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. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    The bill includes income redistribution. By putting the income redistribution in the bill, the majority of the country does not support it and it is not going to pass. Just because those on the far left like taking from one guy they don't like and give it to the guy they like, much of the country finds it fundamentally unfair.

    The bill is not designed to further the conversation on cannabis NOR does it have a chance to get the federal government out of enforcement. It is designed as a talking point for a politician to not do anything but to say they did. It is exactly the sizzle I've written about all the way through.

    @florduh wrote:
    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. ​

    I think he needs to Google the term "poison pill".
    MinnBobber and grampa_herb like this.
  2. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Simple question, OldNewbie: Do you believe that certain groups have been disproportionately affected by Marijuana Prohibition? In other words, do you accept reality?

    "Fundamentally unfair"... give me a break. I'd say African Americans being incarcerated for marijuana possession at a higher rate than whites when both groups use marijuana at the same rate to be unfair. This bill seeks to address some of that by reinvesting in communities that have been disproportionately screwed by the Drug War.

    You can use "income redistribution" or whatever Right Wing dog whistle you want to describe it, but calling it "unfair" doesn't pass the smell test. And the money called for in the bill is paid for with increased tax revenue from legalization. Not to mention the savings from not having the Feds enforce dumb laws.

    Quoting Cory Booker: "“To me, it strikes as a hypocrisy and injustice if you legalize but don’t try to undo the damage that was done by this awful War on Drugs,” I agree.

    The bill also calls for a process to expunge Federal possession convictions prior to the passage of the Bill.

    I agree a "clean" removal of Marijuana from the CSA is preferable. But that HAS been proposed many times, and the Republicans still stonewalled it in committee. So, fuck 'em. Let's have both parties show where they stand. The Dems stand for ending the war on Marijuana and attempting to undo some of its worst effects. The GOP will laugh that off.

    Choose wisely in November!

    Oh I'm familiar with the term, I just think describing this bill that way is ridiculous.
    CurryLeafTreehugger and shredder like this.
  3. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    There is certainly a correlation between certain "groups" and marijuana convictions. We might also say that taxes have a correlation between certain groups and who pays them. That does not mean prohibition or taxation are historical wrongs to be righted.

    Right. How about those hurt by those violating the law? You posted how violence went down when medical marijuana came into effect. Who do you think were doing the killing? Shouldn't the deaths of the innocents be taken off the reparations bill?

    None of the money is going to the guy who was hurt. It is simple identity politics to shift money to favored constituents. Your theory it is not "unfair" does not seem to be changing a lot of minds yet.

    In fact, a number of senators who expressed a burning desire to halt Sessions and his cannabis-hating crusade in its tracks have not so much as signed on as a co-sponsor of any of the four major pieces of legislation addressing the issue in the US Senate. As of mid-January, one of the most powerful bills—Sen. Cory Booker’s Marijuana Justice Act—had only a single co-sponsor, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden.​

    That's why the poison pill. Credit for trying to fix the problem from those who support legalization and care about it as a high priority without blame for legalizing it from those who don't support legalization or who have other issues as higher priorities. Until there are clean bills that get out of committee and get voted upon, all we are determining is the sizzle we like better.


    At a recent marijuana reform conference in Washington, DC, Rep. Tom Garrett, a freshman Republican congressman from Virginia, told a room full of cannabis activists that their beloved plant meant nothing to him.

    “I really don’t care about marijuana,” he declared.

    No surprise there. Garrett, a former state prosecutor and winner of the American Conservative Union’s “Defender of Liberty” award, would never be mistaken for an avid dabber.

    But then Garrett, 45, reversed course.

    “What I do care about,” he said, “is individual liberty. What I do care about is justice. What I do care about is economic opportunity.”

    And that, he said, is why six months ago he introduced HR 1227, the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017. Garrett’s bill would do just what its title says: remove cannabis from the federal list of controlled substances entirely and allow states to regulate it as they please.​

    Yet, in the specific paragraph saying it does not describe the bill, you basically listed the definition.
  4. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member


    I enjoy your comparing taxation to the disproportionate percentage of African Americans who are thrown in a cage for smoking weed. That was good for a laugh. We all know paying taxes and having your life ruined with a drug possession conviction are basically equivalent matters

    By your definition every bill that has sought to legalize cannabis has been a poison pill because inevitably Republican committee members have buried it. It couldn't be that the Party of Jeff Sessions just doesn't like weed, right?

