Marijuana

[Maybenaut]

And I see this on a VA FAQ:

Veteran participation in state marijuana programs does not affect eligibility for VA care and services. VA providers can and do discuss marijuana use with Veterans as part of comprehensive care planning, and adjust treatment plans as necessary.

https://www.publichealth.va.gov/marijuana.asp

I do note that there are a number of qualifications to this policy, including "VA clinicians may not complete paperwork/forms required for Veteran patients to participate in state-approved marijuana programs." The need to seek duplicative non-VA providers might make state marijuana programs too expensive for many veterans.

There’s a difference between “veterans” and “retirees.” I honestly don’t know much about veterans. I retired from the military after 27 years. My retired pay comes from DHS, not the VA.

Most people (but not all) who retire from the military with a disability are paid by the VA and comply with the VA rules. Some people get a disability retirement from both, but I honestly don’t know whether those people are subject to military law.

But as a regular retiree, I definitely am. And the Schedule change won’t save me - any drug listed on Schedule I-V is prohibited. And marijuana is specifically prohibited, even with a prescription.

[Ben-Prime]

And I see this on a VA FAQ:

Veteran participation in state marijuana programs does not affect eligibility for VA care and services. VA providers can and do discuss marijuana use with Veterans as part of comprehensive care planning, and adjust treatment plans as necessary.

https://www.publichealth.va.gov/marijuana.asp

I do note that there are a number of qualifications to this policy, including "VA clinicians may not complete paperwork/forms required for Veteran patients to participate in state-approved marijuana programs." The need to seek duplicative non-VA providers might make state marijuana programs too expensive for many veterans.

There’s a difference between “veterans” and “retirees.” I honestly don’t know much about veterans. I retired from the military after 27 years. My retired pay comes from DHS, not the VA.

Most people (but not all) who retire from the military with a disability are paid by the VA and comply with the VA rules. Some people get a disability retirement from both, but I honestly don’t know whether those people are subject to military law.

But as a regular retiree, I definitely am. And the Schedule change won’t save me - any drug listed on Schedule I-V is prohibited. And marijuana is specifically prohibited, even with a prescription.

Are other drugs on Schedule III or IV prohibited with a prescription or is MJ singled out?

[Maybenaut]

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who wrongfully uses, possesses, manufactures, distributes, imports into the customs territory of the United States, exports from the United States, or introduces into an installation, vessel, vehicle, or aircraft used by or under the control of the armed forces a substance described in subsection (b) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) The substances referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

(1) Opium, heroin, cocaine, amphetamine, lysergic acid diethylamide, methamphetamine, phencyclidine, barbituric acid, and marijuana and any compound or derivative of any such substance.

(2) Any substance not specified in clause (1) that is listed on a schedule of controlled substances prescribed by the President for the purposes of this article.

(3) Any other substance not specified in clause (1) or contained on a list prescribed by the President under clause (2) that is listed in schedules I through V of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).

Subsection (a) includes the word “wrongfully.” So there’s wiggle room for folks with valid prescriptions from a military clinic for things you can get a valid prescription for.

BUT:

Subsection (b)(1) includes substances that, until recently, you couldn’t get anywhere even with a prescription. AFAIK, until states started legalizing medical marijuana, there is no medical purpose for any of the substances in subsection (b)(1). It is my understanding that subsection (b)(1) is intended to prohibit all use of those substances without exception.

Subsection(b)(2) gives the President authority to ban additional substances that might be lawful elsewhere and might even be lawful under federal law but is unlawful in the military. CBD is an example; there are others (Spice, maybe?). I think there is an additional regulation prohibiting military folks from going out in town and getting a prescription from a civilian doctor. IIRC, going to a civilian dr without a referral from a military dr is prohibited, which is understandable - the military needs to know what’s going on with its fighting force.

And subsection (b)(3) covers everything not already covered that is on any of the schedules of controlled substances.

