This isn’t about needing more research. Instead this is about freeing a plant that needs less regulation than peanuts as it causes few deaths, and has less potential harm than peanuts.
Cannabis is not responsible for one single death in written history, and peanuts kill via allergies about 150 Americans a year.
So what is all of this hooraw about? This is about the pharmaceutical companies cashing in on all of their extensive research and expensive patenting processes. This is not about getting sick patients the medicine that they need. This is not about reducing the flow of non-violent offenders in our prisons, this is not about restoring liberty. This is about the money!
I have always said “Follow the money” when it comes to proposals on marijuana law. I suggest that now as well.
He says a few things that he has never said before regarding our conversation. Must be a recent edit on his page.
Just to keep these ever changing questions answered. And I don’t care if he doesn’t want me to elaborate, that is why Im posting in my box, not his. I’ll elaborate until the cows come home, like it or not.
Also you can get different historical archives from my blog and possibly Jason’s blog at: http://archive.org
UPDATE 8-7: Ryan Thompson is not officially with Sensible Washington. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Jason Says: Recently, I agreed to debate Chris Bennett and Ryan Thompson on Sensi Life Radio. However, XCannabis Ryan Thompson did not debate me like promised; instead, he “interviewed” me. Since that show, we have had some very heated discussions over this very important strategy: rescheduling/descheduling marijuana!
Response from Ryan: In the entire time leading up to, and not once during the interview was the name “Chris Bennett” ever mentions.
As for what Jason says about “Ryan Thompson did not debate me as promised”.
I gave Jason an hour to ask me questions or comment on my position. When he asked me tough questions like “would you still have voted no again something like prop19 if the tax structure didn’t exist”. When my answer was “I supported Prop19 with only few reservations, but I did support it”. That seemed to derail his “debate”.
Jason said: I am fed up with his rambling. He spams illogical information, and it’s hard for me to even make sense of it. As a result, I have asked him to answer these simple questions, most of which I have never asked him before.
If he cannot answer these questions, then I do not trust him, nor his opinion, nor his motives. If he cannot answer these questions, then he is not trying to understand the issue.
Ryan’s response: Jason, I gave you hours of my time. Both on facebook in conversations, and on my radio show where you had every opportunity to ask me anything you liked. Its not my fault that you didn’t write your questions down BEFORE THE SHOW. So I will be polite and do YOUR RESEARCH for you. If you or anyone else is interested in my opinion, in an uneditable format (see my video blogs can’t be edited like the text in your blog).
Jason says: This is a very complex issue. I believe what is happening here is this: Ryan Thompson thought rescheduling was a good idea, until he heard it was a conspiracy….and then, his mind asploded.
Ryan’s response: It was that I learned that there were hundreds of patents on cannabis, and the next step in handing cannabis to big pharma was to reschedule (rather than deschedule) cannabis. I think that the case ofTimothy Leary VS. the USA is one very key point to this topic. In 1969 Leary got cannabis legalized 100% in this country. He challenged the constitutionality of this drug war, and won his case.
Jason says: Logical consistency is key. Ryan Thompson is missing some information in forming his opinion; I am attempting to show him the missing information. Before I show him the missing information, I need to lead him down my thought path, based on my understanding. As such, I need to know where he stands on the following questions. I have asked him to keep Matt 24:4 in mind: “Jesus said, “Let no man deceive you.”
Rather than you rambling, i would like you to pretend you’re in class. If you play along, you’ll quit confusing my stance. This assignment is worth 10 points. You may only answer “yes” or “no.” DO NOT ELABORATE. Let’s just break this down.
I am not trying to spit in your face or prove I am right. I am trying to reach an understanding. I will not stop debating you until you and I agree on what direction we should go with this strategy. Please bare with me; this is important, and you MUST make the effort in order for me to respect your opinion. You may end up changing my mind.
“I don’t know” is a valid answer if you can’t answer yes/no.
