DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Sessions to rescind Obama-era pot rules

You're referring to the post where you said "I'm all for States Rights, but I don't believe that states should have rights"?

No surprises..40 supporting violence. That's so typical of Trump supporters. Sad.

jc

i like to smoke weed, then jam out to some kenny loggins.

Oh man... I never go there. What's wrong with me?

cause you're not interested in the highway to the dangerzone.

Oh please.

Over the years, I've caught some of the (quickly deleted) comments that a few of the liberals on here have directed at 40. This is nothing in comparison.

No. Where I said...
"I am all for States Rights but no State has the Right to overrule Federal Law."

I suggested you have someone read it to you.

They play Loggins in Prison too.

man, you conservatives are always trying to jail people for anything. yall must have a rape fantasy.

I have noticed most Liberals lack a sense of humor and I enjoying toying with that missing element in their mental makeup.
Naughty of me, I know.

I think putting these millions upon millions of dollars back in the hands of the drug cartels is hilarious! Viva la Mexico!

Republican Sen. Gardner torches Sessions over pot reversal

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-sen-gardner-torches-sessions-pot-crackdown-162956937.html

WASHINGTON — Sen. Cory Gardner, R.-Colo., on Thursday threatened to block all nominees to Justice Department posts in response to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s decision to end Obama-era policies that let legal marijuana thrive. Gardner also warned that the looming Justice Department announcement would make things harder for 2018 Republican candidates in states where pot is legal.

“It certainly lights up a new challenge for them,” Gardner told Yahoo News in a telephone interview.

The Colorado lawmaker said Sessions had personally promised him prior to his confirmation that he would not take steps to tighten enforcement of federal pot laws.

“I’m prepared to hold every Justice Department nominee until Jeff Sessions lives up to what he told me, lives up to his commitment,” Gardner said. A “hold” is a senatorial threat, frequently invoked to gain leverage over the executive branch, to filibuster nominees.

“Jeff Sessions told me this wouldn’t be a priority. Jeff Sessions told me the policy would not be reversed, and today Jeff Sessions went back on his word,” the senator said.

Gardner said Sessions made the assurances in “a call specifically set up because I would not release my vote [to confirm him as attorney general] until I got an answer.”

“He said, ‘This is just not something that President Trump is focused on.’ And apparently, it’s not just a focus, it’s a primary initiative of the new year,” Gardner fumed.


The Speakeasy Vape Lounge, one of the United States’ only legal pot clubs, in Colorado Springs, Colo. (Photo: Thomas Peipert/AP)
More
The senator’s comments came after the Associated Press reported that Sessions would let federal prosecutors in states where marijuana is legal determine how tightly to enforce federal laws that prohibit growing, selling, buying and using pot. Eight states and the District of Columbia have passed laws legalizing marijuana for recreational use. In Gardner’s home state of Colorado, pot has become big business, though constrained by some federal laws that hamper the industry’s ability to use U.S. banks.

“What it means is uncertainty, instability and a thumbing of noses at the people of Colorado,” where legalized marijuana is a $2 billion industry, supporting thousands of jobs and generating millions of dollars in tax revenue, Gardner said.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump said “it’s up to the states” to decide whether marijuana is legal. Asked whether he would order a federal crackdown on pot, he replied: “I wouldn’t do that, no.”

Pointing to that exchange, Gardner told Yahoo News: “President Trump was right. Why does Jeff Sessions think he was wrong?”

The announcement put the Trump administration at odds with an important ally: Gardner heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee — the party organization devoted to retaining the GOP’s Senate majority. In that capacity, he withdrew NRSC support from Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore in the Alabama special election, which yielded a surprise Democratic upset victory. Trump had thrown his support to Moore, despite sexual misconduct allegations against the former judge.


A syringe loaded with a dose of CBD oil is shown in a research laboratory at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colo. (Photo: David Zalubowski/AP)
More
The announcement could also complicate Republican fortunes in states like California, amid growing GOP concerns that the 2018 political climate could generate a Democratic wave that risks swamping their House majority.

Gardner noted that he himself had opposed legalizing marijuana “but the people of Colorado felt otherwise.”

