From the link (not officially announced as nearly as I can tell)
"It looks like the new year is starting off with more than just a "weather bomb" hitting the East Coast. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is apparently going to drop another kind of bomb, aimed at the legalized marijuana industry now flourishing in a number of states."
Must suck to be a Colorado Dope Pusher today!
For it to become legal anywhere, it would need change at the federal level.
The IRS gladly collects their taxes.
Believe me drive through Oregon and Washington and you will see hundreds of shops selling with guards (since it's all cash business).
The problem with you Whooping Crane example is it crosses state lines which becomes a federal issue.
The new order will be to roll back the Obama era protections, paving the way for enforcement of the federal laws. It’s a directive against state’s rights, for federal oversight, and against personal liberty and freedom.
“I wouldn’t do that, no,” Trump said. “I think it should be up to the states, absolutely.
Just another example of his hypocrisy and lack of any ideology. I don't have a dog in this fight, I could care less what people smoke, eat, inject. Personal responsibility rules the day. BUT, I'm just waiting for the heads of all the "states rights" republicans to explode. Because you still care about states rights, right?
interesting post liz, which do you prefer? unequivocally, that is, with no waiver....fed or state?
A state can make a law more strict, can't take away from it or hinder a right because if it.
I'm not going to say that marijuana is "ok" for society, but if there are things that should be "illegal" as marijuana is, for the good of the country, in the order of how they kill people, it would be alcohol, tobacco, and sugar/corn syrup, in that order, with marijuana being somewhere down the list after automobiles.
And no, I don't use marijuana. I'm no apologist. I'm just pointing out reality.
People like to pick on marijuana as a societal evil and conveniently ignore alcohol and tobacco. Why is that? Could it be that social norms cloud political judgement?
Either alcohol and tobacco should be illegal or marijuana should be legal. The current laws are double standards.
That said, I don't feel that either the positives are overwhelmingly positive, nor are the negatives overwhelmingly negative. In these cases, I feel it's best to just let people do what they want to do.
I would submit that social harm is not done with marijuana the way the others listed above are because of it's very limited use, comparatively...
Once in a while the forest rangers spend a day at a ski area writing tickets. Ski areas are for the most part on federal land. I expect it to be legal at the federal level shortly. Can't ignore the trend. A lot folks here are surprised to know that they can't legally own firearms if they use marijuana.
If you do not think most states (especially those that drive our economy) aren't going to legalize you are kidding yourself.
I hate the substance (alcohol and tobacco too) but if we don't track it federally it will be difficult to enforce and maximize tax revenue.
Also, many states will miss out on the enormous revenue since states do not have to share. That fact alone hurts most conservative states. Yes this is all about the benjamins.
You can whine about prohibition all you like but it will soon be moot. The SCOTUS legislated from the bench to tie this issue to the commerce clause in the first place.
This move will not change the amount of mj consumed. It will only result in lower tax revenues for the states in which it's legal.
Session sits on his ass and does nothing about Uranium One, the dossier, Hillary's email scandals and the FBI corruption then he wastes his time on this. Saw him on TV today saying "good people don't smoke marijuana". What a ridiculous statement. He's worthless and should be fired.
If they really pursue this it will cost 200k taxpayers their jobs in the west and will throw every legal state into a localized recession. Typical Trump.
Colorado's US Attorney released a statement today: “The United States Attorney’s Office in Colorado has already been guided by these principles in marijuana prosecutions – focusing in particular on identifying and prosecuting those who create the greatest safety threats to our communities around the state,” Troyer said in a statement. We will, consistent with the Attorney General’s latest guidance, continue to take this approach in all of our work with our law enforcement partners throughout Colorado,” he continued.
I talked to a couple of my old jiu jitsu students on the north metro drug taskforce and they tell me this means nothing for Colorado. Carry on!
Today I realized I've never given a fuck about the feds. I just deal with what's in front of me.
One cannot compare marijuana to firearms in a discussion of states rights as we have the Constitution and 2A with applies to firearms. Cannabis, OTOH, is regulated under a federal law and not specified in the Constitution.
The rush to equate marijuana as medicine flies in the face that in its crude form it cannot be quantified or dosed. There are many studies that have shown that in its crude form (leaf), it has a negative affect on the maturing brain. The crude form contains numerous cannabanoids and components that may well have medical benefits. However, the smoke also contains the same tars and irritants found in tobacco...we may have a future of cannabis related lung disease in the future comparable to that has been found with tobacco. Remember, at one time cigarette smoking was considered beneficial.
I do know mj stops sea sickness and nausea for cancer patients and I have no problem with cancer patients having access.
The bottom line is that the Federal Government has to get State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies to ENFORCE the laws that they are currently ignoring.....
We'll see what happens.....
Who said Trump wasn't a politician!
So it destroys the economy in a few LWL blue states, big deal, like who really gives a rats ass anyway. They'll have to embrace the Trump doctrine to re-grow their economies, or end up just like Detroit/Chicago/Baltimore.
Maybe the people that live there??? But who cares about them? They live in a LWL state so they don't count as real people. Only a moron would post such rubbish. Oh, it's Thumper. Carry on.
Groundbreaking just occurred for the new high rise building that will be the new tallest building in Detroit....
Historic and vacant buildings are being bought up and restored at a record pace by billionaire Dan Gilbert....
And Mayor Duggan is knocking down vacant houses by the thousands to make room for the rebirth of Detroit.....
A new bridge is going to be built in between Detroit and Canada... A new public transportation train the Q Line just began operating......
If you don't know what you're talking about regarding our city then shut up !!!
You've sure got your work cut out. Is the economy rebuilding Detroit, or are you still using social engineering and my federal tax dollars?
Taxes on mj sales, so you're keeping records on illegal drug sales ?...........LOL!
I love this country but we really dont know what real freedom is anymore. Research how much money we spend on other countries and domestic and corporate welfare..it's sickining. We should be careful what band wagons we jump on because next time it may be an issue we hold dear that is in jeopardy. I dont agree with a lot of things that go on but the government should stick to the fundamentals.
While I'm sure all govt help is utilized (foolish not to), it is mostly private investment that is driving the transformation, as well as slowly weeding out corrupt officials. So far, it is truly remarkable but just like "draining the swamp," it will take a while.
The complete twisting of the Commerce Clause in order for the federal establishment to sieze more undue power is the perfect example.
If we were anywhere near the intent of the actual law of the land this marijuana situation would not even be an issue.
One of the worst areas of Detroit.... the Cass Corridor.... has now been transformed into the New Center Area..... thanks to the Illitch family and Billionaire Dan Gilbert.....
So federal money is being used to knock down thousands and thousands of vacant homes in the city...... so what ?? Would you rather see one of the largest cities in America have an amazing rebirth...... or continue to bitch about it being a slum ??
I suppose you don't want any of YOUR Federal dollars to help the City of Flint to fix their water problems either.......
Federal marijuana laws don't mean squat if the Feds can't get State and local Law Enforcement to enforce their laws......
Edited: Also, someone said something about the commerce clause. The feds can be involved in Colorado's drug business because there is evidence of MJ being moved out of the state. Kansas and Nebraska have both complained about it. Maybe they will need to build a wall around Colorado...8^)
Mike B's Link
I wonder what it costs a state to investigate, arrest and book 70 people for having <1oz. of pot? Is this a good investment of your tax dollars, or could that money have been better spent busting murdering MSA13 members, or heroin and meth dealers?
AG Sessions can do as he wishes...won't change my world one bit.
Either we get the rule of law working again or we don't. The rules call for congress to make laws and for the executive to enforce them. If you want to change that process, well you should have voted for Hillary then you would have had the same imperial mind set that we had when Obama was running the show...
"It is a bad idea, just like requiring states to allow out of state health insurance companies to sell in their state."
Here's your quote from above on mj:
"Sage, Kansas could open a season on Whooping Cranes, but it would still be a violation of federal law. It is the same with legalized MJ. It is a violation of federal law even though states claim that they have made it legal."
So which is it Henry? Do you believe the feds should be able to dictate to the states or not? Looks to me that you side with the state if it fits your bias but with the feds if it does not. Can't have it both ways.
Please show me where I posted that? Reading not one of your skill sets?
We cannot continue with an executive branch that arbitrarily decides what laws to enforce and which ones not to enforce...That leads to nothing but anarchy...JMO
But the only thing that matters is that it is "Allowed" in states like Colorado and Oregon and soon more states....
The "Industry" at this point is huge and growing..... And I don't think the Attorney General can stop that snowball from rolling...... JMO
Well, I think there certainly are things that can be done to stop it from rolling. Enforcement of the laws doesn't entirely have to depend on state agencies. That said, I think it would be a stupid political move for one. And as Pig Doc pointed out, is this really where we should be diverting resources?
