Biden Admin Weeds Out White House Stoners

[woodwork201]

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.

There are things you just don't admit.

Like when your Dr asks you how much you drink or if there is a gun in your house

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

If you're stupid enough to lie to the FBI about this, you deserve to be fired. Just ask General Flynn what happens when you lie to the FBI.

If they aren't making you piss in a cup then even the Feebs won't be able to prove anything

That's exactly the attitude that got these fools fired in the first place. Those who do not learn from their mistakes, are condemned to repeat them.

no they got fired because they were stupid and admitted they smoked weed voluntarily

The people who got fired weren't the ones who admitted to smoking weed. They're the ones who lied about it and their FBI security investigation revealled they were lying.

Biden administration removes dozens of staffers from White House who admitted to using cannabis in states where it's legal despite telling them they would NOT be punished

Exactly correct. Unless a person admits to being a grass head, there would be no way the FBI or anyone else would know that they were.

And since the staffers were so stupid, so dense , to realize that the correct answer was "no" to marijuana usage, they deserved fired.

What could these people have been thinking when they saw the question? That the WH offers free pot and they wanted to know how much to order?

It wasn't a trick

You're wrong. They send people to actually talk to friends and neighbors. There's a reasonable probability that they'd find out you lied if you lied. That's up to 5 years in prison.

 

[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.

The others are the very ones I don't want entrusted with our nations secrets or foreign policy. They can work a job where it won't matter much if they FU.

.

That eliminates most of the population. You don't want impaired people working on machinery or operating vehicles more than you don't want them implementing policy.

So you don't mind impaired people making policy? Think about that. You must really love the policies set by xiden, a perfect example of an impaired person making policy.

.

I'd rather have "impaired" competent people doing it than straight edge lefty assholes doing it.

Sorry, but the sitcom "one puff makes you a druggie" bullshit doesn't work for me.

 

[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.

Look, the undeniable truth is fact....by and large it’s the poor, the ignorant, the young and unmotivated whom are smoking weed...it’s really no secret. Grown, productive, smart people who smoke don’t champion the lifestyle and can’t care less if it’s legal or not.

The REAL stoners:

The people stoners want you to think are stoners:

It's the old apples vs. fruit argument. Just because apples are fruit, doesn't mean all apples are fruit. I toke up on my camping trip every year, and sometimes if my friends are doing it. Some people can't handle it or control themselves.

To me MMO games like World of Warcraft are a much greater addiction issue.

 

[woodwork201]

So you don't mind impaired people making policy? Think about that. You must really love the policies set by xiden, a perfect example of an impaired person making policy.

The only impaired person that we know to be impaired in the Biden Whitehouse is Biden. You assume that because people admit to having smoked marijuana in the past they're impaired today? What about people who drink a half bottle of Johnny Walker Blue at night? Are they impaired? It doesn't seem that you're nearly as concerned about impairment as you are just against marijuana.

 

[Polishprince]

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.

There are things you just don't admit.

Like when your Dr asks you how much you drink or if there is a gun in your house

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

If you're stupid enough to lie to the FBI about this, you deserve to be fired. Just ask General Flynn what happens when you lie to the FBI.

If they aren't making you piss in a cup then even the Feebs won't be able to prove anything

That's exactly the attitude that got these fools fired in the first place. Those who do not learn from their mistakes, are condemned to repeat them.

no they got fired because they were stupid and admitted they smoked weed voluntarily

The people who got fired weren't the ones who admitted to smoking weed. They're the ones who lied about it and their FBI security investigation revealled they were lying.

Biden administration removes dozens of staffers from White House who admitted to using cannabis in states where it's legal despite telling them they would NOT be punished

Exactly correct. Unless a person admits to being a grass head, there would be no way the FBI or anyone else would know that they were.

And since the staffers were so stupid, so dense , to realize that the correct answer was "no" to marijuana usage, they deserved fired.

What could these people have been thinking when they saw the question? That the WH offers free pot and they wanted to know how much to order?

