10 ms·

White House Indicates Potential Crackdown on Recreational Marijuana

172 points by cnp 10y ago

padseeker 10y ago
What a colossal waste of money.
- chronicx0 10y ago
  Just like universal basic income...
  - l34ch 10y ago
    Lets do neither one.
  - literallycancer 10y ago
    UBI doesn't criminalize people for no reason, does it?
  - nomedsbipolar 10y ago
    Or your education.
matthewbauer 10y ago
It will be interesting whether they will respect "states rights" in this case.
- padseeker 10y ago
  States rights is a ruse. The heart decides, and the head justifies. People use states rights when it is convenient, and toss it aside when it contradicts their other beliefs.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    Rights are a ruse. The heart decides, and the head justifies. People use rights when it is convenient, and toss them aside when it contradicts their other beliefs.
  - jcranmer 10y ago
    Especially because some of the "states' rights" issues involve state legislatures overruling more local jurisdiction--case in point, transgender bathroom law.
  - brokenmasonjars 10y ago
    This is an unpopular position of I support, but this is exactly why I support repealing the 17th amendment and returning to indirect elections of Senators via state legislatures to bring power back to the states.
- linksnapzz 10y ago
  States can't choose which Federal laws are obeyed inside their borders or not. If the federal govt. has to enforce federal law in a state, that needs to happen, and the state needs to cooperate to the extent laid out by statute & legal precedent. No more, no less. The right answer is to have legislation that squares the federal & state policies at the top. "States Rights" never extended to nullification of Federal law, there was a substantial dispute over this in the 1860s.
- heygrady 10y ago
  "States rights" is widely viewed as a racist dog-whistle [1]. States rights doesn't have to be racist, although it is very often linked that way [2]. The war on drugs was instituted as a racist policy [3]. It's quite likely that the main motivation here is using drug laws to punish people of color. [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2007/11/dogwhistling_dixie.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_less... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/03/getting-states-rights-right/302133/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/03/getting... [3] http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...
barneygumble742 10y ago
Trump says abortion and transgender bathroom use should be a states issue, then what about recreational marijuana? His lapdog Chris Christie even called it months ago when he said "enjoy it while you can..."
- senorjazz 10y ago
  I think abortion / trans gender issues effects people who voted for trump. I don't think the same can be said for cannabis smokers
- krapp 10y ago
  Typically, Conservatives and Republicans care about states' rights issues when they believe states will tend to agree with and uphold their values. What matters to them is ideological purity and political power, not consistency.
  - TillE 10y ago
    Everyone is like this; we'll endorse any semi-reasonable means to achieve our desired ends. Should just be honest about that. I think in a way, Republican rhetoric ("states' rights", "activist judges", "small government") is simply lagging behind their actual positions and values, rather than it being a totally cynical and hypocritical mask. These are slogans which still sound good and make sense situationally. It's easy to agree with them without really thinking it through.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - rodgerd 10y ago
    "States' rights" has a specific history going back to slavery. It's not a neutral term.
- heygrady 10y ago
  Chris Christie has been outspoken on the opioid crisis, making a bold effort to re-cast drug abusers as "our neighbors" rather than as criminals. He spoke at length about it[1] in his recent state of the state address in New Jersey. He made it a key part of his failed presidential campaign[2]. He is reportedly a long time opponent of recreational marijuana[3]. [1] http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/christie_2017_state_of_the_state_address.html http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/christie_2017_s... [2] https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/05/07/chris-christie-discusses-opioid-epidemic-new-hampshire/sA5kEgOsniLsuxakFxo4yO/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/05/07/chris-c... [3] http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/01/16/chris-christie-marijuana-legalization/71421/ http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/01/16/chris-christie-marijua...
riffic 10y ago
Good move! The more they tighten their grip, the more states will slip through their fingers with relegalization backlash.
saboot 10y ago
What did people expect? I'm sure trump is surrounded by people who have fully bought into the 'gateway drug' myth. The worst is somehow claiming this will aid in the fight against opioids. What a joke!
- vkou 10y ago
  It's just as likely that they aren't doing this because they bought into the gateway drug myth, but because they are waging a culture war. You can't make it illegal to oppose the president, but you can make half the people opposing the president criminals for smoking.
  - cnp 10y ago
    > It's just as likely that they aren't doing this because they bought into the gateway drug myth, but because they are waging a culture war. Precisely.
  - technotony 10y ago
    Which apparently was the original reason behind the war on drugs in the first place. Source [1] [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-nixon-used-america-s-war-on-drugs-as-excuse-to-target-anti-war-left-and-black-people-claims-a6948521.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-nix...
    - Meegul 10y ago
      I'd imagine that's exactly what OP was referring to.
  - MandieD 10y ago
    Arizona's state legislature is sure giving that a try, though: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/2017/02/23/5-things-know-arizona-bill-arrest-protesters-riot/98302932/ http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/201...
remarkEon 10y ago
>But Spicer said that there is a big difference between medical and recreational marijuana, commenting that “When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people.” Pretty mind-numbing to see people still peddling gateway theory. Is there any real link between recreational pot and opioid addiction in any meaningful, causative way?
- genesee 10y ago
  This quote from the article indicates the opposite effect, actually! I'd like to see the study that concluded this, but it's an easy statement for me to believe. > "As for connecting marijuana to the legal opioid crisis, Spicer has it exactly backwards. Greater access to marijuana has actually led to declines in opioid use, overdoses and other problems."
  - remarkEon 10y ago
    Yeah I saw that. So I'm confused on where he's getting this idea, since as far as I'm aware of current research...the trend is the opposite.
    - martincmartin 10y ago
      He doesn't listen to experts or research. Instead, he uses common sense. “So really,” continued Eric, “I should be saying sorry to you, for jumping to the wrong conclusion. Instead of considering all the evidence, I just applied some common sense—otherwise known as prejudice—and came up with a totally wrong answer.” ― Lucy Hawking, George's Secret Key to the Universe https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/857108-george-s-secret-key-to-the-universe https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/857108-george-s-secret...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- elchief 10y ago
  53% of British Columbians have tried marijuana, and 2.4% use opioids. Not much of a gateway...
wnevets 10y ago
and users from HN argued with me saying that trump's admin wasn't anti marijuana.
- Neliquat 10y ago
  The argument was that Trump wasn't anti-pot, not his cohorts. Trump did in fact make public pro-legalisation comments starting in the 90s iirc.
  - wnevets 10y ago
    and he also made anti-legalization comments.
    - WillyOnWheels 10y ago
      You can find evidence of Trump being pro and anti on just about every issue you can think of, with the exception of immigration.
      - wnevets 10y ago
        exactly, which makes splitting his positions from his administration's a meaningless endeavor.
korethr 10y ago
This is not terribly surprising. For good or for ill, recreational marijuana use never ceased to be illegal under federal law. And despite the various states passing laws legalizing it, there was that pesky little Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution. It's been kinda annoying that people seemed to forget or ignore that. Hoping that the fed won't enforce a law was always risky. As we've recently seen, the political climate can shift suddenly and severely. And now people who think a law is a Good Thing that should be enforced have the power to do so.
- zeveb 10y ago
  The Supremacy Clause is immaterial, because while — yes — federal law overrules state law, that only matters if the law itself is constitutional. The Congress has no authority to ban marijuana from intrastate trade: that power is simply not given to it anywhere.
  - korethr 10y ago
    The Supreme court decided that the Fed could regular intrastate commerce in Wickard v. Filburn, and that ruling has also been used since to go after marijuana that stayed intrastate. [1] I think it's a bullshit interpretation of the text of the Constitution too, but that doesn't change the current legal landscape, however much I or anyone else might want it to. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn#Subsequent_developments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn#Subsequent_...
    - foo2 10y ago
      Police power was something meant for the states, not the Federal. Excesses like this are a good reason to advocate for originalists to SCOTUS. Thankfully, United States v. Lopez (1995) started to reverse things a little.
  - TenOhms 10y ago
    They said the same thing about Obamacare.
colanderman 10y ago
Of course they have to push back on recreational drug legalization. Cross-border drug trade fueled by prohibition is the primary justification for their signature issue. "They're bringing drugs..."
- kbar13 10y ago
  you identified why the illegal drug trade is so hot: > Cross-border drug trade fueled by prohibition Legalizing marijuana would probably mean more domestic growers, maybe even blowing up like craft beer did.
  - heygrady 10y ago
    Legalization could have deeper economic benefits domestically than just access to weed [1]. California regulators are looking at legalization from all angles [2]. [1] http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-la-cannabis-20170212-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-la-cann... [2] http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCNewsDetail.aspx?id=6442452320 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCNewsDetail.aspx?id=6442452320
  - colanderman 10y ago
    Yes, that was my point :)
- heygrady 10y ago
  Of course, legalizing drugs is the easiest way to end the illegal drug trade[1]. [1] http://www.economist.com/node/13237193 http://www.economist.com/node/13237193
  - colanderman 10y ago
    Yup. Hence their motivation to nip legalization in the bud. (Pun intended.)
rubyn00bie 10y ago
Here's an article that references the study they're likely referring to: https://www.rt.com/usa/359655-marijuana-laws-opioid-usage/ https://www.rt.com/usa/359655-marijuana-laws-opioid-usage/ The jist is: measuring opioid usage in people after a fatal car crash, states with medical marijuana had much lower rates of opioid usage. I haven't read the study, and while that measurement may be a bit dubious (pun?) I think the conclusion is probably correct. A lot of people don't do illegal drugs, but will gladly and happily do legal ones. Opioids are legally prescribed and incredibly addictive, making them ripe for abuse by people who wouldn't normally be "drug addicts." With marijuana being legal it provides a non-addictive means of pain relief that's a much more pleasant and safe alternative to opioids. Hell even acetaminophen is vastly more dangerous than marijuana (and a cause of liver failure). I think what Spicer said in the article is insane. I can only hope states fight back tooth and nail if the federal government attempts to "crack down." Marijuana is one of the few drugs we can do that's nearly harmless... Well, relative to any other drug we can do (alcohol or tobacco). Edit: updates for grammar and clarity (damn you autocorrect!).
- heygrady 10y ago
  There is a US News article[1] that references a study by the AJPH[2]. [1] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-15/study-opioid-use-decreases-in-states-that-legalize-medical-marijuana https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-15/study-opioid... [2] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303426 http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.3...
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  The opioid crisis is a product of, ironically, crackdowns on opioid abuse. For people with chronic pain, opioids may be the only option to live with it, and they need frequent doses. If it gets hard to acquire them because of “abuse-preventing” bureaucracy, they are forced to turn to the black market, not out of addiction, but dependency for pain relief. There is a benefit to legal marijuana that it might be chosen instead of harder drugs, perhaps, but I don't think it should be mixed up with painkillers, which are their own issue.
  - 10y ago
zeveb 10y ago
What part of the Constitution gives the United States power over marijuana, recreational or not? If it required amendments to outlaw alcohol and slavery, why doesn't it require an amendment to outlaw marijuana? If the United States have no power over marijuana, then the several states, or the people thereof, retain it.
- linksnapzz 10y ago
  As has been mentioned elsewhere, a 1942 Supreme Court case, (Wickard vs. Filburn) greatly increased the power that Congress could exercise in pursuit of regulating "interstate commerce". Pretty much any activity, by anyone, anywhere, could be put under "interstate commerce". Literally growing your own vegetables on your own farm could now be regulated by Congress, on the assumption that if you were growing those vegetables yourself, you wouldn't be buying them, and would so affect the market price for said vegetables. Yes, the Supreme Court really did rule that way.
  - nickjarboe 10y ago
    And decision was unanimous.
foo2 10y ago
It will be interesting to see what happens if a recreational drug user mounts a defense based on the 10th amendment -- that the federal govt has no jurisdiction over intrastate drug use. 100 years ago, we thought a constitutional amendment was necessary to ban a substance within a state.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > It will be interesting to see what happens if a recreational drug user mounts a defense based on the 10th amendment -- that the federal govt has no jurisdiction over intrastate drug use. It's already been tried and failed with medical marijuana, Gonzales v. Raich (2005). And, for that matter, commercial wheat farming, in Wickard v. Filburn (1942). It's unlikely recreational marijuana would result in a different result.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > It's already been tried and failed with medical marijuana. And, for that matter, commercial wheat farming, in Wickard v. Filburn (1942). > It's unlikely recreational marijuana would result in a different result. I dunno, with originalists like Thomas & (hopefully) Gorsuch it's certainly possible. Bad precedent needn't necessarily stand, after all.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > I dunno, with originalists like Thomas & (hopefully) Gorsuch it's certainly possible. Compared to Raich (2005), even if Gorsuch flipped from the way Scalia went you need another vote; Thomas was on the Court then so is no change.