    There's no evidence Booker and his 12 co-sponsors (House and Senate) are purposely trying to kill the bill by adding "poison". It's more like they actually believe it will correct the wrongs created by the dumb War on Weed. Not their fault Republicans will laugh at it.

    Yet again, we see where both Parties stand.

    You seem to claim that voting for Republicans would be just as helpful as voting for Dems in terms of getting legalization enacted into law. Your evidence for this is Rep Garrett's "Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2017".

    You fail to mention that FOUR TIMES as many Dems signed on to this REPUBLICAN BILL.


    Voting for the Party of Sessions and hoping that something good will happen for Cannabis seems like a fool's errand.
    CurryLeafTreehugger and shredder like this.
  5. grokit

    grokit well-worn member

    the north
    We still have a retrograde mindset running our drug policies, regardless of which party is in charge of our schizoid government atm. Not directly related, but our response to the 'opiate epidemic' has been typically rooted in dichotomous moral imperatives that belie our typically punitive approach to addiction:

    Only about one-third of American addiction programs offer what many experts worldwide see as the standard of care — long-term use of either methadone or buprenorphine. Most [US] programs view medication as a crutch for short-term use and provide only talk therapies.

    This widespread rejection of proven addiction medications is the single biggest obstacle to ending the overdose epidemic [in the US]. Funding isn’t the barrier: Outpatient medication treatment is both more effective and significantly cheaper than adding inpatient beds at rehabilitation centers. The problem is an outdated ideology that views needing a medication to function as a form of addiction.

    The Wrong Way to Treat Opioid Addiction

    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
    shredder, OldNewbie, hibeam and 2 others like this.
  6. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Thrown in jail for violating the law. Just like others would be thrown in jail for not following the tax law.

    Rather than laughing, distinguish them. Make an argument, not an accusation.

    Not just one straw man, but two. Is it possible for you to not misstate things in an attempt to make some point?

    Evidence? Just the entire history of this and how politicians on both sides have behaved. Do you think a straight bill would get more Republican votes or this bill with the income redistribution? If your goal is to legalize, that bill ain't helping. If your goal is other social fixes, then, we might discuss as to if those provisions are good or not.

    Stand on WHAT? Which part of the bill are they standing on? The state's rights portion? The cannabis portion? The redistribution portion? The my buddy-runs-adult-classes-to-teach computers-and-he-might-like-some-of-this-cheddar portion? Maybe it is just a firm belief that teaching people who were arrested for felonies how to double click to select something is going to change their lives. But, just like you can't say the temporary spending bill being debated now is all about federal dog catcher reports out of the Department of Health and Human services, you can't say a vote on the bill is a position on cannabis.

    That's not my claim. I claim it is helpful to talk of cannabis reform and not talk about who says nicer things about cannabis reform. For the record, from your posts, it seems the Republicans are closer than the Democrats to getting a bill on the floor. Must be another example of our lying eyes.

    As I have written repeatedly, we don't want to win only when the pendulum swings far to the left or far to the right. We want cannabis legal no matter where the pendulum swings. Your way and insistence we can only go through Democrats to get what we want will keep cannabis as a forever issue because, as much as those on both the left and the right would wish, all the facts indicate one side is not going to ever win power forever. I want the legality of pot to be like alcohol and not abortion. We know that most accept alcohol as legal and don't think poorly on people who use it moderately. Its legality is not at threat.

    Which party does Feinstein belong to?

    In November 2016, California’s Proposition 64, a measure to legalize the adult use of cannabis, looked to be cruising to victory. The initiative, led by then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, attracted few high-profile opponents—with one notable exception.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California’s powerful US Senator, high-ranking Democrat, and revered San Francisco icon, blasted the measure early and remained an unrelenting opponent. She signed a ballot statement accusing cannabis companies of plotting to lure “millions of children and teenage viewers” with television ads.

    The Prop. 64 campaign spokesman called the statement “reminiscent of the ‘reefer madness’-style disinformation campaigns that subverted honest dialogue around this issue for decades.”
    https://technical420.com/cannabis-article/dianne-feinstein-–-wolf-weed’s-clothing (Joining with the Republican Grassley. It's almost like age is more important than party.)
    Senator Feinstein feigns a phony support for research, but rescheduling cannabis to a schedule II narcotic would box out all the small business around the country from selling CBD and potentially medical marijuana in its current form. This reclassification would pave the way for organizations that have the time and budget to bank roll clinical trials and FDA approval processes – which can take years.

