Marijuana

Message boards : Politics : Marijuana
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 . . . 16 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Mr. Kevvy Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2848
Credit: 915,525,452
RAC: 1,794,246
Canada
Message 1917683 - Posted: 8 Feb 2018, 17:53:40 UTC
Last modified: 8 Feb 2018, 17:56:02 UTC

There is (finally) a bill in the U.S. House to federally legalize: the Marijuana Justice Act. This is being introduced to counter Attorney General Sessions' attempts to continue federal enforcement policies contrary to the Tenth Amendment and states that have chosen to legalize.

The ACLU has posted a contact form to assist with writing your congressional reps. I would suggest a printed paper e-mail and to customize it.

And remember, as we've noted, this is not a "liberal" or "conservative" or "left-wing" or "right-wing" issue... it's a liberty and justice issue, and the arguments for legalization are very strong on all "sides" (and correspondingly weak, evidence-free and long-debunked for keeping it illegal on all "sides" too!) I hope you can all do your part and let your representatives know...
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”
---Margaret Mead
ID: 1917683 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon Lowe
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 12094
Credit: 6,317,865
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1917786 - Posted: 9 Feb 2018, 1:32:13 UTC - in response to Message 1917683.  

I can't imagine the federal government rolling back state decisions on this, but I also don't expect my home state, Kentucky, to adopt any legislation in favor of it, either.
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1917786 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 9704
Credit: 27,261,794
RAC: 23,871
United States
Message 1917790 - Posted: 9 Feb 2018, 2:00:35 UTC - in response to Message 1917786.  

I can't imagine the federal government rolling back state decisions on this, but I also don't expect my home state, Kentucky, to adopt any legislation in favor of it, either.

Jeff Sessions may very well attempt.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions is blaming an old foe of his for the opioid crisis: marijuana.

Speaking at the Heritage Foundation to the Reagan Alumni Association this week, Sessions argued that cutting prescriptions for opioid painkillers is crucial to combating the crisis — since some people started on painkillers before moving on to illicit opioids like heroin and fentanyl. But then he expanded his argument to include cannabis.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/8/16987126/jeff-sessions-opioid-epidemic-marijuana
ID: 1917790 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon Lowe
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 12094
Credit: 6,317,865
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1917792 - Posted: 9 Feb 2018, 2:04:09 UTC - in response to Message 1917789.  

Theoretically, the federal government can step in and shut down all the current states' legal marijuana operations, right?
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1917792 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon Lowe
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 12094
Credit: 6,317,865
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1917796 - Posted: 9 Feb 2018, 2:16:00 UTC - in response to Message 1917790.  

I just don't agree with putting marijuana in the same category as synthetic drugs.
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1917796 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 26034
Credit: 51,096,610
RAC: 21,680
United States
Message 1917807 - Posted: 9 Feb 2018, 4:07:29 UTC - in response to Message 1917792.  

Theoretically, the federal government can step in and shut down all the current states' legal marijuana operations, right?

Yes. And they might just to attempt to get a Tenth Amendment case in front of SCOTUS. Although SCOTUS will look to find any method to avoid having to offer any opinion on the Tenth.
ID: 1917807 · Report as offensive
Profile Wiggo "Democratic Socialist"
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 17242
Credit: 240,774,789
RAC: 179,853
Australia
Message 1917830 - Posted: 9 Feb 2018, 5:47:48 UTC

ID: 1917830 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1917866 - Posted: 9 Feb 2018, 14:14:02 UTC - in response to Message 1917807.  

Theoretically, the federal government can step in and shut down all the current states' legal marijuana operations, right?

Yes. And they might just to attempt to get a Tenth Amendment case in front of SCOTUS. Although SCOTUS will look to find any method to avoid having to offer any opinion on the Tenth.


Yes, this is quite the issue.

I agree, a 10th Amendment case at SCOTUS would be a bad thing as far as the US Government goes. If SCOTUS agreed about the 10th Amendment, it would mean that a LARGE amount of what the Federal Government does would be unconstitutional. If SCOTUS disagreed about the 10th Amendment, it would be like pouring Gasoline on the secessionist fires already burning at the State level. Boom!