  - foo2 10y ago
    United States v. Lopez (1995) hopefully started cutting back on such a laughable decision. Can you think of any behavior which doesn't in some indirect way affect interstate commerce? If the founding fathers had intended for an unrestricted commerce clause, they wouldn't have bothered with the 10th amendment or enumerating the other powers. The constitution is a whitelist.
gozur88 10y ago
I think this is a good idea. Not because I think it's good policy, but because the current situation is ridiculous and promotes the uneven application of law. I don't believe federal possession statutes are constitutional, and even if they were I don't think they're good policy, but laws should either be enforced or struck from the books.
- scaryspooky 10y ago
  The breadth and depth of federal law and regulation itself supports the uneven application. Those who have money can find a lawyer. The remainder of us are chattel kept only for cleaning the toilets of the wealthy.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    If the breadth and depth of federal law and regulation supports uneven application, the solution is to pare back the breadth and depth of federal law and regulation, not pick and choose which laws you're going to enforce. The latter leads to a situation where all sorts of draconian laws are passed and nobody cares because they don't expect those laws to be appllied to them. But that gives the government all the tools it needs to make life a living hell for people who irritate the mandarins in Washinton. I'd be curious to know just how many people in federal prison for possessing less than an ounce of pot are really there for possessing less than an ounce of pot.
jbhatab 10y ago
How could he possibly justify the loss in income and jobs which is a cornerstone of his platform? Someone should present the economic opportunity cost to him in a very clear manor and I think the decision will become clear.
- edoceo 10y ago
  There are 1000s of businesses in Washington State, employing 1000s and generating 100MM+ in tax revenues.
- llamataboot 10y ago
  You assume that he is rational.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Why justify what you can just deny as fake news?
- leggomylibro 10y ago
  They're not factory or mining jobs being lost from red states, so who cares? (edit: ...is Trump's view, not mine)
jbhatab 10y ago
How could he possibly justify the loss in income and jobs which is a cornerstone of his platform? Someone should present the economic opportunity cost to him in a very clear manor and I think the decision will become clear.
drawkbox 10y ago
Support for legal marijuana and ending prohibition is up to 60% and over 70% for democrats and independents, republicans up to 42%[1]. They are fighting a losing battle and most politicians will not go against that type of landslide polling. Good luck, 2.4 billion in Colorado, 20,000 new jobs and personal freedoms will not go away lightly[2]. They could legalize and end prohibition and throw the other side a bone, but if they pick this fight it will be a huge mistake and an attack on logical/smart people [3] and public opinion [1]. Prohibition makes the punishment on a non-violent personal action into a crime, wasting billions (20-50 billion)[4] of tax dollars and funding cartels, to the tune of 25-50+ billion [5], while harming decent people. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.as... [2] http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/26/colorado-weed-economic-impact-report/ http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/26/colorado-weed-economic-... [3] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/22/health/teens-smoking-drinking-study/index.html?sr=fbCNN022317teens-smoking-drinking-study0501AMStoryLink&linkId=34787205 http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/22/health/teens-smoking-drink... [4] https://www.aclu.org/blog/hundreds-economists-marijuana-prohibition-costs-billions-legalization-would-earn-billions https://www.aclu.org/blog/hundreds-economists-marijuana-proh... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/03/legal-marijuana-is-finally-doing-what-the-drug-war-couldnt/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/03/legal...
- sqeaky 10y ago
  This administration is so weird that I wonder if there isn't a power Illuminati style group of trolls out there. Hear me out, I don't think I am crazy. I don't believe this, I just see it as more and more plausible every news story that comes out of the white house. What if several of the world's richest, perhaps Gates, Buffet and a few other like minded kind souls got together. What if they did everything in their power, legal and illegal, to elect the most preposterous candidate possible. All the shouting about the election being rigged has people looking for fake democrats, not trump supporters. Then they have this candidate do everything the wrong way, and obviously the wrong way. This is intentional, is should mobilize and unify all the people against a bunch of idiocy. By the time this is done we will either have destroy the coastline or we will all understand what CO2 can do. Instead of trying to shroud BS arguments in a veil of reason-ability like typical a GOP politician Trump comes out and does the dumbest thing he can for "his" side of the argument. There are GOP hardliners that back him, but it seems to taper off as the crazyness continues. Eventually everyone just towing the line will be unelectable or at least powerless for a brief time and we do a bunch of objectively smart things like end the war on terror, end the war on drugs, pass more laws protecting church and state, make sure future presidents can read, strengthen our healthcare, etc.... But that is just not as simple the other explanation: Americans, my fellow countrymen, elected someone just as dumb as them.
moomin 10y ago
Speaking as someone with no particular interest in using either, I'd much rather have a neighbour who was a recreational marijuana user than one who was a a recreational gun user. But, you know, tastes vary, and apparently the laws reflect a different aesthetic to mine.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Personally, I'd prefer the recreational gun user. But what I'd really prefer is not both - not a recreational marijuana and gun user.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    You should be in favor of alcohol prohibition then, because a drunk gun user is far, far more dangerous than a high one.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      I am in favor of people not mixing alcohol and guns, yes. But I didn't say I was in favor of marijuana prohibition, so your conclusion does not follow at all from what I said. > ... a drunk gun user is far, far more dangerous than a high one. Source? I could argue that, due to pot still being illegal most places, there are more people drunk than there are high. One would expect therefore that there are more gun mishaps involving drunks than people who are high. If you know of any reasonably rigorous studies that get down to rates per capita per episode of getting drunk/high, I'd be interested in a reference. I think we agree on this, though: If you are going to drink or get high, stay away from guns. If you're going to have guns, stay away from booze and pot...
      - tossaway1 10y ago
        There's plenty of evidence that alcohol leads many to aggressive and violent behavior and a fair amount of evidence that pot has the opposite effect. I think that's reason enough to belief that a drunk gun user is apt to be more dangerous than a high (on weed) one.
AcerbicZero 10y ago
I have no idea which of Trumps statements on this topic are going to end up being accurate. All I know is that one side will start mass producing articles with click-bait titles, and another side will ramp up every possible anti-marijuana talking point imaginable.
- veli_joza 10y ago
  Mass production of meaningless articles is the worst thing about Trump. It has saturated the media around the world and further lowered the bar of journalism. I really hope people (and especially the media) will learn to ignore him, to take away his power.
ultrahate 10y ago
Pot is completely choking Denver. I'm all about rounding up all these people and getting rid of them somehow. If more states legalize I've even considered expatriating. Keep this crap at home, or else! I'm well aware deviant dopers will downvote my dastardly drawlings, but I'm still right. It's a bad influence and should be eradicated.
pklausler 10y ago
Reason for rolling back transgender bathroom access: STATES' RIGHTS. Reason for rolling back state legalization / decriminalization laws: ...
syphilis2 10y ago
Marijuana legality is one of the things the the Obama administration should have settled but never did. I only hope enforcement of the law encourages movement to finally remove marijuana from the schedule drug list.
- saalweachter 10y ago
  Not that it wouldn't have been nice for Obama to give everyone a little vacation from pot being on the schedule 1 list, but why do you think it couldn't have been re-added after Obama left office? Anything one executive can order the next can un-order.
frakr 10y ago
Unfortunately not surprising. Sheldon Adelson provides a lot of $$$ to the Republican party. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/02/sheldon-adelson-fights-marijuana-legalization-while-funding-pro-marijuana-research/ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/02/sheldon-adelson-fights-m...
losvedir 10y ago
I totally support this, even as someone who voted to legalize it in MA this past election. The current situation where it's legal at the state level and illegal but "hands off" at the federal is totally ridiculous. Even worse than having marijuana be illegal is having laws applied randomly and with a sizeable portion of the population able to be arrested at someone's whim. I think legalizing at the state level was probably a good strategy to get the momentum going, but at some point we have to stop it being illegal at the federal level (individual states can outlaw, that's fine). Hopefully this will be the impetus to get that done.
ap3 10y ago
How come Republicans/Conservatives want to regulate people but de-regulate businesses ?
- sbarre 10y ago
  Because they care less about the former than the latter? ;-)
- brian-armstrong 10y ago
  Businesses are people. A very special kind of people, even. The best kind.
- Spellman 10y ago
  Because Pharma pays more than people? All snark aside, traditional Republicans are more in favor of societal stability. And this is achieved, in their mind, via social institutions and a thriving economy. Thus, their values that align with moral institutions, corporations (economic and potential societal homogeneity), and a strong military (both defense and because it shares it's values of a highly connected, dependent structure of individuals striving for a bigger cause). I'd recommend reading up on the Moral Foundations Theory, especially the work looking at the differences between Liberals and Conservatives in light of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory http://www.moralfoundations.org/ http://www.moralfoundations.org/
alistproducer2 10y ago
This is just the political disaster anti-fascists need. The public will be overwhelmingly opposed to this and will wake a few people up.
madengr 10y ago
I'm in all favor of the fedgov ignoring marijuana laws if they do the same for gun laws. Unfortunately many who want recreational marijuana legalized want gun control.
shams93 10y ago
If you're disabled they'll stick you on fentynal for $0 on Medicaid, keep you on opiates for life but medical cannabis has no support for the disabled even though the side effects are nothing compared to opiates. Lack of Medicaid funding for medical cannabis is a major driver behind the opiate crisis.
- smhenderson 10y ago
  I am by no means a fan of Trump and I think this crackdown is a terrible idea but to be fair... Spicer noted that Trump supports medical marijuana and understands that patients are in pain and facing terminal illness and have a right to medical marijuana. He also noted the Congressional rider – commonly known as the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment – was in force and prevents DOJ from intervening in medical marijuana states.
nummy 10y ago
Seems kind of pointless. Only thing that will change is I'll have to get my weed from a dealer like in the old days, instead of a dispensary. Good way to kill good paying jobs, asshats.
brian-armstrong 10y ago
There's a trend to many of Trump's decisions so far, which is that they are punitive. He knows there are things liberals want and support, and he's going to go after those things. Not because he cares about them, but because it's important to him to "get back at" his detractors.
- jliptzin 10y ago
  That's a good point, he seems to be a very petty and vengeful person. Just look at his feud with rosie o'donnell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP7Lixcc_jQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP7Lixcc_jQ
jliptzin 10y ago
So, Republicans go crazy over Roe v. Wade and the supreme court decision on gay marriage, citing 'activist' judges going against the will of the people. Now, recreational marijuana has been put to the people, and in those states where the majority approved, Republicans want the feds to come in and enforce prohibition. What happened to the party of small government and states' rights? The hypocrisy really never ends with the Republican party.
- asdlfkjaklf 10y ago
  Clarence Thomas would agree with you. Hopefully Neil Gorsuch will be in his mold: "Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part: Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce... among the several States." [...] Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana. [...] If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce." [...] If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."[12]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
  - 10y ago
Spooky23 10y ago
Of course. The police unions strongly backed Trump and probably helped carry swing states. This is patronage.
mnm1 10y ago
Since all current and just voted recreational states also have a medical program, most people will probably just get a recommendation from a doctor, depending on how lax the laws of their state are. If they're not lax, they will hopefully be changed to be (lawmakers, please see California for a great example). This will either set back progress and the will of the people, or hopefully, stage a huge fight where the states stand up for themselves and demand that this administration respect their constitutions and therefore the will of the people.
kylehotchkiss 10y ago
"When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people.” So uh... where's the action on opiate addiction?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  No, see, because opiate addiction exists, we shouldn't be encouraging people. Only the premise, not the action in the conclusion, references opiates.
lucd 10y ago
That and the reversal on federal use of private prison.. Time to buy private prison stock...
eip 10y ago
Ganja cures the Babylon mind sickness. It shows you the truth. Truth is the mortal enemy of the state. For this reason Ganja is and will always be illegal. They live. We sleep.