“If you’re a Republican in Washington, if you’re a Republican in California, if you’re a Republican in other states that have legalized, then this becomes a significant barrier toward understanding this administration’s policy,” he said.

_____

Two conservative lawmakers call for Sessions to step down

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/m...p-ed/index.html

_______________

and with the majority of americans supporting legalization, i dunno what Sessions thinks he's trying to pull here.

You keep saying "millions and millions" (due to pot), so I looked it up.

Dang, Colorado, in 2015 I believe it was, garnered around $70 million in taxes, surpassing even the alcohol tax. That surprised me, really. http://time.com/4037604/colorado-marijuana-tax-revenue/

Then I checked out Colorado's state budget - same year, 2015, and it's right around $34.4 billion. https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_state_budget_and_finances

With that fact in mind, I'd almost be tempted to endorse legalizing pot, just for the tax money! Then my taxes could go down.......wait, it wouldn't affect my taxes at all, would it. Just like Ohio getting the lottery to "fund" schools years back.

Legalize pot for the tax money? That's foolish and idiotic on one hand. Why not legalize everything, and tax the hell out of it?

Legalize pot for the tax money, and the savings, or supposed savings, in incriminating dealers etc? Yeah, maybe.

I'm not as opposed today as I was 5 years ago.

12-31-2017 Ohio State Troopers pulled over a truck, on the turnpike (I 80-90) in Wauseon. For speeding. Found 70 pounds of pot in the truck worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $370,000. Truck was from California. Where it was headed is anyones guess.

Tax the crap out of it, right? Sounds good. But, when it's taxed too high, you'll still have the illegal stuff that is cheaper on the black market, won't you?

It appears that you don't understand what "states rights" means. Pertaining to the matter of marijuana legalization, a States Rights position would be that federal law can't supersede state law. You quite literally just said "I'm all for States Rights, but I don't believe in States Rights".

If you plan to attempt a snarky "jeez, do you need someone to read it for you?", you might want to make sure you understand the definitions and meanings of the words and concepts being discussed.

No. PDF facts don't fly here.

Have someone read you the Supremacy Clause...

The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation. Basically, if a federal and state law contradict, then when you're in the state you can follow the state law, but the feds can decide to stop you.

You're doing a great job and make this subforum worth visiting in the first place. Keep it up

Well thank you for that.
Perhaps we can go out clubbing this weekend...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVj0ZTS4WF4

STONERS are upset today ... ..

So are all the other law breakers in America today.

Including that money laundry biz at the WH.

You worship a man who repeatedly violated federal laws regarding the employment and housing of blacks.

You understand that States Rights advocates are vehemently against the Supremacy Clause, yes?

It's quite literally a major fulcrum in their platform.

Once again - if you don't understand the basic concepts you're arguing, snark is an arena you should avoid.

funniest thing evah

I don't even smoke weed. But when people take away jobs, stop a flow of tax revenue and send tens of millions of dollars back into the hands of drug cartels, you little barb that has nothing of substance in it, as is often the case, you certainly avoid addressing any real issues.

Why am i not surprised by that?

It's a matter of projection. Guys like 40 do it often.

He's obsessed with political correctness - "you need to respect President Trump and the office", "you need to stand for the anthem", etc. - and gets offended when people are politically incorrect in regards to their worldview.

Then he turns around and projects his feelings onto his opposition.

arch, you don't get the quality and choices from Mexico that you can get in marijuana dispensaries.

So let me see if I got this right.

This would destroy jobs.

Cut tax incomes for states.

Send customers back to drug cartels which in turn increases crime and helps fund other drugs through the cartel.

So do you support that or not? I mean you can try to parcel out one segment if you choose to. Yet you only considered the tax money from one state at that. Not the total on a national scale.

But looking at the entire thing as a whole, is this something you support?

It should be legalized because an adult engaging in an activity that causes no direct harm to anyone else but themselves isn't the government's business.

Replace "marijuana" and "alcohol", and the argument doesn't change one iota.

Yeah, sure, I 'support' all the negative things you just listed.

