nickdanger
Collector of Functional Art
The word "harmless" coming from a government entity scares the shit out of me. Call me skeptical, but I tend to not believe anything they say.
Crackdown on Legalized Marijuana
- Thread starter Deleted Member 1643
- Start date
Kosherbubba
Active Member
Trump looks like he is a reasonable person who listens. But what do I know ehhh? Are you sure he is not going to legalize cannabis. Someone just needs to give him a sit down to see how much his government can make if the government controls legalization of cannabis and to prove its safer than alcholol. A few scientist can do that. Change the class 1 classification to Class 7 drug where it should be under methadone, diazapam, and other drugs that are more harmful than cannabis. I still get a laugh as to why the USA has put it as a dangerous class 1 narcotic worse than cocaine lol!
grampa_herb
Epstein didn't kill himself
So you might also have a problem with the harmless THC register which will need to be installed in our lungs?
GreenDragon
Well-Known Member
Yeah... no. LOL
I live five miles from our shared border. My Wife is from Canada. I have family in Canada. We regularly dine north of the border. Half of my neighborhood is Canadian owned, with many full time residents.
You are the first Canadian trumpster I've ever heard of.
Dirty Donnie and his gang of grifters are not interested in making money for the government. They are shoveling cash for themselves and their billionaire friends as fast as they can. They know the clock is ticking.
In 'Murica, science is fake news and a hoax.
neverforget711
Well-Known Member
This was literally in the Sony leaks years ago, we're cyberpunk with no cool stuff.
neverforget711
Well-Known Member
Edit: there is a misunderstanding that these are my ideas. What act follows is an email sent to the CEO of Sony trying to do shady megacorp stuff. This information was ultimately brought to the public by Best Korea in retaliation for the interview movie.
https://archive.is/A1v7P#selection-5805.1-5805.21
Chemical Marker
Michael,
Your marker tracking system idea is ingenious. During my career I have worked with several startups or early stage companies (a couple of them relatively successful), and I really like the challenge and energy of being a part of them.
Below are several ideas I've jotted down related to your project. You're probably already aware of them but I thought I'd mention them anyway.
I. Chemical Marker
Single chemical entity/marker compounds added to all legally dispensed marijuana (safe, intentional "adulterant").
Certain bioavailability enhancer compounds (e.g., as used in botanical medicines) might be good biomarker candidates.
Such biomarker(s) conceivably could be used with a future high-performing version of the Draeger DrugTest 5000, similar saliva analyzer device, or possibly next-gen breath test, urine tests (less preferable) with all tests designed to detect the added biomarkers as well as key cannabis active constituents.
II. Chemical or DNA Fingerprinting
Cultivate specialized cannabis strain with unique chemical (e.g., terpene) marker(s) (to minimize alteration of parent cannabis strain).
Develop unique genetic (DNA) marker(s) for cannabis ID strain (this may be difficult to achieve and not cost-effective).
Fingerprint would be patented and/or proprietary, if possible, depending upon current natural product patent regulations.
Small quantities of the "identifier modified strain" could be added to all commercially legal marijuana.
Basic saliva, breath, urine, and blood tests would have to be modified to detect a strain-specific marker (whether a primary active THC-related compound or secondary compound such as a terpene).
Not very practical; cost may be prohibitive (extensive R&D to create a customized strain that is unavailable to black market, high legal fees for permits, etc.)
III. Cannabis Nanotechnology Delivery System
Develop patented and/or proprietary nanotechnology delivery system (i.e., for potentiated delivery of THC, CBD (possibly CBN, THCCOOH) to add to all legal sources of marijuana.
Nanoparticles would produce user enhancement benefits (NOT necessarily a good idea!) while also providing a unique chemical fingerprint for identifying the legal botanical sources. Nanoparticles could be designed for detection in next-gen cannabis breathalyzers or body fluid analyzers.
Considerable R&D costs may be involved with no guarantee of outcome.
If successful product is developed, however, it could have multiple applications for other herbal medicine products and beyond.
IV. Related Project: Digital State-wide Marijuana Tracking System Software
Colorado still needs a seamless interface between the older medical marijuana industry based point of sale systems and the State's newly mandated Marijuana Inventory Tracking Solutions that utilizes RFID tags.
Washington State may be interesting in implementing a similar system.
Please let me know if you need assistance with literature research, subject matter expert interviews, or writing a proposal, business plan, or evidence-based proof of concept white paper. Many thanks.
Best regards,
Alondra
Alondra Oubré, Ph.D.
