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.

 

Trump Attorney General Pick Says Congress Needs To Legalize Cannabis

page: 2
46
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: dreamingawake

Whhhhhhhaaaaaattttttt????!

He's the last person I'd expect to make such a claim!


So you of all folks here on ATS should be feeling the red flags raising!




posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI




I wholeheartedly agree. Bigger question, why the sudden change of heart from Sessions?


People can have their own views on a subject.

People can also change their views on a subject.

I have changed many of my views since 1980.

So either his views have changed and could have changed with the information now widely available.

Or, he maintains his view but does not let those views impair his job performance and this is how it should be!

There are many, many issues that will confront him. He will never agree with all of the views he needs to have in his job, no single human being can do that.

He is doing what his boss is telling him to do. That is in his job description.

P



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Perhaps and perhaps. However this statement from last year.

"You can’t have the President of the United States of America talking about marijuana like it is no different than taking a drink… It is different….It is already causing a disturbance in the states that have made it legal.”

www.politico.com...

Too early to tell but given history and my gut, I'm going to say he saw the light in terms of revenue for the federal gov't.

Just my 2 cents.

Time will tell.
edit on 26-1-2017 by JinMI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Law Offices of Alan Brown


When Does Marijuana Possession Become a Federal Offense?

Federal law prohibits using, buying, selling, possession or cultivation of marijuana. This is true regardless of the quantity. Even in states where marijuana has been decriminalized, federal law still prohibits any and all manufacture, possession, distribution or use.


That's what I thought. They choose or have chosen not to enforce, but they can.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: c2oden
a reply to: dreamingawake

If this is true, there will be many Trump haters turned Trump lovers.


BRILLIANT!!



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

Well there's always that. Which to me exposes how BS it is the Fed's banning things. Well going by that snippet anyways, because that could be twisted into meaning anybody with a doobie is therefore a "federal criminal".

I know the sates all tend to have their own refined versions of the actual sentencings. I guess I never thought it all the way through, as the pickle here sort of becomes a situation of what is or isn't "federal level".

It all sounds unconstitutional to me.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Obviously this wasn't "the hill he wanted to die on".

There is a marked upside in cost savings in not prosecuting MJ offense as well as an increase in States revenues, so less funding to the States from the Feds. Sessions personal views don't equate into a quid pro quo on this.

Colorado's numbers have been surprisingly good both tax wise and with lowered traffic accident rates as well as, quite frankly it's medicinal uses far outweigh the other alternative costs for the same medical conditions it's used to treat. So actually a triple cost savings ultimately.

While I wasn't crazy about legalizing it personally, fiscally and policy wise those facts can't be ignored.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I'm thinking it's all BS but we'll see.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI




originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Is that one sentence the only quote we have from him the past year, or what? Recently one of those people did a doomsday kind of thread about this, and despite me basically begging for pages dude wouldn't post anything he actually said about it.


I've looked into this and will update it in the OP.

The 2016 quote is from 8:58: "The prevention movement... in trying to send the message that good people don't smoke marijuana." that he's mentioning starts at 8:40.




The KKK part from the past, he denounced it.


Figures claimed that Sessions once said that he used to think that the Ku Klux Klan was okay until he found out that they smoked marijuana, according to The New York Times. Sessions responded to this accusation by saying that he hates the KKK and that the marijuana comment was just a joke.
ETA Source
Was it a joke? Seems in bad taste nonetheless.

edit on 26-1-2017 by dreamingawake because: double quote

edit on 26-1-2017 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-1-2017 by dreamingawake because: ETA



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   
He's not saying that the law ought to be changed. What he's saying is that it's not the AG's job to choose which laws to enforce. In other words, as AG, he would enforce the laws and if Congress didn't want the AG to enforce those laws, Congress needs to change the law.

Under Obama, as with immigration (and as it sounds like President Trump will be doing with immigration), the administration maintained a policy of selective enforcement. The source doesn't have the full exchange so there's not much context but from his answer, it doesn't sound like he's a proponent of selective enforcement.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Sessions said a month or two ago it's not his job to decide which laws get enforced and to inject his personal opinion into it. He said it's his job to enforce the laws on the book.

