The Attorney General's reversal on marijuana is out of step with states rights and public opinion.
CHINE NOUVELLE/SIPA/Newscom
You would think that the Justice Department has better things to do than to restart a federal war on marijuana or that it would want to stay away from interfering with the will of the people in the 29 states, plus the District of Columbia, that allow at least the medical use of marijuana. But you would be wrong. Thanks to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, we have now an emerging conflict between federal and state laws. That conflict should be resolved in favor of the states.
When he was a senator, Sessions once said during a Senate hearing, "Good people don't smoke marijuana." So nobody was surprised when a few weeks ago, he revoked the Cole memo—a document that provided guidance to federal prosecutors about targeting sales to children, money laundering and sales across state lines, as opposed to targeting the legal state sale of medical and recreational pot.
The memo was a poor alternative to revoking the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which, the Cato Institute's Trevor Burrus writes, "defined marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning that it has no accepted medical uses and has a high potential for abuse." He adds, "Despite advances in our understanding of the medical benefits of marijuana, and despite 29 states having legalized medical marijuana in some form, federal law treats marijuana (as if it were) as dangerous as heroin." Note that cocaine, which has recognized medical uses, is a Schedule II drug.
The memo had the very positive effect of providing banks, users and dispensaries with confidence that they could operate legally without arrest. Unfortunately, Sessions' move could signal intent to use federal power to go after individuals and corporations in states that allow marijuana.
Though this is a legal move, it is ill-advised. Whatever one thinks of pot use, I can't imagine a good justification for going back to prosecuting the perpetrators of victimless crimes except that it fits nicely with the AG's outdated and paternalistic views.
It also goes against federalism, a belief that Republicans claim to hold, wherein states should be allowed to make decisions outside federal control on a variety of issues—such as legalizing marijuana. The Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution that distributed political power between the states and a national government. Police powers reside with the states, not at the federal level.
Our nation operates on consent of the governed. An Aug. 3 Quinnipiac University poll indicated that 94 percent of Americans support adult use of marijuana for medical purposes, if prescribed by a doctor. This poll indicated that Republican support for medical marijuana is at 90 percent. An Oct. 25Gallup Poll shows that a majority of Republicans support fully legalizing marijuana. At a time when Republicans are worried about following the will of the voters they'll face this November, they might want to note those lopsided numbers.
States should be allowed to make decisions outside federal control on a variety of issues and let the people, not the federal government, decide what they want.
Right now, many states respect the right of individuals to choose medical marijuana to treat stress, the nausea associated with cancer treatments and epilepsy. In eight states, the people have gone a step further and consented to adults using marijuana without a doctor's prescription. It's the essence of liberty to let people make their own decisions as long as they're not harming others.
This notion eludes Sessions. In 2014, Congress passed the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, which prohibits the Justice Department from prosecuting medical marijuana businesses in states that allow it. Naturally, the AG wants Congress to pass an appropriations bill removing that language. Now's the time for the real federalists in Congress to stand up and stand by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, (R-Calif.), and Sen. Patrick Leahy, (D-Vt.), who want this restraint on federal interference to continue.
Will the defenders of federalism stop a new war on drugs? The House and Senate are loaded with members who have parroted talking points and claimed that they're federalists; now we'll see whether their action matches up with their rhetoric. Trying to stop the Justice Department's new war on states that have consented to the use of marijuana is an act defending federalism and the will of the people.
#1: GrandIsland To: Deckard (#0)
Someone step up to the plate.... my weed stock took a nose dive.
GrandIsland posted on 2018-01-19 22:17:46 Reply Private Reply
#2: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#0)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 22:29:10 Reply Private Reply
#3: buckeroo To: GrandIsland (#1)
Of course you have a diversified equities portfolio including GE as well, correct?
buckeroo posted on 2018-01-19 22:34:27 Reply Private Reply
#4: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#2)
Nice job of xenophobia there sport - she's an American.
Veronique de Rugy, Ph.D., is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a monthly columnist for the print edition of reason.
Her charts, articles, and commentary have been featured in a wide range of media outlets, including the Reality Check segment on Bloomberg Television’s Street Smart, the New York Times’ Room for Debate, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, CNN International, Stossel, 20/20, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, and Fox News. In 2015, she was named in Politico Magazine's Guide to the Top 50 thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American Politics.
Hey - aren't you a Republican?
It (cannabis legalization) also goes against federalism, a belief that Republicans claim to hold, wherein states should be allowed to make decisions outside federal control on a variety of issues—such as legalizing marijuana. The Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution that distributed political power between the states and a national government.
