HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » U.S. Conference of Mayors...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 11:11 PM

U.S. Conference of Mayors asks Obama for flexibility on marijuana

Source: Raw Story

The United States Conference of Mayors unanimously passed a historic, bipartisan resolution Monday calling on the Obama administration to stop interfering with state and local efforts to deal with the problems caused by marijuana prohibition.

“This resolution will amplify the voices of local officials and voters who are sick and tired of President Obama’s administration doing the exact opposite of what candidate Obama said he was going to do, which was respect state marijuana laws,” Tom Angell, spokesperson for drug reform advocacy group Marijuana Majority, told Raw Story in an email.

It specifically focuses on the dominance of organized crime in the black market, racial disparities in arrest statistics, state laws that clearly express an unwillingness to continue marijuana prohibition and recent polling that favors letting states decide the matter.

The resolution adds that the mayors wish marijuana were reclassified under the schedule of controlled substances, which would allow more medical research into drugs based on marijuana and permit more finely tailored laws regulating production and sales. It also calls for the Controlled Substances Act to be amended so as to allow “states and localities” the autonomy to “set their own marijuana policies without federal interference.”



Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/24/u-s-conference-of-mayors-asks-obama-for-flexibility-on-marijuana/

20 replies, 1943 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 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply U.S. Conference of Mayors asks Obama for flexibility on marijuana (Original post)
RainDog Jun 2013 OP
99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #1
Nanjing to Seoul Jun 2013 #2
99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #5
RainDog Jun 2013 #3
BehindTheCurtain76 Jun 2013 #7
Doctor_J Jun 2013 #10
BehindTheCurtain76 Jun 2013 #11
TexasTowelie Jun 2013 #4
RainDog Jun 2013 #6
felix_numinous Jun 2013 #8
RainDog Jun 2013 #9
Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #12
RainDog Jun 2013 #13
Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #14
RainDog Jun 2013 #15
Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #16
Jesus Malverde Jun 2013 #17
Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #18
RainDog Jun 2013 #19
Fire Walk With Me Jun 2013 #20

Response to RainDog (Original post)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 11:37 PM

1. UNANIMOUSLY!!!! This is an extraordinary development!.

Last edited Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:15 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm proud that ALL Mayors present -- every last one -- at least accented to this.
good for them.

On edit: removed reference to Governors, since this was a Mayors gathering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 11:52 PM

2. mayors, not governors

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjing to Seoul (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:12 AM

5. snap

thanks for the correction. my bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 24, 2013, 11:55 PM

3. Passed on a voice vote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/mayors-marijuana-resolution_n_3491405.html

The bipartisan resolution passed on a voice vote, with no speakers rising in opposition. The mayors' conference represents cities with populations of more than 30,000 across the country.

"In November, voters in my city and state strongly approved a ballot measure to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana," Republican Mayor Steve Hogan of Aurora, Colo., said in a statement after the vote. "The bipartisan resolution we passed today simply asks the federal government to give us time to implement these new policies properly and without interference."

...In their resolution, the mayors take no stance on legalization, but say it "urges the president of the United States to reexamine the priorities of federal agencies to prevent the expenditure of resources on actions that undermine the duly enacted marijuana laws of states."

A bipartisan group in Congress is also pushing a bill, introduced in April, that would force the federal government to respect state marijuana laws. noted here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/respect-state-marijuana-laws-act_n_3070501.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:59 AM

7. betrayal

 

And Obama will ignore them like he has every other person on this issue...he works for the DEA, not the other way around...he is a Bush 4th term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BehindTheCurtain76 (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 10:09 PM

10. And PHARMA

Big business runs this wh just like the last one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 11:47 PM

11. 100% agreed

 

There is no difference between Big Business and the Government anymore...fascism by definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:03 AM

4. Where do they stand on farm subsidies for catnip?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 01:00 AM

6. They think civil liberties for cats are more important

...since they haven't made catnip illegal nor thrown cats in the pound for nibbling.










yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 08:11 PM

8. K&R

This is some good news

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to felix_numinous (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 25, 2013, 09:56 PM

9. Yes, it is

I can use some good news today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:40 AM

13. can you explain how that works?

molecules cannot be patented.

synthetic versions can, but, afaik, naturally-occurring molecules cannot be patented - and cannabinoids are molecules.

maybe my information is incorrect. do you have information that shows it's possible to patent a molecule?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #13)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:55 AM

14. They patented the medicinal use of cannabinoids, putting a monopoly upon any medical usage. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:58 AM

15. you don't actually explain this statement

you just make it.

I'd like to see some evidence to indicate this is something other than an internet hoax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 12:01 PM

16. Check the official patent online servers. Mail in a request for the patent in hard copy.

 

And also note the Obama administration spending some $300,000 fighting medical marijuana.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 12:18 PM

18. Thank you, I responded too quickly and screwed up the numbers. Thanks for the link! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #16)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 01:46 PM

19. I looked for an answer to my question

...and, it seems, I was mistaken about patent law. Initially, my understanding was that patents are not "owned" by the Federal Govt, but are granted to individuals or companies. I was wrong.

The federal government, through the operation of government-owned research facilities, research grants to universities and procurement contracts with private industry, funds almost 50% of the national R&D effort. Because of this enormous funding, the federal government has the most United States patent rights. It is estimated that the government has title to over 30,000 patents and annually files several thousand new applications. The government also has rights to nonexclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free licenses in thousands of patents. In addition, the government has a myriad of other patent rights. Examples include march-in rights, rights to require the owner to license others, rights to require licensing of background patents, rights to approve assignments, rights to limit terms of license agreements and reversionary ownership rights.

One of the most complicated problems associated with government funding of R&D is the allocation of patent rights among the government, government employees, universities, university employees and government contractors and subcontractors. This allocation is a complex determination that is controlled by federal laws, executive orders, federal acquisition regulations, and the regulations and policies of over 25 government agencies.

The allocation of patent rights between the government and its employees is covered by Executive Order 10096. Unlike private industry, government employees do not have employment contracts. The order has been in effect since 1950 and was created to provide a uniform method of allocating patent rights between the agencies and their employees. Most of the patents owned by the government are obtained under the provisions of this order.

The main section of the executive order provides that the government shall obtain all rights to any invention made by an employee if any one of the following conditions applies: the invention is made during working hours; the invention is made using either government facilities, equipment, etc., or is made with the help of another government employee who is on official duty; or the invention relates to the official duties of the inventor.


http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9004.html

When I was married, my ex, who is a professor, told me that anything he or others in his dept. invented would be the property of the University, not the inventors, because of patent laws. But the same held true if he worked in academia or private industry. People doing theoretical work have never been granted rights to their research. fwiw. Anyway, this article talks about that situation, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #19)

Fri Jun 28, 2013, 03:34 PM

20. Thank you, that is both upsetting and interesting. I'm aware that the individual who created the FAX

 

machine while at a company could never see a patent as they did so as a work for hire...I understand the basis but it's not very pleasant. I believe a bit more in sharing success...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread