Biden Admin Weeds Out White House Stoners

[Jim H - VA USA]

This article is somewhat confusing, or perhaps I have not had enough coffee yet.

It seems to indicated that the Biden Admin promised staffers that they would be flexible regarding past marijuana use, but after the affected staffers completed background check forms revealing past marijuana use, even in states where it is legal according to state law, many were asked to resign.

My guess is that the real story is that the incompetent Biden Admin made unclear, unwritten promises that they could not keep, and the stoners had trouble understanding how the system really works, with some being let go due to excessive or habitual use that they considered personally to be "limited", or perhaps being dishonest about the level of prior use. You can just imagine the low-IQ woke cast of characters who are trying to be employees of the Executive Branch these days.

"'The policies were never explained, the threshold for what was excusable and what was inexcusable was never explained,' the staffer said. "

The press was all over Jared Kushner's security clearance challenges. I wonder how many folks with a Hunter Biden type of record are trying to work at the White House.

White House weeds out young staffers who have smoked pot

The White House has weeded out young staffers who have smoked pot - despite them having been informally told that past highs would be overlooked, it has been revealed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This is good news. Is Kamel-toe on the chopping block?

>This is good news. Is Kamel-toe on the chopping block?

Great insight (and funny)!

I guess there is some kind of exemption for those who are elected to office, though. Stoner Obama admitted inhaling frequently, and he had the highest security clearance possible (supposedly), even with the power to declassify top secret information at will.

 

[BlindBoo]

Generally the federal government actions towards Cannabis/Hemp has been an overreaching and unconstitutional violation of everything our Constitution stands for. It was originally passed in smoke filled back room with party bosses. No input from the medical community, farmers, or practically any of the citizens their new "Prohibition Law" would effect. It was also a power grab by Congress. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol nation wide, but not with the Cannabis/Hemp plant and products.

The war on Americans who smoke pot(or engage in any type of non compliant recreational substance use) has been the whipping boy for both parties. It's been a winning strategy. Who's going to stand up for the "Druggies"?

A law being stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. Alcohol could have been banned via legislation, they used the amendment process because they knew it was the only way to prevent an immediate pushback. The Dry side's hope was to outlast the Wet counterstrike by making it harder to overturn, and hoping time would prove them right.

Read Rockerfeller's letter on his position on Prohibition for a view into their reasons behind it, and his reason for deciding it wasn't worth it.

Removing it from Schedule I would be the start of admitting the war on drugs has been at best a push, at worst a failure.

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 were ruled unconstitutional in 1969 after the Supreme Court found it in violation of citizens’ Fifth Amendment rights. Requiring all marijuana users to identify themselves, the amount of weed they had, and where they got it from amounted to self-incrimination.

It was a power grab by corporate interest, a compliant media, and a more than willing federal government. By the time it was ruled unconstitutional that power had grown enough that they were immediately allowed to continue to perpetrate the WoD fraud on Americans for the political gain of both parties.

A tax act is different than putting a substance onto schedule I, which involves only technically the legal sale of said product, which under the commerce clause the feds can claim is under their control. Remember most criminalization of pot use and possession is at the State level, the feds only get involved in trafficking that crosses state lines or international ones.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 set the stage for cannabis restrictions, but the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 marked the start of full-scale prohibition. The law did not explicitly ban cannabis in its wording, but that was clearly the intent. In the 1930s, the Treasury Department, run by the mega-rich Andrew Mellon as Secretary, determined that it could use the taxing power of the federal government to prohibit products he deemed problematic. By creating overly excessive taxes, the laws could create de facto prohibition for everybody but the wealthy. Herman Oliphant, the Treasury’s general counsel, employed this tactic with the National Firearms Act. Passed in 1934, the law attempted to ban or reduce shotguns and machine guns, and challenges to the law went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld its legality in March 1937. Two weeks later, Oliphant (along with arch-prohibitionist Harry Anslinger) introduced the Marihuana Tax Act directly into the House Ways and Means Committee, a powerful committee (and the oldest in Congress) with the unique ability to send bills directly to the House of Representatives.

https://studentmmj.com/learn/the-marihuana-tax-act-of-1937/

I agree we need it taken off Schedule 1.

 

[OKTexas]

The only real solution is to remove Pot from Schedule I and let the States figure it out. At that point use isn't a federal issue when it comes to security clearances.

