1. What does SSTB mean? See our glossary of acronyms.
    Dismiss Notice

Crackdown on Legalized Marijuana

Discussion in 'Cannabis News and Activism' started by Accept, Feb 25, 2017.

  1. MyCollife

    MyCollife Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    176
    I don’t know the statistics.... but how many more clinics were in existence from 2009 forward vs all eight years of the Bush administration?
     
    Jill NYC and florduh like this.
  2. neverforget711

    neverforget711 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    86
    Location:
    Silent Hill
  3. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    485
    That's a good point. Of course there were more dispensaries during the Obama years. He was a dick for raiding so many during his first term. But as his reign winded down, things were on a better track.

    You're right. That is a bipartisan bill. But twice as many Dems as Republicans are signed on. And the bill was proposed by a Republican. If both Parties were equally pro-cannabis... you'd see an equivalent number of Republicans signed on to this Republican bill.

    I'm not arguing that Dems are perfect on this issue. They aren't. But they are better than Republicans. There is a zero percent chance any future Dem Admin will go back to dispensary raids. You can't say the same thing about Sessions/Trump and the GOP.

    I don't want to beat a dead horse but thinking "both parties are bad so I may as well vote for the Party of Jeff Sessions" is insane to me. Many people fell into that trap in 2016.

    Choose wisely this November.
     
  4. neverforget711

    neverforget711 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    86
    Location:
    Silent Hill
    @florduh
    I hear you but you need these Rs, they are the majority and both parties need to play together for this issue which is just a warmup. You can feasibly get a plurality of D's and a minority of R's to advance this and start some momentum against the default gridlock. There's nearly a year until you can exercise that vote, they can reach an answer before such time.

    Once again, it just sounds like you've memorized a bit too much Bill Maher and it's kind of an impasse.
     
  5. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    485
    I hope they do figure all of this out before November. And I do appreciate the saner Republicans, and would absolutely vote for them. However, they are outliers in their party.


    I am a Bill Maher fan but I'm not a political ideologue. I'm a pragmatist. And I'm just calling a spade a spade. Sorry, I'm not going to pretend there's an equivalency where none exists.
     
    Silver420Surfer and grokit like this.
  6. howie105

    howie105 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,473
    You know I think gridlock is/has become the preferred approach for governing. It's often quicker, easier and sadly the longer it goes on the less people care. Following the logical course of such an approach should be disturbing enough to get people out of their idealogical foxholes, but it isn't.
     
    grokit and OldNewbie like this.
  7. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    485
    For the first time, a majority of Republican voters support legalization in some form.

    https://www.npr.org/2017/10/25/5599...icans-support-pot-legalization-for-first-time

    51% of Republicans and 64% of all voters are now in favor of legalization. It would be nice if Congress would do their duty and enact the will of the people into law. They haven't. So States have picked up the slack and passed their own legalization measures.

    I've heard States called "the laboratories of democracy". Well, the legal cannabis experiment has been a smashing success. Time to roll it out to the rest of the Country.
     
    Silver420Surfer likes this.
  8. hd_rider

    hd_rider Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    346
    Location:
    Colorado
    And that's precisely why a good portion of them will be looking for new jobs come November.
     
    grokit and florduh like this.
  9. nickdanger

    nickdanger Collector of Functional Art

    Messages:
    381
    Location:
    Fly-over Country
    Gridlock is definitely preferred, because then one party can point fingers at the other and tell their constituents "Well, I tried!". And many times, it's a controlled opposition ploy. If any of them would jump on the legalize bandwagon, it would probably be an easy way to get elected, or re-elected. I think this issue would bring folks out to vote that have previously given up on the system. I think they would be surprised at the support they would receive. If they could ever agree, it would be a great bi-partisan coalition.

    Our state (perhaps the reddest of the red) is going to be voting on medical in June, and the support of the people is huge. I'm not sure if the Sessions issue will affect this one way or another. There was even someone connected with the current politicians in the State House and Senate say on a local radio show that there have already been talks going on behind closed doors about the progression to rec. The tax dollars are calling them. Although I'm sure the group that is in power now is probably horrified at the idea and wouldn't do it just to be doing the right thing.
     
  10. howie105

    howie105 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,473
    Last thing either party wants is a significant uncontrolled block of voters and their representatives wielding actual power. Much safer and easier to just keep hitting the philosophical replay button election after election.
     
  11. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    I agree with @howie105 and @nickdanger . Gridlock will result if we start choosing between left and right rather than right and wrong. Something I wrote earlier but did not post as it didn't seem relevant to furthering discussion I add now to reinforce the difference between theory and reality.
    -------------------------------------------

    I hesitate to add a personal reason why I don't trust politicians on either side as I might give out too many facts that could allow a motivated reader to go to PACER and tease out names and such (Which is bad for many reasons.) with a clever search, but think it might be useful here so will add it--although will be vague and will probably not reply to questions on it.

