marijuana

[narwhalParticipant]

After California passed a law legalizing (and taxing) marijuana, the federal Attorney General Sessions is reportedly saying that the federal government is going to start enforcing the existing federal law banning marijuana usage. Again, most of the discussion is around the morality and effects of marijuana, but again, the conflict is going to be resolved through the law and the constitution.

Personally, I am for legalizing marijuana. At the very least, the punishment should not be anywhere near as damaging as it currently is. At the same time, I’m ecstatic that Sessions is enforcing federal law. Let me explain.

The executive branches job is to enforce the law. The constitution does not allow the executive branch to decide that it doesn’t like certain laws and can chose not to enforce them. Sessions is absolutely doing what he is supposed to do, regardless of whether I like the law or not.

Second, there are two options for California and the other marijuana states to fight this. One option is virtually impossible, the second is going to be very damaging to the progress agenda as a whole. There is also a 3rd possibility which will essentially just be status quo mess we currently have.

The first option is that Congress repeals the marijuana laws at the federal level. This won’t happen with a Republican controlled Congress. It could happen if the Democrats regain some control, but they still would need to get past Trump’s veto. Not a very strong option.

The second option, is for California to sue the federal government (as states have recently done regarding immigration). The can claim that the Federal government has no right to regulate marijuana sales and consumption, that it is a states issue. I personally 100% agree with that. I hope this happens and the Supreme Court rules in favor of states rights. And that it’s sets the precedent for other States to come forward with other issues.

This open the door for other issues to be addressed and set as either a state right or a federal right. Marriage can be brought forward. Abortion can be brought forward. Education, infrastructure spending. Virtually every issue should be a state issue, not a federal issue, Constitutionally speaking.

Granted abortion is legal based on a Supreme Court decision regarding the rights of a US citizen, not whether a State has a right to govern in this area, but it certainly is a good reason to bring it back to the Supreme Court. Same goes for marriage. Spending issues are a little different.

I think it’s more important to shift thinking and governing to the state level. There is no better way to drain ‘the swamp’ then to reduce it’s power. Yes, state politicians are still politicians, and few citizen pay attention to state politics today, however I think citizen will empowered to pay more attention and vote at the state when the state has more power over their lives. I also think they will feel their vote matters more.

The result would be that both blue and red states are strive towards being the utopia they want to be, and we’ll see what works and what doesn’t. We’ll see people migrate more frequently to where they want to be.

Even specifically for MGTOW and men’s issues, I think positive changes are more likely to occur with greater state control than at the federal level. Not definitely, but it’s easier to make changes at the state level then it is at the federal.

Ok. Then do it.

[Manspread MansplainerParticipant 4222]

The free market forces will steam roll Sessions. Billions and Billions of $$$ worldwide.

If women ran the world = It would become the shithole you are seeing.

[It’sallbsParticipant]

narwhal wrote:

After California passed a law legalizing (and taxing) marijuana, the federal Attorney General Sessions is reportedly saying that the federal government is going to start enforcing the existing federal law banning marijuana usage. Again, most of the discussion is around the morality and effects of marijuana, but again, the conflict is going to be resolved through the law and the constitution.

Personally, I am for legalizing marijuana. At the very least, the punishment should not be anywhere near as damaging as it currently is. At the same time, I’m ecstatic that Sessions is enforcing federal law. Let me explain.

The executive branches job is to enforce the law. The constitution does not allow the executive branch to decide that it doesn’t like certain laws and can chose not to enforce them. Sessions is absolutely doing what he is supposed to do, regardless of whether I like the law or not.

Second, there are two options for California and the other marijuana states to fight this. One option is virtually impossible, the second is going to be very damaging to the progress agenda as a whole. There is also a 3rd possibility which will essentially just be status quo mess we currently have.

The first option is that Congress repeals the marijuana laws at the federal level. This won’t happen with a Republican controlled Congress. It could happen if the Democrats regain some control, but they still would need to get past Trump’s veto. Not a very strong option.

The second option, is for California to sue the federal government (as states have recently done regarding immigration). The can claim that the Federal government has no right to regulate marijuana sales and consumption, that it is a states issue. I personally 100% agree with that. I hope this happens and the Supreme Court rules in favor of states rights. And that it’s sets the precedent for other States to come forward with other issues.