172 points by cnp 10y ago

padseeker 10y ago

What a colossal waste of money.

chronicx0 10y ago
Just like universal basic income...
- l34ch 10y ago
  Lets do neither one.
- literallycancer 10y ago
  UBI doesn't criminalize people for no reason, does it?
- nomedsbipolar 10y ago
  Or your education.

matthewbauer 10y ago

It will be interesting whether they will respect "states rights" in this case.

padseeker 10y ago
States rights is a ruse. The heart decides, and the head justifies. People use states rights when it is convenient, and toss it aside when it contradicts their other beliefs.
- rfrank 10y ago
  Rights are a ruse. The heart decides, and the head justifies. People use rights when it is convenient, and toss them aside when it contradicts their other beliefs.
- jcranmer 10y ago
  Especially because some of the "states' rights" issues involve state legislatures overruling more local jurisdiction--case in point, transgender bathroom law.
- brokenmasonjars 10y ago
  This is an unpopular position of I support, but this is exactly why I support repealing the 17th amendment and returning to indirect elections of Senators via state legislatures to bring power back to the states.
linksnapzz 10y ago
States can't choose which Federal laws are obeyed inside their borders or not. If the federal govt. has to enforce federal law in a state, that needs to happen, and the state needs to cooperate to the extent laid out by statute & legal precedent. No more, no less. The right answer is to have legislation that squares the federal & state policies at the top. "States Rights" never extended to nullification of Federal law, there was a substantial dispute over this in the 1860s.
heygrady 10y ago
"States rights" is widely viewed as a racist dog-whistle [1]. States rights doesn't have to be racist, although it is very often linked that way [2]. The war on drugs was instituted as a racist policy [3]. It's quite likely that the main motivation here is using drug laws to punish people of color. [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2007/11/dogwhistling_dixie.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_less... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/03/getting-states-rights-right/302133/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/03/getting... [3] http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...

barneygumble742 10y ago

Trump says abortion and transgender bathroom use should be a states issue, then what about recreational marijuana? His lapdog Chris Christie even called it months ago when he said "enjoy it while you can..."

senorjazz 10y ago
I think abortion / trans gender issues effects people who voted for trump. I don't think the same can be said for cannabis smokers
krapp 10y ago
Typically, Conservatives and Republicans care about states' rights issues when they believe states will tend to agree with and uphold their values. What matters to them is ideological purity and political power, not consistency.
- TillE 10y ago
  Everyone is like this; we'll endorse any semi-reasonable means to achieve our desired ends. Should just be honest about that. I think in a way, Republican rhetoric ("states' rights", "activist judges", "small government") is simply lagging behind their actual positions and values, rather than it being a totally cynical and hypocritical mask. These are slogans which still sound good and make sense situationally. It's easy to agree with them without really thinking it through.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- rodgerd 10y ago
  "States' rights" has a specific history going back to slavery. It's not a neutral term.
heygrady 10y ago
Chris Christie has been outspoken on the opioid crisis, making a bold effort to re-cast drug abusers as "our neighbors" rather than as criminals. He spoke at length about it[1] in his recent state of the state address in New Jersey. He made it a key part of his failed presidential campaign[2]. He is reportedly a long time opponent of recreational marijuana[3]. [1] http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/christie_2017_state_of_the_state_address.html http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/christie_2017_s... [2] https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/05/07/chris-christie-discusses-opioid-epidemic-new-hampshire/sA5kEgOsniLsuxakFxo4yO/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/05/07/chris-c... [3] http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/01/16/chris-christie-marijuana-legalization/71421/ http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/01/16/chris-christie-marijua...

riffic 10y ago

Good move! The more they tighten their grip, the more states will slip through their fingers with relegalization backlash.

saboot 10y ago

What did people expect? I'm sure trump is surrounded by people who have fully bought into the 'gateway drug' myth. The worst is somehow claiming this will aid in the fight against opioids. What a joke!

vkou 10y ago
It's just as likely that they aren't doing this because they bought into the gateway drug myth, but because they are waging a culture war. You can't make it illegal to oppose the president, but you can make half the people opposing the president criminals for smoking.
- cnp 10y ago
  > It's just as likely that they aren't doing this because they bought into the gateway drug myth, but because they are waging a culture war. Precisely.
- technotony 10y ago
  Which apparently was the original reason behind the war on drugs in the first place. Source [1] [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-nixon-used-america-s-war-on-drugs-as-excuse-to-target-anti-war-left-and-black-people-claims-a6948521.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-nix...
  - Meegul 10y ago
    I'd imagine that's exactly what OP was referring to.
- MandieD 10y ago
  Arizona's state legislature is sure giving that a try, though: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/2017/02/23/5-things-know-arizona-bill-arrest-protesters-riot/98302932/ http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/201...

remarkEon 10y ago

>But Spicer said that there is a big difference between medical and recreational marijuana, commenting that “When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people.” Pretty mind-numbing to see people still peddling gateway theory. Is there any real link between recreational pot and opioid addiction in any meaningful, causative way?

genesee 10y ago
This quote from the article indicates the opposite effect, actually! I'd like to see the study that concluded this, but it's an easy statement for me to believe. > "As for connecting marijuana to the legal opioid crisis, Spicer has it exactly backwards. Greater access to marijuana has actually led to declines in opioid use, overdoses and other problems."
- remarkEon 10y ago
  Yeah I saw that. So I'm confused on where he's getting this idea, since as far as I'm aware of current research...the trend is the opposite.
  - martincmartin 10y ago
    He doesn't listen to experts or research. Instead, he uses common sense. “So really,” continued Eric, “I should be saying sorry to you, for jumping to the wrong conclusion. Instead of considering all the evidence, I just applied some common sense—otherwise known as prejudice—and came up with a totally wrong answer.” ― Lucy Hawking, George's Secret Key to the Universe https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/857108-george-s-secret-key-to-the-universe https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/857108-george-s-secret...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
elchief 10y ago
53% of British Columbians have tried marijuana, and 2.4% use opioids. Not much of a gateway...

wnevets 10y ago

and users from HN argued with me saying that trump's admin wasn't anti marijuana.

