Trump administration may go after legal pot.

[kane]

Today Sean Spicer announce that the Trump administration is looking into going after states wth legal recreational pot. He said it is a scourge similar to the opioid epidemic around the country.

Trump administration signals a possible crackdown on states over marijuana - LA Times

If anyone could use a little OG Kush it's Sean Spicer.

[JohnnyClips - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Good

We don't need any more potheads!

[ruff]

Part of the Republican state rights thingy they've been talking about. You know, states rights about transgender toilets, but not pot. State rights except when they don't want states to have rights. Yeah, that's it. More minions governing the misfits.

[mineistaken]

Good

We don't need any more potheads!

[crockett]

State Rights! State Rights! I thought that was the Republican excuse for trying to do away with transgender bathrooms, abortion, gay rights.. ect..ect..

But as usual it's only state rights if they agree with it..

[mineistaken]

Part of the Republican state rights thingy they've been talking about. You know, states rights about transgender toilets, but not pot. State rights except when they don't want states to have rights. Yeah, that's it. More minions governing the misfits.

Are transgender toilets regulated by federal law in the same manner marijuana is?

[kane]

State Rights! State Rights! I thought that was the Republican excuse for trying to do away with transgender bathrooms, abortion, gay rights.. ect..ect..

But as usual it's only state rights if they agree with it..

I have always said that the GOP is all about less government and more personal freedom so long as they approve of the freedoms you wish to exercise.

[JohnnyClips - BANNED FOR LIFE]

I have always said that the GOP is all about less government and more personal freedom so long as they approve of the freedoms you wish to exercise.

Freedom to smoke a joint and drive?

[Robbie]

Boy that will be a dumb move on Trump's part.

Why does the govt. always feel it has the right to run people's lives? Trump, of all people knows better.

[kane]

Freedom to smoke a joint and drive?

Nope. That would be driving under the influence which is illegal and wrong and anyone who does it should be punished harshly.

If I want to kick back in my house and light up a little weed to relax, I'm not hurting anyone and the government should have no say in what I am doing.

[beerptrol]

Freedom to smoke a joint and drive?

Freedom to smoke a joint while your mom smokes my pole

You're so fucking retarded. Isn't past your bed time

[Robbie]

Nope. That would be driving under the influence which is illegal and wrong and anyone who does it should be punished harshly.

If I want to kick back in my house and light up a little weed to relax, I'm not hurting anyone and the government should have no say in what I am doing.

Exactly
And I don't even smoke pot. But if I want to...NOBDOY should be able to tell me I can't.

We are grown adults and perfectly capable of making our own choices.

[kane]

Exactly
And I don't even smoke pot. But if I want to...NOBDOY should be able to tell me I can't.

We are grown adults and perfectly capable of making our own choices.

Very true!

[mineistaken]

Boy that will be a dumb move on Trump's part.

Why does the govt. always feel it has the right to run people's lives? Trump, of all people knows better.

As far as I remember you advocated all narcotics (cocaine, heroine etc) being legal.
Just to add some perspective to your opinions on this matter

[Robbie]

Yep, the govt. shouldn't rule over you and tell you what you can and can't do.

And your prudish opinions shouldn't be allowed to rule other people's lives.

You don't like narcotics? Don't take them.

You like to do a bump of coke on the weekend with a few drinks? That's YOUR business.
THAT is my perspective.

I'm not your daddy and you're not a child. And the govt. isn't your daddy either.
Grown people should be able to do as they please unless they hurt someone or steal from someone.

[mineistaken]

Yep, the govt. shouldn't rule over you and tell you what you can and can't do.

And your prudish opinions shouldn't be allowed to rule other people's lives.

You don't like narcotics? Don't take them.

You like to do a bump of coke on the weekend with a few drinks? That's YOUR business.
THAT is my perspective.

I'm not your daddy and you're not a child. And the govt. isn't your daddy either.
Grown people should be able to do as they please unless they hurt someone or steal from someone.

My perspective is that junkies COST to society. Meaning EVERYONE pays for their treatment, for their inability to work and so on and on. Not to mention some addicts actually steal or hurt in order to get the dose.
That are the reasons to prohibit it.