1. Would you like to see current medical marijuana laws abolished? YES/NO (don’t elaborate; if you answer yes, disregard the future questions)
Our radio show was in June 2011, I made this video in February 2012:
Jason asks: 4. Do you agree with Paul Armentano that ““The DEA’s intent is to expand the federal government’s schedule III listing to include pharmaceutical products containing naturally derived formations of THC while simultaneously maintain existing criminal prohibitions on the plant itself.” YES/NO (don’t elaborate)
Ryan’s response: Yes, this is my point. The plant is practically being given to big pharma. In fact I spoke to you about this on my radio show with you. I pointed this issue out to you about how the DEA is ALREADY trying to reschedule cannabis. They don’t need your help has been my point all along. See my blog from February 2011 (long before our interview) X Cannabis – Medical cannabis only vs. Full legalization
Jason asks: 5. Should Oregon petition the federal government to remove marijuana from Schedule I? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)
Ryan’s answer: It is great news that one state (Oregon) has rescheduled cannabis for medical use. That means Federal Schedule I is invalidated, since there IS recognized medical use in the USA. We spoke about this on the show Jason.
But this has to be done carefully. Its not enough to simply ask politely to reschedule. It is much more helpful and less risky to just demand cannabis be unscheduled. Rescheduling means that big pharma would be the only companies that could afford the research and testing process to get FDA approval etc, under any other schedule that makes cannabis legal to distribute. It would only be licensed pharmacists that could sell it. Like I said on the show, do you know of any drugs that are in schedule II-V that can be manufactured by anyone but big pharma, and sold by licensed pharmacists?
He never did answer that. They need to do what Timothy Leary did, and demand cannabis be un-prohibited. Thats the end of the story as far as Im concerned.
Jason asks: 6. Should Oregon join the Cannabis Rescheduling Coalition case currently underway? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)
Ryan replies: Cannabis should not be scheduled, so I don’t agree with RE-scheduling cannabis, only UN-scheduling cannabis.
Jason asks: 7. Did the US Supreme Court tell Angel Raich to work on removing marijuana from Schedule I? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)
Ryan’s reply: LOL, don’t care. Cannabis should not be scheduled. I don’t care what the government told someone to do.
Jason asks: 8. Did the US Supreme Court rule in Gonzalez v Oregon (2006) that state medical laws cannot be interfered with by the Federal Government? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)
Ryan’s reply: Cannabis is not really a constitutional prohibition. There is nothing in the constitution that gives the government authority to prohibit what people decide to put in their own body. Like the title of my blog says “Freedom Can’t Exist If Nature Is Illegal”.
So if cannabis prohibition is not constitutional, like alcohol prohibition was. Then the law is wrong, not the so-called law breakers.
Jason asks: 9. Do you understand that, no matter what “remedy” a petitioner asks for (such as Oregon, for example), the court is not obligated to grant that remedy? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)
Ryan responds: Yes, of course. But why ask for something you don’t want. If you REALLY want cannabis “unscheduled”, why ask for it to be “RE-scheduled”? I asked that on the show both with you and Carl. They may not give you what you ask for. But BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU DO ASK FOR. YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT!
10. Are you working for the mafia, and if so, will you threaten my life based on this strategy? YES/NO (don’t elaborate nor scoff)
What? We had a really nice conversation, and left agreeing and complimenting each other, where does this kind of question come from?
I am not working for anyone. I am a guy who got busted for cannabis 3 times as a teen. I served 8 months in jail for simple possession. I do not want my kids or generations in the future to have to deal with prohibition, and I want to see it end. I will not, and I have not threatened you or anyone else. I supported Prop19, I collected signatures for two initiatives in Washington to see cannabis prohibition end. I support Measure 80 in Oregon, and Amendment 64 in Colorado. Don’t play me to be some Al Capone. Al Capone supported prohibition, and I have supported ending prohibition. There is nothing that I and the mafia have in common.
In fact I recently made a video talking about prescription whisky in the 1920s/30s, and I have compared it to medical marijuana. I think that prohibition is beneficial to the mafia and other organizations like the cartels in Mexico and South America. I simply want to see prohibition end.
Jason asks: 11. Do you agree with the advice Craig Rubin gave me two years ago? The advice is this: lawyers run the country; therefore, go to school. YES/NO (don’t elaborate)
Ryan’s response: Become a lawyer? You are asking me career advice? I became a programmer and system administrator. I wouldn’t become a lawyer personally. But your tricky follow up here that is completely out of the context of the conversation that we had on the radio is a little puzzling, though as a person who wants to be a lawyer such as yourself, I can see where it would be beneficial for you to learn to blur the context with something like this smear piece you wrote about me.
I will just recommend that people listen to the interview for themselves, I answered all of your questions directly, I did not evade anything or change the topic. I gave you all of the answers that you had time for, which was about an hour with no commercial breaks. Im not sure why you didn’t have these questions for me that I am answering now on the radio show?
