Crackdown on Legalized Marijuana

[howie105]

If we can't respect those with differences we have become prisoners of our own dogma. We need to stop being our own jailers and set ourselves free.

 

[florduh]

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.

I agree. No one should consider Trump supporters "the enemy". You shouldn't blame the victims of a con job. Regardless of how obvious the con was to the majority of us.

If we can't respect those with differences we have become prisoners of our own dogma. We need to stop being our own jailers and set ourselves free.

Sure. But in the meantime maybe don't support politicians who want to see every reader of this site thrown in a cage.

Here’s Where US Attorneys Stand on Cannabis Enforcement

In other news, Leafly put together a list of all our new US Attorneys and where they are likely to stand on a Cannabis Crackdown. Surprise surprise.... Jeff has appointed, with a few exceptions, a whole bunch of prohibitionists. I just hope they aren't stupid enough to actually start dismantling a 10 billion dollar a year industry. This dipshit Administration won't be in power forever, and hopefully Prosecutors see the writing on the wall.

https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/heres-where-us-attorneys-stand-on-cannabis-enforcement

 

[howie105]

Sure. But in the meantime maybe don't support politicians who want to see every reader of this site thrown in a cage.

Please note I did not mention politicians or support.

If we can't respect those with differences we have become prisoners of our own dogma. We need to stop being our own jailers and set ourselves free.

My post was about respecting differences and freeing people from dogma.

 

[Tranquility]

I agree. No one should consider Trump supporters "the enemy". You shouldn't blame the victims of a con job. Regardless of how obvious the con was to the majority of us.

And, the silly-season continues.

Since it seems Trump is trying to make good on his promises, it seems the only "con" is by those who don't like what he promised. Which is fair as people have different ways to make sense of the world. Pity those who continue down the derangement path can't consider others coming to a rational conclusion different from them.

 

[florduh]

Please note I did not mention politicians or support.

Sorry, I wasn't directing my comment at you specifically. I agree with your sentiments in general. I'm just saying when it comes to voting, we should probably support politicians who don't want us in a cage for vaping an herbal supplement. False equivalencies are not helpful. Not saying you are making one though.

And, the silly-season continues.

Since it seems Trump is trying to make good on his promises, it seems the only "con" is by those who don't like what he promised. Which is fair as people have different ways to make sense of the world. Pity those who continue down the derangement path can't consider others coming to a rational conclusion different from them.

I won't get into how Trump is in fact not keeping his promises to the average, "forgotten man" American. This isn't the place.

But OldNewbie, I'd say the only "silliness" and "derangement" would be voting for a guy who told you he'd support Jeff Sessions for AG... then expecting anything good to happen with Cannabis.

 

[Tranquility]

I won't get into how Trump is in fact not keeping his promises to the average, "forgotten man" American. This isn't the place.

But OldNewbie, I'd say the only "silliness" and "derangement" would be voting for a guy who told you he'd support Jeff Sessions for AG... then expecting anything good to happen with Cannabis.

Richard III Act 1, Scene 1:

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son (sun?) of York,
And all the clouds that loured upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths,
Our bruisèd arms hung up for monuments,
Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barbèd steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking glass;
I, that am rudely stamped and want love’s majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them—
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to see my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity.

 

[florduh]

Funny. I thought Trump was more Richard II. Petty and vindictive. The product of a coddled, privileged upbringing.

But I prefer a more modern philosopher on this topic, Dave Chappelle:

It looks like he's hitting a Pax Era throughout the special too.

 

[Tranquility]

Funny. I thought Trump was more Richard II. Petty and vindictive. The product of a coddled, privileged upbringing.

The words of a genius hundreds of years ago encapsulates much of today. At least, if what you "thought" was wrong.

 

[howie105]

To my monotheistic friends I apologize, but there was only one entertainer philosopher worth his red sea salt.

 

[Tranquility]

To my monotheistic friends I apologize, but there was only one entertainer philosopher worth his red sea salt.

From the actual Hebrew on the dropped tablet.

http://www.jewishhumorcentral.com/2013/05/found-at-last-mel-brooks-lost-five.html

11. Lo Ta'avor - You shall not pass.
12. Lo Tatzkhik - You shall not make people laugh or Lo Titzkhak - You shall not laugh.
13. Lo Tikneh - You shall not buy.
14. Lo Talunu - You shall not stay. (But the third letter may be a resh, which makes translation difficult.)
15. Lo Teshaber - You shall not break.

