Regardless of affiliation...

[Been Jammin]

surely we can all agree that this is a stupid waste of time and resources.

https://mic.com/articles/185564/jef...dium=social&utm_source=twitter.com#.Fd5YJSCZB

I don't get it. Is there a big part of the Trump base that feels strongly about this issue? What do Trump/Sessions have to gain by pursuing this?

 

[Alpha Poke]

How else do you expect to fix the opioid crisis?

 

[JohnVoight]

STUPID.

 

[PervisEllison]

The battle on this issue is over. The polling trajectories are clear, and as more states transition to medical or recreational without any corresponding collapse of civilization, approval for legalization will continue growing.

As more time passes, and the Sessions DOJ doesn't actually do anything to follow through on his public comments, I'm increasingly convinced his stance on this issue is just some kind of cultural signaling to Trump supporters. Even a true believer like him would have to understand that following through on something like this would be a disaster.

 

[Rdcldad]

what else would anyone expect
jeff sessions to say?

he's a very typical remf didn't serve in vietnam child of the 60's.

he'll bark like good dogs do but trump ain't stupid

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Sessions is wrong on this and needs to let it go. And, I don't know of any Trump supporters who feel very strongly about this issue at all.

 

[Rdcldad]

Sessions is wrong on this and needs to let it go. And, I don't know of any Trump supporters who feel very strongly about this issue at all.

sessions is a dickhead

we've all known them and had to deal with them. thankfully he has a boss

 

[Alpha Poke]

My fear is the Cartels are making to much money legally and that's going to make this actionable.

 

[squeak]

My fear is the Cartels are making to much money legally and that's going to make this actionable.

Howso? I would think legalization hurts the cartels.

 

[Alpha Poke]

Washing money. That's how the Russian mob used Amsterdam coffeehouses.

 

[Rdcldad]

My fear is the Cartels are making to much money legally and that's going to make this actionable.

supply tightly regulated none of the cash can go in federal banks

i dunno...

 

[Alpha Poke]

That's the problem it's a straight cash business..

 

[Been Jammin]

That's the problem it's a straight cash business..

The cartels should just buy a car wash. It works great for laundering money. I saw an awesome documentary about this. If you want to look it up on Netflix, it is called "Breaking Bad".

 

[CowboyJD]

That's the problem it's a straight cash business..

Not if it was legalized nationally and banking regulations changed.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Ah, the party of freedom.

Who exactly in the GOP constellation, besides Beauregard, is pushing the anti-weed agenda? Evangelicals? Coors?

 

[MegaPoke]

surely we can all agree that this is a stupid waste of time and resources.

https://mic.com/articles/185564/jef...dium=social&utm_source=twitter.com#.Fd5YJSCZB

I don't get it. Is there a big part of the Trump base that feels strongly about this issue? What do Trump/Sessions have to gain by pursuing this?

Enjoyed a toke tonight myself, and think Sessions is an idiot as regards pot. I know nobody who feels strongly negative about pot. Trump would be wise to bring him to heel.

 

[hollywood]

Since the issue is now considered part of the "public record" I can discuss this.

I recently received refusals to register for two trademarks, where the actual product contained "hemp" extracts as part of their ingredient list. (This is absolutely a first and shows a reversal of a policy the USPTO has had for about 30 yrs, where they took the stand that they were not responsible for enforcing other agencies rules. We used to have to check alcohol beverage labels for compliance with BATF rules, but then the new policy was put in place around 1989 or so.)

The actual refusals relate to the claim by the USPTO that since the products contain hemp derivatives then their use in commerce was likely NOT lawful.

I have no doubt, after inquiring with a few friends of mine who are still working in the Trademark Office that this new policy was in fact driven by the Justice Dept who basically forced the Dept of Commerce (the agency in charge of the USPTO) to implement it. It was certainly nothing that they would have done on their own, as it's contrary to their long-standing policy not to go down these roads.

I am now going to have to introduce evidence and submit arguments that these two applications should not be refused on this basis.

