Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing, it is OK the way it is - ideally, I'd like the DEA to take marijuana off the Schedule I list, but I can live with the Holder agreement. What I'm worried about is that Sessions DOES NOT like it the way it is, has refused to say that he will continue the Holder agreement, and has said that he does not agree with Trump exactly on all issues.
Why should we?
Hasn't Trump said he's going to repeal all of Obama's EOs?
Has either Trump or Sessions said they would abide by the Holder agreement? They've been asked whether they would and have dodged the question.
Have any congress critters said they would look into changing drug laws to allow for recreational marijuana use? Has either Trump or Sessions said they would welcome and/or support such a move?
Exactly what did we do other than try to read tea leaves? Please - feel free to refute, WITH EVIDENCE, that our concerns are baseless.
I don't want to put words in Waldo's mouth and wouldn't pretend to but I've gone back and forth with him enough to get the sense he's looking at this more on principles rather than 'for or against' weed. I just have the impression that he's as put off by the hypocrisy of revoking the states rights card when it's convenient as he is with automatic assumptions that counter what has or has not been stated by Trump/Sessions.
Personally I think you're concerns are not at all unfounded. I too think legalization will be rescinded, but I also know based on living in Oregon part-time, Trump/Sessions better have the National Guard on speed dial if they try and roll back on the will of that state's citizens.
I am hoping Trump will decriminalize marijuana... it would be a very smart move...
Trump can't do that, only Congress can, and I doubt THIS congress will do that.
Trump can, however, announce that the Holder agreement will remain in effect. If you've heard him say he will do that, then please let the rest of us know.
I don't want to put words in Waldo's mouth and wouldn't pretend to but I've gone back and forth with him enough to get the sense he's looking at this more on principles rather than 'for or against' weed. I just have the impression that he's as put off by the hypocrisy of revoking the states rights card when it's convenient as he is with automatic assumptions that counter what has or has not been stated by Trump/Sessions.
Personally I think you're concerns are not at all unfounded. I too think legalization will be rescinded, but I also know based on living in Oregon part-time, Trump/Sessions better have the National Guard on speed dial if they try and roll back on the will of that state's citizens.
YMMV
Here's the thing. I believe that Trump has made it clear, repeatedly, that he's less interested in political dogma and more interested in making the "deal" in terms of doing what's right by the American people.
So with that said the question, given what you said, is this. What's the "deal" for burning a pile of political capital to enforce Federal Law in places like Oregon? I'm not seeing it.
Think of it in those terms and it starts to become very clear.
As a side.... Trump apparently has no issues with legalization. He's gone as far in the past in saying the Feds should get completely out of the enforcement business.
I don't want to put words in Waldo's mouth and wouldn't pretend to but I've gone back and forth with him enough to get the sense he's looking at this more on principles rather than 'for or against' weed. I just have the impression that he's as put off by the hypocrisy of revoking the states rights card when it's convenient as he is with automatic assumptions that counter what has or has not been stated by Trump/Sessions.
Personally I think you're concerns are not at all unfounded. I too think legalization will be rescinded, but I also know based on living in Oregon part-time, Trump/Sessions better have the National Guard on speed dial if they try and roll back on the will of that state's citizens.
YMMV
I agree, and you could add Washington, California, and Colorado to that list. That's a huge chunk of voters to alienate.
But I would feel a lot better if either Trump or Sessions plainly stated that they will abide by the Holder agreement. They've each been offered the opportunity to say so - but they haven't.
I agree, and you could add Washington, California, and Colorado to that list. That's a huge chunk of voters to alienate.
But I would feel a lot better if either Trump or Sessions plainly stated that they will abide by the Holder agreement. They've each been offered the opportunity to say so - but they haven't.
All those states went blue... not really alienating the voters anymore.
Trump can't do that, only Congress can, and I doubt THIS congress will do that.
Trump can, however, announce that the Holder agreement will remain in effect. If you've heard him say he will do that, then please let the rest of us know.
I agree, decriminalization would be a smart move.
The president can have the DEA move it out of Schedule I, which would make it much less illegal.
The blue states are not blue nor are they economically stronger because of marijuana. Washington had no state income tax and has been a successful state economically before it was legalized. The legalizations has been relatively new. I have never even tried it once, just not interested, but I voted for it's legalization because I think long prison sentences for it are silly.
And destroy the republican party during not only the midterm election but the next presidential election. I'll never get republican's aversion to weed... if they are supposedly the party of "freedom" why not legalize it and tax it? Why are so many republicans borderline alcoholics but then go bonkers over weed? You want to stick it to potheads, generate tax revenue from them not just on the state level but the federal level. So many problems would be solved and revenue generated from this.
Since I don't really do weed or drink alcohol, I wouldn't be bothered if they banned both weed and alcohol to be consistent, but I don't support this because I support personal liberty... plus the nightmare that would be created from banning alcohol.. driving it underground...
If there's a big pothead backlash over a federally-based crackdown, that would have the ideal effect of not only sabotaging the Republicans, but making things tougher for the sellers and users.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
