Trump threatens medical cannabis

[Ready4]

in an indication of just how far Trump might go, he did just fire Comey
Trump seems capable of just about anything

Shades of Nixon. In more ways than one...
Fire the guy who is in charge of investigating your possible treason.
Fire the guy who stated there was zero evidence that your claim of being wiretapped in tRump tower.
Cover-up 101. Might work at the level of Trump's private business where he is the 'boss". Will fail bigly in the WH.
Soon as Flynn gets indicted, Flynn will roll over on Trump's Russian scheming.

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

Washington Post

Sessions weighs return to harsher punishments for low-level drug crimes

By Sari Horwitz May 9 at 2:07 PM

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is reviewing policy changes set in place by the Obama administration that eliminated harsh punishments for low-level drug crimes and could direct federal prosecutors to again charge drug offenders with crimes carrying the most severe penalties, according to U.S. officials.

The change, if adopted, would overturn a memo by then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that instructed prosecutors to avoid charging low-level defendants with drug offenses that would trigger severe mandatory minimum sentences. Only defendants who met certain criteria, such as not belonging to a large-scale drug trafficking organization, a gang or a cartel, qualified for the lesser charges under Holder’s instructions.

If new charging instructions are implemented, it would mark the first significant move by the Trump administration to bring back the drug war’s toughest practices — methods that had fallen out of favor in recent years as critics pointed to damaging effects of mass incarceration.

“As the Attorney General has consistently said, we are reviewing all Department of Justice policies to focus on keeping Americans safe and will be issuing further guidance and support to our prosecutors executing this priority — including an updated memorandum on charging for all criminal cases,” Ian Prior, a department spokesman, in a statement to The Washington Post.

Sessions has recently peppered his speeches to law enforcement groups throughout the country with tough-on-crime rhetoric and urged Justice Department lawyers to prosecute more drug and gun cases.

The attorney general is considering having his prosecutors bring the most severe charges against drug traffickers, whether they are low-level defendants or not, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Sessions also may allow prosecutors to use more “enhancements” to make sentences even longer. Under what’s referred to as “Section 851” of the Controlled Substances Act, defendants charged with a federal drug, firearm or immigration crime may face enhancements if they have previously been convicted of a felony drug offense.

...

https://www.icmag.com/ic/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=342024

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

Looks like things are changing fast in federal law enforcement. James Comey is no longer head of the FBI. Comey was scheduled to testify this week before the US Senate. Though no longer FBI Director, Comey will still testify in a public hearing as a citizen, before the Senate Intelligence Committee this Thursday, May11.

FBI Director James Comey will publicly testify this week after being fired by Donald Trump
By Bill Palmer
Updated: 7:57 pm EDT Tue May 9, 2017 | 0

Hell hath no fury like an FBI Director scorned? When the month began, James Comey was testifying before Congress as the person in charge of the ongoing investigation into Donald Trump’s various criminal actives, while Sally Yates was testifying as someone who had been fired by Trump simply for doing her job. Now that Trump has also fired Comey, it’s been confirmed that it won’t stop him from going ahead with his further testimony in the scandal.

The Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Mark Warner just confirmed during a national television interview that James Comey will still testify before the committee this week during public hearings, as had been planned. But the testimony will now take on a whole new meaning, as Comey is no longer in charge of the investigation into Trump, but instead a victim of Trump’s attempted coverup.

Meanwhile the Republican chair of the committee, Richard Burr, is making clear that he’s “troubled by the timing and reasoning” of Donald Trump’s firing of James Comey (link). That’s a signal that Burr has no intention of interfering with Comey’s scheduled testimony before the committee, and that he’s now looking for answers as well.

James Comey is scheduled to testify in Senate Intel Committee public hearings this Thursday, May 11th, according to the committee website (link). The hearings begin at 10:00 am eastern time, and Comey is one of six people set to testify. It’s a given that he’ll now be the star witness of the day, and that the hearings will be televised live.

http://www.palmerreport.com/news/testify-james-comey/2697/

 

[vta]

Now that Trump has rightly fired Comey...I'm interested in how Hillary will react. Considering how she has blamed Comey as a reason for her loss...she must be happy...but then since just coming out as the leader of the 'Resistance' she needs to attack everything President Trump does. lol

Sorry to interrupt...now back to the Russia Russia Russia...entertainment at it's very best !

