HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Senate Judiciary chair fl...

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:09 PM

Senate Judiciary chair floats federal marijuana legalization

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/13/senate-judiciary-chair-floats-federal-marijuana-legalization/

By Stephen C. Webster
Thursday, December 13, 2012 13:43 EST

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested to U.S. Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske in a letter released Thursday (PDF) that Congress may consider legalizing marijuana in the wake of Colorado and Washington voting in favor of regulating the drug similarly to alcohol.

But, Leahy wrote in the letter, he wants to know where the administration stands on the laws before the committee takes up the question.

“How does the Office of National Drug Control Policy intend to prioritize Federal resources, and what recommendations are you making to the Department of Justice and other federal agencies in light of the choice by citizens of Colorado and Washington to legalize personal use of small amounts of marijuana?” Leahy asked Kerlikowske.

56 replies, 4734 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply Senate Judiciary chair floats federal marijuana legalization (Original post)
babsbunny Dec 2012 OP
CaliforniaPeggy Dec 2012 #1
msongs Dec 2012 #2
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #5
msongs Dec 2012 #8
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #14
mike_c Dec 2012 #16
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #17
GatorLarry Dec 2012 #25
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #3
RainDog Dec 2012 #7
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #10
TroglodyteScholar Dec 2012 #18
RainDog Dec 2012 #32
RainDog Dec 2012 #34
Panasonic Dec 2012 #20
RainDog Dec 2012 #35
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2012 #41
jmowreader Dec 2012 #50
tridim Dec 2012 #51
jmowreader Dec 2012 #52
DCKit Dec 2012 #4
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #6
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #9
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #12
Panasonic Dec 2012 #21
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2012 #40
reteachinwi Dec 2012 #46
quakerboy Dec 2012 #33
DCKit Dec 2012 #37
TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #11
SpartanDem Dec 2012 #13
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #30
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #15
Panasonic Dec 2012 #19
ejbr Dec 2012 #22
99th_Monkey Dec 2012 #24
cali Dec 2012 #53
99th_Monkey Dec 2012 #23
alfredo Dec 2012 #26
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2012 #42
alfredo Dec 2012 #44
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #27
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #28
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #29
another_liberal Dec 2012 #31
jmowreader Dec 2012 #54
stlsaxman Dec 2012 #36
liberal_at_heart Dec 2012 #38
davidpdx Dec 2012 #39
Garion_55 Dec 2012 #43
CarmanK Dec 2012 #45
Uncle Joe Dec 2012 #47
Trillo Dec 2012 #48
cali Dec 2012 #55
Trillo Dec 2012 #56
NorthCarolina Dec 2012 #49

Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:10 PM

1. That's hopeful news.

Once they get talking about it, then action will hopefully follow.

Go get 'em, Senator Leahy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:11 PM

2. what the administration wants is irrelevant, so go for it, Mr. Leahy nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:17 PM

5. Are you kidding? ...

what the administration wants is irrelevant?

Are you F'ing kidding or just hate President Obama to the point of blindness?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:22 PM

8. has nothing to do with "president Obama" or any other president - a senator has a

right to introduce legislation on a subject of his or her interest without having to get permission of "the administration"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #8)


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:08 PM

16. cool your jets, friend....

The DUer didn't say Obama was irrelevant, and you're the one who brought up hating Obama. The poster said that the administration's intention is not relevant to Congress introducing legislation. Recall that there are three quasi-independent branches of government, each with it's separate sphere of responsibility. Making laws is Congress's job-- not the Executive's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:18 PM

17. You are right. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:17 PM

25. Yeah, but

since he's a Democrat and the President is a Democrat it would be silly to introduce something this substantial without knowing where the President stands. Why put your fellow Democrat in a bad situation? Ask first. Besides, it's called a trial balloon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:15 PM

3. Well, alright ...


The answer, he suggested, may be that Congress must exercise one of its “legislative options,” like amending the law “to allow possession of up to one ounce of marijuana, at least in jurisdictions where it is legal under state law.”

“In order to give these options full consideration, the Committee needs to understand how the administration intends to respond to the decision of the voters in Colorado and Washington,” he concluded. “I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.”