Drug use will always be a concern on security clearances, just like alcoholism is.

.

 

[martybegan]

Generally the federal government actions towards Cannabis/Hemp has been an overreaching and unconstitutional violation of everything our Constitution stands for. It was originally passed in smoke filled back room with party bosses. No input from the medical community, farmers, or practically any of the citizens their new "Prohibition Law" would effect. It was also a power grab by Congress. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol nation wide, but not with the Cannabis/Hemp plant and products.

The war on Americans who smoke pot(or engage in any type of non compliant recreational substance use) has been the whipping boy for both parties. It's been a winning strategy. Who's going to stand up for the "Druggies"?

A law being stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. Alcohol could have been banned via legislation, they used the amendment process because they knew it was the only way to prevent an immediate pushback. The Dry side's hope was to outlast the Wet counterstrike by making it harder to overturn, and hoping time would prove them right.

Read Rockerfeller's letter on his position on Prohibition for a view into their reasons behind it, and his reason for deciding it wasn't worth it.

Removing it from Schedule I would be the start of admitting the war on drugs has been at best a push, at worst a failure.

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 were ruled unconstitutional in 1969 after the Supreme Court found it in violation of citizens’ Fifth Amendment rights. Requiring all marijuana users to identify themselves, the amount of weed they had, and where they got it from amounted to self-incrimination.

It was a power grab by corporate interest, a compliant media, and a more than willing federal government. By the time it was ruled unconstitutional that power had grown enough that they were immediately allowed to continue to perpetrate the WoD fraud on Americans for the political gain of both parties.

A tax act is different than putting a substance onto schedule I, which involves only technically the legal sale of said product, which under the commerce clause the feds can claim is under their control. Remember most criminalization of pot use and possession is at the State level, the feds only get involved in trafficking that crosses state lines or international ones.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 set the stage for cannabis restrictions, but the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 marked the start of full-scale prohibition. The law did not explicitly ban cannabis in its wording, but that was clearly the intent. In the 1930s, the Treasury Department, run by the mega-rich Andrew Mellon as Secretary, determined that it could use the taxing power of the federal government to prohibit products he deemed problematic. By creating overly excessive taxes, the laws could create de facto prohibition for everybody but the wealthy. Herman Oliphant, the Treasury’s general counsel, employed this tactic with the National Firearms Act. Passed in 1934, the law attempted to ban or reduce shotguns and machine guns, and challenges to the law went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld its legality in March 1937. Two weeks later, Oliphant (along with arch-prohibitionist Harry Anslinger) introduced the Marihuana Tax Act directly into the House Ways and Means Committee, a powerful committee (and the oldest in Congress) with the unique ability to send bills directly to the House of Representatives.

https://studentmmj.com/learn/the-marihuana-tax-act-of-1937/

I agree we need it taken off Schedule 1.

Schedule I is the source of all the current issues. Interesting thing about the tax act. It's the same as using regulations to de facto ban something you don't like.

 

[martybegan]

The only real solution is to remove Pot from Schedule I and let the States figure it out. At that point use isn't a federal issue when it comes to security clearances.

Drug use will always be a concern on security clearances, just like alcoholism is.

.

Alcoholism is more akin to drug abuse, not drug use. Plenty of people can and do use pot recreationally only.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Generally the federal government actions towards Cannabis/Hemp has been an overreaching and unconstitutional violation of everything our Constitution stands for. It was originally passed in smoke filled back room with party bosses. No input from the medical community, farmers, or practically any of the citizens their new "Prohibition Law" would effect. It was also a power grab by Congress. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol nation wide, but not with the Cannabis/Hemp plant and products.

The war on Americans who smoke pot(or engage in any type of non compliant recreational substance use) has been the whipping boy for both parties. It's been a winning strategy. Who's going to stand up for the "Druggies"?

A law being stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. Alcohol could have been banned via legislation, they used the amendment process because they knew it was the only way to prevent an immediate pushback. The Dry side's hope was to outlast the Wet counterstrike by making it harder to overturn, and hoping time would prove them right.

Read Rockerfeller's letter on his position on Prohibition for a view into their reasons behind it, and his reason for deciding it wasn't worth it.

