A Real Important Message To Patients

[GanjaWarrior]

You are right, it is a waste of time looking for proof, because there is none. I lot of people in influential positions misinterpreted the Ogden memo, either on purpose or on accident, then spent a lot of time pushing that interpretation through our community.

 

Not all cannabis community leaders, even at the national level, agreed with the interpretation these organizations were putting forth. I remember reading a blog, I think by Allan St. Pierre of NORML, calling out Steph Sherer of ASA and Ethan Nadelman, then of DPA, specifically, for pushing their reckless interpretation. I'll try to find it; it casts a lot of light on this situation.

 

 

zap you seem to not grasp the time line...said memo...came out after he was elected.... no ones talking anything about the memo but you.... as i said it was from b4 he was elected....do you know when the memo came out...ok so know you can stop bring up the memo that has nothing to do with what obammer said.

[GanjaWarrior]

Okay so I am pretty much a technological idiot.

I rooted around you tube. I found an interview where he specifically states,he even said" specifically what I won't do " is use justice dept to go after state legal mmj patients and providers.'

Search YouTube for Barack Obama on medical marijuana ( interview Q&A )

The video is 2:31 long it is at around 2:15 where he says it.

Wish I knew how to post links, Because it is There.

 

ty ...its out there....

[AKenewell]

No one seems to be able to dispute the facts I put up regarding this..so dismiss it as opinion..I don't think so.It's the law..I posted the link..straight from Harvard..you know where Obama went. iT'S THE LAW..It's how it works...

[Sledge]

.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Sledge

[cristinew]

I wonder why Obama is not stopping the DC medical program? I bet Mitt would

Edited July 11, 2012 by cristinew

[GanjaWarrior]

I wonder why Obama is not stopping the DC medical program? I bet Mitt would

 

there you go supporting obammer again....and i bet mit would...know why? if obammer isnt (and he is, or will) then his corp owners told him not to for some reason...and since obammer and mit are one in the same in their corp whore status.... i bet your wrong.

[cristinew]

time will tell

[GanjaWarrior]

Let's hope we never get to find out what Mitt will do as President, and that he is never granted the power of any other public office from which he can abuse medical marijuana patients.

 

same thing obammer is doing....feed the fear all you want. just look at the statistics...obammers got the record for number of marijuana arrest....he beat gw bush...though im pretty sure clinton holds previous record. they are both drug war nazis....but i have to say mit might not be involved with sending assault rifles to Mexico like obammer...hed prob just ban them....

[AKenewell]

There is a good chance that the next U.S. President will be the one presiding over the change from schedule I to schedule II. Mitt could do a lot of damage under that scenario without trying too hard, and with lots of political cover. Not that Obama wouldn't be able to do the same, but at least he has supporters that would try to hold him back.

 

OK so then how do you explain all he is currently doing now tempered by the need to be re-elected?? Or are we still insisting it's all lies and garbage?

[+Malamute]

@ Hayduke...So this was a reply to Mal..maybe go back and read..I'm not posting personal opinions..or just editorials here...

 

http://www.harvardil...8-2_Bradley.pdf

 

Well, i had to go read the entire article via pdf which i posted here. It completely supports my position on CONSTITUTIONAL Treaties. There is no treaty that can ever be signed by any president and ratified by the Senate that can change the US constitution EVER> Period. Zilch notta never cannot happen. NEVER. This is so basic and so straight forward i am sorry it is not getting through. The Arms Treaty cannot effect the US constiution and the United States cannot be a part of any treaty that is Unconstititional. Period. The 2nd amendment is the COnstiution. It Cannot ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever be changed by a treaty.... ever.

 

Ever. Never ever.

 

A treaty can never intrude upon the COnstitution. It just simply can't.

 

This is how corporations make money like the NRA. They scare the bejeesus out of people to give them money. Unfortunately the NRA has become such a hack organization what they say is at best very questionable anymore.

 

Such as, Does Obama have a 100% A+ positive rating with the NRA currently? And if not, why not? He has ONLY expanded gun rights since president by allowing guns on Federal park land. It is the ONLY gun legislation that has passed at all during his tenure. Nothing else. So he should have 100% rating correct? But according to Wayne "KKK" Lapierre, Obama is the antichrist and coming after your guns even though he hasnt and never has tried and said he never would go after second amendment rights as President? Wayne Lapierre also is a birther who believes Obama is not an American Citizen. *shrug* This guy is so not credible in any form, espescially on this Arms Treaty nonsense.

 

I mean, if these signed treaties thata re not ratified meant something, than why is not George Bush, penis CHeney, Kissinger and a myriad of other people not in International prison for war crimes? Because the US never agreed to article 18 of the Vienna convention. We are not bound by treaties, let alone attempted UNCONSTITUTIONAL treaties.