 

[howie105]

Thanks OldNewbie I now know more then I did and I got a bonus laugh.

 

[TheSkipper]

Been awhile since I've been here. Been reading up tho! What are your thoughts on
"The Marijuana Justice Act" as a real solution?
I think it'd be great if this could actually pass. It has a long way to go
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1689/text?format=txt

http://norml.org/action-center/item/the-marijuana-justice-act-of-2017-introduced

EDIT:

I should add as a preface that this is a proposal to remove cannabis from the federal schedule and proposes a distribution of funds not used for the prosecutions of cannabis users. Atleast at a glance. Admittedly I have not read the entire thing yet.

 

[grokit]

Implications for California and other states as well

Alaska’s unlikely — but totally legit way to protect legal marijuana

(an excerpt; this article meanders)

...There actually is already a way to protect Alaska's marijuana industry. The legislation exists. And it comes from the unlikeliest place: the desk of arch-conservative Sen. John Coghill (R-North Pole).

In early 2013, Americans were reeling from the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. It was the 15th time more than four people had been killed in a shooting during Obama's tenure, and it seemed fairly clear the horror was not enough to spark Congress into action. A month later, the president signed 23 executive orders addressing gun safety. Then-Speaker of the House, Mike Chenault (R-Nikiski), was watching. He introduced HB 69, which would have nullified any laws passed affecting gun rights in Alaska. I suppose he wasn't aware of the Supremacy Clause in Article 6, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Whatever.

Coghill, evidently a bit more savvy when it comes to constitutional law, swooped in to the rescue, offering an amended bill (SB 75). His edit was a much more laissez-faire approach that prohibited state officials from assisting federal agents in the event they attempted to enforce federal laws pertaining to gun control, asserting that a “state agency may not use or authorize the use of a state asset to implement or aid in the implementation of a requirement of an order of the President of the United States,” or any federal law that Congress might pass if it “[infringed] on a person’s right… to keep and bear arms[.]” The proposal restricted the state from using any resources to assist in denying “a person a right to due process” under both the U.S. and Alaska Constitutions. In other words, the state would tell FBI agents to go right ahead enforcing new laws restricting firearms. But state officers can’t help. Not with arrests, detainment facilities, technology – don’t even ask to borrow a cell phone.

It was a creative use of the Tenth Amendment aimed at blocking what he perceived to be threats to states' rights on gun ownership. But it could work just as well for legal marijuana. Don't take my word for it: Take California's.

When Trump ascended to the presidency and nominated Sessions as AG, California State Assembly member Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) lifted Coghill's bill language and applied it to marijuana. Assembly Bill 266 mirrors SB 75 and would “prohibit a state or local agency, as defined, from... using agency money, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to assist a federal agency to investigate, detain, detect, report, obtain information, or arrest a person for commercial or noncommercial cannabis activity that is authorized or allowed under state and local law” in California.

It passed the State Assembly (their lower chamber), and is in committee in the senate for when session reconvenes...

 

[florduh]

Been awhile since I've been here. Been reading up tho! What are your thoughts on
"The Marijuana Justice Act" as a real solution?
I think it'd be great if this could actually pass
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1689/text?format=txt

http://norml.org/action-center/item/the-marijuana-justice-act-of-2017-introduced

EDIT:

I should add as a preface that this is a proposal to remove cannabis from the federal schedule and proposes a distribution of funds not used for the prosecutions of cannabis users. Atleast at a glance. Admittedly I have not read the entire thing yet.

It looks great. And if Congress enacted the will of the People into law, it would pass. But in the real world, it won't make it out of the Judiciary Committee.

From Business Insider:
...the bill will create a $500 million community reinvestment fund that will focus on job training for the nascent cannabis industry and will prioritize communities that have suffered a disproportionate number of marijuana arrests for recreational-sales licenses.

The bill will also cut federal funding for state law enforcement and prison construction if the state disproportionately arrests low-income or people of color for marijuana offenses. Part of the community reinvestment fund will be funded through these cuts.