Removing it from Schedule I would be the start of admitting the war on drugs has been at best a push, at worst a failure.

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 were ruled unconstitutional in 1969 after the Supreme Court found it in violation of citizens’ Fifth Amendment rights. Requiring all marijuana users to identify themselves, the amount of weed they had, and where they got it from amounted to self-incrimination.

It was a power grab by corporate interest, a compliant media, and a more than willing federal government. By the time it was ruled unconstitutional that power had grown enough that they were immediately allowed to continue to perpetrate the WoD fraud on Americans for the political gain of both parties.

A tax act is different than putting a substance onto schedule I, which involves only technically the legal sale of said product, which under the commerce clause the feds can claim is under their control. Remember most criminalization of pot use and possession is at the State level, the feds only get involved in trafficking that crosses state lines or international ones.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 set the stage for cannabis restrictions, but the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 marked the start of full-scale prohibition. The law did not explicitly ban cannabis in its wording, but that was clearly the intent. In the 1930s, the Treasury Department, run by the mega-rich Andrew Mellon as Secretary, determined that it could use the taxing power of the federal government to prohibit products he deemed problematic. By creating overly excessive taxes, the laws could create de facto prohibition for everybody but the wealthy. Herman Oliphant, the Treasury’s general counsel, employed this tactic with the National Firearms Act. Passed in 1934, the law attempted to ban or reduce shotguns and machine guns, and challenges to the law went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld its legality in March 1937. Two weeks later, Oliphant (along with arch-prohibitionist Harry Anslinger) introduced the Marihuana Tax Act directly into the House Ways and Means Committee, a powerful committee (and the oldest in Congress) with the unique ability to send bills directly to the House of Representatives.

https://studentmmj.com/learn/the-marihuana-tax-act-of-1937/

I agree we need it taken off Schedule 1.

> I agree we need it taken off Schedule 1.

There is currently a bill in the House to move it to Schedule III...

Text - H.R.365 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Marijuana 1-to-3 Act of 2021

Text for H.R.365 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Marijuana 1-to-3 Act of 2021

www.congress.gov

It has zero co-sponsors, so it will probably die in committee.

The Dems have promised full legalization this year though...

Democrats Plan to Legalize Marijuana in 2021

"Democratic Senate leadership has a plan to legalize marijuana at the federal level at some point this year. In a joint statement released Monday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden and Senator Cory Booker detailed how the Democratic-controlled...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[pknopp]

Well you do have Harris in the White House who fought to put people in prison over this.

Basically though, most of the rest of them simply lied.

Yeah she did. She fought to put people in prison for smoking weed and then went on a late night talk show laughing about her personal use. The very essence of a dirty cop.
Kamala Harris Jailed Nearly 2,000 People for Marijuana Offenses (breitbart.com)

Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

> Which brings up the question......did she tell the truth on her forms and if so wouldnt suspending these people be discriminatory?

No, it would not. It's still against federal law to possess marijuana, it's a federal job, and it's a long-standing policy that prior drug use can be a disqualifier for security clearances and many jobs requiring integrity or where public safety is involved.

Shoot, I am pretty sure that some private employers do not hire people who use tobacco, since there is not federal law that prohibits them from doing so.

Regards,
Jim

So Harris shouldn't have been able to pass her security clearances.

 

[BlindBoo]

Generally the federal government actions towards Cannabis/Hemp has been an overreaching and unconstitutional violation of everything our Constitution stands for. It was originally passed in smoke filled back room with party bosses. No input from the medical community, farmers, or practically any of the citizens their new "Prohibition Law" would effect. It was also a power grab by Congress. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol nation wide, but not with the Cannabis/Hemp plant and products.

The war on Americans who smoke pot(or engage in any type of non compliant recreational substance use) has been the whipping boy for both parties. It's been a winning strategy. Who's going to stand up for the "Druggies"?

A law being stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. Alcohol could have been banned via legislation, they used the amendment process because they knew it was the only way to prevent an immediate pushback. The Dry side's hope was to outlast the Wet counterstrike by making it harder to overturn, and hoping time would prove them right.

Read Rockerfeller's letter on his position on Prohibition for a view into their reasons behind it, and his reason for deciding it wasn't worth it.

Removing it from Schedule I would be the start of admitting the war on drugs has been at best a push, at worst a failure.

