Posted on 03/02/2017 5:15:18 AM PST by HomerBohn
While Trump may claim he’s for states rights, Attorney General Jeff Sessions just pissed on the opinions of about 71% of Americans who do not believe the federal government should attempt to ram federal laws down the throats of states where voters have legalized marijuana.
After Press Secretary Sean Spicer essentially warned everyone last week that the Trump administration plans to crack down on states with recreational marijuana laws, AG Sessions backed that up on Monday with some bizarre statements that prove the guy actually believes Reefer Madness was a documentary.
Via Politico:
“Most of you probably know I don’t think America is going to be a better place when more people of all ages and particularly young people start smoking pot,” Sessions said during an exchange with reporters at the Justice Department. “I believe it’s an unhealthy practice and current levels of THC in marijuana are very high compared to what they were a few years ago.”
“We’re seeing real violence around that,” Sessions said. “Experts are telling me there’s more violence around marijuana than one would think and there’s big money involved.”
. If there is any “violence” around marijuana, it’s due entirely to the black market created by the phony drug war, not the actual drug itself, as pointed out by chairman of the drug policy reform group Marijuana Majority Tom Angell:
By talking about marijuana and violence, the attorney general is inadvertently articulating the strongest argument that exists for legalization, which is that it allows regulated markets in a way that prohibition does not.
Prohibition keeps drug cartels in business and needlessly puts thousands of Americans behind bars.
But then again, that must be why Sessions also reversed the DOJ plan to phase out the for-profit prisons last week; they’re going to need somewhere to put all those non-violent drug offenders once the federal crackdown on a benign plant legalized in over half the country begins.
Sessions is only following Federal Law that has been ignored.
He has already said that it people disagree with the Law, it should be changed by the Legislature. His Job as AG is not to pick and choose what Laws to enforce.
Like Gay Marriage, Polygamous Marriage, Incestuous Marriage and Age of Consent, this should be a States Rights Issue.
The SCOTUS blew that out the water when they made Gay Marriage a Federal issue. Once you eviscerate the foundation of our Republic, shit happens.
Drugs are bad, plants are good.
Maybe I’m nuts, but things that occur in nature wouldn’t seem to require “Legalization”, and that’s just one of my problems with this entire discussion.
The language is perverted to the point that reasonable people cannot even discuss the issue.
I don’t want, and don’t believe the U.S. Constitution allows for, the FedGov to outlaw things that are clearly not within their purview. The states are free to regulate the consumption of any substance, based on the will of the people within that state and those people’s ability to assert their will.
We could have a completely different discussion around the trustworthiness of Prescription Medication and the pushers who sell it, but that’s for another time...
Do you want him to enforce this long-ignored federal law, as well? =>
Easy fix. Tell any bank that loans money too, or accepts cash from the sale of a federally listed illegal drug, that they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and shut down. Problem mostly solved. I don’t think even soros has enough money to funnel to them.
>>>Do you want him to enforce this long-ignored federal law, as well? =>
The Letter (and Spirit) of Drug Import Laws - It’s illegal (nudge, nudge) to buy prescriptions drugs (wink, wink) from other countries<<<
His job as AG is to enforce the Laws on the Books. If you disagree with that premise, I guess you had no problem with AG Eric Holder.
Answer your own question.
Nice dodge.
Been watching CO with great interest.
My general conclusion is that we don’t need potheads taking up beds in prisons and that legalizing pot kills a revenue source for criminals.
Yes. But don't say "state's rights" or they'll call you a racist!
Hemlock? Deer ticks? West-Nile carrying mosquitoes? Oh, wait- that's regulation, not legalization.
Not a dodge. I don’t write the Laws no matter how obscure.
If you think the Job of the AG of the United States of America is to pick and choose what Laws to enforce, just say so.
I thought that was what everyone here was riled up about for the past eight years with Holder, Lynch and Obama.
Please don’t think that I disagree that many of the Laws in pace are idiotic at best, but I’m sure there are thousands that don’t pass the smell test of Common Sense like the one you cited.
If the states are taxing the sale then they are profiting from the sale and are thus engaged in trafficking of marijuana. There is a difference between looking the other way and profiting in the practice.
Sure, I could go for that. Just show me how drinking a beer next to my kids can affect their brain development?
You might want to look into the cost of alcoholism to society before you are judgmental re prohibition.
just sayin.....
The point is, there are 10 gazillion laws and regulations on the books and they all can't possibly be enforced. So yes, AGs pick and choose which to enforce. Always have. I gave you one example.
In the case of pot, it is clearly a Tenth Amendment issue for the states, and Trump promised to respect that.
In a prohibitionists’ mind, perhaps. In reality, not so much.
Voters in 8 states exercised their right as Americans decided to legalize & regulate cannabis. Additionally, voters in 20 states, including the legal states decided to operate & regulate a medical cannabis program. All of this is legal according to the Constitution as it was written.
I thought conservatives believed in States Rights because it is clearly defined in the Constitution. Did someone change what conservatives were supposed to believe on the day Colorado voters decided to legalize the use & ownership of cannabis?
I agree with just about everything you just Posted, but there is nothing in the AG’s Job Description that says he alone can pick and choose which Laws he agrees with.
Senator Sessions made a point of that during his Confirmation Hearings and when he was Sworn into Office.
Isn’t it curious that Obama and Holder ignored the Federal Law regarding Marijuana but they never tried to change it?
What was their motive, any idea?
"Oh, wait- that's regulation, not legalization."
‘Prosecutorial discretion’ is a legal concept, and is a fundamental principle of our legal system, for a lot of different reasons.
So? They still pick and choose which laws they enforce. Always have, always will - until fedgov is reigned in to its proper constitutional boundaries.
Isn’t it curious that Obama and Holder ignored the Federal Law regarding Marijuana but they never tried to change it? What was their motive, any idea?
My guess - they wanted to appease their constituency, but not give up any real fedgov power. So they straddled it.
>>>‘Prosecutorial discretion’ is a legal concept, and is a fundamental principle of our legal system, for a lot of different reasons<<<
I assume that “Prosecutorial discretion” is either Evidence Based or just what someone’s personal opinion is.
In former AG Holder’s case, Hate Crime Charges could never involve a Person of Color, only White Crackers.
I am now to a point in this conversation wondering exactly what we are arguing about.
I guess the AG doesn’t have to worry about ALL the Laws, just the ones that the loudest People like or don’t like.
Point taken.
Isn't there a "Supremacy Clause" in the Constitution? Or am I just imagining that?
IIRC the United States is bound by a Treaty that prohibits the legalization of marijuana.
Should Session play the Eric Holder card and just refuse to enforce laws that you or he does not like?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.