I just realized my line in the sand for Obama ... is science denial.

[philly_bob]

All the various political and economic compromises can be explained by, well, politics and economics.

But if Obama or any Democrat gets up there and denies climate change or evolution, then I blow my top.

I doubt if Obama would ever be dumb enough to do that.

The Republicans will forever be labeled as the party that denied science ... and, incidentally, cheered death for the uninsured (Paul) and execution of the innocent (Perry).

Hang in there folks. Elect a Democratic Congress and push Obama to the left.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Wow. That's what I would call a low hurdle.

[Sheepshank]

32. doesn't take much of anything to push aside any GOP candidate.

Set the high bar where you may, the GOP can't slither high enough off the ground to pass over a matchstick.

And it takes what it takes to pass by the GOP and vote for a DEM. Hate, killing, cheering death, racism, demonizing and dehumaizing the working class and poor...really, set the bar anywhere, it doesn't matter against that group of nit wits.

[pscot]

2. Any Democrat who shoots my dog

will definitely have to work extra hard to get my vote. You have to have some standards.

[philly_bob]

7. That too! (nt)

[krawhitham]

9. Anybody shoots my dog they will not make it to election day

[eShirl]

3. his administration still seems to be ignoring science when it comes to cannabis

[muffin1]

4. And the environment...

[boppers]

34. Well, they just tanked a proposed EPA regulation because of science.

Bad science comes from many places.

[Recursion]

5. Presidents should simply refuse to enforce laws they disagree with? (nt)

[hatrack]

6. They used to call that a "signing statement" didn't they?

:puke:

[treestar]

11. No, a signing statement is a specific thing

And Bush abused it and Obama would not. And that is a good thing.

[eShirl]

8. Put it in the appropriate classification for gods sakes.

Good grief. No medical value, really Obama?

[Recursion]

10. And it's the President's job to make that classification? (nt)

[Bluenorthwest]

12. The President places 'belief' and 'faith' above reality and

science on many major issues, such as marriage equality. On basic civil rights issues, life and death matters, he gives a string of verbiage direct from science: Sanctified, Sacrament, God, Holy Union, spiritual element.
Can you tell me what 'sanctified' means in a civil context, and how the President would be able to prove his special 'sanctified' status in court, as well as proving that my family is not sanctified by God, as he goes out of his way to put forth both contentions.
Is it the President's job to sermonize about religion when asked about the law?

[Recursion]

17. Does Congress define controlled substances or not?

(Hint: the answer is yes)

Once they've defined them, it's the President's sworn duty to uphold that law.

[eShirl]

31. pssst... you forgot who determines which substances meet the criteria for how much control

[eShirl]

14. Is he head of the executive branch or isn't he?

Is it my job to educate you?

[Recursion]

16. Apparently it's mine to educate you

if you think the Executive branch defines controlled substances.

[eShirl]

20. oh PLEASE, educate me.

This ought to be good.

[Recursion]

21. Ummm... ok

Under the Constitution, Congress writes laws, for example the laws that make marijuana a controlled substance.

The President doesn't write laws; he enforces them.

I thought it was pretty simple; apparently there's something in that you missed?

[eShirl]

23. Apparently there's something *you* missed.

[Recursion]

25. Yes, I missed the part where a poster on DU pretends the DEA sets substance schedules

But it amuses me when every few years somebody pretends that's the case, so keep going...

[eShirl]

28. It doesn'tamuse me when the president pretends he's powerless to change the situation.

[eShirl]

18. read and learn

DUer Fly by night: "Obama and/or Holder could change the nation's medical marijuana policy on Monday morning ..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1831094

[Recursion]

22. Still BS, just like when it was first posted

That is simply false; the schedules are set by legislation. Period. Sorry.

[eShirl]

26. LOL

[Recursion]

27. Sigh... you seem sincere so I'll point you to the relevant law

in the hopes that you might realize it's not nearly as simple as you think. The authority is set out in 84 stat 1242 and the definitions are set out in PubL 91-513. There is a mechanism for executive-led amendment (which is probably what you're thinking of) but it is not simply a matter of the Executive branch deciding; they have to go through a committee process and then submit their findings to Congress.

[eShirl]

30. oh we could post at each other all night long

Enforcement authority

Proceedings to add, delete, or change the schedule of a drug or other substance may be initiated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or by petition from any interested party, including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a public interest group concerned with drug abuse, a state or local government agency, or an individual citizen. When a petition is received by the DEA, the agency begins its own investigation of the drug.

The DEA also may begin an investigation of a drug at any time based upon information received from laboratories, state and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or other sources of information.

Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the Deputy Administrator of DEA,<7> requests from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of HHS. Then, HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and, on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed.

The medical and scientific evaluations are binding to the DEA with respect to scientific and medical matters. The recommendation on scheduling is binding only to the extent that if HHS recommends that the substance not be controlled, the DEA may not control the substance.

Once the DEA has received the scientific and medical evaluation from HHS, the DEA Administrator will evaluate all available data and make a final decision whether to propose that a drug or other substance be controlled and into which schedule it should be placed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

[boppers]

35. Nope. Probably not what was said.

In good science, words are *very* exact.

*Very*. A single word can make all the difference.

I am assuming you are talking about this:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/federal-government-rules-that-marijuana-has-no-accepted-medical-use-.html

"has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States"

The only thing your phrase, and the actual phrase, have in common are the words "no", and "medical".

[eShirl]

37. And there we have Catch-22.

"no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" because it is currently illegal.

I.E., it is illegal because it is still illegal.

[boppers]

40. Well:.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis

The science says, basically, that there is value (which, BTW, is what I was responding to), and medical use, in some cannabis compounds, but the science also has some caveats to just, oh, smoking weed without refinement, dose controls, etc.

Thus, use of drugs found in cannabis is legal and a "currently accepted medical use" in the US, but the use of raw cannabis plants (i.e. taking a cocktail of a bunch of different drugs, at the same time, without strict controls) is not.

Regulated drug = Legal.
Unregulated drug = Illegal.

Same kind of thing as opiates (or any other drug, really).

Regulated opiates from a pharmacy and a licensed manufacturer are legal, street heroin is not.
Regulated benzoylmethylecgonine compounds are legal, street crack is not.
Regulated amphetamines are legal, street crystal meth is not.
Regulated cannabinoids are legal, street ditchweed is not.

See the common thread? There is "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" on using street drugs, because the street drugs are not regulated, do not have reliable dose information, effect information, peer-reviewed studies, staged trials, etc.

[Exilednight]

13. All presidents ignore laws they disagree with. The other reasons laws are ignored by

presidents is political expediency.

[eShirl]

15. +1

[JoeyT]

19. You mean like

the war crimes and rampant fraud that we aren't going to prosecute?

[Recursion]

24. Why do people keep saying that as if it made sense to say it?

Seriously, what point are you trying to make?

[JoeyT]

36. That we don't enforce laws that we don't want to enforce.

We only enforce laws against people that can't fight back.

[Exilednight]

38. That's the most truthful statement in this thread. n/t

[Exilednight]

29. Exactly. That's an executive decision. Obama made the decision.

http://www.newser.com/story/128172/obama-team-feared-coup-if-war-crimes-prosecuted.html

[boppers]

33. How are they "ignoring science when it comes to cannabis"?

There's a lot of science on cannabis.

[Jakes Progress]

39. Lots of self-satisfied snarking in the replies here.

But many have their lines. As the administration erases line after line of Democratic principles, more and more will find their line gone.

But your concerns are just a joke to those who have nothing that concerns them except winning.