Police powers reside with the states, not at the federal level.
States should be allowed to make decisions outside federal control on a variety of issues and let the people, not the federal government, decide what they want.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 22:37:37 Reply Private Reply
#5: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#4)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 22:41:43 Reply Private Reply
#6: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#4)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 22:44:36 Reply Private Reply
#7: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#5)
Gee - I really hate to point out how wrong you are.
by Veronique de Rugy July 10, 2012 3:56 PM
I became an American citizen this morning. I was sworn in along with 699 others from 96 different countries. It was a really great reminder of how amazing and welcoming this country is.
Thank you all for making America such a remarkable place.
I never realized what a judgmental little prick you can be.
I was under the impression that you support states' rights.
Looks like that just ain't so.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 22:48:13 Reply Private Reply
#8: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#6)
Nice strawman jackass - this article has nothing to do with heroin.
Thanks for playing.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 22:49:11 Reply Private Reply
#9: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#8)
It does have something to do with the topic.
Now answer the question please.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 22:51:57 Reply Private Reply
#10: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#7)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 22:53:06 Reply Private Reply
#11: Gatlin To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#4)
Mighty poor job of researching there, Sport.
She states that she is from Paris, France, and studied at University of Paris Pantheon- Sorbonne.
She is followed by a grand total of....wait for it.... 65 people on her Facebook page.
That is not an overwhelming testimony that people actually cares what she thinks.
So, Stone is right....
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-19 22:57:14 Reply Private Reply
#12: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#10)
So you say - even though you don't know anything about her other than the fact that she has a name that you can't pronounce.
Yep - judgmental prick.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 22:59:06 Reply Private Reply
#13: Deckard To: Gatlin (#11)
Once again you display your ignorance.
by Veronique de Rugy July 10, 2012 3:56 PM
I became an American citizen this morning. I was sworn in along with 699 others from 96 different countries. It was a really great reminder of how amazing and welcoming this country is.
Thank you all for making America such a remarkable place.
You and Stoney really need to do some research before opening your gaping maws.
She is followed by a grand total of....wait for it.... 65 people on her Facebook page.
BFD - how many do you have Parsons?
That is not an overwhelming testimony that people actually cares what she thinks.
Not really important how many care about what she thinks as it is who cares what she thinks.
Her charts, articles, and commentary have been featured in a wide range of media outlets, including the Reality Check segment on Bloomberg Television’s Street Smart, the New York Times’ Room for Debate, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, CNN International, Stossel, 20/20, C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, and Fox News.
In 2015, she was named in Politico Magazine's Guide to the Top 50 thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American Politics.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 23:06:20 Reply Private Reply
#14: Gatlin To: Deckard (#13)
True, but she still claims to be from Paris, Rance, on her Facebook page.
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-19 23:13:32 Reply Private Reply
#15: Gatlin To: Deckard (#13)
Who?
You and what other person....hondope?
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-19 23:15:07 Reply Private Reply
#16: buckeroo To: Gatlin (#14)
My Gawd, man .... you are an asshole,
buckeroo posted on 2018-01-19 23:15:50 Reply Private Reply
#17: Gatlin To: Deckard (#13)
Ron Paul was supposed to do the same thing....eh?
How has she transformed Amerrican politics....specific examples, please.
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-19 23:17:31 Reply Private Reply
#18: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#8)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 23:23:37 Reply Private Reply
#19: Deckard To: Gatlin (#14)
So what? She's an American citizen.
She most likely knows more about the United States than you do.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 23:28:59 Reply Private Reply
#20: GrandIsland To: buckeroo (#16)
GrandIsland posted on 2018-01-19 23:31:53 Reply Private Reply
#21: Deckard To: Gatlin (#17)
Do I have to do your homework for you asshole?
Timothy P. Carney, Veronique de Rugy
Carney first began following the little-known Ex-Im, which authorizes billions of dollars each year to subsidize foreign purchases of U.S. exports, as a young reporter in 2001, around the time de Rugy began honing anti-regulation and tax arguments at think tanks. By 2012, with their theories against corporate welfare swirling, a record 93 representatives in the House voted against the bank’s reauthorization.
By this summer, as Carney and de Rugy published at a feverish pace, conservatives in Congress banded together to buck the decades-long bipartisan consensus, allowing the bank’s charter to expire for the first time ever. Ex-Im is likely to survive, but it’s found its way into the 2016 campaign, with the Koch brothers using the issue as a litmus test for backing candidates. De Rugy puts it simply, “People are fed up.”