    What type of organizations have this capability? Pharmaceutical companies and the universities that will sell their research to the pharmaceutical companies. Schedule II would allow these pharmaceutical companies the ability to patent any slight modification to cannabis and again potential allow them to bring litigation to anyone selling anything similar – including the cannabis plant in its original form! See: Monsanto’s lawsuits against farmers.

    This proposed bill is an absolute attempt at a power grab by the corporations that would benefit from schedule II. This bill is an attempt to create Big Marijuana – and what a telling sign it is that such a prohibitionist is an author of it.

    It would take up too many digital digits to dig into all the reasons why this is an incredible immoral pursuit for cannabis research, but instead we can look to Senator Feinstein’s campaign contributions to better help us understand who has been feeding this wolf.

    From 2009 – 2014, Dianne Feinstein has received $173,250 in donations from pharmaceutical companies and another $144,538 from health professionals. Other interests group are whispering sour little prohibitionist nothings in here ear too: Big Agriculture to the tune of $372,000. Beer, Wine, and Liquor clocking in at $105,000. Another $320,000 from ‘lobbyists’.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
    hibeam and grampa_herb like this.
  7. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    It isn't my insistence we "only go through Dems". I'm simply living in reality. The reality is that even when a REPUBLICAN proposes a legalization bill, it is largely DEMOCRATS who support them. We only have a choice between two Parties.

    All available evidence points to Dems being better on cannabis legalization in 2018. That is my only claim. I've provided ample evidence to support it. Hell, YOU've provided ample evidence to support it.

    I won't address your non-sequitur on Senator Feinstein. I'm all for publicly funding elections and taking ALL money out of politics.

    @OldNewbie at the end of the day, if the Dem won the 2016 Presidential election... this thread wouldn't even exist. Instead of just accepting that simple fact, you deflect and play the false equivalence game.
    CurryLeafTreehugger and shredder like this.
  8. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    Sessions, a former Republican senator from a state of less than 5 million represents all Republicans but Feinstein, a Democratic senator from a state of almost 40 million does not represent all Democrats.

  9. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Does Feinstein want to see every reader of this site locked in a cage? More false equivalency. Since Dems aren't perfect you may as well vote for a Republican. Come on...

    I prefer to look at who supports Republican proposals for Cannabis legalization. Even the bill you posted as evidence of how great the GOP is on weed had 4 times more Democrats signing on than Republicans.

    As I said before, it brings me no joy to advocate for Dems. I wish the Republicans would simply take this up as a "freedom" issue. They largely have not, so we are left with the imperfect Dems.
    shredder likes this.
  10. neverforget711

    neverforget711 Well-Known Member

    Silent Hill
    Facts don't matter when their signalling does not improve the situation. There are enough Rs to get over the hill, if the Ds are indeed better, then maybe try not being ineffectual? What we have here is a chance to get the right answer with the wrong methods.
    OldNewbie likes this.
  11. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    If there are enough "R's" why don't they support Republican Sponsored bills on legalization? When a good Republican proposes a legalization measure, why is it mostly supported by Dems... not Republicans?

    I'm simply noticing that Dems are far more likely to support Legalization measures.
    CurryLeafTreehugger and grokit like this.
  12. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    My understanding is that the senior senator from the great state of California is aware of the ramifications of something being illegal.

    On another note, guess which cog jamming might just let Jeffy do what he wants? Government shutdown. I'm not going to point fingers at who is to blame, but, if the government does not get a budget by tonight, medical marijuana may be at risk.

    The Rohrabacher-Farr Act prevents the DOJ from spending any money to enforce cannabis laws against medical marijuana that is operating legally in a state. The potential problem is, that was a spending act. If there is no budget, the Act may not apply and the default of government funding "essential services" in a shutdown is argued to be not covered by the act.

    How this plays out is uncertain. We will certainly discover how high a priority members put on cannabis as compared to other issues in their votes. My guess is there is not any deeply held belief to protect those rights. In other words, while pot has broad support, it is not very deep.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
    grokit likes this.
  13. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    If you want to make the argument that Feinstein and Sessions are equivalent on Cannabis enforcement, go for it. I'll admit she is one of the worst Dems on Cannabis.

    She's nowhere near as bad as Sessions, Christie, or Giuliani: Trump's shortlist for AG before the election.