 

[toxic hippie]

Now that Trump has rightly fired Comey...I'm interested in how Hillary will react. Considering how she has blamed Comey as a reason for her loss...she must be happy...but then since just coming out as the leader of the 'Resistance' she needs to attack everything President Trump does. lol

Sorry to interrupt...now back to the Russia Russia Russia...entertainment at it's very best !

trump has praised comey on multiple occasions. as the russian inquiries start heating back up he fires the man in leading one of the investigations for reasons he could have did on his first day in office which was 3.5 months ago.

how is that not fishy?

 

[Shmavis]

The Ogden memo maybe??? I didn't dive so deep to actually reveiw the actual statements/memos. The Obama administration wasn't exactly kind to the mmj folks for quite some time if you remember. They were contradictiary with their statements, actions and raids.

Irrelevant. DOJ memos are not signing statements. You put forth the following claim:

...So why didn't folks scream when obama made his signing statement that was anti cannabis? ...

I’m just wondering if you can substantiate it. (And maybe you can) Or if it’s an alternative fact.

Trump isn’t even willing to let medical slide until September of this year, when the spending bill expires. Honestly I think he’s too dimwitted on the workings of government to have had much to do with these signing statements, other than to put his signature to them. This is the work of his handlers. I bet we can all guess who pushed for the statement relating to medical.

 

[topheavy420]

Irrelevant. DOJ memos are not signing statements. You put forth the following claim:



I’m just wondering if you can substantiate it. (And maybe you can) Or if it’s an alternative fact.

Trump isn’t even willing to let medical slide until September of this year, when the spending bill expires. Honestly I think he’s too dimwitted on the workings of government to have had much to do with these signing statements, other than to put his signature to them. This is the work of his handlers. I bet we can all guess who pushed for the statement relating to medical.

Well you got me there, I said signing statement but was possibly remembering the ogden memo. See I'm not a lawyer but perhaps you are or have a greater understanding of these things than i do. I was under the impression that the ogden memo and this trump signing statement esentially say the same thing, that they will not go after patients and producers if they are following state laws but they will go after people that don't follow state law.

So if they esentially do the same thing how is it irrelevant? And if they do wouldn't they be following the precedent set by the Obama administration?

https://mjbizdaily.com/the-famous-m...ormer-doj-deputy-attorney-general-james-cole/

 

[EsterEssence]

Now that Trump has rightly fired Comey...I'm interested in how Hillary will react. Considering how she has blamed Comey as a reason for her loss...she must be happy...but then since just coming out as the leader of the 'Resistance' she needs to attack everything President Trump does. lol

Sorry to interrupt...now back to the Russia Russia Russia...entertainment at it's very best !

This thread is about trump threatens medical cannabis not russia or hillary please read and stay on topic...

 

[toxic hippie]

This thread is about trump threatens medical cannabis not russia or hillary please read and stay on topic...

VTA wasnt the first person to bring it up

 

[EsterEssence]

Vta has to do it in every thread about trump, he has to show how right he is...

 

[Lester Beans]

Jeff Sessions is a Harry Anslinger fanboy.

He is an old school uneducated racist pasty old numbnuts who actually said the KKK was OK until he found out they smoked cannabis.

How hasn't social media blown up this guy? Where are the protest? This twerp cannot be allowed to take us back to the days of reefer madness.

Why havnt minority groups gone bonkers on this prick for his racist comments? Come on get off the fucking couch!!

Unreal

 

[igrowone]

...
Why havnt minority groups gone bonkers on this prick for his racist comments? Come on get off the fucking couch!!

Unreal

thinking it's because of the amount of crazy crap happening in the trump circus
just plain overwhelming, if that's his plan it's working to some extent
but murder will out itself in the end

 

[Orrie]

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/trump-threatens-defy-congress-go-after-medical-marijuana

Great, just what we need...So much for states rights...

This administration will use the commerce clause to piss all over the tenth amendment

I don't see SCOTUS overturning Gonzales-v-Raich anytime soon

SCOTUS ruled that even individual use and/or cultivation of marijuana has an aggregate affect on interstate commerce, warranting enforcement of the CSA in California despite its state laws


http://www.cannalawblog.com/gonzales-v-raich-545-u-s-1-2005/

 

[Shmavis]

Well you got me there, I said signing statement but was possibly remembering the ogden memo. See I'm not a lawyer but perhaps you are or have a greater understanding of these things than i do. I was under the impression that the ogden memo and this trump signing statement esentially say the same thing, that they will not go after patients and producers if they are following state laws but they will go after people that don't follow state law.

