They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by ladajo »

maybe "unbalanced" is a better word.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by paperburn1 »

I have warned you before " Do not say the name of he that shall not be named" He most likely google's for his secret identity and will come back and haunt us.
( play ominous dark music)
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by ladajo »

Maybe we should just call him "William call me Bill".

Oh, wait a second, that one is already taken by the Clinton Moron.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by williatw »

MSimon wrote:
GIThruster wrote:
MSimon wrote:The guy doesn't want to finger his real supplier - that can get you killed - so he fingers some one else.
You still going with "victimless crime"?
Prohibition makes innocent people victims. That was one of the reasons for ending alcohol prohibition. It will be one of the resons for ending this one.

And I note it didn't keep you from getting the drugs you wanted. And I must say that it appears that the effects have yet to completely wear off.
By 1933 Americans were not so stupid. But there was a remnant. Republicans as I recall. 1932 my friend. Is coming to an election near you.
The Republicans will probably gain seats/take control in the Senate after the 2014 elections..assuming they don't find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Dem will then be running scarred into the 2016 elections worried that they don't control Congress and the Presidency is up for grabs. That's when Obama will make his move, moving pot from a schedule one drug. This would effectively end the WOD on the federal level, since the bulk of it is pot interdiction/arrest/etc. The Republicans would then be under heavy tea party pressure to loudly condemn the action (or risk losing in the primaries to tea party candidates); promising to override it in Congress, or rescind the executive order if they win the White House. The Dem don't have to say much of anything on the subject, Dem candidate for President Hillary wouldn't even have to formally endorse Obama's actions, just not say too much about it at all. This would massively help the dems in the 2016 elections, while hurting the republicans especially with minority & young voters (<40yr).
Last edited by williatw on Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Stubby
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by Stubby »

paperburn1 wrote:I have warned you before " Do not say the name of he that shall not be named" He most likely google's for his secret identity and will come back and haunt us.
( play ominous dark music)
Schneibster!
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by GIThruster »

williatw wrote:That's when Obama will make his move, moving pot from a category one drug.
You must be smoking dope. When has OBama ever shown an interest in wrecking his legacy with such a move? Were he to do such a thing, there would be chaos and revolt all across the nation.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by williatw »

GIThruster wrote:
williatw wrote:That's when Obama will make his move, moving pot from a category one drug.
You must be smoking dope. When has OBama ever shown an interest in wrecking his legacy with such a move? Were he to do such a thing, there would be chaos and revolt all across the nation.
It would probably enhance his legacy. As for "chaos and revolt all across the nation", you mean like what is happening in Colordo and other states that legalized? And as an aside, if I had to guess which of the two of us has smoked the most dope (& God knows what else) in his time, my guess would be you overwhlemingly.

Obama Says Easing Marijuana Restrictions a Job for Congress

Implies he might support doing so, but doesn't say so explicitly

Image

President Barack Obama says in a new interview that that it’s up to Congress to remove marijuana from the federal government’s list of the most serious narcotics, implying but not explicitly saying that he might support such a move.

In an interview with CNN that aired Friday, Obama was pressed on recent remarks he made to the New Yorker that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, and on whether he would push to remove pot from the Drug Enforcement Agency’s list of so-called “schedule I” narcotics.

“First of all, what is and isn’t a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress,” Obama said.

“I stand by my belief, based, I think, on the scientific evidence, that marijuana, for casual users, individual users, is subject to abuse, just like alcohol is and should be treated as a public health problem and challenge,” Obama added. “But as I said in the interview, my concern is when you end up having very heavy criminal penalties for individual users that have been applied unevenly, and in some cases, with a racial disparity.”

The DEA is required to make determinations, Obama said, but based on laws passed by Congress. A spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy tweeted Wednesday that the attorney general can reclassify marijuana after a scientific review, but that it was “not likely given current science.”

But Obama wouldn’t specifically back congressional action to remove the schedule I classification for marijuana in the interview.

The drug is already treated differently than other drugs in the schedule I category. It is decriminalized for medical purposes in almost two-dozen states, and Colorado and Washington state recently became the first to allow it for recreational use. The Obama administration has cautiously allowed those two states to move forward in implementing their new recreational pot markets, while warning that it will react swiftly if the drug finds its way across state lines or into the hands of minors.

“We’re going to see what happens in the experiments in Colorado and Washington,” Obama said. “The Department of Justice, you know, under Eric Holder, has said that we are going to continue to enforce federal laws. But in those states, we recognize that we don’t have… the resources to police whether somebody is smoking a joint on a corner. And we are trying to provide them structures to make sure that, you know, big time drug traffickers, the spillover effect of the violence, potentially, of a drug trade are not creeping out of this experiment.”

Obama has admitted to his own drug use as a student in his memoir, Dreams From My Father, writing of using marijuana and “maybe a little blow.”