This open the door for other issues to be addressed and set as either a state right or a federal right. Marriage can be brought forward. Abortion can be brought forward. Education, infrastructure spending. Virtually every issue should be a state issue, not a federal issue, Constitutionally speaking.

Granted abortion is legal based on a Supreme Court decision regarding the rights of a US citizen, not whether a State has a right to govern in this area, but it certainly is a good reason to bring it back to the Supreme Court. Same goes for marriage. Spending issues are a little different.

I think it’s more important to shift thinking and governing to the state level. There is no better way to drain ‘the swamp’ then to reduce it’s power. Yes, state politicians are still politicians, and few citizen pay attention to state politics today, however I think citizen will empowered to pay more attention and vote at the state when the state has more power over their lives. I also think they will feel their vote matters more.

The result would be that both blue and red states are strive towards being the utopia they want to be, and we’ll see what works and what doesn’t. We’ll see people migrate more frequently to where they want to be.

Even specifically for MGTOW and men’s issues, I think positive changes are more likely to occur with greater state control than at the federal level. Not definitely, but it’s easier to make changes at the state level then it is at the federal.

I read about this ten minutes ago on David Icke’s site on teh US news section.

The reason, in my opinion, is because the claimed health benefits are starting to be backed up by evidence thus threatening the dangerous crap (look into trials of drugs and vaccines) big pharma sells.

I forget the name of it now but one of the big companies who cause the opioid epedemic in the USA resulting in the heroin use epedemic are now making big bucks of kneedle exchange programmes.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

https://www.davidicke.com/article/448729/jeff-sessions-marijuana-adviser-wants-doctors-drug-test-everyone

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[narwhalParticipant]

My point reality isn’t about whether marijuana should or shouldn’t be legal, but the potential battle between federal and state governing rights, and the positive impact such a battle could have.

Manspread Mansplainer wrote:

The free market forces will steam roll Sessions. Billions and Billions of $$$ worldwide.

So you’re saying that Sessions shouldn’t enforce the law? What does that say about our government? Why do we even have laws if an Attorney General can decide which ones he likes and doesn’t like?

Not to pick on you, but free market forces shouldn’t sway the actions of the US Attorney General. If the federal law is wrong, than it needs to be repealed or overturned in court. It shouldn’t be decided in the market or by public opinion.

Ok. Then do it.

[Manspread MansplainerParticipant 4222]

narwhal wrote:

So you’re saying that Sessions shouldn’t enforce the law? What does that say about our government?

I’m saying my cannabis stocks are soaring and the world don’t care what Sessions says.

He can put every American in jail and my stocks still go up.

If women ran the world = It would become the shithole you are seeing.

[TrailbossParticipant 1844]

Not much the fed’s can do about it, other then using the Interstate Commerce Clause and by taking away various federal funding packages to force the state to heel. I’m not a weed guy, but I see no reason the states can’t make up their own minds about legality. Too much emphasis on the rights of the federal gov’t and not enough on states rights IMHO. #MANOUT!

An educated, armed populace cannot be enslaved.

[Anonymous 14]

People who smoke weed don’t care whether it is legal or not. If some asshat in D.C. wants to attempt to enforce some archaic law that people in certain states have voted against thus ending the possibility of it being taxed, well, fine by me, I am going to keep smoking. I prefer it to be illegal, no, really, I do. This way the f~~~ing Government can’t tax it. They spend it all on bulls~~~ anyhow.

Pretty f~~~ing stupid if you ask me though, give me two weeks making decisions in D.C. and I will give every citizen of the United States a virtual Utopia. All drugs should be decriminalized and taxed. Fund treatment centers, save billions in policing, judicial system, and housing inmates.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Anonymous wrote:

People who smoke weed don’t care whether it is legal or not. If some asshat in D.C. wants to attempt to enforce some archaic law that people in certain states have voted against

I find a lot of people seem to take this stance, when it suits them, and its rather hypocritical. If you like your weed I bet you support it when a state says f~~~ federal law we’re legalizing this s~~~. However…how about illegal immigration? Do you also enjoy when a state says f~~~ federal law, we’re a sanctuary state? Certain states have voted for that, so we just ignore the asshats in D.C. and flood the country with illegals?

