On Trump and his administration policies

[SmokeALib]

Weed is good. I look forward to the day I can put a twenty dollar bill in a vending machine and take home some quality red or gold.

 

[Slade3200]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

I voted yes and I think he should start with the State run cartels. He should seize the property of the growers and sellers and all taxes collected by the States. We are a nation of laws selective enforcement is not an option. You don't like a law get your congresscritters to change it.

.

We are also a Republic with states rights. Thats part of our law

You might want to remind the supreme court of that and your fellow regressives when they use the courts to over ride States wishes. You don't get to pick and chose, you buy it all or nothing.

.

The Pot law has to do with regulation it is not a constitutional issue unless you can show me where in the constitution it outlaws the use of pot. The supreme court deals with constitutional issues.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.


.

Article 3 of the Constitution defines the powers of the Courts and gives Congress the power to organize it, which they did in the Judiciary Act of 1789

SECTION 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

SECTION 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

SECTION 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

I voted yes and I think he should start with the State run cartels. He should seize the property of the growers and sellers and all taxes collected by the States. We are a nation of laws selective enforcement is not an option. You don't like a law get your congresscritters to change it.


.

We are also a Republic with states rights. Thats part of our law

You might want to remind the supreme court of that and your fellow regressives when they use the courts to over ride States wishes. You don't get to pick and chose, you buy it all or nothing..

Wrong. Take a course in ConLaw, your simple explanation is much more complicated than you know. You may wish that States Rights are sacrosanct, they are not, nor are most of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Slade3200]

Im not supporting law enforcement choosing i'm support States Rights and the MJ laws were legislated and voted on by the people. You're comparison to an officer deciding what is law is not at all an honest comparison.

Pot is ILLEGAL
States rights dont matter when it is FEDERAL LAW. Your argument is redundant.
I have CLEARLY stated they should do away with it. I just dont support selective enforcement of our laws like you.

Passing a law legalizing pot at a Federal level doesn't make sense. First of all it will never get done because congress has forgotten how to get anything done and there is a large difference of opinion on a national level. Second, the "State" approach allows a tester to see how progressive agendas and laws will work before doing a nationwide roll out. CO and WA were the guinea pigs and gave a model of how revenue, regulation, crime, and operations will work. It gives the ability for states and communities to implement policies that perhaps other areas of our nation are not yet ready for. And it allows other states to see the effects and then decide if they want to implement as well. It is a smart way to roll out progressive agendas and how, I believe, our Republic is supposed to work. I also believe that as it grows it will eventually become Federal Law. I'm not implying that this is an easy black and white situation as we need to be careful about how these "rebel" laws effect other states, but it is a discussion worth having.

Passing a law legalizing weed? Are you even reading what i am writing? LOL WTF
They need to remove it from federal law and let the states decide. HOWEVER, selective enforcement of our Nations laws does nothing but invoke corruption.
Its STUPID.

Removing pot from federal law takes and act of congress and would result in legalizing it on a national level. Then all states would need to pass legislation detailing how they want to handle it. I'm fine with that happening but i'm saying it wont happen, there is too much bureaucracy in Washington.

they would have to amend the CSA. They need to remove it from the schedule drug list and be done. They dont need to legalize it. Thats needless.
Its retarded its even on there but big pharma and alcohol LOVE IT

It is the same thing! Removing it from the list legalizes it. It takes an act of congress. Why are we nit picking over this, do you not understand my point?

 

[The Original Tree]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

The Left is using Islam and Heroin from Afghanistan in conjunction with now Mexican Heroin and Illegal Aliens as Mules to ferry Heroin in to The United States.

The sole purpose of this is to destabilize our society, and corrupt American Culture and fragment This Country so that it will be more subsceptible to accepting Globalism, and be more willing to surrender it's freedoms and Sovereignty.

When you are fighting The War on Drugs, you are fighting The Taliban, ISIS, Al Queda, and Mexican Drug Cartels and Radical Leftist Fascist Groups.

It might not be a war we can win, but we can definitely slow down The Left's attempt to import cultural death in to The United States.

 

[The Original Tree]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

I voted yes and I think he should start with the State run cartels. He should seize the property of the growers and sellers and all taxes collected by the States. We are a nation of laws selective enforcement is not an option. You don't like a law get your congresscritters to change it.


.

