Maybe he was simply mistaken.

Nobody thought to look it up and tell him???? Seriously?

but as seen over the past five years he has absolutely no spine for tough decisions. Between his cowardice and the fact that Big Pharma makes huge bucks off of the Drug War, and many of those bucks become campaign contributions, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the president is telling a little white lie

And no, he couldn't be that ignorant. His lie isn't even shaded. He confidently claims something that isn't patently false.

giving him the benefit of the doubt. I took his statement on first reading to mean it's Congress's job, but not necessarily the only authority. But you're right he confidently claims otherwise.

On edit: usage/spelling.

it'll explain why President Obama is neither "ignorant", nor did he lie, nor has he "confidently claim(ed) something that isn't patently false ... whatever that means.

else going on in the world for Obama to concern himself with. MJ will be legal sooner rather than later when the tax money in those states where it's legalized starts rolling in. Firedoglake - it figures.

love your lame excuses for that though.... the but, but but Firedoglake and the it doesn't really matter because MJ will be legalized soon, are quite amusing.

Congress certainly has the power to reclassify MJ and as Obama said

It’s – it’s not – it’s not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws under – undergirding those determinations…

Because that is what the President claimed.

Are you trying to argue congress cant legalize marijuana?

it’s not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws under – undergirding those determinations…

What happens if the President initiates a study and the study comes back and recommends that marijuana remain a schedule 1 drug or places it on some other schedule? While it's theoretically possible for the President to ignore those recommendations, it places him in a very vicarious position politically to do so. Just because the President can do something, doesn't mean it's a great idea.

The very best path to full legalization is for congress to act.

This really isn't that tough.

This is what he said...

The President is massively incorrect, and that never looks good. Cannabis policy by Obama' own admission impacts the lives of millions of Americans adversely but that's not important enough for him to be informed about the basic functioning of the government which he heads? I do not agree with you at all.

Bad argumentation to try to undercut the core of the issue with "guilt by association". Just sayin'

probably thinking of the more generic, "make it legal" or "change the existing laws" which is Congress.
I don't find Fire dog Lake to be a credible source.

Just imagine our entire society on this stuff, acting like the POTUS, we wouldn't be able to trust anyone.

It would bring a tragic end to our great country.

Just kidding, I know Congress wouldn't help the needy even if the blue lights were coming down from Heaven.

Read this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act

on phone can give analysis later, main key is international treaty IMO

This is why many here are so incorrect.

I don't care what he says, he knows exactly what pot IS and I don't expect him to come out and say, "yes kids smoke a lot of dope and go to school" NO sane person would expect that.

He knows things are changing and once again he is trying to figure out how to work with the loony side of Congress. Which is always a non-starter. How do you work with people that have PLEDGED to obstruct everything you do or suggest?

Looks like he is playing the 'wait and see' game.

things are never as simple as folks would have it

{Disclosure: I am in favor of legalization/decriminalization of ALL drugs; and rather than treat drug use/abuse as a criminal matter, support a policy of treating it as a public health matter ... just like cigarettes and booze. But none-the-less, the law is the law!}

Okay here we go ... What does the law say?

In theory it could be done, but not within the obligations of treaty, and guess who decides treaty? Congress. The President cannot unilaterally modify treaties. The US could do it in a flick of a pen, but then you have international obligations you have to worry about, because once the US legalizes, it is effectively legalized in all of those countries.

Rescheduling is going to take a years long process, much like DADT, there will have to be significant retraining of officers domestically, and there will have to be drawdown of DEA efforts abroad, as well as support systems for those countries who would be compelled to deschedule.

Obama was not entirely wrong and there's no suggestion he lied, he's just not the kind of person who would cause such a wide ranging change to treaty, and even if he knew he could do it overnight, he wouldn't because he's a responsible, careful minded and thoughtful President.

President Obama was in no way wrong and he did not lie. The President, no President can unilaterally change the terms of an international treaty/treaties.

