Senators introduce bipartisan bill to protect state laws on marijuana

It's sad that it has to come to this but given the Trump Administration's history of cracking down on MJ this is deemed necessary:

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) introduced a bipartisan bill on Thursday that would allow states to regulate marijuana without federal interference.

Warren and Gardner, who both represent states with legal recreational pot, introduced the legislation, known as Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act, as a response to the Trump administration's hard-line stance against the drug.
The bill would amend the Controlled Substances Act to include a framework that says it no longer applies to those following state, territory or tribal laws “relating to the manufacture, production, possession, distribution, dispensation, administration, or delivery of [marijuana]."

thehill.com...

With Canada set to legalize MJ and a number of other States set to take the plunge I personally believe it's an inevitability that this natural substance will become legalized across the land and across the world. With that said there are still elements high up in government doing everything in their power to prevent this from happening, individuals like Trump's appointed Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Given as well the promotion of private prisons and the rate of MJ users and dealers being jailed, police resources being drained on this stuff, somebody needs to step in. I hope more Senators and congressmen jump on board.

shoulda done this a decade ago, no excuses

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I'll offer an amazing display of whataboutism, and ask, why didn't Barry do anything to help the cause?
Sessions is against it, but I don't know what Trump's stance is. He hasn't made any loud noises about it.

As I sit and think, what if.....Sessions goes away and MJ is legalized under Trump. Would you be against it because TDS?

What was Trumps hard line stance?

He said to leave it up to the states, if I remember correctly.

a reply to: network dude

I'll offer an amazing display of whataboutism,

It is an amazing display of whataboutism, I'll give you that.

And with regards not knowing what 'Trump's stance is', Trump appointed Jeff Sessions and is well aware of his positions on MJ. Obviously Trump, in the least, hasn't deemed it of enough importance to stop Jeff Sessions from cracking down on it. Jeff Sessions forms part of Trump's administration so his actions represent the administration and the direction they wish to go on this issue.

Bud

originally posted by: Mandroid7
What was Trumps hard line stance?

He said to leave it up to the states, if I remember correctly.

I was actually gonna ask the same thing. Has anything at all really changed since President Trump was elected?

Has there been some kind of crackdown that I'm not aware of?

My son lives in Denver, and he hasn't mentioned anything about it.

a reply to: Mandroid7

What was Trumps hard line stance?

He said to leave it up to the states, if I remember correctly.

Yet he appointed an Attorney General with a great history of opposing MJs legalization. He hasn't taken any steps or action to stop Sessions from cracking down on MJ users and suppliers. Trump hasn't taken any action in protecting those States who have legalized MJ - he's just left Sessions to do as he pleases.

Actions speak louder than words and from Trump's actions since assuming office - that is appointing a controlling anti-MJ pro-private prisons advocate like Sessions and not doing anything to protect States rights on this matter, indicate the opposite.

They are all dragging their a@@es because they want to regulate it to their financial advantage.
Several gov employees have jumped ship to enter the industry. Some of them, like the new mexico guy are responsible for jailing and ruining the lives and employment prospects of people.

People's firearm rights have been removed with mj charges as well.

My employment opportunities have been hell since a mj charge over a decade ago.

We need across the board criminal justice reform yesterday.

God, this topic makes me want to effn rage.

At least restore all rights and remove records related to mj (short of selling to minors)
before you sh!ts go and get rich off it.

I bet they legalize it, and advertise it that way, but in reality will just regulate it so only who they select csn profit.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Mandroid7

What was Trumps hard line stance?

He said to leave it up to the states, if I remember correctly.

Yet he appointed an Attorney General with a great history of opposing MJs legalization. He hasn't taken any steps or action to stop Sessions from cracking down on MJ users and suppliers. Trump hasn't taken any action in protecting those States who have legalized MJ - he's just left Sessions to do as he pleases.

Actions speak louder than words and from Trump's actions since assuming office - that is appointing a controlling anti-MJ pro-private prisons advocate like Sessions and not doing anything to protect States rights on this matter, indicate the opposite.

So that's just an overly verbose no then, right?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Aka tds.

Just as suspected, pattern identified.

He doesn't need agreement of the guys entire stance on every type of crime.