Maybe Congressional Democrats are finally learning their role in government! If they had exercised this legislative option in 2008-2009, we would be having an entirely different conversation today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:20 PM

7. The DEA should simply reschedule cannabis

If Michelle Leonhart does not do this, she should be removed from her position b/c her stance is in opposition to the overwhelming scientific evidence of medical value (i.e. no medical value is the ONLY reason mj is Schedule I b/c the govt itself admits it is less addictive than legal nicotine and coffee.

That's what the administration needs to do. Tell the DEA to stop acting like religious extremists and start acting from a reality-based position.

Leonhart REFUSED to state that heroin was more dangerous than marijuana, when she appeared before two Democrats in the House. That's simply preposterous to think that marijuana and heroin pose equal risk with use.

If she is that fucking stupid, she doesn't need to be in her position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:36 PM

10. Or Congress could ...

you know ... exercise it's legislative option! You know ... do their job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:23 PM

18. Yes, but the DEA could easily "grease the skids" as it were...

And Obama definitely has the power to exert significant pressure in that direction.

That said, congress SHOULD be looking at the issue. But they can only do so much without knowing the admin's current plan to address the growing number of states that are passing laws that directly conflict with federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:36 PM

32. The Controlled Substances Act has various provisions for changes

One is Congressional.

The other is via the Attn. Gen's office.

The third is thru the DEA itself.

The DEA has been sitting on a request for rescheduling for 10 FREAKING YEARS.

That request went to the DC Court of Appeals just before the election. The ruling may have taken place, but I regularly try to search for links to news about this issue and haven't seen it yet - but I've been really busy the last few days.

However, all this is meaningless now that the Attn. Gen.'s office has issued a slap on the wrist to a large British Bank for money laundering drug money for a decade.

They might as well all go home, as far as I'm concerned, b/c the drug war is just an extension of the class and race war and I have fucking had it with both of them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021974311

Pardon my language, but if you're one strong black man I guess you can handle an person who is angry about the bullshit that passes for justice in this nation.

sigh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:42 PM

34. here's a thread that explains the CSA and the AG office

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:28 PM

20. She is pro PHARMA

 

and needs to be fired or replaced with a competent DEA director that understands that marijuana does absolutely nothing to harm, and actually would help America recover from its recession and the Fed goal of 6.5% unemployement? Very realistic if the DEA removes it completely from scheduling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:51 PM

35. There are two former Drug Czar bureaucrats working to get Sativex BUT NOT MJ legalized

h/t to fredamae for this excellent information.

Here's what one of them, Andrea Barthwell, had to say when she was being paid to promote prohibition:

...You won’t find any commercial development of plant-based marijuana medicines being pursued in the United States. Andrea Barthwell, a deputy director in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and President Bush’s point person on medical marijuana, says cannabis medicines aren’t compatible with modern science. They do not constitute “a serious line of research,” she says.

“The people who are advancing marijuana as a medicine are perpetuating a cruel hoax that exploits our compassion for the sick,” Barthwell says. “They are using patients’ pain and suffering in an attempt to change America’s drug control policy. Marijuana is a crude plant product that most definitely is not a medicine.”

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/andrea-barthwell-snake-oil-salesman/

More from Barthwell:

"Having this product available will certainly slow down the dash to make the crude plant material available to patients across the country," said Barthwell, an addiction medicine specialist.

Some medical marijuana activists suggested that Sativex could help spur efforts to legalize medicinal use of leafy marijuana.

"In practical terms," said Mirken, of the Marijuana Policy Project, "Sativex is to marijuana as a cup of coffee is to coffee beans."

Barthwell drew a different comparison.

"Comparing crude marijuana to Sativex is like comparing a raging forest fire to the fire in your home's furnace," she said. "While both provide heat, one is out of control."

(From Kirk Tousaw, Campaign Manager, BC Marijuana Party via the BCMP Website cache)

This is, again, pure propaganda to sell a product and make inexpensive medicine unavailable to Americans - and Canadians, for that matter.

Barthwell showed up at a conference sponsored by Americans for Safe Access and claimed that Sativex is not cannabis...and she's a doctor? An advocate from ASA noted her appearance.

After I pointed out to the few reporters that she was not JUST a private citizen, but the ex-Deputy Drug Czar, a representative of GW, and the failed Republican nominee for IL Senate, she told the press that rescheduling marijuana would not make it available to patients. I concurred. Then she asked me how I could say that Sativex was marijuana. I asked her if it was not marijuana, what was it? She rattled off her sound byte "If your grandmother was in pain would you give her opium?"