This is a classic case of "State's Rights". I find it extremely funny that a lot of the same people who are opposed to "State's Rights" in all/almost all other cases are very pro "State's Rights" when it comes to 'weed'.

Also, though many call marijuana 'safe', why then is it listed in the 'list' under California's Prop. 65 as 'causes cancer'?

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals/marijuana-smoke

From a Libertarian standpoint, I have no issues with someone consuming something that causes cancer... As long as it only affects THEM.

But, in this case there is a lot of evidence that '2nd-hand' marijuana smoke also elevates cancer rates...

So, what to do?

I don't know. Perhaps a suitable short to medium term solution might be to return 'drug' regulation to the States where it belongs (imo), and each State decide for itself whether or not to allow Marijuana use. The pot-heads could then move to a State that allows it, and the anti-pot-heads move to a State that does not. Problem solved. Everyone is happy.
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1917866 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 26034
Credit: 51,096,610
RAC: 21,680
United States
Message 1917874 - Posted: 9 Feb 2018, 14:44:35 UTC - in response to Message 1917866.  

I don't know. Perhaps a suitable short to medium term solution might be to return 'drug' regulation to the States where it belongs (imo), and each State decide for itself whether or not to allow Marijuana use. The pot-heads could then move to a State that allows it, and the anti-pot-heads move to a State that does not. Problem solved. Everyone is happy.
They will only be happy when the Feds pay to relocate them and make sure they have a job when they get there.

I can actually see how this ends up a commerce clause and not a Tenth case. The fertilizer, grow lamp of something else used to grow the weed will have crossed state borders and the Feds will regulate. Commerce clause and our transport crazy society has nullified almost all of the Tenth.
ID: 1917874 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 26034
Credit: 51,096,610
RAC: 21,680
United States
Message 1917878 - Posted: 9 Feb 2018, 14:57:14 UTC - in response to Message 1917875.  

people who are fit to comment on the subject are aware of the language

others feel they must have the last word or simply the matter enough for a wingnut to think they might understand
ID: 1917878 · Report as offensive
Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 9877
Credit: 89,870,923
RAC: 96,820
United Kingdom
Message 1917886 - Posted: 9 Feb 2018, 16:18:25 UTC

Is what we have been instructed to stop.


Suggested, not "instructed".
ID: 1917886 · Report as offensive
account
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 31 Dec 99
Posts: 1848
Credit: 6,325,711
RAC: 1
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Message 1917907 - Posted: 9 Feb 2018, 20:09:21 UTC

Maybe the Devil's Weed will become legal in many States, if not the Country.
After 40-50 years of a War on Drugs, with many Judges having been tough on drug crimes,
have not those Judges done far more Evil than the little people they sent to prison?
ID: 1917907 · Report as offensive
Profile Mr. Kevvy Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2848
Credit: 915,525,452
RAC: 1,794,246
Canada
Message 1917910 - Posted: 9 Feb 2018, 20:24:57 UTC - in response to Message 1917866.  
Last modified: 9 Feb 2018, 20:26:14 UTC

This is a classic case of "State's Rights". I find it extremely funny that a lot of the same people who are opposed to "State's Rights" in all/almost all other cases are very pro "State's Rights" when it comes to 'weed'.


That would be because this is a situation where the states are permitting something that that the federal government is restricting, rather than vice versa, and in some cases contrary to the 14th amendment. As someone in favour of more liberty, this should be a given.

Also, though many call marijuana 'safe', why then is it listed in the 'list' under California's Prop. 65 as 'causes cancer'?

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/chemicals/marijuana-smoke

From a Libertarian standpoint, I have no issues with someone consuming something that causes cancer... As long as it only affects THEM.
But, in this case there is a lot of evidence that '2nd-hand' marijuana smoke also elevates cancer rates...
So, what to do?


We already have a perfect model for this in existing legislation: tobacco, which is far stronger of a carcinogen (marijuana is also commonly vaped these days as well, which has not been demonstrated to have any second-hand cancer risks, and made into edibles which have zero by definition.) So smoking of marijuana should be permissible wherever smoking of tobacco is permitted ie in private residences, in open public areas where others are not being directly exposed, etc.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”
---Margaret Mead
ID: 1917910 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 . . . 16 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Marijuana


 
©2019 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.