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 were ruled unconstitutional in 1969 after the Supreme Court found it in violation of citizens’ Fifth Amendment rights. Requiring all marijuana users to identify themselves, the amount of weed they had, and where they got it from amounted to self-incrimination.

It was a power grab by corporate interest, a compliant media, and a more than willing federal government. By the time it was ruled unconstitutional that power had grown enough that they were immediately allowed to continue to perpetrate the WoD fraud on Americans for the political gain of both parties.

A tax act is different than putting a substance onto schedule I, which involves only technically the legal sale of said product, which under the commerce clause the feds can claim is under their control. Remember most criminalization of pot use and possession is at the State level, the feds only get involved in trafficking that crosses state lines or international ones.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 set the stage for cannabis restrictions, but the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 marked the start of full-scale prohibition. The law did not explicitly ban cannabis in its wording, but that was clearly the intent. In the 1930s, the Treasury Department, run by the mega-rich Andrew Mellon as Secretary, determined that it could use the taxing power of the federal government to prohibit products he deemed problematic. By creating overly excessive taxes, the laws could create de facto prohibition for everybody but the wealthy. Herman Oliphant, the Treasury’s general counsel, employed this tactic with the National Firearms Act. Passed in 1934, the law attempted to ban or reduce shotguns and machine guns, and challenges to the law went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld its legality in March 1937. Two weeks later, Oliphant (along with arch-prohibitionist Harry Anslinger) introduced the Marihuana Tax Act directly into the House Ways and Means Committee, a powerful committee (and the oldest in Congress) with the unique ability to send bills directly to the House of Representatives.

https://studentmmj.com/learn/the-marihuana-tax-act-of-1937/

I agree we need it taken off Schedule 1.

> I agree we need it taken off Schedule 1.

There is currently a bill in the House to move it to Schedule III...

Text - H.R.365 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Marijuana 1-to-3 Act of 2021

Text for H.R.365 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Marijuana 1-to-3 Act of 2021

www.congress.gov

It has zero co-sponsors, so it will probably die in committee.

The Dems have promised full legalization this year though...

Democrats Plan to Legalize Marijuana in 2021

"Democratic Senate leadership has a plan to legalize marijuana at the federal level at some point this year. In a joint statement released Monday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden and Senator Cory Booker detailed how the Democratic-controlled...

www.usmessageboard.com

It's a welcome change, Lets hope it's not just lip service.

 

[OKTexas]

The only real solution is to remove Pot from Schedule I and let the States figure it out. At that point use isn't a federal issue when it comes to security clearances.

Drug use will always be a concern on security clearances, just like alcoholism is.

.

Alcoholism is more akin to drug abuse, not drug use. Plenty of people can and do use pot recreationally only.

Both can cause impairment and affect judgment. Tell the class where the cutoff is between recreational and habitual use.

.

 

[martybegan]

The only real solution is to remove Pot from Schedule I and let the States figure it out. At that point use isn't a federal issue when it comes to security clearances.

Drug use will always be a concern on security clearances, just like alcoholism is.

.

Alcoholism is more akin to drug abuse, not drug use. Plenty of people can and do use pot recreationally only.

Both can cause impairment and affect judgment. Tell the class where the cutoff is between recreational and habitual use.

.

So only straight edge people can be 100% trusted?

Caffeine can cause impairment and affect judgement, guess one cup of coffee a day makes you unemployable?

The cutoff is if you can use it without impacting your day to day life. I got plenty of friends who toke daily who lead perfectly normal and productive lives. Same as a person who has a scotch after work or before bed.

 

[Polishprince]

The only real solution is to remove Pot from Schedule I and let the States figure it out. At that point use isn't a federal issue when it comes to security clearances.

Drug use will always be a concern on security clearances, just like alcoholism is.

.

Alcoholism is more akin to drug abuse, not drug use. Plenty of people can and do use pot recreationally only.

Both can cause impairment and affect judgment. Tell the class where the cutoff is between recreational and habitual use.

.

So only straight edge people can be 100% trusted?

Caffeine can cause impairment and affect judgement, guess one cup of coffee a day makes you unemployable?

The cutoff is if you can use it without impacting your day to day life. I got plenty of friends who toke daily who lead perfectly normal and productive lives. Same as a person who has a scotch after work or before bed.

