It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Here's where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton stand on marijuana legalization

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Why?

What does it have to do with this thread?




posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Just to toss this into our mix here, should Trump win and appoint one of his first big name endorsers, Chris Christy to be Attorney General then we will know how legalization will go. Christy is vehemently against it.
www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
The Clinton Campaign's actual position:




Chelsea Clinton: Marijuana Can Kill

Chelsea Clinton: Marijuana Can Kill


In a campaign appearance Saturday in Youngstown, Ohio Chelsea Clinton suggested that marijuana has the ability to kill.


During her speech, Clinton said, “We also have anecdotal now from Colorado, where some of the people who were taking marijuana for those purposes, the coroner believed after they died that there were drug interactions with other things they were taking.”

Clinton reefer madness


edit on 5-11-2016 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Cannabis and Cannaboids have been found useful.

No one agrees smoking is healthy and legalization is under those pretenses atm.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
Cannabis and Cannaboids have been found useful.

No one agrees smoking is healthy and legalization is under those pretenses atm.


But cigarettes are fine?



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: imjack
Cannabis and Cannaboids have been found useful.

No one agrees smoking is healthy and legalization is under those pretenses atm.


But cigarettes are fine?

No, they're labeled right on them they will kill you.

MMJ comes in a medical capsule even if you buy it recreational. My issue is its display



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: imjack
Cannabis and Cannaboids have been found useful.

No one agrees smoking is healthy and legalization is under those pretenses atm.


But cigarettes are fine?

No, they're labeled right on them they will kill you.

MMJ comes in a medical capsule even if you buy it recreational. My issue is its display




Wow, talk about fake outrage.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

" You ask me if I agree with Trump. Trump has flip-flopped on this. I think all candidates have. It's just one of those controversial subjects. "


I would think Either Candidate if Elected President , would Not have Much Say or Pull , in Influencing the Legislation of Marijuana Laws on the Federal Level . You are Correct in assuming that the Subject has been Nothing more than a " Talking Point " during this Campaign by both Candidates , but left up to a States Decision , the Federal Government , and those who Hold the Real Power there when it comes to the Enforcement of Federal Drug Laws (DEA) (FDA) , would have to sooner or later make a Pro or Con Decision on whether or not to Support All States Rights on this Issue by changing Marijuana from a Schedule I Substance , to a Schedule II one to begin with .

edit on 5-11-2016 by Zanti Misfit because: spelling



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: imjack
Cannabis and Cannaboids have been found useful.

No one agrees smoking is healthy and legalization is under those pretenses atm.


But cigarettes are fine?

No, they're labeled right on them they will kill you.

MMJ comes in a medical capsule even if you buy it recreational. My issue is its display




Wow, talk about fake outrage.


Fake outrage? What? Is that not a reasonable enough example for you or do I have to get all preacher about how smoking causes cancer?

The medical connections are to cancer and it's causing cancer, I'd expect some real outrage.

Cell damage isn't bias, smoking is smoking no matter it be pot, crack, cigarettes, cigars, heroine, whatever. The 'connections to cancer' can't be generalized into 'any way of using it is safe'. There's nothing more hypocritical than smoking it. Increases risk of cancer.

Now you're trying to tell me this is going to be legalized because of its beneficial traits, but no one is going to address the part about people smoking it as the primary use people think it's for? The whole thing is a joke. Nails are legal, should I eat them in my cereal?
edit on 5-11-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I don't see republican politicians getting behind any type of legalization. They represent the part of America that still buy in to the whole war on drugs BS and think that putting people in prison is helping them in some kind of way.

Democrats have historically been more socially progressive but I don't see Hillary doing anything about legalization either unless there's some political advantage in it for her.

I think it's going to be a while before "leaders" actually confront the truth about the drug war. Heck, a large part of the population still believes the lies they were told for the last 50 years about drug use.

When most people can see the reality that the laws against drugs are making them into the "dangerous" things they are, we'll be headed in the right direction.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Arizona has medical and this election we will vote yes for prop 205 and we are still considered a red state.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

I would think Either Candidate if Elected President , would Not have Much Say or Pull , in Influencing the Legislation of Marijuana Laws on the Federal Level . You are Correct in assuming that the Subject has been Nothing more than a " Talking Point " during this Campaign by both Candidates , but left up to a States Decision , the Federal Government , and those who Hold the Real Power there when it comes to the Enforcement of Federal Drug Laws (DEA) (FDA) , would have to sooner or later make a Pro or Con Decision on whether or not to Support All States Rights on this Issue by changing Marijuana from a Schedule I Substance , to a Schedule II one to begin with .


Absolutely!

I think eventually it'll be a done deal - - - because Citizens have (enforce) taken it into their own hands. This Genie is not going back in the bottle.

Trump can say whatever he wants - - - but, his party is the Religious Right - - - and are less likely to go along with this then the Left.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: underwerks

Arizona has medical and this election we will vote yes for prop 205 and we are still considered a red state.

Medical isn't legalization, or decriminalization.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

On the fed level no but state level yes.

Prop 205 is the vote to allow rec use.
edit on 5-11-2016 by thesaneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

" Now you're trying to tell me this is going to be legalized because of its beneficial traits, but no one is going to address the part about people smoking it as the primary use people think it's for."

Are you Aware of the Industrial Uses of Hemp , and Hemp Byproducts ? They are Also Restricted in the U.S. Under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 . A Potential Billion Dollar Industry Unable to Exist because of that Law . Think what the Repeal of that Law would do to the Economy of the United States going into the Future . Remember our 20 Trillion Dollar National Debt before you Answer that Question .....



www.treehugger.com...

edit on 5-11-2016 by Zanti Misfit because: spelling



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
if the dems REALLY wanted research then they would have rescheduled it long ago BUT DID NOT.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: underwerks

Arizona has medical and this election we will vote yes for prop 205 and we are still considered a red state.


I lived in AZ 20+ years. I also live in CA.

AZ is kind of strange.

Last of the original 48 states to join the union. The people there still have an independent Cowboy type thinking.

They really don't want government telling them what they can and can not do.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I think Trump's policy on this is the best. It is the same way he handles most issues that should be none of the Federal Government's business in the first place. He wants federal to stay out of it, and let the states handle it.

That's one of the things I like about Trump. He seems to understand what the Federal Government should and should not be regulating. Right now the Feds have way too much power over our every day life, and it would only get worse with Hillary.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
A Potential Billion Dollar Industry Unable to Exist because of that Law . Think what the Repeal of that Law would do to the Economy of the United States going into the Future . Remember our 20 Trillion Dollar National Debt before you Answer that Question .....



YES!

A while back I read up on the Hemp Industry. Really kinda stupid that its still illegal.



posted on Nov, 5 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Yes? My point is it should be legal, but people shouldn't be misleadingly educated smoking it is medicine? I compared it to nails, that are legal, how did you miss that point.



edit on 5-11-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join