I know this is a somewhat subtle thing, but it certainly shows that Sessions is creating situations and forcing government agencies to create new rules and regulations surrounding not just THC containing marijuana, but for products containing hemp even though it has no discernible THC content. This policy that was in place at the USPTO started with the first Bush administration and has never changed, regardless of political party or President/Atty Gen., until now. If Sessions is pulling this crap on such 'low level" issues around pot or hemp, there's no doubt he's being allowed to drive the agenda on much bigger things.

 

[Rdcldad]

i'm sure your hemp milk clients will get their trademark

and you get to bill the extra legwork

win/win

 

[2012Bearcat]

The only issue I see with legalizing weed is from an employer standpoint. How many people are unemployable in Colorado due to drug testing requirements from insurance companies on employer liability policies?

 

[hollywood]

i'm sure your hemp milk clients will get their trademark

and you get to bill the extra legwork

win/win

I'd rather the administrative agency I deal with most of the time be free of outside, completely "political" interference, while carrying out their core assignment than make a few extra bucks.

You get enough of this sort of thing going on, across the federal agencies, and you would basically end up with roadblocks and bad regulations. All based on nothing but political posturing and slavish adherence to certain political "orthodoxies" rather than them actually serving a legitimate purpose.

When I was working there, I was part of the working group that urged the USPTO to abandon this crap and now, against all good judgment, here's Jeff Sessions bringing it back with a vengeance. All because he's got a bug up his butt about anything to do with cannabis or hemp.

 

[Rdcldad]

I'd rather the administrative agency I deal with most of the time be free of outside, completely "political" interference, while carrying out their core assignment than make a few extra bucks.

You get enough of this sort of thing going on, across the federal agencies, and you would basically end up with roadblocks and bad regulations. All based on nothing but political posturing and slavish adherence to certain political "orthodoxies" rather than them actually serving a legitimate purpose.

When I was working there, I was part of the working group that urged the USPTO to abandon this crap and now, against all good judgment, here's Jeff Sessions bringing it back with a vengeance. All because he's got a bug up his butt about anything to do with cannabis or hemp.

i appreciate your position, but can't sympathize with a "political" characterization of it when weed is against federal law.

get the law changed in the same way prohibition ended and you got no problems.

 

[hollywood]

Rdcldad,

You are missing my point. The "bigger" picture issue here is that Sessions is trying (and unfortunately succeeding) in making other Federal Agencies change their rules and regulations to become quasi "law-enforcement" when that is not what they were chartered to do.

If the issue is whether not products containing CBD, Hemp, etc. are being sold lawfully or not, then that is an issue for REAL law enforcement agencies. It shouldn't become an area of responsibility for the Trademark Office as Congress, through the Lanham Act (Trademark Act of 1946) did NOT give the USPTO either the authority or discretion to make such legal determinations. This was a big part of why we were able to rid the agency, back in my day, of trying to enforce various Alcohol and Prescription Drug labeling requirements. There was a determination made by the then Inspector General at the Dept of Commerce, along with the USPTO Commissioners, that such matters lie outside the scope of authority granted the agency by Congress. Nothing's changed in regard to the Trademark Act since that somehow now makes it right.

 

[Rdcldad]

Rdcldad,

You are missing my point. The "bigger" picture issue here is that Sessions is trying (and unfortunately succeeding) in making other Federal Agencies change their rules and regulations to become quasi "law-enforcement" when that is not what they were chartered to do.

If the issue is whether not products containing CBD, Hemp, etc. are being sold lawfully or not, then that is an issue for REAL law enforcement agencies. It shouldn't become an area of responsibility for the Trademark Office as Congress, through the Lanham Act (Trademark Act of 1946) did NOT give the USPTO either the authority or discretion to make such legal determinations. This was a big part of why we were able to rid the agency, back in my day, of trying to enforce various Alcohol and Prescription Drug labeling requirements. There was a determination made by the then Inspector General at the Dept of Commerce, along with the USPTO Commissioners, that such matters lie outside the scope of authority granted the agency by Congress. Nothing's changed in regard to the Trademark Act since that somehow now makes it right.

so they tell sessions FO

 

[wyomingosualum]

Ah, the party of freedom.

Who exactly in the GOP constellation, besides Beauregard, is pushing the anti-weed agenda? Evangelicals? Coors?

Definite states’ rights issue. Unless they ship out of state. Right?