It wasn't a trick

You're wrong. They send people to actually talk to friends and neighbors. There's a reasonable probability that they'd find out you lied if you lied. That's up to 5 years in prison.

What kind of person would snitch to the FBI about their friend? No friends of mine, I'll tell you that.

 

[woodwork201]

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"?

Anyone who supports the Constitution, any so-called conservative, should be standing up for the druggies. We used to day, and some still say it while not really meaning it, I hate what you say (or do) but I'll fight to the death do defend your right to say (or do) it. Those are empty words today.

>Anyone who supports the Constitution, any so-called conservative, should be standing up for the druggies. We used to day, and some still say it while not really meaning it, I hate what you say (or do) but I'll fight to the death do defend your right to say (or do) it. Those are empty words today.

It's an interesting point, but some drugs are plain bad, like meth. Some can be used in moderation, and it is arguable whether or not occasional recreational use off the job is an issue - everyone has their own opinions, and not every job is the same.

Regarding constitutionality, it is completely constitutional to restrict behaviors that the citizens, via their legislatures, consider to be undesirable, unless it conflicts with a fundamental right like freedom of expression, assembly, religion, arms, and such.

You claiming religion or expression ?

Meth is pretty much just a concentrated form of the drug your doctor gives you. Doctors are a large reason people get hooked on Meth.

> Meth is pretty much just a concentrated form of the drug your doctor gives you. Doctors are a large reason people get hooked on Meth.

While that is true of people moving to heroin after prescription opioid addiction, I have not heard the same about meth.

When I was on jury duty, we had more than one meth head brought in to testify. Some were in orange jumpsuits and chains. They were a physical and psychological mess. They discussed how meth quickly destroyed their lives, going from having a career and owning a home to a life of homelessness, prostitution, and other crimes.

It all started for them as one night of partying, with meth helping them stay up all night. 18 months later, they are in orange jumpsuits and chains, and testifying in a federal case.

There is zero chance that I would ever support legalization for drugs like meth.

Regards,
Jim

Do you support making paint and gasoline illegal? People use those for mind altering effects, as well.

You wouldn't mind sharing the constitutional authority for the Congress to make meth illegal, would you?

>Do you support making paint and gasoline illegal? People use those for mind altering effects, as well.
>You wouldn't mind sharing the constitutional authority for the Congress to make meth illegal, would you?

Hi, again. I have already covered this, and have nothing further to add, so please stop asking basically the same question over and over again with regard to Constitutional authority. I answered you. Sorry, if you are dissatisfied with my answer.

Just as you have distorted my position to the point of absurdity with a strawman argument, one could say that your position is that Congress does not have the power to make laws that ban anything, or the power to make most laws that they have already made and are enforced throughout our country currently. That's absurd, but I wonder if you might actually support that strawman.

Regards,
Jim

No, you didn't answer the question. I provided the context that you ignored and proves beyond any doubt, whatsoever, that what you quoted as authority was not at all the authority you claim it is.

So, the real answer is that you don't know where in the Constitution they get the authority to regulate pot, you just want them to do it. The Constitution be damned, you want what you want.

So how do you feel about guns? Or trials? Or cruel and unusual punishment? Or free speech? Those are all OK with you, too?

Edit: Nothing I said implies that Congress does not have the authority to make any law at all. Are you really going to say that the choices are they have no authority to make any law at all or that they have the authority to make any law they choose?

You don't agree that the actual choice is that they have the authority to make any law within the power granted by the Constitution but no authority at all to make a law beyond what's provided for in the Constitution?

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

So you don't mind impaired people making policy? Think about that. You must really love the policies set by xiden, a perfect example of an impaired person making policy.

The only impaired person that we know to be impaired in the Biden Whitehouse is Biden. You assume that because people admit to having smoked marijuana in the past they're impaired today? What about people who drink a half bottle of Johnny Walker Blue at night? Are they impaired? It doesn't seem that you're nearly as concerned about impairment as you are just against marijuana.

I think you are over-simplifying things.

Prior drug use, when it was illegal, does go to character and trustworthiness, to a huge extent. I understand you think pot should have never been illegal, but it was, and people knowing violated the law. Past history of crimes, even petty crimes like shoplifting, long ago, if done more than once, can be a DQ for a security clearance.

There are better-qaulified candidates available without such histories. There is normally a competition for such jobs. Just like getting D's in school long ago can affect the rest of your life.

Even too many traffic tickets can be a DQ for LEOs.

Sold dope once in your life over ten years ago? You might not be the best candidate. Twice? Why are you here?

Yes, the standards can be very high for certain jobs. Sorry if you don't like it. I kind of like high standards. Most police officers have exceptional backgrounds and serve with honor, intergity, and occasional bravery and selfless kindness. Yet they are demonized by much of society. Imagine if LE hiring standards were lowered?

Regards,
Jim

 

[woodwork201]

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.

There are things you just don't admit.

Like when your Dr asks you how much you drink or if there is a gun in your house

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

If you're stupid enough to lie to the FBI about this, you deserve to be fired. Just ask General Flynn what happens when you lie to the FBI.

If they aren't making you piss in a cup then even the Feebs won't be able to prove anything

That's exactly the attitude that got these fools fired in the first place. Those who do not learn from their mistakes, are condemned to repeat them.

no they got fired because they were stupid and admitted they smoked weed voluntarily

The people who got fired weren't the ones who admitted to smoking weed. They're the ones who lied about it and their FBI security investigation revealled they were lying.

Biden administration removes dozens of staffers from White House who admitted to using cannabis in states where it's legal despite telling them they would NOT be punished

Exactly correct. Unless a person admits to being a grass head, there would be no way the FBI or anyone else would know that they were.

And since the staffers were so stupid, so dense , to realize that the correct answer was "no" to marijuana usage, they deserved fired.

What could these people have been thinking when they saw the question? That the WH offers free pot and they wanted to know how much to order?

It wasn't a trick

You're wrong. They send people to actually talk to friends and neighbors. There's a reasonable probability that they'd find out you lied if you lied. That's up to 5 years in prison.

What kind of person would snitch to the FBI about their friend? No friends of mine, I'll tell you that.

I said friends and neighbors. And friends snitch all the time. Maybe a friend who fears going to prison for lying to the FBI. Or maybe a friend who is a right-wing authoritarian and gets the idea that a pot head making policy is bad for the country and feels like, in spite of their friendship, their view of what's good for the country comes first?

Do you really want to risk 5 years in federal prison over a job, any job?

 

[woodwork201]

So you don't mind impaired people making policy? Think about that. You must really love the policies set by xiden, a perfect example of an impaired person making policy.

The only impaired person that we know to be impaired in the Biden Whitehouse is Biden. You assume that because people admit to having smoked marijuana in the past they're impaired today? What about people who drink a half bottle of Johnny Walker Blue at night? Are they impaired? It doesn't seem that you're nearly as concerned about impairment as you are just against marijuana.

I think you are over-simplifying things.

Prior drug use, when it was illegal, does go to character and trustworthiness, to a huge extent. I understand you think pot should have never been illegal, but it was, and people knowing violated the law. Past history of crimes, even petty crimes like shoplifting, long ago, if done more than once, can be a DQ for a security clearance.

There are better-qaulified candidates available without such histories. There is normally a competition for such jobs. Just like getting D's in school long ago can affect the rest of your life.

Even too many traffic tickets can be a DQ for LEOs.

Sold dope once in your life over ten years ago? You might not be the best candidate? Twice? Why are you here?

Yes, the standards can be very high for certain jobs. Sorry if you don't like it. I kind of like high standards. Most police officers have exceptional backgrounds and serve with honor, intergity, and occasional bravery and selfless kindness. Yet they are demonized by much of society. Imagine if LE hiring standards were lowered?

Regards,
Jim

Context is difficult for you, isn't it? Or is it reading comprehension overall?

I didn't say whether or not they should have been fired. I didn't say whether or not people who smoked pot in the past should get government jobs.

The question from OKTexas was whether we want impaired people making policy - and the only context for impairment in the discussion was that they said they previously used marijuana, not that they said they use it now.