I am writing this list because I have major concern for the future of Sativex. Barthwell looked ridiculous. All the reporters kept asking her "They are here in support of Sativex, what is your problem?" And she just kept giving her sound bytes about how Sativex was not marijuana. Luckily Matt Atwood, Executive Director of IDEALReform, also a chemist was present and challenged her on the "compound level" to which her only response was "What are you a scientists?"

Directly after the press conference, I received a "Cease and Desist" order from the Bayer attorneys over a domain name ASA purchased but had yet put up the content www.SativexInfo.org , www.SativexInfo.com, and www.SativexInfo.net which is a pro-Sativex website they also found out about from Don Wirtshafter's e-mail. We have kindly told them we will not be giving over the domains and we will end up in court in the next 20 days or so.


So, we see that, yes, indeed, drug warriors like this woman are working with Bayer and GW to pull some slick shit and make Sativex legal while keeping the cannabis plant illegal by pretending that a medicine made from WHOLE-PLANT CANNABIS, not a synthetic, is not WHOLE PLANT CANNABIS.

I suppose that's why the Drug Czar amended his pronouncement that there is no medical value to cannabis to "smoked" cannabis. He may soon have to start saying... smoked, buttered, baked, vaped, tinctured or any other way if not done by the big pharma the government favors.

You know, long ago, some people in Boston had a tea party because their government favored a corporation, The East India Company, over those who lived in this nation who produced their own tea. King George ruled that the colonists must purchase the product that favored him, economically, rather than those who lived and worked here and often scraped by to eke out a living. The current teabaggers misrepresent this moment - this moment was a riot against corporate favoritism, not taxation. Now the tea is of a different blend.

Here's Barthwell on Morning Talking Heads TV



The host of the show failed to mention that Barthwell had worked as a lobbyist for a company that would benefit from keeping cannabis illegal.

In addition, the host didn't understand the difference between a synthetic and natural plant-based entity.

In addition, the crawl says 25 million have treated for marijuana abuse but failed to indicate that the majority of those entering rehab for cannabis had not used it for more than a month prior to rehab (which indicates they were not addicted) or that the majority of people in the U.S. who go to rehab in the U.S. do so to avoid a criminal record for simple possession. iow, that stat is part of prohibition propaganda.

From Saturday, April 16, 2005 The Pharmaceuticalization of Marijuana: G.W. Does the "Right" Thing - Fred Gardner at CounterPunch

G.W. has also hired John Pastuovic, who headed the Bush-Cheney campaign in Illinois in 2000, to handle public relations in the U.S. The implication of the hires is that G.W. founders Geoffrey Guy and Brian Whittle will use any means necessary to push their products as alternatives to smoked marijuana.


Olsen v. DEA, according to the MPP, may provide a route for Bayer/GW to obtain special treatment for Sativex to allow it to be made legal while whole-plant cannabis that is not supplied by a pharmceutical company remains illegal.

The corruption, the pure financial consideration over the welfare and civil rights of Americans is, once again, being by a government that implements policy based upon lies. Who, with the power to do so, has the courage to stop this assault on Americans? Are we governed by cowards and liars who enrich themselves at the expense of the American people? I wonder, more and more.

The cycle of deceit continues, from Anslinger's Marihuana Tax Act legislation of 1937 to favor paper pulp over hemp, to Barthwell's attempt to create a two-tier class of Americans based, again, upon lies.



Here's what Dr. Lester Grinspoon has to say about it a decade ago...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1170125

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:25 AM

41. I don't understand the benefit of rescheduling, especially for non-medical users.

So instead of being in the same category as heroin and acid (can't be prescribed), it goes in the same category as cocaine and morphine (accessible only through prescription).

What schedule is alcohol? What schedule is tobacco?

Fuck rescheduling--Deschedule it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 04:32 PM

50. That will come but in time

Moving pot from Schedule I to Unscheduled calls into question the rest of the Schedule I drugs - if pot is as dangerous as heroin (what its current Schedule implies) and pot is now free for all, why not do the same for smack?