[Ben-Prime]

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who wrongfully uses, possesses, manufactures, distributes, imports into the customs territory of the United States, exports from the United States, or introduces into an installation, vessel, vehicle, or aircraft used by or under the control of the armed forces a substance described in subsection (b) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) The substances referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

(1) Opium, heroin, cocaine, amphetamine, lysergic acid diethylamide, methamphetamine, phencyclidine, barbituric acid, and marijuana and any compound or derivative of any such substance.

(2) Any substance not specified in clause (1) that is listed on a schedule of controlled substances prescribed by the President for the purposes of this article.

(3) Any other substance not specified in clause (1) or contained on a list prescribed by the President under clause (2) that is listed in schedules I through V of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).

Subsection (a) includes the word “wrongfully.” So there’s wiggle room for folks with valid prescriptions from a military clinic for things you can get a valid prescription for.

BUT:

Subsection (b)(1) includes substances that, until recently, you couldn’t get anywhere even with a prescription. AFAIK, until states started legalizing medical marijuana, there is no medical purpose for any of the substances in subsection (b)(1). It is my understanding that subsection (b)(1) is intended to prohibit all use of those substances without exception.

Subsection(b)(2) gives the President authority to ban additional substances that might be lawful elsewhere and might even be lawful under federal law but is unlawful in the military. CBD is an example; there are others (Spice, maybe?). I think there is an additional regulation prohibiting military folks from going out in town and getting a prescription from a civilian doctor. IIRC, going to a civilian dr without a referral from a military dr is prohibited, which is understandable - the military needs to know what’s going on with its fighting force.

And subsection (b)(3) covers everything not already covered that is on any of the schedules of controlled substances.

It looks like (b) is giving examples of the 'substances' intended for (a). Wouldn't (a)'s language still be controlling vis-a-vis "wrongfully", though? Hence the wiggle room you cite?

[Maybenaut]

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who wrongfully uses, possesses, manufactures, distributes, imports into the customs territory of the United States, exports from the United States, or introduces into an installation, vessel, vehicle, or aircraft used by or under the control of the armed forces a substance described in subsection (b) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) The substances referred to in subsection (a) are the following:

(1) Opium, heroin, cocaine, amphetamine, lysergic acid diethylamide, methamphetamine, phencyclidine, barbituric acid, and marijuana and any compound or derivative of any such substance.

(2) Any substance not specified in clause (1) that is listed on a schedule of controlled substances prescribed by the President for the purposes of this article.

(3) Any other substance not specified in clause (1) or contained on a list prescribed by the President under clause (2) that is listed in schedules I through V of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).

Subsection (a) includes the word “wrongfully.” So there’s wiggle room for folks with valid prescriptions from a military clinic for things you can get a valid prescription for.

BUT:

Subsection (b)(1) includes substances that, until recently, you couldn’t get anywhere even with a prescription. AFAIK, until states started legalizing medical marijuana, there is no medical purpose for any of the substances in subsection (b)(1). It is my understanding that subsection (b)(1) is intended to prohibit all use of those substances without exception.

Subsection(b)(2) gives the President authority to ban additional substances that might be lawful elsewhere and might even be lawful under federal law but is unlawful in the military. CBD is an example; there are others (Spice, maybe?). I think there is an additional regulation prohibiting military folks from going out in town and getting a prescription from a civilian doctor. IIRC, going to a civilian dr without a referral from a military dr is prohibited, which is understandable - the military needs to know what’s going on with its fighting force.

And subsection (b)(3) covers everything not already covered that is on any of the schedules of controlled substances.

It looks like (b) is giving examples of the 'substances' intended for (a). Wouldn't (a)'s language still be controlling vis-a-vis "wrongfully", though? Hence the wiggle room you cite?

Yes. It has to be wrongful. For example, Ambien is one of those drugs you can’t get a prescription for if you’re on active duty (at least that was true when I was on active duty; things may have changed since then). Lets’s say a soldier can’t sleep and starts popping his spouse’s Ambien. If the Army found out about it, he could be charged with a violation of Art. 112a(b)(2). The charging document would say that he wrongfully used (invoking (a)) zolpidem [they always charge the generic name] in violations of Art. 112a(b)(2)(explaining why it’s wrongful - because the President said so).