 

So yea, your proof has nothing to do with what i said. The only way to effect the Constitution is to Amend the US COnstitution. Not going to happen on the second amendment. For that matter, the entire Bill of Rights as well.

 

I am sorry AK, you are simply wrong on this topic and your Harvard article does nothing to support your position.

 

Moving on,

 

 

 

Obama's medial marijuana campaign promises

 

 

 

The following are a sampling of medical marijuana promises made by President Barack Obama when he was asking for your vote. Today, he's allowing his Justice Department to attack medical marijuana. It's an unjust episode of bait and switch. — Wayne Laugesen

Quotes from the campaign trail

 

“My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana then that’s something I’m open to because there’s no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain. But I want to do it under strict guidelines. I want it prescribed in the same way that other painkillers or palliative drugs are prescribed.” — November 24, 2007 town hall meeting in Iowa

 

“I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It’s not a good use of our resources.” — August 21, 2007, event in Nashua, New Hampshire

 

“I don’t think that should be a top priority of us, raiding people who are using ... medical marijuana. With all the things we’ve got to worry about, and our Justice Department should be doing, that probably shouldn’t be a high priority.” — June 2, 2007, town hall meeting in Laconia, New Hampshire

 

“You know, it’s really not a good use of Justice Department resources.” — responding to whether the federal government should stop medical marijuana raids, August 13, 2007, town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire

 

“The Justice Department going after sick individuals using [marijuana] as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense.” — July 21, 2007, town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire

 

 

Read more: http://www.gazette.c...l#ixzz20KuOTgcg

 

 

Now, i always... well before the election, knew Obama was planning to protect PATIENTS. He came through with exactly what i thought he would. He protected patients, not business. Many attempted to stretch his protections and crawl underneath the umbrella of protections with patients.

 

I have zero issues with people trying to expand and/or change laws to increase medical marijuana protections. But we have to be honest about intent, purpose and past historical facts.

 

 

Addendum: "penis CHeney," - Sometimes word filters are detrimental... hahahaha....

Edited July 11, 2012 by Malamute

[cristinew]

Mits a loser always has been,,, big money boy wanting to buy the election, who in there right mind would put their puppy on top of the car LOL

[AKenewell]

Mal.. As Obama has said in the past, the government can meet the 2nd amendment AND regulate firearms. The context for these comments came in response to a Washington, DC ban on firearms. He argues that 'sure, you have the 2nd amendment right, but the city has the right to say not in my town.' In other words, the constitution stands, but as a "living document" subject to interpretation.

 

And again pointing to the Harvard paper….

 

"The extent of this constitutional tension, however, depends on the breadth of the signing obligation. The drafting history of Article 18 sug- gests that the signing obligation was intended to be narrower than some commentators have assumed. This obligation is best construed as precluding only actions that would substantially undermine the ability of the parties to comply with, or benefit from, the treaty after ratification. Considered in these terms, the obligation has little relevance to many types of treaties, such as human rights treaties, where pre-ratification conduct inconsistent with the treaty is not likely to undo the bargain reflected in the treaty. Adopting this narrow interpretation of the object and purpose obligation helps reduce the gap between presidential authority under the Constitution and international law. Nevertheless, because there is still some potential for constitutional conflict, and because the object and purpose obligation is un- defined in the text of the Vienna Convention, the Senate should be attentive to this issue if it is to preserve its already diminished role in the treaty process." (bold added by me)

 

The simple existence of a signed international treaty in the hands of a sympathetic administration is reason enough to enact regulatory changes, which they can do even before the Senate ratifies it. The international law clearly states the signatories have responsibilities.

 

 

And what I hear many here saying is essentially, "Don't worry, nothing will change with the administration signing this treaty." If that was true, then why sign the treaty? What do we, as a people, have to gain? I'm no member of the NRA. I am a citizen who values my liberties, though. And would include the right to bear arms. Why can't a girl just have her 50 cal Desert Eagle? So wrong with that??? And you say the NRA is taking up this issue to raise money. They didn't create the issue. It seems real enough to me. And who else would you expect to take up this issue? The ACLU? They have an agenda of their own. The NAACP? They're busy with Trevon Martin. These groups all take up their own issues. That doesn't mean you discredit them all for pursuing the issues important to them.

[+Malamute]

Sigh'... first off, that is covering CONSTITUTIONAL treaties.

 

Secondly, International Law is created all the time whether or not the US President signs it. And even if the US preident signs it, it still means nothing except int he case of one time treaty deals such as recognizing a new country. It must be ratified and this has been accepted standard in the modern world for all countries.

