Cannabis and Trump's 1st 100 Days

[jirodreamsofbooty]

That's my hope with most things - I suspect he'll tag along with GOP policy (like the threat to abolish Medicare) right up until his poll numbers completely shit the bed.

 

[psychonaut]

We keep making progress on marijuana reform, except on a federal level. We're close, but I think it's still over the next 4-5 presidential terms. World issues are taking our focus from making progress in our homeland. Donald Trump is on the record as saying "100%" (I assume this was from a federal perspective) in regards to supporting MMJ. Obama is the best modern president as far as marijuana reform goes, but I don't believe he has ever been on record as saying that he is "100%" in favor of it federally. He said during his 2008 campaign that he thought it was a subject best left up to local communities and states. While Obama has been better than his predecessors overall towards marijuana reform, his administration has had some dark moments in regards to MMJ.

We already see a change in opinion. For a democrat to have to cozy up to the idea in 2008 versus a republican giving flat out approval today, it's a positive shift.

 

[jirodreamsofbooty]

Trump also said he was very opposed to Colorado-style legalization.

I'll tell you exactly how Trump could spin his MMJ comments and suit his donors: reschedule to Schedule 2 and GW Pharma and Insys get to put out their pills fast-tracked by the FDA. "Who needs to buy medical marijuana when they can get all the benefits from this pill prescribed by their doctor?"

 

[psychonaut]

I think what Donald Trump was responding to was the legal pot being taken out of the state and sold in the black market.

If you look at Donald Trump at mpp.org, he's not my ideal cannabis candidate, but they did grade him C+.

This is from mpp.org

What has he said?

Bill O’Reilly said legalized marijuana is a $1 billion industry in Colorado and claimed all the “dealers” and “pushers” are going there to “load up on it” and then “zoom around the country selling it.” He then asked Trump if it concerns him, to which Trump responded: “That’s a real problem.”

O’Reilly asked Trump what he would do about it, and Trump responded: “There is another problem. In Colorado, the book isn’t written on it yet, but there is a lot of difficulty in terms of illness and what’s going on with the brain and the mind and what it’s doing. So, you know, it’s coming out probably over the next year or so. It’s going to come out.”

O’Reilly continued to ask what Trump would do about it, and Trump responded: “I would really want to think about that one, Bill. Because in some ways I think it’s good and in other ways it’s bad. I do want to see what the medical effects are. I have to see what the medical effects are and, by the way — medical marijuana, medical? I’m in favor of it a hundred percent. But what you are talking about, perhaps not. It’s causing a lot of problems out there.

O’Reilly then called medical marijuana a “ruse,” to which Trump responded: “But I know people that have serious problems and they did that they really — it really does help them.” The O’Reilly Factor, February 12, 2016

—–

“In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state. … Marijuana is such a big thing. I think medical should happen — right? Don’t we agree? I think so. And then I really believe we should leave it up to the states.” Washington Post, October 29, 2015

—–

“I’d say [regulating marijuana] is bad. Medical marijuana is another thing, but I think it’s bad and I feel strongly about that. [Moderator: “What about the states’ right aspect of it?”] If they vote for it, they vote for it… But I think, medical marijuana, 100%.” C-SPAN, June 23, 2015

—–

“We’re losing badly the War on Drugs. You have to legalize drugs to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug czars.” Miami Herald, April 14, 1990

 

[jirodreamsofbooty]

The strongly opposed was at CPAC before the primaries, not the O'Reilly interview where was referring to black market smuggling. When asked about Colorado legalization he said it he thought it was a bad idea and that he strongly believed that.

As far as his last quote about (reasonably) ending the drug war:

Well, I did and I—I —not think about it, I said it's something that should be studied and maybe should continue to be studied. But it's not something I'd be willing to do right now. I think it's something that I've always said maybe it has to be looked at because we do such a poor job of policing. We don't want to build walls. We don't want to do anything. And if you're not going to want to do the policing, you're going to have to start thinking about other alternatives. But it's not something that I would want to do. But it's something that certainly has been looked at and I looked at it. If we police properly, we shouldn't do that.