But you are correct ... here, again, President Obama has proven himself to be "a responsible, careful minded and thoughtful President."

argument. Reschedule does not legalize. Schedule One is the most controlled level, Meth and Heroine are less restricted and are claimed to have medical value. Treaties speak of legality of drugs, not of administrative scheduling of those drugs and they do not dictate those schedule levels. If cannabis was moved to the same schedule as Meth, it would still be illegal, like Meth, but a doctor could prescribe it and States could make regulations around it.
Show me this treaty that says Meth can be level 2 but cannabis must remain schedule 1. If you can't show it, it does not exist. And it does not exist.
To reschedule is not to legalize. It is not restricted by treaty, although legalization just might be. But schedule 2 drugs are still illegal, Meth is illegal, very much so. So changing the scheduling is not the same as legalizing. And only legalization is a possible treaty issue. Scheduling is not, that's purely our own business.

Last edited Sat Feb 1, 2014, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

other than the supposedly temporary scheduling of cannabis as schedule I in the 1970s.

Holder, the DEA or Congress can change marijuana's drug scheduling without conflicting with international treaties - and the Single Convention is often interpreted as a statute dealing with trafficking, not individual use.

We already have three four nations (the U.S. via CO and WA, Uruguay, Canada, and Israel) in violation of the Single Convention in regard to cannabis, and the Single Convention itself is under attack by many European and South American nations that think it is obsolete.

I think Obama wants Congress to address this, but that doesn't mean Holder or the DEA could not do so. The Controlled Substances Act specifically mandated three routes by which scheduling could change - and those are the three.

I think his remarks have more to say about the backward ass nature of Congress and the desire of the DEA to protect its funding since most of the arrests for cannabis in the U.S. are for simple possession. They don't want to lose the gravy train that prohibition has been for them.

So, he's just putting off the issue. I understand this - but he doesn't explicitly say others cannot reschedule - he says Congress needs to do so. He said he wants Congress to do its job and make the schedule reflect the reality that Congress itself has declared marijuana has medical value by funding the law to create medical marijuana shops in DC.

eta: In fact, every nation that currently allows Sativex as a drug on its legal schedule of drugs contradicts the U.S. Controlled Substances Act. Those nations include Canada, Israel, Spain, Germany, Norway, and Great Britain, which was the first nation to legalize cannabis with the approval of Sativex as a prescription drug in 2010/

Intuitively, I look at threads like this and ask myself when is the last time the President mangled a basic statement on the law? He is not only an expert in both language and law, but very careful in his treatment of each when it comes to public statements. Looks like he's done it again...

it appears that this President is TOO smart for the American people. He is informed and thoughtful; Americans don't do informed (except by sound bites), or thoughtfulness (except when told to think what they already believe). His downfall seems to be that he (the Professor) expects that his students (the public) can keep up ... but that requires being informed and thoughtfulness.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

is at the base of much of the intelligentsia's angst, with respect to this President.

"He is so dumb; we are so much smarter"

"He's right ... Well, we can't be dumb, so he must be dishonest."

"He's honest ... Well, we are smarter and better informed."

"We're not smarter or better informed."

Next topic, disappearing from the first: "He is so dumb; we are so much smarter" ...

you'd see that the lawyers talk about the coca leaf exception for Bolivia. A special exception to the Single Convention was made for the indigenous people of Bolivia to chew coca leaves (which, when processed, become cocaine.)

Since marijuana is a plant, not a synthesized or processed plant, it would fall under that same exception - if the law wanted to be consistent. It could well be argued that marijuana is part of American cultural life and, in fact, it has been argued that marijuana and the invention of jazz are inseparable.

So, the reality is that it is not cut and dried that law as it exists is set in stone for the AG.

Also, as I note, nations have already decided to ignore the Single Convention in relation to marijuana. Therefore, a precedent exists for nations to interpret the Single Convention as they choose - and many nations choose to interpret the Single Convention as something applicable to trafficking but not use.

As far as Obama goes - he actually said he wants Congress to address this by going through the process that is traditionally part of their job.

However, with a teabagger House, any reasonable person could determine that Congress is incapable of performing this function because they lack the intelligence to apply the law in a reasonable manner.

they're wrong again - so soon after the the last time.
Thank you for the FACTS.