Hey, question for YOU: One of the biggest problems with hiring, around HERE, is drug testing. Make pot legal? Okay.

Why is drug testing a problem around here (and elsewhere, I would assume)? Because insurance companies will jack rates up beyond imagination if they are required to pay for accidents in the work place if someone has drugs in their system.

How does that get regulated if pot is legal? Alcohol stays in your system for about an hour or so, depending. A person can have 2, 3, 5 drinks an evening, and go to work with no alcohol in their system. My understanding is pot is different? It stays in your system much longer? As in, if I have a joint at 10 pm, get up at 6 and go to work, and I run a forklift over someone, I'm going to be tested for drugs and alcohol, right?

Alcohol would be gone from my system. Pot wouldn't be - according to my understanding. (if I'm wrong, please tell me).

Drink at night, or smoke at night. Have an accident at work the next day. Tests will show no alcohol - so it's an accident. Tests will show drug usage - then, it's not an "accident" according to insurance. Is that right?

It depends on one's body fat, and when the last drink was taken, but yes, this is a legitimate issue.

However, currently worker's compensation doesn't include synthetic opioids as part of their standard testing (that's going to change soon, from what I've heard). But at the current standards, a forklift driver with marijuana in his system is done and denied benefits, whereas if he had non-prescription Percocet or Vicodin in his system, it's not even tested as part of procedure.

So it's not like we're dealing with a competent system to begin with.

I don't know........my understanding is a person with percocet, or vicodin, isn't allowed to be driving. Even doctor prescribed (and let's face it, that's really the only way a person SHOULD be taking those, right?)

If I'm wrong, let me know.

No, I'm saying if someone crashes a forklift, the standard worker's compensation program doesn't even test for syntetic opiates, prescription or not.

And seeing how synethic opiates are a major crisis that's plaguing the country, its kind of senseless that it's not tested to begin with, but marijuana is.

In either case, the user could be not under the influence, but have them in their system. That's why I drew the comparison.

The complexity of the matter comes in that people can have these drugs in their system, yet not be "high", but there's no scientific method to measure.

To an extent, this can be true of alcohol as well. If you have significant body fat, it's entirely possible to have your last beer at 11 pm, get in a workplace accident at 11 am, and test positive for alcohol. You'd have to be a hefty guy, but it's a possibility.

Not arguing with you there.

But.........dang, you spelled "synthetic" wrong twice in your reply. And each wrong spelling was spelled differently. Can you read and write? Or dare I make a conclusion based on your many recent misspellings?

If not legalizing it all, they should at least decriminalize it all. Studies of places with decriminalized drugs show that drug usage drops amongst users.

Okay.

How does that play into what I was talking about, with work place incidents, or even driving incidents?

Well that's simple, you didn't mention it in your post, so it doesn't.

Okay.

You apparently don't follow along real well. Not my fault.

Here's your post, Arch. I know you're feeling quite intelligent today because you saw some typos, but you can knock it off with the condescending attitude. Reread your post if you want to follow along.0 See all the references you made to insurance in it? No? Funny how that works.

Touché.

But end of the day, you know this is a pedantic and semantic argument, you admitted as much.

The end game of your point is "it's unfair to say that Trump has a long history of being unable to spell", and you know full well it's not an unfair argument. The guy is a moron who can't spell.

Your argument/point would hold merit if I was known to be some long-term spelling or grammar stickler, and I'm not. The only time I find typos mock-worthy is when someone says something like "your stupid".

If your argument is that Trump isn't a moron who can't spell, then you're obviously wrong and let's have that argument. Otherwise, what is the point of these semantics?

I think we'd all sit around for an hour wondering when it will kick in. Personally, I think a nice steak dinner with cannabutter/oil would be the move. By the time we're done with the meal, we're high. I chef it up pretty well.

Also, when I get super high I talk about how the world is just a gigantic simulation, not about communism.

Its funny, the lefties on the board are constantly correcting people spellings, and then they are constantly saying Trump has a mental disorder. What is funny, is that those on the left correcting everyone spelling all the time are the ones with the mental disorder. Its called Grammatical Pedantry Syndrome.