I can appreciate the fact that some people , probably most people, can get loaded on grass on the weekend or at night and it won't affect them at work.

But its only common sense that people should know that a prospective employer doesn't need to know you are a stoner.

 

[BlindBoo]

Generally the federal government actions towards Cannabis/Hemp has been an overreaching and unconstitutional violation of everything our Constitution stands for. It was originally passed in smoke filled back room with party bosses. No input from the medical community, farmers, or practically any of the citizens their new "Prohibition Law" would effect. It was also a power grab by Congress. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol nation wide, but not with the Cannabis/Hemp plant and products.

The war on Americans who smoke pot(or engage in any type of non compliant recreational substance use) has been the whipping boy for both parties. It's been a winning strategy. Who's going to stand up for the "Druggies"?

A law being stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. Alcohol could have been banned via legislation, they used the amendment process because they knew it was the only way to prevent an immediate pushback. The Dry side's hope was to outlast the Wet counterstrike by making it harder to overturn, and hoping time would prove them right.

Read Rockerfeller's letter on his position on Prohibition for a view into their reasons behind it, and his reason for deciding it wasn't worth it.

Removing it from Schedule I would be the start of admitting the war on drugs has been at best a push, at worst a failure.

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 were ruled unconstitutional in 1969 after the Supreme Court found it in violation of citizens’ Fifth Amendment rights. Requiring all marijuana users to identify themselves, the amount of weed they had, and where they got it from amounted to self-incrimination.

It was a power grab by corporate interest, a compliant media, and a more than willing federal government. By the time it was ruled unconstitutional that power had grown enough that they were immediately allowed to continue to perpetrate the WoD fraud on Americans for the political gain of both parties.

A tax act is different than putting a substance onto schedule I, which involves only technically the legal sale of said product, which under the commerce clause the feds can claim is under their control. Remember most criminalization of pot use and possession is at the State level, the feds only get involved in trafficking that crosses state lines or international ones.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 set the stage for cannabis restrictions, but the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 marked the start of full-scale prohibition. The law did not explicitly ban cannabis in its wording, but that was clearly the intent. In the 1930s, the Treasury Department, run by the mega-rich Andrew Mellon as Secretary, determined that it could use the taxing power of the federal government to prohibit products he deemed problematic. By creating overly excessive taxes, the laws could create de facto prohibition for everybody but the wealthy. Herman Oliphant, the Treasury’s general counsel, employed this tactic with the National Firearms Act. Passed in 1934, the law attempted to ban or reduce shotguns and machine guns, and challenges to the law went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld its legality in March 1937. Two weeks later, Oliphant (along with arch-prohibitionist Harry Anslinger) introduced the Marihuana Tax Act directly into the House Ways and Means Committee, a powerful committee (and the oldest in Congress) with the unique ability to send bills directly to the House of Representatives.

https://studentmmj.com/learn/the-marihuana-tax-act-of-1937/

I agree we need it taken off Schedule 1.

Schedule I is the source of all the current issues. Interesting thing about the tax act. It's the same as using regulations to de facto ban something you don't like.

The federal government doesn't want to admit it has been lying and the old drug warrior attitudes still exists in the bureaucracy, ops I mean dweeb state.

It (prohibitive taxation) was used to ban shotguns(sawed off) and machine guns in 1934.

 

[martybegan]

The only real solution is to remove Pot from Schedule I and let the States figure it out. At that point use isn't a federal issue when it comes to security clearances.

Drug use will always be a concern on security clearances, just like alcoholism is.

.

Alcoholism is more akin to drug abuse, not drug use. Plenty of people can and do use pot recreationally only.

Both can cause impairment and affect judgment. Tell the class where the cutoff is between recreational and habitual use.

.

So only straight edge people can be 100% trusted?

Caffeine can cause impairment and affect judgement, guess one cup of coffee a day makes you unemployable?

The cutoff is if you can use it without impacting your day to day life. I got plenty of friends who toke daily who lead perfectly normal and productive lives. Same as a person who has a scotch after work or before bed.

I can appreciate the fact that some people , probably most people, can get loaded on grass on the weekend or at night and it won't affect them at work.

But its only common sense that people should know that a prospective employer doesn't need to know you are a stoner.

