Eric Holder Would Be 'Glad To Work With Congress' To Reschedule Marijuana

[MindMover]

Source: HP

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration would be willing to work with Congress if lawmakers want to take marijuana off the list of what the federal government considers the most dangerous drugs, Attorney General Eric Holder said Friday.

"We'd be more than glad to work with Congress if there is a desire to look at and reexamine how the drug is scheduled, as I said there is a great degree of expertise that exists in Congress," Holder said during a House Appropriations Committee hearing. "It is something that ultimately Congress would have to change, and I think that our administration would be glad to work with Congress if such a proposal were made."

Several members of Congress have called on the administration to downgrade cannabis on its own without waiting for congressional action. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, the attorney general has the authority to "remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule." Holder didn't indicate Friday that he would be willing to do that unilaterally.

Although there haven't been any documented cases of deaths from overdosing on marijuana, the federal government treats it as a Schedule I drug with a "high potential for abuse," along with heroin, LSD and Ecstasy.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/04/eric-holder-reschedule-marijuana_n_5092010.html

---

UNFREAKING BELIEVABLE

[Bluenorthwest]

1. That's excellent.

I wish they'd just do it, but Congress would be a welcome addition to the process. Good for Eric.

[appal_jack]

31. At this point, CONgress is not a welcome addition to anything.

At this point, Congress is not a welcome addition to anything. They are dysfunctional, except perhaps when serving the very wealthy. It took them three years to pass a Farm Bill fer-cryin'-out-loud. Asking Congress to act on a matter where the Executive branch does in fact have considerable leeway is passing the buck, pure and simple.

Didn't Obama recently say that Congressional intransigence would lead him to act unilaterally where he could? Decriminalizing mj should have happened in 2009 (bet the 2010 midterms would have spun-out differently then, eh?)

The admin has shown it is even fully willing to break the law when it matters to them (NSA spying, drone killings, keeping Clapper on-board after perjury to Congress, etc.), so progressive reform of the failed War on (some) Drugs must not matter to them. The Attorney General has the power to remove mj from the list of Schedule 1 substances. He should use it. Now.

It's been a long wait for that promised hope and change.

-app

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. We've had this "debate" before ...

contrary to DU opinion, and urban legend ... The Attorney General can't just wave the "change the schedule" wand and change the schedule ... doing so, would affect international treaties, and that takes congress.

[MADem]

67. Well, Congress makes law. If the law is to be changed, without any suggestions that

an "Imperial President" is making decisions without the will of the people, it's best to let Congress lead.

There's money to be made, and saved, with legalization. It's a budget wonk's dream.

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Then shut up and just do it!

Talk is cheap. Political talk is practically worthless.

You don't need to talk to congress and their answer will be "no" anyway, so why bother.

[polichick]

52. Exactly.

[billhicks76]

74. BS. Doesnt Need Them

A clear case where Obama and Holder don't need republicans and can move instantly and if they don't it can't be blamed on republican obstructionism like so many like to blame inaction on. And "congressional expertise"? Are they kidding ? Those Neanderthals think woman are subjects and the world is a few thousand years old. This political game is wearing on me. Makes me wonder if they even want the democrats to control both houses and the executive...then they would actually be pressured by their constituents to do something instead of bowing to the shadow government of alphabet soup intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

[RainDog]

81. No, he doesn't...but he does

...In addition to the 1961 Single Convention, two other international treaties have a direct bearing on international control of narcotics and psychotropic substances. These are the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which, enacted after an upsurge of drug use in the 1960s, added certain synthetic, prescription, and hallucinogenic drugs (including LSD) to the list of controlled substances. The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances was enacted in response to an increase in trafficking. The 1988 Convention required member countries, for the first time, to criminalize possession for personal consumption. Notably, the 1988 Convention did not specify how users were to be punished; only that ―possession, purchase or cultivation for personal consumption be made a criminal offense. The 1988 Convention specifically states that its implementation should be accompanied by prudence and is subject to each party’s ―constitutional principles and basic concepts of its legal system.

