Trump threatens medical cannabis

[Stay Gel^N 247]

I'm referring to the will of their fellow politicians, rather than the will of the citizens. We know that among people who would actually accept to even do a survey about cannabis, are obviously opinionated about the subject. Look what happened to Trump when he tried to implement other legislation that is considered controversial.
The will of the people is difficult to interpret based upon the finding of surveys that probably don't include every aspect of the diversity our nation has as citizens.

 

[oldchuck]

In two days our governor will decide if he will allow a legalization bill passed by legislature to become law, the first state to do so. It is a rather modest bill but it would mean the end of outlaw weed here. Got my fingers crossed. Trump/Sessions will never win here.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm interested in what recommendations the newly appointed Task force will be giving on or before July 27th.
Marijuana sentencing and asset forfeiture are on the table

https://assets.documentcloud.org/do...y-General-Jeff-Sessions-Memo-US-Attorneys.pdf

I really don't think Sessions will be going after any operations that are truly state legal.

Prohibitionists are truly screwed because they can't lean back on the false information & imagery that served them for 75 years. They now have to confront the facts & figures amassed since CO legalization in 2012. They have to show harm, & the data simply won't support it. Data about all kinds of stuff- traffic, crime, domestic violence, public health & a lot of other stuff as well.

Reefer madness won't sell, nor will the soft version of "we just don't know what will happen", either. We do know, and what we know leaves them bereft of even irrational arguments.

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

And the people who grew up in the age of heavy Reefer Madness propaganda are slowly dying off, to be replaced by a steady stream of young folks reaching voting age. Time is on our side.

Not only is Jeff Sessions a dinosaur, but it appears that a big ole meteor is headed his way. And every day the newspapers tell about how it's getting closer and closer.

 

[Space Toker]

Have to catch up, but yes dump no rump ok just having some childish fun still like that from time to time... Trump is such a mess and messing things up can't believe anyone could not see through all that grandstanding BS and would support that epic Bad movie sideshow is but I digress, I have to find out how he is affecting or is it effecting med or rec cannabis?! It was a slight bit funny to watch hi bouncing around in Saudi Arabia and acting like a holy man today when he looks and acts like the devil... but I think the foundation is crumbling and even the most braindead or ignorant will soon see the light!

 

[Orrie]

I really don't think Sessions will be going after any operations that are truly state legal.

Prohibitionists are truly screwed because they can't lean back on the false information & imagery that served them for 75 years. They now have to confront the facts & figures amassed since CO legalization in 2012. They have to show harm, & the data simply won't support it. Data about all kinds of stuff- traffic, crime, domestic violence, public health & a lot of other stuff as well.

Reefer madness won't sell, nor will the soft version of "we just don't know what will happen", either. We do know, and what we know leaves them bereft of even irrational arguments.

Wish I had the same optimism. The task force was created to provide new false information and imagery for the war on drugs redux. The facts will be changed like they were in the past to further the agenda.

This government has shown no need for rationale in the past. I doubt it will do so in the future.

 

[Betterhaff]

It’s interesting that marijuana was singled out in that memo. No mention of heroin or prescription opioids which probably have much, much more violence associated with them. I wonder for instance, how much of an increase in violent crime, marijuana related, has occurred in CO since it was legalized in 2012.

"Task Force subcommittees will also undertake a review of existing policies in the areas of charging, sentencing, and marijuana to ensure consistency with the Department's overall strategy on reducing violent crime and with Administration goals and priorities. Another subcommittee will explore our use of asset forfeiture and make recommendations on any improvements needed to legal authorities, policies, and training to most effectively attack the financial infrastructure of criminal organizations.”

 

[Jhhnn]

Wish I had the same optimism. The task force was created to provide new false information and imagery for the war on drugs redux. The facts will be changed like they were in the past to further the agenda.

This government has shown no need for rationale in the past. I doubt it will do so in the future.

The difference, I think, is that very little was really known about cannabis back in 1937 other than he fact that use was mostly confined to people of color, always a favorite target at the time. In the 50's & 60's it spread to the beat generation & hippies, still people easy for power holders to vilify & attack.

It was easy enough to sell reefer madness back then. It's a lot harder today when examples of highly successful legalization exist. They have to push a lot of facts out of the way in order to fill the void with bullshit, something they didn't need to do previously, let alone in 1937.

