Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Won’t Take Executive Action to Remove Pot from Narcotics List
Cybercast News Service ^ | January 31, 2014 - 2:49 PM | Melanie Hunter

Posted on 02/01/2014 2:22:30 AM PST by Olog-hai

President Barack Obama in an exclusive interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, airing Friday said it is up to Congress to decide whether marijuana should continue to be classified as a Schedule I narcotic.

“What is and isn’t a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress,” Obama said when Tapper asked if he was “considering not making marijuana a Schedule I narcotic.”

“I think it’s the DEA that decides that,” Tapper interjected.

“It’s not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws undergirding those determinations,” the president responded. …

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: cannabis; choomgang; executiveaction; obama
Now the POTUS delegates to Congress when he decides it to be appropriate. How gracious.
1 posted on 02/01/2014 2:22:30 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Narcotic or not, you are not qualified to tell me if I can have it or not and you have not accomplished enough in your life to have earned the right to dictate to me if I can have it or not.


2 posted on 02/01/2014 2:28:52 AM PST by freedom462
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom462

The Dems conveniently leave out the fact that it was they who banned the stuff in the first place.


3 posted on 02/01/2014 2:33:59 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Very true, and since they hide that and still want to ban tobacco and because they want to expand statism which will lead to crackdowns on alcohol buyers, what I said goes double, in fact triple, for them.


4 posted on 02/01/2014 2:35:13 AM PST by freedom462
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Anything they can use to destroy another foundation of a great nation is thier goal.


5 posted on 02/01/2014 2:58:10 AM PST by ronnie raygun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Well...to be honest...the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 is what made it illegal across the entire US, and the majority in the House and Senate at the time...were Republican.

I should also note....they tried awful hard to make Coke (which had the ingredient of cocaine up until 1903) illegal. The Coke guys realized the implications and flipped over to caffeine being the active ingredient. Course, switching over to caffeine didn’t stop the attempted ban.

The court case dragged out and Coke was given one brief reprieve....it could use caffeine, but the higher court said that the Congress could still ban it....if so deemed. So an “agreement” was reached....with less caffeine used, and one would imagine a bonus slush fund was established somewhere....for the poor Congressmen and Senators in the interest of Coke Inc.

Everyone always talks big over the Pure Food and Drug Act....but it was a dual-edged sword and did just as much harm as it did good.

The neat thing.....up until 1906....there were a high number of women throughout America who were mostly doped up by noon of each day, and somehow....we as a nation survived with all these women in a daze. After the act....doping up was pretty difficult to accomplish....so we all mostly flipped to more alcohol consumed....which triggered the next problem....the banning of booze across America. Yeah, as much as we rush to fix things....we usually trigger the next problem.


6 posted on 02/01/2014 2:58:40 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

“Progressive” Republican, yes?


7 posted on 02/01/2014 2:59:25 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I said at the time of his interview a couple of weeks ago that Obama deliberately put marijuana policy on the table for the 2014 election season. That’s why he just threw the ball back to Congress.


8 posted on 02/01/2014 3:00:57 AM PST by Ken H (What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Another calculation not unlike the 2008 campaign declaration that marriage is between one man and one woman.


9 posted on 02/01/2014 3:02:52 AM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

The Pure Food and Drug Act did not criminalize marijuana and/or hashish possession and use, for the record.


10 posted on 02/01/2014 3:08:33 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

Not picking a fight but when folks generalize about housewife dope addiction I’m skeptical

Fembots like to claim housewyfes were all on Valium or librium or booze in the 50s and 60s and now they are all on celexa and paxil

Well I was there...they were not all on dope

I missed 1906 by a bit admittedly

And I guess 75-80% of Americans today have been stoned before and km not sure you can blame our cultural collapse on pot

I blame 1965 immigration act that let in million of libtards and the lefts dominance of media and academia


11 posted on 02/01/2014 3:30:57 AM PST by wardaddy (wifey instructed me today to grow chapter president beard back again....i wonder why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freedom462

Ban tobacco? Government gets far too much tax money to ban it. Governments at all levels are in partnership with the tobacco industry. What would all those folks who run the anti smoking campaigns do for living without cigarette money to fund them?


12 posted on 02/01/2014 3:39:21 AM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

Actually the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 only required that it along with other drugs be labeled. State and local bans followed, but it was the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 that made possession or transfer of cannabis illegal throughout the United States under federal law.


13 posted on 02/01/2014 3:48:54 AM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Many moons ago, the essential textbook of every pharmacy student, “Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics” offered historical anecdotes regarding the evolution of many useful drug entities. I cannot cite the exact edition, but the historical footnotes on cocaine were very entertaining.The stories alluded to southern democrats in congress claiming that “coked up *******” would not be a good thing at all.

Yes, I am a nerd. I read my textbooks, they were better than sleeping pills.


14 posted on 02/01/2014 4:26:57 AM PST by Artie (We are surrounded by MORONS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“The Dems conveniently leave out the fact that it was they who banned the stuff in the first place.”

Do you remember why it was that they banned it?


15 posted on 02/01/2014 4:46:10 AM PST by Daveinyork (IER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Pardon my cynicism. Obama told us using pot is a low impact threat to the individual. Many adults use alcohol, drive without seat belts, and take other risks. That is okay because they know the risk.

Is it really the President's responsibility to keep pot on the list of hazards? I do not think so.

16 posted on 02/01/2014 5:13:25 AM PST by Rapscallion (Had enough? Let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Don’t want to cut down the money tree


17 posted on 02/01/2014 5:22:12 AM PST by aces (Jesus Saves not Society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Don’t want to cut down the money tree


18 posted on 02/01/2014 5:22:30 AM PST by aces (Jesus Saves not Society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Did Obama actually use the word LAWS here??? I thought the only “settled laws” for this administration were abortion-on-demand and Obamacare.


19 posted on 02/01/2014 6:32:23 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom462

Best argument I’ve seen! Very succinctly put.


20 posted on 02/01/2014 6:32:33 AM PST by doberville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

What? Here’s his chance to waive his pen, call his choom pals, stick it in Congress’ ear and he’s not going to take it?

Wow, that sure died fast.


21 posted on 02/01/2014 6:55:18 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Marijuana may not be liked by many, but you can't deny the investment potential:

PHOT

ENRT

MJNA

CBIS


22 posted on 02/01/2014 9:02:13 AM PST by Sarajevo (Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai; SheLion; Eric Blair 2084; -YYZ-; 31R1O; 383rr; AFreeBird; AGreatPer; Alamo-Girl; Alia; ...

War On Drugs Nanny State PING!


23 posted on 02/01/2014 7:50:21 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Yeah . . . funny how he respects the rule of law in a selective manner.


24 posted on 02/01/2014 7:54:02 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Thanks for the ping!


25 posted on 02/01/2014 8:17:27 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson