Congress Gives Jeff Sessions $0 To Go After Medical Marijuana Laws

I say this in all seriousness. Every single Trump voter should be happy about this. Regardless your views on weed, it's in my house, I'm not harming anyone else, stay out of my privacy.


This should always be a bipartisan issue. I would laugh at the irony of a trump administration taking away everyone's Mary Jane, but I'd be too pissed off myself.

originally posted by: bknapple32
I say this in all seriousness. Every single Trump voter should be happy about this. Regardless your views on weed, it's in my house, I'm not harming anyone else, stay out of my privacy.


This should always be a bipartisan issue. I would laugh at the irony of a trump administration taking away everyone's Mary Jane, but I'd be too pissed off myself.

Agreed, I voted for him but am not a 'supporter'. I feel draconian laws were started to hurt the black community in the 50's but i am cynical that way. I also think the hemp industry was destroyed so some rich people could use the lumber from their forests like the Hearst oligarch owned. That was a lose-lose for the public. Trees are gone, take a long time to grow to those sizes and hemp renews yearly... Greedy bastards stomped it out.

originally posted by: PRSpinster
a reply to: pteridine

Really? Because SWIM has been driving for 28 years while stoned. Not one single accident OR ticket ever. Oops. Maybe it really is alcohol that's the problem. Oooooohhhh and by the way, those statistics are for people with cannabis in their system! It isn't reflective of individuals who were stoned when accidents have occurred. So actually, your statement should read, "statistically speaking, there are considerable numbers of individuals who enjoy both alcohol AND cannabis.". Ergo, your point is only barely tied to the subject matter.
Noted.

Well, good for SWIM. Noted. Maybe ol' SWIM wasn't as stoned as he/she/it claims. Noted. The statistics are public and it is a public health problem. Noted. Real or not, that is the perception. Noted. Ergo, no one will listen to hearsay and policy will be made without consulting you or SWIM or any of those who say they can smoke fortified marijuana for weeks and still walk a tightrope while cleaning the spiderwebs off their faces.
Like drinking, smoking dope or pill popping should not precede driving a vehicle of any sort. Putting others at risk for a personal chemical feel good should not be permitted. Pedal a bike to the party and pedal it home again after playing hemp chimney. Consider it a Darwinistic test.

I don't think Jeff sessions cares about going after it or the budget for it.

Also this article came out a few hours earlier than the huffpo article. Evidently this meeting took place last week too. Funny to see what news is reported and spread and what isn't.

I'm happy to see that there's no budget for it and that sessions doesn't care to go after it. That's a good sign towards legalization down the road.

Going off OPs article you'd think he was upset about and the left "won" something.

Although he remains personally opposed to marijuana legalization, Attorney General Jeff Sessions (shown) indicated last week that he is not intent on cracking down on marijuana growers, sellers, and users in states where the drug is legal.

In an April 29 meeting with governors of four legal-marijuana states, Sessions strongly hinted that the Justice Department had higher priorities than enforcing federal cannabis laws in such states, according to Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper (D), who requested the meeting.

“He certainly was very direct and clearly said they’ve got a lot of priorities,” Hickenlooper told MSNBC’s MTP Daily. “And, at one point, he said, ‘Well, you haven’t seen us cracking down, have you?’ I said, ‘No.’”

https:// www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/25927-sessions-hints-he-won-t-crack-down-on-marijuana-in-states-where-it-s-legal

originally posted by: Kali74
HuffPo

I chose this source because I liked the video that auto played. You don't have to click the link to read the text in the Omnibus pertaining to Marijuana, it's short and sweet.

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, or with respect to the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Puff, puff, pass.

Fantastic news but the inner OCD in me is uncomfortable with the fact the entire list is alphabetical but they put Arkansas before Arizona

a reply to: WhateverYouSay

And Kansas isn't on it anywhere that I can see. I was baffled...a little. But Sessions might be in bed with Brownback, who knows?