Consultant Medical & Science Writer
www.alondraoubre.com
818-620-7273
Last edited:
Deleted Member 1643
Well-Known Member
Cool - @neverforget711's first three ideas overlap somewhat with toxicological, regulatory expertise.
Adding a chemical marker seems the least problematic, the main issue being the identification of a useful chemical that poses negligible risk. One difficulty is that inhalation exposure is often the most sensitive exposure route and the one which has been studied least, so identifying candidate chemicals may be challenging.
The second idea would most likely be implemented through genetic engineering, essentially, we'd teach the plant to produce its own marker. The downside is that legal users would be forced to use only GM cannabis, which many may oppose.
The third idea seems the most problematic, at least with regard to nanotechnology. Regulation of nanomaterials is highly controversial. Nanoparticles generally have different properties than ions in solution or larger particles, resulting in different risks. For example, nanoparticles may deposit in the lungs' smallest airways, which are more sensitive to certain hazards. The general idea of developing a better delivery system that legal users will prefer holds promise. This might be a closed, disposable system similar to cig-alike e-cigarettes. A marker might not be needed if incentives to use the delivery device are great enough. However, the illegal market will likely pirate the technology.
Trump does sometimes look like he's listening, but he's really just thinking about whose pussy to grab or some such. He not only fails to retain what he hears, he can't even retain what he says! And yes, this administration is pursuing a war on science, and knowledge in general, as it sometimes gets in the way of personal gain.
Adding a chemical marker seems the least problematic, the main issue being the identification of a useful chemical that poses negligible risk. One difficulty is that inhalation exposure is often the most sensitive exposure route and the one which has been studied least, so identifying candidate chemicals may be challenging.
The second idea would most likely be implemented through genetic engineering, essentially, we'd teach the plant to produce its own marker. The downside is that legal users would be forced to use only GM cannabis, which many may oppose.
The third idea seems the most problematic, at least with regard to nanotechnology. Regulation of nanomaterials is highly controversial. Nanoparticles generally have different properties than ions in solution or larger particles, resulting in different risks. For example, nanoparticles may deposit in the lungs' smallest airways, which are more sensitive to certain hazards. The general idea of developing a better delivery system that legal users will prefer holds promise. This might be a closed, disposable system similar to cig-alike e-cigarettes. A marker might not be needed if incentives to use the delivery device are great enough. However, the illegal market will likely pirate the technology.
Trump does sometimes look like he's listening, but he's really just thinking about whose pussy to grab or some such. He not only fails to retain what he hears, he can't even retain what he says! And yes, this administration is pursuing a war on science, and knowledge in general, as it sometimes gets in the way of personal gain.
Last edited:
florduh
Well-Known Member
He is the opposite of a reasonable person. He is a plain moron.
You do have a point that someone COULD conceivably convince him that legalizing cannabis would be a good decision. I only say this because the man is so stupid that the he tends to agree with the last person he spoke to. He isn't a deep thinker.
This could work to our advantage. Have some smart legalization proponent sit down with him. The problem is, the GOP has learned how to control this embarrassing game show host, so it is doubtful this will happen.
I wouldn't be surprised if the stupidity of this Administration forces Congress to pass some sort of legalization or decriminalization measure. But I'm not giving fucking Trump any credit for that.
It's like if my dog shits on the floor, and I then steam clean the carpet. I couldn't really say the dog cleaned my carpets, could I?
nickdanger
Collector of Functional Art
While reading the possible ideas of @neverforget711 I can't help but think of the expense that might be incurred if this is implemented. Possibly to the point that no one will be able to really afford it, except big tobacco, which is probably salivating at the chance to take over the cannabis market if it in fact expands nationwide. They need something else to focus on, as the market for cigarettes has been declining over the last couple of decades. Recently, Phillip Morris (Marlboro etc) announced they were going to be phasing out of cigarettes and were going to focus on the e-cig/vaporizing market.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Careful, your independence is showing.
It seems the marketers of the sizzle have gotten to @florduh . Apparently, NOTHING this administration can do, including legalization, would be enough for him to give credit so he is going to believe the hype rather than his own lying eyes. Those of us who have been through a couple of cycles of this already prefer to believe it when we see it and take deeds over promises as the mark of the person.
The way to get the issue across to Trump is, rather than think he and those who support him are fucking morons, to overcome his reticence for drug use. A reticence that stems from the early death of his brother due to alcohol. Not, "Pot ain't as bad as alcohol, dumbass.", but more along the lines of, "If we only had legalized cannabis earlier, I wonder how many lives lost to alcohol we could have saved." That's how you bring people together rather than push them apart. This war is not won if we get our finger over the line for a moment. Been there, done that, know the guy with the T-shirt saying, "I trusted the political mood and all I have left is this T-shirt". We convince, we join, we act responsibly with freedoms we do have and we build.
Trump's entire persona/brand is built on the deal. Overcome his natural reticence on drugs by focusing on marijuana, and we might just get one.
It's like, if you want to change how all of society (and most of the world) has been doing things for generations, you need to build a stable coalition of like-minded people. The best way to do that is not to antagonize half of them in words, deeds or attitudes by telling them you will treat them as though they shit on the floor if they do exactly what you want.
“There is no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit.”
--Emerson
florduh
Well-Known Member
@OldNewbie You said Obama was:
1) Evil for fully enforcing Federal Law in the legalized States by conducting raids during his first term.
2) A "lawless tyrant" for establishing the Cole Memo and reducing raids during his second term.
It sounds like you weren't very independent and unbiased when it came to the last President.
Wrong. All available evidence points to the current President being a plain moron. You talk about Trump's persona being based on the art of the deal. Correct. That persona was the creation of NBC writers and a ghostwriter from the 80s who actually wrote "The Art of the Deal". That author thinks Don is a dangerous moron, by the way. The guy spent months with Trump and knows him better than you or I.
Read what I actually wrote. If Congress is forced to act becuase of Sessions/Trump's fuckups, I will be very happy. But I wouldn't give Trump/Sessions credit for being so awful they forced Congress to finally act.
Now if Trump publicly asks Congress to legalize cannabis, I WILL give him credit and thanks for that. That unlikely move won't magically make Trump NOT a moron though....
We've seen Trump's deeds. He nominated the most anti-cannabis Attorney General in decades. An AG who has indicated he would like to see the recreational market dismantled.
The entire reason this thread exists is because of the Trump Admin.
Last edited:
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
No. Obama was evil because people had their lives ruined by relying on his policies and then he reversed course for political purposes. Hurting people for selfish purposes is evil.
You need to work on #2 as it is "fake news". I believe when you first mentioned that I called it a straw man. But, the imperial presidency is a huge problem. A single executive making the rules for everyone is tyrannical. I remember, also, trying to describe the legal difference between prosecutorial discretion unconstitutional wandering to the legislative function and show the decision points there.
I was NOT independent in regards to Obama who I regarded as being every bit as good as the rest of our ruling class. I never claimed to be unbiased--you did. I fit into no party's categories. The closet would be Liberterian, but I have some social issues I take issue with with them, believe there is a greater role for government than they do, and think the U.S. has a greater role internationally then they. You?
No. It doesn't. I think David Brooks (A never Trumper) said it best [ [URL]https://pjmedia.com/trending/nyts-david-brooks-anti-trump-movement-is-getting-dumber-becoming-a-smug-fairy-tale/[/URL] ]:
[INDENT]""The anti-Trump movement, of which I'm a proud member, seems to be getting dumber," Brooks confessed. "It seems to be settling into a smug, fairy tale version of reality that filters out discordant information."
The [I]Times[/I] columnist explained that "more anti-Trumpers seem to be telling themselves a 'Madness of King George' narrative: Trump is a semiliterate madman surrounded by sycophants who are morally, intellectually and psychologically inferior to people like us."
To his credit, Brooks attacked this smug mentality. "I’d like to think it’s possible to be fervently anti-Trump while also not reducing everything to a fairy tale," he wrote."[/INDENT]
[QUOTE="florduh, post: 1203587, member: 20783"][USER=31239]Read what I actually wrote. If Congress is forced to act becuase of Sessions/Trump's fuckups, I will be very happy. But I wouldn't give Trump/Sessions credit for being so awful they forced Congress to finally act.[/QUOTE]I understand what you wrote. I replied as to why I believe you wrong to think that way.[/user]
Deleted Member 1643
Well-Known Member
Also disagree. It's dangerous to underestimate one's adversaries. Trump amassed obscene wealth and a measure of fame. He then leveraged it to pull off what must be one of the greatest cons in history. Doubt he just got lucky.
florduh
Well-Known Member
You seem unwilling to admit that things were heading in a more positive direction as the Obama Admin moved through their second term. Raids decreased. The industry flourished. You claim the Cole Memo represented tyranny. Nonsense. It wasn't legally binding. It was guidance. Prosecutors were still free to exercise discretion. Of course it wasn't perfect. But things were getting better.