So I responded with a two-pronged reply: first pointing out that he has no evidence of current impairment and that there's a possibility, likelihood even, that there are people impaired from alcohol making policy.

I know my posts are long but please take time to read them carefully; you'll learn shit.

 

[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.

.

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.

The others are the very ones I don't want entrusted with our nations secrets or foreign policy. They can work a job where it won't matter much if they FU.

.

That eliminates most of the population. You don't want impaired people working on machinery or operating vehicles more than you don't want them implementing policy.

So you don't mind impaired people making policy? Think about that. You must really love the policies set by xiden, a perfect example of an impaired person making policy.

Your assumption that people in policy decision making jobs are smoking at work or during work hours. As a person who has used weed regularly for the past 20 years, I didn't ever go to work after smoking, or attempt to close transactions "under the influence".

This wrong headed notion that weed smokers are all "Cheech and Chong" type stoners, should remember that both Cheech and Chong have had very successful 50+ years careers in show business, as well as successful business interests outside of their stand-up comedy, recordings, song writing, voice-over roles, acting, singing, and dancing, that have earned both of them millions of dollars. Cheech is worth $30 million, and Chong $20 million. These "lazy stoners" could be retired, smoking weed by the pool but they're both still working. Tommy Chong appeared on Dancing With The Stars a few seasons back.

Smoking pot isn't like drinking. It isn't addictive, nor does it poison the body, or destroy your organs. One ounce - 28 grams of high quality pot lasts me 5 weeks. That's less than 1 gram per day - about 3/4 of a joint. It relieves my arthritis pain, providing me with more range of movement, letting me be more active and productive, and it relieves my insomnia, allowing me to sleep through the night, most nights.

Noted Hollywood "stoners", Brad Pitt and Matthew McConaughey are both acting, producing, running charities, raising families, doing commercials, winning Oscars, and are worth $300 million and $150 million each.

When you start listing the names of hardest working, and richest people people in the world, a surprisingly large number of smart, successful, and rich people, smoke pot.

ROFLMFAO, and I wouldn't trust anyone of the lot to decide if this country goes to war or not.

BTW the CDC doesn't agree that pot smoking isn't harmful to the body or isn't addictive.

Health Effects | Marijuana | CDC

CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

.

 

[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.

The others are the very ones I don't want entrusted with our nations secrets or foreign policy. They can work a job where it won't matter much if they FU.

.

That eliminates most of the population. You don't want impaired people working on machinery or operating vehicles more than you don't want them implementing policy.

So you don't mind impaired people making policy? Think about that. You must really love the policies set by xiden, a perfect example of an impaired person making policy.

Your assumption that people in policy decision making jobs are smoking at work or during work hours. As a person who has used weed regularly for the past 20 years, I didn't ever go to work after smoking, or attempt to close transactions "under the influence".

This wrong headed notion that weed smokers are all "Cheech and Chong" type stoners, should remember that both Cheech and Chong have had very successful 50+ years careers in show business, as well as successful business interests outside of their stand-up comedy, recordings, song writing, voice-over roles, acting, singing, and dancing, that have earned both of them millions of dollars. Cheech is worth $30 million, and Chong $20 million. These "lazy stoners" could be retired, smoking weed by the pool but they're both still working. Tommy Chong appeared on Dancing With The Stars a few seasons back.

Smoking pot isn't like drinking. It isn't addictive, nor does it poison the body, or destroy your organs. One ounce - 28 grams of high quality pot lasts me 5 weeks. That's less than 1 gram per day - about 3/4 of a joint. It relieves my arthritis pain, providing me with more range of movement, letting me be more active and productive, and it relieves my insomnia, allowing me to sleep through the night, most nights.

Noted Hollywood "stoners", Brad Pitt and Matthew McConaughey are both acting, producing, running charities, raising families, doing commercials, winning Oscars, and are worth $300 million and $150 million each.

When you start listing the names of hardest working, and richest people people in the world, a surprisingly large number of smart, successful, and rich people, smoke pot.

ROFLMFAO, and I wouldn't trust anyone of the lot to decide if this country goes to war or not.

BTW the CDC doesn't agree that pot smoking isn't harmful to the body or isn't addictive.

Health Effects | Marijuana | CDC

CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

.

The CDC is also all over the place on COVID things.

 

[woodwork201]

It's the old apples vs. fruit argument. Just because apples are fruit, doesn't mean all apples are fruit.

Actually, apples are fruit and all apples are fruit.

I think you meant to say that just because apples are fruit doesn't mean that all fruit are apples.

 

[woodwork201]

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.

The others are the very ones I don't want entrusted with our nations secrets or foreign policy. They can work a job where it won't matter much if they FU.

.

That eliminates most of the population. You don't want impaired people working on machinery or operating vehicles more than you don't want them implementing policy.

So you don't mind impaired people making policy? Think about that. You must really love the policies set by xiden, a perfect example of an impaired person making policy.

Your assumption that people in policy decision making jobs are smoking at work or during work hours. As a person who has used weed regularly for the past 20 years, I didn't ever go to work after smoking, or attempt to close transactions "under the influence".

This wrong headed notion that weed smokers are all "Cheech and Chong" type stoners, should remember that both Cheech and Chong have had very successful 50+ years careers in show business, as well as successful business interests outside of their stand-up comedy, recordings, song writing, voice-over roles, acting, singing, and dancing, that have earned both of them millions of dollars. Cheech is worth $30 million, and Chong $20 million. These "lazy stoners" could be retired, smoking weed by the pool but they're both still working. Tommy Chong appeared on Dancing With The Stars a few seasons back.

Smoking pot isn't like drinking. It isn't addictive, nor does it poison the body, or destroy your organs. One ounce - 28 grams of high quality pot lasts me 5 weeks. That's less than 1 gram per day - about 3/4 of a joint. It relieves my arthritis pain, providing me with more range of movement, letting me be more active and productive, and it relieves my insomnia, allowing me to sleep through the night, most nights.

Noted Hollywood "stoners", Brad Pitt and Matthew McConaughey are both acting, producing, running charities, raising families, doing commercials, winning Oscars, and are worth $300 million and $150 million each.

When you start listing the names of hardest working, and richest people people in the world, a surprisingly large number of smart, successful, and rich people, smoke pot.

ROFLMFAO, and I wouldn't trust anyone of the lot to decide if this country goes to war or not.

BTW the CDC doesn't agree that pot smoking isn't harmful to the body or isn't addictive.

Health Effects | Marijuana | CDC

CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

.

The CDC is also all over the place on COVID things.

They're a political organization.

If they say pot is dangerous, they might be giving their personal opinion because Biden hasn't yet given them their scientific opinion.

So we’re just not — she — the — Dr. Walensky spoke to this in her personal capacity. Obviously, she’s the head of the CDC, but we’re going to wait for the final guidance to come out so we can use that as a guide for schools around the country.

 

[OKTexas]

Which enumerated power would give Congress the right to ban alcohol or marijuana?

Well the feds gave up on alcohol with the repeal of prohibition, and the commerce clause probably gives them the ability to declare drugs as part of schedule I, which controls the sale of the drugs.

Why, if the government had the authority to ban alcohol using the commerce clause, did they go to the trouble of two constitutional amendments?

There are those (perhaps you?) that believe the commerce clause give Congress complete power to regulate any thing that is traded, not just trade between the states and trade with other nations or tribes. That's a made up interpretation, made up, unconstitutionally, by the Supreme Court. There was most definitely no such intent when the Constitution was written.

"The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause" by Randy E. Barnett

The U& Supreme Court, in recent cases; has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this...

scholarship.law.georgetown.edu

And one of the best modern analyses is David Fortes' paper:

Commerce, Commerce, Everywhere: The Uses and Abuses of the Commerce Clause

Over the course of the last decades, the commerce clause has been used as a primary source for the regulatory expansion of the national government. This reading of the clause, granting virtually unlimited regulatory power over the economy to the federal government, came out of a series of...

www.heritage.org

And another:

Interpretation: The Commerce Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Commerce Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

No; the Commerce Clause does not give the Government the authority to regulate drugs.

