On marijuana: What Clinton, Sanders would do

originally posted by: chiefsmom
Anybody else think that statement is odd? How we are going to help people that marijuana helps?

I don't think she misspoke.

I do not trust her, one little bit.

Odd? From her? Not at all. Political triangulation is a Clinton specialty and part of the pandering modus operandi.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Republican lawmakers, at least at the State level (at least, in Texas) are against legalization for basically threereasons.
1) They tend to run on and win on "tough on crime" type campaigns. Then,
2) There's a huge private prison lobby in Texas. One company, and no I don't have links and the story's been out for years, made a deal with the State that they'd charge less per prisoner when they had a certain number of prisoners in the prison. So....there's a huge cost savings incentive to have more convictions in the pipeline. Judges admit to the fact that they regularly get the nudge to keep an eye on the quota.
3) The "police", particularly in the mega metro areas are part of the distribution network, so any legalization is going to cut into their profits.

As usual, its all about money.

a reply to: chiefsmom

Unless you are trying to push a conspiracy angle here, I think that means that she'd like to get more research on how medical marijuana helps people so that it can be prescribed to the correct people to maximize the benefits.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think it is her way of saying, 'I was for it only if we did *onerous list of things* but since we did not do that, what differnce now does it make?'

a reply to: TonyS

This happened back in May in Texas:
Texas House Panel Approves Full Legalization Of Marijuana In ‘Unprecedented’ Move

Of course, because of the reasons you said it didn't end up becoming law (the article mentions this as well). Goes to show that Republicans are only fighting the tide, and as every culture that has lived by the ocean has learned. Fighting the tide is impossible.

Hillary is going along with the public views of her husband on this, they've probably had talk(s) about how she should handle the question and settled on his take as the "official" family stand.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I think it is her making a cop out excuse for why she isn't in full support of legalization. The "we need more research on marijuana" excuse is getting rather worn out (especially since marijuana's schedule status severely restricts most research on it). Yet, SOOO many politicians still like to wear it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The recreational marijuana use will remain a state issue as it has been for now, with all the anti marijuana laws already at federal level voted by congress, the government will not further any more anti marijuana agendas but will no touch any new ones, already they opened the door for medical marijuana, The United States House of Representatives voted in 2014 to end the raids on states that use medical marijuana and stop funding that was used to fight it too.

That means that it will be the states the ones to decided to expand it to recreational also.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
LOL I'm not trying to "Push" anything.

But I sure wouldn't put it past her, to say what she said, the way she did, to get votes.
And then, as others have said, NOT legalize it, saying there isn't enough proof that it works or some such nonsense.


Again, just because I do not trust her.

a reply to: marg6043

The federal government is getting to a point where it CAN'T stay out of this for much longer. There are too many complications arising from the disconnect between federal and state laws. Many legal marijuana businesses have problems banking and they have to do their payroll in cash (which the IRS penalizes you for). You have people being fired or kept from being hired at jobs for using a legally prescribed medicine. Others travel to other states and get arrested again for using a drug. Federal law is currently stifling the legal pot market and keeping the prices high so that not everyone switches to the legal market.

By dragging its feet when it knows it shouldn't be, the federal government is making the problem worse.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

“States with medical marijuana laws are no longer the outliers; they are the majority,” Rep. Farr said in a statement following the vote. “This vote showed that Congress is ready to rethink how we treat medical marijuana patients in this country. This amendment gives states the right to determine their own laws for medical marijuana use; free of federal intervention. It also gives patients comfort knowing they will have safe access to the medical care legal in their state without the fear of federal prosecution.”

Things are changing, is just up to the states to make the changes, as the federal government is no longer really taking a stance against it, thanks to

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4660, AS REPORTED (CJS APPROPRIATIONS) OFFERED BY MR. ROHRABACHER OF CALIFORNIA

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

SEC. ll. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

www.thedailychronic.net...

I believe that the states needs to do more.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can't understand why it is so anathema to Republican lawmakers to legalize weed.

Because the alcohol, tobacco and drug companies don't want it legal.

a reply to: marg6043

Hows this?
The next 11 states to legalize marijuana

a reply to: buster2010

Actually it is a misnomer that tobacco doesn't want marijuana legal. Tobacco, as their lobbying efforts have shown, could give two squats about marijuana. At one point they wanted to sell it, but now they don't really care if it becomes legal or remains illegal.

Will Big Tobacco become Big Marijuana?

And many fear that tobacco companies, with their deep pockets, longstanding experience dealing with heavy government regulation, and relationships with generations of farmers will jump into the burgeoning marijuana market. At marijuana business conventions and in private conversations, it sometimes seems like everyone has heard a rumor about Big Tobacco getting in.

"I think there's a ton of paranoia that they're buying up warehouses and signing secret deals," said Chris Walsh, the editor of Marijuana Business Daily, an industry publication.

It's not just paranoia: Tobacco companies for generations have talked privately about getting into the weed business.

However

Today, spokesmen for Altria Group (MO) and R.J. Reynolds (RAI) said their companies have no plans to enter the legal pot marketplace. Altria is the new name for Philip Morris.

