There’s a difference between being ‘pro-pot’ and being ‘pro state’s rights’.
It’s not about marijuana, it’s about the fedgove having ZERO business about what STATES allow, or don’t.
Not so sure about that California is a good test case they get nothing right.
Although I would suggest that people generally stay away from the stuff, I agree that this is a classic State’s Rights issue.
Trump is a verified drug warrior. That’s part of why the Wall is important. He truly cares about the opioid crisis. I think Trump could own the Marijuana issue if he said, “Look, plenty of states are voting on this, letting their own people make the call. Let’s get the Feds out of the way. At the national level, we should focus on other things.”
I think this is the right stance. And it would again put SJW into a position of hating a president who is actually doing all the right things. Eventually, those young people will really wake up and make a permanent life choice to oppose the crooked Democrats.
I'm a staunchly anti-marijuana conservative who whole-heartedly agrees with you. As long as I'm understanding you as saying that states should reserve the right to criminialize pot. But would you be in favor of the Feds helping to enforce "bleed over" from states which legalize weed to, or through, states which criminalize it to some degree?
Kansas borders Colorado to the east. Kansas should have the right to completely criminalize marijuana possession, use, buying, selling, etc within its borders. My fear is that people on the border, who live and work in separate states, will inevitably break the law in Kansas. Is this a standing problem that we want? Is it even manageable?