White house to crack down on Rec. Marijuana

I'm impressed with the discourse within this thread. Valid, & mostly level headed discussion.

If our Federal legislators would only try to do this regarding the issue, I'm Pretty sure we'd see cannabis rescheduled, & prescribed.

Quite honestly, with the plethora of ailments it can be used to treat, recreational use wouldn't even need to be immediately addressed.

Hell, "Lower Dose" weed could be sold OTC, like pseudo ephedrine is now....

 

By the same reasoning: You cannot drive safely while old, tired, angry, nervous, etc.
You most certainly CAN drive safely after a few drinks. The number of drinks in which you can no longer operate a vehicle in a safe manner varies from person to person. DWI laws are total horse sh!t.

 

Then you will need to point them out. Otherwise...

 

Doesn't seem like it but the quote you posted was a response to an ID called navigator2.

"Kinda the same place that transgenders think they can't see what's between their legs. This issue should be left up the the states, just like many other things the federal government sticks it's nose into that it should not. We can't pick and choose which which authority supersedes another just because we don't agree with it."

Which, as you can see surely introduces LGBTQ to the thread. Not me, one of yours. Oopsies

 

Outlawing pot will only strengthen criminals and gang members. I smoked when it was illegal and never had a problem getting it. I support a family of 6 and pay more than my share of taxes. Does anyone here think society would be better served if I was in prison?

 

OMB Director today laid out a broad budget plan.
He talked about "Policies".
He talked about "priorities"
He stated "Enforcing the laws currently on the books".

Why are you so certain that Trump is not going to enforce the Federal Laws regarding marijuana?

 

Because as I stated earlier, there are far more important items on this Administration's plate.

 

With all due respect...

If you're a regular user, just one hit won't do much.
If you're a regular drinker, just one shot of vodka won't do much.
If you've never smoked, you can get really whacked on one big hit.
If you don't drink, you can get really whacked on one shot of vodka.​

OTOH...

I've seen more than a couple of fights break out among people drinking.
I've never seen anyone high get into a fight - not even a serious argument.​

 

I voted for the states rights president whod recognized the futility and harm of the war on drugs.

 

Why do you drink at all? It is expensive, especially in bars and restaurants. What benefits do you get from your "social drinking"? Does it relax you physically? Does it make you more congenial? What do you get out of it?

Different people smoke for different reasons. Some smoke because it relaxes them physically. Some smoke because it makes them more congenial.

Again, why do you drink?

 

But, essentially, one man got marijuana placed on Schedule I. His name is William Randolph Hearst. His primary reasons were financial and racist.

Richard Nixon established an independent committee to study the effects of marijuana. The committee reported that marijuana is essentially not harmful. Nixon buried the study.

 

Or, the Trump administration will shut it down in accordance with Federal Laws. The War on Drugs is a boon to the economy. More enforcement officers, more inmates in private jails.

 

Some interpretations of the commerce clause allow for federal involvement in intrastate trade and that is generally the "defense" the government uses but, seriously, look up Gonzales v. Raich and look at the reasoning in the finding. It is a twisted mess:

"Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity."

Do you think such an opinion would pass out of the current court?

I, of course, fully disagree with the opinion. The commerce clause neither directly nor implicitly grants to the federal government the power to regulate intrastate commerce.

 

What's more important for a Law and Order President than shoring up his support with the Law and Order Conservative Right?

Let's cut to the chase...
Are you a Trump supporter?
Do you think marijuana laws should be a States issue with no interference from the Federal Government?

 

You voted for Bernie Sanders?

 

I didn't vote Trump. I voted Johnson. I support Trump, as I would have supported Clinton.

That is to say, he's my President.

As a fiscally conservative Libertarian, I tend to fall more in line w/ GOP fiscal policies.

I think that the Federal Government should outright decriminalize, reclassify, & allow states to decide recreational use.

As far as the Law & Order thing, again, there are far more important items dealing with that alone on the plate.

Not to mention the problems should the Feds come in Gestapo style, & start locking up PoTheads.

It should be noted though, I actually use cannabis laws as they pertain to legality @ the state level, as something people arguing against sanctuary cities/states should be careful about.

The thing is, illegals don't have the possibility to provide ginormous tax revenue for the state, or federal government.

 

You standing on a soap box and whining "epic fail" does not make it so. The analogy does not have to be equivalent and you have not even attempted to give any rational as to why the analogy is a fail in context of the topic.

As such our claim is naked.

The fact of the matter is that if you do not rat out the Irish fellow then you are in contradiction with your claim that "All laws should be supported" no matter what. Your stance was not "just in relation to pot".

Why should you support law that persecutes pot smoking and not one that persecutes being Irish ? (now that you have to think rather than standing by the refuted nonsense position "all laws should be obeyed")

 

Once in a while, I drink to get buzzed, but usually, just one or two to be sociable. EVERY time you smoke, you get high.

 

[/QUOTE]

Smoke 'em if you got 'em! One ONLY smokes pot to get high, other than those using it medicinally...I usually don't drink to get drunk. As I've said, I can have one or two without "getting high".

 

No I don't.

Many times the toke I take, just takes the edge off of the pain I'm constantly in.

Additionally, when I blast for fun, more often than not, it's a slight buzz I & many others seek.

 

Gary Johnson is the poster boy for not smoking weed!

 

Meh.

You come off as the type that a poster would be made to advocate taking that first bong rip.

 

I enjoy the flavor of a glass of red wine with steak or pasta. And while you may be a lightweight, rest assured that my one glass of wine consumed over the course of 30-45 minutes does not give even the slightest buzz.

 

Maybe *you* can, but many people cannot. As such, we make laws which forbid the practice. It is neither practical nor possible to test every human being in the country to see what their personal "safety tolerance" for drinking and driving is, so we make the law and apply it to all.

 

Your problem is that what you say is not true. It is a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.