Ultimately federal law over rides state law. Personally, I don’t really care if pots legal so much as people have the decency to use it in a manner that doesn’t impact those who do not want to be around it, much like smoking cigarettes is treated, but I do however mind when we end up with a s~~~ty administration like the Obama administration who just picks and chooses what laws he’s going to enforce.

I think it sets a dangerous precedent to cheer when an administration flat out ignores the law when its something you support, because it means it will be done more in the future, and what happens when they start ignoring laws you want to see enforced? Our system was created with checks and balances for a reason.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

The war on drugs is one of the linchpins the GOP has to keep social conservatives from defecting. The war on drugs, plus being opposed to abortion, and also being pro-gun, keeps the social conservatives there. They promise tax breaks and reducing regulation for libertarians and also corporately minded wealthy, in order to maintain a coalition. In all this normal talk, people were getting screwed economically, so you now have the Trump rail, or had it. With Trump throwing Bannon out, it will be interesting to see what happens next. If individuals end up going full cult of personality, Trump can go full establishment, and people will still support him, because they worship him, rather than what he stands for, which really is just a bunch of slogans actually (but hey, that is just my opinion. You are free to keep believing Mexico will pay for a literal wall).

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[Anonymous 14]

Beer wrote:

I think it sets a dangerous precedent to cheer when an administration flat out ignores the law when its something you support, because it means it will be done more in the future, and what happens when they start ignoring laws you want to see enforced? Our system was created with checks and balances for a reason.

The Obama administration had the Feds raid dispensaries in California more than the Bush administration did after he seemed pro-weed while campaigning… We will see what Trump does. Also, I am for States Rights, I am a Libertarian, all drugs should be decriminalized. I can give two s~~~s about what anyone says, I will remain a sovereign man, if I am locked up for making my own decisions about my life by some ASSHAT some day, so be it.

As far as immigration? I think all the States secede anyhow, if some want to vote in the ability to be overrun by foreigners and others don’t then fine by me. I would be giddy to see the U.S. fall apart into Sovereign States where people’s diversity in points of view can be realized instead of being forced to live under one set of rules with nobody ever being happy. This is all just as planned, keep us eternally divided while the big Special Interests keep getting what they want. Also, this would likely end all of our wars for Israel and outrageous Military spending as it would be near impossible to get 50 Sovereign States to get on board with this eternal BULLS~~~.

[narwhalParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

The Obama administration had the Feds raid dispensaries in California more than the Bush administration did after he seemed pro-weed while campaigning… We will see what Trump does

It’s been a year. So far Trump has shown that he is much more likely to implement his campaign promises then other Presidents have been. I don’t like the guy personally, but I do like his results in comparison to others.

Anonymous wrote:

Also, I am for States Rights, I am a Libertarian, all drugs should be decriminalized. I can give two s~~~s about what anyone says, I will remain a sovereign man, if I am locked up for making my own decisions about my life by some ASSHAT some day, so be it.

I’ve not sure where your life is at, but I’ve seen too many people’s lives destroyed or damaged due to punishment from marijuana possession. I haven’t seen people’s lives ruined from marijuana, just getting caught. That’s not right, IMO.

Anonymous wrote:

As far as immigration? I think all the States secede anyhow, if some want to vote in the ability to be overrun by foreigners and others don’t then fine by me.

I see that as highly unlikely. Any state that succeeds is going to have to rebuild relations to other states, to countries, business structures, so on and so on. How many families will be split due to members living in different states. It sounds great on paper, but not in reality. Besides, the end result I think we would want is the same as a true return to states rights.

Beer wrote:

I think it sets a dangerous precedent to cheer when an administration flat out ignores the law when its something you support, because it means it will be done more in the future, and what happens when they start ignoring laws you want to see enforced? Our system was created with checks and balances for a reason.

Exactly. I don’t want the executive branch decide too enforce or ignore laws based on their own morals or the latest opinion polls. Or worse, whatever strategy they feel will keep them in power. Personally, I wish Trump/Sessions would publicly say that they are going to enforce the law because it’s the law. And then follow up by encouraging State governments to take it to the Supreme Court. That’s the way the system is supposed to work.

Ok. Then do it.

[Author]

Posts