We are also a Republic with states rights. Thats part of our law

You might want to remind the supreme court of that and your fellow regressives when they use the courts to over ride States wishes. You don't get to pick and chose, you buy it all or nothing..

Wrong. Take a course in ConLaw, your simple explanation is much more complicated than you know. You may wish that States Rights are sacrosanct, they are not, nor are most of the Bill of Rights.

So in other words, Lefty Is an America Hating Cock Sucking Commie Bastard.

No wonder they are always so grumpy.

 

[TNHarley]

Pot is ILLEGAL
States rights dont matter when it is FEDERAL LAW. Your argument is redundant.
I have CLEARLY stated they should do away with it. I just dont support selective enforcement of our laws like you.

Passing a law legalizing pot at a Federal level doesn't make sense. First of all it will never get done because congress has forgotten how to get anything done and there is a large difference of opinion on a national level. Second, the "State" approach allows a tester to see how progressive agendas and laws will work before doing a nationwide roll out. CO and WA were the guinea pigs and gave a model of how revenue, regulation, crime, and operations will work. It gives the ability for states and communities to implement policies that perhaps other areas of our nation are not yet ready for. And it allows other states to see the effects and then decide if they want to implement as well. It is a smart way to roll out progressive agendas and how, I believe, our Republic is supposed to work. I also believe that as it grows it will eventually become Federal Law. I'm not implying that this is an easy black and white situation as we need to be careful about how these "rebel" laws effect other states, but it is a discussion worth having.

Passing a law legalizing weed? Are you even reading what i am writing? LOL WTF
They need to remove it from federal law and let the states decide. HOWEVER, selective enforcement of our Nations laws does nothing but invoke corruption.
Its STUPID.

Removing pot from federal law takes and act of congress and would result in legalizing it on a national level. Then all states would need to pass legislation detailing how they want to handle it. I'm fine with that happening but i'm saying it wont happen, there is too much bureaucracy in Washington.

they would have to amend the CSA. They need to remove it from the schedule drug list and be done. They dont need to legalize it. Thats needless.
Its retarded its even on there but big pharma and alcohol LOVE IT

It is the same thing! Removing it from the list legalizes it. It takes an act of congress. Why are we nit picking over this, do you not understand my point?

I know it will take congress. When you said they need to pass a law legalizing it, i just pictured another stupid law that complicates the issue further and probably has 10 tons of PORK in it.

 

[OKTexas]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

See how the far left continue to rerun their debunked religious narratives?

The War on poverty is a failure as well, that is why you far left drones support the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer..

The far left could not survive in a world where people can think for themselves and be independent of the government.

The war on poverty is quite different than the war on drugs, first of all it has not created a black market or criminal gangs.

The rest of you post is foolish too, but that too is for another thread.

The war on poverty and the war on drugs will never be won, the government insure adequate supplies of both are imported daily.


.

 

[sartre play]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

See how the far left continue to rerun their debunked religious narratives?

The War on poverty is a failure as well, that is why you far left drones support the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer..

The far left could not survive in a world where people can think for themselves and be independent of the government.

Wow, going for the deflection on the first post, thats Ballsy! How about you address the OP before you try and change the subject?

See how the far left reacts when you point out that their "wars" are failures?

The far left will always bash anything Trump. So why address someone that is a part of the far left religion and does not care about living in reality?

The far left is here to push their failed religious agenda and nothing else.

WTF X 2? War on drugs was started by Nixon. I'd say from your posts you're on something.

Nixon also ended the Vietnam war,

The first U.S. law that restricted the distribution and use of certain drugs was the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914.

See how the far left will rewrite history?

They are just here to push their religious agenda not connected to reality!

What? please check your facts. PS this new talking point about the left having a religious agenda, where did it come from? The fact is that left leaning & hard left have one thing in common they do not use religion to push there agenda, because they are comprised of people from every religion & many with no religion, but nature & learning

 

[Billy000]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

Jeff Sessions is a self-righteous sack of garbage.

 

[Slade3200]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

The Left is using Islam and Heroin from Afghanistan in conjunction with now Mexican Heroin and Illegal Aliens as Mules to ferry Heroin in to The United States.

The sole purpose of this is to destabilize our society, and corrupt American Culture and fragment This Country so that it will be more subsceptible to accepting Globalism, and be more willing to surrender it's freedoms and Sovereignty.