“But I do offer a cautionary note,” Obama told CNN. “…Those who think legalization is a panacea, I think they have to ask themselves some tough questions, too, because if we start having a situation where big corporations with a lot of resources and distribution and marketing arms are suddenly going out there peddling marijuana, then the levels of abuse that may take place are going to be higher.”

http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/31/ma ... alization/

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
The Republicans will probably gain seats/take control in the Senate after the 2014 elections..assuming they don't find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Dem will then be running scarred into the 2016 elections worried that they don't control Congress and the Presidency is up for grabs. That's when Obama will make his move, moving pot from a category one drug. This would effectively end the WOD on the federal level, since the bulk of it is pot interdiction/arrest/etc. The Republicans would then be under heavy tea party pressure to loudly condemn the action (or risk losing in the primaries to tea party candidates); promising to override it in Congress, or rescind the executive order if they win the White House. .


As someone who has very good contacts in the Tea Party movement, and who has attended plenty of various meetings of such, I can assure you that the issue of marijuana is a topic of which not a sh*t is given. The primary focus of the Tea Party is fiscal sanity, and adherence to constitutional law. (Taxed Enough Already)

You are right that they may object to Obama using an executive order to once more go around existing law, but that the particular law he is changing unilaterally happens to be Marijuana, will not be their central focus. They are already objecting to the way he's refusing to enforce other laws.



Edit: To illustrate my point, this is what i'm talking about.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/16/republicans-obama-is-violating-constitution-but-little-can-do/
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by GIThruster »

williatw wrote:“First of all, what is and isn’t a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress,” Obama said.
Only a doper could read this and suggest OBama would trash his legacy by using his executive powers to decriminalize dope.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by williatw »

GIThruster wrote:
williatw wrote:“First of all, what is and isn’t a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress,” Obama said.
Only a doper could read this and suggest OBama would trash his legacy by using his executive powers to decriminalize dope.
Only a brain damaged ex-doper (if in fact you are an "ex") who struggles with short term memory and lacks the ability to grasp more than one statement in his head at a time, could fail to discern the tone of what is being said, and see when a fundamental attitude change is afoot. And as I said, it wouldn't damage his legacy, would probably make his legacy with his supporters; the rest would condemn anything he did anyway.
A spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy tweeted Wednesday that the attorney general can reclassify marijuana after a scientific review, but that it was “not likely given current science.”
The statements are also confirming that the attorney general (who answers to Obama) and who has himself made similar comments about the WOD and pot has the authority to unilaterally reclassify it, but isn't going to (yet) at this juncture. We shall see what time will yield.

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by williatw »

Eighteen congressmembers write Obama, demanding marijuana reclassification as legal drug

Image
WASHINGTON — In a bold move Wednesday, eighteen members of Congress signed a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to drop marijuana from a list of illegal substances deemed to be of no medical value and move it into a category allowing for legal medical and recreational use.

The letter, which was authored by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), began to circulate in January after President Obama told The New Yorker he didn’t believe marijuana was any more dangerous than alcohol. Its final signatories came through on Wednesday, and was leaked online Wednesday afternoon.

“You said that you don’t believe marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol: a fully legalized substance, and believe it to be less dangerous ‘in terms of its impact on the individual consumer,’” the congressmembers wrote. “This is true. Marijuana, however, remains listed in the federal Controlled Substances Act at Schedule I . This is a higher listing than cocaine and methamphetamine, Schedule II substances that you gave as examples of harder drugs. This makes no sense.”


President Obama fueled new calls for decriminalization after a frank interview with The New Yorker’s top editor in January. He said, ”As has been well documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.”

Marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule I substance, meaning the government looks upon it as having the same dangers as heroin, ecstasy and LSD. The congressmemembers seek to change that–they’re asking that Obama move the drug into a legal class so it can be taxed, or do away with its classification entirely.

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 allows Obama to ”remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if [it] finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule.”

Obama, however, seemed puzzled by the law when asked about it by CNN’s Jake Tapper earlier this year.

“What is and isn’t a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress,” he said. “It’s not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws under – undergirding those determinations.”

The congressmembers disagree. They also posit that marijuana’s classification is ruining lives. In a statement, Blumenauer added that Obama would improve the credibility of drug policing by taking action.

“The Administration needs recognize the relative dangers of these drugs if it wants to restore its credibility,” Blumenauer wrote in a Wednesday statement. “The first step is to reschedule marijuana, which the Administration can do unilaterally. We can’t let this arbitrary and incorrect bureaucratic classification ruin any more lives.”

“We believe the current system wastes resources and destroys lives, in turn damaging families and communities,” his letter says. “Taking action on this issue is long overdue.”

Only one Republican put his name to the letter, California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. Along with Blumenaeur, its other signatories were Reps. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Sam Farr (D-CA), Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ), Mike Honda (D-CA), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Jim Moran (D-VA), Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), Jared Polis (D-CO), Mike Quigley (D-IL), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Peter Welch (D-VT).