I would suggest rescheduling everything:

I: bath salts, JWH-018 (synthetic weed), methamphetamine, cocaine

II: all opiates and barbiturates, surgical anesthetics including PCP

III: benzodiazepines

IV: whatever's on there now is fine

V: the current Schedule V list, plus marijuana

The big one is not moving pot to the cough syrup schedule (which basically eliminates regulation of it), it's moving heroin to a schedule low enough that hospices can get it. There are cancer patients writhing in pain in our hospice houses right now because the only thing strong enough to bring relief is smack - which they can't get. This is more important than healthy people relaxing with a bowl of Panama Red, but it's also politically impossible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #50)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 05:02 PM

51. I'd put benzos in schedule two, but agree with the rest.

All I want is the ability to grow one plant for myself. Not too much to ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #51)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:53 AM

52. I looked at lethality

It's much easier to kill yourself with barbiturates than benzos. You could argue, based on lethality, that barbiturates could be Schedule I.

I need to add two more drugs: amphetamine in Schedule III, MDMA in Schedule II.

Still, the important moves are with heroin (as the analgesic of last resort) and weed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:17 PM

4. Enforcement of illegal MJ is an entire industry in and of itself.

 

The LEOs, Lawyers, courts, prisons all rely on it for a considerable percentage of their income and funding. It's not going to be easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCKit (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:19 PM

6. True dat. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCKit (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:34 PM

9. Law enforcers seem to want weed off their plates. I would guess that the Courts want the same

thing. When my voters voted to state de-criminalize weed for small amounts, some of the biggest proponents were police officials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:42 PM

12. But prisons ...

no way ... especially here in Arizona that is out-pacing every other states in privatized prisons.

Gee, I wonder why? Could not be that 3 of the finger-wagging, good Governor Jan "Deer in headlight; finish your sentence, dammit" Brewer's top staffers are/were lobbyists, or are married to lobbyists, for private prison industry?

I'm sure that is just a coincidence, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:29 PM

21. LEO have long supported legalization

 

Pot grannies and recreational users aren't that important than dealing with someone who deals with dangeroud drugs such as heroin, meth, and bath salts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:21 AM

40. Show me any sitting police chief or sheriff who supports marijuana legalization.

That's a rare critter. Ask any spokesman for law enforcement organizations if they support legalization. You won't find any. I don't mean folks like LEAP; I mean folks like the head of any state sheriff or police chiefs or prosecutors association. They may claim they don't think pot is a big deal, but they sure don't want to legalize it, either. I wonder why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to DCKit (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:39 PM

33. There will be no lack of other things that could used to justify their funding

I dunno.. say litterbugs, jaywalkers, protestors. Im sure they can find a way to make those jailable offenses to keep the machine in operation.

Or maybe they could devote some of those resources to, say, fraud. Personal fraud, corporate fraud. And perhaps some to working on those pesky violent crimes.

It wouldnt be that hard. All those working now could still be working, just moving to a research and rehabilitation type format geared at catching criminals of various sorts and figuring out how to turn around those who can be. Plenty of money to be made in private counseling and monitoring. Might even be a lower overhead than running a prison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:42 PM

37. Yeah, but that stuff is HARD!

 

Besides, people who deal in real drugs often carry weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:39 PM

11. Sounds more like the Leahy I admired rather than the one who makes me spit nails

on occasion nowadays.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:44 PM

13. It's illegal for the Drug Czar to support legalization of Schedule I drugs

so there's no point writing to him

Anti-legalization Policy

By law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form) of illicit drugs. According to the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998" the director of the ONDCP

(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that -- 1. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and 2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;
The Government Accountability Office has found that this law authorizes the ONDCP to disseminate misleading information (lie) in order to oppose legalization
:

Finally, apart from considerations of whether any particular law has been violated, you have asked whether the Deputy Director's letter disseminated misleading information in connection with statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana. Clearly, the Deputy Director's statements reflect one perspective regarding marijuana - a perspective that is disputed by others with different viewpoints. However, ONDCP is specifically charged with the responsibility for "taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use" of certain controlled substances such as marijuana - a responsibility which logically could include the making of advocacy statements in opposition to legalization efforts. The Deputy Director's statements about marijuana are thus within the statutory role assigned to ONDCP. Given this role, we do not see a need to examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director's individual statements in detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_National_Drug_Control_Policy#Anti-legalization_Policy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpartanDem (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:13 PM

30. Reschedule it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:56 PM

15. Hey, Patrick ...

I like that!

