Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MADem

(135,425 posts)
43. Not to be technical, but I'd say the FDA doesn't agree with your "state issue"
Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:54 PM
Sep 2012

assessment, there. Bit of a swing and a miss, that assertion. There's room for the feds to become involved, unfortunately.

Background: http://www.marijuana-as-medicine.org/Federal%20&%20State%20Law.htm

First and foremost: Marijuana, for any use, is illegal under federal law. Even if you live in a state that has enacted legislation or passed a ballot initiative that recognizes marijuana's medical utility you are subject to arrest by federal officials for possession or cultivation of marijuana.

Secondly, it is illegal to ship or receive marijuana by mail. Do not be fooled by individuals who claim they can legally ship marijuana because they live in a state or country where "marijuana is legal." Interstate shipment of marijuana is a federal offense. So is importation of marijuana.

If you do reside in a state that has enacted a ballot initiative "legalizing" medical access to marijuana it is important that you check with an attorney or local officials about the policy in your region.

Federal Laws

The Controlled Substances Act classifies cannabis as a Schedule I drug and defines it as a drug "with no accepted medical value in treatment." Despite its long history of use as a medication, cannabis is classified as a "new drug" and legal access is only possible through an Investigational New Drug Application (IND) issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). ...




I do wish the Federal government would grow up with regard to that issue, but it's not happening, yet. Some states have the MM issue on the ballot this year. My state is one of them.

That said, the analogy isn't a very good one.

Does anyone on DU honestly think this will happen? senseandsensibility Sep 2012 #1
Nope, never happen. nt Raine Sep 2012 #22
Not going to happen Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #37
The President Has Found It Difficult... Finding Those Comfortable Shoes... WillyT Sep 2012 #56
No. It's not the place of a President to get involved in a city's contract negotiations. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #63
No. TheCowsCameHome Sep 2012 #2
Considering the way things went in Central Falls, you're probably right. Edweird Sep 2012 #8
Yeah, I'm sure that will play well nobodyspecial Sep 2012 #3
Central Falls. Be careful what you wish for. Edweird Sep 2012 #4
It is not in the President's providence to get involved in state issues. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #5
Completely agree. TwilightGardener Sep 2012 #29
of course you are right. n/t Whisp Sep 2012 #31
+1 treestar Sep 2012 #59
And make Rahm look bad? I don't think so. n/t Old Union Guy Sep 2012 #6
Please--he's President of the US, not president of the teachers' union. MADem Sep 2012 #7
So then how do you explain this? Edweird Sep 2012 #10
Great example Teamster Jeff Sep 2012 #11
the central falls firings were a direct result of his education policies. *direct*. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #14
Lot of heads in the sand here. Lots of denial. woo me with science Sep 2012 #34
the entire ruling class agrees with rahm and his policy. when the (putatively liberal) gates HiPointDem Sep 2012 #35
Your second paragraph answers your own question. MADem Sep 2012 #33
chicago schools get federal funding, and chicago's renaissance 2010 was the blueprint for obama's HiPointDem Sep 2012 #46
That is fine--most schools get federal funding of some sort, you know. MADem Sep 2012 #47
No one said they *ran* the schools. You said that because the feds supplied $$ to central falls, HiPointDem Sep 2012 #49
No I did not say that. Not at all. I said that the feds supplied money to schools, I did NOT say MADem Sep 2012 #50
you implied it in your exchange with edweird. after you said obama should stay out of HiPointDem Sep 2012 #51
Schools do not have to take federal funding. If they take it, they know they are on the hook in MADem Sep 2012 #52
I see. You're claiming "federal funding" makes it appropriate for Obama to weigh in Edweird Sep 2012 #58
There is no REQUIREMENT for the federal government to weigh in on ANY state issue. MADem Sep 2012 #60
No, YOU brought up "federal funding" and I gave you the opportunity to elaborate. Edweird Sep 2012 #65
And I have done that--too bad you don't like my answer but that doesn't change reality. MADem Sep 2012 #67
Yeah, your 'answer' was some rambling, disjointed, unrelated nonsense Edweird Sep 2012 #70
No, it wasn't. My answer made sense, but all you can do is MADem Sep 2012 #71
You have, yet again, failed to explain what "federal funding" has to do with this. Edweird Sep 2012 #73
See, that's the point. Federal funding ALLOWS a President to remark on an issue with a certain MADem Sep 2012 #74
So, the President of the United States of America Edweird Sep 2012 #75
You're having a bit of trouble with the written word, I see. MADem Sep 2012 #76
Medical marijuana dispensaries Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #38
Not to be technical, but I'd say the FDA doesn't agree with your "state issue" MADem Sep 2012 #43
Unions = Local Issues Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #45
Sorry--I just don't take your point. There's no real equivalency there. MADem Sep 2012 #48
Holy crap that's a bad idea Joe the Revelator Sep 2012 #9
Couldn't have said it better myself n/t SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #12
if he does, his campaign staff should be fired scheming daemons Sep 2012 #13
Why is it dumb to support unions - politically or otherwise? egduj Sep 2012 #20
As President SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #21
8 reasons: NC, VA, OH, FL, NV, WI, NH, and CO scheming daemons Sep 2012 #23
When did it get to be dumb for a Democratic President to support Unions? sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #36
**crickets** Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #39
look one response up and the question is answered scheming daemons Sep 2012 #41
Non-sequiturs notwithstanding . . . Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #44
his chief of staff, his education policy, his political base. like that'll happen. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #15
Not gonna happen Moral Compass Sep 2012 #16
Anything more specific than SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #17
interesting responses. mopinko Sep 2012 #18
Shaking the trees for his hometown of Chicago SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #19
i am sure he would find something that he could spread around. mopinko Sep 2012 #24
Sorry, still think it's a bad idea SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #25
Maybe Chicago could quit diverting 1/6 of taxes collected into private persons' pockets. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #32
I have a feeling he is on Rahm's side on this or he would have told him to shut it down... dkf Sep 2012 #26
Oh hell no RegieRocker Sep 2012 #27
them comfy shoes gonna stay in the closet...again. KG Sep 2012 #28
No thanks, he needs to keep focused on winning the election to help all Pisces Sep 2012 #30
I don't want that for a fucking nano second cali Sep 2012 #40
honestly, i am relieved mopinko Sep 2012 #42
Your sentiment is appreciated. randome Sep 2012 #54
I won't sign bluestateguy Sep 2012 #53
Quick, without using the Google, who said this? Hey Jude Sep 2012 #55
Who is being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain? MADem Sep 2012 #61
Quick, since neither of those things is being denied, DemocratsForProgress Sep 2012 #77
He is not going to get involved in a local labor dispute gollygee Sep 2012 #57
Will he? No. Should he? No. Proles Sep 2012 #62
Obama doesn't give a crap about public school teachers. Reader Rabbit Sep 2012 #64
Sure, because that is THE most important thing going on with him right now. GoCubsGo Sep 2012 #66
The union in Chicago is doing an excellent job of presenting their position. MineralMan Sep 2012 #68
Oh God no. Silliest "advice" demand, whatever, I ever heard. Care Acutely Sep 2012 #69
For why? This is the guy who not only appointed Duncan but loves his bullshit TheKentuckian Sep 2012 #72
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»have president obama come...»Reply #43