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. macbill

    macbill Gregarious Misanthrope

    Messages:
    3,739
    Location:
    The Evergreen State
  2. GreenDragon

    GreenDragon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    49
    Like most people, we are making a common mistake.
    If you stop anthropomorphizing trump and trumpsters you can more clearly see reality.
     
  3. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    I had to like it because it was so clever. Not because the insult divides us.
     
    macbill, grampa_herb and hibeam like this.
  4. grokit

    grokit well-worn member

    Messages:
    12,009
    Location:
    the north
    :cool: From a "strictly business" perspective :tup:
    ...
    Why Sessions can’t stop this marijuana boom

    ... (excerpt) It’s simply too big.

    The U.S. marijuana market is already a $6.5 billion industry. And it’s expected to grow to $50 billion by 2026. That would make it bigger than the American craft beer and chocolate markets combined.

    What’s more, 165,000 people already work in the U.S. marijuana industry. And employment will skyrocket as the industry grows.

    Marijuana sales are also a huge tax revenue generator for states where it’s legal.

    Take Colorado. It legalized medicinal marijuana in 2000. It then legalized recreational marijuana in 2014.

    Last year, Colorado did $1.3 billion in marijuana sales. And the state collected $200 million in tax revenues from marijuana sales.

    Colorado’s not alone, either. California, Washington, and Oregon all depend heavily on marijuana sales for tax revenue.


    These states would face serious budget problems if Sessions goes after the industry.

    Local politicians aren’t going to let that happen…

    :myday:
    :bigleaf:
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
  5. GreenDragon

    GreenDragon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    49
    Shhhhh... be cool man. Ixnay on the ividesday.
    No worries. 'Anthropomorphizing' is way too big of a word to be insulting to them.

    P.S. - If they ask for help sounding it out, tell them it means bigly MAGA.

    P.P.S. - Are we sure "divides us" is valid in regards to the whole anthropomorphizing trumpsters scenario?
     
    florduh likes this.
  6. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    Yes. It is the source of making neighbors enemies. If you can "other" them, then they don't seem like people who you know, love and work with, they are things. You can do what you want with things without feeling bad. See also, Gooks, Spics, Nazis, N...(Nope, not going there.) and a host of other pejoratives that have no meaning other than show a desire you want to think of the other person as inhuman.
     
    Adobewan, grokit, Papa Woody and 5 others like this.
  7. howie105

    howie105 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    If we can't respect those with differences we have become prisoners of our own dogma. We need to stop being our own jailers and set ourselves free.
     
    grokit, Papa Woody, OldNewbie and 3 others like this.
  8. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    489
    I agree. No one should consider Trump supporters "the enemy". You shouldn't blame the victims of a con job. Regardless of how obvious the con was to the majority of us.

    Sure. But in the meantime maybe don't support politicians who want to see every reader of this site thrown in a cage.

    Here’s Where US Attorneys Stand on Cannabis Enforcement

    In other news, Leafly put together a list of all our new US Attorneys and where they are likely to stand on a Cannabis Crackdown. Surprise surprise.... Jeff has appointed, with a few exceptions, a whole bunch of prohibitionists. I just hope they aren't stupid enough to actually start dismantling a 10 billion dollar a year industry. This dipshit Administration won't be in power forever, and hopefully Prosecutors see the writing on the wall.

    https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/heres-where-us-attorneys-stand-on-cannabis-enforcement
     
    Little Bill likes this.
  9. howie105

    howie105 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    Please note I did not mention politicians or support.

    My post was about respecting differences and freeing people from dogma.
     
    His_Highness and OldNewbie like this.
  10. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    And, the silly-season continues.

    Since it seems Trump is trying to make good on his promises, it seems the only "con" is by those who don't like what he promised. Which is fair as people have different ways to make sense of the world. Pity those who continue down the derangement path can't consider others coming to a rational conclusion different from them.
     
  11. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    489
    Sorry, I wasn't directing my comment at you specifically. I agree with your sentiments in general. I'm just saying when it comes to voting, we should probably support politicians who don't want us in a cage for vaping an herbal supplement. False equivalencies are not helpful. Not saying you are making one though.

    I won't get into how Trump is in fact not keeping his promises to the average, "forgotten man" American. This isn't the place.

    But OldNewbie, I'd say the only "silliness" and "derangement" would be voting for a guy who told you he'd support Jeff Sessions for AG... then expecting anything good to happen with Cannabis.
     
