If people want legal pot, then its up to congress to change the law

[Harry Dresden]

Glen "Instapundit" Reynolds gets to the crux of the argument. It's time to put up or shut up for all those congresscritters who talk about supporting pot legalization.


Here's a novel idea: If you don't like Jeff Session's marijuana decision, change the law

Oh I certainly agree that changing the Federal law is the way to go- but as I said before I don't think Congress has the balls to do it.

But thanks for starting the discussion and sharing the article.

if they dont have the balls then there will be plenty of people getting on them to find their balls....

Not sure if it has that much support to override people's other voting concerns. It may be an issue in close races, however.

if the links i have seen posted around here are true, if 80% of the people want pot to be decriminalized at the federal level,then i would think it would have a lot of support for at least decriminalizing the stuff......

Yes, in a survey, but push comes to shove will they prioritize it over other voting concerns, or the usual incumbent advantage.

I also have a feeling that in most places it might be the one thing both candidates agree on, yay or nay.

well no matter its inevitable.....back in 94 when cal was the first to do medical pot,look how things have changed nationwide since then......

 

[martybegan]

Oh I certainly agree that changing the Federal law is the way to go- but as I said before I don't think Congress has the balls to do it.

But thanks for starting the discussion and sharing the article.

if they dont have the balls then there will be plenty of people getting on them to find their balls....

Not sure if it has that much support to override people's other voting concerns. It may be an issue in close races, however.

if the links i have seen posted around here are true, if 80% of the people want pot to be decriminalized at the federal level,then i would think it would have a lot of support for at least decriminalizing the stuff......

Yes, in a survey, but push comes to shove will they prioritize it over other voting concerns, or the usual incumbent advantage.

I also have a feeling that in most places it might be the one thing both candidates agree on, yay or nay.

well no matter its inevitable.....back in 94 when cal was the first to do medical pot,look how things have changed nationwide since then......

Nothing is ever inevitable in the face of governmental gridlock.

 

[Harry Dresden]

if they dont have the balls then there will be plenty of people getting on them to find their balls....

Not sure if it has that much support to override people's other voting concerns. It may be an issue in close races, however.

if the links i have seen posted around here are true, if 80% of the people want pot to be decriminalized at the federal level,then i would think it would have a lot of support for at least decriminalizing the stuff......

Yes, in a survey, but push comes to shove will they prioritize it over other voting concerns, or the usual incumbent advantage.

I also have a feeling that in most places it might be the one thing both candidates agree on, yay or nay.

well no matter its inevitable.....back in 94 when cal was the first to do medical pot,look how things have changed nationwide since then......

Nothing is ever inevitable in the face of governmental gridlock.

yea i remember back in 94 when medical pot would never get anywhere too....

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

This is a States rights issue, but if they do legalize they should be immediately cut off from any Federal funds that combat drug related problems

 

[martybegan]

Not sure if it has that much support to override people's other voting concerns. It may be an issue in close races, however.

if the links i have seen posted around here are true, if 80% of the people want pot to be decriminalized at the federal level,then i would think it would have a lot of support for at least decriminalizing the stuff......

Yes, in a survey, but push comes to shove will they prioritize it over other voting concerns, or the usual incumbent advantage.

I also have a feeling that in most places it might be the one thing both candidates agree on, yay or nay.

well no matter its inevitable.....back in 94 when cal was the first to do medical pot,look how things have changed nationwide since then......

Nothing is ever inevitable in the face of governmental gridlock.

yea i remember back in 94 when medical pot would never get anywhere too....

It's going places, but it's been in legal limbo due to it still technically being on Schedule 1 of the 1971 Controlled Substances act.

 

[Harry Dresden]

if the links i have seen posted around here are true, if 80% of the people want pot to be decriminalized at the federal level,then i would think it would have a lot of support for at least decriminalizing the stuff......

Yes, in a survey, but push comes to shove will they prioritize it over other voting concerns, or the usual incumbent advantage.

I also have a feeling that in most places it might be the one thing both candidates agree on, yay or nay.

well no matter its inevitable.....back in 94 when cal was the first to do medical pot,look how things have changed nationwide since then......

Nothing is ever inevitable in the face of governmental gridlock.

yea i remember back in 94 when medical pot would never get anywhere too....

It's going places, but it's been in legal limbo due to it still technically being on Schedule 1 of the 1971 Controlled Substances act.

i would not doubt that that will change in the very near future...

