The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Baby steps, people, baby steps.

Remember, cannabis has been on Schedule I for a very long time now. Asking the government to drop it off the schedule completely would never happen.
Why not? There is nothing logical about going from I to II. II includes opium and codeine. "Substances in this schedule have a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence." This is completely false as far as cannabis goes. You can buy this stuff over the counter in several states. Putting it in the same category as physically addictive narcotics should make your head explode. It is time for the government to stop lying about this, not just lie an incrementally smaller whopper. There is such a thing as setting your sights too low. There is enough momentum to get beyond Schedule II at this point, certainly. It is a commonplace for everyone from the president on down to observe that pot is less harmful than tobacco or alcohol. So in response we are putting on sched II with opium? Give me a break.
Moving it to Schedule II is big step in the right direction. First, it will help alleviate the problems that growers and dispensaries in legal states have been having with banking and finances. Second, it will open the doors for U.S. home-grown (no pun intended) studies and scientific investigations of this wonderful plant. Given time on schedule II, what we all know already will be confirmed over and over again. I think once that happens and more and more people see the real value of cannabis, then it will eventually move from schedule II to schedule III.

But NOTHING will happen as long as it stays on schedule I.

Incrementalism of going from I to II is absurd at this point. The genie is already out of the bottle.
 
Last edited:

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Mick said it best - You can't always get what you want, But if you try sometime you find...You get what you need.

I live in an illegal state and I want it legal now - but what I need is to get a little closer to legalization each day because I know I'm not going to get what I want right now.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
When opportunity strikes you have to seize it. To go for timid incrementalism at this point is to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Polls now show 58% of adults in the US are in favor of legalization. Put it on II, how long is it going to stay there? Years? That won't help your struggle within your state. Putting it on II, far from opening things up, is a way to put the brakes on, another way to stall you for a few more years. Your state can still say we won't mess with it because it's still illegal federally.
 
Last edited:
Gunky,
  • Like
Reactions: Derrrpp

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
When opportunity strikes you have to seize it. To go for timid incrementalism at this point is to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Polls now show 58% of adults in the US are in favor of legalization. Put it on II, how long is it going to stay there? Years? That won't help your struggle within your state. Putting it on II, far from opening things up, is a way to put the brakes on, another way to stall you for a few more years.

What if the opportunity presented isn't a move beyond schedule 2? Do we take a pass?
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
I find it illogical to say it's okay to sell this over the counter, recreationally, for adults in Colorado, and still try to claim this substance has "a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence." Either it's safe enough to sell over the counter or it has a high potential for abuse similar to opium. It can't be both. The contradiction is too grave. We should not continue to accept lies.

What if the opportunity presented isn't a move beyond schedule 2? Do we take a pass?
We probably don't get that choice but if we did I would consider a tactical pass. Having it on sched I keeps the contradictions and pressure on the boil and will continue to spark resistance. Putting it on II is so far behind the curve that it risks slowing the process rather than speeding it up. It undercuts the states that have legalized.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
I completely agree with:
I find it illogical to say it's okay to sell this over the counter, recreationally, for adults in Colorado, and still try to claim this substance has "a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence." Either it's safe enough to sell over the counter or it has a high potential for abuse similar to opium. It can't be both. The contradiction is too grave. We should not continue to accept lies.

I agree with the sentiment on the following but I'll be grateful if my state comes around on it's own:
We probably don't get that choice but if we did I would consider a tactical pass. Having it on sched I keeps the contradictions and pressure on the boil and will continue to spark resistance. Putting it on II is so far behind the curve that it risks slowing the process rather than speeding it up. It undercuts the states that have legalized.
 
His_Highness,

Gunky

Well-Known Member
I don't have the answer, obviously, and I understand that people supporting sched II are also doing so tactically, to open up some avenues for medical research.
 
Gunky,
  • Like
Reactions: Derrrpp

Gunky

Well-Known Member
I really wonder if, by putting it on II, we end up with a prolonged period of stalemate, where this becomes a prescription drug with heavy controls like most opiates or testosterone. A few medical users are bought off and the rest wait. Back to black.

I totally understand the impatience, Gunky, but it's the way our government works. It's kinda like trying to steer an oil tanker. It's turning but it's gonna take awhile..........

I am not sure that is the right model here at all. Alcohol prohibition ended federally in one swell foop. The states that have legalized may be the better model.