"Looks to me that you side with the state if it fits your bias but with the feds if it does not"
Pig Doc, you hit the nail on the head. Folks like to blast president's for enacting EO's when it's the other team in power, but praise it when it's their guy. Folks also are quick to deride government overreach and decry the downfalls of big government on certain issues, and are quick to praise the very overreach and large footprint on other issues.
It just goes to show that people aligned with our two main political parties really don't give a damn about how big or small the government footprint is. That government footprint can be huge as long as it's huge in all the ways they prefer it to be big. The Republican party used to be about free markets and personal freedom -- ie, less government oversight. While some of that ideology still rings true, it seems to be equally about populism, protectionism, and the restraint of certain personal freedoms that don't jive with outdated biases.
BTW Spike, you like HA, seem to believe the feds should meddle in the state mj issue but not firearms. Seems completely backwards to me. Firearms are addressed in the 2nd amendment and I don't believe the states should be able to shirk the constitution. Show me where mj is addressed in the constitution.
The DEA ? The ATF ?? The FBI ?? Nope !!! Not !! No way....
The ONLY way it could ever be enforced is by state and local Law Enforcement.....
Hell....... I'm a cop and I can see the writing on the wall that legalized marijuana is coming to a state near you.....
I can tell you that the BLM is quite busy with illegal grows on federal land here.
But this is Trump saying, like with DACA, the law can't be here and be ignored. Congress, fix it one way or the other. And that is not a bad thing.
There's no way any Federal Law Enforcement Agency is going to drop what they are doing to focus all of their attention on chasing marijuana that is being ignored locally.... it ain't happening........
Pig Doc's Link
I am in the camp that this is like DACCA and some other things. There are discrepancies between the laws and enforcement. Doc, if you really cared to know my opinion, you would also see the many times I have posted on these threads something like "if it is a law (or rule) enforce it. If it is not worth enforcing, get rid of it."
Laws do not make people moral. I have also posted multiple times the Adams quote that our government will only work for a moral and religious people. As increasing numbers of our people are neither, our government fails. In an attempt to re-establish on orderly society, more and more laws are passed and our government becomes increasingly authoritarian.
Laws may change the behavior of some people, but they do not change hearts.
In the Bible, the purpose of the Old Testament Law was mostly to help people realize their sins. That Law saved nobody. As Jesus came to tell us, hearts must change if we are to be saved.
I do not believe that alcohol, tobacco, or other mind-altering drugs are good for people. There are many other things that are not good for us either. More laws will not make people more moral, though enforcement makes some things more difficult to do.
Just to reiterate what bk said, it is not the guy on the street with a bag of weed that the DEA agents would be going after. They'd shut down the dispensaries. A quick google search would show you everyone that existed. A half a dozen agents to go in and seize everything and potentially make arrests. I don't see where this would take much in the way of resources if they chose to go that route. Not saying they will, but I don't think it would be as hard as you're suggesting.
bad karma's Link
While I personally believe the commerce clause was incorrectly applied here, it's the law. And under this precedent, yes, a fellow's crop grow is a federal matter.
They'd better drop what they're doing trying to deal with the heroin crisis....... and get busy in Colorado....
As a righteous medical patient, I can legally grow (according to current WA. state laws), however, I can buy it at the dispensary for per gram prices equal to or cheaper what it would cost me to grow it. Running 1000W MH and HPS lamps will make your power bill skyrocket, plus I don't have to do any of the labor needed to properly care for it.
And you would not say the same about CC laws across the country? But you are opposed to consistency there?
That being said, while I have plenty of reasons to oppose pot legalization, the national trend is to legalize it. And so, the federal problem needs to be fixed, either to allow or clearly prohibit legal pot.
What's the problem Pig Doc, slow day at the local nut house? That why the nurse is letting you play on the computer? I stand by my statement. I can repeat it again if you like.
You are by far the stupidest person that posts on the CF. Do some homework on the topic, if you can read.
That's my point. I don't understand why guys like HA, Spike and others are against consistent CC firearms laws across the country but want federal authority enforced on mj laws.
But to want the Government to keep someone else's marijuana illegal.....
"Do some homework on the topic, if you can read."
From the link "My first concern is traffic accidents, since marijuana is known to impair judgement. Statistics from Colorado since recreational marijuana was legalized show a doubling of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) – the substance in marijuana that gets users high – in the blood of those involved in fatal car accidents.
This is concerning. And though alcohol impairs a driver much more, THC stays in the bloodstream longer. If the two are combined, as they sometimes are, the risk is magnified.
A recent study from the Columbia University School of Public Health found that while alcohol increased the risk of causing a fatal car crash five times, testing positive for pot increased it by 62 percent. Those drivers who had both pot and alcohol in their blood at the time of a fatal crash were six times more likely to have caused the accident."
Not really ironic. One is codified and enumerated in the BOR, the other is not.With that said, it comes down to this, either enforce the law or strike it. One is the presidents job, the other belongs to congress.
FWIW, I've never, ever, seen a fight break out because of smoking weed.... unless of course somebody's bogarting the Doritios. Strike the law. Go after the meth and heroin dealers.
It should be the same as for drinking and driving.... Do it... get caught.... Go to jail....
" It is the same with legalized MJ. It is a violation of federal law even though states claim that they have made it legal."
I realize mj impairs drivers. DUH. It's still illegal to smoke weed and drive, as it should be. My point is that legalization does nothing in terms of usage. As I posted previously, if you bother to read my posts, having the feds suddenly declare they are cracking down on states where it is currently legal will do NOTHING to usage.
You still haven't answered my question on your inconsistent views on federal authority. You don't want federal authority on firearms possession, which is provided by the constitution but you want federal meddling in a clearly state issue, mj regulation. I'm waiting to hear your logic, not some crap that driving while high causes fatal accidents. Any dumb ass knows that.
Firearms ownership, on the other hand, is granted by the constitution.
Overhearing others talk, drinking a few beers and chasing it with a few hits of the super weed these states are selling will send a guy to the top of cloud nine for a period of time. Sounds very dangerous to me when mixed with driving a vehicle. Far worse than just drinking & driving...
As stated by Owl..... If there's a fatal crash.... You have to not only look for Marijuana in the system.... but alcohol as well..... So statistics must be developed showing how many of the drivers involved in a fatal crash that had marijuana in their system..... ALSO had been drinking........ I will go out on a limb and say that a high percentage will have been drinking too......
The bottom line is driving under the influence of either is illegal...... And tests are being developed to make it much easier for Police Officers to arrest drivers for driving with marijuana in their system....
Evidently you don't get it. Innocent people dying from other people's irresponsible excessive use MJ is the reason why it's illegal. And it should stay that way. Somebody give Dr. Dumbass his meds back before he hurts himself or an innocent bystander, the mad so called Dr is losing what little mind he has left.
Doc, what part of what I posted is opinion rather than fact? Have some states passed laws to make it legal? Is it still federally illegal? The answer to neither question is an opinion.
If we want real freedom we need to get back to the original intent of the founders...most of them except for the Alexander Hamilton types, wanted a government with personal responsibilities of the citizens. That all changed at an early stage after the signing of the constitution. Just because we have laws on the books, or even amendments, doesn't mean they are right...they may be legal or constitutional in the technical sense but the question is do the laws or amendments contradict the rights already provided in the Constitution. The 19th amendment gave us prohibition, but did congress or the states really have the right to prohibit individuals rights? Yes, the 19th amendment was a legal amendment but should it have ever happened to begin with? I dont drink, or smoke weed but I feel a person should have the freedom to do so if they choose.
I dont agree with the Hindu, Buddism, or Islam but I think a person has the right to worship how they choose until they cross the line of harming others in the name of that religion. Once the Federal,state or local goverments go beyond basic common sense laws it never ends up well for "we the people". I dont think I should have to pay a tax in order to keep my home but it's the law. It's the law because we the people have become accustomed to our tyranical government and we think this intrusion is the norm. I think Thomas Jefferson had a fear that without safeguards we will fall victim to a tyranical government.
The left wants to dictate our lives through control in various ways just as some on the right do but in different ways,I'm speaking of the Rino Republicans. Heck, I dont think I should have to wear a seatbelt as a legal adult. But somebody decided they should make choices for me.
Should we make them illegal ???
I say we should be a self sufficient nation not dependant on other countries...not saying we shouldn't trade with other countries but we shouldn't rely on them for anything.
I do believe in using common sense when it comes to environmental concerns...not the crap Obama imposed on companies which did absolutely nothing to improve the environment.
But I would add in the pipeline on the bottom of the Mackinaw Straits that is aging and carries oil out of Canada across a 5 mile stretch on the bottom of Lake Huron and Lake Michigan (The straits connects the 2 lakes)....
