Baron23
Well-Known Member
THIS ^^
Trump Appoints Anti-Marijuana Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General
- Thread starter Crohnie
- Start date
- Status
grokit
well-worn member
Without statistical analysis, all we can do is compare the end number of these undemocratic policies.
From the link I posted, more notables in this category:
- Theodore Roosevelt 1,081
- Woodrow Wilson 1,803
- Calvin Coolidge 1,203
- Franklin D. Roosevelt 3,522 (winner winner chicken dinner)
- Harry S. Truman 907
- Richard Nixon 346
- Jimmy Carter 320
- Ronald Reagan 381
mitchgo61
I go where the thrills are
Interesting perspective.
http://hightimes.com/culture/pot-matters-session-for-attorney-general-game-on/
http://hightimes.com/culture/pot-matters-session-for-attorney-general-game-on/
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
So, it's cool if the ultra-strict Christian/Muslim baker lectures a gay couple about the evil of their choice before (Or, after.) baking them a wedding cake?He must've felt that people were "harassing" him because they want to keep their rights and freedoms.
This is not a freedom of speech issue. The government is not going in to arrest the cast of Hamilton. And, unless the Trump Administration acts like the Obama Administration seemingly did to their political foes, the IRS is not giving the cast a good once over because of their progressive message.
This is a combination of a courtesy and a contractual issue. Most who live in the middle sigmas of the bell curve would not generally bother people living their lives with forcing them to hear their message. Are we really going to encourage all of our public lives to become a partisan battle? At least can we have some marking or symbol on the entrance? I'd love to know if I'm going in to get a bagel or a bagel and a lecture.
I understand this is not just guys, but an important politician who gives up some rights because of fame and power. However, it was not just he who was there. While there were some/many in the audience that supported the cast, what of those who did not? They paid good money (Jaw dropping for some seats.) to get a special night. Why would the performers think they had the right to mess that up? The whole play is the majesty; the whole experience is why people save like it is a vacation to go. Remember, it's not just millionaires from New York dropping pocket change to see the show, you have families who have traveled there wanting to see a big city show that took months in planning to arrange and cost them thousands just for the tickets.
How did their night change when this partisan shit came up? For NOTHING! Like the wife who wakes up in the middle of the night and slaps her sleeping husband because he cheated on her in her dream; the lecture was based on some elaborate straw man built up of tiny straws of factoids filtered through the media. I assume you don't treat your guests in such manner. If they are guests because they paid to be, it seems you have a greater duty to not single them out.
Can those of Trump supporting ilk come and protest from inside the theater from now on if they bought tickets? Rights and freedoms and all that. Once we start down the path where those who have some imagined hurt can lecture all those they interact with, what will our limit be?
Deleted Member 1643
Well-Known Member
Off topic, but found it interesting that the theater is apparently like church to the president elect. Explains a lot.
jim-bob
Well-Known Member
Still off topic, but it looks to me like the cast and director had all agreed on what to do, so it's part of the show in my eyes.
It's live theater, it's got the potential to be radically different every night. If that's an issue some people might be better served going to the movies.
It's live theater, it's got the potential to be radically different every night. If that's an issue some people might be better served going to the movies.
momofthegoons
vapor accessory addict
Back on topic please folks..... 
I think given the rhetoric of the Trump campaign, and the track record of Mike "Shock the Jock" Pence, and given the suggested supreme court justice has been against gay rights,
It is more important for people who feel threatened to preemptively speak up for their rights at the end of their performance than it is to make sure the theatre is a "Safe space"
The difference between the cast of Hamilton and your average Trump supporter is that the cast of Hamilton actually has good reason to fear for their rights.
Under no circumstances am I going to allow the Trump administration to consider anything that goes against racial or religious equality without making my voice heard and I applaud the cast of Hamilton for doing the same.
I would also applaud the Muslim and Jewish people speaking out against the Trump administration for considering a "Muslim Registry" aka copying Adolf Hitler's procedure for commiting Genocide against Jews.
Similarly I would expect anyone who depends on Marijuana for their medicine or their business to preemptively speak up against an Attorney General who claims that the KKK was fine until he found out they smoked weed, or that none of us could possibly be "good people" because we use Marijuana
We are living in a time where we as U.S. citizens need to fight to ensure our rights aren't taken away and if that makes our President elect And VP elect uncomfortable then so be it.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
You guys please can we have some honest discussion. Make sure you add some cannabis tslk with that so we stay on topic.
