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.
I guess you thought wrong.
Agree completely.
“Should Session play the Eric Holder card and just refuse to enforce laws that you or he does not like?”
Love the strawman stuff. CNN would be proud of ya.
Sessions is in a impossible situation, IMO. For decades laws have been put on the federal books that violate the Constitution. Sessions should enforce ALL CONSTITUTIONAL laws that DO NOT conflict with the 10th Amendment. The rest he should refer to Congress as unenforceable as written as they are in direct conflict with the Constitution.
You do know I hope that no one is ever going to force you to use cannabis any more than you will ever be forced to drink a beer against your will, right?
Are not treaties the Supreme laws of the United States and are not the States obligated to conform to them?
Or is the Supremacy clause just an empty letter?
Where in the Constitution is there a constitutional right to traffic in the marijuana trade?
“Are not treaties the Supreme laws of the United States and are not the States obligated to conform to them?”
Treaties that do not conflict with all of the Constitution are indeed legal. Unconstitutional treaties are not.
“Or is the Supremacy clause just an empty letter?” Only in the mind of progressives & globalists. You cannot enforce some of the Constitution & not all of it though. Try again.
“Where in the Constitution is there a constitutional right to traffic in the marijuana trade?”
In the same place where there’s a right to traffic in alcohol & tobacco. You remember them, I hope. Just 2 of the deadliest substances on the planet that cost our nation billions of dollars every year.
Right there in the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Brought that up with one of our officers over a cup of coffee at Starbucks a while back. Never did get a satisfactory answer. I apparently was able to get trough to to him the concept of "just because it's a good idea doesn't mean it should be the law". He told me later that he actually uses it in training now.
I’ll bet ‘Dark Side Of The Moon’ sounds REALLY good after a few puffs of this newer hi-test stuff!
I take it that you are perfectly ok with States and Cities refusing to cooperate with Immigration authorities and thumbing their noses at Immigration laws.
“I take it that you are perfectly ok with States and Cities refusing to cooperate with Immigration authorities and thumbing their noses at Immigration laws.”
LOL!!! Yes, Mr Lemon. That’s what I believe. /s
Apples & oranges. You could be a CNN commentator. Seriously. SMH.
Doesn’t the 10th amendment give states the right to disregard immigration laws?
Under what provision of the Constitution does it require states and cities to lift a single finger to help the Feds enforce federal immigration laws.
If you think federal drug laws and treaties do not apply to the states, then how can you justify Sessions going after Sanctuary Cities or complaining when illegal aliens getting out of prison are not detained?
“Doesn’t the 10th amendment give states the right to disregard immigration laws?
Under what provision of the Constitution does it require states and cities to lift a single finger to help the Feds enforce federal immigration laws.
If you think federal drug laws and treaties do not apply to the states, then how can you justify Sessions going after Sanctuary Cities or complaining when illegal aliens getting out of prison are not detained?”
I’ve shared my thoughts & answered many of your questions while ignoring or teasing you about the fallacious ones. I recognize that you disagree with my opinions & I have made it clear I find your arguments wanting. It happens. Now you are doing what progressive contributors on all the networks do in parsing & twisting what I have written to mean something unlike what I wrote. Take out your screen name & replace it will F Chuck Todd or Jake Taper & this would read like a MSM broadcast.
I hope you have a very nice day & that the Peace of Christ is will you always.
I think your positions on federal drug laws and treaty obligations are inconsistent with any opposition to Sanctuary Cities or States refusing to lift a finger to help deport illegal aliens.
Frankly I hate the fact that California has chosen to ignore both immigration and drug laws.
If you share the same political position as Moonbeam Brown on any issue, then maybe you need to rethink your position.
Treaties that do not conflict with all of the Constitution are indeed legal. Unconstitutional treaties are not.
Doesn't seem very constitutionalist to say that the feds acn acquire powers not granted by the Constitution simply by signing a treaty that requires them to exercise such powers.
Imagine the howling if Zero had signed a treaty saying free health care must be provided for all as a basic human right.
Setting immigration policy is a legitimate government power; setting intrastate drug policy is not.
So is setting Commerce policy.
“If you share the same political position as Moonbeam Brown on any issue, then maybe you need to rethink your position.”
You’ve won a prize for most fallacious argument of the thread! Enjoy!!!
But as more than one person here has pointed out to you - and others - There was another “commerce policy” that banned alcohol. And that one required an amendment to the Constitution.
What is different about marijuana that its prohibition does not require the same?
It would seem to me that back then, people realized that the Federal Government didn’t have the power to “ban” anything - even something “commerce-related” without passing an amendment to give them that power - no matter how detrimental to society they thought it was.
Today we just say “it’s interstate commerce” as if those are the magic words that allow whatever we need to allow to make those who want one thing or another happy.
Problem is - the Constitution either means what it says *in all areas* or it doesn’t mean anything it says in any area. You can’t have it both ways no matter how many times the Supreme Court and politicians have said you can.
And on another note - I’m actually in agreement with state governments who don’t want to round up illegal aliens. The Federal Government is Constitutionally tasked with policing the border and immigration. If I’m a state governor there is no way I’m going to use my citizen’s money and police power to house and feed hundreds or thousands of illegal aliens while I wait for the Feds to show up and take them off my hands.
Perhaps the Federal Government should divert a bunch of money from the thousands of unconstitutional programs they run (medicare/medicaid/social security...etc) to pay for the necessary *federal* agents to round up and deport those who are here illegally instead of expecting citizens of the individual states to pick up the tab.
Or even better, dismantle Obamacare, welfare, AFDC, food stamps, and all the other free (and unconstitutional) benefits that make the US such an appealing place for most “refugees” and watch them leave on their own.
And no - I don’t mean dismantle them *just* for illegals. Dismantle them completely.
At least you are consistent. I’ll give you that.
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.