The question only comes up because the drug is illegal federally. Remove that, and make it legal in a given State, and the reason to ask is removed. An employer can't ask if a person drinks alcohol or not. An employer can tell an employee they can't drink or be impaired on company time, but that's the limit.

 

[martybegan]

Generally the federal government actions towards Cannabis/Hemp has been an overreaching and unconstitutional violation of everything our Constitution stands for. It was originally passed in smoke filled back room with party bosses. No input from the medical community, farmers, or practically any of the citizens their new "Prohibition Law" would effect. It was also a power grab by Congress. It took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Alcohol nation wide, but not with the Cannabis/Hemp plant and products.

The war on Americans who smoke pot(or engage in any type of non compliant recreational substance use) has been the whipping boy for both parties. It's been a winning strategy. Who's going to stand up for the "Druggies"?

A law being stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. Alcohol could have been banned via legislation, they used the amendment process because they knew it was the only way to prevent an immediate pushback. The Dry side's hope was to outlast the Wet counterstrike by making it harder to overturn, and hoping time would prove them right.

Read Rockerfeller's letter on his position on Prohibition for a view into their reasons behind it, and his reason for deciding it wasn't worth it.

Removing it from Schedule I would be the start of admitting the war on drugs has been at best a push, at worst a failure.

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 were ruled unconstitutional in 1969 after the Supreme Court found it in violation of citizens’ Fifth Amendment rights. Requiring all marijuana users to identify themselves, the amount of weed they had, and where they got it from amounted to self-incrimination.

It was a power grab by corporate interest, a compliant media, and a more than willing federal government. By the time it was ruled unconstitutional that power had grown enough that they were immediately allowed to continue to perpetrate the WoD fraud on Americans for the political gain of both parties.

A tax act is different than putting a substance onto schedule I, which involves only technically the legal sale of said product, which under the commerce clause the feds can claim is under their control. Remember most criminalization of pot use and possession is at the State level, the feds only get involved in trafficking that crosses state lines or international ones.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 set the stage for cannabis restrictions, but the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 marked the start of full-scale prohibition. The law did not explicitly ban cannabis in its wording, but that was clearly the intent. In the 1930s, the Treasury Department, run by the mega-rich Andrew Mellon as Secretary, determined that it could use the taxing power of the federal government to prohibit products he deemed problematic. By creating overly excessive taxes, the laws could create de facto prohibition for everybody but the wealthy. Herman Oliphant, the Treasury’s general counsel, employed this tactic with the National Firearms Act. Passed in 1934, the law attempted to ban or reduce shotguns and machine guns, and challenges to the law went all the way to the Supreme Court, which upheld its legality in March 1937. Two weeks later, Oliphant (along with arch-prohibitionist Harry Anslinger) introduced the Marihuana Tax Act directly into the House Ways and Means Committee, a powerful committee (and the oldest in Congress) with the unique ability to send bills directly to the House of Representatives.

https://studentmmj.com/learn/the-marihuana-tax-act-of-1937/

I agree we need it taken off Schedule 1.

Schedule I is the source of all the current issues. Interesting thing about the tax act. It's the same as using regulations to de facto ban something you don't like.

The federal government doesn't want to admit it has been lying and the old drug warrior attitudes still exists in the bureaucracy, ops I mean dweeb state.

It (prohibitive taxation) was used to ban shotguns(sawed off) and machine guns in 1934.

Didn't the real ban come in the 80's when no new tax receipts would be issued for "new" machine guns?

 

[marvin martian]

This article is somewhat confusing, or perhaps I have not had enough coffee yet.

It seems to indicated that the Biden Admin promised staffers that they would be flexible regarding past marijuana use, but after the affected staffers completed background check forms revealing past marijuana use, even in states where it is legal according to state law, many were asked to resign.

My guess is that the real story is that the incompetent Biden Admin made unclear, unwritten promises that they could not keep, and the stoners had trouble understanding how the system really works, with some being let go due to excessive or habitual use that they considered personally to be "limited", or perhaps being dishonest about the level of prior use. You can just imagine the low-IQ woke cast of characters who are trying to be employees of the Executive Branch these days.

"'The policies were never explained, the threshold for what was excusable and what was inexcusable was never explained,' the staffer said. "

The press was all over Jared Kushner's security clearance challenges. I wonder how many folks with a Hunter Biden type of record are trying to work at the White House.