Thanks to those that will try to keep this open.
We see who Trump is choosing in office, that gives us some insight. A lot of old farts, except for a few so far.
Trump is one of those people that it's hard to predict because he turns on a dine. The tax money part would really appeal to him
Trump continues to show what a hard ass he's going to be by some of the people he's putting into office. I'm hoping Rudy Giuliani gets a job that keeps him away from any cannbais decisions or discussions.
With cannabis's popularity growing he may not be able to stop the momentum. That's what I'm hoping. It will end up being not important enough for him to worry about. He will create more problems for himself to deal with.
It showed on SNL how Pence will do most of the presidential stuff. Trump hinted at that during the campaign. His job will be to make America great.
Thanks to those that will try to keep this open.
We see who Trump is choosing in office, that gives us some insight. A lot of old farts, except for a few so far.
Trump is one of those people that it's hard to predict because he turns on a dine. The tax money part would really appeal to him
Trump continues to show what a hard ass he's going to be by some of the people he's putting into office. I'm hoping Rudy Giuliani gets a job that keeps him away from any cannbais decisions or discussions.
With cannabis's popularity growing he may not be able to stop the momentum. That's what I'm hoping. It will end up being not important enough for him to worry about. He will create more problems for himself to deal with.
It showed on SNL how Pence will do most of the presidential stuff. Trump hinted at that during the campaign. His job will be to make America great.
Last edited:
This is a big, big issue for Sessions and it always has been. The DOJ has multiple priority areas too. Sessions received an "F" rating from NORML and he has criticized the Obama administration for not taking an aggressive role in cracking down on Marijuana related businesses. He called for Federal intervention.
Businesses are most at risk. Is the average individual? Maybe not but the industry is in a precarious spot right now.
Other people seem to think so too. Check the banner @
https://www.drugpolicy.org/
Baron23
Well-Known Member
HI @mitchgo61 - thanks. I found this to be a thoughtful analysis of the practicalities of the situation.
Cheers
jeffp
psychonaut/retired
I recall through the campaign Trump saying that even though he doesn't like marijuana, if the states want it, they want it, end of story. Based on his constant repetition of his "states rights" mantra I wouldn't be surprised if Trump removes possession as a federal offense and leaves it to the states to decide. If he does that, the "green" states would enjoy a boost in their economies and equally important, this one thing would dramatically turn around a lot of the extreme hatred and fear of him. How could you hate the first and only president who in effect legalized bud?
Deleted Member 1643
Well-Known Member
Countless scenarios leap to mind.
Baron23
Well-Known Member
Why legal pot is suddenly in big danger
Attorney general nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is a fervent foe of marijuana legalization. But if he were confirmed as President-elect Trump’s top law enforcement official, would he really have any power to put his anti-pot views into practice?
To review the postelection state of play, a majority of states have legalized medical marijuana and eight (plus the District of Columbia) have legalized recreational marijuana. But the federal Controlled Substances Act still defines production and sale of marijuana as serious crimes.
The Obama administration issued policy memos that curtailed federal enforcement of marijuana laws in legalization states. But because such executive branch directives do not bind successive administrations in any way, an Attorney General Sessions could immediately come down on the marijuana industry like a 400 pound bale of pot. (cont)
Attorney general nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is a fervent foe of marijuana legalization. But if he were confirmed as President-elect Trump’s top law enforcement official, would he really have any power to put his anti-pot views into practice?
To review the postelection state of play, a majority of states have legalized medical marijuana and eight (plus the District of Columbia) have legalized recreational marijuana. But the federal Controlled Substances Act still defines production and sale of marijuana as serious crimes.
The Obama administration issued policy memos that curtailed federal enforcement of marijuana laws in legalization states. But because such executive branch directives do not bind successive administrations in any way, an Attorney General Sessions could immediately come down on the marijuana industry like a 400 pound bale of pot. (cont)
grokit
well-worn member
Rant time... We've always been a polarized country, but the divisions have been continuously and exponentially ramped up since watergate. And now we have the cumulation of partisan politics, where we have a reality tv star promising to unite us while he rolls us back to when america was "great". Again; that same slogan was not only used when reagan first ran here in the 80's, but also when hitler ran for national office in pre-nazi germany. Probably just a coincidence, right? My biggest fear is that they will cram another 9-11 type of event up our collective asses, that will keep these demagogues in power indefinitely. The political pendulum needs to swing to the center, but it never will and it's our own collective fault.
