Posted on Jan 28, 2016
Veterans Might Finally Get Access To Medical Marijuana
2.17K
13
9
6
6
0
A bipartisan group of 21 lawmakers has written a letter to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Robert McDonald urging him to allow veterans access to medical marijuana.
The reason the debate is coming up again is because the VA has a policy banning doctors from broaching the subject of medical marijuana with their patients as a treatment option.
That policy, known as VHA Directive 2011-004, is set to expire Jan. 31, and 19 Democrats and two Republicans want to make sure that policy does in fact reach the grave.
The reason the debate is coming up again is because the VA has a policy banning doctors from broaching the subject of medical marijuana with their patients as a treatment option.
That policy, known as VHA Directive 2011-004, is set to expire Jan. 31, and 19 Democrats and two Republicans want to make sure that policy does in fact reach the grave.
Veterans Might Finally Get Access To Medical Marijuana
Posted from dailycaller.comPosted in these groups: 
Marijuana
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Marijuana Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
Sir this sounds good and all, but unless Congress takes weed of it's schedule and fully legalizes it, this is for nothing. If VA gave it, who's on the hook for it? What happens if the state still has it banned? Go from one state where it's legal into another where it isn't....trafficking? This is not going to end well unless weed is fully removed and placed as a legal controlled substance federally, and the states wouldn't be able to fight it at that point. All I see is a feel good story and a lot of vets going to jails for technicalities in the laws.
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Thanks, but in this case if he did it on his own, congress would raise hell he didn't go through them, states would swear he's stomping on their demands, and someone will link this to 2A.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSG Warren Swan I understand, however Congress didn't actually "write" what's IN the Schedule. The President does that through Executive Power (Order), like he does almost all of our Major Laws. Remember, Executive Orders are there "In absence of Law, or to CLARIFY existing Law."
A great example of this is the UCMJ. Congress mandates the UCMJ. It's one of their Enumerated Powers Art 1, Sect 8. However the actual "contents" of it art the "product" of Executive Order.
Changes to UCMJ or to the contents of the CSA (which is a blank slate) are well within his "Delegated" Power (Clarify existing Law). Specifically the CSA.
The 2a however has a different set of confines. Specifically the NFA, the GCA (1968) and FOPA (1986). His ability to "clarify" those laws is extremely limited, and his ability to act "in absence of Law" is Null because of the 2a itself (that Shall not be Infringed Restriction).
A great example of this is the UCMJ. Congress mandates the UCMJ. It's one of their Enumerated Powers Art 1, Sect 8. However the actual "contents" of it art the "product" of Executive Order.
Changes to UCMJ or to the contents of the CSA (which is a blank slate) are well within his "Delegated" Power (Clarify existing Law). Specifically the CSA.
The 2a however has a different set of confines. Specifically the NFA, the GCA (1968) and FOPA (1986). His ability to "clarify" those laws is extremely limited, and his ability to act "in absence of Law" is Null because of the 2a itself (that Shall not be Infringed Restriction).
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - See why I cringe when you reply? lol. You and a select group of others are like the brains behind this site, and you better be on your A++ game if you pop up. I used the 2A being Obama could be talking about saving whales through an EO, and by the end of the night, he's trying to take away folks weapons to shoot whales.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSG Warren Swan Nah, EO's are absolutely necessary. However they have their limits. They can be used for some things and not others. Just like Laws can be used for some things and not others.
"It's a game" is the best way to describe it. Each Clause is a distinct rule, and they interact with each other in different ways. Over the last 200~ years people have tried different ways of making the rules different things, and SCOTUS has said yea/nea on them (case law & precedent). The hard part is keeping it all straight in your head or knowing where to find it.
The other thing is about which argument is used. Here's one for you:
Troop says he needs to go to X because of Y. Now you KNOW he can't go there because of Y. That's against the rules. But... if he also needs to go to X for Z, and Y happens to get done while he's there... the rules aren't broken. Or even better, he goes past X to somewhere else and on the way back takes care of...
"It's a game" is the best way to describe it. Each Clause is a distinct rule, and they interact with each other in different ways. Over the last 200~ years people have tried different ways of making the rules different things, and SCOTUS has said yea/nea on them (case law & precedent). The hard part is keeping it all straight in your head or knowing where to find it.
The other thing is about which argument is used. Here's one for you:
Troop says he needs to go to X because of Y. Now you KNOW he can't go there because of Y. That's against the rules. But... if he also needs to go to X for Z, and Y happens to get done while he's there... the rules aren't broken. Or even better, he goes past X to somewhere else and on the way back takes care of...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If it assists vets that need help, and is shown to work, I'm all for it. It's going to be legal nation wide soon enough.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
If my guess is right, we're about 10~ years out from full legalization. Probably 4-6 from decriminalization & completely ignoring existing law.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google