"We continually evaluate opportunities for portfolio enhancement but focus our efforts on companies and products designed to meet the preferences of adult tobacco consumers and companies where we feel we could add value," said Richard Smith of RJR. "None of Reynolds American's operating companies is evaluating entering the U.S. market with commercial brands of marijuana."

Jeffrey Friedland, chief executive of the international cannabis investment and development company INTIVA, said it's unlikely tobacco companies ever seriously considered marijuana as a product. The tobacco documents archive, turned over to the public following the 1998 national tobacco settlement, show that cigarette companies periodically discussed marijuana as both a potential threat and possible product, including combining pot with menthol cigarettes.

Now the alcohol and drug industries on the other hand HAVE lobbied to keep marijuana illegal.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Since the passing of the amendment to stop percussions in states that had adopted to make marijuana legal, more states are joining, the more states that will join the less power the federal government will have on how to enforce the laws, this is a good thing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yea I'd seen that and was, at first, surprised by it, but then I found it to be rather instructive. You'll note from the article:
The deeply conservative, Tea Party-backed Simpson explained in an op-ed last month that his belief in God, distrust of government and criticism of the “War on Drugs” led him to sponsor the marijuana legalization bill. “As a Christian, I recognize the innate goodness of everything God made and humanity’s charge to be stewards of the same,” wrote Simpson. “I don’t believe that when God made marijuana he made a mistake that government needs to fix.” Simpson was joined by fellow Republican Todd Hunter of Corpus Christi in support of House Bill 2165. Committee chairman Abel Herrero of Robstown was joined by fellow Democratic lawmakers Joe Moody of El Paso and Terry Canales of Edinburg in favor of marijuana legalization.

I've never had any "touch" with the Tea Party group, but friends have told me there's a strong "Libertarian" strain running through the Tea Party. I didn't really believe it and now, I see it at work. That's surprising to me. Todd Hunter from Corpus is a Democrat in a Republican suit......no surprise there and of course, the three Dems are all from Hispanic districts, so......no real surprise there.

You're right about the "tide" but its a real uphill climb for the tide in Texas, for a number of reasons, but primarily because of two "trends" or problems: 1) The Dems have been out of power so long that there's no real depth in the party to provide the experience necessary to demonstrate leadership. And if you're a young person, a young Democrat, there's nothing for you in Texas and based upon my informal polling of young, liberal College students, I find that most are headed out of Texas for specialized education and work. Most respond they're headed to Oregon. (I don't know why Oregon, but that's what they say). 2) There's a huge demographic shift underway in Texas. The largely Republican "Boomers" are fleeing the cities as fast as their burkenstocked feet can carry them. They're heading for the Hills.......literally, they're moving to the Texas Hill country. I know.....I live in the Hill Country. You can't go anywhere here without seeing the Mayflower moving truck delivering a new "family". 3) The demographic shift has lead to a really strange situation in the three major Metro Areas. They of course are owned, operated and controlled by the Democrats and their voting base. So what we see here is the Republican State Representatives have made a bargain with the Cities, i.e., they feed them legislation that allows the Democrat Representatives to make lucrative land/development deals in the Metro areas in exchange for "not voting" on big ticket State Government initiatives, i.e., Budget, Education, Transportation, etc.

You'd ask yourself.....why would the "rural Republican Representatives" make those deals in face of the huge budget needs of the cities? Simple really. The cities are revenue "neutral" because they are largely Federal Fiefdoms. The cities stay on the correct side of the budget ledger because of Federal Transportation funds. So.....the Democrat run cities can offset their declining tax bases with ever larger Federal Transportation dollars which build largely useless crap like Houston's Meto Rails-to-nowhere project. Except those rails are run somewhere......they're run along tracts of land purchased by shell corporations owned by the Democrat State Representatives and City Council people. Once the rail is in......they lease those land holdings to developers at huge, huge profit to the shell corporations.

My guess is that Texas will remain a "Red" state for as long as the Boomers are alive.....after that, the tide will finally overcome the Republicans and that will be the end of their influence. I give it about 30 years or so.

a reply to: marg6043

I agree, and believe me I'm not against states continuing to legalize while the federal government works on getting its head out of its ass, I just think it is time for serious efforts to be made at the federal level for marijuana legalization. Prohibition wasn't this hard to repeal and THAT was a Constitutional Amendment.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I know, is good to see when the states take matters into their hands and the federal government can not really do anything about it.

a reply to: TonyS

Wow that's a really succinct synopsis of Texas. Since I don't live in Texas, I'll have to take your word for it, but you are describing a similar situation that is occurring in Maryland. Baltimore has been renovating its run down parts of the city promoting younger Democrats to flock en mass to the city. This forces all the lower income people to move to the surrounding Baltimore county. As a result, the conservative base that lived there already is moving further away from Baltimore as well. I-70 West, I-83 North, and I-95 North have all become gridlocked during rush hours from people moving further and further away from Baltimore but still commuting there for work.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Forget weed, I want to know Bernie's position on combs and a dab of pomade. I think we all know the answer.