Posted on 11/11/2015 11:22:02 AM PST by ConservingFreedom
Another day, another controversy. Medical marijuana activists are rightly upset over comments DEA head, Chuck Rosenberg, made to reporters last week.
During a Q&A, he talked about his stance on medical marijuana.
"What really bothers me is the notion that marijuana is also medicinal because it's not. We can have an intellectually honest debate about whether we should legalize something that is bad and dangerous, but don't call it medicine -- that is a joke."
Right, so you want to have an intellectual debate prefaced with medical marijuana is a joke. Want to clarify that bit a more?
"There are pieces of marijuana -- extracts or constituents or component parts -- that have great promise," he said. "But if you talk about smoking the leaf of marijuana -- which is what people are talking about when they talk about medicinal marijuana -- it has never been shown to be safe or effective as a medicine."
I'm with the activists who point to study after study showing it helps with chronic pain, muscle spasms and other ailments. In fact, here's an analysis of 79 studies from JAMA pointing to "moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity."
Damn, here he is making a blanket statement and along comes science...
No. I get the frustrations of medical marijuana activists. They have turned to change.org demanding his resignation. As of today, the petition has gathered nearly 16,000 signatures.
Nothing wrong with voicing frustration at the DEA head, but it's empty. The DEA works like every other agency in the executive branch. It enforces the law. Well, sometimes...
23 states and DC have passed some form of marijuana legalization. Specific medicinal uses all the way to recreational. One problem, none of the state laws trump federal law.
And yes, the DEA is a federal agency. Chuck Rosenberg isn't a fan of marijuana. Even if he was on the side of legalizing it for everyone, he can't do anything. His job is to enforce the law as directed by the President.
Notice the raids have quieted down on dispensaries across the 23 states? Rosenberg may think it's a joke, but the latitude given to the states is telling. Politicians make bombastic statements, but state after state is flipping green.
The FDA is moving to give researchers more room to study the drug. The JAMA study above? 79 studies. That's it. In 2013, 16,000 people overdosed from opioid painkillers. How many died from overdosing on marijuana? Oh right... Zero.
Other studies have shown a decrease in painkiller overdose deaths when medical marijuana was accessible.
It isn't just pain where marijuana plays a significant role. Seizure disorders have been treated with various strains. Who knows what researchers could unlock in the future?
Is it time to open the doors and make it legal? For medicinal use? Definitely. Recreational? Soon, but it needs tight regulation to prevent a wild west of potent strains and no oversight. In Colorado and Washington, the results are still early, but you cannot call it a failure.
Is it a joke? Maybe to Chuck Rosenberg and others. Should he resign or be fired? Of course not.
To the people medical marijuana helps? They aren't laughing. And it's a shame they get targeted. But, the tide is turning. The American people are with them. State governments are increasingly with them. The Federal government? One day you'll wake up to a simple voice vote that finally ends the debate.
I would be in favor of it, if it occurred, but if it occurred it would be the result of the failure and fall of the US government.
So in view of that, the idea that it could be changed, is not real.
Which is why I use the term ...reality quite a bit.
It’s better than using fantasy.
They abandoned your interpretation of the fundamentals almost as soon as there was money in the treasury.
It’s a interesting exercise to talk about it, but it is my view that to do so would require the total destruction of the existing body of law and a reboot of the constitution along with numerous amendments that would serve the purpose of guiding the natural tendencies of men.
If we had, for example, used strict constructionism as the only view of the constitution, we would have had by now, hundreds of amendments and not just 27.
Should the government fall and be reconstructed, I would be in favor of that, but I don’t expect to be living when/if that occurs. So to me, it science fiction.. But often science fiction comes true.
It's my view that you're not proposing anything that isn't going to eventually turn out to be much worse.
Here’s the proof that strict construction Constitutional fundamentals, as you said, were abandoned long ago...
We're faced with a choice of doing what's easy, or at least trying to do what's right.
You've made your choice and I've made mine.
Well that comment puts you squarely in opposition to a Convention of the States, does it not?
This is what I believe to be a erroneous opinion and one that I cannot understand in a rational way.