When you are fighting The War on Drugs, you are fighting The Taliban, ISIS, Al Queda, and Mexican Drug Cartels and Radical Leftist Fascist Groups.

It might not be a war we can win, but we can definitely slow down The Left's attempt to import cultural death in to The United States.

What do you think funds these terror groups and the cartel? Fighting a "war on drugs" just keeps us in a financially draining and never ending war. Burn the opium fields over seas and cut off their source of revenue. Legalize drugs domestically and turn the enormous expense of fighting a war into a profit center that defunds our enemy thins out our overcrowded jails and gives us resources for better education and rehabilitation. It is a much smarter way to handle our problems

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

See how the far left continue to rerun their debunked religious narratives?

The War on poverty is a failure as well, that is why you far left drones support the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer..

The far left could not survive in a world where people can think for themselves and be independent of the government.

Can't hardly tell which was the Bigger Loser: War on Drugs, Poverty or Terrorism

 

[Slade3200]

Passing a law legalizing pot at a Federal level doesn't make sense. First of all it will never get done because congress has forgotten how to get anything done and there is a large difference of opinion on a national level. Second, the "State" approach allows a tester to see how progressive agendas and laws will work before doing a nationwide roll out. CO and WA were the guinea pigs and gave a model of how revenue, regulation, crime, and operations will work. It gives the ability for states and communities to implement policies that perhaps other areas of our nation are not yet ready for. And it allows other states to see the effects and then decide if they want to implement as well. It is a smart way to roll out progressive agendas and how, I believe, our Republic is supposed to work. I also believe that as it grows it will eventually become Federal Law. I'm not implying that this is an easy black and white situation as we need to be careful about how these "rebel" laws effect other states, but it is a discussion worth having.

Passing a law legalizing weed? Are you even reading what i am writing? LOL WTF
They need to remove it from federal law and let the states decide. HOWEVER, selective enforcement of our Nations laws does nothing but invoke corruption.
Its STUPID.

Removing pot from federal law takes and act of congress and would result in legalizing it on a national level. Then all states would need to pass legislation detailing how they want to handle it. I'm fine with that happening but i'm saying it wont happen, there is too much bureaucracy in Washington.

they would have to amend the CSA. They need to remove it from the schedule drug list and be done. They dont need to legalize it. Thats needless.
Its retarded its even on there but big pharma and alcohol LOVE IT

It is the same thing! Removing it from the list legalizes it. It takes an act of congress. Why are we nit picking over this, do you not understand my point?

I know it will take congress. When you said they need to pass a law legalizing it, i just pictured another stupid law that complicates the issue further and probably has 10 tons of PORK in it.

Im not in vast disagreement with you. I understand that Federal Law trumps state law but I also understand that even reclassification of MJ in the CSA is a political statement that our pussy congress does not have the balls to make, so the problems will persist without any action. I respect the actions being taken by the states to do what is right and make a statement that is on path to change our federal law for the better. Thats unless Trump and Sessions screw it all up.

 

[BluesLegend]

Fine make all drugs legal, if a drug abuser commits a crime mandatory 20 years imprisonment.

 

[TNHarley]

Passing a law legalizing weed? Are you even reading what i am writing? LOL WTF
They need to remove it from federal law and let the states decide. HOWEVER, selective enforcement of our Nations laws does nothing but invoke corruption.
Its STUPID.

Removing pot from federal law takes and act of congress and would result in legalizing it on a national level. Then all states would need to pass legislation detailing how they want to handle it. I'm fine with that happening but i'm saying it wont happen, there is too much bureaucracy in Washington.

they would have to amend the CSA. They need to remove it from the schedule drug list and be done. They dont need to legalize it. Thats needless.
Its retarded its even on there but big pharma and alcohol LOVE IT

It is the same thing! Removing it from the list legalizes it. It takes an act of congress. Why are we nit picking over this, do you not understand my point?

I know it will take congress. When you said they need to pass a law legalizing it, i just pictured another stupid law that complicates the issue further and probably has 10 tons of PORK in it.

Im not in vast disagreement with you. I understand that Federal Law trumps state law but I also understand that even reclassification of MJ in the CSA is a political statement that our pussy congress does not have the balls to make, so the problems will persist without any action. I respect the actions being taken by the states to do what is right and make a statement that is on path to change our federal law for the better. Thats unless Trump and Sessions screw it all up.