Same logic - some people say that safety belts should not be enforced as it is HIS/HER own life. Do you agree with that?
I do not because losing those lives actually COST to society (one less person to contribute etc etc). That is why they are enforced, even though it is his/her own life...

[Robbie]

My perspective is that junkies COST to society. Meaning EVERYONE pays for their treatment, for their inability to work and so on and on. That is the sole reason to prohibit it.

Same logic - some people say that safety belts should not be enforced as it is HIS/HER own life. Do you agree with that?
I do not because losing those lives actually COST to society (one less person to contribute etc etc). That is why they are enforced, even though it is his/her own life...

I got educated on what addiction really is last year after attending some educational seminars on the subject by a top professional in the field.

Only a very TINY portion of people are addicts. And if you ARE an addict..you are already one before you touch your first drink of alcohol or your first prescription pain killer.
Your receptors are just sitting there waiting for it.

As for the 99.9% of the rest of us...we are NOT addicts and don't need the govt. telling us what to do.

The "junkies" who cost society??? They are going to find and take whatever they are addicted to regardless of what you or the govt. tells them to do.
Addiction hijacks the brain and they have no choice.

An addict could care less about legalities.

All the govt. does with the "war on drugs" is turn it's own citizens into criminals.

[mineistaken]

All the govt. does with the "war on drugs" is turn it's own citizens into criminals.

You can say that with any crime... Lets abolish punishment for crimes (ok lets leave those that directly hurt others)...

[kane]

My perspective is that junkies COST to society. Meaning EVERYONE pays for their treatment, for their inability to work and so on and on. Not to mention some addicts actually steal or hurt in order to get the dose.
That are the reasons to prohibit it.

Same logic - some people say that safety belts should not be enforced as it is HIS/HER own life. Do you agree with that?
I do not because losing those lives actually COST to society (one less person to contribute etc etc). That is why they are enforced, even though it is his/her own life...

1. Seatbelt laws are enforced not because of the value of that person's life to society as a whole, but because if they are killed/crippled/seriously injured during a car accident insurance companies have to pay more in settlements. There are fewer of these deaths/injuries if people wear seat belts so insurance companies lobbied to get seatbelt laws passed in order to save them money.

2. Most of the people who are smoking pot legally now were smoking it illegally before. Sure, there are medical patients and others who are recent converts to it once it became legal (especially with recreational), but most of these people were smokers before. The difference is now the money is going to local businesses and taxes are going to the state and the money is being used for good things instead of going to drug cartels.

3. Addiction sucks, but it exists and we have to deal with it. The problem is that the current legal system doesn't do that. If you are a drug addict and you get caught by the police and end up in jail, you likely will get no drug treatment therapy while you are in there. As soon as you are out you will likely go back to using. Instead of throwing addicts in jail and hoping they will magically get better, we should be putting them in rehabs and treatment centers where they can get professional help and have a better shot of turning their lives around.

[beerptrol]

But feel free to keep popping those legal prescription pills and abusing that alcohol

Trump is doing things to benefit big money.......not 1 thing to help the middle and poor class

[kane]

But feel free to keep popping those legal prescription pills and abusing that alcohol

Trump is doing things to benefit big money.......not 1 thing to help the middle and poor class

Part of what annoyed me the most about the story is Spicer saying that Trump believes pot smoking is as bad as the opioid epidemic this country is in. Just the other day I saw a piece talking about how states with Medical pot are seeing up 25% fewer deaths from Opioid overdose.

But AG Sessions also said that the Trump administration will continue to use privately owned and operated prisons. So they got to do something to keep getting people to fill those for-profit prisons.

[pimpmaster9000]

Good

We don't need any more potheads!

it has nothing to do with more or less potheads...it has everything to do with crime and rewarding criminals with a lucrative underground non taxable market...90% of all crime, according to the DEA is directly or indirectly linked to narcotics trade...

[The Porn Nerd]

My perspective is that junkies COST to society. Meaning EVERYONE pays for their treatment, for their inability to work and so on and on. Not to mention some addicts actually steal or hurt in order to get the dose.
That are the reasons to prohibit it.

Same logic - some people say that safety belts should not be enforced as it is HIS/HER own life. Do you agree with that?
I do not because losing those lives actually COST to society (one less person to contribute etc etc). That is why they are enforced, even though it is his/her own life...