White House weeds out young staffers who have smoked pot

The White House has weeded out young staffers who have smoked pot - despite them having been informally told that past highs would be overlooked, it has been revealed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Elect an old white guy and a cop, and this is what you get.

 

[OKTexas]

The only real solution is to remove Pot from Schedule I and let the States figure it out. At that point use isn't a federal issue when it comes to security clearances.

Drug use will always be a concern on security clearances, just like alcoholism is.

.

Alcoholism is more akin to drug abuse, not drug use. Plenty of people can and do use pot recreationally only.

Both can cause impairment and affect judgment. Tell the class where the cutoff is between recreational and habitual use.

.

So only straight edge people can be 100% trusted?

Caffeine can cause impairment and affect judgement, guess one cup of coffee a day makes you unemployable?

The cutoff is if you can use it without impacting your day to day life. I got plenty of friends who toke daily who lead perfectly normal and productive lives. Same as a person who has a scotch after work or before bed.

Sorry, I think people charged with the security of this nation should be held to a higher standard than Bill or Jenny down the block. Drug and alcohol use tends to increase when peoples jobs increase their stress levels.

.

 

[bendog]

IF he's weeding out progressives .... GOOD. They got their damn bill. And that, coupled with the coming tax bill, will reverse the Trump/McConnell tax breaks for the rich.

Now get on with immigration. And tell the Progs to suck it up.

 

[martybegan]

The only real solution is to remove Pot from Schedule I and let the States figure it out. At that point use isn't a federal issue when it comes to security clearances.

Drug use will always be a concern on security clearances, just like alcoholism is.

.

Alcoholism is more akin to drug abuse, not drug use. Plenty of people can and do use pot recreationally only.

Both can cause impairment and affect judgment. Tell the class where the cutoff is between recreational and habitual use.

.

So only straight edge people can be 100% trusted?

Caffeine can cause impairment and affect judgement, guess one cup of coffee a day makes you unemployable?

The cutoff is if you can use it without impacting your day to day life. I got plenty of friends who toke daily who lead perfectly normal and productive lives. Same as a person who has a scotch after work or before bed.

Sorry, I think people charged with the security of this nation should be held to a higher standard than Bill or Jenny down the block. Drug and alcohol use tends to increase when peoples jobs increase their stress levels.

.

Sorry, but I think enforcing teetotaling as a requirement for federal office or employment is overboard.

You don't like it, I get it. But others do and can function just fine while using them in moderation.

 

[Harry Dresden]

If you're stupid enough to volunteer that you smoke a little weed then you deserve to get fired.

Bingo. Employers don't want to hear that you are loaded on grass , particularly in writing when the applicant is applying for a gig in someplace like the WH.

The insurance company doesn't want to pay the claim if you get wasted on some bad ganja trip in the Oval Office and accidentally fall on the Red Nuclear button.

I'm surprised that modern young people couldn't figure this out for themselves. There is a reason that neither Cheech nor Chong were ever appointed to high office by previous libs.

bad ganja trip?.....

 

[easyt65]

This article is somewhat confusing, or perhaps I have not had enough coffee yet.

It seems to indicated that the Biden Admin promised staffers that they would be flexible regarding past marijuana use, but after the affected staffers completed background check forms revealing past marijuana use, even in states where it is legal according to state law, many were asked to resign.

My guess is that the real story is that the incompetent Biden Admin made unclear, unwritten promises that they could not keep, and the stoners had trouble understanding how the system really works, with some being let go due to excessive or habitual use that they considered personally to be "limited", or perhaps being dishonest about the level of prior use. You can just imagine the low-IQ woke cast of characters who are trying to be employees of the Executive Branch these days.

"'The policies were never explained, the threshold for what was excusable and what was inexcusable was never explained,' the staffer said. "

The press was all over Jared Kushner's security clearance challenges. I wonder how many folks with a Hunter Biden type of record are trying to work at the White House.

White House weeds out young staffers who have smoked pot

The White House has weeded out young staffers who have smoked pot - despite them having been informally told that past highs would be overlooked, it has been revealed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Does Dementia Joe realize that if his standard was equally applied to Obama's administration or his own Barry would be shown the door as would his own VP, who claimed she used to smoke weed...?!