Our Republican Governor Snyder hasn't put an end to it (The Flint water crisis also occurred on his watch)....... President Obama didn't shut it down.... and neither has President Trump.......
It's a disaster waiting to happen..... when that line bursts we'll have an oil spill in the Great Lakes like we had with the Exxon Valdez.....
The line is known as "Line 5" and was built in 1953 and today carries over 500,000 barrels of oil a day right through the Great Lakes....
Says the guy who should locked up in a padded room, so doesn't hurt himself or others. I also made it very clear MJ should and still be illegal unless it's determined my a legitmate Dr of medicine for health purposes only. Recreactional use of MJ just for fun should be and should stay illegal.
It is such a freaking joke here they might as well legalize it and tax it.......
The fed gov't is just wisely picking and choosing the battles they wish to fight (and win)...
If the law is not worth enforcing, change it. Allowing the government to pass laws and then arbitrarily decide who will be made to follow them and who will not puts us in the same league as the U.S.S.R. They had a great constitution, but only enforced it when convenient for the ruling class.
Got any proof of that Fredricka? Seems like a cop would have enthusiastiam in enforcing the law instead of turning a blind eye calling it a joke. If you're going to say perscritpion MJ can't be controlled with the law. You don't need to be cop. You're no better than the guy selling it to minors.
Was your pot business in the90s legal or illegal?
Hey Sleepyhunter..... Kiss my ass......
I never ever once said I would turn a blind eye to the law. You are so full of it.......
There are billboards everywhere....... Medical Marijuana license guaranteed.... $100..... no appointment necessary.....
My biggest beef with MMJ is that MJ never had to go through the trials to prove safety end efficacy that any other drug has to go through.
MMJ was always just a way to get the foot in the door for total legalization.
Using the "medical needs" excuse is exactly the same process as making it legal to kill any baby any time because in extremely rare cases pregnancy results from rape or the life of the mother may be in danger.
Two questions for the legalization crowd.
1. If MJ is legal, who is it legal for? What should be the legal age? Is it legal for pregnant women? Can it be smoked in the presence of minors or pregnant women? As a non-consumer do I have the right to be in a MJ-free environment?
2. If MJ is legal, why not other drugs and substances. Why can't just go to Wal-Mart and purchase anti-biotics if I think I need them?
Carrying a concealed pistol..... It is a felony here unless you get a CPL License.......
I am completely opposed to that law. All citizens should be able to carry a pistol without a CPL license.......
Guess what..... it is my job to enforce that law......weather I agree with it or not......
That's why people should pay attention to who they vote for...it's the panty waist politicians that is the problem.
Not harassing at all. Just asking a simple question that you apparently can't answer. And how you can insinuate may questions are suggesting anarchy is bizarre. I never suggested anything remotely close to that.
Since you refuse again to answer my question it appears you have no rational explanation for your inconsistent views on federal authority regarding firearms and mj. Apparently you are just confused.
Yes there is a legal age - 21 - similar to alcohol. Are you now suggesting separate laws for pregnant women? Ridiculous. It can't be smoked in public.
2. If MJ is legal, why not other drugs and substances. Why can't just go to Wal-Mart and purchase anti-biotics if I think I need them?
If it's for medical use you need a prescription. If it's for recreational use you don't, just like you don't need a prescription for alcohol, which is arguably much more dangerous.
Maybe you should do a little homework. You have very strong opinions on this topic but are basically clueless on the details. Did you watch the video in the link I posted?
As are federal law-enforcement when it comes to MJ laws.
I directly answered your question, but apparently you did not like my answer. "2A- carry is a constitutional right. Mj sale and consumption is not. I don't think that's a difficult concept."
Where constitutional, yes. Where not constitutional, no.
Same question to you Doc.
Also "Ridiculous. It can't be smoked in public." Are children and pregnant women protected in their homes?
ATF is a federal agency formed to police certain items. It is not up to a state to decided what they will and will not legalize at a federal level.
And similarly, making pot legal will make people smoke and drive MORE?
Half of you can’t really be serious
Pig Doc's Link
The Cole memo issued by the DOJ in 2013 changed that.
It was a good move IMO. The war on drugs is an utter failure. Billions wasted. No positive effects. The only ones that benefited are drug cartels and dealers. Keep your head in the sand if you so choose.