 

[Syriusly]

Glen "Instapundit" Reynolds gets to the crux of the argument. It's time to put up or shut up for all those congresscritters who talk about supporting pot legalization.


Here's a novel idea: If you don't like Jeff Session's marijuana decision, change the law

There’s even a bill in front of Congress to do just that, HR 975, the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act, introduced by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., in 2017. It has bipartisan sponsorship, divided roughly evenly between Republicans and Democrats.

So why are Gardner, et al. attacking Sessions instead of speaking out in favor of new legislation?

Well, for one thing, it’s easy. Passing bills is work, denouncing Sessions requires only a press release — or in this case, a few tweets.

Oh I certainly agree that changing the Federal law is the way to go- but as I said before I don't think Congress has the balls to do it.

But thanks for starting the discussion and sharing the article.

Either Congress has to get off it's ass, or we will have tons of court cases that will last decades.

I can't see that being a motivating factor for Congress.

The motivation are
a) Votes and
b) Sound bites that can prevent getting votes

I believe- and I hope to be proven wrong- that most Congresspersons are too terrified of their opponent calling them 'soft on drugs' or 'soft on crime' than to do the rational thing.

You are probably right.

I am hardly a fan of Trump- but he is probably the only one who could make it happen.

I would be fascinated to see what happened to the political landscape if he did it.

Personally- I think Trump is too much of a politician to take that kind of risk- but who knows?

 

[martybegan]

Glen "Instapundit" Reynolds gets to the crux of the argument. It's time to put up or shut up for all those congresscritters who talk about supporting pot legalization.


Here's a novel idea: If you don't like Jeff Session's marijuana decision, change the law

Oh I certainly agree that changing the Federal law is the way to go- but as I said before I don't think Congress has the balls to do it.

But thanks for starting the discussion and sharing the article.

Either Congress has to get off it's ass, or we will have tons of court cases that will last decades.

I can't see that being a motivating factor for Congress.

The motivation are
a) Votes and
b) Sound bites that can prevent getting votes

I believe- and I hope to be proven wrong- that most Congresspersons are too terrified of their opponent calling them 'soft on drugs' or 'soft on crime' than to do the rational thing.

You are probably right.

I am hardly a fan of Trump- but he is probably the only one who could make it happen.

I would be fascinated to see what happened to the political landscape if he did it.

Personally- I think Trump is too much of a politician to take that kind of risk- but who knows?

it would:

1) give him an easy win with the pro-pot people, as well as the libertarian section of the Republican Party

2) Probably energize the conservative base in States where they will keep it banned

3) Give fits to pro-pot Democrats who will be faced with having to agree with Trump on something.

I don't see how he loses by telling congress to put a bill on his desk.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh I certainly agree that changing the Federal law is the way to go- but as I said before I don't think Congress has the balls to do it.

But thanks for starting the discussion and sharing the article.

Either Congress has to get off it's ass, or we will have tons of court cases that will last decades.

I can't see that being a motivating factor for Congress.

The motivation are
a) Votes and
b) Sound bites that can prevent getting votes

I believe- and I hope to be proven wrong- that most Congresspersons are too terrified of their opponent calling them 'soft on drugs' or 'soft on crime' than to do the rational thing.

You are probably right.

I am hardly a fan of Trump- but he is probably the only one who could make it happen.

I would be fascinated to see what happened to the political landscape if he did it.

Personally- I think Trump is too much of a politician to take that kind of risk- but who knows?

it would:

1) give him an easy win with the pro-pot people, as well as the libertarian section of the Republican Party

2) Probably energize the conservative base in States where they will keep it banned

3) Give fits to pro-pot Democrats who will be faced with having to agree with Trump on something.

I don't see how he loses by telling congress to put a bill on his desk.

I agree with most of everything you said except that I think that he would risk offending his evangelical base and I don't think he will take the risk.

I would love to be proven wrong.

 

[martybegan]

Either Congress has to get off it's ass, or we will have tons of court cases that will last decades.

I can't see that being a motivating factor for Congress.

The motivation are
a) Votes and
b) Sound bites that can prevent getting votes

I believe- and I hope to be proven wrong- that most Congresspersons are too terrified of their opponent calling them 'soft on drugs' or 'soft on crime' than to do the rational thing.

You are probably right.

I am hardly a fan of Trump- but he is probably the only one who could make it happen.

I would be fascinated to see what happened to the political landscape if he did it.