    I had an acquaintance (Of the level of that guy you see every year when your friend puts on his annual [insert theme here] party. Basically, a friend of a friend.) who was a successor trustee of a trust that had just became irrevocable on the death of the principal, his dad. In it, there was an industrial building with shared income beneficiaries among the trustee and his sisters.

    He came to me to be part of his team in a golden (green) opportunity to rent out the property to...someone involved in cannabis who was going to use the property for state-legal cannabis activity. There were numerous good reasons why it was being considered from a business perspective. However, I (and others) pointed out the potential legal risk. The trustee felt that the reduction of enforcement activity and the promises of the administration to allow for state-legal medical marijuana to be left alone unless it violated other federal priorities kept the risk low. I remember him saying that he would try to mitigate risk (I'm paraphrasing. He didn't use those terms.) by having the lease extend no further than the next election with the rationale that if someone other than Obama is elected, he could end the lease and escape risk.

    I declined to be a part of it for personal and professional reasons and the Trustee took his own advice and leased the property.

    Not that long thereafter came the letters. Really threatening letters. In the summer of 2012, the building was gone from the trustee's control (to be eventually lost under RICO), the trustee was being threatened with criminal indictment (Which resulted in 5 figures of attorney fees.) and some problems in how the lease was written (giving some percentage profit in addition to set-fee rent for the property) brought in the IRS as well. Things went poorly, but he didn't go to jail.

    Oh, yeah. His sisters sued him for breach of his fiduciary duties. He lost. He went BK. Good times.

    Some might say he lost everything but his freedom because Obama cared more about looking tough on crime for the election than following his promise to leave it to the states. Me, I'd say it was because he was an idiot who took the promises of politicians as some substitute for the law.

    We can either work together to form coalitions that bring true legalization in, what seems, a fairly short time, or, we can divide and keep this on the back burner forever with sides drawn and opinions locked in stone--based on priorities completely unrelated to cannabis. What any politician says he will do is near irrelevant in this day and age. There will always be another "stakeholder" or another moment to explain as to how he is on your side, but this is just not the right time, in his explanation (If he deigns to give one.) as to why he did not act according to what he said.

    Actions are the only things you can believe in from the government any longer. It might have always been that way, but it certainly is that way now. Let us bring people together who want legalization or who feel the government should not intrude rather than divide us down lines drawn by the marketeers who sell us a politician's sizzle. (Not the steak.)
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2018
  12. MinnBobber

    MinnBobber Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,935
    As an independent voter, I hate to see any generalizations about this party better/worse on cannabis.
    And I weigh our State lawmakers as the key, after getting the Feds to stay the flock out of State's cannabis issues

    -- One of Minnesota's most ardent cannabis supporters (State Legislature) is a Republican and she gets all my support.
    - - On the flip side, many of our Dem legislators are either against cannabis OR passive /aggressive where they vote in the country's worst MMJ law. Then they can get "credit" for it yet make it an unaffordable piece of shit program/ intentionally set up to maximize the number of barriers for patients.

    Here in MN, we do know where the "Legalize Marijuana Now" party stands on cannabis/hemp.

    The good news is that more brave legislators are standing up for cannabis.
     
    His_Highness and howie105 like this.
  13. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    485
    I'm an independent as well. I'm not familiar with your local State politicians, but I'll take your word on it that there the GOP is more Pro-Cannabis than Dems.

    That just simply isn't the case nationwide though. Sorry if pointing this out upsets people.

    If your Republican Senator/Congressman supports Cannabis.... by all means vote for them. Though, I would point out they likely voted to confirm Jeff Sessions.

    And can anyone really look me in the eye and say if the Dem won the White House, the Cannabis movement wouldn't be in a better place?

    Again, the Dem platform called for legalization. The Dem Candidate promised to reschedule Marijuana.

    You can say these are "just words" but this is the first time in history a major political Party has called for these changes. The opposing Party gave you Jeff Sessions.

    Personally, I hope every single Politician who voted for Jeff loses their job in November. I'm not motivated by ideology, or anything Bill Maher says.... I am motivated by vengeance. Enough of this shit.
     
    Silver420Surfer likes this.
  14. grokit

    grokit well-worn member

    Messages:
    12,009
    Location:
    the north
    I hope it's enough to finally get us over the hump; because if not the meme for this administration's brave neo world and the memorandum rescission it inspired, will not be justice. It will be selective enforcement.

    :myday:
     
    florduh likes this.
  15. psychonaut

    psychonaut High as fuck

    Messages:
    1,969
    Location:
    CO
  16. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    485
    Cory is one of the good Republicans. Sessions straight up lied to his face about leaving legal weed alone.

