It is one thing to support Sessions as I have against a bogus campaign to undermine the election with a preposterous claim about the Russians and quite another to support Jeff Sessions on his marijuana nonsense.
I had hoped that this was at least one milestone we had finally passed before final, inevitable surrender in the long, hopeless and costly war on drugs.
There's nothing wrong with Jeff Session's intellect. This article is pretty stupid, however.
Not to criticize, but a ‘second strike’ against Sessions based on a ported story from Politico from the co-founder of TruthStreamMedia on blog called Activist Posts is not what I’d call provenance.
The DOJ is gong to enforce ALL laws, not just cherry pick. It’s about time. Just get the pot laws changed you lazy stoners. Get off of the couch.
So you want Sessions to enforce federal immigration laws but not federal drug laws?
Sanctuary States for illegal Drugs but no sanctuary for illegal aliens?
Seems inconsistent to me?
Should he not “faithfully execute” the laws of the United States?
Or should he pick and choose which laws should be faithfully executed like his predecessors?
Losing proposition trying to outlaw a weed. They might as well try to outlaw goatheads.
Agree completely.
I had hoped that this was at least one milestone we had finally passed before final, inevitable surrender in the long, hopeless and costly war on drugs.
I usually regard your postings as rational and informed, but this time you struck out in my opinion.
There are several issues here. One is Federal Law. Existing Federal law makes Marijuana illegal. It has been this way since the 1930s, I believe. States do not get to pick and chose which Federal laws to ignore and which to obey. They are expected to obey them all. As Victor Davis Hanson points out with both this Marijuana issue and the "sanctuary city" issue, States are effectively seceding from Federal authority.
Another issue is how you characterize the "War on Drugs." First of all, it's not a war, it's a holding action. The reason it is a holding action is because Americans don't have the stomach for an actual war on drugs. Of course the holding action is failing. You can't win a "war" when you aren't fighting one.
Beyond that, you indicate that a society in which a "war on drugs" fails, would be tolerable. I point out that Chinese society utterly collapsed after 1840 when they lost their "war on drugs." Millions of people's lives were destroyed and their nation went from a massive and strong empire to the "sick man of Asia."
Millions of people died, and millions of lives were destroyed because of opium addiction in China. Their society was completely destabilized and went through a series of social and economic cataclysms, eventually resulting in the ascension of a Dictator and a hundred million more lives lost as a result.
I think that you are presenting a drug tolerant future in a Pollyanna light, without taking serious consideration of the possible downside of legalized drugs.