly Cheech and Chong University, but New Brunswick's government cannabis agency is offering lessons on how to roll a joint. The Cannabis NB website includes a "Cannabis 101" section to teach people new to the recreational drug how to prepare it.

    It says to break down your cannabis until it looks like the consistency of oregano -- but adds "it should not smell like oregano, however."

    hans solo, C No Ego, Stu and 4 others like this.

Support FC, visit our trusted friends and sponsors