Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

spectrumnews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 179 posts

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#41

Post by dsfyu404ed »

stephengillie wrote: post #2

> Federal law vs. state law: While the DEA was insisting on thoroughly vetting everyone who came into contact with the tiny amount of marijuana product used in our study, the reality was that less than a mile from the hospital, anyone could walk into a boutique shop or dispensary and buy it. Why does a drug have to be legalized to be studied? If it can be purchased down the road, why are you involving the DEA at all?…

The vast majority of universities are heavily subsidized by the federal government. If the DEA doesn't like what your researchers are doing they can likely throw the book at the university in a way that gets them cut off until the issue is resolved (which can take awhile). The last place a university wants enemies is in the federal government.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#42

Post by monocasa »

wavefunction wrote: post #29
acomjean wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats my understanding of it. I'm in Massachusetts and one of the problem this new industry faces is banking. Banks are federally regulated many won't touch it (there are some "know you customer" anti money landing type laws). Thus it becomes a cash business, leading to all sorts of problems. Being Massachusetts though, although technically it should be legal since july, they haven't issued any permits to allow it to…

There are stores in some of the legalized states that are processing debit card transactions through some company in NYC. I expect it will be possible in MA stores.

The debit card thing is complex, and might not stand up long term.

Essentially, to the bank the debit card transactions look like they're coming from an ATM. That 'ATM' is owned by a wholly owned subsidiary of the dispensary that, IDK, ostensibly sells t shirts or something. Then the 'cash' out of the 'ATM' is immediately used in your transaction.

There's no way the banks involved don't know what's going on, but there's just enough plausible deniability that they're going with it for the moment. But all it takes is one dropping the hammer on one instance of this and everyone will be back to pure cash.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#43

Post by mc32 »

existencebox wrote: post #36
e40 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shows the derangement of the people in charge. Why is this? Why this derangement on the subject of cannabis? I've read a fair amount, and every time I've brought it up, I get downvoted to hell. So, I'll ask: Anyone have a hypothesis on why a large number of our leaders, who happen to be older white men, are insanely against this plant?

No need to hypothesize. The rampup of the drug war under Nixon was largely to attack blacks, hippies (antiwar), and other counterculture figures. [0] "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." (John Ehrlichman, Nixon's domestic policy chief) In the interim, it became a w…

>tough on crime"

Yeah, Clinton and her “superpredators”. Decades later she follows thst gem up with “basket of deplorables”.

Politicians will politick.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#44

Post by dsfyu404ed »

acomjean wrote: post #25
vorpalhex wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's incorrect. Those states explicitly legalized the possession and consumption of marijuana. That legalization is in conflict with the federal prohibition - so consuming marijuana in those instances is not a state crime (any more then walking down the street or eating cake is) but might still be a federal crime in those cases where the federal government has the ability to charge you (interstate commerce).

Thats my understanding of it. I'm in Massachusetts and one of the problem this new industry faces is banking. Banks are federally regulated many won't touch it (there are some "know you customer" anti money landing type laws). Thus it becomes a cash business, leading to all sorts of problems. Being Massachusetts though, although technically it should be legal since july, they haven't issued any permits to allow it to…

>Being Massachusetts though, although technically it should be legal since july, they haven't issued any permits to allow it to be sold. Those issues should be resolved with luck in another 2-3 years...

Being Massachusetts the licensing issues will be cleared up once the appropriate pockets are lined or once a relative of a state legislator starts trying to get a license, not a minute sooner or later.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#45

Post by crankylinuxuser »

tekromancr wrote: post #37
e40 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shows the derangement of the people in charge. Why is this? Why this derangement on the subject of cannabis? I've read a fair amount, and every time I've brought it up, I get downvoted to hell. So, I'll ask: Anyone have a hypothesis on why a large number of our leaders, who happen to be older white men, are insanely against this plant?

Because, combined with a police state and selective enforcement, its prohibition is an amazing tool for filling prisons with black and brown bodies.

And thanks to the 13th amendment, once found guilty of a crime, are legal to be slaves. Again.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#46

Post by andrewhn »

honkycat wrote: post #35

Everyone confused about the fucked up laws around drug control and the like in the united states: It is about locking up poor people in order to keep them from voting. It is about filling our prisons with non-violent offenders so we can force them to work for slave wages, and line the owners of the prisons and the politicians they fund's pockets. It's about political suppression, not about some moralistic crusade to…

I cant find this interview anywhere. I only see the far left leaning media sites reporting on it. No evidence this statement was actually made by John Ehrlichman. Do you have any?