The scary thing DC is that they are serious. Serious and seriously delusional.
So which is it Doc? Do you believe the feds should be able to dictate to the states or not?
NY and Chicago have both declared it legal, so why should he get involved?
I'll think about it Fredricka, but Im doubtful it will stop. It makes simple minds like you go to pieces.
Declared what legal?
"So which is it Doc? Do you believe the feds should be able to dictate to the states or not?"
Exceptions do exist (read Mississippi) but I'm not aware of any county where private consumption of a beer is illegal.
Big Bear, the town I was in sat next to the border of a neighboring state and it was illegal to bring booze across the state line, but it was ok if you drove 30 miles to bring in it from the neighboring county within the state.
The Cole memo recognizes that states are legalizing a controlled substance (CSA) and those states are given authority to proceed as long as those states do not attempt to trump what federal law dictates. The states engaged in the legalized distribution and use of marijuana must show diligence to the federal gov't they are not being careless from a federal perspective. No different than states regulating [life] insurance - they still have to do it under federal guidelines and show they are on top of it: "Thus, this memorandum serves as a guidance to Department attorneys and law enforcement to focus their enforcement resources and efforts, including prosecution, on persons and organizations whose conduct interferes with any one or more of these priorities, regardless of state law." In short, states are in control as it should be.
If a State chooses to ignore the stipulations in this memorandum (or the CSA), then federal law has the right to step in: "As with the Department's previous statements on this subject, the memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of the investigative and prosecutorial discretion. This memorandum does not alter in any way the Departments authority to enforce federal law, including federal laws relating to marijuana, regardless of state law."
A state can't simply wake up one morning, give federal law the bird, and do the hell what they want. State law must still be practiced within the traditions of federal law.
LOL, the psychotic Dr is out of his padded room again. BB, I've been thinking about what you said calling you a woman's name. I realize now that was incorrect. My bad. I'll try to improve. I believe Barney Fife is a better fit for you. That said, MJ should stay illegal. After reading posts of pro legalization from yourself and the mad Dr. Im more convinced now more than ever it should stay illegal. I hope it does. For the safety of law abiding innocent people.
Colorado has collected over $500 MILLION in tax revenues since legalizing MJ. Over half of that has funded K-12 school construction projects and other educational budgets.
Sessions is opening a political, legal, and legislative can of worms if he tries to dismantle the legalized MJ industry. If anything, the push-back will likely move Congress to declassify MJ as a Schedule 1 drug. At least, that's how I see it going.
So we pushed to legalize smoking pot to tax it while vilifying tobacco companies for selling a product that's harmful to it's users and those around the user. Whisky Tango Foxtrot.
Makes perfect sense to me. Legalization has nothing to do with how much is consumed, only where the revenue is going. Would you rather the profits go to improving schools or to drug cartels in Mexico.
I doubt you will do it but I encourage you to watch the video in the link I posted on 1/5. Open your mind and learn why criminalization has not worked
The bottom line is there are just as many people smoking pot in Michigan under the ridiculous medical marijuana program as there are in Colorado..... But at least Colorado is benefiting from taxing it......
They didn't "wake up one morning and give federal law the bird". With the Cole memo the DOJ allowed states to legalize mj as long as they followed certain criteria. That has now happened in 8 states and DC. Rescinding now is stupid and will simply waste people's time and taxpayer dollars.
Yep, just like dozens of other drugs that are legal, and arguably more dangerous than MJ.
I'm not here to advocate or condemn MJ. Unlike many of you, I have experience with it, so I feel better equipped to comment on it. IMO, alcohol and tobacco are far worse in terms of their addictive qualities and harmful health and behavioral risks.
For me, it comes down to personal responsibility. Do want to dictate that yourself, or have the government dictate it for you?
You misunderstand me. It should be legalized. But either way it makes no diff in my life. And yes, I grew up in the 70's and have more than a little experience with it.
I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact the that we (collectively) vilified the tobacco industry for the health issues it causes, to the point of suing the hell out of the industry and yet turn around and push to legalize another product used in the same manner.
I'm for State's Rights but the states should not violate rights granted in the Constitution.
I think it's our right to vilify anything, if we choose to, as long as it doesn't infringe on some one else's freedoms.
I happen to think legally prescribed depression and pain drugs should be vilified. I've seen them wreck more lives than MJ ever has. But, I also respect the rights of users of those drugs to make their own decisions, as long as it doesn't infringe on me.