Jason asks: 12. Do you agree with me that Prop 215, and all of the other state medical marijuana laws, are not protecting patients adequately? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)
Ryan’s response: Jason I know why you don’t want me to elaborate, it is obvious that I answered your question already on the radio show. This kind of redundant follow up question is a waste of time. I pointed out that medical marijuana laws are not protecting people. That is one of my main reasons for wanting cannabis unscheduled federally.
I pointed out how in Oregon after they rescheduled cannabis in their state, it did not help because it wasn’t until they rescheduled that they started seeing their dispensaries raided. Now I realize and have said as much (even on our show), that I believe it is a good thing that at least one state has rescheduled, because it makes Federal Scheduling of cannabis completely inaccurate on top of the fact that federal prohibition is illegal.
This blog came out before our show too:
The future of cannabis now is moving towards a federal reclassification of cannabis.
There are several petitions on the state level to “reschedule cannabis“, which indicates no class just a “rescheduling”.
Rescheduling means most likely the same thing that happened in Oregon when they called for rescheduling in 2010 via Oregon Senate Bill 728
Shortly after this decision, the very first dispensary raid in Oregon took place despite the legitimacy of cannabis being medicine in Oregon law and by the board of pharmacy.
Jason asks: 14. Scott Tracy Imler, one of the original authors of Prop 215, told me recently “But med mar and those it will help deserve the medical issue to be decided on its own merits — a strategy that full legalizers and hempsters vehemently opposed in the early 90?s as we ginned up the movement. ” Do you agree with both parts of this statement? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)
Ryan replies: Again I see why you wouldn’t want me to elaborate but you have no problem elaborating on your points. You would like to pit me against another activist, because you know my answer?
No I do not think medical marijuana had anything to do with the movement starting. I have time and time again spoken about Timothy Leary and his case in 1969 that legalized cannabis. This movement was stronger and less complacent before medical marijuana laws in my opinion.
I wrote a blog awhile back (before or interview) about how medical marijuana laws aren’t helping.
Since 1990 when there was only 20,000 marijuana possession arrests in California, there has been a 3 fold increase in marijuana possession arrests in California rising all the way up to 60,000 arrests in California in 2010.
It is also not because of population growth. From 1990 to 2010 California only saw a 78% growth in population, yet marijuana possession arrest tripled (300% increase, making the 78% population growth difference a 222% increase in arrests, not to mention the felony arrest increases).
Jason commented/asked: 15. Scott Imler also said this: “And that’s what 215 was a response to. It was not designed as an end all or be all for everything “green and kind”. It was designed to protect patients and their family who were using or obtaining (growing, buying, being given, etc) marijuana for their own personal medical use or that of a family member/ friend/caregivee). It was not designed to authorize commercial operations or spawn and industry. It was designed to provide and affirmative defense in court.” Do you agree with this statement? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)
Ryan replies: I agree Prop215 laws protect people with affirmative defense. But lots of providers are not allowed to use that in court based on federal prohibition laws. But I have never said Prop215 was supposed to legalize cannabis, or be “a be all or end all” solution. Where does that comment come from? I am looking forward to FULL legalization.
Jason states/and asks: 16. Scott Imler also had this to say: “Jason. Carl’s filing is a brilliant piece of work – as usual. He has been at the struggle in Iowa as long if not longer than anyone anywhere. IMO, he is grossly under-appreciated and he seems to have outdone himself this time.” DO YOU AGREE? YES/NO (don’t elaborate)
Ryan replied: I said everything I had to say to Carl on his radio show when he had me as a guest:
On our show today we are going to be having Jason Kamiri from Iowa who is in favor of rescheduling cannabis. I have recently been in favor of rescheduling cannabis as well in order to give it some legal legitimacy as medicine, since Schedule I does not offer that legitimacy.
While I agree that cannabis is medicine and should have the notion made that it is considered medicine. I have changed my mind of working any further on cannabis rescheduling.
The biggest issue is being able to fight the federal government on the topic that Schedule I says that there is no accepted medical use of cannabis in the USA.
However Oregon took care of that last year by rescheduling cannabis to Schedule II.