Neliquat 10y ago
The argument was that Trump wasn't anti-pot, not his cohorts. Trump did in fact make public pro-legalisation comments starting in the 90s iirc.
- wnevets 10y ago
  and he also made anti-legalization comments.
  - WillyOnWheels 10y ago
    You can find evidence of Trump being pro and anti on just about every issue you can think of, with the exception of immigration.
    - wnevets 10y ago
      exactly, which makes splitting his positions from his administration's a meaningless endeavor.

korethr 10y ago

This is not terribly surprising. For good or for ill, recreational marijuana use never ceased to be illegal under federal law. And despite the various states passing laws legalizing it, there was that pesky little Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution. It's been kinda annoying that people seemed to forget or ignore that. Hoping that the fed won't enforce a law was always risky. As we've recently seen, the political climate can shift suddenly and severely. And now people who think a law is a Good Thing that should be enforced have the power to do so.

zeveb 10y ago
The Supremacy Clause is immaterial, because while — yes — federal law overrules state law, that only matters if the law itself is constitutional. The Congress has no authority to ban marijuana from intrastate trade: that power is simply not given to it anywhere.
- korethr 10y ago
  The Supreme court decided that the Fed could regular intrastate commerce in Wickard v. Filburn, and that ruling has also been used since to go after marijuana that stayed intrastate. [1] I think it's a bullshit interpretation of the text of the Constitution too, but that doesn't change the current legal landscape, however much I or anyone else might want it to. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn#Subsequent_developments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn#Subsequent_...
  - foo2 10y ago
    Police power was something meant for the states, not the Federal. Excesses like this are a good reason to advocate for originalists to SCOTUS. Thankfully, United States v. Lopez (1995) started to reverse things a little.
- TenOhms 10y ago
  They said the same thing about Obamacare.

colanderman 10y ago

Of course they have to push back on recreational drug legalization. Cross-border drug trade fueled by prohibition is the primary justification for their signature issue. "They're bringing drugs..."

kbar13 10y ago
you identified why the illegal drug trade is so hot: > Cross-border drug trade fueled by prohibition Legalizing marijuana would probably mean more domestic growers, maybe even blowing up like craft beer did.
- heygrady 10y ago
  Legalization could have deeper economic benefits domestically than just access to weed [1]. California regulators are looking at legalization from all angles [2]. [1] http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-la-cannabis-20170212-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-la-cann... [2] http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCNewsDetail.aspx?id=6442452320 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCNewsDetail.aspx?id=6442452320
- colanderman 10y ago
  Yes, that was my point :)
heygrady 10y ago
Of course, legalizing drugs is the easiest way to end the illegal drug trade[1]. [1] http://www.economist.com/node/13237193 http://www.economist.com/node/13237193
- colanderman 10y ago
  Yup. Hence their motivation to nip legalization in the bud. (Pun intended.)

rubyn00bie 10y ago

Here's an article that references the study they're likely referring to: https://www.rt.com/usa/359655-marijuana-laws-opioid-usage/ https://www.rt.com/usa/359655-marijuana-laws-opioid-usage/ The jist is: measuring opioid usage in people after a fatal car crash, states with medical marijuana had much lower rates of opioid usage. I haven't read the study, and while that measurement may be a bit dubious (pun?) I think the conclusion is probably correct. A lot of people don't do illegal drugs, but will gladly and happily do legal ones. Opioids are legally prescribed and incredibly addictive, making them ripe for abuse by people who wouldn't normally be "drug addicts." With marijuana being legal it provides a non-addictive means of pain relief that's a much more pleasant and safe alternative to opioids. Hell even acetaminophen is vastly more dangerous than marijuana (and a cause of liver failure). I think what Spicer said in the article is insane. I can only hope states fight back tooth and nail if the federal government attempts to "crack down." Marijuana is one of the few drugs we can do that's nearly harmless... Well, relative to any other drug we can do (alcohol or tobacco). Edit: updates for grammar and clarity (damn you autocorrect!).

heygrady 10y ago
There is a US News article[1] that references a study by the AJPH[2]. [1] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-15/study-opioid-use-decreases-in-states-that-legalize-medical-marijuana https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-15/study-opioid... [2] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303426 http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.3...
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
The opioid crisis is a product of, ironically, crackdowns on opioid abuse. For people with chronic pain, opioids may be the only option to live with it, and they need frequent doses. If it gets hard to acquire them because of “abuse-preventing” bureaucracy, they are forced to turn to the black market, not out of addiction, but dependency for pain relief. There is a benefit to legal marijuana that it might be chosen instead of harder drugs, perhaps, but I don't think it should be mixed up with painkillers, which are their own issue.
- 10y ago

zeveb 10y ago

What part of the Constitution gives the United States power over marijuana, recreational or not? If it required amendments to outlaw alcohol and slavery, why doesn't it require an amendment to outlaw marijuana? If the United States have no power over marijuana, then the several states, or the people thereof, retain it.

linksnapzz 10y ago
As has been mentioned elsewhere, a 1942 Supreme Court case, (Wickard vs. Filburn) greatly increased the power that Congress could exercise in pursuit of regulating "interstate commerce". Pretty much any activity, by anyone, anywhere, could be put under "interstate commerce". Literally growing your own vegetables on your own farm could now be regulated by Congress, on the assumption that if you were growing those vegetables yourself, you wouldn't be buying them, and would so affect the market price for said vegetables. Yes, the Supreme Court really did rule that way.
- nickjarboe 10y ago
  And decision was unanimous.