There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures. -Shakespeare
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
I find it illogical to say it's okay to sell this over the counter, recreationally, for adults in Colorado, and still try to claim this substance has "a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence." Either it's safe enough to sell over the counter or it has a high potential for abuse similar to opium. It can't be both. The contradiction is too grave. We should not continue to accept lies.
This is an argument between the Federal Government and certain states. Colorado says (rightly) that it should NOT be illegal because it is NOT a dangerous risk to the populous and is less dangerous that other controlled substances. The federal government disagrees and believes that marijuana is a dangerous drug and unfettered access would lead to additional problems for public health. While there is plenty of research to support Colorado's position, there is also research to support the fed. We even have examples WITHIN THIS GROUP OF SUPPORTERS that describe incidents of paranoid or dangerously overwhelmed experiences that certain individuals have when using THC based products, and especially when overusing them. And most of us have experienced "too much edible" at one time or another with varying degrees of coping required.
Just because alcohol is more dangerous and more commonly causes severe issues (and even death) doesn't make marijuana safe for anyone at any dose. Also let us not forget that while alcohol and tobacco are not on the schedule, they are controlled to some degree at the state level even limiting their purchase to "state liquor stores" in some places or certain days and times in others.
We probably don't get that choice but if we did I would consider a tactical pass. Having it on sched I keeps the contradictions and pressure on the boil and will continue to spark resistance. Putting it on II is so far behind the curve that it risks slowing the process rather than speeding it up. It undercuts the states that have legalized.
Absolutely disagree here. Taking it off schedule 1 removes the prohibitive restrictions on research and local acceptance that has driven (in my view) the rapid growth of support around the country. The more "normal" it becomes, the more pressure from the bottom up. And that seems to be how things progress in today's America. The closer it gets to mainstream, the less the "powers that be" can resist. And then they cave...

I'll be the first to admit this has been an excruciatingly slow process, I've been consuming for over 40 years, but it is sped up now and growing rapidly. I really don't think we are far from the prize...
 
Last edited:

grokit

well-worn member
The thing is, putting it on schedule II would allow the whole narc infrastructure to stay employed.

I wish Obama would surprise everyone and take cannabis off the list of bad drugs right before he leaves office. It would leave quite a legacy.
I like the sentiment, but obama seems more interested in toppling syria and passing the tpp.
It's not the stuff I would want on my legacy, but he seems quite determined :nope:
 

Chill Dude

Well-Known Member
Yeah the whole drug scheduling thing is ridiculous.. Did you know an often prescribed class of drugs to treat anxiety known as benzodiazepines are schedule IV. These are drugs like Xanax, klonopin, Ativan and Valium to name a few.. These drugs are extremely physically addictive and many people have said the withdrawals symptoms are similar to opioid withdrawal except it takes even longer to get clean from benzos. My whole point is the drug scheduling we have now makes no sense at all. If benzos are schedule 4 then cannabis should be schedule V or perhaps de scheduled completely.....
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
I was kinda hoping that dropping Christie into the undercard debate might put a stake in him finally, but the more I think about it, it may be an opportunity for him to overwhelm the weak field in that group and actually help him back to the adults table...

I don't know about y'all, but Trump is NOT the only bully on this bus and I don't want to see either do well. Here's hoping the undercard is a weigh station on the way out the door.
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
Does an ad like this work?


If so, who does it work with?

You ID the demographic and you can get a targeted voter commercials with a check. As to who its aimed at that is obvious, voters that you hope will write you more checks. Same as it always was.
 
howie105,

MinnBobber

Well-Known Member
I'd try for complete removal from Federal list but settle for a lower designation/ not Schedule 1.

I'm preparing for a public mtg on med cannabis in Minnesota, for public comments.
A select but ignorant committee of medical professionalsis addressing:
-- Should "Intractable Pain" be added to existing conditions??
They are recommending NO as it is potentially too dangerous.

Intractable pain patients currently get Prescription Pain Killers (PPK).
From CDC official figures:

PPK (Prescritpion Pain Killers) kill 16,000 annually
Even over the counter NSAID like aspirin kill 7,600 annually
Cannabis kills ZERO ANNUALLY

Yup, cannabis is pretty fucking dangerous so please don't let these folks living in unbearable pain have another viable medical option :(

Amputees have testified, as have people in wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, and canes .
All saying give us another medical option but NOOOOO
Tomorrow I'm speaking for the 16,000 PPK patients who died last year since they can't make it......

We truly are living in the Twilight Zone as this committee should be discussing, should we continue to allow PPK's as they kill 16,000 annually!!!
 
Last edited:

MinnBobber

Well-Known Member
@cybrguy , thank you!!

there was a survey online, kinda hidden, which I just found again but the bast#rds have closed it.

I found this email addy which should get a message to the State Office of Med Cannabis

health.cannabis@state.mn.us

Any messages to them about "adding intractable pain" would be greatly appreciated.

The more professional/ logical/reasonable/ anecdotal--I/ my buddy has intractable pain and med cannabis helped with xyz, the better.

I start to shake when I practice my speech cuz I only get 3 minutes and I could talk for 30 minutes and I feel so strongly about it. My dad had intractable pain and I'm positive cannabis would have helped.

