Schumer to Introduce Marijuana Bill

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day... strangely enough, this often happens just before an election. But I digress...

I do not trust Cryin' Chuck as far as I can throw him. I consider him one of the "sky-screamers," a term I recently coined to identify those who simply want to have their own way to implement their own self-serving agendas at the peril of the rest of the country and will lie, spin, and throw ridiculous temper tantrums to get it. Without exception, he has used his position as Minority Leader in the Senate to block and obstruct every single bill that could do good for the American people. Leopards don't change their spots... well, at least not until they've been skinned alive.

This bill, however, looks clean. If it is indeed as clean as it looks, I support it and will give Schumer credit where credit is due.

More to the point, why now? It would have been a slam-dunk to decriminalize during Obama's administration. Sessions' appointment and his admittedly rabid attitude toward marijuana started over a year ago. The only reasonable explanation I can see is that Schumer knows something we don't about the actual public sentiment in the upcoming election. he needs votes, and his actions so far have not been conducive to getting people to vote Democratic.

No matter. I'll happily take the peace offering; just don't anyone expect me to turn my back on him while shaking his hand.

Now we need it out of committee and that weasel McConnell to bring it up for a vote. If we can get Kay Ivey to listen to the people, we might be able to legalize it in Alabama. (Call me a dreamer.)

TheRedneck

All the republicans need to do is vote to pass it, and bam, check mate. They won't, but is all they'd need to do.

a reply to: Blaine91555

We are the majority. Bow before us.

Both parties do, every 2 years. The rest of the time they try to slit our throats.

I think I've had too much caffeine.

Is that even possible? I thought it was an oxymoron.

TheRedneck

Smoke Weed Every Day.
-SnoopDog

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Decriminalize you mean, you're right as it doesn't legalize it on a federal level but it will lower the the penalties for having it, usually for up to an ounce if we go by how states have been decriminalizing it over the years. Still would be a huge step for the Federal gov't to do as they continue to keep mandatory minimums in place and as a Schedule 1 drug (both extremely stupid). If this bill gets anywhere it would be the snowball for legalization on a federal level, which is what a majority of the American people want but it's not what politicians Donors want, for now.

But, will a GOP control federal gov't even consider this? Nope.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
im most concerned with what this would mean for employee drug testing

I'd be surprised to see any forced changes to those policies. As it stands now we have it being 100% legal for a company to pass a policy which allows them to test for nicotene in employee's systems and terminate employment if it is found that they have been smoking, dipping, vaping, or even using the patch or nicotene gum... Tobacco is a fully legal substance at all levels, yet those policies have been allowed to essentially criminalize it on a per job basis. I'd assume weed would be treated the same.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
We are free thinkers

There's an old saying... "you get what you pay for." Seems apropos.

I kid, I kid.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Lumenari

We are the majority. Bow before us.

WaPo says we are a myth.

I say let the Moderates run for office without obstruction and watch us fix stuff. It would be glorious. A chicken in every pot! Or if you're Vegan a pile of Kale in every pot!

I think I've had too much caffeine.

It's all good and I guess in the spirit of the OP it could also be some pot in every pot!!!

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blaine91555

You're just jealous because it wasn't a Republican.

I would be were I a Republican. The real problem with being opposed to both parties is the Left assumes you're Right and Right assumes you're Left. There really are people who agree with bits and pieces from both sides. We are free thinkers who prefer not to be limited by a party platform. We upset the apple cart, I know.

We are actually called Independents... the group both parties hate until election time.

I think Libertarians are hated as much. If not more.

I consider Libertarians independents.

As in they are independent of the current two-party system.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blaine91555
Here are some details on what the bill contains. Quite a clean bill, it seems.

The legislation, which Schumer’s office expects will be released within the next week, has six main points. First, it would remove marijuana from Drug Enforcement Administration’s list of controlled substances, which would end federal prohibition and leave it up to states to decide how to regulate the drug. Schumer stopped short of calling it legalization, but de-scheduling would essentially make marijuana legal at the federal level.

His bill would also would create some funding for minority and women-owned marijuana businesses, provide money for research into overall effects of marijuana and it’s specific effect on driving impairment. And lastly, it would “maintain federal authority to regulate marijuana advertising in the same way it does alcohol and tobacco,” which Schumer said is to make sure marijuana businesses aren’t targeting children with their ads.

news.vice.com...

Seems good. Except for that commie pinko MWBE stuff.

All of that is great except this part here:

His bill would also would create some funding for minority and women-owned marijuana businesses,

That is not needed. And it will back some republicans off of signing this.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Yeah that's the commie pinko part. But MWBE is already deeply ingrained in the federal government.

Maybe he put that in as a "gimme" to give back. The art of the deal and all that.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The only way I would even consider voting for him would be if this got passed BEFORE the elections.

Does he really think people are dum enough to vote for him because he might do it after he is elected?

a reply to: Phage

What does MWBE stand for?

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Does he really think people are dum enough to vote for him because he might do it after he is elected?

Do you think any Republicans would vote for him if it passed? I don't.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Minority and Women Business Enterprises

It's a thing whereby business owned by women and/or minorities are given certain concessions as a way to even the playing field against the big guys. Usually it has to do with government contracts.

It's a commie pinko thing.

a reply to: Phage

thought they wanted to be equal?

a reply to: shooterbrody

They do. That's the basic idea.

I won't explain the rationale here. Feel free to research it on your own.

a reply to: Phage

of course not

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah. I didn't think you really cared much about it.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The only way I would even consider voting for him would be if this got passed BEFORE the elections.

Does he really think people are dum enough to vote for him because he might do it after he is elected?

Unless you live in his District and it's 2022 when he's actually up for reelection, I doubt Schumer is terribly concerned with your voting record and future intentions.