Image

Image
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/13/e ... egal-drug/

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by paperburn1 »

Trash his legacy? already trashed. If this his agenda the he is doing it the politico correct way. Right now he can drum support but remain deniable if it goes bad. If it goes bad and the conservative rise up he can claim that it is not his party's policy and it was just those congress persons from those dope smoking states that want it to happen. and most probably hold the ground they have on the hill.
If he can get the 4 or 5 percent support needed from the Right he and the party could most likely turn it into a ground swell that puts the liberals back in power in 2016
Win WIN on that party's part
Remember pot is classified both as a schedule one and a schedule three drug. one of the classification should logically be removed.
Personally I do not want a bunch of pot heads at where I work, they are more annoying than the drinkers.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml
and by the way only in extreme circumstances can congress change a drug classification. Its the job of Two federal agencies, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Food and Drug Administration, determine which substances are added to or removed from the various schedules,
Once again a very smart political move to put the onus on congress.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

cgray45
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:15 pm
Contact:

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by cgray45 »

You know, marijuana legalization or at least decriminalization is one of the few things where liberals and libertarians can come together on. So in terms of either party reaping greater benefits from legalization than the other, it's unlikely.
Check out my blog-- not just about fusion, but anything that attracts this 40 something historians interest.

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by williatw »

paperburn1 wrote:Personally I do not want a bunch of pot heads at where I work, they are more annoying than the drinkers.
Uhh...even if pot were completely legal, why would you anymore be able to be high on pot on the job, than you can now be drunk? Where I work they have random drug tests at will; sure if pot were legalized in Ohio employer testing would escalate. Just because you could then legally smoke (or ingest) pot doesn't mean your employer can's sh*t can you for being high, just as they can for being drunk.


http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/17/if-me ... se-a-surge

If Medical Marjuana Caused a Surge in "Drug Driving Deaths", why are Fatalities falling?
A study published by the American Journal of Epidemiology last month found that 12.2 percent of drivers killed by car crashes in six states tested positive for cannabinol, a marijuana metabolite, in 2010, up from 4.2 percent in 1999. Here is how NBC News translated that finding in the headline over a story posted on Saturday: "Pot Fuels Surge in Drugged Driving Deaths." The article, which begins by describing the deaths of a Colorado woman and her infant son in a crash caused by "a driver who admitted he smoked pot that day," links the purported surge in marijuana-related traffic fatalities to laws allowing medical use of cannabis. "As medical marijuana sales expanded into 20 states," writes health reporter Bill Briggs, "legal weed was detected in the bodies of dead drivers three times more often during 2010 when compared to those who died behind the wheel in 1999." There are several problems with reading the trend described by this study as evidence that legalizing medical marijuana causes an increase in fatal car crashes:

1. The fact that cannabinol was detected in a driver's blood does not mean he was under the influence at the time of the crash, let alone that marijuana caused the crash. "It is possible for a driver to test positive for cannabinol in the blood up to 1 week after use," the researchers note. "Thus, the prevalence of nonalcohol drugs reported in this study should be interpreted as an indicator of drug use, not necessarily a measurement of drug impairment."

2. Only three of the six states included in the study (which were chosen because they routinely do drug testing on drivers killed in crashes) have medical marijuana laws: California, Hawaii, and Rhode Island.

3. Traffic fatalities fell by more than 20 percent nationwide during the study period, even as "medical marijuana sales expanded." Between enactment of its medical marijuana law in 1996 and 2010, California saw a 31 percent drop in traffic fatalities. The number of traffic fatalities also fell in Hawaii and Rhode Island after they legalized medical marijuana—by 14 percent and 21 percent, respectively.

4. A study published last year by the Journal of Law & Economics found that adoption of medical marijuana laws is associated with a decline in traffic fatalities, possibly because people in those states are substituting marijuana for alcohol, which has a more dramatic impact on driving ability. Briggs mentions that study in the 17th paragraph of his article.

It is important to keep these points in mind as more states liberalize their marijuana laws, especially since "preventing drugged driving" is one of the "enforcement priorities" that the Justice Department says might justify federal interference with legalization in Colorado and Washington. If "drugged driving" means operating a motor vehicle with any detectable amount of cannabinol in your blood, "drugged driving" inevitably will rise after legalization as consumption rises. But having cannabinol in your blood is not the same as being intoxicated. And even if the share or absolute number of traffic fatalities caused by marijuana-related impairment rises, the total number of traffic fatalities could still drop thanks to substitution effects. Regardless of what happens with traffic fatalities, the possibility of marijuana-related accidents is a reason for discouraging people from driving while impaired, not a reason for prohibiting the drug altogether.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: They Killed Him And Found Nothing

Post by ladajo »

What a load of crap.

Where is the causality? What other things changed in traffic demographics and control?
This is just as invalid as claiming that violent crimes are down because of medical pot.

Oooh! I know. I can publish a study that says the cost of dairy products is up because of pot legalization.

Idiots.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Post Reply