Maybe not, but he seems to be the one changing the direction of the DOJ in regards to legal cannabis in the states. In the end, though, it is a failure of the federal government as a whole that has allowed him to do so.
I am pretty conservative on a lot of things, but the war on drugs and the hangup on weed is so fucking dumb. States should definitely be able to decide how they want to handle this, as per what their constituents want. The classification of weed as 0 medicinal purpose and all the other shit is such garbage.
On the topic, did anyone watch the Profit weed episode with Marcus Lemonis going to Humbolt county california where weed farming basically started and is continuing? Pretty interesting and huge sums of money involved.
posted by iclfan2States should definitely be able to decide how they want to handle this, as per what their constituents want.
The [sadly] hilarious thing is if you look at this vs. gun control. Conservative think the Fed should battle drugs, but no regulate guns. Liberals think the Fed should regulate guns, but leave drugs to the states.
When you start looking at the inconsistencies on the Dem/Repub platforms (not to mention how actual legislation aligns - or doesn't align or exist - with those platforms) it's kind of hard to take any of this seriously.
Even if the Dems controlled all 3 branches - and they did not long ago - they won't do anything because marijuana is still a losing issue in most conservative and swing states.
posted by justincredibleMaybe not, but he seems to be the one changing the direction of the DOJ in regards to legal cannabis in the states. In the end, though, it is a failure of the federal government as a whole that has allowed him to do so.
It's never been legal with regard to the feds...at least not for a very long time now. Sessions believes federal law should be changed to accomodate States who want it to be legal and doesn't believe that it's the Feds responsibility to over see such things.....but he continues to carry out the responsibility he's been tasked with.
posted by gutThe [sadly] hilarious thing is if you look at this vs. gun control. Conservative think the Fed should battle drugs, but no regulate guns. Liberals think the Fed should regulate guns, but leave drugs to the states.
I figured someone would bring up guns. The difference is the constitution makes it a federal gov thing, and also states that everyone has a right to own them. It isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison. California is in the process of getting sued for their gun laws that are stopping people from being able to buy ammo, which has already been found as unconstitutional.
I personally think tax dollars spent on "the war on drugs" was a complete waste, and weed should be legalized and taxed. I fail to see how it is worse than alcohol or cigarrettes and is a huge taxable base being wasted.
posted by justincrediblehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Overreach.
How was the Agicultural Adjustment Act which attempted to control purely intrastate agricultural production due to its effects on the national markets substantively different from the Second Bank of the United States signed into law by James Madison - one of the two original tea partiers along with Thomas Jefferson - for the purpose of controlling purely intrastate issuance of private bank notes due to the effects they had on national markets?
In other words, your claim and the claim is generally that New Deal laws in a time of great national crisis due to WWII and the great depression - regulate commerce, etc. beyond that which conservative Founders would approve.
And yet, the most anti-federalist founding father of them all, James Madison, signed legislation that massively and federally regulated local private commerce.
It is my humble opinion that this argument is a cop-out from having to make the moral/political case as to why federal regulation of X is wrong or improper. It is clear by the actions of Thomas Jefferson and Madison once they became President that the regulatory powers of congress that may be necessary and proper are essentially unlimited depending on the emergency or circumstances. IMHO when Madison signed the charter of the Second National Bank it was over - Hamilton won. It just took until the New Deal for the dust to settle.
Instead, make the argument as to why - even if Congress has broad regulatory authority - why they should choose restraint e.g. regulation can cause more harm than good, etc. If a certain regulation is "overreach" it's not because it is beyond the power of Congress but because it is beyond the prudent exercise of Congress' broad powers.
posted by Con_AlmaIt's never been legal with regard to the feds...at least not for a very long time now. Sessions believes federal law should be changed to accomodate States who want it to be legal and doesn't believe that it's the Feds responsibility to over see such things.....but he continues to carry out the responsibility he's been tasked with.
Realistically I don't see anything changing. All he did was revoke a memo wherein the DOJ announced it wouldn't enforce the law essentially. This will hurt economic growth in the sector IMHO but I doubt you see any increase in enforcement actions.
posted by gutThe [sadly] hilarious thing is if you look at this vs. gun control. Conservative think the Fed should battle drugs, but no regulate guns. Liberals think the Fed should regulate guns, but leave drugs to the states.
When you start looking at the inconsistencies on the Dem/Repub platforms (not to mention how actual legislation aligns - or doesn't align or exist - with those platforms) it's kind of hard to take any of this seriously.
Even if the Dems controlled all 3 branches - and they did not long ago - they won't do anything because marijuana is still a losing issue in most conservative and swing states.
The Democrats will play marijuana like they did gay marriage and undocumented immigrants - be heavily against it save the most hardcore (think Dennis Kucinich praising gay marriage in 2004) and then act like they were for marijuana legalization all along.
posted by gutThe [sadly] hilarious thing is if you look at this vs. gun control. Conservative think the Fed should battle drugs, but no regulate guns. Liberals think the Fed should regulate guns, but leave drugs to the states.
When you start looking at the inconsistencies on the Dem/Repub platforms (not to mention how actual legislation aligns - or doesn't align or exist - with those platforms) it's kind of hard to take any of this seriously.
Even if the Dems controlled all 3 branches - and they did not long ago - they won't do anything because marijuana is still a losing issue in most conservative and swing states.