Yes. It does. I am biased... against stupidity. Trump dismissed climate change as a "Chinese Hoax". Only a deeply stupid man would say that. Maybe Trump will end up doing some good. I will certainly give him credit for that. It won't change the fact that he is a moron. I would guess any good he does will end up being by accident.
However, I'm not giving Sessions/Trump credit for being so anti-cannabis that they force Congress to act. Just like I don't credit my dog for giving me clean carpet after he poops on it, forcing me to steam clean the floors.
No doubt, Trump is the most successful con man in history. But wealth and intelligence aren't necessarily related. There are dumb rich people. And there are physicists making 50k a year.
If Trump wasn't born to a rich daddy, he would be the most successful used car salesman in New Jersey. He is a great marketer and self-promoter. He has preternatural confidence.
He's also a moron, and the reason we have this thread in the first place.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Please don't state MY claims any longer. State your own. (I started to write repeatedly on the discretion/tyranny distinction but each ended up with some insult to your intelligence so decline. Suffice to say, I'd appreciate it if you at least read the seminal case I linked on prosecutorial discretion before you try to educate me on it.)
florduh
Well-Known Member
I did.
My claim is that the Cole Memo doesn't represent Presidential tyranny. The Cole Memo did not order anyone to ignore Federal law and made no promises or guarantees. US Attorneys were free to pursue any case they wished.
If Heckler v Cheney was the slam dunk you believe it to be, surely an Anti-Cannabis org like SAM would've sued the Obama Justice Department.
We can agree to disagree on this though. Out of curiosity, what could Obama have done with Cannabis where you wouldn't consider him evil, or a tyrant?
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
It's not a matter of agreeing to disagree, but a matter of basic understanding of the law on the matter before we can even get to some point of agreement or disagreement. Since I've actually studied it (albeit a while ago), I'll claim some level of understanding you don't have. Heckler v Cheney is not some believed slam dunk when applied to some set of facts (Like the [2nd] Cole memo), it is the lens we must assess the facts through. The way the lens might look:
Fact: President/DOJ says he will not enforce civil rights laws because they are stupid and only meanies like them.
Issue: Can the president not enforce civil rights laws because they are stupid and only meanies like them?
Rule:
The President/DOJ can selectively enforce the laws if:
1. Enforcement depends on "factors which are peculiarly within [agency] expertise."
2. The President "Cannot, under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion, attempt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences."
3. The President cannot "consciously and expressly adopt a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities."
4. (From Heckler v. Chaney progeny.) Non-enforcement decisions are most comfortably characterized as judicially unreviewable exercises of enforcement discretion when they are made on a case-by-case basis.
Now we run though each. I might say:
1. The DOJ has a civil rights division and is the sole prosecutor for federal civil rights violations and, therefore, has particular expertise in prosecuting civil rights.
2. Because of the pre-election campaign statements of the President, he has expressed certain policy preferences that differ from the law and by saying the law is stupid as the reason why he feels he should not allocate resources there he is merely trying to use a guise to effectively rewrite the law.
3. Since he said he will not enforce the law at all, he has expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme so as to abdicate his statutory responsibilities.
4. Because the DOJ has said all enforcement is going to stop rather than making a determination that the facts in the case of Jose Jimenez and the crash helmet does not deserve prosecution, there should be a presumption the case is judicially reviewable.
and conclude the DOJ can't not enforce Civil Rights laws because they feel them stupid and that only meanies like them.
Remember, we have to decide things through the same lens for the presidential powers exercised that we like as we do for what we don't like. Otherwise, there are no laws but the whim of the person in power.
If Obama had not specifically told people things were going to be fine before his 180, he would not be evil by the definition I gave. If he maintained a position of where we should go but give power to the individual prosecutors to decide, it would in no way be tyrannical. If he did things within his statutory power like descheduling cannabis; gee whillikers, that would have been super-keen. If he'd have taken his majority in both houses and passed a law, that would have been even better. If he used his bully pulpit to keep hope alive that, someday, the government is not going to intrude on the individual rights of citizen to privacy and all will be able to choose as to if cannabis will be a part of their life, that would have been pretty good too.
Last edited:
florduh
Well-Known Member
@OldNewbie
Nope. We are still at agree to disagree.
Again, the Cole Memo was not an order to ignore Federal Law. It did not promise or guarantee anything to anyone. Additionally, marijuana businesses were still being prosecuted after the Memo was issued. They were just pursuing prosecutions most in line with their goals: keeping weed away from minors and preventing interstate trafficking.