For personal therapy I need to write here, what I'd like to say but can't:
Example of what not to send---
So, a big no to adding intractable pain? WTF are you thinking, please get your finely educated heads out of your collective assholes and do your medical duty to save thousands of lives. Spend about an hour on your f'in computer and learn that cannabis is not a killer Schedule 1 drug but a miracle medicine that can save thousands of lives and greatly enhance the lives of millions of medical patients.
Potentially dangerous?--- You've got to be fuckin' kidding me as no one has ever died from cannabis.
It's a no-brainer to allow intractable pain, and your decision is truly a no-brainer as in you failed to use your brain.
P.S. I hope to attend the next committee meeting where the public is free to argue that the world is round, even though the esteemed committee has declared the world if flat.

F U

Rant over--I feel better
 

grokit

well-worn member
PPK (Prescritpion Pain Killers) kill 16,000 annually
Even over the counter NSAID like aspirin kill 7,600 annually
Not to mention the poor bastards that just drink themselves to death because the pills are so messed up, or they're not strong enough, or they can't even get them. Opiates have their place but they don't do much for one's attitude. While cannabis doesn't eliminate pain, it really helps with the stress that pain can cause.
 
Last edited:

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Email sent. And I emailed a couple friends who use MJ for pain.

Not understanding its value for pain is like not understanding its value for PTSD. My state won't qualify their medical for either. Stupid stupid people... :(
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Not to mention the poor bastards that just drink themselves to death because the pills are so messed up, or they're not strong enough, or they can't even get them. Opiates have their place but they don't do much for one's attitude. While cannabis doesn't eliminate pain, it really helps with the stress that pain can cause.
The anti-inflammatory effects can indirectly help in reducing joint pain.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
gettyimages-493267724.jpg

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) walks onto the stage to participate in the North Texas Presidential Forum at Prestonwood Baptist Church Oct. 18, 2015 in Plano, Texas.
Photo by Stewart F. House/Getty
Judging candidates by the company they keep
11/10/15 04:01 PM


Three Republican candidates speak at anti-gay pastor's rally
Even among right-wing evangelical pastors, Kevin Swanson stands out for his … how do I put this gently … enthusiasm.
But Swanson nevertheless has a large enough following that he hosted a “National Religious Liberties Conference” in Des Moines, Iowa, where he was joined by three prominent Republican presidential candidates.
Now, before we get to those White House hopefuls, it’s worth appreciating the kind of message Swanson likes to disseminate. Rachel noted on the show last night some of his more colorful remarks at his Iowa gathering.
“There are families whose – we’re talking Christian families, pastors’ families, elders’ families in good godly churches – their sons are rebelling, hanging out with homosexuals and getting married. And the parents are invited.
“What would you do if that was the case? Here’s what I would do. Sack cloth and ashes at the entrance to the church. And I’d sit in cow manure and I’d spread it all over my body. That’s what I’d do. And I’m not kidding. I’m not laughing. I’m grieving. I’m mourning. I’m pointing out the problem!
“It’s not a gay time! These are the people with the sores, the gaping sores. The sores that are pusy and gross and people are coming in and carving happy faces on pusy sores. That’s not a nice thing to do. Don’t you dare carve happy faces on open, pusy sores. Don’t you ever do that…. America needs to hear the message. We are messed up.”
Well, some of us more than others, I’m afraid.
Swanson went on to make his case, with unnerving zeal, that Scripture demands the death penalty for homosexuality.
All of which brings us back to the national GOP candidates.
Now, as a rule, presidential campaigns make at least some effort to keep radical extremists at arms’ length. In Republican politics, it’s one thing to associate with activists who oppose gay rights; it’s something else to associate with a pastor who talks openly about executing gay people because of their sexual orientation.
Indeed, the organizers of the “National Religious Liberties Conference” extended invitations to 14 presidential campaigns in advance of the weekend’s gathering. Eleven of them declined, probably because of Swanson’s record of over-the-top extremism.
And yet, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal accepted their invitations, shared a stage with Swanson, and made their pitch to over 1,700 event attendees.
Or as Rachel put it last night:
“What I just showed you there, those are not like the ‘kill-the-gays’ ravings of the guy who was hosting this event from some time in his past. This is not something that we dug up that he said a long time ago that maybe these presidential candidates didn’t know about.
“This was actually the host of the event speaking this weekend. This was him speaking this weekend at the event where these three Republican presidential candidates were also present and speaking with him.”
On CNN, the day before the event, Cruz was specifically asked about the propriety of paling around with a guy like Swanson. “I don’t know what this gentleman has said and what he hasn’t said,” Cruz replied.
That’s hard to believe – the Cruz campaign has access to Google – but even if it were true, the senator certainly knew what this “gentleman” said when Cruz was backstage, waiting to join Swanson before attendees.
Cruz, Huckabee, and Jindal had a first-hand opportunity to hear Swanson’s hateful rhetoric, at which point they could have simply left. They didn’t. They accepted Swanson’s invitation and then joined him after Swanson spoke at length about his kill-the-gays worldview.
Are we to judge the presidential hopefuls by the company they keep?
 
Top Bottom