    And he has a decent plan. If you don't want to vote on Party lines, find out if your Senator votes to confirm any new Justice Dept appointees. If they do, punish them at the polls.
     
  17. Silver420Surfer

    Silver420Surfer Well-Known Member

    Please read more about this "Good Republican", who was too cowardly(among many other faults,CHIP))to face his own constituents in a town hall style meeting. I could go on but it just makes me angry and does me no good. Let's hope he finally grew a pair but I'm skeptical.
     
    howie105 and florduh like this.
  18. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    485
    @Silver420Surfer I knew it was too good to be true :lol:

    He voted to confirm Jeff as well.
     
    Silver420Surfer likes this.
  19. Accept

    Accept Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    727
    That Cory Gardner!

    [​IMG]

    (This ones's angry about health care, not cannabis. Such passion.)

    WTF!

    Loved your dialog with @OldNewbie, very civil. Just what we need, IMO.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2018
    florduh and Silver420Surfer like this.
  20. MinnBobber

    MinnBobber Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,935
    ...........................................................................................................................

    Yes, I can do that...and why is that???
    I don't know which/who is more dangerous, an appointed cannabis hater that we know where he stands OR having Hillary in as I never knew where she really stood on anything----only where she wanted "us" to think she stood, to best advance her personal agenda.

    That's why I didn't vote for either of the unworthy candidates. We deserve better.
     
    Adobewan and grokit like this.
  21. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    485
    Supporting someone who was guaranteed to nominate an avowed cannabis hater to Attorney General is worse. Much worse. I agree Hillary wasn't great. But literally every criticism you leveled against her applies to Trump tenfold.

    There was a zero percent chance Hillary would have nominated a prohibitionist to AG.

    I do agree that in a nation of 300 million plus, we should've had better candidates for President.

    But we didn't. Given that, I went with the imperfect over the awful.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2018
  22. Jill NYC

    Jill NYC Portable Collector

    Messages:
    379
    Location:
    Nearby
    I think its also important to acknowledge the country’s acceptance for marijuana should reflect how the Federal government responds.
    In January 2009, 13 states had legalized medical marijuana in 13 years. None had legalized recreational.
    9 years later, that number more than doubled (30 states plus DC) and 8 states legalized recreational use.

    Medical Usage Legalized:
    • 1996: California
    • 1998: Alaska, Oregon, Washington
    • 1999: Maine
    • 2000: Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada
    • 2004: Montana, Vermont
    • 2006: Rhode Island
    • 2007: New Mexico
    • 2008: Michigan
    • 2010: Arizona, D.C., New Jersey
    • 2011: Delaware
    • 2012: Connecticut, Massachusetts
    • 2013: Illinois, New Hampshire
    • 2014: Maryland, Minnesota, New York
    • 2015: Louisiana
    • 2016: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Dakota, Arkansas
    • 2017: West Virginia
    Recreational Usage Legal:
    • 2012: Colorado, Washington
    • 2014: Alaska, Oregon
    • 2016: California, Nevada, Maine, Massachusetts
    **Please note these years are when laws were made/passed, not necessarily when the law was enacted. And they may be slightly off, I got them from Wikipedia and filled in a few blanks.


    In 2011 a Gallup poll finally showed 50% of country supported legalization. Up until then, the majority of the country didn’t want it legal. By 2016, that number jumped to 60%. The previous administration may have started out over zealous on enforcing federal laws, but as time went on and public opinion started to snowball in favor of legalization, they adapted. They began to respond in a way that reflected the will of the states, and ultimately the people.

    Change is HARD. Changing laws that have been on the books for decades is near impossible. And for a few years, it was looking like the Federal government was willing to take steps to reassess it’s stance for the will of the people. Anyone who thinks something of this magnitude can be changed quickly is naive. But I think many of us felt hopeful we were moving in the right direction.

    What makes this administration more in “the wrong”than the last admin (in my opinion) is they are doing the opposite of the wants of the majority of the country. The last administration adapted.
     
  23. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    485
    :clap:

    I completely agree. It felt like we were heading in a better direction, and then a man with opinions on cannabis straight from the 1930s became Attorney General.

    I think Cory Gardner's meeting with Sessions is big (and bad) news. It sounds like rescinding the Cole Memo wasn't just some administrative move. It seems like Jeff wants to start fucking with recreational markets.

    @Jill NYC Thank you for eloquently describing our current predicament.
     
  24. macbill

    macbill Gregarious Misanthrope

    Messages:
    3,736
    Location:
    The Evergreen State
  25. invertedisdead

    invertedisdead trance-form

    Messages:
    3,431
    Location:
    Colliefornia
    His_Highness likes this.

Support FC, visit our trusted friends and sponsors