And if we weren't in an "agree to disagree" scenario, surely an organization like SAM or a State like Nebraska would've sued the Obama Justice Department and won.
While I don't have your expertise, I have a basic understanding of what you are saying. I just think you are wrong. I'm not alone in that opinion. So: agree to disagree.
Thank you for your explanation of your views on Obama. I completely agree with most of that. I would point out that Trump has done literally NONE of what you wish Obama would have done with Cannabis. Trump wouldn't have had to deal with "The Black President legalizing weed" stigma either.
In addition, Trump nominated Jeff. Hopefully you are just as tough on Don.
Yes both parties are terrible. But they aren't EQUALLY terrible on cannabis. Pretending they are gives you Jeff Sessions.
We were headed in a better direction at the end of the Obama years. Now our Top Law Enforcement Official thinks everyone reading this site is a bad person.
Every Republican Senator and one Dem voted to confirm Jeff.
They do NOT deserve your vote in November.
Nope. We are still at agree to disagree.
Again, the Cole Memo was not an order to ignore Federal Law. It did not promise or guarantee anything to anyone. Additionally, marijuana businesses were still being prosecuted after the Memo was issued. They were just pursuing prosecutions most in line with their goals: keeping weed away from minors and preventing interstate trafficking.
And if we weren't in an "agree to disagree" scenario, surely an organization like SAM or a State like Nebraska would've sued the Obama Justice Department and won.
While I don't have your expertise, I have a basic understanding of what you are saying. I just think you are wrong. I'm not alone in that opinion. So: agree to disagree.
Thank you for your explanation of your views on Obama. I completely agree with most of that. I would point out that Trump has done literally NONE of what you wish Obama would have done with Cannabis. Trump wouldn't have had to deal with "The Black President legalizing weed" stigma either.
In addition, Trump nominated Jeff. Hopefully you are just as tough on Don.
Yes both parties are terrible. But they aren't EQUALLY terrible on cannabis. Pretending they are gives you Jeff Sessions.
We were headed in a better direction at the end of the Obama years. Now our Top Law Enforcement Official thinks everyone reading this site is a bad person.
Every Republican Senator and one Dem voted to confirm Jeff.
They do NOT deserve your vote in November.
Last edited:
Jeff Sessions’s marijuana crackdown policy opens divisions among Republicans
Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to reopen the door to more federal enforcement of marijuana laws has created a growing backlash within his own party, and potentially an election-year problem for some of its most vulnerable members.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to reopen the door to more federal enforcement of marijuana laws has created a growing backlash within his own party, and potentially an election-year problem for some of its most vulnerable members.
GreenDragon
Well-Known Member
Like most people, we are making a common mistake.
If you stop anthropomorphizing trump and trumpsters you can more clearly see reality.
If you stop anthropomorphizing trump and trumpsters you can more clearly see reality.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
I had to like it because it was so clever. Not because the insult divides us.
grokit
well-worn member
From a "strictly business" perspective 
...
Why Sessions can’t stop this marijuana boom
... (excerpt) It’s simply too big.
The U.S. marijuana market is already a $6.5 billion industry. And it’s expected to grow to $50 billion by 2026. That would make it bigger than the American craft beer and chocolate markets combined.
What’s more, 165,000 people already work in the U.S. marijuana industry. And employment will skyrocket as the industry grows.
Marijuana sales are also a huge tax revenue generator for states where it’s legal.
Take Colorado. It legalized medicinal marijuana in 2000. It then legalized recreational marijuana in 2014.
Last year, Colorado did $1.3 billion in marijuana sales. And the state collected $200 million in tax revenues from marijuana sales.
Colorado’s not alone, either. California, Washington, and Oregon all depend heavily on marijuana sales for tax revenue.
These states would face serious budget problems if Sessions goes after the industry.
Local politicians aren’t going to let that happen…
Last edited:
GreenDragon
Well-Known Member
Shhhhh... be cool man. Ixnay on the ividesday.
No worries. 'Anthropomorphizing' is way too big of a word to be insulting to them.
P.S. - If they ask for help sounding it out, tell them it means bigly MAGA.
P.P.S. - Are we sure "divides us" is valid in regards to the whole anthropomorphizing trumpsters scenario?
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Yes. It is the source of making neighbors enemies. If you can "other" them, then they don't seem like people who you know, love and work with, they are things. You can do what you want with things without feeling bad. See also, Gooks, Spics, Nazis, N...(Nope, not going there.) and a host of other pejoratives that have no meaning other than show a desire you want to think of the other person as inhuman.