These three international treaties constitute the international law concerning the control of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The treaties are not ―self-executing, meaning that each country must enact laws implementing the treaties in their own jurisdictions. The Conventions are legally binding pursuant to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties—a country ―may not circumscribe its obligations under the treaties by enacting a conflicting domestic law. On the other hand, there is no international police force standing at the ready to force countries to fulfill their obligations. The INCB has no real power to enforce them: its powers are limited to ―quiet diplomacy, or ―blaming and shaming. In extreme cases, the INCB can recommend an embargo on all prescription medicines coming into or going out of a country. In our interview with former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Narcotics and current INCB member Melvyn Levitsky, he noted that this is ―not a strong provision, since, for humanitarian reasons, it is highly unlikely such a measure would ever be taken against a country.

http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/3_20072283-InternationalDrugControlTreaties.pdf

Since the U.S. was the nation behind the INCB treaties, however, you are asking the AG to ignore current federal and international legal standing for this nation (and thus the world - current UN agreement on this issue was under contention in the fall as nations set 10 year policy, so the conflict already exists for other states - and the UN is complaining - but their complaints have nothing really negative to back them up.)

It could be done, but I don't think this issue is important enough to the Obama Administration to take that sort of step - and I think they are rolling out any such changes cautiously, while watching CO and WA to see if the fears of social conservatives are founded.

But, yes, the reality is that many nations are ignoring this treaty - at least 11 of them, b/c they offer Sativex or, in the case of Uruguay, they have legalized mj - but under conditions of state control, not a free-for-all market - and they plan to sell internationally to Canada and Israel (two of the nations that offer Sativex for ms or a few other conditions - so they will also be in violation of international drug treaties when this happens. But no one is mentioning the reality that 10 nations currently sell marijuana as a mouth spray b/c it's a pharma product (and has had former Republican drug warriors lobbying for it - irony of life, but, well, not, huh, when money is to be made by Bayer, etc.)

However, if Holder rescheduled, the impact would be on granting access to med mj supplied by the fed. govt. for cannabis research and it would let the Drug Czar's office be able to talk about the issue w/o lying - which they have to do at this time.

But it would not make cannabis legal and would not change the current tension b/t state and federal law.

The way for that to happen is via the Democratic bill to move cannabis to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms - so that it can be regulated like alcohol.

So if you want to do something as an activist in support of the issue, call your reps and tell them you support the Polis and Blumenaur bills that have not yet, afaik, gotten a hearing.

[Kelvin Mace]

84. Saying you want to consult with the Republicans

on a policy matter is like saying you want to consult with a two year old on brain surgery. The results are also identical.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

3. Congress is too busy trying to have him tossed out of office for being black on the job.

[cui bono]

4. Just do it!

Why are Dems always so afraid to do things?

[msongs]

5. now he can blame congress instead of the administration lol nt

[RainDog]

6. This is an issue for Congress

As set up by the Controlled Substances Act - tho, yes, he could call for rescheduling - and I have encouraged that - BUT

at this time, members of Congress are also using the legislature to call for Obama to uphold federal drug laws in CO and WA

House Republicans Want To Sue The President For Not Arresting People For Marijuana

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/14/republicans-force-obama-legal-marijuana_n_4964995.html

Introduced by Reps. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the ENFORCE the Law Act (H.R. 4138) would allow the House or the Senate to sue the president for "failure to faithfully execute federal laws," including those related to immigration, health care and marijuana.

A Judiciary Committee report submitted by Goodlatte last week regarding H.R. 4138 chastised the Obama administration for selective enforcement of the Controlled Substance Act, which prohibits marijuana outright. "The decision by the Obama administration not to enforce the CSA in entire states is not a a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion," the report reads. "The guidance of U.S. Attorneys establishes a formal, department-wide policy of selective non-enforcement of an Act of Congress. This infringes on Congress's lawmaking authority, by, in effect, amending the flat prohibitions of the CSA to permit the possession, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana so long as that conduct is in compliance with state law."

The report goes on to describe the Obama administration's actions on marijuana policy as an "impermissible suspension of the law by executive fiat."

But Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) told The Huffington Post that he is not alone in the Capitol in his support of the administration's position not to interfere with state marijuana laws, adding that while states continue to craft sensible marijuana policy, Congress continues to drag its feet with bills like this one.

Holder, imo, is making a counter move to this action on the part of Republicans.

