Posted on 05/07/2018 2:27:48 PM PDT by deplorableindc
Marijuana reform activists have created a new super PAC aimed exclusively at defeating Texas Republican Rep. Pete Sessions, the House Rules Committee chairman who has blocked cannabis reform legislation from reaching the House floor.
Marijuana Policy Project founder and former Executive Director Rob Kampia is leading the effort, which he said is crucial to legalizing medical marijuana federally and affirming federalism for recreational pot, two policies supported in principle by President Trump.
“Everyone knows who he is and that he’s our biggest problem on Capitol Hill. Half of my job has already been done by Pete Sessions himself," Kampia told the Washington Examiner. "All I’m going to do is pass the hat."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
“And just so everyone understands not everyone is in favor a legalizing pot”
According to Gallup, 64% favor outright legalization, and over 80% support medical legalization.
So, it’s safe to say most do. But not all.
Then don’t do it.
All sorts of stuff is bad, and a lot of that bothers me.
none of my business until it deprives me of life, liberty or property.
nanny staters are far worse than dopers.
The days of pot prohibition are over very, very soon.
Don’t be surprised is there is a vote in Congress this year to move it off Schedule I.
Already everyone knows a move against MEDICAL Marijuana would be a disaster in every sense of the word. And recreational marijuana has nearly 2/3 support nationwide.
My nose is offended by other people doing it on public street. They deprive me of air that doesn’t stink.
*THAT* I agree with.
Personally I think cigs just as bad, both have no business forcing anyone else to wade through clouds of their second hand stuff
It makes no sense for booze and cigarettes to be legal when pot isn’t. The opinion of anyone as to if any or all of those are bad things notwithstanding. In each case, the
pros and cons of restrictions and taxation are the domain of the states, anyone who doesn’t see that is more of a threat to the republic and an affront to any actual conservative than mere hopheads or alkies.
“If you can look at the little court cases chipping away at our rights over the past sixty years and not see how that gradient is created you’re blind.”
Many of the cases that chipped away at our rights were the result of the drug war - asset seizure, no-knock raids, the Raich case which all but destroyed the Tenth Amendment.
The drug war has been a failed disaster.
“The drug war has been a failed disaster.”
It has been a pox upon the Republic. As you said, it is the basis for many of the laws the American people find repugnant.
Including the prohibitionists.
The Raich case being the most egregious.
A couple growing SIX plants under doctor’s recommendation, doctors who testified at their trial, and for all kinds of nasty ailments most people are lucky not to suffer.
While I’m sure they are now getting their pot illegally according to the Feds, if not, the Feds condemned them to a life of suffering.
Whomever the US Attorney is that brought this case, I hope one day he will find HIS relief at the end of a rope.
A HEMP rope.
There's a difference between abuse of our rights based on our personal behaviors and abuse of our rights based on our personal beliefs.
Of course, some people can only see how reactions to dope, prostitution, and all sorts of perverse sex or porno are an abuse, not the more fundamental shifts that make those abuses possible.
Sort of like some people can see the how out of control drug addiction is but can't see how a US war in the Golden Triangle and a US war in the Golden Crescent coincide with the two large most recent waves of increased drug addiction in the US. It doesn't fit their narrative so it can't possibly be related.
The "Drug War" is the PR face of a larger war that doesn't have much to do with drugs.
“Oh yeah, abortion, expansion of eminent domain, queer marriage, altering the protection of religion to freedom from religion, elimination of the right to refuse service, and so on, all due to the drug war.”
That’s real retarded sir. The ills you mention do not stem from the drug war per se, but from a common source with the ills I mentioned, and that is a judiciary that treats the Constitution with contempt.
I support a return to the original reading of the Constitution no matter the issue. Do you?
Justice Scalia, may he RIP, pi**ed all over the Constitution in the Raich case with his radical view of federal power under the Commerce Clause.
Not a few Free Traitors use reefer madness as cover with the conservative base.
Nobody here supports that.
My point is that I don't think that the government should tell someone what firearms to own or whether they can smoke some pot if they chose.
Whether it's the state or the feds, government always finds a way to run your life. Individual choices and individual responsibility,says I. I am certain that the 'other side' doesn't really come close to believing in individual freedom, not really.
Furthermore, none of this has anything to do with 'human trafficking' or the highly dangerous opioid crisis.
The headline was a bit confusing. There are millions upon millions of sphincters, divided into over 50 types, in the human body — so, I was left wondering which type of sphincter Rep. Sessions was supposed to be.
Then, I read the following in the text: “”[Sessions] is in fact what I call a sphincter who is constipating the process,” Kampia said.” That answered one question — apparently, Sessions is a human anal sphincter. However, that raises another question: if Sessions is the anal sphincter of the legislature — what does that make the laws the legislature passes? And would you want that legislature to be incontinent?
(Or have I completely missed the point? It’s so hard to tell when idiots attempt the clever use of metaphors.)
The intoxication of hubris is the slippery slope in the desire to rule over others.
So, I guess that makes you incapable of understanding the written word which would be closer to retarded than anything I said.
The Constitution with and without which Amendments?
have a lovely little day
“The Constitution with and without which Amendments?”
The current Constitution. Do you support interpretation by original meaning - yes or no? Or do you pick and choose?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.