You and Stone have completely hijacked this thread with your childish whining and xenophobia.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 23:37:10 Reply Private Reply
#22: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#18)
This article has nothing to do with heroin.
Stop derailing the thread with your off-topic whining.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 23:38:23 Reply Private Reply
#23: Deckard To: Gatlin (#15)
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 23:39:31 Reply Private Reply
#24: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#22)
Objection over ruled. Proceed to answering the question. You're starting to sound like a pajama boy.
It's relevant.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 23:41:06 Reply Private Reply
#25: Gatlin To: Deckard (#21)
No evidence that she in any way caused that.
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-19 23:41:10 Reply Private Reply
#26: Gatlin To: Deckard (#23)
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-19 23:41:52 Reply Private Reply
#27: Gatlin To: Deckard (#21)
We are the only ones keeping your dumb ass thread alive ...
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-19 23:43:15 Reply Private Reply
#28: Gatlin To: Deckard (#21)
Writing ain't DOING.
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-19 23:44:06 Reply Private Reply
#29: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#24)
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 23:44:52 Reply Private Reply
#30: Gatlin To: Deckard (#21)
BFD, we knolw that....she had to publish an article to say that?
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-19 23:45:47 Reply Private Reply
#31: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#29)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 23:46:08 Reply Private Reply
#32: Gatlin To: Deckard (#29)
Actually, this article has nothing to do about anything.
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-19 23:47:22 Reply Private Reply
#33: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#21)
Just answer the question so we can proceed.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 23:47:30 Reply Private Reply
#34: Gatlin To: Deckard (#19)
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-19 23:48:42 Reply Private Reply
#35: Deckard To: Gatlin (#27)
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 23:49:09 Reply Private Reply
#36: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#35)
Now quit playing games and answer the question. I will determine if it is relevant, and it is.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 23:50:28 Reply Private Reply
#37: Deckard To: Gatlin (#34)
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 23:51:07 Reply Private Reply
#38: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#9)
Yes.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 23:54:15 Reply Private Reply
#39: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#38)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 23:55:35 Reply Private Reply
#40: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#39)
Why don't you start your own thread instead of hijacking this one with your off-topic questions?
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 23:57:44 Reply Private Reply
#41: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#40)
Ok so I would say the same with marijuana in most cases as used today.
So I would say you could definitely make the case for heroin under the "General welfare" clause to be banned. Yeah I'm going there general welfare. It's there in the constitution so why not use it when it is actually for the general welfare.
Since both marijuan a and heroin are both drugs (SHORT DESCRIPTION IM ON A TABLET TYPING)then it could be said that marijuana is also harmful and therefore could also be banned.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-20 00:05:12 Reply Private Reply
#42: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#40)
Hush its on topic and answer the above.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-20 00:05:49 Reply Private Reply
#43: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#41)
Other than the fact that marijuana and heroin are not in the same ball park (heck, they aren't even in the same galaxy) what you have proposed is a wonderful idea! But why stop there? Alcohol, fatty foods, tobacco, sugar - ban them all!
In fact - why not this?
Marijuana Advisor To Sessions Wants To Drug Test Everyone
Deckard posted on 2018-01-20 00:08:43 Reply Private Reply
#44: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#42)
Heroin is bad - the War on Drugs is worse. In fact, alcohol is worse than heroin.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-20 00:11:52 Reply Private Reply
#45: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#43)
I was just making the constitutional argument.
Truth is I don't really care if someone smokes some pot. I still think it should be illegal so society sends younger people a message that it is better to be sober and lead a sober life. The person will waste less money, live longer and be a better person if they are not on drugs. So it is about the tone our society sends so that we don't end up some drugged out nation with a bunch of idiots. What happens when we further degenerate in the name a amorality, because in essence that is what libertarianism is. ( I was going to put more but my fingers are having ttrouble hitting the right spot)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-20 00:16:54 Reply Private Reply
#46: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#43)
I know.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-20 00:18:52 Reply Private Reply
#47: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, Spudnik, Pebbles, Deckard, buckeroo, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#27)
You two drug-paranoia obsessed zombies are the living dead!
Go back to reading your Reefer Madness comix.
Hondo68 posted on 2018-01-20 00:27:22 Reply Private Reply
#48: rlk To: hondo68 (#47)
Good advice.
rlk posted on 2018-01-20 00:45:07 Reply Private Reply
#49: Gatlin To: Deckard (#19)
“Most likely” is merely a suggestive idea and is grossly conjectural because the phrase has a strongly nebulous meaning. It is a gross generalization that is vague and not clearly defined and means absolutely nothing relative to “truth.”
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-20 08:07:41 Reply Private Reply