Congress is the body that needs to respond to the will of the people, who do support legalization in greater and greater numbers, rather than pander to their for-profit-prison lobbyists... who, btw, get bills passed in Republican-controlled states to assure those for-profit-prisons have high occupancy rates by removing sentencing discretion in various ways.

[MindMover]

8. Sad state of affairs ... but so unfortunately true ... nt

[RainDog]

9. It's funny that Republicans are suddenly big federal govt. supporters

or actually not - it's all about what they want to punish or reward.

When it means they can punish women or minorities, they're all over "state's rights." They have an underlying philosophy, and it's all about maintaining power over others with as little actual democracy involved as possible.

[MindMover]

10. and AMEN ... democracy costs tooo much ... nt

[RainDog]

11. btw, would you mind reposting this

in the Drug Policy Forum? If not, I'll cross post, but if you want to - that would be great.

[MindMover]

12. sure ...

[Dustlawyer]

14. It's funny how now that Rick Perry is not running for Texas Governor again his opinions are

radically changing. First, he says that he thinks that Marihuana should be decriminalized in Texas, and now he is saying that the state should work more on rehabilitation which he claims works better than locking them up for long sentences. Funny how budget shortfalls cause the facts to change now that Texas cannot afford to keep locking everyone up!

[RainDog]

17. I'm hoping it's possible to appeal to the fiscal side

of Republican ideology to get them to recognize what a waste of American lives this current situation really is.

But they do have a conflict, in terms of their political strategy to use various forms of voter suppression to keep people from exercising their rights. Since drug laws are so racially biased in their application - repukes get a boost from these sorts of "blue laws" that appeal to the prohibitionists in their ranks, too.

Most red states seem to have to appeal to religious conservatives and racists more than economic conservatives, at least so far. Republicans are not going to be the party that moves this nation forward as long as they have to give lip service to the religious right.

Rohrbacker, from CA, is the only Republican who signed on to the Blumenaur and Polis bills, iirc. And here is Issa, from the same state, taking the opposite side. I don't know who, of the two, is more influential in CA-rep politics.

[Cha]

7. Thank you AG Holder!

[Hekate]

13. KnR

[mountain grammy]

15. If Holder has the power under the CSA to remove marijuana from the Schedule I list

what the hell is he waiting for?... just goddam do it!!

[bemildred]

37. This is election year politics Grammy, keep the issue hot for the election.

And make it your enemy's problem, not yours.

It would not be a bad thing for the Congress to re-visit all of our drug laws in any case, now, would it? They are a big mess.

[mountain grammy]

39. good advice, and yes, it would.

our drug laws are ridiculous. Even here in Colorado. We legalized marijuana and, rather than focus on the myriad of issues connected to prescription drugs, the "news" focus is marijuana every day.

[AndyTiedye]

77. It Could be a VERY Bad Thing

It would not be a bad thing for the Congress to re-visit all of our drug laws in any case, now, would it?

Yes it would. What this Congress would produce as a replacement would almost certainly be far worse.
The Repiglickins want to throw more people into prison. The Democrats are, as always, desperately afraid of appearing "soft on drugs".

Nothing good can get through this Congress, particularly in an election year, but some very bad things might.

[bemildred]

82. This Congress is largely incapable of addressing anything. nt

[AAO]

44. He should drop it down to the same schedule as parsley and thyme.

[mountain grammy]

47. for sure!

[polichick]

51. Don't forget sage and rosemary. :)

[AAO]

56. We could make a song out of that!

[polichick]

57. Yep! Here it is from The Concert in Central Park...

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. He has the (shared) power to ...

re-classify/remove marijuana; but doing so would place the US in a position of violating the terms of international treaties. He does not have the power to do that.

One of the biggest problems with the internutz is the belief that everything is simple and can be looked at in a vacuum.

[Enrique]

16. passing the buck

to the Worst Congress Ever.

[polichick]

53. Just election year rhetoric without action...

Won't get young voters to the polls with that.

[idendoit]

18. This isn't the first time Holder has passed up doing.....

.... that which is in his power to do. But I must say in his defense that Congress, even the Senate, might not back him up and could possibly change the law to keep pot on Schedule 1. Which is within their power to do.

[ehrnst]

19. It should be up to the medical community, like women's health.

Not that women's health is anywhere near that state...