So if they esentially do the same thing how is it irrelevant? And if they do wouldn't they be following the precedent set by the Obama administration?

https://mjbizdaily.com/the-famous-m...ormer-doj-deputy-attorney-general-james-cole/

No, they are not essentially the same thing. And I think you know this.

What we should be asking ourselves is what does this mean. He said medical marijuana was up to the states. This statement says otherwise.

So what’s the rush? The bill expires in September. I suspect we’ll see a new DOJ memo soon. Possibly with language that includes medical in their already stated mission of going after rec.

But who knows, maybe this is just this guy’s way of throwing Congress the finger because he doesn’t want to be told what to do. Time will tell.

This administration will use the commerce clause to piss all over the tenth amendment

I don't see SCOTUS overturning Gonzales-v-Raich anytime soon

SCOTUS ruled that even individual use and/or cultivation of marijuana has an aggregate affect on interstate commerce, warranting enforcement of the CSA in California despite its state laws


http://www.cannalawblog.com/gonzales-v-raich-545-u-s-1-2005/

Yep.

This time though I think it will end with a ruling on the Supremacy Clause. The scope alone of the litigants nowadays... I don’t see the Court’s current makeup overturning the power garnered through the CC, either. And I feel there's a battle coming, ending at SCOTUS' doorstep.

Wickard v. Filburn blew my hair back. So Gonzales v. Raich didn’t come as much of a surprise. The CC represents nearly unfettered power.

 

[topheavy420]

"No, they are not essentially the same thing. And I think you know this.*"

What is the difference then in your opinion?

 

[oldchuck]

I suspect Trump and Sessions will be a little too busy fighting off impeachment to spend much time on weed. The government is essentially decapitated these days with people lower down doing the actual work so look for more erratic twists and turns.

 

[igrowone]

history repeating itself has seldom been so literal
Sessions looks like he's kicking off the new War On Drugs initiative
and the guy at the top is walking down the merry road of destruction
going to love to see how this one ends

 

[Shmavis]

"No, they are not essentially the same thing. And I think you know this.*"

What is the difference then in your opinion?

Setting aside the fact that your argument takes the form of an association fallacy, we can simply say that a signing statement amendment to a spending bill is not the same as a DOJ memo. In an attempt to justify the signing statement you point to past DOJ policy statements (memos) regarding enforcement - not even the one the past administration ended on.

I respect your right to support Trump. But you came into this thread seemingly wanting to defend his actions by claiming that others have done the same. Yet there’s no evidence to such.

Well you got me there, I said signing statement but was possibly remembering the ogden memo. See I'm not a lawyer but perhaps you are or have a greater understanding of these things than i do. I was under the impression that the ogden memo and this trump signing statement esentially say the same thing, that they will not go after patients and producers if they are following state laws but they will go after people that don't follow state law.

So if they esentially do the same thing how is it irrelevant? And if they do wouldn't they be following the precedent set by the Obama administration?

https://mjbizdaily.com/the-famous-m...ormer-doj-deputy-attorney-general-james-cole/

The signing statement says nothing of that sort. It makes no distinction between compliant med patients/producers and non-compliant patients/producers - thereby opening the door to go after medical full-on. The provision in the bill states that federal funding to the DOJ cannot be used to enforce federal law against medical states. Trump, with this signing statement, has said that he’s not even willing to comply for five months... there's now reason to be somewhat concerned.

I suspect Trump and Sessions will be a little too busy fighting off impeachment to spend much time on weed. The government is essentially decapitated these days with people lower down doing the actual work so look for more erratic twists and turns.

I agree, I think they’re gonna have their hands full for a bit. I laughed when people first started talking impeachment, but I’m not laughing anymore.

 

[nameless]

the news these days is a more interesting read than most Clancy novels

always good to see some good discussion here, i like that we can all generally play nice and learn

 

[toxic hippie]

the news these days is a more interesting read than most Clancy novels

its almost like our president is running the WH like a reality TV show full of drama and elimination