 

 

I will not argue with you anymore on this topic because you are obviously mind blowingly ignorant to the big picture about this. I see no reason to continue.

 

The treaty cannot change the US constitution. Period. Prove me wrong.

[cristinew]

Who obeys the US Constitution anyway did not Bush say it was a gXdXXXXX piece of paper

Edited July 11, 2012 by mibrains
edited out swearing...

[AKenewell]

You're saying 1) It doesn't matter. Which it do

Sigh'... first off, that is covering CONSTITUTIONAL treaties.

 

Secondly, International Law is created all the time whether or not the US President signs it. And even if the US preident signs it, it still means nothing except int he case of one time treaty deals such as recognizing a new country. It must be ratified and this has been accepted standard in the modern world for all countries.

 

 

I will not argue with you anymore on this topic because you are obviously mind blowingly ignorant to the big picture about this. I see no reason to continue.

 

The treaty cannot change the US constitution. Period. Prove me wrong.

 

It doesn't have to change the US constitution. That's the point. Your belaboring that point only serves to reveal your ignorance of or denial of the greater issue. Although international law may be created and expanded on frequently, it's not every day that the US signs a new treaty. Simply signing a treaty obligates us to certain things under international law. The article is about "Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the Constitution" it outlines why this is a problem, and warns of a continued diminishing of the role of the Senate if the problem is not addressed. It makes my point exactly that we, as a nation, shouldn't be signing treaties we have no intent of following through on.

 

And if your earlier point that 'it doesn't change anything, so it won't matter' were correct, then you'd be saying the same thing as the NRA and others. Don't sign it.

[AKenewell]

As for clarity, one more time…. a signed treaty creates international legal obligations even before the senate ratifies it.

[mibrains]

no offense meant on the above edit Cristinew....

 

i am a god faring man...a servant of the lord as i understand him, and i edited the quote to remove the blasphemy...

[+Malamute]

Treaties are made by the President and Congress under their

executive and legislative powers, and so are subject to constitutional

restraints. This is basic constitutional analysis, so commonly

understood that there are not in fact that many cases on it, but here

are two of the leading ones:

 

Foster v. Neilson, U.S.Sup.Ct., 1829, a treaty must "be regarded in

courts...as equivalent to an act of the legislature" page 254

 

Reid v. Covert, U.S. Sup. Ct., (1957), No treaty "can confer power on

the Government, which is free from the restraints of the

Constitution." page 16

 

 

 

See, the question then becomes, is the Arms treaty Constitutional?

 

If it is, then of course anyone can sign it and it is their right as elected officials to do so.

 

If not, the treaty is null and void.

 

What is the problem?

[+Malamute]

As for clarity, one more time…. a signed treaty creates international legal obligations even before the senate ratifies it.

 

It "can" on very narrow issues such as recognizing a country. And the paper you are referring to is merely opinion and exploring all angles of said topic and far end views are only being discussed hypothetically and should be understood as hypothetical discussions that really don;t refelect any reality.

 

On this particular issue, it will definitely NOT.

[cristinew]

No problem Mi Brains, it was a horrible quote that GW Bush said about our Constitution shame on him

[AKenewell]

There's no dispute that the Arms Trade Treaty would be held as constitutional. I'm not saying it wouldn't be. What I'm saying is that once signed, it will create international legal obligations for us.

 

Although the details are still being hashed out, and the language of the treaty has not been finalized, private arms and ammunition manufacturing are on the table. The ATT will set up a global agency to prevent the export of small arms to other countries. And that will require countries to inventory the guns in private hands and to register them. The second amendment stands, the treaty stands, and now some international regulatory agency and our federal government know where all the weapons are. That sounds innocent enough, but the 2nd amendment has been eroded. And, if Obama has his way, cities and other government municipalities would be free to regulate arms. I think it's safe to assume that the administration would be very friendly to this treaty and would take it as far as they can go.

[cristinew]

Mitt is a Globalist too

[GanjaWarrior]

No problem Mi Brains, it was a horrible quote that GW Bush said about our Constitution shame on him

 

 

how can there be any accountability in government if the response is always..."but he did".... dont you see the problem with that thinking? bush screwed us over so did clinton so did bush so did reagun...so did obammer too....right now obammer is fool in the captains seat selling us out to the highest bidder, we cant just ignore the problems of the current president just because some other president is a jackass too...

[Hayduke]

AK, were you equally strident and upset with Bush and Cheney in re illegal wiretaps, spying on citizens, lying about weapons of mass destruction, the patriot act and torture? All these items concern most people who think civil liberties are being eroded...

 

how 'bout it, did you speak up then?

 

or is this just one more FAUX attack on the black Democratic President?

[cristinew]

Did Bush do something wrong?