Renewed prohibition of cannabis will be unfortunate, but the plant will survive. Otoh, we may have bigger issues on our manipulated minds. I'm thinking that hillary was never meant to win, bernie was a decoy, and trump is part of a much bigger agenda as the white nationalist front takes hold in wealthy euro nations. It's a predictable reaction to all the refugees we created (what a coincidence). The uk was first with brexit, then trump, france next, then spain and even germany could fall if merkel doesn't get into line. Have you noticed that facebook wants to censor the alternative media outlets that predicted our election (and brexit) correctly, while they 'normalize' the msm outlets that got the election (and popular opinion) so very wrong?
Renewed prohibition of cannabis will be unfortunate, but the plant will survive. Otoh, we may have bigger issues on our manipulated minds. I'm thinking that hillary was never meant to win, bernie was a decoy, and trump is part of a much bigger agenda as the white nationalist front takes hold in wealthy euro nations. It's a predictable reaction to all the refugees we created (what a coincidence). The uk was first with brexit, then trump, france next, then spain and even germany could fall if merkel doesn't get into line. Have you noticed that facebook wants to censor the alternative media outlets that predicted our election (and brexit) correctly, while they 'normalize' the msm outlets that got the election (and popular opinion) so very wrong?
Last edited:
Deleted Member 1643
Well-Known Member
Let us re-educate the US senators (particularly the Judiciary Committee, where Sessions served and where he may still have enemies) about the benefits of legalization and the threat the appointee poses to it.
For these US enemies, 11-9 is another 9-11. Our fear is their hope.
Both test the strength of the US democracy. With the possible exception of the Electoral College, its founders built it to be exceptionally (as Pence would say) resillient. We'll see if the president-elect can conform to the demands of the office they created and if not, whether that office will successfully reject him. The US survived the George W. Bush administration (barely), it may yet survive this. But beware of the model - manufactured economic bubble followed by manufactured war, leaving the Democrats to fail at picking up the pieces. Rinse and repeat. About that time, his children or his son-in-law would be ready to carry on the dynasty. It's a downward spiral that we need to either reverse or embrace.
Another terrifying article on the real danger of entrenched corruption.
Last edited:
mitchgo61
I go where the thrills are
From the looks of the appointees, ideology and politics will sadly "trump" states potential business interests here. And it will be in behalf of other, more established multinational businesses like pharma and liquor.
You may very well be right. But the disruption of commerce and tourism in CO alone will cause a major shitstorm. Given Trump's large loss in the popular vote and lots of folks up for re-election again just around the corner, this would be major political malpractice. A lot of Trumpers are pro-weed. Watch their teeny brains explode.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
The main problem is the Obama Administration weaponized banking through the DOJ. Operation Chokepoint kept disfavored businesses from access to the banking system. Wikipedia lists Obama disfavored entities:
Don't worry, it is only to protect us from money laundering. I mean, terrorism. Wait until they start trying to convince us we don't need money any longer. They will give many good reasons why we don't need big bills and how bad they can be. In reality, it is a power grab--beware.
We allowed it last administration and it is going to happen in this administration. The difference is, the new powers to be (At least the social conservatives.) tend to not like some things we do like. Pity we didn't fight then.
- Ammunition Sales
- Cable Box De-scramblers
- Coin Dealers
- Credit Card Schemes
- Credit Repair Services
- Dating Services
- Debt Consolidation Scams
- Drug Paraphernalia
- Escort Services
- Firearms Sales
- Fireworks Sales
- Get Rich Products
- Government Grants
- Home-Based Charities
- Life-Time Guarantees
- Life-Time Memberships
- Lottery Sales
- Mailing Lists/Personal Info
- Money Transfer Networks
- On-line Gambling
- Pawn Shops
- Payday Loans
- Pharmaceutical Sales
- Ponzi Schemes
- Pornography[9]
- Pyramid-Type Sales
- Racist Materials
- Surveillance Equipment
- Telemarketing
- Tobacco Sales
- Travel Clubs
Don't worry, it is only to protect us from money laundering. I mean, terrorism. Wait until they start trying to convince us we don't need money any longer. They will give many good reasons why we don't need big bills and how bad they can be. In reality, it is a power grab--beware.