Your 'perspective' is odd given you are Dutch, correct? This argument that it "costs society" is quite ridiculous. How much does alcohol addiction "cost society"? Are you advocating we abolish drinking? Bet that would go over well in Europe where you all drink like fishes. Drunkenness, sexual and physical abuse, kidney and liver disease, less productivity - all because of (legal) alcohol.

How about the cost to society for smoking? Want to ban cigarettes? Again, since most Europeans smoke like chimneys I doubt this policy would go over very well in Europe.

[Paul&John]

....in Europe where you all drink like fishes..

[just a punk]

Because...

[Barry-xlovecam]

...
But AG Sessions also said that the Trump administration will continue to use privately owned and operated prisons. So they got to do something to keep getting people to fill those for-profit prisons.

Sessions is bad news.

He hasn't gotten to dealing with the "evils of internet porn" yet ... the shitstorm is coming

[bronco67]

Boy that will be a dumb move on Trump's part.

Trump, of all people knows better.

You made a mistake by saying Trump knows something.

[pimpmaster9000]

How about the cost to society for smoking? Want to ban cigarettes? Again, since most Europeans smoke like chimneys I doubt this policy would go over very well in Europe.

the WHO claims ONE BILLION people will die in this century from the effects of tobacco...ONE BILLION!

[beerptrol]

Part of what annoyed me the most about the story is Spicer saying that Trump believes pot smoking is as bad as the opioid epidemic this country is in. Just the other day I saw a piece talking about how states with Medical pot are seeing up 25% fewer deaths from Opioid overdose.

But AG Sessions also said that the Trump administration will continue to use privately owned and operated prisons. So they got to do something to keep getting people to fill those for-profit prisons.

Yep, good time to buy stock of companies who own/run for profit private prisons

[RedFred]

How ironic on the same day Sessions announced he is reversing Obama's policy to stop using private prisons.

Attorney General indicates feds will reverse course on using private prisons

[Matt-ADX]

Robbie

Reading your posts, I feel like you are libertarian more than republican. Am I right? if not what makes you lean more Republican.

[Matyko]

Nope. That would be driving under the influence which is illegal and wrong and anyone who does it should be punished harshly.

If I want to kick back in my house and light up a little weed to relax, I'm not hurting anyone and the government should have no say in what I am doing.

QTF

And Robbie's reply to this is awesome too.

[BlackCrayon]

My perspective is that junkies COST to society. Meaning EVERYONE pays for their treatment, for their inability to work and so on and on. Not to mention some addicts actually steal or hurt in order to get the dose.
That are the reasons to prohibit it.

Same logic - some people say that safety belts should not be enforced as it is HIS/HER own life. Do you agree with that?
I do not because losing those lives actually COST to society (one less person to contribute etc etc). That is why they are enforced, even though it is his/her own life...

the cost of enforcing such laws that everyone is going to break anyways costs a lot. the "war on drugs" has cost billions and achieved basically nothing. millions of productive people use pot medicinally and recreationally. addicts will be addicts no matter what laws you make up. using the word junkie when talking about weed is laughable. abuse of legal medication is probably the biggest problem out there. kids here in my quiet little burb are ODing left and right on fentanyl.

[AndyA]

FUCK ME!

I fucking knew it. These cocksuckers

[Robbie]

Robbie

Reading your posts, I feel like you are libertarian more than republican. Am I right? if not what makes you lean more Republican.

I am a registered Libertarian.

I voted Obama in 2008, Gary Johnson in 2012 and Trump in 2016.

I don't intentionally lean towards any party. I just vote for who I think has the best solutions.

In 2016 I listened to Hillary and Trump. Hillary's public positions were very vague...but seemed to me to be a continuance of the way the economics of our country were going. I disagreed with her tax plan, economic plan, foreign policy, and trade ideas.

I agreed with Trump 100% on those issues.
And I voted my wallet.

I'm pissed that the media and the Democrats are so butt-hurt over losing the election and being 100% wrong that they are doing everything they can think of from their old-school political playbook to stop Trump.

I voted for change for the economy.
No, I don't agree with Trump's "wall" or this pot thing.

