Posted on 01/07/2018 6:40:30 AM PST by MarvinStinson
Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a “cataclysmic mistake” by rescinding Obama-era federal marijuana policies, according to Roger Stone, President Trump’s former campaign adviser.
Mr. Stone, 65, formed a bipartisan, pro-marijuana lobbying group earlier this year, the United States Cannabis Coalition, “dedicated to influencing federal level decision makers, including the president, so they honor state’s rights and state mandated marijuana laws as well as reform our antiquated and failed federal drug laws,” according to its website.
Mr. Stone, the president’s campaign adviser through August 2015, criticized the attorney general’s recent decision to roll back marijuana protections during a luncheon Friday at the Tiger Bay Club of Central Florida, the Orlando Sentinel reported afterwards.
The Department of Justice has outlawed marijuana for decades, but the Obama administration put in place policies that allowed dozens of states to legalize the plant without prompting federal interference. Mr. Sessions nullified those policies on Thursday, however, casting uncertainty over the future of existing medical and recreational marijuana programs already in place across the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The difference is when a conscious and deliberate decision is made not to prosecute a class of felonies for policy reasons. That is not ethical for prosecutors or judges. It’s a legislative function.
Or for the people who serve on juries. But yes, selective prosecution is not what public servants should be doing.
Plus, one has to consider the amount of money that was used to lobby the population. It was monumental. The opposition had nothing close.
And, this is a perfect example of majority rule, which is not alway right or democratic.
“As a matter of fact, who, besides the liquor industry and the drug cartels really worry about the legality of weed?”
Parents. Grandparents.
BATF? Really? I’ve always thought that should be the name of a convenience store.
Why not just support the Tenth Amendment and let the chips fall?
Heya,Marvin.
You’re trolling skills have fallen off of late. You haven’t been promoting your old obsession as much lately. Did someone finally convince you trying to parlay a tragedy into political points did you no favors?
Btw, cannabis still on sale in states where it’s legal. The 10th Amendment in action!
Have a blessed day, Marvin whether you want to or not :)
That still doesn’t explaine why blue state legislatures have rejected legalization. Even CA’s couldn’t get it passed, for crying out loud. As I said, politicians are way out of step with their constituents on this issue.
“I’ll just have to live with gagging on the odors of the stinky weed when walking the dog.”
That’s the worst thing you smell when walking the dog?
Plus it'd be rather silly to regulate tobacco and alcohol and not regulate marijuana and there's too many anti-smoking fanatics on here to even begin to rationally discuss that idea.
And ultimately, because of the derivative processes that can be applied to marijuana cultivation that drastically increases THC content, at least applying the same level of regulation you'd put on home brewing or micro breweries would reduce that production (you don't see a whole lot of people distilling beer.)
Plus, as much as the anti-smoking fanatics love to claim massive smoking rates among the youth, regulation is effective at reducing consumption by the young.
And as I noted, distribution and sales would be state regulated, putting it back in the 10th as you desire.
It's the most consistent foul odor I smell while walking my dog, the scent seems to drift for blocks (or otherwise, every other house in my neighborhood has been toking up for months.)
Maybe the politicians have more sense than their constituents.
“Maybe the politicians have more sense than their constituents.”
Oh brother. Never thought I’d read that here.
What the executive branch can do without assistance from the legislative branch is change marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III or IV drug. Schedule I drugs are defined as drugs which have no currently accepted medical use in the United States, a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and a high potential for abuse.
There seems to be some reasonably strong evidence that marijuana does have currently acceptable medical use.
Once a drug gets off of the Schedule I list, it can at least be prescribed under some circumstances.
Yep, Sessions was just reducing the level of cognitive dissonance when it comes to the reading of federal law. Which is a good thing.
Pretty funny ;-)
Thank you, your majesty :-)
So true.
Advocates, like yourself, either disregard the social costs of this or don't care.
It is too soon for the social cost to become apparent, except for the convulsive vomiting that is being treated at the ER's. And the people who are being treated can't pay for the visits themselves, so the costs are transferred to the payers and insurance cos.
If one observes the people who frequent the pot retailers, one questions if they can really afford the habit.
There will be no tromp jackbooted Thugs storming pot dispensaries in California or Colorado
Mark my words
remember Bill Clinton? Remember the kid from Cuba and jackboots go in with M-16s and seize him at gunpoint ?
remember Waco Texas ?
I can list hundreds
Ruby Ridge and the list goes on and on and on
this is an much to do about nothing
Agreed, Trump should do the same thing he did with DACA and kick this right at congress. Give them 4 months to come up with a solution.
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.