The fact that drugs are bought and sold internationally and interstate says you're wrong.

.

 

[Circe]

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

Yeah, this is very confusing. I thought pot-smoking was supposed to be the great new thing everyone was supposed to be doing these days? It's getting legalized all over fast and yet they're throwing out staffers who smoked pot?

Doesn't make sense, unless it's really just a way to easily get rid of people they don't want there anyway.

 

[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.

.

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.

The others are the very ones I don't want entrusted with our nations secrets or foreign policy. They can work a job where it won't matter much if they FU.

.

That eliminates most of the population. You don't want impaired people working on machinery or operating vehicles more than you don't want them implementing policy.

So you don't mind impaired people making policy? Think about that. You must really love the policies set by xiden, a perfect example of an impaired person making policy.

.

I'd rather have "impaired" competent people doing it than straight edge lefty assholes doing it.

Sorry, but the sitcom "one puff makes you a druggie" bullshit doesn't work for me.

In what world does "impaired" and "competent" go together? Also I never said one puff makes you a druggie.

.

 

[OKTexas]

So you don't mind impaired people making policy? Think about that. You must really love the policies set by xiden, a perfect example of an impaired person making policy.

The only impaired person that we know to be impaired in the Biden Whitehouse is Biden. You assume that because people admit to having smoked marijuana in the past they're impaired today? What about people who drink a half bottle of Johnny Walker Blue at night? Are they impaired? It doesn't seem that you're nearly as concerned about impairment as you are just against marijuana.

I've addressed both in earlier posts, perhaps you shouldn't jump into the middle of a thread. Makes you look weird.

.

 

[MisterBeale]

Which enumerated power would give Congress the right to ban alcohol or marijuana?

Well the feds gave up on alcohol with the repeal of prohibition, and the commerce clause probably gives them the ability to declare drugs as part of schedule I, which controls the sale of the drugs.

Why, if the government had the authority to ban alcohol using the commerce clause, did they go to the trouble of two constitutional amendments?

There are those (perhaps you?) that believe the commerce clause give Congress complete power to regulate any thing that is traded, not just trade between the states and trade with other nations or tribes. That's a made up interpretation, made up, unconstitutionally, by the Supreme Court. There was most definitely no such intent when the Constitution was written.

"The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause" by Randy E. Barnett

The U& Supreme Court, in recent cases; has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this...

scholarship.law.georgetown.edu

And one of the best modern analyses is David Fortes' paper:

Commerce, Commerce, Everywhere: The Uses and Abuses of the Commerce Clause

Over the course of the last decades, the commerce clause has been used as a primary source for the regulatory expansion of the national government. This reading of the clause, granting virtually unlimited regulatory power over the economy to the federal government, came out of a series of...

www.heritage.org

And another:

Interpretation: The Commerce Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Commerce Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

No; the Commerce Clause does not give the Government the authority to regulate drugs.

I have agreed with just about everything that you have posted in this thread.

. . . and I too, tend to have Libertarian leanings, and you do not need to convince me, that it is disingenuous of the central government to claim that the Commerce Clause is over used every law and bureaucratic agency it creates.

BUT, with that said, if you study government at any University, you will discover, since the Civil War, THAT IS what the majority of the power grabs of the central government has been based on.

As recently as 2005, this Pot issue has gone before the courts, and the Feds have maintained their right to primacy over it, of course, via the Commerce Clause.

GONZALES v. RAICH [03-1454]

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

If it were not for the Commerce Clause, there would not be so many different cabinet posts in the administration. It is used for every excuse under the sun to pass laws by Congress. What gives them the right to do "health care reform?" General Welfare? Seriously?


Health-Care Reform and the Constitution
Why hasn't the Commerce Clause been read to allow interstate insurance sales?

Andrew Napolitano: Health-Care Reform and the Constitution

In The Wall Street Journal, Andrew Napolitano argues that President Obama and Congress are violating the Constitution in their attempt to pass federal health care.

www.wsj.com

Posted on October 26, 2018 by Paul Engel
General Welfare Clause

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

General Welfare Clause

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; Article I, Section…

constitutionstudy.com

The US is not a government, it is a corporation.

. . it's just how things are, debating it, wishing it were different, isn't going to change that the system runs on money and power, not ideals anymore, if it ever really did at all.

 

[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.

.

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.

The others are the very ones I don't want entrusted with our nations secrets or foreign policy. They can work a job where it won't matter much if they FU.

.

That eliminates most of the population. You don't want impaired people working on machinery or operating vehicles more than you don't want them implementing policy.

So you don't mind impaired people making policy? Think about that. You must really love the policies set by xiden, a perfect example of an impaired person making policy.

Your assumption that people in policy decision making jobs are smoking at work or during work hours. As a person who has used weed regularly for the past 20 years, I didn't ever go to work after smoking, or attempt to close transactions "under the influence".

This wrong headed notion that weed smokers are all "Cheech and Chong" type stoners, should remember that both Cheech and Chong have had very successful 50+ years careers in show business, as well as successful business interests outside of their stand-up comedy, recordings, song writing, voice-over roles, acting, singing, and dancing, that have earned both of them millions of dollars. Cheech is worth $30 million, and Chong $20 million. These "lazy stoners" could be retired, smoking weed by the pool but they're both still working. Tommy Chong appeared on Dancing With The Stars a few seasons back.

Smoking pot isn't like drinking. It isn't addictive, nor does it poison the body, or destroy your organs. One ounce - 28 grams of high quality pot lasts me 5 weeks. That's less than 1 gram per day - about 3/4 of a joint. It relieves my arthritis pain, providing me with more range of movement, letting me be more active and productive, and it relieves my insomnia, allowing me to sleep through the night, most nights.

Noted Hollywood "stoners", Brad Pitt and Matthew McConaughey are both acting, producing, running charities, raising families, doing commercials, winning Oscars, and are worth $300 million and $150 million each.

When you start listing the names of hardest working, and richest people people in the world, a surprisingly large number of smart, successful, and rich people, smoke pot.

ROFLMFAO, and I wouldn't trust anyone of the lot to decide if this country goes to war or not.

BTW the CDC doesn't agree that pot smoking isn't harmful to the body or isn't addictive.

Health Effects | Marijuana | CDC

CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S.

www.cdc.gov

.

The CDC is also all over the place on COVID things.

They've been looking at marijuana use a lot longer than covid. And they cite studies done by others in the link.

.

 

[woodwork201]

Which enumerated power would give Congress the right to ban alcohol or marijuana?

Well the feds gave up on alcohol with the repeal of prohibition, and the commerce clause probably gives them the ability to declare drugs as part of schedule I, which controls the sale of the drugs.

Why, if the government had the authority to ban alcohol using the commerce clause, did they go to the trouble of two constitutional amendments?

There are those (perhaps you?) that believe the commerce clause give Congress complete power to regulate any thing that is traded, not just trade between the states and trade with other nations or tribes. That's a made up interpretation, made up, unconstitutionally, by the Supreme Court. There was most definitely no such intent when the Constitution was written.

"The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause" by Randy E. Barnett

The U& Supreme Court, in recent cases; has attempted to define limits on the Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several states. While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this...

scholarship.law.georgetown.edu

And one of the best modern analyses is David Fortes' paper:

Commerce, Commerce, Everywhere: The Uses and Abuses of the Commerce Clause

Over the course of the last decades, the commerce clause has been used as a primary source for the regulatory expansion of the national government. This reading of the clause, granting virtually unlimited regulatory power over the economy to the federal government, came out of a series of...

www.heritage.org

And another:

Interpretation: The Commerce Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Commerce Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

No; the Commerce Clause does not give the Government the authority to regulate drugs.

The fact that drugs are bought and sold internationally and interstate says you're wrong.

.

If I were to grow pot in my own yard and not trade it or sell it, then it's not covered by the commerce clause.