Probably not. But that doesnt mean people should just go around ignoring laws they dont agree with.

 

[Slade3200]

Sessions on Drug Enforcement:

The war on drugs is a failure, it created a huge black market and criminal gangs, something our Pols should have known given the impact and example of alcohol prohibition.

Now the Attorney General wants to double down on MJ enforcement.

I voted No, primarily because :

The cost deficit of enforcement - arrest, detention, trial, attorney fees, prison or probation - far out paces the tax revenue which a state could use to provide treatment rather than punishment for drug and alcohol addicts.

See how the far left continue to rerun their debunked religious narratives?

The War on poverty is a failure as well, that is why you far left drones support the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer..

The far left could not survive in a world where people can think for themselves and be independent of the government.

Can't hardly tell which was the Bigger Loser: War on Drugs, Poverty or Terrorism

The war on drugs is a big source of the other two... perpetuates poverty and feeds terrorists

 

[Slade3200]

Fine make all drugs legal, if a drug abuser commits a crime mandatory 20 years imprisonment.

You did so good in the first half of that sentence but then you screwed it all up! Close though, i'll give you credit for that

 

[BluesLegend]

Fine make all drugs legal, if a drug abuser commits a crime mandatory 20 years imprisonment.

You did so good in the first half of that sentence but then you screwed it all up! Close though, i'll give you credit for that

I don't need drug tweaked losers breaking into my home stealing my property to support their habit or killing people on public roads and streets. So fine take all the drugs you want, but if you commit a crime you pay a heavy price. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Slade3200]

Removing pot from federal law takes and act of congress and would result in legalizing it on a national level. Then all states would need to pass legislation detailing how they want to handle it. I'm fine with that happening but i'm saying it wont happen, there is too much bureaucracy in Washington.

they would have to amend the CSA. They need to remove it from the schedule drug list and be done. They dont need to legalize it. Thats needless.
Its retarded its even on there but big pharma and alcohol LOVE IT

It is the same thing! Removing it from the list legalizes it. It takes an act of congress. Why are we nit picking over this, do you not understand my point?

I know it will take congress. When you said they need to pass a law legalizing it, i just pictured another stupid law that complicates the issue further and probably has 10 tons of PORK in it.

Im not in vast disagreement with you. I understand that Federal Law trumps state law but I also understand that even reclassification of MJ in the CSA is a political statement that our pussy congress does not have the balls to make, so the problems will persist without any action. I respect the actions being taken by the states to do what is right and make a statement that is on path to change our federal law for the better. Thats unless Trump and Sessions screw it all up.

Probably not. But that doesnt mean people should just go around ignoring laws they dont agree with.

The states have the right to make their own laws by the 10th amendment. They also have the right to decide which laws and regulations to enforce. The feds ultimately have the power to enforce federal laws but States are not required to enforce for them. As long as state laws are constitutional and not increasing restrictions over federal law then they are legit.

When a state law is in direct conflict with federal law, the federal law prevails. A state law can afford more rights to its residents than federal law, but is not meant to reduce or restrict the rights of a U.S. citizen.
Federal vs State Law - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

 

[OKTexas]

I voted yes and I think he should start with the State run cartels. He should seize the property of the growers and sellers and all taxes collected by the States. We are a nation of laws selective enforcement is not an option. You don't like a law get your congresscritters to change it.

.

We are also a Republic with states rights. Thats part of our law

You might want to remind the supreme court of that and your fellow regressives when they use the courts to over ride States wishes. You don't get to pick and chose, you buy it all or nothing.

.

The Pot law has to do with regulation it is not a constitutional issue unless you can show me where in the constitution it outlaws the use of pot. The supreme court deals with constitutional issues.

Show me where the Constitution gives the courts the authority to rewrite legislation, redefine marriage or any of the other myriad of other things they involve themselves with, including drug regulation.


.

Article 3 of the Constitution defines the powers of the Courts and gives Congress the power to organize it, which they did in the Judiciary Act of 1789

SECTION 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

SECTION 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

SECTION 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article 1, Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


The courts have no authority to rewrite or alter laws in any manner, that is left to congress. Also you didn't provide the authority the feds have over marriage, at least drugs can be covered under the interstate commerce clause.


.