A Convention of the States is our only Constitutional option and may the only option that could prevent the demise of the US Constitution it’s self and of our country.
You are only concerned here with the right to smoke some grass. My concerns are far more numerous and in my opinion far more central to the issues here.
I fear for my prodigy. Not for myself.
My argument stands on the grass issue as you will not be able to make a 10th amendment case. Reason being is that few 10th amendment cases ever get past the lower courts.. and you can see clearly that in this case, it never will.
That is unless you can turn back time and redefine it..
If you can turn back time and prevent a entire body of law that support what I have said here today.
If you could turn back time, you would need to go all the way back to the first decade under the Constitution where precedents began to be set.
Yeah, but doing what is easy and what is right, was violated almost immediately, so that indicates that there was never consensus on what was easy nor what was right..
If you are a student of history and people, you should not find that to be the least bit surprising.
Are you a student of history and people? If you are, what's that telling you about how this is going to end if we stay on the path we're on?
I have already told you a number of times..but I did not elucidate.
I think that relatively soon, I can’t forecast when because it will take a catalyst to begin the process, but I firmly believe that not only the US but most of the world is going to endure a catastrophic event that will have financial and social underpinnings.
I further believe that the population of the globe will be drastically reduced. I think by more that half. The US will not be a exception.
You will be able to call it a number of terms, like civil war, financial meltdown, social catastrophe...because it will entail all of that at the same time.
But I can tell you one thing, Marijuana will have nothing to do with it.
Probably a true statement, as they did not record members words on the floor. but as I understand, it did coincide with a very similar bill that Crockett voted against. The details of the story and the details that we do have, as to names, places ect, do not match, but Crockett did think in these terms. All said and done, the actually story is probably myth. But I think sentiment at the time, and Crockets opinions do seem to match up. he was a very popular Whig at the time..
And I have said explicitly I'm fine with it being illegal, I just disagree with the way it's been done.
All of your posts to me have carried the same message. My antiquated notions of fundamental constitutional principles and original intent are outdated and obsolete. I need to get with the times. Go with the flow. Join the crowd. Go along to get along.
This is the message of Boehner and McConnell and the GOPe. I understand it, I'm just not going to do it. The only question I have is why you're here trying to convince me we need us some more of that.
You keep trying to twist my words to make me appear statist.
It’s just not true at all.
I am also not trying to tell you your thoughts are antiquated.
I tried to show you that these same concerns have been in play since the founding.
I am also not saying you are wrong to believe what you believe.
Maybe it a matter of age. There are some issues that have no possible resolution under normal circumstances. Currently our circumstances are normal or status quo.
A major shift or catastrophic change would be required to reverse 200+ years, (closer to 300) of US government policies, and body of law built on even older policies and law.
All I am telling you is that it’s real nice and admirable that you wish to return to Federalism, but that, just like that story about Crockett, is in my view a myth as well, because we never operate that way. If we had done so for any length of time (decades) SCOTUS would have had great difficulty finding precedent for what they do today, which is why it’s critical to place more originalists on the Court.
But we don’t have them either...
To make matters worse, the current leading candidates are not Constitutionalists, and would likely retain the status quo. making no changes or perhaps making it much worse.
So, if the people don’t even care enough to make sure that happens, even on the conservative side..
Then what the hell!
How do you fix that?
Anyway, to sum it up, we can talk about it all day and every day, but none of that will ever translate to action. It has not done so for 250 years, and I think it’s a fantasy.
You say you recognize that our current path is going to end in the destruction of the republic, so what the hell do we have to lose by trying?
You have to have more than a want-to or need-to.
IMO...(my opinion based on experience in business and history) is that you have to destroy, obliterate the old to change it.
The body of law, that I keep referring to is essentially what they use to guide current policy and to make decisions. It’s called precedents. You find this in government in every corner. In the House, the Senate, The presidency and most importantly SCOTUS.
We have a bi cameral political system and both parties cling to precedent like Linus and his security blanket. All 535 of them.
Tar and feathers.......That’s the answer and you need to burn it all.
Then after a while, and slowly you rebuild it but this time you expand the Constitution to include instructions as to how to interpret it in a variety of issues that have plagued us for 200 years.