[RainDog]

21. I laugh when Republicans say

they have science on their side with this issue - but that also means that criticism of them being the "anti-science" party have gotten through to them - they recognize they look like wankers to insist on reefer madness when the science, still, is against them.

So they glom onto any report that they think they can tout as science.

Since the AMA has called for Congress to hold rescheduling hearings, too - it's obvious this is down to an issue that is about protecting their special interest groups that want bad law to remain on the books b/c it's profitable for them. That includes corporate prisons, most LEAs, and the alcohol lobby.

[MindMover]

23. Unfortunately ... Big Money again ... but we are finally getting to know exactly who they are ...

[SHRED]

20. This medicine helps people

That fact alone makes Schedule 1 a cruel joke.

Way to pass the buck Holder.

[RainDog]

22. In context - isn't this challenge?

Do you really think unilateral exec. branch actions in the realm of law - drug law - would not be an excuse for right wingers to howl - esp. in light of their recent act to give them the right to sue for not upholding outdated law?

[SHRED]

32. Let them howl

This is beyond politics. There are lives in the balance here. Sounds like I'm being all drama until the realization hits that cannabis therapy does literally save lives.

[RainDog]

33. Gupta's reports

about children with Dravet's Syndrome has really helped to raise awareness of the validity of medical marijuana for people who, in the past, would sneer and say mmj was just a pretext for anyone who wanted to get high.

But that has never been true. Sure, some have used the med law for other reasons - but many have valid reasons to use marijuana as medicine.

People are talking about entire families moving from illegal states to legal ones.

The problem with just looking at rescheduling from the exec is all the law that has gone along with prohibition in other ways - rescheduling wouldn't make cannabis legal - but it would remove impediments to certain businesses, for instance, that cannot deal with any schedule I substance - sciences, research, bankers, etc.

But Congress is the one that needs to address the bills that Democrats have put forward to make cannabis legal. That's how laws or made or unmade - not by Holder.

So, while you want this one action, isn't it better to back Congress into a corner to ask them to address the Democratic bills related to this?

Esp. considering the hemp provision in the farm bill that was approved - Congress also needs to deal with hemp because it's schedule I, too, and the argument, still, is that it's a "gateway" to marijuana - which is stupid, but there's a lot of propaganda out there from those who don't want mj to be legal.

If this comes down to just rescheduling, the howls will be about this, and not about Congress' failure to address the issue because other bills now clash with the CSA's schedule.

If Republicans want to sue Obama for not arresting mj smokers - they'll find younger voters will not be impressed... so I wonder why they are doing this - Cruz thinks this is great strategy too - so it sounds like it's kinda like every other thing they do - appeal to older (mostly white) conservatives.

[RoccoR5955]

24. But what about all the lost jobs?

All the police enforcement jobs, and the private prisons would go broke if they didn't give someone life for a joint!

[RKP5637]

26. K&R!!! That, would be a smart move. We waste far too much money and lives on

the nonsense because of having pot considered as one of the most dangerous drugs. It would be laughable if it had not been so painfully stupid over decades, the lives wasted, the drug cartels, the needless imprisonment, all the wasted lives and deaths because of this ridiculous notion that pot is dangerous.

[PSPS]

27. More nonsense fron the nonsense administration. What's with these guys?

Holder seems to be as intellectually deficient as Obama.

Obama thinks he has to "ask Congress" to do something he alone controls (stop NSA lawlessness.)
Now Holder thinks he has to "ask Congress" to do something he alone controls (remove drugs from their current schedule.)

I guess they're both just saying what they're saying just to be saying something that "sounds good" to the swooners while they run out the clock on this dismal administration.

[MindMover]

28. Righteous indignation ... hmmmmmmm

[jtuck004]

34. "Remember. When you are indignant, you can't be fully with the people you love here at DU..."

"Just know that you can change that, based on what's most important. Ask yourself, is this the statement you want to make about who you really are?"

I gotta remember that when I'm on a jury some day

This guy cracks me up.

[DiverDave]

29. Congress? WORK?? HAHAHAHA

Wait, it aint funny.

[rickyhall]

30. It would put the ball in their court, so to speak.

[otherone]

35. slow train comin

the times they are a changin

[Sgent]

36. Rescheduling is not a pancea and would not accomplish what most people think it would

If MJ were rescheduled as a class II or III drug (it probably should be a III in the medical context), it would not change as much as many advocates hope.