Now, how about whispering in some of your Democratic colleagues' ear and have them "exercise their legislative options" on SS Marriage ... like providing Federal recognition of SS Marriages in those states where SS Marriage is legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:26 PM

19. I am for federal legalization

 

It will help many states with budget problems devote more to hemp production, understanding that this is all American jobs. Marijuana should have been legal, and there is already plenty of studies that shows marijuana is beneficial and hemp can and will be a major cash crops for nearly all of the states involved.

It create jobs. Period.

It creates opportunity.

I want to be part of that new revolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:31 PM

22. What is he high?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ejbr (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:37 PM

24. Actually it would be good policy

and would help reduce the deficit by not wasting another nickel on
policing and incarcerating people who are otherwise decent upstanding
citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ejbr (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:02 AM

53. well he is a huge Dead fan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:35 PM

23. Wouldn't it be cool if 30+ GOP and 30+ Dems pass this in Senate?

Mary Jane ushers in a whole new era of "enlightened bipartisanship", just in time
for 12/21/12.

Oh wait. I forgot about the Tea Party idiots. Never mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:18 PM

26. Here in Kentucky we still have some old hemp barns and a lot of old tobacco barns that

could be put back to use. We can modify the tobacco base formula to dole out acreage for marijuana and hemp production. The yearly tobacco auctions could have an extended sales season for marijuana and hemp fiber.


Some could be grown for seed to supplement livestock feed or produce oils for lubrication or fuel. As I remember, it makes a good machine oil.

Hemp beers are available. The ones I've tried were light and smooth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alfredo (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:26 AM

42. You ought to read "Cornbread Mafia"...

about the legendary Kentucky pot growers of the 1970s and 1980s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:42 AM

44. I saw that a couple days ago. I have months of books waiting

To be read. I might have to addition to my list. I might recognize a few names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:29 PM

27. Float it regardless, Senator. It's the right thing to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:40 PM

28. Perhaps CO and WA, plus ASE case making it's way

Through the courts is giving these guys a reason to get ahead of this.

And treating it like alcohol and tobacco is the way, ultimately, to go...

And can't wait to ask my locals Wutt 'bout that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:12 PM

29. 40 years late but better later than never. Nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:17 PM

31. The brewers and distillers . . .

The brewers and distillers will order their lobbyists to put an end to that kind of talk. Just wait and see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:03 AM

54. 70 years ago I would have agreed with you

Today is different. They say good business is where you find it. It just so happens that a joint goes well with a glass of beer or whiskey...and any business man worth his salt would be happy to supply both products.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:15 PM

36. Leahy asking serious and pertinent questions. Bravo!

How are they ever gonna keep all those possession cases in jail once it's legal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:49 AM

38. time to reschedule

the schedule 1 status is the excuse everyone uses for not legalizing it. Don't let them use it as an excuse anymore. Even doctors are coming out in support of the medical use of it, so the schedule 1 status is completely wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:47 AM

39. It should be treated like any other issue

reverse the prohibition and let each state decide how they will deal with it. The thing is that the Colorado and Washington measures had clear limits on how much could be possessed and Oregon's did not. I believe that's one of the reasons it didn't pass there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:32 AM

43. i smell a protest march in DC on 4/20/13

its even a saturday 8-)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:08 AM

45. While Rs in Congress fiddle, DEA cld act and the FDA could downgrade POT from CLASS 1 drug

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:04 PM

47. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, babsbunny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:51 PM

48. I just want to bounce this in light of today's event.

I'm not saying there's a connection, merely that the timeline is curious. The marijuana issue seems to have been massively TRIANGULATED for decades on end. Could todays shooting be a designed-by-event distraction from this news?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trillo (Reply #48)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 06:05 AM

55. fuck. the shit that people post here. NO. that's just utterly nuts.

and it's offensive shit to boot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #55)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:34 AM

56. Your post is as offensive as it comes.

Telling someone else their ideas are "shit". May you find peace and tranquility at the end of your bullying road.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babsbunny (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:33 PM

49. The private prison industry would never allow it.

They have too much to lose, they are big political campaign contributors, and they likely have government "guarantees" of throughput that would preclude any serious consideration of the matter of legalization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread