Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What do you think?
Legalize nationally 132 57.89%
Ban nationally 20 8.77%
Let states decide; federal government shouldn't interfere 76 33.33%
Voters: 228. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-24-2017, 06:34 AM
 
3,458 posts, read 1,448,783 times
Reputation: 1755

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
It is already banned nationally. Obama admin refused to enforce the law, and so far Gump admin has also refused to enforce the laws to (contrary to what they promised).
Expect
We'll see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2017, 06:35 AM
 
Location: Inland FL
2,518 posts, read 1,840,919 times
Reputation: 4194
Legalize the freaking thing, No one has ever died off of it for crying out loud. It's just a plant, should be no different than a lettuce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2017, 06:37 AM
 
3,458 posts, read 1,448,783 times
Reputation: 1755
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristineVA View Post
Needs to be handled just like alcohol.
Agree. Who cares. It seems Trump leaves a lot of moral issues, recreational issues to the states. I'm thinking it signals that he could care less either way. Whatevah
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2017, 06:51 AM
 
45,135 posts, read 26,317,877 times
Reputation: 24869
Decriminalize all drugs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2017, 06:58 AM
 
8,081 posts, read 6,929,854 times
Reputation: 7978
Quote:
Originally Posted by GABESTA535 View Post
1. Why would he risk his already low popularity over something that's so popular with the public? In U.S., 58% Back Legal Marijuana Use | Gallup

2. Why did Spicer say medical marijuana is ok but recreational isn't? The federal government says marijuana has no medical uses (which I disagree with). So wouldn't accepting medical marijuana be selectively enforcing federal law as well?

3. This is will make Republicans and Trump even more unpopular with the millennial generation.

4. Republicans can forget about winning statewide elections in swing state Colorado and probably swing state Nevada (goodbye Dean Heller) as well for the foreseeable future if they go through with this.
He couched it as a big difference bewteeen Medical and Regular Pot. Many of the people who support this idea don't understand they're the exact same thing!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2017, 07:12 AM
 
7,293 posts, read 4,077,608 times
Reputation: 4670
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust View Post
Particularly when it comes to personal recreational marijuana use.
Thanks for posting the poll. It's interesting how many are in favor of at least decriminalizing recreational use at the national level, which definitely indicates that the notion enjoys widespread bi-partisan support.

At the very least, it should be up to the states to decide. Republicans usually take that stance. It's weird that the administration is moving the other way on this. Sessions?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2017, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Chicago Area
12,687 posts, read 6,711,133 times
Reputation: 6593
Quote:
Trump administration will enforce federal marijuana laws in states where recreational pot is legal.
This should make for interesting court cases. The limit of federal authority is regulating interstate commerce. If pot is grown in Colorado, sold in Colorado and smoked in Colorado, then that ain't interstate commerce. It's Colorado's business 100%.

That's by no means a certainty. The SCOTUS, POTUS and Congress have taken the very tiny power intended by the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution and expanded it to give them power over absolutely everything. Somehow they always manage to tie it to interstate commerce. Congress makes the law and the Supreme Court finds a way to make it fit. I'll be very curious to if and how they pull this one off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2017, 07:18 AM
 
8,081 posts, read 6,929,854 times
Reputation: 7978
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
This should make for interesting court cases. The limit of federal authority is regulating interstate commerce. If pot is grown in Colorado, sold in Colorado and smoked in Colorado, then that ain't interstate commerce. It's Colorado's business 100%.

That's by no means a certainty. The SCOTUS, POTUS and Congress have taken the very tiny power intended by the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution and expanded it to give them power over absolutely everything. Somehow they always manage to tie it to interstate commerce. Congress makes the law and the Supreme Court finds a way to make it fit. I'll be very curious to if and how they pull this one off.
It's already happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzal...ia.27s_opinion

Quote:
The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.
And that case was about a guy growing pot in his house for his own consumption. . .

Hope we all get to enjoy a Conservative SCOTUS
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2017, 07:26 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,974 posts, read 26,941,096 times
Reputation: 15644
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
This should make for interesting court cases. The limit of federal authority is regulating interstate commerce. If pot is grown in Colorado, sold in Colorado and smoked in Colorado, then that ain't interstate commerce. It's Colorado's business 100%.

That's by no means a certainty. The SCOTUS, POTUS and Congress have taken the very tiny power intended by the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution and expanded it to give them power over absolutely everything. Somehow they always manage to tie it to interstate commerce. Congress makes the law and the Supreme Court finds a way to make it fit. I'll be very curious to if and how they pull this one off.
Following this you could say the same about any drug. Are you sure you want that?
What I'd like to see happen is to have MJ reclassified as a schedule 2 narcotic to allow studies and legal prescribing by doctors as it does have medicinal purposes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2017, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Chicago Area
12,687 posts, read 6,711,133 times
Reputation: 6593
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
Following this you could say the same about any drug. Are you sure you want that?
What I'd like to see happen is to have MJ reclassified as a schedule 2 narcotic to allow studies and legal prescribing by doctors as it does have medicinal purposes.
My bigger picture view is pretty simple: The governments in the United States (be it federal, state or local) need to decide whether it is the duty of government to protect people from themselves.

If the answer is, "Yes!" then we need to reinstitute Prohibition, ban tobacco and outlaw every recreational human activity that is inherently dangerous to the health and well-being of participants. Skydiving, rock/mountain climbing, competitive sports ... you have to look at all of these things and countless others. If anyone ever gets hurt, you then by this ideology you need to at least strongly consider banning it.

If the answer is, "No!" then if a junkie wants to wreck himself or herself on heroine and isn't hurting or endangering anyone else, then they get to do that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:51 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top