Yes - once the state legalized, the memo gave guidance on how to proceed. The memo stands as a governance that states must adhere to federal statutory and cannot tell the fed to "go pound sand, we'll do what we want". If the states ignore the guidelines, I'd wager the feds will step in.
In essence, proceed with caution.
The feds step in when they want to. The memo states that as well, otherwise federal law would never have been mentioned. If the feds decide to ignore everything, then what's the point in federal law in the first place? The memo is not an open season permit to manufacture and distribute a narcotic. It's a permission slip to do so under the guidelines set forth by federal law.
If states are left to do at will in entirety as a sovereign, the US ceases to exist as a country and now becomes a continent with individual country states.
They can't and don't. IDs checked at the door.
"The memo is not an open season permit to manufacture and distribute a narcotic"
No one said it was.
"If states are left to do at will in entirety as a sovereign, the US ceases to exist as a country and now becomes a continent with individual country states"
I don't see anyone suggesting this.
You are completely missing the point.
Edit: Comments directed toward the beginning of the thread, state vs. fed governance. The point? Which point? Why is mj seen as illegal when other drugs or stimulants are ok? Only the authors of the CSA can answer that, politically driven I'm sure. The double standard, some are ok with things like a lottery scholarships but not with tax dollars made and spent from mj sales on the general wellfare of the public? Can't answer that either, need a soul searching ethics thread for that.
There lies the problem. The responsible people are far outnumbered by the irresponsible. The country would be better off long term without MJ legalization.
One step at a time.
"Spot on GG." - Pig Doc
"one step at a time" for...?
Annony Mouse's Link
In a society that is really free I dont see any other way than to accept the fact that others will do things I think are wrong, and regretfully so will I.
We will all answer to God as judge or saviour but he will not force himself upon any of us. I cant force a Muslim to convert but God can. A person has a free will to choose.
The older I get the more I believe I need to be carefull what band wagons I jump on.
I think Liberalism, Marxusm, Communism, Facism are all bad for our country and are contrary to our Democratic Republic...but I support a person's right to voice their opinion.
We have had a long war on drugs, lots of good men and women have died trying to enforce it...but sadly we are no better off, imo. Until an individual endangers another it really shouldn't be the state or Federal governmnet's bussiness what they do.
Hence the whole point to the Cole memo posted above - proceed with caution...
The DOJ rescinding the Cole memo giving states the freedom to legalize mj will have ZERO impact on the amount of mj consumed. It will only have an impact on where the dollars go.
Simple question - would you prefer that those dollars go to states to use in education and other productive functions or to drug cartels?
Speaking of drug cartels, is it true that the Kennedy family still gets a cut from all whiskey imported to America?
Legalizing mj isn't. But I can see where you're coming from. Give an inch and take a mile. Here a little, there a little, inch by inch, until you are mired down in muck...
Sixby and HA are incapable of answering my very simple question because they live in some make believe land. People are going to continue to smoke mj. It is less harmful than alcohol, which is legal and taxed. Would you rather have proceeds of mj sales go to the states or the cartels?
My argument is that there's a lot of things that may be wrong but if we have laws on the books that could potentially cause an individual to be jailed if they sin against God we would have no one to run our country. I hate drugs. But allowing the government to operate as a control machine could mean that I, as a Christian, could suffer from that same power of the long arm of the government.
Once the gov goe beyond the fundamentals of the law we open up a can of worms.
A nation will change for the good when their hearts change.
Ever been around a cranky person who hasn't had their first cup yet? Ever had a conversation with someone who's had too many cups?
A lot of you deal with people, who are "high", on an everyday basis and don't have any idea.
"So which is it Doc? Do you believe the feds should be able to dictate to the states or not?"
Annony Mouse's Link
It may well spell a similar fate for marijuana farming in CA. ;o)
The problem is today...we don'e know any better. Over the years the Federal, and state, governments have over stepped their boundaries more and more to the point that we think it's normal.
The first major turn of the tide from the Federal government came with Abraham Lincoln. He set a bar for politicians to look to to justify their tyranny. I agree, the states should not over rule the Federal government's laws that are based on the Constitution...but the Federal government should not dictate laws that they have no authority.
What good is the fundamental rights of the Constitution if those rights can be over run by Federal or state governments? The supreme court is so out of control it isn't funny. ..that's another serious problem. They condoned the murder of innocent life in 1973. Just like slavery, it should have never happened, what a contradiction to our Constitution.