I am very happy that Oregon took that step and won. Because now Schedule I is federally unqualified for cannabis, since cannabis does have accepted medical benefit in a very legitimate forum in Oregon via the scheduling of cannabis in Oregon under schedule II. Now the feds can’t legitimately claim there is no accepted medical benefits in the USA any more. Not only by that step in Oregon, but also in regards to 15 states having legalized cannabis for medical use, and the fact that the USA government has a patent on cannabis for it medical benefits.
The problems that I have with rescheduling cannabis is that in any other schedule than schedule I, big pharma gets control of the market. Just like any other drug in Schedules II-V, Big Pharma controls and messes with that medicine however they see fit.
It also doesn’t offer much protection to consumers under Schedules II-V, because people still go to jail for these “legal drugs” for one thing or another. Re-scheduling cannabis is not liberating cannabis. It is merely giving it a “medical qualification” and invalidating the claim that cannabis should be classified as schedule I.
While I disagree with Schedule I, I also disagree that big pharma should get control of this crop, because if they do, they will get their billions of dollars behind prohibition, and that can’t be good for anyone but big pharma.
Below is some of the issues that have taken place in Oregon. Despite that cannabis has been rescheduled in Oregon, their dispensaries are getting shut down and patients are still getting arrested.
Rescheduling has not liberated Oregon from my point of view.
Which is why I believe it’s necessary to go back to May 18th 1969 when Timothy Leary challenged the constitutionality of cannabis prohibition and won.
Some clips from Oregon news on cannabis rescheduling:
Oregon Senate Bill 728 passed the Senate by a vote of 26-2, the House passed it 58-1, and the Senate concurred on amendments 26-3. It now awaits Gov. Kulongoski’s signature. The measure adds new sections to Oregon’s law on controlled substances:
Portland — The Oregon State Board of Pharmacy acted today to remove marijuana from the list of “Schedule I Controlled Substances,” in accordance with a bill the legislature passed last year.
The new law, ORS 475.059 established by Senate Bill 728, requires marijuana’s removal from a list of controlled substances that have a “high abuse potential and no acceptable medical use in the United States.”
The Board placed marijuana into “Schedule II Controlled Substances,” which contains substances that have a “high abuse potential with severe psychological or physical dependence liability,” but are accepted for medical use in the US and are available by prescription. The Oregon Controlled Substances Act provides three additional schedules for substances that are progressively less serious or dangerous, Schedules III, IV and V.
The Board reviewed scientific and medical literature and heard testimony from experts and members of the public before voting to move marijuana into Schedule II. This action is consistent with Oregon’s assertion that marijuana does have an acceptable medical use.
Portland — The Oregon State Board of Pharmacy acted today to remove marijuana from the list of “Schedule I Controlled Substances,” in accordance with a bill the legislature passed last year. The new law, ORS 475.059 established by Senate Bill 728, requires marijuana’s removal from a list of controlled substances that have a “high abuse potential and no acceptable medical use in the United States.” The Board placed marijuana into “Schedule II Controlled Substances,” which contains substances that have a “high abuse potential with severe psychological or physical dependence liability,” but are accepted for medical use in the US and are available by prescription. The Oregon Controlled Substances Act provides three additional schedules for substances that are progressively less serious or dangerous, Schedules III, IV and V. The Board reviewed scientific and medical literature and heard testimony from experts and members of the public before voting to move marijuana into Schedule II. This action is consistent with Oregon’s assertion that marijuana does have an acceptable medical use.
On Wednesday June 16, 2011, officers in Washington County served search warrants on Wake n Bake Lounge, located at 18918 Shaw St in Aloha, Oregon. Three residences associated with the cannabis club were also searched. Although computers, various equipment and cannabis were confiscated during the execution of the warrant for suspected “manufacturing and distribution of a controlled substance,” no arrests were made.
How will this affect pot in Oregon? And what does this mean?
“A schedule I drug means that it has no medicinal value that is recognized,” said Lane County Chief Deputy District Attorney Patty Perlow. “A schedule II drug has recognized medicinal value but a high risk of abuse. http://www.kval.com/news/local/96612724.html“
Also Wednesday June 1st 2011 @ 3pm PST Sensi Life Radio
Topic: Rescheduling cannabis vs. Full Legalization
Call in number: 888-NI4D-USA (888-644-3672) ext. 709
If you want to be a guest please RSVP CLICK HERE to send a message
The prohibitionists want it to be rescheduled as Schedule II, to give it to Big Pharma (Don Pierce, and John Snaza? both cops).
Of course they want it rescheduled. It takes it away from ma and pa, and gives it to big pharma.