    Little Bill likes this.
  12. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    Richard III Act 1, Scene 1:

    Now is the winter of our discontent
    Made glorious summer by this son (sun?) of York,
    And all the clouds that loured upon our house
    In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
    Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths,
    Our bruisèd arms hung up for monuments,
    Our stern alarums changed to merry meetings,
    Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
    Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front;
    And now, instead of mounting barbèd steeds
    To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
    He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber
    To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
    But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
    Nor made to court an amorous looking glass;
    I, that am rudely stamped and want love’s majesty
    To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
    I, that am curtailed of this fair proportion,
    Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
    Deformed, unfinished, sent before my time
    Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
    And that so lamely and unfashionable
    That dogs bark at me as I halt by them—
    Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
    Have no delight to pass away the time,
    Unless to see my shadow in the sun
    And descant on mine own deformity.
     
  13. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    489
    Funny. I thought Trump was more Richard II. Petty and vindictive. The product of a coddled, privileged upbringing.

    But I prefer a more modern philosopher on this topic, Dave Chappelle:

    Click to play YouTube Video


    It looks like he's hitting a Pax Era throughout the special too.
     
  14. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    The words of a genius hundreds of years ago encapsulates much of today. At least, if what you "thought" was wrong.
     
  15. howie105

    howie105 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    To my monotheistic friends I apologize, but there was only one entertainer philosopher worth his red sea salt.
    [​IMG]
     
  16. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    From the actual Hebrew on the dropped tablet.

    http://www.jewishhumorcentral.com/2013/05/found-at-last-mel-brooks-lost-five.html

    11. Lo Ta'avor - You shall not pass.
    12. Lo Tatzkhik - You shall not make people laugh or Lo Titzkhak - You shall not laugh.
    13. Lo Tikneh - You shall not buy.
    14. Lo Talunu - You shall not stay. (But the third letter may be a resh, which makes translation difficult.)
    15. Lo Teshaber - You shall not break.
     
  17. howie105

    howie105 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    Thanks OldNewbie I now know more then I did and I got a bonus laugh.:lol:
     
    His_Highness and florduh like this.
  18. TheSkipper

    TheSkipper Smooth sailing while I'm inhaling... VAPOR

    Messages:
    79
    Location:
    South Florida
    Been awhile since I've been here. Been reading up tho! What are your thoughts on
    "The Marijuana Justice Act" as a real solution?
    I think it'd be great if this could actually pass. It has a long way to go
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1689/text?format=txt

    http://norml.org/action-center/item/the-marijuana-justice-act-of-2017-introduced

    EDIT:

    I should add as a preface that this is a proposal to remove cannabis from the federal schedule and proposes a distribution of funds not used for the prosecutions of cannabis users. Atleast at a glance. Admittedly I have not read the entire thing yet.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2018
  19. grokit

    grokit well-worn member

    Messages:
    12,009
    Location:
    the north
    Implications for California and other states as well :tup:

    Alaska’s unlikely — but totally legit way to protect legal marijuana

    (an excerpt; this article meanders)

    ...There actually is already a way to protect Alaska's marijuana industry. The legislation exists. And it comes from the unlikeliest place: the desk of arch-conservative Sen. John Coghill (R-North Pole).

    In early 2013, Americans were reeling from the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. It was the 15th time more than four people had been killed in a shooting during Obama's tenure, and it seemed fairly clear the horror was not enough to spark Congress into action. A month later, the president signed 23 executive orders addressing gun safety. Then-Speaker of the House, Mike Chenault (R-Nikiski), was watching. He introduced HB 69, which would have nullified any laws passed affecting gun rights in Alaska. I suppose he wasn't aware of the Supremacy Clause in Article 6, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

    Whatever.

    Coghill, evidently a bit more savvy when it comes to constitutional law, swooped in to the rescue, offering an amended bill (SB 75). His edit was a much more laissez-faire approach that prohibited state officials from assisting federal agents in the event they attempted to enforce federal laws pertaining to gun control, asserting that a “state agency may not use or authorize the use of a state asset to implement or aid in the implementation of a requirement of an order of the President of the United States,” or any federal law that Congress might pass if it “[infringed] on a person’s right… to keep and bear arms[.]” The proposal restricted the state from using any resources to assist in denying “a person a right to due process” under both the U.S. and Alaska Constitutions. In other words, the state would tell FBI agents to go right ahead enforcing new laws restricting firearms. But state officers can’t help. Not with arrests, detainment facilities, technology – don’t even ask to borrow a cell phone.

