Congress quietly ends federal ban on medical marijuana

[arely staircase]

Tucked deep inside the 1,603-page federal spending measure is a provision that effectively ends the federal government's prohibition on medical marijuana and signals a major shift in drug policy..

The bill's passage over the weekend marks the first time Congress has approved nationally significant legislation backed by legalization advocates. It brings almost to a close two decades of tension between the states and Washington over medical use of marijuana.

Under the provision, states where medical pot is legal would no longer need to worry about federal drug agents raiding retail operations. Agents would be prohibited from doing so.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-medical-pot-20141216-story.html

[Hekate]

1. Well now there's some common sense legislation

We have been seeing the dominoes of the "war" on drugs fall state by state -- excruciatingly slowly but very significant as the numbers build. Now this.

My fervent hope is that it will be as crucial a step as the repeal of DADT and DOMA and all the rest from the feds. After that, the dominoes came crashing down. Not overnight, but major changes nonetheless.

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. HFD!!!!!

About time.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Such good news, at long last. With Oregon's recreational legality kicking in on July 1st and

an industry blooming, this is very good news for among other things the economies of the States in question. Green jobs.

[sadoldgirl]

4. I hope that this will be just the first step. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

5. Sure looking forward to testing for medical conditions.

[negoldie]

33. Illnesses

Not only illness but more research into all the other uses for the drug. Research has been going at a turtles pace for seventy five years. We need money and researchers looking into this drug.......not now but a looooooong time ago.

[Ghost in the Machine]

46. Here are plenty of studies for you...

The Studies

Marijuana Fights:

Heart Disease
Cancer
Diabetes
Osteoporosis
Alzheimer's
Liver Disease
Epilepsy
Skin Allergies
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Anxiety and Depression

and is also Neuroprotective and Causes Neurogenesis (brain cell growth)


Why is this scientific evidence any better than hearsay? Aren't these scientists always disagreeing anyway? It's all just fashion...
It is unfortunate that many laymen still have this horrific misunderstanding of science after graduating from grade school. Science is the pursuit of truth that lies outside of human interference, opinion and bias. Everything about science is designed to eliminate the adulteration of human perception. Is it perfect and without mistake? No, but it is tens of thousands of times more reliable than anything else. Humanity has not yet learned everything in the universe but with the help of science we are slowly making our way there. Wihtout the strict processes, examination and re-examination of data that is required for real science, we would be forever stuck in the dark ages ruled over by tyranny or anarchy. We would still be blundering in the dark and dying by the age of thirty. When I hear words like the question above uttered, I nearly want to weep for what it portends. Science as a community does it's best to find the truth and is sometimes wrong anyway. It's rare and usually quite a small thing but when we discover we are wrong we immediately change. Every single person in the scientific comunity would love to find where accepted science is wrong because of the pride and recognition that comes with such a discovery. Millions of people all diligently looking for any little corner where we might be wrong with great reward to be had if they find it. Consider the opposite: millions of people all trying to defend a concept's rightness with death being the punishment for mentioning a possible flaw.


What do each of these "studies" represent?
When a research department at some university wishes to conduct a study they must put together a very comprehensive plan for how it will be accomplished; what it will prove and how that information will be valuable. This proposal is then given to number of institutions with a vested interest in the advancement of knowledge and they will not just hand over a gigantic sum of money to a bunch of unprepared or unprofessional amatuers.
Each study below represents tens of thousands of dollars and untold man hours. Each study is a huge investment of passion and a reflection upon each of the researchers, but the pressure to perform has only just started once the grant has come through. If the results of the study are not published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, all of the time and money is utterly wasted and thrown in the trash because without publication, the scientific community will reject any findings of the study. This kind of gigantic waste can lay waste to a research department and the careers of all the researchers involved. Needless to say, it is critical for the study to pass the peer-review process.

The peer-review process requirement of publication in a journal is put in place as a way for other professionals in the same area of science to review the processes undertaken by the study. These reviewers assure not only that there is not blatent twisting of facts but also that experimenter bias is accounted for and that pre-concieved notions can have not even an accidental effect on the outcome of the study. They also assure that the conclusions drawn from the data do not include anything presumtuous.

http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com/studies.htm

Peace,

Ghost

[fredamae]

6. Is POTUS

going to sign it? Even though I fully support this one thing...there are some Really Bad Cuts that are no good and not worth it, imo.

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. He did - back in December.

[fredamae]

9. Sorry! My error!

Too many budgets....too little time

[jwirr]

36. So this is already signed. Who snuck that provision in so quietly?

[Ruby the Liberal]

38. It didn't go unnoticed back then

Article here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11702627

But all of the uproar over the gifts to Wall Street sucked all of the oxygen out of the room. Most notably where they voted to cover derivatives and swaps (literal gambling) with taxpayer funds. Once that got the green light, they must have tossed in blocking DOJ and DEA funding to get the votes.

8 worst things in the Cromnibus bill

[Ruby the Liberal]

7. That happened before they broke for Christmas

Surprised that the media hasn't been talking about it. That said, until they reschedule, it is still "no medical use" and therefore no research can be done.

[arely staircase]

10. guess they just noticed

Dunno

[jwirr]

37. Reschedule?

[Ruby the Liberal]

39. Away from Schedule I - Addictive and dangerous with no medical value

Until cannabis is reclassified, research can't start because it was deemed by the Nixon Administration to have "no medicinal value". That has to be changed before any meaningful research can legally be attempted.