Cocaine is Schedule II, but that doesn't make possession in most cases legal. It would still need FDA approval for any specific formulation, which requires potency and safety issues. It would require a prescription and dispensing by a licensed pharmacy, not a growers collective or grown by individual patients, etc.

A DEA / Justice department downgrade would essentially only help researchers. Congressional action is required to allow general public usage even if rescheduled.

[The Wizard]

38. Prescription drug lobby

will send hundreds of millions to off shore tax havens to circumvent any move toward common sense. Bankers in the Cayman and Cook Islands await with a grand welcome. It's all about the money laundering and the crooks at the top.

[malthaussen]

40. What's Congress got to do with it, Mr Holder?

Scheduling of drugs is an administrative act.

"There is a great deal of expertise that exists in Congress." But they didn't inhale.

-- Mal

[Stardust]

55. 'Expertise exists in Congress." I almost choked on that gem. Wish to God they did have expertise.

[Feral Child]

41. Tap dance.

He's just trying to pass off responsibility, knowing Congress is hamstrung and can't agree on anything.

He's refusing without refusing.

[NorthCarolina]

42. The administration could do that without Congress...this is just politicking. Means little

if anything really.

[Lars28]

43. I don't believe a word that prick says.

In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the administration would not target medical marijuana dispensaries so long as they complied with state laws. Yet since the start of 2011, under new guidelines from the DEA, the feds have aggressively pursued dispensaries by busting growers who operate in full compliance with state laws, vowing to seize the property of anyone who dares to even rent to legal pot dispensaries, and threatening to imprison state employees responsible for regulating medical marijuana.

http://theweek.com/article/index/247441/is-obama-cracking-down-on-medical-marijuana

[Tarnation6]

71. Me neither.

He set those people up and then he busted them. I'll bet he was smiling all the way home from the "Justice" Department.

[Manuel Beingman]

79. He is an untrustworthy bait-the-trap SOB.

But that's just my professional opinion.

[aurelio17]

80. What's the difference between Eric Holder and the snake in the Garden?

The snake didn't have Adam and Eve arrested.

[Out of Time Man]

45. I had a spark of hope there for a moment...

...and then reality hit me, and I realized that by "working with Congress", this will essentially go nowhere.

There's no logical explanation as to why Holder would think he would make headway with a Congress that has done nothing aside from fighting this administration tooth and nail on every potential front.

The only context in which this does make sense, is that Holder is simply passing the buck to Congress, ensuring that nothing will happen, so he can point to Republicans and blame them for a lack of progress. A rather unimpressive move.

Now, what I would find impressive, and ultimately refreshing, would be to see Holder reschedule the drug himself, and refocus the DEA's efforts on drugs that actually DO harm people and communities.

[freshwest]

49. I'd be impressed if voters would elect representatives in their own states to congress to do it.

Since Congress funds the 'war on drugs' and all the rest, they hold the keys to that and we hold the key to them, not any one man. He can't wipe out all those laws by executive fiat.

And I don't want an US AG who goes against the will of the people who elect their representatives. Those who support the 'war on drugs,' the 'war on women' and the 'war on civil rights' were all elected by local voters.

I live in an area where the voters elected a mayor who put pot at the bottom of the priority list for LEOs. And that continued until MJ was legalized in the whole state.

That's where we have the power, showing contempt and abusing a public person is not the same as exercising our own power to change things, we are not helpless. I don't base my hopes on any one man, in private matters or public ones.

[MindMover]

50. and AMEN ... nt

[tazkcmo]

70. yes yes

and yes! Screaming at Holder (and I don't care for the guy either) is another way to pass the buck from citizens being active in their own government. Want change? Elect your reps that will provide that change whether it be city, county, state or federal.

[freshwest]

72. Thanks.

[Out of Time Man]

76. Don't get me wrong...

...I believe that some responsibility lies in the hands of the citizenry as well. I in no way meant to imply that we shouldn't fight for representatives that aren't chained to the Prison Industrial Complex, and would be willing to change existing marijuana laws.