"It's the reverse of the 1994 Crime Bill," Sen. Cory Booker said on the same call. "It creates incentives for states to change their marijuana laws."

There is a near zero chance this will receive a single Republican vote, to say nothing of a co-sponsor.

 

[TheSkipper]

It looks great. And if Congress enacted the will of the People into law, it would pass. But in the real world, it won't make it out of the Judiciary Committee.

From Business Insider:
...the bill will create a $500 million community reinvestment fund that will focus on job training for the nascent cannabis industry and will prioritize communities that have suffered a disproportionate number of marijuana arrests for recreational-sales licenses.

The bill will also cut federal funding for state law enforcement and prison construction if the state disproportionately arrests low-income or people of color for marijuana offenses. Part of the community reinvestment fund will be funded through these cuts.

"It's the reverse of the 1994 Crime Bill," Sen. Cory Booker said on the same call. "It creates incentives for states to change their marijuana laws."

There is a near zero chance this will receive a single Republican vote, to say nothing of a co-sponsor.

Well, I'll remain optimistic and continue spreading word of the bill. It'd be great if the entire thing passed, but, one could consider the parts like what you quoted to be built in concessions that can be made or promised to entice both party's members to help it make its way to the President. Theres usually room for negotiations or promises of negotiations.

 

[Tranquility]

I agree with @florduh , such a bill will not likely get a single republican vote. Like every other posturing by either side to "fix" the problem, a poison pill of partisan dreams thrown in makes those otherwise inclined to vote for it to pass.

DESCHEDULE MARIJUANA!

It is completely in their power to do so. Yet, for some reason, that simple steak is not the bill. Instead, sizzletown.

 

[florduh]

I agree with @florduh , such a bill will not likely get a single republican vote. Like every other posturing by either side to "fix" the problem, a poison pill of partisan dreams thrown in makes those otherwise inclined to vote for it to pass.

DESCHEDULE MARIJUANA!

It is completely in their power to do so. Yet, for some reason, that simple steak is not the bill. Instead, sizzletown.

No. This is a good bill. You can't deny that certain communities have been screwed by Prohibition more than others. This bill ends the war on marijuana, and works to help the people most hurt by it. This is exactly the kind of work Congress SHOULD be doing.

From a Leafly.com article on the House version:

The bill would not declare marijuana legal in all 50 states. It would simply remove federal illegality and allow each state to regulate cannabis in its own way. States with criminal penalties for cannabis would keep those laws, at least until voters or legislators decided to change them. States with legal regulated cannabis systems would be allowed to continue without the threat of federal interference.

I agree that this is slight partisan posturing by the Dems, as they know most Republicans won't support something so reasonable. But I'd hardly call it "poison". I'd say the "poison" would be coming from the other side who will laugh this bill off.

And the spending in this bill is completely paid for by the extra tax revenue from legalization. It's a fiscally conservative bill.

Also we have had a "clean" descheduling proposed in Congress several times in the last 6 years. Every time it dies in committee.

Here's a summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ending_Federal_Marijuana_Prohibition_Act

 

[howie105]

Most of the legalization models are far too focused on market control and fee harvesting for my tastes. For myself its easy, any regulatory change that doesn't assure that I am not going to jail for use, procession or growth is unacceptable. I can't accept political equivocation, half steps or compromises if I or those I care for can still end up in jail.

 

[florduh]

Most of the legalization models are far too focused on market control and fee harvesting for my tastes. For myself its easy, any regulatory change that doesn't assure that I am not going to jail for use, procession or growth is unacceptable. I can't accept political equivocation, half steps or compromises if I or those I care for can still end up in jail.

I agree but the Marijuana Justice Act doesn't do any of that. It leaves the details up to the States and gets the Feds out of the Marijuana enforcement business.

In a decent world, the bill would pass.

 

[Tranquility]

The bill includes income redistribution. By putting the income redistribution in the bill, the majority of the country does not support it and it is not going to pass. Just because those on the far left like taking from one guy they don't like and give it to the guy they like, much of the country finds it fundamentally unfair.

The bill is not designed to further the conversation on cannabis NOR does it have a chance to get the federal government out of enforcement. It is designed as a talking point for a politician to not do anything but to say they did. It is exactly the sizzle I've written about all the way through.