Or let’s say he doesn’t have a prescription for painkillers and starts popping his wife’s oxycodone. He’d be charged with a violation of (b)(3). Oxycodone’s not prohibited, but it is a Schedule II controlled substance.

[chancery]

There’s a difference between “veterans” and “retirees.” I honestly don’t know much about veterans. I retired from the military after 27 years. My retired pay comes from DHS, not the VA.

Most people (but not all) who retire from the military with a disability are paid by the VA and comply with the VA rules. Some people get a disability retirement from both, but I honestly don’t know whether those people are subject to military law.

But as a regular retiree, I definitely am. And the Schedule change won’t save me - any drug listed on Schedule I-V is prohibited. And marijuana is specifically prohibited, even with a prescription.

Ah, interesting. I guess I've known that one needs 20 years of service to receive retirement benefits, but hadn't realized that there's a different universe of veterans' benefits for people who separate from the service before 20 years.

[bill_g]

Damn it. I'm getting sucked into becoming a weed yuppie.

Remember that first time you could taste the difference between different wines, beers, and liquor? That's happened to me for weed. And I have to say if you live in Oregon, find some of the Mimosa strain.

It's got 30%THC and 1%CBD. So, it's going to nail you on the first or second hit. But, there's no choke. It breathes right in. Easy. It does taste citrusy. Then the head high hits, levels off, the music is sounding pretty good, and you wonder if it's going to stay like this .... as you wash the dishes and get some laundry going. You need to get dinner going because the neighbors will be here in ninty minutes. You get stuff done just like they say in the article. I was pretty amazed. And you can talk. We were all a bunch of birds on a branch.

Find it. I got mine at Blue Dream on Powell near the Ross Island.

[zekeb]

A person who holds a Commercial Drivers License cannot use weed even if they have a prescription and are not driving. I had a coworker who got bagged that way during a random golden flow.

[HoperUp]

Anyone into Delta-9 THC gummies? I prefer them because they help alleviate my anxiety and promote relaxation without leaving me feeling sluggish or out of it.
And the price is reasonable. Joy Organics offers 2 packs of 50 gummies for $80. That's where I buy them.

[Foggy]

Nothing D-9 can be sold in my state.

[RTH10260]

Maryland governor says he will pardon 175,000 marijuana convictions to right ‘historical wrongs’
Wes Moore promises mass pardon of low-level convictions to coincide with Juneteenth holiday marking Black slave emancipation

Staff and agencies
Mon 17 Jun 2024 05.14 CEST

The governor of the US state of Maryland has promised to issue a mass pardon of 175,000 low-level marijuana convictions.

Wes Moore told the Washington Post in an interview published on Sunday that he would make the mass pardon on Monday morning. He said the timing was meant to coincide with this week’s Juneteenth holiday, a day that marks the emancipation of enslaved African Americans.

The pardons will forgive low-level marijuana possession charges for an estimated 100,000 people, the paper said.

Moore’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Moore called the scope of his pardons “the most far-reaching and aggressive” executive action among officials nationwide who have sought to unwind criminal justice inequities with the growing legalisation of marijuana.

Black Americans have historically been more than three times as likely as white Americans to be arrested on marijuana charges, according to research from the American Civil Liberties Union.

Moore told the Post that such criminal records have been used to deny housing, employment and education, holding people and their families back long after their sentences have been served.



https://www.theguardian.com/society/art ... -wes-moore

[Foggy]

We read a book by (and about) Wes Moore, back when we had a book club.

[RTH10260]

Now on the banned books list of the library

[raison de arizona]

House Republicans' just-released Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill would block President Biden from reducing criminal penalties for marijuana.

Republicans want to keep locking people up for cannabis:

[Ben-Prime]

If these jokers could keep him from pardoning folks with marijuana convictions, they'd do that, too.