All I know is Missouri (next door, on the right) has a referendum coming up this year to legalize it. They passed a similar thing just a few weeks ago to decriminalize it. Now, just a $25 ticket.

Colorado (next door, on the left), well - Colorado is doing SWIMmingly. (heh).

Kansas hasn't got a chance, really, at keeping itself 'virginal' with regards to this plant. It grows wild around here, and is easily cultivated. The designer varieties are only minutes to hours away.

Keep in mind this is going to make it difficult for private prison's to keep their cells full of minorities. Won't someone think of the private for profit prisons (and their prime investors like Sessions)!

a reply to: Kali74

This is great news, but the whole budget was pretty much a HUGE win for the Dems. Trump can't cut the EPA as much as he wanted to either.

a reply to: Kali74

The people have not spoken
This is just a token
Pun intended

I am a little confused... the legislative branch can set policy for the executive branch? Isnt this a huge conflict of powers?

This says that the DoJ can not use funds to prevent states implementing their own laws. That means nothing. It does not say that Sessions can not use funds to enforce Federal laws. Federal law wins.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Kali74

This is great news, but the whole budget was pretty much a HUGE win for the Dems. Trump can't cut the EPA as much as he wanted to either.

For now thats true,but after midterms it might not be so. They are thinking down the road instead of a temp win apparently.

a reply to: yuppa

Is that how you are spinning that huge win of a spending bill for the Dems as? You know once the funds are approved once, it becomes that much harder to get them rescinded later. I wouldn't count on their attempts later this year.

a reply to: Kali74
One thing that we can agree is a good thing for America.

Now to just amend that last bit to read, "...or cultivation of medical marijuana," and we'd be really taking the appropriate steps.

In my opinion, this is the federal government passively asserting that marijuana has medicinal value, meaning that it should be removed as a Schedule I substance.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: RomeByFire

Monsanto doesn't exist anymore, buddy - a bit of reading doesn't hurt now and then.

Yeah they were bought by Bayer.

Which means they didn't go anywhere.

This thread isn't about firearms. Go and derail a different thread with your incessant whining.

Obviously this thread isn't about 'personal freedom' consistency.

LOL... only knows to argue, so has to pull in a different topic when he agrees with everyone on the thread topic.

Now they need to make marijuana legal all across the country... like GUNS.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

Is that how you are spinning that huge win of a spending bill for the Dems as? You know once the funds are approved once, it becomes that much harder to get them rescinded later. I wouldn't count on their attempts later this year.

Ummm No Personally i think they were absolute dummies. I was saying thats what th erep strategist were saying today. I should had been more specific i guess.

Tying it to planned parenthood would be a good compromise next bill though.

a reply to: Kali74

This is one of those examples when the Federal government can not surpass the states power and the voters choices.

I agree with the fact that States and their voters have jurisdiction over their domestic affairs.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
I am a little confused... the legislative branch can set policy for the executive branch? Isnt this a huge conflict of powers?

Congress has the "Power of the Purse" and can use this power as a check on the executive.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yeah, I'm disappointed that Obama couldn't get his DEA Chief on board with removing it from Schedule I. I doubt Trump will appoint anyone pot friendly either. I don't think he's appointed anyone at all yet for DEA lol.

In Massachusetts everyone is getting their supply from the dispensaries now anyway (at least all the people I know) which you can't do without a medical card. We apparently can't sell it retail until 2018.

originally posted by: bknapple32
I say this in all seriousness. Every single Trump voter should be happy about this. Regardless your views on weed, it's in my house, I'm not harming anyone else, stay out of my privacy.


This should always be a bipartisan issue. I would laugh at the irony of a trump administration taking away everyone's Mary Jane, but I'd be too pissed off myself.

I have to live in this country with you and part of being a decent neighbor is keeping drugs out of our communities. What kind of America is it where we don't say no anymore? We're devolving into a drug using immoral cesspool.