Gustavo de Greiff, former Attorney General of Colombia and also former Colombian Ambassador to Mexico, ―The majority of the representatives of the American countries, as well as the Caribbean, were for abandoning the actual strategy and replacing it with a regulation of production, commercialization, and consumption.‖ Following the conference, President Obama stated that ―The United States will not be going in this direction … I personally, and my Administration‟s position is, that legalization is not the answer.‖

Governmental bodies have also occasionally commented on the state of the system. The European Parliament has taken the position that ―…the policy of prohibiting drugs, based on the UN Conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988, is the true cause of the increasing damage that the production of, trafficking in, and sale and use of illegal substances are inflicting on whole sectors of society, on the economy and on public institutions, eroding the health, freedom and life of individuals…”

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

actually makes it worse,i can see why the potus would not want to do this on his own but your link shows he is actively fighting the world and his own citizens on this

sigh

You're completely wrong, by the way.

Individual states are challenging the federal law voluntarily. I think forcing them to change would cause unnecessary conflict.
This is no small change and the expectations of the acceptance of it should take into account local laws and culture.

Luckily LBJ didn't let voting rights be up to the states, because of laws and culture.

man, some of these excuses get downright idiotic.

A constitutional right to get stoned vs voting?? Abandoning logic and creating ridiculous false equivilencies does not help this cause.

Uruguay just told them to fuck off. I don't see an armada forming of Montevideo.

Bolivia just rejected part of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the part that says the coca plant is a narcotic drug. I don't see the blockades going up.

As indicated in the excerpt above, the INCB's main power is the power to nag.

The UN anti-drug bureaucrats also consider things like safe injection sites to violate the treaties.

They can go cry their crocodile tears in Vienna.

The President doesn't have the constitutional authority to alter Treaties ... on Congress does.

I'm on you side, right?
And people don't get it, right?
So additional reasons can help?
What is done by executive authority can be reversed by executive authority?

that takes place down thread. Sometimes outrage is not enough. You actually need to do some work on the basics.

The one that notes the CSA has three provisions for changing a drug's scheduling - and those three are Congress, the DEA and the AG office.

The Single Convention on Narcotics has nothing to say about how drugs are scheduled in any particular country - is that the education you're referring to?

The statements, above, that claim the AG cannot reschedule because of our existing treaties is not factual. Is that the education you're referring to?

The fact that this is misrepresented here?

He did a great job of making sure he told the truth. Schedule One narcotics are a matter for Congress to decide. And, there is a set of laws undergirding the determinations.

That said, I still call BS because the DEA has changed the schedule on its own without Congressional action. They can do it again. However, Congress is the best way to do it.

And rejected them?

Because the executive branch has the ability to to reschedule drugs under the CSA.

And the refusal to consider the rescheduling was one of those bureaucratic bullshit lessons. The DEA referred to the FDA on medical benefit, which referred to the DEA with current scheduling.

This is why the DEA should have marijuana removed from its oversight - because of this continuous abuse of power with that oversight.

with certain jobs. DEA is tasked with determining the status of drugs. If someone wishes to change the schedule of pot, they petition DEA, who then follow the law on whether they can reschedule pot.

Who else would a citizen petition for rescheduling a drug? EPA? Transportation? Do you understand how this works? Congress writes laws. Agencies interpret and enforce them. Do you see Senators arresting people? No. I wonder why that is.

I call weak sauce on this one.

And use Marijuana as a plus for their campaigns in 2014. If Obama rescheduled MJ that could blow that out of the water for them. We're almost there, I bet after 2014, or when he leaves office they will change it.

action on an issue until election time. There are sick people who need medicinal marijuana and to play political games with this is cruel.

If you don't know for a fact that Obama was deliberately saying something he did not know to be true, then that makes you the liar.

You didn't say "I think Obama lies." You didn't say "Obama may be lying." You said "Obama Lies." You can't know that. So I think you, unfortunately, are the one lying.

From the OP, excerpted from the fdl article:

Your post doesn't completely prove my point why?

yes his DOJ has the power to absolutely reschedule