@florduh wrote:

I agree that this is slight partisan posturing by the Dems, as they know most Republicans won't support something so reasonable. But I'd hardly call it "poison". I'd say the "poison" would be coming from the other side who will laugh this bill off.​

I think he needs to Google the term "poison pill".

 

[florduh]

The bill includes income redistribution. By putting the income redistribution in the bill, the majority of the country does not support it and it is not going to pass. Just because those on the far left like taking from one guy they don't like and give it to the guy they like, much of the country finds it fundamentally unfair.

The bill is not designed to further the conversation on cannabis NOR does it have a chance to get the federal government out of enforcement. It is designed as a talking point for a politician to not do anything but to say they did. It is exactly the sizzle I've written about all the way through.

Simple question, OldNewbie: Do you believe that certain groups have been disproportionately affected by Marijuana Prohibition? In other words, do you accept reality?

"Fundamentally unfair"... give me a break. I'd say African Americans being incarcerated for marijuana possession at a higher rate than whites when both groups use marijuana at the same rate to be unfair. This bill seeks to address some of that by reinvesting in communities that have been disproportionately screwed by the Drug War.

You can use "income redistribution" or whatever Right Wing dog whistle you want to describe it, but calling it "unfair" doesn't pass the smell test. And the money called for in the bill is paid for with increased tax revenue from legalization. Not to mention the savings from not having the Feds enforce dumb laws.

Quoting Cory Booker: "“To me, it strikes as a hypocrisy and injustice if you legalize but don’t try to undo the damage that was done by this awful War on Drugs,” I agree.

The bill also calls for a process to expunge Federal possession convictions prior to the passage of the Bill.

I agree a "clean" removal of Marijuana from the CSA is preferable. But that HAS been proposed many times, and the Republicans still stonewalled it in committee. So, fuck 'em. Let's have both parties show where they stand. The Dems stand for ending the war on Marijuana and attempting to undo some of its worst effects. The GOP will laugh that off.

Choose wisely in November!

I think he needs to Google the term "poison pill".

Oh I'm familiar with the term, I just think describing this bill that way is ridiculous.

 

[Tranquility]

Simple question, OldNewbie: Do you believe that certain groups have been disproportionately affected by Marijuana Prohibition? In other words, do you accept reality?

There is certainly a correlation between certain "groups" and marijuana convictions. We might also say that taxes have a correlation between certain groups and who pays them. That does not mean prohibition or taxation are historical wrongs to be righted.

"Fundamentally unfair"... give me a break. I'd say African Americans being incarcerated for marijuana possession at a higher rate than whites when both groups use marijuana at the same rate to be unfair. This bill seeks to address some of that by reinvesting in communities that have been disproportionately screwed by the Drug War.

Right. How about those hurt by those violating the law? You posted how violence went down when medical marijuana came into effect. Who do you think were doing the killing? Shouldn't the deaths of the innocents be taken off the reparations bill?

You can use "income redistribution" or whatever Right Wing dog whistle you want to describe it, but calling it "unfair" doesn't pass the smell test. And the money called for in the bill is paid for with increased tax revenue from legalization. Not to mention the savings from not having the Feds enforce dumb laws.

None of the money is going to the guy who was hurt. It is simple identity politics to shift money to favored constituents. Your theory it is not "unfair" does not seem to be changing a lot of minds yet.

https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/these-senators-are-all-talk-no-action-on-cannabis-legalization

In fact, a number of senators who expressed a burning desire to halt Sessions and his cannabis-hating crusade in its tracks have not so much as signed on as a co-sponsor of any of the four major pieces of legislation addressing the issue in the US Senate. As of mid-January, one of the most powerful bills—Sen. Cory Booker’s Marijuana Justice Act—had only a single co-sponsor, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden.​

I agree a "clean" removal of Marijuana from the CSA is preferable. But that HAS been proposed many times, and the Republicans still stonewalled it in committee. So, fuck 'em. Let's have both parties show where they stand. The Dems stand for ending the war on Marijuana and attempting to undo some of its worst effects. The GOP will laugh that off.

That's why the poison pill. Credit for trying to fix the problem from those who support legalization and care about it as a high priority without blame for legalizing it from those who don't support legalization or who have other issues as higher priorities. Until there are clean bills that get out of committee and get voted upon, all we are determining is the sizzle we like better.