    But if you want to go toe-to-toe on every Senator on weed, we can. Do you really think there are more prohibitionists on the "D" Team?

    On the shutdown: If Sessions or his US Attorneys use a shutdown to go after legal weed, I'm pretty sure I know who is getting the blame...
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
    shredder and Whisper like this.
  14. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    It is not a matter of blame. It is simply a showing of priorities. (Because there is no "legal weed" involved.)
  15. macbill

    macbill Gregarious Misanthrope

    The Evergreen State
    Battle over legal marijuana: a monumental moment for states’ rights
    The Department of Justice's crackdown comes as 64 percent of Americans, including for the first time more than half of Republicans, support legalization, Gallup found this month. So far, 29 states have legalized the medical use of the drug, while eight have legalized recreational use.
  16. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Jeff Sessions’ War on Marijuana Will See Him Face Off in Court Against a 12-Year-Old Girl With Epilepsy

    "Instead of focusing on much more important issues like the opioid crisis and the steady dismantling of American civil rights, Jeff Sessions has turned his attention to battling against legalized marijuana. That pretend war will now see him in court as he goes up against a 12-year-old girl who suffers from epilepsy.

    Alexis Bortell was diagnosed with epilepsy in 2013. She began taking medical marijuana three years ago, and her seizures disappeared.

    Newsweek reports that Bortell filed a lawsuit against Sessions last fall because he has made it his mission to impede access to the one drug that has been able to help her."
    shredder, C No Ego, macbill and 4 others like this.
  17. Accept

    Accept Well-Known Member

    You guys! All set to wish everyone a happy shutdown/inauguration anniversary, naively reasoning that a government that does nothing is better than one that does evil. ;)

    On a side note, a few thoughts on the greatest con in history.

    Donald Trump’s Radical Honesty
    Frank Bruni JAN. 19, 2018

    Last edited: Jan 20, 2018
    hibeam, grokit, shredder and 3 others like this.
  18. C No Ego

    C No Ego Well-Known Member

    more on her story - she found out THC only cannabis oil stopped her seizures, cbd did not even touch into remediation... cannabis refugee in Colorado desperately wanting to go back home to Texas... she'd be exposed to criminal activity in Texas though every time she used hers meds! and as everyone knows THC is criminal #1 yet thc stopped her seizures... it's this type of real world problems that let me know mainstream views are Fucked!

    Bob Randall and mr Irvin Rosenthal were two of 30 original participants to receive marijuana tins in the mail from the Government! LOL... they sued the GOv back in the seventies and the GOV sent them tins of marijuana cigs! it will be great to see what they send this little girl
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2018
    Alexis, grokit, Jill NYC and 3 others like this.
  19. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Trump’s 24-year-old drug policy appointee was let go at law firm after he ‘just didn’t show’

    While in college, late in 2014 or early in 2015, Taylor Weyeneth began working as a legal assistant at the New York firm O’Dwyer & Bernstien. He was “discharged” in August 2015, partner Brian O’Dwyer said in an interview.

    “We were very disappointed in what happened,” O’Dwyer said. He said that he hired Weyeneth in part because both men were involved in the same fraternity, and that the firm invested time training him for what was expected to be a longer relationship. Instead, he said,Weyeneth “just didn’t show.”

    In a résumé initially submitted to the government, Weyeneth said he worked at the firm until April 2016. When an FBI official called as part of a background check in January 2017, the firm said Weyeneth had left eight months earlier than the résumé indicated, O’Dwyer said.

    Another one of the President's "best people".
  20. Silver420Surfer

    Silver420Surfer Well-Known Member

    "an administration official on Jan. 12 said Weyeneth will return to the position he initially held at the agency, as a White House liaison. The official said that Weyeneth has been primarily performing administrative work, rather than making policy decisions, and that he had “assumed additional duties and an additional title following staff openings.”

    I read this news, like last week. Is Wash Post really that far behind or just re-running an article?

    Sounds more like "next man up" after the Trump White House gutted the dept versus "Here is the new Deputy Chief of Staff for the ONDCP". Also, like the article mentions, with a terrible opioid crisis going on, not the best time for the administration to be him-hawing around on staffing that office. Big business and tons of money are involved, so it's no wonder much isn't being done, except treating sick people like criminals while suits get richer and suffer no consequence. Like anything, follow the money to the real crooks.
    OldNewbie, grokit, shredder and 2 others like this.
  21. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure if WaPo is running behind, or if they are just reiterating the point that having this kid as the Deputy Drug Czar for even a day is a major scandal.

