It's a shame the Obama administration have a policy to continue arrests in States that have legalized pot for certain uses. The war on drugs should end just as prohibition ended, and eliminate the criminal faction that causes all the harm. If we were to try and eliminate the right to guns, or make guns illegal, we would develop another underground, criminal business that would create even more deaths and crime. Better to pass stricter laws and regulate guns. Most Americans are law abiding and will adhere to new laws and regulations. There will always be nuts who kill and loons who cry "infringement on my rights."
Federal policy is crafted to criminalize the possession of ALL non-medicinal intoxicants (as certain drug compounds patented in recent years, with rights of production granted to large scale, non-individual entities which may be owned jointly or wholly by state entities, and whose activities are closely monitored and regulated by FDA and DEA officials) with the exception of intoxicating ethanol beverages, as the authority to regulate and/or prohibit intoxicating liquors has been largely ceded to the states in accordance with the passage of the 21st Amendment.
The drug policy (absolute prohibitive measure within all applicable jurisdictions) of the Federal Government will not change within the foreseeable future as Congress cannot allow the subjects of the United States to engage in the proliferation of intoxicants in violation of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, in international treaty which congress may not repeal, amend, avoid, or rectify in any way.
As this Blog seems to focus on SALW issues, it should be noted that a person who has EVER been convicted of ANY drug offence may not lawfully possess a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).
Thus it is beneficial to those who desire to prohibit the possession, use, and distribution of SALW by civilians in the USA, to support Federal drug policy, as drug convictions are the most effective way to prevent civilians from owning firearms.
WASHINGTON -- Reflecting growing national acceptance of cannabis, a bipartisan coalition of House members voted early Friday to restrict the Drug Enforcement Administration from using funds to go after medical marijuana operations that are legal under state laws.
An appropriations amendment offered by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) prohibiting the DEA from spending funds to arrest state-licensed medical marijuana patients and providers passed 219-189. The Senate will likely consider its own appropriations bill for the DEA, and the House amendment would have to survive a joint conference before it could go into effect.
Rohrabacher said on the House floor that the amendment "should be a no-brainer" for conservatives who support states' rights and argued passionately against allowing the federal government to interfere with a doctor-patient relationship.
"Some people are suffering, and if a doctor feels that he needs to prescribe something to alleviate that suffering, it is immoral for this government to get in the way," Rohrabacher said, his voice rising. "And that's what's happening."
The debate pitted three House Republicans who also are doctors against one another. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) and Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) opposed the amendment, while Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) supported it.
It's a shame the Obama administration have a policy to continue arrests in States that have legalized pot for certain uses. The war on drugs should end just as prohibition ended, and eliminate the criminal faction that causes all the harm.
ReplyDeleteIf we were to try and eliminate the right to guns, or make guns illegal, we would develop another underground, criminal business that would create even more deaths and crime. Better to pass stricter laws and regulate guns. Most Americans are law abiding and will adhere to new laws and regulations. There will always be nuts who kill and loons who cry "infringement on my rights."
Federal policy is crafted to criminalize the possession of ALL non-medicinal intoxicants (as certain drug compounds patented in recent years, with rights of production granted to large scale, non-individual entities which may be owned jointly or wholly by state entities, and whose activities are closely monitored and regulated by FDA and DEA officials) with the exception of intoxicating ethanol beverages, as the authority to regulate and/or prohibit intoxicating liquors has been largely ceded to the states in accordance with the passage of the 21st Amendment.
ReplyDeleteThe drug policy (absolute prohibitive measure within all applicable jurisdictions) of the Federal Government will not change within the foreseeable future as Congress cannot allow the subjects of the United States to engage in the proliferation of intoxicants in violation of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, in international treaty which congress may not repeal, amend, avoid, or rectify in any way.
As this Blog seems to focus on SALW issues, it should be noted that a person who has EVER been convicted of ANY drug offence may not lawfully possess a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).
Thus it is beneficial to those who desire to prohibit the possession, use, and distribution of SALW by civilians in the USA, to support Federal drug policy, as drug convictions are the most effective way to prevent civilians from owning firearms.
WASHINGTON -- Reflecting growing national acceptance of cannabis, a bipartisan coalition of House members voted early Friday to restrict the Drug Enforcement Administration from using funds to go after medical marijuana operations that are legal under state laws.
ReplyDeleteAn appropriations amendment offered by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) prohibiting the DEA from spending funds to arrest state-licensed medical marijuana patients and providers passed 219-189. The Senate will likely consider its own appropriations bill for the DEA, and the House amendment would have to survive a joint conference before it could go into effect.
Rohrabacher said on the House floor that the amendment "should be a no-brainer" for conservatives who support states' rights and argued passionately against allowing the federal government to interfere with a doctor-patient relationship.
"Some people are suffering, and if a doctor feels that he needs to prescribe something to alleviate that suffering, it is immoral for this government to get in the way," Rohrabacher said, his voice rising. "And that's what's happening."
The debate pitted three House Republicans who also are doctors against one another. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) and Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) opposed the amendment, while Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) supported it.