Exactly on point. The Federal governemnt is so far beyond what is actually LEGAL that most of their laws are not laws at all. The states should have confronted the feds long ago but right now we have a SC sympathetic to actual Constitutional legality and it might be a good time to just say NO! One more appointment like Gorsuch and I would say that the real, actual law, The Constitution of the United States, could be regained as the primary bar by which all "laws" are measured, reconfining the Feds to their intended role.
It would help if citizens were once again schooled in our founding documents and their principles!
More and more people, young and old, are fast becoming fans of legalized weed, Jeff Sessions notwithstanding. That popularity has been greatly aided by the proliferation of laws that allow it to be used as a medical treatment, not just in the U.S., but in other countries such as Canada, which legalized medical pot in 2001. But Canadian doctors, much like their neighbors to the south, are less enthused than the general public about the bold promises of medical pot.
On Thursday, a panel of 18 experts published new simplified guidelines for when the average doctor should prescribe pot in the journal Canadian Family Physician. Their short answer: Not very often, and not for most of the conditions it’s been advertised to treat.
The panel reviewed studies and clinical trials that evaluated using medical cannabis to treat everything from headaches to depression. Despite the deep well of research, they overall found that most studies were too small, imprecise, and otherwise flawed to base any solid recommendations on. For many conditions, there aren’t even any randomized, placebo-controlled trials—the sort of studies agencies like the Food and Drug Administration rely on when deciding to approve a drug—to consider as evidence.
“In general we’re talking about one study, and often very poorly done,” said Mike Allan, the lead author of the guideline, community physician, and professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta, in a statement. “For example, there are no studies for the treatment of depression. For anxiety, there is one study of 24 patients with social anxiety in which half received a single dose of cannabis derivative and scored their anxiety doing a simulated presentation.”
“This is hardly adequate to determine if lifelong treatment of conditions like general anxiety disorders is reasonable,” Allen added.
According to the authors, the short list of conditions that likely seem to be helped by weed include certain forms of chronic nerve pain; muscle spasms caused by multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injuries; vomiting and nausea brought on by cancer treatment; and pain from otherwise terminal illnesses. But even there, the benefits were usually modest at best, and harder still to see with smoked medical weed.
“Medical cannabinoids should normally only be considered in the small handful of conditions with adequate evidence and only after a patient has tried a number of standard therapies,” Allan said. “Given the inconsistent nature of medical marijuana dosing and possible risks of smoking, we also recommend that pharmaceutical cannabinoids be tried first before smoked medical marijuana.”
The panel’s recommendations are far from unusual among the medical profession. Organizations such as the American Medical Association and American Society of Addiction Medicine have long noted the lack of good research surrounding the use of medical cannabis, even as they tentatively support doctors and patients having access to it in states where it’s permitted.
Of course, that lack of good research is in no small part due to the fact that governments continue to officially classify pot as an irredeemably dangerous substance with no medicinal benefits at all. It’s this very reticence that led advocates to push for a patchwork, state-by-state approach to legalization in the U.S.—a model that’s proven to be incredibly fragile to the whims of those in power, such as Attorney General Sessions. And while the legalization movement has made it easier for scientists to study pot more recently, they still run into many bureaucratic hurdles.
That theoretically shouldn’t be a problem for Canada in the near future. Last November, the country passed a law allowing for the wholesale legalization of marijuana. But there continue to be questions about how and when the rollout will actually be implemented (Not that these delays have stopped dispensaries from starting to illegally offer marijuana to customers, though).
At the end of the day, Allen and his colleagues know no one on either side will be happy with their advice. But the best way forward, they say, is doing the homework.
“Better research is definitely needed—randomized control trials that follow a large number of patients for longer periods of time. If we had that, it could change how we approach this issue and help guide our recommendations,” he said.
The new guidelines are expected to be given to some 30,000 clinicians across Canada.
Pig Doc's Link
If you want to learn something about mj read this link that suggests mj has no effect on brain health whereas alcohol has substantial negative effects on brain gray matter and white matter. Alcohol is legal, mj should be. Duh.
“When I grew in the 90s, I could make $6400 pound. In 2008, I was getting $5600 a pound. ”
Was this a legal endeavor?
Please see below at the very start of the thread:
"Marijuana use for recreational purposes (and most medical as well) has never been legal in the United States..."
This thread has been about the legal use and dispensery of mj in general, whether medical or recreational.