I could also see Trump along with Sessions pushing Congress to legalize it as a) it's a massive boost to local revenue, b) saves three letter agency and law enforcement resources for more important issues and c) pulls more voters over to him for 2020.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Thanks all for the replies and participation. I'll see if I can locate a transcript from the OP video for those who cannot see it. Also, any YouTube copie/s of the video as they show up.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Blaine91555

Well there's always that. Which to me exposes how BS it is the Fed's banning things. Well going by that snippet anyways, because that could be twisted into meaning anybody with a doobie is therefore a "federal criminal".

I know the sates all tend to have their own refined versions of the actual sentencings. I guess I never thought it all the way through, as the pickle here sort of becomes a situation of what is or isn't "federal level".

It all sounds unconstitutional to me.


Short story but very pertinent to the issue(s) (i.e. feds sentencing guidelines compared to the states where the alleged crime has been committed: one of my graduate classes was "The Economics of Law" (best graduate course I took) and the professor was asking to theorize as why certain crimes are more punitive at the Federal level than the State level where they are committed. The largest discrepancy in sentencing - the difference in time served wasn't considered only the sentence - were drug-related crimes, where on the whole Federal sentences were much longer (more punitive) than State sentences, all else equal. Why, the professor asked. He (professor) had a plausible explanation, but when the discussion ensued and I threw in my $0.02, a super majority of the class agreed with my assertion it was because of the untaxed commerce portion of the illicit drug trade. Not public health. Not crime reduction. Uncle Sam wants you to know that he will always get his cut or you'll be on the inside looking out. This wasn't a conversation in a pub. It was a graduate/Ph.D course in macroeconomics and despite his previous notion on why the discrepancy was so large, the professor taught the class the following semester including taxes/commerce as a acceptable 'answer'/plausible reason.

Here is a very good policy take on State's rights and the current situation with respect to legal marijuana (as current as of 11:59, Jan. 20, 2017): How To Avoid Federal-State Trainwreck



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Well the DEA can get bent if congress makes it legal. It won't matter.

Make it legal and we can reduce our prison expenditures significantly. Stupid law anyway. It's a plant.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Mr. President has already stated that Medical MJ is a good thing and twice asked, " Doesn't everybody think Med MJ is a good thing?" He said it twice. I think it is not top priority at the moment, but as fast as President Trump is moving ( He hit the ground running) it will eventually come to the top of the list of things he will address Federally. President Trump will have many new liberal friends soon, and he will keep most of his conservative friends as well. He will tell Sessions what is expected, and Sessions will obey. Mark my words.
edit on 26-1-2017 by visitedbythem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

Alright, which is it?

Is he saying congress needs to legalise it, or is he saying that he is against it?

Pick one, stick with it, because this thread has some very mixed messages in it.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

It seems like a large number of people here are misinterpreting what Sessions is saying. As a few have pointed out already, he is not saying he favors legalization at the federal level, but that it is his duty as Attorney General to enforce current federal law UNLESS Congress changes that law.

And here's a quote from the OP's source that indicates Sessions' current mindset on the issue:


“You can’t have the president of the United States of America talking about marijuana like it is no different than taking a drink. … It is different. And you are sending a message to young people that there is no danger in this process.


So, let's see.

Cannabis = Relatively Dangerous

Alcohol = Relatively Safe

Am I misunderstanding his position on the relative dangers of these two drugs, or is this really what he's saying?








edit on 27-1-2017 by BiffWellington because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: dreamingawake

It sounds to me like he's realized that his personal opinion on a matter shoulf not and cannot be law just because he doesn't like said topic. I like that. He's basically saying his opinion is (which is is as it should be) is lower and not important as the POEPLE'S opinion as a whole. And he wants congress to listen to the people. About everything not just bud.



again, I like this.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   
perhaps they figured out if a federal tax was put on legal MJ, they could pay for the wall?

Just a guess.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
He's not saying that the law ought to be changed. What he's saying is that it's not the AG's job to choose which laws to enforce. In other words, as AG, he would enforce the laws and if Congress didn't want the AG to enforce those laws, Congress needs to change the law.

Under Obama, as with immigration (and as it sounds like President Trump will be doing with immigration), the administration maintained a policy of selective enforcement. The source doesn't have the full exchange so there's not much context but from his answer, it doesn't sound like he's a proponent of selective enforcement.

This. There is no change in Sessions' rhetoric. This is just being spun to get people's hopes up.



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join