In Oregon, we came quite close to legalizing it, and while Oregon does allow for medicinal marijuana (which is a step in the right direction) that doesn't stop the DEA raiding dispensaries and arresting those who are complying with their state's laws.

Redirecting the DEA's efforts away from prosecuting growers and dispensaries is not something the citizenry has control over, at least not in the same respect as electing representatives that would be supportive to the cause.

[tazkcmo]

83. I agree. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

73. Exactly. Pun intended, it is a cop out.

[Comrade Grumpy]

46. The end time for pot prohibition is coming.

[aurelio17]

75. Yes, whether Eric Holder likes it or not.

The momentum is unstoppable.

[kestrel91316]

54. He doesn't need the approval of Congress or anybody else to do it.

He is either a spineless coward afraid to upset rich white folks, or he's just another jackbooted thug IMHO.

[aurelio17]

85. Right, but....

Is it OK according to DU rules to call President Obama a "spineless coward" or "jackbooted thug"?

I see you have almost 50,000 posts, so I figure you would know.

[Trillo]

58. Wonder what is meant by "abuse" in "high potential for abuse"?

[RainDog]

59. Then there's this

I mentioned, upthread, the hemp provision of the farm bill that allows hemp to be grown for research via state agr. offices and universities - Congress has to reckon with hemp's illegal status regarding this product.

Congress also has to allow or block the DC's City Council decriminalization bill that was passed in March. The bill has to stay with the federal Congress for 60 days before it goes into law.

Guess who's part of the committee that deals with this? Issa - one of the same Republicans who signed the bill to be able to sue the President for not enforcing federal mj law.

The measure removes criminal penalties for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for individuals 18 years of age and older and replaces them with a civil fine of $25, similar to a parking ticket. It also removes penalties for possession of paraphernalia in conjunction with small amounts of marijuana, and it specifies that individuals cannot be searched or detained based solely on an officer’s suspicion of marijuana possession. Public use of marijuana would remain a criminal offense punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a fine of up to $500. Currently, possession of any amount of marijuana is a criminal offense punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

Nationally, according to a 2012 report by the American Civil Liberties Union, black people are almost four times as likely as white people to be arrested for marijuana possession, despite the fact that whites and blacks use marijuana at similar rates.

That may sound shocking, but in D.C. the disparity is even greater.

It took Congress 10 years to fund DC's medical mj law - but this one doesn't require Congressional funding.

Now - if Congress allows this law to pass for DC - does that mean they are applying the law unequally not to decriminalize per the DC measure, at the Federal level, for every state?

[MindMover]

60. And the plot thickens ....

I really think that you should write a book about the governments involvement in this utter fiasco ....

[MindMover]

62. Write on, PLEASE ... you have enough posts on the subject just in DU ...

Go for it ....

[RainDog]

63. ...

You certainly inspired some fun ideas. I have things I'm supposed to be working on now, so of course I'm procrastinating on DU. But thanks for much for the kind words.

And, yeah, when DU3 started, I sort of decided to keep a record here as much as possible as a resource. DU is a great place for lots of information - has been since I first came here. Sometimes, of course, I react with as much emotion as anything else because this issue is just so... bizarre, in terms of intransigence.

But when you look at history and see the sort of nonsense minorities have had to put up with here for centuries... it puts it all into perspective - even if it doesn't always take away the frustration - b/c that situation should not be as backward as it is, either.

[MindMover]

64. Thank you for considering and keep me posted on the project .... nt

[RainDog]

65. well, back to "reality"

again, thanks for the encouragement!

Another pressure is Maryland decriminalizing along the same lines at the same time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014773240

It's so hard for Congress to claim they're representing the best interests of voters when voters are saying they want to change the law.

[MindMover]

66. Most of the time there excuse is, "the people do not know what is best for them "

This is really a ridiculous argument when speaking about MJ ...

[wildbilln864]

69. If left to congress, I doubt it will happen...

Congress is bought and paid for by the corporations that do not want cannabis legal! They'd lose too much money! Paper, fuel, textiles, medicines and even food can be made from cannabis/hemp/marijuana!

[DeSwiss]

78. Hey Eric!

Go get stuffed you fucking freak!

These fuckers make me sick.

[warrant46]

86. Eric is the latest

in a long line of yes men--he isn't even bashful to be called what he is