    It was a creative use of the Tenth Amendment aimed at blocking what he perceived to be threats to states' rights on gun ownership. But it could work just as well for legal marijuana. Don't take my word for it: Take California's.

    When Trump ascended to the presidency and nominated Sessions as AG, California State Assembly member Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) lifted Coghill's bill language and applied it to marijuana. Assembly Bill 266 mirrors SB 75 and would “prohibit a state or local agency, as defined, from... using agency money, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to assist a federal agency to investigate, detain, detect, report, obtain information, or arrest a person for commercial or noncommercial cannabis activity that is authorized or allowed under state and local law” in California.

    It passed the State Assembly (their lower chamber), and is in committee in the senate for when session reconvenes...

    :myday:
     
  20. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    489
    It looks great. And if Congress enacted the will of the People into law, it would pass. But in the real world, it won't make it out of the Judiciary Committee.

    From Business Insider:
    ...the bill will create a $500 million community reinvestment fund that will focus on job training for the nascent cannabis industry and will prioritize communities that have suffered a disproportionate number of marijuana arrests for recreational-sales licenses.

    The bill will also cut federal funding for state law enforcement and prison construction if the state disproportionately arrests low-income or people of color for marijuana offenses. Part of the community reinvestment fund will be funded through these cuts.

    "It's the reverse of the 1994 Crime Bill," Sen. Cory Booker said on the same call. "It creates incentives for states to change their marijuana laws."


    There is a near zero chance this will receive a single Republican vote, to say nothing of a co-sponsor.
     
    grokit, macbill, His_Highness and 2 others like this.
  21. TheSkipper

    TheSkipper Smooth sailing while I'm inhaling... VAPOR

    Messages:
    79
    Location:
    South Florida
    Well, I'll remain optimistic and continue spreading word of the bill. It'd be great if the entire thing passed, but, one could consider the parts like what you quoted to be built in concessions that can be made or promised to entice both party's members to help it make its way to the President. Theres usually room for negotiations or promises of negotiations.
     
    florduh, macbill and His_Highness like this.
  22. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    I agree with @florduh , such a bill will not likely get a single republican vote. Like every other posturing by either side to "fix" the problem, a poison pill of partisan dreams thrown in makes those otherwise inclined to vote for it to pass.

    DESCHEDULE MARIJUANA!

    It is completely in their power to do so. Yet, for some reason, that simple steak is not the bill. Instead, sizzletown.
     
    MinnBobber, grokit, macbill and 3 others like this.
  23. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    489
    No. This is a good bill. You can't deny that certain communities have been screwed by Prohibition more than others. This bill ends the war on marijuana, and works to help the people most hurt by it. This is exactly the kind of work Congress SHOULD be doing.

    From a Leafly.com article on the House version:

    The bill would not declare marijuana legal in all 50 states. It would simply remove federal illegality and allow each state to regulate cannabis in its own way. States with criminal penalties for cannabis would keep those laws, at least until voters or legislators decided to change them. States with legal regulated cannabis systems would be allowed to continue without the threat of federal interference.

    I agree that this is slight partisan posturing by the Dems, as they know most Republicans won't support something so reasonable. But I'd hardly call it "poison". I'd say the "poison" would be coming from the other side who will laugh this bill off.

    And the spending in this bill is completely paid for by the extra tax revenue from legalization. It's a fiscally conservative bill.

    Also we have had a "clean" descheduling proposed in Congress several times in the last 6 years. Every time it dies in committee.

    Here's a summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ending_Federal_Marijuana_Prohibition_Act




     
    grokit and C No Ego like this.
  24. howie105

    howie105 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,474
    Most of the legalization models are far too focused on market control and fee harvesting for my tastes. For myself its easy, any regulatory change that doesn't assure that I am not going to jail for use, procession or growth is unacceptable. I can't accept political equivocation, half steps or compromises if I or those I care for can still end up in jail.
     
    hibeam, MinnBobber, grokit and 3 others like this.
  25. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    489
    I agree but the Marijuana Justice Act doesn't do any of that. It leaves the details up to the States and gets the Feds out of the Marijuana enforcement business.

    In a decent world, the bill would pass.
     
    grokit likes this.

Support FC, visit our trusted friends and sponsors