We allowed it last administration and it is going to happen in this administration. The difference is, the new powers to be (At least the social conservatives.) tend to not like some things we do like. Pity we didn't fight then.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
grokit
well-worn member
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
That is a congressional report (rightfully) criticizing the operation. (Yay, Republicans! If only the Democrats would have gotten on board then.) Where do you get the fact it stopped the program? (Or, other like ones?) Also, the report was a year after the program was disclosed. It was in operation for some time before being disclosed to the point where a Congressional investigation was warranted.There is no list. Congress axed it a year after it was introduced
With a quick search:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/3/operation-choke-point-asphyxiating-payday-lenders/
A timeline:
http://www.americanbanker.com/gallery/timeline-operation-choke-point-1066360-1.html
It is still going on today. I am uncertain as to if the program goes by the same name. But, the effects of the program are still in the news today.
grokit
well-worn member
On January 29, 2015, the FDIC issued a Financial Institution Letter that states "The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a Financial Institution Letter today encouraging supervised institutions to take a risk-based approach in assessing individual customer relationships, rather than declining to provide banking services to entire categories of customers without regard to the risks presented by an individual customer or the financial institution's ability to manage the risk."[22]
The Washington Times says this letter "effectively ends Operation Choke Point."[22][23] As reported by Forbes, "a change in the political landscape, many businesses threatening legal action and a congressman with a background in banking [forced] the bureaucracy to admit to misconduct and to stop financial attacks on legal businesses that the Obama administration deems to be politically incorrect."[24] Reports of continued termination of services to legitimate businesses, however, continue.[25]
I'm sure trump will revise the list if his administration decides to bring it back into play.
The Washington Times says this letter "effectively ends Operation Choke Point."[22][23] As reported by Forbes, "a change in the political landscape, many businesses threatening legal action and a congressman with a background in banking [forced] the bureaucracy to admit to misconduct and to stop financial attacks on legal businesses that the Obama administration deems to be politically incorrect."[24] Reports of continued termination of services to legitimate businesses, however, continue.[25]
I'm sure trump will revise the list if his administration decides to bring it back into play.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Someone forgot to tell the government the difference between effectively ending and actually ending 'cause they're still doing it.On January 29, 2015, the FDIC issued a Financial Institution Letter that states "The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a Financial Institution Letter today encouraging supervised institutions to take a risk-based approach in assessing individual customer relationships, rather than declining to provide banking services to entire categories of customers without regard to the risks presented by an individual customer or the financial institution's ability to manage the risk."[22]
The Washington Times says this letter "effectively ends Operation Choke Point."[22][23] As reported by Forbes, "a change in the political landscape, many businesses threatening legal action and a congressman with a background in banking [forced] the bureaucracy to admit to misconduct and to stop financial attacks on legal businesses that the Obama administration deems to be politically incorrect."[24] Reports of continued termination of services to legitimate businesses, however, continue.[25]
waxdab23
Well-Known Member
On January 29, 2015, the FDIC issued a Financial Institution Letter that states "The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a Financial Institution Letter today encouraging supervised institutions to take a risk-based approach in assessing individual customer relationships, rather than declining to provide banking services to entire categories of customers without regard to the risks presented by an individual customer or the financial institution's ability to manage the risk."[22]
The Washington Times says this letter "effectively ends Operation Choke Point."[22][23] As reported by Forbes, "a change in the political landscape, many businesses threatening legal action and a congressman with a background in banking [forced] the bureaucracy to admit to misconduct and to stop financial attacks on legal businesses that the Obama administration deems to be politically incorrect."[24] Reports of continued termination of services to legitimate businesses, however, continue.[25]
Have been in the Payments industry for the past decade providing merchant/payment services to SMB's, so this is right up my alley...
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a report back in December 2014 on the FDIC's involvement in Operation Choke Point, showing clear abuses of regulatory power: http://oversight.house.gov/wp-conte...-FDIC-and-Operation-Choke-Point-12-8-2014.pdf (site under construction at the time of my posting).
On February 4th, 2016, the House voted to end Operation Choke Point: http://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=400263
I'm not sure if that needed Senate approval but sadly, as @OldNewbie pointed out, nothing seems to have changed.
- Status