Sessions is old and out of touch. He was around for the heavy dude weed, jazz rapist minorities propaganda era.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I'll offer an amazing display of whataboutism, and ask, why didn't Barry do anything to help the cause?
Sessions is against it, but I don't know what Trump's stance is. He hasn't made any loud noises about it.

As I sit and think, what if.....Sessions goes away and MJ is legalized under Trump. Would you be against it because TDS?

I wonder the same question.

Trump's stance on MJ: when he was campaigning, he's on record as saying he believes it should be left completely up to the states. He did say he was in favor of it for medical treatments (I think he said something like "it really helps the old folks" or something like that 😂) but wasn't specific about his stance on recreational except that it should be left to the states.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Mandroid7

What was Trumps hard line stance?

He said to leave it up to the states, if I remember correctly.

Yet he appointed an Attorney General with a great history of opposing MJs legalization. He hasn't taken any steps or action to stop Sessions from cracking down on MJ users and suppliers. Trump hasn't taken any action in protecting those States who have legalized MJ - he's just left Sessions to do as he pleases.

Actions speak louder than words and from Trump's actions since assuming office - that is appointing a controlling anti-MJ pro-private prisons advocate like Sessions and not doing anything to protect States rights on this matter, indicate the opposite.

Do you really think that Trump would be able to realistically do anything about Sessions, if he were doing things Trump didn't like?

You anti-Trump people scream at EVERY SINGLE move that Trump makes or doesn't make.

If he were to fire Sessions, as the rumor mill says he's been wanting to do for a while, your camp would immediately cry "Dictator!! Dictator!!" He's screwed if he does, screwed if he doesn't with you all. Comey actually LIED UNDER OATH TO CONGRESS among other nefarious actions, yet you all shat baby giraffes when Trumo fired the guy for actual wrong doing. So, God help Trump if he were to get rid of someone for not doing the job he wanted done.

Trump, Gardner strike deal on legalized marijuana, ending standoff over Justice nominees

That had a great deal of news coverage.

President Trump has promised a top Senate Republican that he will support congressional efforts to protect states that have legalized marijuana — defusing a months-long standoff between Sen. Cory Gardner and the administration over Justice Department nominees.

In January, the Colorado Republican said he would block all DOJ nominations after Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo that heightened the prospect of a federal marijuana crackdown in states that had legalized the substance. Gardner’s home state made recreational marijuana legal in 2014.

In a phone call late Wednesday, Trump told Gardner that despite the DOJ memo, the marijuana industry in Colorado will not be targeted, the senator said in a statement Friday. Satisfied, the first-term senator is now backing down from his nominee blockade.

Sorry, I don't trust trump. He has flipflopped on so many things and will walkback on legal MJ.

Trump will follow the Conservative Christians and the for Profit Prisons dictates.

From the OP's source -

Warren and Gardner's proposed legislation comes in the face of increasing opposition toward marijuana from the White House.

It would seem the author of the article missed a widely publicized news story.

Nope, same source published an article about it.

"Late Wednesday, I received a commitment from the President that the Department of Justice’s rescission of the Cole memo will not impact Colorado’s legal marijuana industry," Gardner said in a statement. ADVERTISEMENT "Furthermore, President Trump has assured me that he will support a federalism-based legislative solution to fix this states’ rights issue once and for all."

So Gardner knows he has Trumps support and The Hill just failed to mention that. How odd?

All this huur drumpf bs needs to end.

Nobody read the boy who cried wolf.

If he does do something bad, we won't even be able to call him out now.

It wil be written off as just another non-thinking opinion.

Maybe that's the point.

4d chess

If I remember correctly, Sec. Sessions said his job is to enforce the laws as they currently exist, and that the solution to the "marijuana problem" was to legalize it - although I believe more accurately it was more like "change the law"'.
.
Sessions DOES have a choice about how he chooses to go about enforcing the law.

Over-enthusiastic enforcement might drive public opinion to mandate legalization nationwide.

We have no compulsory draft now because of public reaction to the U.S. body count of Vietnam -
we have voting and consent at 18 - and in some places "full adulthood" (drinking) at 18 -
all perhaps unintended consequences of public outrage at the draft.

If I remember correctly, Sessions last stated position was that he would leave it up to the various US Attys.


ganjoa