 

[CarolKing]

The unintended consequence of Trump's pledge hinting to decliminalize
However, Trump's move to decriminalize and legalize medical cannabis could also be a death knell for much of the medical pot industry. An unintended consequence of rescheduling marijuana at the federal level (the presumption here is that the federal government would move it to Schedule 2) is that it would effectively make cannabis a regulated drug. As such, it would come under the strict control of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

The FDA is a strict regulatory body that would be responsible for approving the marketing and packaging for medical-marijuana companies, and it could regularly inspect the manufacturing and processing facilities where marijuana is grown to ensure that certain standards are being adhered to. For example, the FDA could visit grow farms and processing plants to ensure that the THC content, the psychoactive component of marijuana, is consistent from one batch of product to the next.

Yet the most crippling aspect of a move to Schedule 2 is that the FDA could require medical-cannabis companies to prove via clinical trials that cannabis does exactly what is advertised. If marijuana is being prescribed as a treatment for glaucoma, then the FDA could require that clinical trials be run, based on its own strict parameters, to demonstrate that this is indeed the case. Clinical trials are expensive, and they can take a lot of time to generate results.

It's possible that Trump's plan of rescheduling marijuana could wind up crippling smaller medical-cannabis players that don't have the deep pocketbooks needed to weather these added regulatory costs, effectively handing over the industry to larger businesses that can better cope with potentially higher costs.

Something to take into consideration. I kinda like it the way it is, if the above text could happen. Also a good medical cannabis state could work better for the citizens than a highly regulated legal and taxed one. As long as many conditions were included to get a medical recommendation. Doesn't help those that are incarcerated under a lame, outdated law though. That is the best part of the legal cannbais laws folks get out of jail.

I want cannabis for all with very little regulation just a few low taxes thrown in to make the state happy.
CK

 

[jirodreamsofbooty]

FDA approval could take, literally, a decade - and there's a very good chance it wouldn't meet effectiveness standards for many things claimed.

I believe it would be essentially unprecedented for plant matter to be treated as a 'drug' in this manner - if high-CBD strains are effective against epilepsy and other seizures, how does that effect low-CBD strains? Are they different drugs or lumped together?

 

[Baron23]

I believe it would be essentially unprecedented for plant matter to be treated as a 'drug' in this manner

True, but many will spin themselves into a tizzy in the meantime worrying about "what if's".

 

[Tranquility]

FDA approval could take, literally, a decade - and there's a very good chance it wouldn't meet effectiveness standards for many things claimed.

I believe it would be essentially unprecedented for plant matter to be treated as a 'drug' in this manner - if high-CBD strains are effective against epilepsy and other seizures, how does that effect low-CBD strains? Are they different drugs or lumped together?

FDA "approval" for what?

First you'd need a replicable dose. "Marijuana" will not be scheduled drug. The active ingredients will be. For the problem, see https://www.gwpharm.com/products-pipeline/pipeline.

 

[jirodreamsofbooty]

Yes, that was the point - as I said before, rescheduling leading to pills could give cover to Trump for "supporting medical marijuana" ("Available in pill form from your local doctor, who needs the plant when you've got the best pharmaceuticals, all the pharmaceuticals?") while still pleasing his donors and supporters who are adamantly opposed to ending prohibition in any form.

Don't believe that overall public opinion matters - if you look at voting patterns, Republicans were about half as likely to vote for the AUMA as Democrats in California. The rank and file socially conservative Republican remains in favor of prohibition.

 

[jirodreamsofbooty]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions - hold on to your butts

 

[virtualpurple]

A couple of counterpoints -

Every recreational state went for Hillary and most medical. Just as a Democrat wouldn't have to worry about losing Oklahoma by moving against something its citizens have voted for, Trump has nothing to lose cracking down on California marijuana.

Public opinion has a statistically insignificant effect on public policy - what matters is money. Trump got $30mn+ from Sheldon Adelson, the biggest spender on prohibitionist causes, and another chunk of cash from the private prison industry. If a major donor calls in his chips, politicians listen.

Your above statement is not factual. Alaska is a medical and recreational state and they voted trump.