Cannabis went mainstream. People from all walks of life use cannabis in America, some of them being very prosperous & having economic power of their own. Hanging out in one of the toney cannabis retailers in Denver's LoDo would illustrate that, particularly on a Friday evening. Many of those people are otherwise rather conservative & susceptible to the Repub pitch. None of them want to go back to the way it was.

 

[vta]

I think we are over the hump, so to speak. The majority of Americans live where there is some type of legalization. So far the sky has not fallen and voters realize that. Every year more states legalize all the while the feds are stumbling on coming up with a compromise. Thankfully we have bi-partisan politicians bringing this issue to the forefront of Congress.

But I got to tell ya.. get a kick out of all this "Trump is going to be impeached" "Russia Russia Russia"....so much talk and zero to back it up.

 

[brown_thumb]

I think we are over the hump, so to speak. The majority of Americans live where there is some type of legalization. So far the sky has not fallen and voters realize that. Every year more states legalize all the while the feds are stumbling on coming up with a compromise. Thankfully we have bi-partisan politicians bringing this issue to the forefront of Congress.

But I got to tell ya.. get a kick out of all this "Trump is going to be impeached" "Russia Russia Russia"....so much talk and zero to back it up.

Trump might be impeached but it takes 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict and remove him from office. I suspect that won't happen and even if it does, Pence may cause more damage than Trump ever could. We're better off with a lame duck moron than a capable enemy.

 

[vta]

Trump might be impeached but it takes 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict and remove him from office. I suspect that won't happen and even if it does, Pence may cause more damage than Trump ever could.

And what, may I ask, is Trump going to be impeached for??

 

[brown_thumb]

And what, may I ask, is Trump going to be impeached for??

Obstruction of Justice and/or Collusion with a foreign government (treason).

 

[Gry]

Recall what pushed Nixon out?

 

[igrowone]

And what, may I ask, is Trump going to be impeached for??

as i recall, the wording in the constitution is "high crimes and misdemeanors'
some interesting conversations on what that means
i believe one senator(a ways back) said in exasperation - 'you could be impeached for poisoning your neighbor's cat'
there is no good definition, it's political
if congress hates the president enough, they can impeach and convict him for whatever suits their fancy
who would be able to 'veto' an impeachment? the voters in the next election i guess

 

[vta]

Obstruction of Justice and/or Collusion with a foreign government (treason).

lol. Wheres the proof? Heads of Obama's LEO agency's have said there is no proof. The only crime committed that we know for a fact is the leaking. Even that whacked out moonbat Waters said there is no proof. The msm is a great manipulator...

 

[Gry]

Nixon left on his own in an attempt to keep the world from finding out what a shyster he was.
Anyone think the current prez is cleaner than Nixon ?
He will go on his own just like Nixon, and for the same reason, lack of integrity. Only a matter of when, not if.

 

[brown_thumb]

as i recall, the wording in the constitution is "high crimes and misdemeanors'
some interesting conversations on what that means
i believe one senator(a ways back) said in exasperation - 'you could be impeached for poisoning your neighbor's cat'
there is no good definition, it's political
if congress hates the president enough, they can impeach and convict him for whatever suits their fancy
who would be able to 'veto' an impeachment? the voters in the next election i guess

Obstruction of Justice and/or Collusion with a foreign government (treason) is a far cry from any misdemeanor.

 

[packerfan79]

Another bash Trump thread hum I wonder how long this one will last? Lol.

 

[brown_thumb]

lol. Wheres the proof? Heads of Obama's LEO agency's have said there is no proof. The only crime committed that we know for a fact is the leaking. Even that whacked out moonbat Waters said there is no proof. The msm is a great manipulator...<snip>

You will be proven wrong. I don't defend any president we've had after Ike and JFK. Trump will continue to shit his own pants until no one can deny his childish narcissistic idiocy.

How this plays out in our fight for Cannabis Freedom, only time will tell.

 

[igrowone]

Obstruction of Justice and/or Collusion with a foreign government (treason) is a far cry from any misdemeanor.

the misdemeanor in the criminal codes is a very different thing than the misdemeanor of impeachment
the wording is deliberately loose, it's 'thought' it means small crimes as well as large crimes
impeachment is not a criminal proceeding in the usual sense, the differences are very important