But it's hard for me to voice any criticism when there are all the delicate "snowflakes" acting insane on here.
I find myself "defending" the President in the arguments, when I don't really want to.

I'd rather wait (just like I did in 2008 with hopefulness for Obama) and allow the man to get some things done and see the RESULTS.
Then if it's fucked up...I could voice rational disagreement and criticism.

Just like this pot issue. I think it's a big mistake on Trump's part if he allows Sessions to move forward with this.
He is probably thinking it will help him with "conservatives" (because a quick look at Trump's total life shows he has always been a liberal) and shut them up.

I think he's dead wrong about that.
He proved in the campaign that he didn't have to suck up to conservatives. And he still won.

[JohnnyClips - BANNED FOR LIFE]

FAKE NEWS

Trump said it was a states rights' issue...

[Bladewire]

Your 'perspective' is odd given you are Dutch, correct? This argument that it "costs society" is quite ridiculous. How much does alcohol addiction "cost society"? Are you advocating we abolish drinking? Bet that would go over well in Europe where you all drink like fishes. Drunkenness, sexual and physical abuse, kidney and liver disease, less productivity - all because of (legal) alcohol.

How about the cost to society for smoking? Want to ban cigarettes? Again, since most Europeans smoke like chimneys I doubt this policy would go over very well in Europe.

He's not Dutch, he's Slovakian. He's a Ludak, which is slang for being a member of the Slovakian Peoples Party https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_People's_Party

[DBS.US]

Ban the Dumb Ass Pot heads, not the Pot.

[Bladewire]

Sessions is bad news.

He hasn't gotten to dealing with the "evils of internet porn" yet ... the shitstorm is coming

Yep and his new coservative FCC chairmain is just waiting for the word to flip the switch. Good read https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-internet-law/

[Matt-ADX]

I am a registered Libertarian.

I voted Obama in 2008, Gary Johnson in 2012 and Trump in 2016.

I don't intentionally lean towards any party. I just vote for who I think has the best solutions.

In 2016 I listened to Hillary and Trump. Hillary's public positions were very vague...but seemed to me to be a continuance of the way the economics of our country were going. I disagreed with her tax plan, economic plan, foreign policy, and trade ideas.

I agreed with Trump 100% on those issues.
And I voted my wallet.

I'm pissed that the media and the Democrats are so butt-hurt over losing the election and being 100% wrong that they are doing everything they can think of from their old-school political playbook to stop Trump.

I voted for change for the economy.
No, I don't agree with Trump's "wall" or this pot thing.

But it's hard for me to voice any criticism when there are all the delicate "snowflakes" acting insane on here.
I find myself "defending" the President in the arguments, when I don't really want to.

I'd rather wait (just like I did in 2008 with hopefulness for Obama) and allow the man to get some things done and see the RESULTS.
Then if it's fucked up...I could voice rational disagreement and criticism.

Just like this pot issue. I think it's a big mistake on Trump's part if he allows Sessions to move forward with this.
He is probably thinking it will help him with "conservatives" (because a quick look at Trump's total life shows he has always been a liberal) and shut them up.

I think he's dead wrong about that.
He proved in the campaign that he didn't have to suck up to conservatives. And he still won.

Yeah I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

What are your thoughts about having to poll nationally @ 15% to get into the presidential debate? I listened to quite a bit of Gary Johnson and I really think that had he been allowed to debate he would have convinced a massive number of people to vote for him because so many felt they had little choice with such poor candidates on both sides.

Why did you not vote Johnson this time and went with Trump? Was it because you felt you needed to vote for the lesser of 2 evils?

[JohnnyClips - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Yeah I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

What are your thoughts about having to poll nationally @ 15% to get into the presidential debate? I listened to quite a bit of Gary Johnson and I really think that had he been allowed to debate he would have convinced a massive number of people to vote for him because so many felt they had little choice with such poor candidates on both sides.

Why did you not vote Johnson this time and went with Trump? Was it because you felt you needed to vote for the lesser of 2 evils?