[RKP5637]

11. K&R! n/t

[Cha]

12. Wow! Thanks arely.. this is HUGE!

[BobbyBoring]

13. FINALLY!

We in MD district 1 have to get rid of that fuck wad Andy Harris. He's really fucking over DC.

[shireen]

18. YES!!!

He's also my rep in congress (I'm in Cockeysville). If I lived just a few blocks south, I'd have Dutch Ruppersberger, one of the good guys.

The thing that really irritates is that Harris is a doctor. He should know better!!!

[djean111]

26. Here in Florida, my sister merely ASKED her doctor's nurse assistant (those assistants really

seem to run things!) about Marinol. The nurse got huffy, said they did not give prescriptions for pot, and refused to even discuss the fact that Marinol is not pot. After that, my sister and her husband were unable to make appointments, were given times months out, etc., so they found another doctor that took their insurance.
A friend of mine has a prescription for Marinol; it relaxes or dilates the tiny blood vessels in her eyes, or something like that - without it, she is blind. Pot, of course, would have the same effect.
That nurse was weirdly overreacting.

[davidpdx]

45. Get a good strong progressive as a candidate

And I'll consider donating to his/her campaign. My state has been pretty safe, so I like to try to donate to help candidates in other states that need it.

[mountain grammy]

14. It has to come off the Schedule I list so

it can be used in clinical trials and the full benefits can be studied. This is one step.

[2naSalit]

15. Yes, but...

what poison pills (egregeous amendments and riders) are in this legislation that will ultimately kill it?

[arely staircase]

16. It is in the budget (I think) nt

[CrispyQ]

40. An economic policy that will kill off the poor & middle classes.

Just joking. Sort of.

I haven't read the bill or any articles about it. I just know who our Congress serves & it isn't We the People.

[former9thward]

43. It has already been passed and signed.

[barbtries]

17. that's fabulous.

we really need to elect another democrat to the white house, and fill up congress with democrats. then maybe this draconian war on drugs will end.

[NBachers]

19. Melinda Haag, California's crusading anti-marijuana US District Attorney- Please take notice

[flying_wahini]

20. About Damn Time.

clap: :

[IronLionZion]

21. One would think big pharma would be supporting this

they of all people would want clinical trials and a way to make new medicines.

[arely staircase]

22. maybe they are

maybe the finally realized there is gold in them thar buds. I don't know.

[djean111]

27. Big Pharma would support it if Big Pharma could patent all marijuana and block access to it.

That horse left the barn. The government does hold some patents on pot, I forget what for.
I believe there is testing going on somewhere.

[dolphinsandtuna]

28. Big Pharma has no interest

in any medication they don't control == can sell for obscene amounts of money.

[Jackpine Radical]

23. Good news for the entire country.

It looks sorta like a small step, but it is not. To quote Dixiegrrl above, it IS a BFD. I'm a little bit surprised that it went through, but it really heralds a change of mindset for Congress. Certainly they really, really gotta legalize recreational use on the way to a sane drug policy, but that big step can't occur until a few intermediate things happen first, and this is the obvious place to start.

5 years. My guess.

[chapdrum]

24. Congress must remember

to inform the DOJ. Won't hold breath.

[jtuck004]

25. And Washington State is leading the fight in getting rid of it - screw the patients. n/t

[cleanhippie]

30. Huh?

There's discussion about combining the two markets, but "leading the fight..."?

[jtuck004]

34. There are bills to completely demolish it, pretend they can pass a law to make

everyone buy high-priced rec weed.

Stupid, ignorant dinosaurs who will want votes. Maybe they will find them somewhere, but anyone who votes in favor of that can go to hell.

[cleanhippie]

42. The State Senate just voted to remove taxes from all but retail sales.

Yes, there are folks that want what you're talking about but what actually happening here seems very different.

[jtuck004]

44. "The new bill proposes a one-time tax of 37% on retail sales." < Lower, not gone.

And that is rec marijuana, which has fuck all to do with medical. They want to get rid of mmj and make everyone buy expensive taxed weed from rec shops.

Stupid dinosaurs - ignorant people who are attempting to create more laws that people will continue to ignore. And be hurt by.

The best advocate for mmj on the East side of the state is a freakin' teabagger. I can trust him on this more than any democrat, and he's missing some dots on the dice of his mind, so to speak.

[SHRED]

29. not breaking news

It happened 3 months ago but still always good to hear.

[arely staircase]

31. yeah, that is why I put it in GD. but what is wierd is

that I, and apparently many others, hadn't heard about it. and shit, I figure DUrs are much more up on current events than the average bear.

[SHRED]

41. it was well hidden

[ProudProg2u]

32. OK,What about sending cannabis through the mail...?

From in state to in state. Or from two connecting states that are med legal...???

[jwirr]

35. Tucked into a spending measure. How much is in that spending measure that we do not want? This

is how they usually make it so that the president cannot veto a spending measure.

I am delighted that someone has finally put this into a bill but I do not want to sign a spending bill that hurts all kinds of programs just so I get this when it only applies to states that already have legalized it.

We cannot take more cuts to social programs.

IF this bill will hurt those already hurt by the economy then I want President Obama to veto it. THEN I want him to use his executive action to take marijuana off of the list of drugs that are considered a top priority. This would have the same effect but it would effect all states.