Personally- I think Trump is too much of a politician to take that kind of risk- but who knows?

it would:

1) give him an easy win with the pro-pot people, as well as the libertarian section of the Republican Party

2) Probably energize the conservative base in States where they will keep it banned

3) Give fits to pro-pot Democrats who will be faced with having to agree with Trump on something.

I don't see how he loses by telling congress to put a bill on his desk.

I agree with most of everything you said except that I think that he would risk offending his evangelical base and I don't think he will take the risk.

I would love to be proven wrong.

They will have a new cause out of it, criminalizing pot at the State level (or at least keeping it criminal) which is something some of them can actually win (for once)

They got their SC justice, they can deal with Californians and New Yorkers toking up.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Glen "Instapundit" Reynolds gets to the crux of the argument. It's time to put up or shut up for all those congresscritters who talk about supporting pot legalization.


Here's a novel idea: If you don't like Jeff Session's marijuana decision, change the law

There’s even a bill in front of Congress to do just that, HR 975, the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act, introduced by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., in 2017. It has bipartisan sponsorship, divided roughly evenly between Republicans and Democrats.

So why are Gardner, et al. attacking Sessions instead of speaking out in favor of new legislation?

Well, for one thing, it’s easy. Passing bills is work, denouncing Sessions requires only a press release — or in this case, a few tweets.

I've been thinking about that. It would make sense. And according to the polls, over 60% of the American public believes it should be legalized, so it shouldn't really be that hard a push. Maybe after the 2018 elections.
It amazes me that this administration can continue to dig into its bag of tricks and find more dead carcasses to wave before the people. How fucking stupid and unlikeable is the idea of prosecuting marijuana business in states that have made it legal and are regulating it just fine on their own.
Someone needs to slip Sessions a brownie. He needs to expand his mind a bit.

I am totally for legalizing it. Legalize all of them. In fact, i think its complete bullshit when the govt tells you what to do with your own body. However, it is STILL federal law.
Your argument sets up a HUGE precedent.

It is not a law, per se; it is a regulation. Now is the time for the 10th Amendment to be brought to bear on the will of the people.

It's a regulation based on a law, the Controlled Substances Act of 1971, which states Pot is a Schedule I drug, that is always illegal (except for some small exceptions for research purposes).

Then when will Sessions issue warrants for the arrest, and try every person in federal court for simple possession? You can bet local government and state governments will not detain every American Citizen for simple possession, and, if he wants to cite release I suspect most persons will refuse to sign the promise to appear.

Sessions is dumb as a can be if he thinks he can enforce pot laws no that the genie is out of the bottle. You can also bet that the Congress will not fund the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to detain, and fund the CJS to enforce this asinine AG.

 

[martybegan]

Glen "Instapundit" Reynolds gets to the crux of the argument. It's time to put up or shut up for all those congresscritters who talk about supporting pot legalization.


Here's a novel idea: If you don't like Jeff Session's marijuana decision, change the law

I've been thinking about that. It would make sense. And according to the polls, over 60% of the American public believes it should be legalized, so it shouldn't really be that hard a push. Maybe after the 2018 elections.
It amazes me that this administration can continue to dig into its bag of tricks and find more dead carcasses to wave before the people. How fucking stupid and unlikeable is the idea of prosecuting marijuana business in states that have made it legal and are regulating it just fine on their own.
Someone needs to slip Sessions a brownie. He needs to expand his mind a bit.

I am totally for legalizing it. Legalize all of them. In fact, i think its complete bullshit when the govt tells you what to do with your own body. However, it is STILL federal law.
Your argument sets up a HUGE precedent.

It is not a law, per se; it is a regulation. Now is the time for the 10th Amendment to be brought to bear on the will of the people.

It's a regulation based on a law, the Controlled Substances Act of 1971, which states Pot is a Schedule I drug, that is always illegal (except for some small exceptions for research purposes).

Then when will Sessions issue warrants for the arrest, and try every person in federal court for simple possession? You can bet local government and state governments will not detain every American Citizen for simple possession, and, if he wants to cite release I suspect most persons will refuse to sign the promise to appear.

Sessions is dumb as a can be if he thinks he can enforce pot laws no that the genie is out of the bottle. You can also bet that the Congress will not fund the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to detain, and fund the CJS to enforce this asinine AG.

Nah, he will go after the growers if he chooses to do anything, bigger fish, and they can't move around.