Johnson has absolutely no charisma and is not even a libertarian

[Matt-ADX]

Johnson has absolutely no charisma and is not even a libertarian

He could use a little more pep in his step. Why is he not a libertarian? He says he has been since he was a teen, read a book about what a libertarian was and since then has been. He was a Republican as Governor but that's probably the same reasoning as why Sanders and Trump switched. Gotta get on the big teams to win

[JohnnyClips - BANNED FOR LIFE]

He could use a little more pep in his step. Why is he not a libertarian? He says he has been since he was a teen, read a book about what a libertarian was and since then has been. He was a Republican as Governor but that's probably the same reasoning as why Sanders and Trump switched. Gotta get on the big teams to win

What he says and what he's voted for are two different things

He's a cuck

[ruff]

Term limits in Congress and the House of Representatives would freshen things up. Never going to happen though.

[Robbie]

Yeah I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

What are your thoughts about having to poll nationally @ 15% to get into the presidential debate? I listened to quite a bit of Gary Johnson and I really think that had he been allowed to debate he would have convinced a massive number of people to vote for him because so many felt they had little choice with such poor candidates on both sides.

Why did you not vote Johnson this time and went with Trump? Was it because you felt you needed to vote for the lesser of 2 evils?

I think the debates should be open to any candidate polling more than 1%.
That 1% is a LOT of people. And of course if you aren't part of the debates you don't get any media coverage and you can't win.

As for why I didn't vote Johnson this election...2 reasons.
1. Main reason is I've never seen anything like Trump in my lifetime. He is a political unicorn and represented the opportunity for a real citizen (not a politician or lawyer) to be President. And of course his economic ideas.

2. In 2012 Johnson seemed strong and focused. I really liked him and his open talk about freedom and being "Pro-Everything" when they asked him about abortion. He straight up said he was for FREEDOM and liberty for individuals. That spoke to me.

BUT...in 2016, he just seemed goofy acting to me. The media was so anti-Trump that they mistakenly thought that Libertarians all vote Republican and they thought they could split the Republican vote if they gave Johnson some air time.

So CNN gave him a town hall that they broadcast live and CNN and MSNBC interviewed him several times in prime time.

That is when they discovered (to their shock and horror)...that Libertarians are more socially liberal than Democrats by far.
They then began attacking the hell out of Johnson and burying him. lol

But as I said...he made himself look goofy. Making weird faces and giving dumb answers to questions they asked him.

So I looked at the non-politician with similar ideas to mine on economics VS the goofy guy who no longer looked strong and divisive in Johnson and went with Trump.

[thommy]

My perspective is that junkies COST to society. Meaning EVERYONE pays for their treatment, for their inability to work and so on and on. Not to mention some addicts actually steal or hurt in order to get the dose.
That are the reasons to prohibit it.

Same logic - some people say that safety belts should not be enforced as it is HIS/HER own life. Do you agree with that?
I do not because losing those lives actually COST to society (one less person to contribute etc etc). That is why they are enforced, even though it is his/her own life...

and what about the MILLIONS of fat what are getting sick and unable to work from mc donalds and all the other junk food labels - do you not want to prohibit them also with THE SAME argument?

[Matt-ADX]

I think the debates should be open to any candidate polling more than 1%.
That 1% is a LOT of people. And of course if you aren't part of the debates you don't get any media coverage and you can't win.

As for why I didn't vote Johnson this election...2 reasons.
1. Main reason is I've never seen anything like Trump in my lifetime. He is a political unicorn and represented the opportunity for a real citizen (not a politician or lawyer) to be President. And of course his economic ideas.

I think a lot of people felt that way, were you also in the mindset that perhaps a lot of what he was doing was pandering to the Republican base in order to win the nomination and would turn out to be far more liberal? I honestly thought a lot of it was show, it's still incredibly early but from what you see has your opinion needle in regards to him moved at all?

[thommy]

I think the debates should be open to any candidate polling more than 1%.
That 1% is a LOT of people. And of course if you aren't part of the debates you don't get any media coverage and you can't win.

As for why I didn't vote Johnson this election...2 reasons.
1. Main reason is I've never seen anything like Trump in my lifetime. He is a political unicorn and represented the opportunity for a real citizen (not a politician or lawyer) to be President. And of course his economic ideas.

