Replies

Mixed feelings.

I oppose legalization, and voted against it when MA wanted to legalize it last year — they won; I lost.

But I also support States’ Rights. I don’t agree that the federal government should control this sort of thing. The War on Drugs has certainly been a mixed bag, so big sweeping decisions at the federal level seem unjustified. Let the States pass laws and then watch and see which states are pleased with the various outcomes.

In short: I wish Sessions would focus on other things.

I agree with you. I'm wondering if Attorney General won't focus on legal marijuana that goes across state lines.

AG Sessions seems to be sincerely opposed to all drug use, including the horrendous problem of people who get hooked from the dependence on pharmaceuticals that have real bad side effects.

I'm in the same quandary you are. I don't think long term legal marijuana will cut down on drug use. But it's a states issue. What's the harm of different states having different laws? It's up to people visiting an area to know what laws are there. That's no different from being responsible for a state's driving laws when you're somewhere else.

I had another thought. What about people working for the federal government or even some other employer who does business outside the state? Shouldn't they be able to say marijuana is illegal for their employees?

Regarding mixed feeling, I stated this in another thread:

States have rights to legalize or not legalize certain activities, but if you work as a federal employee, military, or are a contractor for the government in any way, having additional federal law governing the use of drugs is absolutely within the law. I don’t want soldiers or sailors or airmen hopped up on anything, and I don’t want contractors, particularly those with clearances, subject to bribes of drugs, or responsible for mission/life critical items or programs.

As a matter of liability, I would think feds, most states, and any sane employers would want to restrict recreational use just so they cant get sued when someone is killed from a drug/work related accident. Same as you would alcohol on the job, except for the argument of how long drug effects remain and impair judgment vs alcohol impairment time lines.

I think states have already opened a Pandora’s box of sorts by legitimizing the pot industry. I would think those citizens that are not stoned already would be upset about having to pay taxes for legal fees and law suits that result from highway deaths, etc involving legalized drugs by the state. From the states point of view, they could have remained silent and not gone after recreational users, while still keeping their hands clean of responsibility of legalizing. If you want to legalize, then you have to regulate. And that costs money as well. As a tax payer, I really don’t want to be paying for that behavior one way or the other.

So yeah, I agree that Sessions has more important things to work on. But he has a mandate to enforce “the law”. The law needs to be revisited on many levels.