Of course Conservatives will reasonably point out that the second amendment explicitly mentions a right to keep and bear arms. However, it should be noted that the war on drugs has been one of the primary methods through which our fundamental rights to enjoy our property without unreasonable search and seizure have been encroached upon e.g. Is that a bag of coke in your pocket or you just happy to see me?
posted by BoatShoesHow was the Agicultural Adjustment Act which attempted to control purely intrastate agricultural production due to its effects on the national markets substantively different from the Second Bank of the United States signed into law by James Madison - one of the two original tea partiers along with Thomas Jefferson - for the purpose of controlling purely intrastate issuance of private bank notes due to the effects they had on national markets?
In other words, your claim and the claim is generally that New Deal laws in a time of great national crisis due to WWII and the great depression - regulate commerce, etc. beyond that which conservative Founders would approve.
And yet, the most anti-federalist founding father of them all, James Madison, signed legislation that massively and federally regulated local private commerce.
It is my humble opinion that this argument is a cop-out from having to make the moral/political case as to why federal regulation of X is wrong or improper. It is clear by the actions of Thomas Jefferson and Madison once they became President that the regulatory powers of congress that may be necessary and proper are essentially unlimited depending on the emergency or circumstances. IMHO when Madison signed the charter of the Second National Bank it was over - Hamilton won. It just took until the New Deal for the dust to settle.
Instead, make the argument as to why - even if Congress has broad regulatory authority - why they should choose restraint e.g. regulation can cause more harm than good, etc. If a certain regulation is "overreach" it's not because it is beyond the power of Congress but because it is beyond the prudent exercise of Congress' broad powers.
I could certainly be wrong on the founders intent, and if so I vehemently disagree with whatever their justifications may have been. I cannot think of one good moral argument for regulating what a farmer grows on private property for their own consumption. To claim it as "interstate commerce" because, if they hadn't grown the crops they WOULD have engaged in interstate commerce is, IMO, absurd mental gymnastics to justify control over matters they have no business in.
posted by Con_AlmaAre you sure it's Sessions that you should be upset with?
"...Sessions has a point, or a piece of a point, when he argues that the Obama-era memos did not merely clarify DOJ practices but in effect changed federal law over the heads of Congress. It would be better if Congress changed federal law to better accommodate states in which marijuana is legal; it would be even better if Congress did not have to do so, the federal jurisdiction being confined to its proper role in these matters, which is interstate and international. John Paul Stevens will forgive me for suggesting that the Supreme Court erred in its decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which enshrined the federal power to regulate marijuana consumption within the borders of a single state under its interstate commerce powers, a nonsensical conclusion but one not entirely inconsistent with precedent regarding the interstate-commerce clause, the elasticity of which apparently is infinite. ..."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455170/jeff-sessions-marijuana-legalization-solution
This popped up in my feed today, which kinda reiterates your point.
http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/04/blame-scotus-for-allowing-the-feds-to-ta
posted by justincredibleGet it done.
https://mobile.twitter.com/justinamash/status/949305224686129152
I wonder if this would remove marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug....in which case MAJOR celebration in the NFL (because I don't believe marijuana is explicitly banned, but only thru it's classification as a federally controlled substance).
posted by gut
I wonder if this would remove marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug....in which case MAJOR celebration in the NFL (because I don't believe marijuana is explicitly banned, but only thru it's classification as a federally controlled substance).
Indeed it would.
Bill summary from congress.gov:
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (02/27/2017)Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017
This bill amends the Controlled Substances Act to provide that the Act's regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal penalties do not apply to with respect to marijuana.
It removes marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols from schedule I. (A schedule I controlled substance is a drug, substance, or chemical that: has a high potential for abuse; has no currently accepted medical value; and is subject to regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal penalties under the Controlled Substances Act.)
Additionally, it eliminates criminal penalties for an individual who imports, exports, manufactures, distributes, or possesses with intent to distribute marijuana.
The bill does, however, make it a crime to knowingly ship or transport marijuana into a state where its receipt, possession, or sale is prohibited. A violator is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to one year, or both.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1227
That's an awesome bill and based on the cosponsors it looks like a bipartisan bill. I hope this gains traction. I am surprised not to see Booker on there though. This bill should be a no brainer. This is how our Government is supposed to work. Tell the executive branch to fuck off. What a lovely concept.
posted by like_thatThat's an awesome bill and based on the cosponsors it looks like a bipartisan bill. I hope this gains traction. I am surprised not to see Booker on there though. This bill should be a no brainer. This is how our Government is supposed to work. Tell the executive branch to fuck off. What a lovely concept.
House Bill.
posted by justincredibleHouse Bill.
Derp.
I see Trump opened today by yelling on the Twitter about how he's a stable genius in a way that really makes those book allegations that he's unstable and growing senile look far, far more legit.
posted by HereticI see Trump opened today by yelling on the Twitter about how he's a stable genius in a way that really makes those book allegations that he's unstable and growing senile look far, far more legit.
More and more he does sound like a petulant child. I knew those tweets and his comments at this press conference were coming.
Trump: “I’m, like, really smart”.
This is is the leader of our country - a 7th grade girl disguised as a 70 year old man?
Great at to see our president tactically using twitter to get these critical pieces of information directly to us and bypassing the evil mainstream media. What an inspired leader.
But, he is cutting regulations, the economy is humming, and he is taking it to the media and telling it like it is. MAGA baby!
Man, Trump was right, I am tired of all the winning.
Yeah, cuz like he’s really smart. Plus he was a super popular tv personality too.
A stable genius
People still care what Trump says?
guys an idiot, I am so beyond getting butthurt at his dumbass tweets and things he says.
Keep cutting taxes, regulations, etc and all is good with me. Don’t really GAF that boogie, ptown and the other libtards’ feelings are hurt.
I love the Trump tweets...gift that keeps on giving.