Choose wisely in November!

Agreed!
https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/liberty-jobs-freedom-how-cannabis-became-a-conservative-issue

At a recent marijuana reform conference in Washington, DC, Rep. Tom Garrett, a freshman Republican congressman from Virginia, told a room full of cannabis activists that their beloved plant meant nothing to him.

“I really don’t care about marijuana,” he declared.

No surprise there. Garrett, a former state prosecutor and winner of the American Conservative Union’s “Defender of Liberty” award, would never be mistaken for an avid dabber.

But then Garrett, 45, reversed course.

“What I do care about,” he said, “is individual liberty. What I do care about is justice. What I do care about is economic opportunity.”

And that, he said, is why six months ago he introduced HR 1227, the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017. Garrett’s bill would do just what its title says: remove cannabis from the federal list of controlled substances entirely and allow states to regulate it as they please.​

Oh I'm familiar with the term, I just think describing this bill that way is ridiculous.

Yet, in the specific paragraph saying it does not describe the bill, you basically listed the definition.

 

[florduh]

@OldNewbie

I enjoy your comparing taxation to the disproportionate percentage of African Americans who are thrown in a cage for smoking weed. That was good for a laugh. We all know paying taxes and having your life ruined with a drug possession conviction are basically equivalent matters

By your definition every bill that has sought to legalize cannabis has been a poison pill because inevitably Republican committee members have buried it. It couldn't be that the Party of Jeff Sessions just doesn't like weed, right?

There's no evidence Booker and his 12 co-sponsors (House and Senate) are purposely trying to kill the bill by adding "poison". It's more like they actually believe it will correct the wrongs created by the dumb War on Weed. Not their fault Republicans will laugh at it.

Yet again, we see where both Parties stand.

You seem to claim that voting for Republicans would be just as helpful as voting for Dems in terms of getting legalization enacted into law. Your evidence for this is Rep Garrett's "Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017".

You fail to mention that FOUR TIMES as many Dems signed on to this REPUBLICAN BILL.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1227/cosponsors

Voting for the Party of Sessions and hoping that something good will happen for Cannabis seems like a fool's errand.

 

[grokit]

We still have a retrograde mindset running our drug policies, regardless of which party is in charge of our schizoid government atm. Not directly related, but our response to the 'opiate epidemic' has been typically rooted in dichotomous moral imperatives that belie our typically punitive approach to addiction:

Only about one-third of American addiction programs offer what many experts worldwide see as the standard of care — long-term use of either methadone or buprenorphine. Most [US] programs view medication as a crutch for short-term use and provide only talk therapies.

This widespread rejection of proven addiction medications is the single biggest obstacle to ending the overdose epidemic [in the US]. Funding isn’t the barrier: Outpatient medication treatment is both more effective and significantly cheaper than adding inpatient beds at rehabilitation centers. The problem is an outdated ideology that views needing a medication to function as a form of addiction.​

from
The Wrong Way to Treat Opioid Addiction
(nyt)

 

[Tranquility]

@OldNewbie

I enjoy your comparing taxation to the disproportionate percentage of African Americans who are thrown in a cage for smoking weed.

Thrown in jail for violating the law. Just like others would be thrown in jail for not following the tax law.

@OldNewbieThat was good for a laugh. We all know paying taxes and having your life ruined with a drug possession conviction are basically equivalent matters

Rather than laughing, distinguish them. Make an argument, not an accusation.

@OldNewbieBy your definition every bill that has sought to legalize cannabis has been a poison pill because inevitably Republican committee members have buried it. It couldn't be that the Party of Jeff Sessions just doesn't like weed, right?

Not just one straw man, but two. Is it possible for you to not misstate things in an attempt to make some point?

@OldNewbieThere's no evidence Booker and his 12 co-sponsors (House and Senate) are purposely trying to kill the bill by adding "poison". It's more like they actually believe it will correct the wrongs created by the dumb War on Weed. Not their fault Republicans will laugh at it.

Evidence? Just the entire history of this and how politicians on both sides have behaved. Do you think a straight bill would get more Republican votes or this bill with the income redistribution? If your goal is to legalize, that bill ain't helping. If your goal is other social fixes, then, we might discuss as to if those provisions are good or not.