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#47

Post by cletus »

stevenwoo wrote: post #40
e40 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shows the derangement of the people in charge. Why is this? Why this derangement on the subject of cannabis? I've read a fair amount, and every time I've brought it up, I get downvoted to hell. So, I'll ask: Anyone have a hypothesis on why a large number of our leaders, who happen to be older white men, are insanely against this plant?

Drug laws can be selectively enforced to give criminal records to people of color. Then the state can refuse to give people with criminal records the right to vote. There's no immediate gain for a politician to reform these laws (the people affected can't or don't vote), the other legal drugs already have huge lobbies to pay the politician, and the law and order crowd has a sizeable popularity that is hard to budge w…

Not sure why you're being downvoted as I think the empiric evidence supports the position that drug laws (and many others) are selectively enforced on the basis of socioeconomic status and race.

Cocaine is a schedule 3 stuff. Cannabis and crack cocaine are schedule 1.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#48

Post by pitaj »

honkycat wrote: post #35

Everyone confused about the fucked up laws around drug control and the like in the united states: It is about locking up poor people in order to keep them from voting. It is about filling our prisons with non-violent offenders so we can force them to work for slave wages, and line the owners of the prisons and the politicians they fund's pockets. It's about political suppression, not about some moralistic crusade to…

> It is about locking up poor people in order to keep them from voting.

Poor people already don't vote in high numbers.

> It is about filling our prisons with non-violent offenders so we can force them to work for slave wages, and line the owners of the prisons and the politicians they fund's pockets.

That's part of it, but private prisons hold a small minority of the prison population.

> It's about political suppression, not about some moralistic crusade to protect people from drugs.

It's about political suppression, but also about perceptions that "only bad people smoke" etc etc. Maybe the leaders are fully malevolent in their intentions, but they get their support from the populace who they misled about the drug problem in the first place.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#49

Post by malvosenior »

e40 wrote: post #32
nopacience wrote: post #27

> In March, Insys launched a multinational study of 190 children to evaluate cannabidiol as a first-line therapy for infantile spasms. We are eager to see how well the compound performs when given in the first days and weeks of the condition. If it turns out to be effective, cannabidiol would represent a substantial improvement over current drugs, all of which have serious side effects: One, for example, causes irrev…

This shows the derangement of the people in charge. Why is this? Why this derangement on the subject of cannabis? I've read a fair amount, and every time I've brought it up, I get downvoted to hell. So, I'll ask: Anyone have a hypothesis on why a large number of our leaders, who happen to be older white men, are insanely against this plant?

I'm very pro weed, and as such have had a lot of conversations with non-smokers about its benefits. What I've come to realize is that a lot of more conservative people are really against any mind altering drug. Yes it's hypocritical that booze isn't classified as "mind altering" and is fully accepted.

If I'm totally honest with myself I have to appreciate where they are coming from to a degree. I in no way think that marijuana is bad and I think it's actually extremely beneficial in many ways, but it is, for lack of a better word: strong.

Getting drunk can make you act like an idiot and be life threatening but it doesn't really change how you think, it just sort of shuts down pieces of your brain. Weed in some sense changes who you are. I think this effect is what a lot of people are afraid of.

So in the end I don't think "older white men" are actually being racist (intentionally) but they are just conservatives who are really uncomfortable altering their state of consciousness. I don't agree with it, but I think it's often a good faith argument on their part.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#50

Post by andrewhn »

existencebox wrote: post #36
e40 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shows the derangement of the people in charge. Why is this? Why this derangement on the subject of cannabis? I've read a fair amount, and every time I've brought it up, I get downvoted to hell. So, I'll ask: Anyone have a hypothesis on why a large number of our leaders, who happen to be older white men, are insanely against this plant?

No need to hypothesize. The rampup of the drug war under Nixon was largely to attack blacks, hippies (antiwar), and other counterculture figures. [0] "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." (John Ehrlichman, Nixon's domestic policy chief) In the interim, it became a w…

Being that I dont trust CNN, do you have any other first hand sources, a video or a recording of this interview? Its my understanding that Ehrlichman never actually said this.
Post reply on HN