Last edited:
Trump and Mary Jane
- Thread starter AC_Exotic
- Start date
The legislation put forward by booker a year or two ago was the dumbest liberal piece of garbage. These clowns from both sides of the isle will think they have carte blanche to tax and start programs and fund unrelated crap.
Yep and it won't work. The black market has been firmly in place or decades and it will keep on doing its thing.
He said this before more than once.
So far, haven’t seen a whole lot of actual support over lip service.
Just saying....
So far, haven’t seen a whole lot of actual support over lip service.
Just saying....
You got a Pokebear like, so you know your statement is smart and prescient.
Somebody on his staff must've told him to do it when it would actually pay dividends.
Trumps shit at exploiting advantages.
Trumps shit at exploiting advantages.
I don't even care. I just always think that when I see a Pokebear like. This topic doesn't energize me, quip should probably have been in blue.... ....but then people don't learn to recognize nuance.
Not sure how you recognize sarcastic nuance in the written word.
Nevertheless, I deleted my post because it seemed bitchy and whiny.
Not in a good mood right now, but the Red Sox just scored so it’s improving.
Good question. He’s been more conservative lately than I thought he was capable of. The conservative thing to do here is to back out of the issue completely and let the states deal with it as they see fit so long as it’s intrastate commerce.
Sound like change we can believe in?
“Conservatives” have had an anti-pot propaganda train a’rollin for decades. I’d be pleasantly surprised if real change occurred. So far, Obama has had the most per se hands-on -> hands-off law enforcement stance in American history.
I think a strict interpretation of the constitution would be an effective means to dismantle federal regulation of the issue. Unless I’m missing something, which I can be quite capable of at times.
Many most “Conservatives” as you define us all, have actually not been anti-pot ever.
Of course what was a liberal 20 years ago is basically the alt right now I guess.
But I’ll add this to my previous comments: Jeff Sessions does not grasp the states’ rights aspect of this situation. At all.
You are assuming that a guy that doesn't even drink actually wants to do it.
It feels like he could be throwing it out there almost as a survey question or maybe just to hook a few more voters. I don't think it is real.
Its finally becoming mainstream enough that big pharma isn't the only lobbiest impacted. Food and drink makers are looking at it as a potential growth boom if restrictions are lifted. So as it becomes more corporate and mainstream, you will see Big Pharma's lobbying value reduced.
The SCOTUS has upheld the federal Controlled Dangerous Substance Act prohibition on the possession of even purely locally grown marijuana lawfully possessed under state law as a proper exercise of the interstate commerce clause.
So from a legal viewpoint, his position is sound. I don’t like it, but it doesn’t raise states rights aspects in any real sense. The states are exercising their right not to prosecute or make it a crime. That doesn’t mean the feds can’t make it against federal law even if all means of distribution, production, possession, and consumption are done purely intrastate.
Oh, I have no doubt they are within federal statutes. I’m just not aware of a specific constitutional provision which authorizes federal government authority on the topic in general. So in my world, the 10th amendment would give the states authority to regulate.
Of course, my world might be on Pluto and I just don’t realize it yet.
Interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.
Do I think SCOTUS interprets power under that clause too broadly?
Sure.
But that’s the clause used.
Yes indeed, just didn’t know if there was something else I was missing. Was trying to get around that completely with the intrastate reference earlier. Dammit, I like my world better.