foo2 10y ago

It will be interesting to see what happens if a recreational drug user mounts a defense based on the 10th amendment -- that the federal govt has no jurisdiction over intrastate drug use. 100 years ago, we thought a constitutional amendment was necessary to ban a substance within a state.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> It will be interesting to see what happens if a recreational drug user mounts a defense based on the 10th amendment -- that the federal govt has no jurisdiction over intrastate drug use. It's already been tried and failed with medical marijuana, Gonzales v. Raich (2005). And, for that matter, commercial wheat farming, in Wickard v. Filburn (1942). It's unlikely recreational marijuana would result in a different result.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > It's already been tried and failed with medical marijuana. And, for that matter, commercial wheat farming, in Wickard v. Filburn (1942). > It's unlikely recreational marijuana would result in a different result. I dunno, with originalists like Thomas & (hopefully) Gorsuch it's certainly possible. Bad precedent needn't necessarily stand, after all.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I dunno, with originalists like Thomas & (hopefully) Gorsuch it's certainly possible. Compared to Raich (2005), even if Gorsuch flipped from the way Scalia went you need another vote; Thomas was on the Court then so is no change.
- foo2 10y ago
  United States v. Lopez (1995) hopefully started cutting back on such a laughable decision. Can you think of any behavior which doesn't in some indirect way affect interstate commerce? If the founding fathers had intended for an unrestricted commerce clause, they wouldn't have bothered with the 10th amendment or enumerating the other powers. The constitution is a whitelist.

gozur88 10y ago

I think this is a good idea. Not because I think it's good policy, but because the current situation is ridiculous and promotes the uneven application of law. I don't believe federal possession statutes are constitutional, and even if they were I don't think they're good policy, but laws should either be enforced or struck from the books.

scaryspooky 10y ago
The breadth and depth of federal law and regulation itself supports the uneven application. Those who have money can find a lawyer. The remainder of us are chattel kept only for cleaning the toilets of the wealthy.
- gozur88 10y ago
  If the breadth and depth of federal law and regulation supports uneven application, the solution is to pare back the breadth and depth of federal law and regulation, not pick and choose which laws you're going to enforce. The latter leads to a situation where all sorts of draconian laws are passed and nobody cares because they don't expect those laws to be appllied to them. But that gives the government all the tools it needs to make life a living hell for people who irritate the mandarins in Washinton. I'd be curious to know just how many people in federal prison for possessing less than an ounce of pot are really there for possessing less than an ounce of pot.

jbhatab 10y ago

How could he possibly justify the loss in income and jobs which is a cornerstone of his platform? Someone should present the economic opportunity cost to him in a very clear manor and I think the decision will become clear.

edoceo 10y ago
There are 1000s of businesses in Washington State, employing 1000s and generating 100MM+ in tax revenues.
llamataboot 10y ago
You assume that he is rational.
dragonwriter 10y ago
Why justify what you can just deny as fake news?
leggomylibro 10y ago
They're not factory or mining jobs being lost from red states, so who cares? (edit: ...is Trump's view, not mine)

jbhatab 10y ago

drawkbox 10y ago

Support for legal marijuana and ending prohibition is up to 60% and over 70% for democrats and independents, republicans up to 42%[1]. They are fighting a losing battle and most politicians will not go against that type of landslide polling. Good luck, 2.4 billion in Colorado, 20,000 new jobs and personal freedoms will not go away lightly[2]. They could legalize and end prohibition and throw the other side a bone, but if they pick this fight it will be a huge mistake and an attack on logical/smart people [3] and public opinion [1]. Prohibition makes the punishment on a non-violent personal action into a crime, wasting billions (20-50 billion)[4] of tax dollars and funding cartels, to the tune of 25-50+ billion [5], while harming decent people. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.as... [2] http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/26/colorado-weed-economic-impact-report/ http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/26/colorado-weed-economic-... [3] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/22/health/teens-smoking-drinking-study/index.html?sr=fbCNN022317teens-smoking-drinking-study0501AMStoryLink&linkId=34787205 http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/22/health/teens-smoking-drink... [4] https://www.aclu.org/blog/hundreds-economists-marijuana-prohibition-costs-billions-legalization-would-earn-billions https://www.aclu.org/blog/hundreds-economists-marijuana-proh... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/03/legal-marijuana-is-finally-doing-what-the-drug-war-couldnt/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/03/legal...

sqeaky 10y ago
This administration is so weird that I wonder if there isn't a power Illuminati style group of trolls out there. Hear me out, I don't think I am crazy. I don't believe this, I just see it as more and more plausible every news story that comes out of the white house. What if several of the world's richest, perhaps Gates, Buffet and a few other like minded kind souls got together. What if they did everything in their power, legal and illegal, to elect the most preposterous candidate possible. All the shouting about the election being rigged has people looking for fake democrats, not trump supporters. Then they have this candidate do everything the wrong way, and obviously the wrong way. This is intentional, is should mobilize and unify all the people against a bunch of idiocy. By the time this is done we will either have destroy the coastline or we will all understand what CO2 can do. Instead of trying to shroud BS arguments in a veil of reason-ability like typical a GOP politician Trump comes out and does the dumbest thing he can for "his" side of the argument. There are GOP hardliners that back him, but it seems to taper off as the crazyness continues. Eventually everyone just towing the line will be unelectable or at least powerless for a brief time and we do a bunch of objectively smart things like end the war on terror, end the war on drugs, pass more laws protecting church and state, make sure future presidents can read, strengthen our healthcare, etc.... But that is just not as simple the other explanation: Americans, my fellow countrymen, elected someone just as dumb as them.

moomin 10y ago

Speaking as someone with no particular interest in using either, I'd much rather have a neighbour who was a recreational marijuana user than one who was a a recreational gun user. But, you know, tastes vary, and apparently the laws reflect a different aesthetic to mine.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Personally, I'd prefer the recreational gun user. But what I'd really prefer is not both - not a recreational marijuana and gun user.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  You should be in favor of alcohol prohibition then, because a drunk gun user is far, far more dangerous than a high one.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    I am in favor of people not mixing alcohol and guns, yes. But I didn't say I was in favor of marijuana prohibition, so your conclusion does not follow at all from what I said. > ... a drunk gun user is far, far more dangerous than a high one. Source? I could argue that, due to pot still being illegal most places, there are more people drunk than there are high. One would expect therefore that there are more gun mishaps involving drunks than people who are high. If you know of any reasonably rigorous studies that get down to rates per capita per episode of getting drunk/high, I'd be interested in a reference. I think we agree on this, though: If you are going to drink or get high, stay away from guns. If you're going to have guns, stay away from booze and pot...
    - tossaway1 10y ago
      There's plenty of evidence that alcohol leads many to aggressive and violent behavior and a fair amount of evidence that pot has the opposite effect. I think that's reason enough to belief that a drunk gun user is apt to be more dangerous than a high (on weed) one.