@OldNewbieYet again, we see where both Parties stand.

Stand on WHAT? Which part of the bill are they standing on? The state's rights portion? The cannabis portion? The redistribution portion? The my buddy-runs-adult-classes-to-teach computers-and-he-might-like-some-of-this-cheddar portion? Maybe it is just a firm belief that teaching people who were arrested for felonies how to double click to select something is going to change their lives. But, just like you can't say the temporary spending bill being debated now is all about federal dog catcher reports out of the Department of Health and Human services, you can't say a vote on the bill is a position on cannabis.

@OldNewbieYou seem to claim that voting for Republicans would be just as helpful as voting for Dems in terms of getting legalization enacted into law. Your evidence for this is Rep Garrett's "Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017".

You fail to mention that FOUR TIMES as many Dems signed on to this REPUBLICAN BILL.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1227/cosponsors

That's not my claim. I claim it is helpful to talk of cannabis reform and not talk about who says nicer things about cannabis reform. For the record, from your posts, it seems the Republicans are closer than the Democrats to getting a bill on the floor. Must be another example of our lying eyes.

As I have written repeatedly, we don't want to win only when the pendulum swings far to the left or far to the right. We want cannabis legal no matter where the pendulum swings. Your way and insistence we can only go through Democrats to get what we want will keep cannabis as a forever issue because, as much as those on both the left and the right would wish, all the facts indicate one side is not going to ever win power forever. I want the legality of pot to be like alcohol and not abortion. We know that most accept alcohol as legal and don't think poorly on people who use it moderately. Its legality is not at threat.

Voting for the Party of Sessions and hoping that something good will happen for Cannabis seems like a fool's errand.

Which party does Feinstein belong to?

[URL]https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/the-dianne-feinstein-mystery-why-is-she-californias-last-prohibitionist[/URL]
[INDENT]In November 2016, California’s Proposition 64, a measure to legalize the adult use of cannabis, looked to be cruising to victory. The initiative, led by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, attracted few high-profile opponents—with one notable exception.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California’s powerful US Senator, high-ranking Democrat, and revered San Francisco icon, blasted the measure early and remained an unrelenting opponent. She signed a ballot statement accusing cannabis companies of plotting to lure “millions of children and teenage viewers” with television ads.

The Prop. 64 campaign spokesman called the statement “reminiscent of the ‘reefer madness’-style disinformation campaigns that subverted honest dialogue around this issue for decades.”
[/INDENT]
[URL='https://technical420.com/cannabis-article/dianne-feinstein-%E2%80%93-wolf-weed%E2%80%99s-clothing']https://technical420.com/cannabis-article/dianne-feinstein-–-wolf-weed’s-clothing[/URL] (Joining with the Republican Grassley. It's almost like age is more important than party.)
[INDENT]Senator Feinstein feigns a phony support for research, but rescheduling cannabis to a schedule II narcotic would box out all the small business around the country from selling CBD and potentially medical marijuana in its current form. This reclassification would pave the way for organizations that have the time and budget to bank roll clinical trials and FDA approval processes – which can take years.

What type of organizations have this capability? Pharmaceutical companies and the universities that will sell their research to the pharmaceutical companies. Schedule II would allow these pharmaceutical companies the ability to patent any slight modification to cannabis and again potential allow them to bring litigation to anyone selling anything similar – including the cannabis plant in its original form! See: Monsanto’s lawsuits against farmers.

This proposed bill is an absolute attempt at a power grab by the corporations that would benefit from schedule II. This bill is an attempt to create Big Marijuana – and what a telling sign it is that such a prohibitionist is an author of it.

It would take up too many digital digits to dig into all the reasons why this is an incredible immoral pursuit for cannabis research, but instead we can look to Senator Feinstein’s campaign contributions to better help us understand who has been feeding this wolf.

From 2009 – 2014, Dianne Feinstein has received $173,250 in donations from pharmaceutical companies and another $144,538 from health professionals. Other interests group are whispering sour little prohibitionist nothings in here ear too: Big Agriculture to the tune of $372,000. Beer, Wine, and Liquor clocking in at $105,000. Another $320,000 from ‘lobbyists’.
[/INDENT]
[URL]http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article89191002.html[/URL]