2. In 2012 Johnson seemed strong and focused. I really liked him and his open talk about freedom and being "Pro-Everything" when they asked him about abortion. He straight up said he was for FREEDOM and liberty for individuals. That spoke to me.

BUT...in 2016, he just seemed goofy acting to me. The media was so anti-Trump that they mistakenly thought that Libertarians all vote Republican and they thought they could split the Republican vote if they gave Johnson some air time.

So CNN gave him a town hall that they broadcast live and CNN and MSNBC interviewed him several times in prime time.

That is when they discovered (to their shock and horror)...that Libertarians are more socially liberal than Democrats by far.
They then began attacking the hell out of Johnson and burying him. lol

But as I said...he made himself look goofy. Making weird faces and giving dumb answers to questions they asked him.

So I looked at the non-politician with similar ideas to mine on economics VS the goofy guy who no longer looked strong and divisive in Johnson and went with Trump.

first of all robbie, my big compliment for being that brave to be the one in the middle who takes the hits from both sited.
I really like to read your posting here they are very different to the extremes we have here.

you are also completely right with what you stand for - I think here is nobody who really would prefer Hillary if there would be another candidate.

But the fish starts to stink from his head - and I TOTALLY agree with you that this what is called democracy in US is not even in the near of that.

i can NEVER understand how it can happen that a candidate what is definitely getting fewer votes as his rival can win the elections and it is still called democracy.
this election system STINKS up to the sky and has to be reformed URGENTLY.

i mean there are not really perfect democracies in the world - I would say that the swiss democracy is at least the best existing (also not perfect) but that is FAR from what is present in USA.

I think humanly you have trump already well-recognized (even if it all sounds quite harmless from you).

But as far as professionalism is concerned, you are probably right next to it if you expect a better economy through it.
From the political point of view, he is doing pretty much everything wrong.

The disaster is that "normal people" are not able to see the backgrounds when they report a change in the statistical formula for calculating the foreign trade deficit on the margins. The normal citizen knows nothing about it and does not want to know it either.


So he does not know what immense document falsification and spreading lies is behind it.


He is already preparing a formula what will make the historical numbers worse and I am sure he have in mind to change that formula again after a period he is the oval office. What makes him look as the better one (and he knows already that he won´t be that)


I do not know if you have read about that and because of the complexity of this theme, the popular media don´t even touch it in the headlines.

That kind of strategy has NOTHING to do with better economics and the ideas he has around that CAN NOT work because they are completely against all logic and the complexity of a global market.

This boomerang will not fall back only to the USA (but it will hit the USA most) it will bring the whole world in a crisis were the 2008 crisis was a kiddy game in compare.

Indeed I am quite sure, that also the republican party have some smart heads who can see that already and they are prepared for the day when they have to kick him out. But what happens AFTER him?
Generations of "next presidents" have to try to fix that again and it gives generations of "next presidents" an apology for their own inability because until then America will know that Trump was by far the most stupid idea they had in the past 500 years.

[Robbie]

thommy, a lot of what you are saying is conjecture.

Trump has already proved the "experts" wrong on the economy right out of the gate.

Check out some of these predictions the "Experts" made that have already been proven 100% wrong:
Economists: A Trump win would tank the markets - POLITICO

Donald Trump: A Huge Hedge Fund Predicts a Stock Market Correction | Fortune.com

I can keep posting those links because there are so many of them.
The media and the "experts" did everything they could to report "fake news" to stop Trump.

Reality? The stock market has risen to a new record. And over 2.9 TRILLION dollars in new wealth has been created from the stock market since the day of Trump's election.

The business community KNOWS that Trump's administration is "business friendly" as opposed to Pres. Obama's who had a contentious relationship with business at best.

That is what I voted for. The economy.

We have all been told by that same media and "experts" that we can never have a great economy again...and as you are saying: it's sooooo "complicated" in a global economy.

I don't think so myself. I think it's pretty damn simple.
The politicians got rich while shipping our jobs overseas.

Trump is changing that.
Now we will see if the media and the "experts" are right...or if they were lying to us and will end up wrong again.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

One thing is for sure...if things had just kept going the way they were, we were heading downward.
At least Trump represents a change from the status quo

[Best-In-BC]

Good

We don't need any more potheads!

lol, dork