But that’s not likely to happen, is it..
You cannot expect perfection. They did not expect it when the wrote the document. They had to trust that good men would do the right things..
But men don’t do they...
Even good men make fatal errors.
The very first time they passed a bill giving money from the treasury to any individual, family, or business because of some disaster, Federalism took a back seat to FED Gov and it’s 535 lawmakers..
That’s a very old precedent.
In 1929 Capitalism took a dive and the government intervened..
That’s a precedent.
Just two of thousands of examples where no matter who you elect or what they would like to do once elected, when they get to DC they have to play the game or become like Cruz, a
personae non grata.
That’s why nothing can change.
But men don’t do they...
Some of them do. You can be one of them.
There is more I need to get out of my head before I go...
Take a good look around at the governments and societies in all the democratic countries. Take a look at the demands made by the people of those democracies and you cannot escape the conclusion that society is gradually becoming socialist. They are no longer responsible for anything, including their own lives.
It’s not the government that did that. it’s the people who did that to the government.
This has happened before in ancient history and as we know, history repeats. It’s human nature, It’s easier.
In my view, this merges into my belief that it all blows up and fairly soon, years, maybe a couple decades.
It cannot survive reality. It has to consume it’s self at some point.
Now look at the US....same thing here..
So you think you can convince these people, a majority of them to turn any clock back and make it harder? To do that voluntarily?
Good luck with that...
Food for thought..
Well thanks....I appreciate that.
I suppose I am the really cranky version of Mark Levin. Over the years I have become jaded, and my once hopeful attitude has turned to being defensive and blunt.
It scares me.....I wish I could change it but it’s like a freight train with so much mass that no power on earth can stop it, much less slow it except just around the margins..
It’s like a slow motion wreck.
I don’t know how it will go, but when it starts I hope to be able to still stand up and deliver...
I can relate to that.
It scares me.....I wish I could change it but it’s like a freight train with so much mass that no power on earth can stop it, much less slow it except just around the margins..
I can relate to that too. But I guess I've come to the point where I recognize the inevitability of my own mortality. I realize that it's near impossible odds that I can set it all right, but in the account of my days I want it written that when faced with the choice I did the right thing even knowing it was probably futile.
I get that...
Just a guess, but I’m thinking you might be a Vet.
I am, served from 69-72...spent most of it in Germany, but I never stopped believing in my oath of enlistment and still to this day I take it seriously.
You are correct that if we don’t stand for something, that we stand for nothing. You still have that hope that things will turn out ok and our kids, grandkids and for me a great grandkid, might have a taste of the same America that we grew up in only better.
I think maybe it’s possible but I fear we may have to skip a few generations before we get it back.
The best I can do is to pass on what I know and how it was before we lost it. My hope is that somewhere down the line, they will have her back in good shape. But I see it getting much worse and very likely faltering for a period of time before the shining city becomes a dream again..or even a reality.
I cannot be more convinced that the next president MUST understand the discussion we had today and all sides of it. because he will choose and nominate untold numbers of lower court fed judges, appellate court judges, and of course the Supreme Court justices..
In addition to being head of the party and a big influence on direction via his leadership.
All politics aside, if the guy does not have this within him to begin with, he will not be able to learn it on the job.
I don’t know if it’s too late, it may be or maybe we have a chance as some do believe, but it’s critical we get the right guy. I think the right guy is Ted Cruz...I met him in Kentucky at the Kim Davis rally..In a couple minutes I was convinced we care about the same things. he has hope as well, but he sees the possibility that it could be too late, or certainly will be if this election picks the wrong guy. He even used some of the same terms I do...lol So he’s my pick and has been since weeks before he announced.
Good luck to you in your efforts..If you are young and still have your hair, you might try running for a local office..
I would be in favor of it, if it occurred,
Glad to hear it.
but if it occurred it would be the result of the failure and fall of the US government.
So in view of that, the idea that it could be changed, is not real.
Reality is where my observation about efforts and hopes comes in.
So just to be clear: you were stating only how things actually work now, and not how you support them working, when you posted, "this matter of contraband drugs is not a matter for federalism. It's of national concern. It requires national resources"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.