AcerbicZero 10y ago

I have no idea which of Trumps statements on this topic are going to end up being accurate. All I know is that one side will start mass producing articles with click-bait titles, and another side will ramp up every possible anti-marijuana talking point imaginable.

veli_joza 10y ago
Mass production of meaningless articles is the worst thing about Trump. It has saturated the media around the world and further lowered the bar of journalism. I really hope people (and especially the media) will learn to ignore him, to take away his power.

ultrahate 10y ago

Pot is completely choking Denver. I'm all about rounding up all these people and getting rid of them somehow. If more states legalize I've even considered expatriating. Keep this crap at home, or else! I'm well aware deviant dopers will downvote my dastardly drawlings, but I'm still right. It's a bad influence and should be eradicated.

pklausler 10y ago

Reason for rolling back transgender bathroom access: STATES' RIGHTS. Reason for rolling back state legalization / decriminalization laws: ...

syphilis2 10y ago

Marijuana legality is one of the things the the Obama administration should have settled but never did. I only hope enforcement of the law encourages movement to finally remove marijuana from the schedule drug list.

saalweachter 10y ago
Not that it wouldn't have been nice for Obama to give everyone a little vacation from pot being on the schedule 1 list, but why do you think it couldn't have been re-added after Obama left office? Anything one executive can order the next can un-order.

frakr 10y ago

Unfortunately not surprising. Sheldon Adelson provides a lot of $$$ to the Republican party. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/02/sheldon-adelson-fights-marijuana-legalization-while-funding-pro-marijuana-research/ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/02/sheldon-adelson-fights-m...

losvedir 10y ago

I totally support this, even as someone who voted to legalize it in MA this past election. The current situation where it's legal at the state level and illegal but "hands off" at the federal is totally ridiculous. Even worse than having marijuana be illegal is having laws applied randomly and with a sizeable portion of the population able to be arrested at someone's whim. I think legalizing at the state level was probably a good strategy to get the momentum going, but at some point we have to stop it being illegal at the federal level (individual states can outlaw, that's fine). Hopefully this will be the impetus to get that done.

ap3 10y ago

How come Republicans/Conservatives want to regulate people but de-regulate businesses ?

sbarre 10y ago
Because they care less about the former than the latter? ;-)
brian-armstrong 10y ago
Businesses are people. A very special kind of people, even. The best kind.
Spellman 10y ago
Because Pharma pays more than people? All snark aside, traditional Republicans are more in favor of societal stability. And this is achieved, in their mind, via social institutions and a thriving economy. Thus, their values that align with moral institutions, corporations (economic and potential societal homogeneity), and a strong military (both defense and because it shares it's values of a highly connected, dependent structure of individuals striving for a bigger cause). I'd recommend reading up on the Moral Foundations Theory, especially the work looking at the differences between Liberals and Conservatives in light of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory http://www.moralfoundations.org/ http://www.moralfoundations.org/

alistproducer2 10y ago

This is just the political disaster anti-fascists need. The public will be overwhelmingly opposed to this and will wake a few people up.

madengr 10y ago

I'm in all favor of the fedgov ignoring marijuana laws if they do the same for gun laws. Unfortunately many who want recreational marijuana legalized want gun control.

shams93 10y ago

If you're disabled they'll stick you on fentynal for $0 on Medicaid, keep you on opiates for life but medical cannabis has no support for the disabled even though the side effects are nothing compared to opiates. Lack of Medicaid funding for medical cannabis is a major driver behind the opiate crisis.

smhenderson 10y ago
I am by no means a fan of Trump and I think this crackdown is a terrible idea but to be fair... Spicer noted that Trump supports medical marijuana and understands that patients are in pain and facing terminal illness and have a right to medical marijuana. He also noted the Congressional rider – commonly known as the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment – was in force and prevents DOJ from intervening in medical marijuana states.

nummy 10y ago

Seems kind of pointless. Only thing that will change is I'll have to get my weed from a dealer like in the old days, instead of a dispensary. Good way to kill good paying jobs, asshats.

brian-armstrong 10y ago

There's a trend to many of Trump's decisions so far, which is that they are punitive. He knows there are things liberals want and support, and he's going to go after those things. Not because he cares about them, but because it's important to him to "get back at" his detractors.

jliptzin 10y ago
That's a good point, he seems to be a very petty and vengeful person. Just look at his feud with rosie o'donnell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP7Lixcc_jQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP7Lixcc_jQ

jliptzin 10y ago

So, Republicans go crazy over Roe v. Wade and the supreme court decision on gay marriage, citing 'activist' judges going against the will of the people. Now, recreational marijuana has been put to the people, and in those states where the majority approved, Republicans want the feds to come in and enforce prohibition. What happened to the party of small government and states' rights? The hypocrisy really never ends with the Republican party.

asdlfkjaklf 10y ago
Clarence Thomas would agree with you. Hopefully Neil Gorsuch will be in his mold: "Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part: Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce... among the several States." [...] Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana. [...] If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce." [...] If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."[12]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- 10y ago

Spooky23 10y ago

Of course. The police unions strongly backed Trump and probably helped carry swing states. This is patronage.

mnm1 10y ago

Since all current and just voted recreational states also have a medical program, most people will probably just get a recommendation from a doctor, depending on how lax the laws of their state are. If they're not lax, they will hopefully be changed to be (lawmakers, please see California for a great example). This will either set back progress and the will of the people, or hopefully, stage a huge fight where the states stand up for themselves and demand that this administration respect their constitutions and therefore the will of the people.

kylehotchkiss 10y ago

"When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people.” So uh... where's the action on opiate addiction?

dragonwriter 10y ago
No, see, because opiate addiction exists, we shouldn't be encouraging people. Only the premise, not the action in the conclusion, references opiates.

lucd 10y ago

That and the reversal on federal use of private prison.. Time to buy private prison stock...

eip 10y ago

Ganja cures the Babylon mind sickness. It shows you the truth. Truth is the mortal enemy of the state. For this reason Ganja is and will always be illegal. They live. We sleep.