And I also think that it is no coincidence that California would look as having a better economical outcome with the tax revenue coming from pot. So the effort from Sessions is not just for incarcerating minorities, but also to help prevent states with more liberals to have less economically stressed state governments.
Can’t have that bad example grow. /s
My 88 year old mother that has 5 unrepairable crushed vertebra and broke her hip. She could not take opioids. Hated them. Didn’t help and made her in her words ‘too loopy’.
CBD helps. AND a wonderful new development for my mother, a few drops of CBD under her tongue stops a migraine in it tracks.
Is it acting as a placebo? Possibly. Do I care? Not at all. It helps. CBD/THC needs to be studied, and that won’t happen until it’s more accepted and racist assholes like Sessions are put in a home (where they themselves may benefit). If it is made illegal, I’ll grow it myself and make the tinctures for my mother. So (checks, it is the pit). Fuck you to anyone that says it doesn’t help and should be treated like heroin.
Speaking as someone who lives in a state that legalized recreational marijuana just last year: fuck you; we aren’t going back.
Jeff Sessions can think what he wants, but we aren’t going back to marijuana being illegal. Not gonna fucking happen.
I think there is a decent chance that Missouri will pass medical, possibly in 2018.
Y’know, I’m still not convinced that marijuana ought to be legalized… but it’s still nowhere remotely near as bad as heroin, and it’s mind-boggling that anyone could think that it is. At the very least, it should be put in a lower schedule.
I did a lot of research earlier in the year for my wife(long story, she eventually decided not to). It seems to be about on a par with alcohol. Different effects and potential problems but it seems no worse. Regulating it on the same level as alcohol seems appropriate.
The big problem is testing for impaired driving. THC stays testable for days while any impairment is long gone.
The guy is a senator, you know, a part of that body that gets to decide what the law is in the first place, so I find it bemusing that the first thing that sprang to mind for “all steps necessary” was not attempting to repeal the law that’s gotten him so pissed off in the first place, but rather, holding up DOJ nominees.
Much better to let people rot in jail or spend years and thousands of dollars on appeals I guess than it is to actually try to do your job as a legislator and try to get bad laws taken off the books.
I don’t get why leaving the bad laws on the books and leaving it to law enforcement’s discretion, which changes from administration to administration, is considered better than just not having the bad laws in the first place!
Are you under the impression that it’s illegal because nobody has bothered to make a bill? It comes up semi-often, and doesn’t get far in the House or Senate. Looks like the latest attempt was from a more conservative Republican early last year. I believe that it’s probably only a matter of time before federal law changes, but more than 16% of the states will need to take the first step before congress bothers to vote. In the mean time, holding up nominees is more feasible.
Gardner’s position also seems to be about the will of Colorado voters more than whether prohibition is right or not.
Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk
What the hell has he been smoking?
Trump doesn’t smoke. Obviously, cookies and brownies are the edibles of choice.
And I am not convinced that anything should be illegal.
Sadly, I think andros is correct. I don’t think Sessions cares about public health or doing what is right. He for sure doesn’t care about States Rights. Oppressing minorities, however, is something he is on-board with.
The Vermont House just voted to legalize. Ratification by the Senate is not a given but, if it does, the governor is amenable to signing it.
I feel this has to be true: so many people are making so much (legal) money there is no way they can put the green genie back in the bottle.
but is this stupid move randomly happening NOW or is there some reason for it? are they smart enough to distract us from something else with this move or is there just always something to distract us from since this administration is so messed up?
because if it’s a plan, it’s a better one than starting a war. :rolleyes:
Reefers lead to madness … and even to kisses and piano playing.
The federal government has no business funding operas, feeding poor schoolchildren, or anything like that, but it has a duty to save us from the Killer Weed! :eek:
General Beauregard wants to help Make America Great Again! God bless us, everyone.
Democrats just won a Senate seat in Alabama - not just any seat but Jeff Session’s own - because 96% of black voters voted Democrat. The midterm elections are only 10 months away. It’s time to mobilize any and all voter suppression tactics.
With states rolling out their policies, having this on the federal level creates a chilling effect on them.
California or Colorado, with their well established trade, any individual grower or distributor has little to fear from the fed. If they start cracking down, then it is unlikely that it will be your dispensary that is raided.
In Ohio, where we are just starting up, it would make sense to raid the first dispensary, to discourage any others.
No, I think he is on a different tack: in terms of two major things that make people happy, he wants to Make America Straight Again. I know this because, the acronym.
For a very specific value of “sense.” I don’t see any way federal raids in an emergent state can play out well for the administration. The optics aren’t there; there’s no real anti-cannabis base to perform for, and the last dispensary raids in California played a large part in creating the Cole memo in the first place (and IMO strongly aided the legalization movement).
But this admin is all about the short-term. I guess there might be some red-meat-to-the-trogs benefit in a few high-profile raids on “traffickers” (ie people of color) and throwing the book at “the worst offenders” (ie people of color).
You test for THC the way you tested for drunk drivers before breathalyzers and urine tests: get out, walk a line, touch your nose, count backward from 100 by threes, etc., etc. - in other words, practical tests of a persons coordination and focus. Which, by the way, is also the way you test for other sorts of impairment besides alcohol, because driving under the influence means driving under the influence of anything that impairs your driving.
You need a certain number of votes to overturn bad laws. The question is whether or not that critical mass is there yet.