    I agree you have to follow the money. For example, Jeff Sessions receives more money from the private prison industry than any other. You think that is a coincidence?

    They'd rather imprison opioid addicts than treat them. Even though treatment costs the taxpayer LESS than imprisonment.

    Also, after the Tax Cuts passed Paul Ryan received nearly a million dollars in donations from the Kochs and other billionaires. Pretty clear who these people are working for.
    grokit, Silver420Surfer and shredder like this.
  22. OldNewbie

    OldNewbie Well-Known Member

    So...are we happy there is a guy who just didn't show up as the drug policy appointee or sad? If the administration is determined to stomp out the marijuanas and we disagree with that policy, don't we want people who get the third martini at lunch rather than head back to the office?

    If we care about the purported goal of legalization, shouldn't we be cheering the appointment? Only if we find partisanship to be a greater value should we insult the administration when they do things that help us.

    I know it's hard to tell the players without a scorecard, but, on the cannabis issue, the Kochs are on our side. They tend libertarian/Libertarian and have no problem with the devil weed. They have given money to candidates that have been pro-cannabis and have written Congress telling them to protect medical marijuana from Sessions.

    If you are against the Koch's, it is NOT because of cannabis. They are a part of the reason why people should not just blindly vote parties.
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2018
    grokit, grampa_herb and nickdanger like this.
  23. MinnBobber

    MinnBobber Well-Known Member

    As an independent voter, this is sage advice. And as an independent, I dislike this focus on which party is "less bad" on cannabis issues. It should be which individual candidate (regardless of their party) is better on cannabis issues---if cannabis issues are important to you.

    For me, cannabis and hemp issues are very important as hundreds of thousands/millions of "lives" ( life and death, quality of life, health, environment, social justice (prison sentences and families ruined), individual and states rights, domestic violence, hospice care, preventative medicine, families forced to move to mj legal states, etc etc) are negatively impacted by current laws.

    It is critically important to focus on the end goal, legalization, and support ALL cannabis allies.
  24. florduh

    florduh Well-Known Member

    Again, this thread only exists because the Democrat lost the Presidential election (despite winning the majority of the vote). Appointing a 24 year old with zero qualifications to a deputy Drug Czar position... even for a DAY shows what an absolute joke this Administration is. And the kid lied on his resumè. How many members of this Admin lied to the FBI or on a Government form? Ridiculous.

    Your argument is that the incompetence of the Trump Admin will help us? Interesting. That hasn't happened yet but I'll keep that in mind. There may be a silver lining to being ruled by incompetent morons.

    I forgot the Koch's are personally for Cannabis. Their sole redeeming quality. My point there was that it is pretty clear who Politicians were working for on the tax cuts/The Donor Relief Act of 2017. Paul Ryan literally received a payoff for giving the Koch's billions of dollars. This strikes me as disgustingly corrupt.

    The Koch's PERSONALLY support legalization. Great. They aren't on the ballot though. As I've shown, Democrats are 4-5 times more likely to support even REPUBLICAN sponsored legalization bills. Don't blindly vote Party, of course. If you happen to be represented by one of the rare Republicans who are pro-cannabis... by all means vote for them. Though I bet their Dem challengers would be at least equally pro-cannabis.

    You might dislike it, but that doesn't change the fact that your average Dem is far more likely to support Cannabis than your average Republican. If you happen to be represented by the rare pro-Cannabis Republican.... vote for them.

    Again, if the Dem won the 2016 Presidential election.... this thread wouldn't exist. Glossing over this fact and trying to make it seem like it doesn't matter what Party you support seems unhelpful and inaccurate.
  25. CarolKing

    CarolKing Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur

    I would love to jump in and talk politics but that’s how we got several threads shut down. If you want to keep the thread open tamp down some of the politics. I agree this president is a dipshit.

    Our only hope is to wait until the next administration. Hopefully not too much damage will be done in the meantime.

    Folks that are distributing cannabis and shops that are selling in legal state need to follow the law to the T. We don’t want unethical legal businesses breaking the law and screwing things up for the rest of us. The Feds would use that to shut things down in the legal market.
    Jill NYC and florduh like this.

Support FC, visit our trusted friends and sponsors