• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Sanders introduces legislation to end federal ban on marijuana

Mr Person said:
I'd also point out that Ohio's proposal uniquely managed to annoy quite a lot of people irrespective of political leaning because it would establish a monopoly as a matter of state constitutional law. A LOT harder to undo if it doesn't turn out well and people don't like monopolies generally.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware, but my point is even coming as close as it did in a backwater state indicates that marijuana laws aren't long going to last

And I'm guessing when they're gone, there won't be any stories, well not true stories, of a teenager getting high and murdering his parents with an axe
 
Risky Thicket said:
What is also interesting about Sanders' proposed legislation is that the media and conservatives are staying the heck away from discussing it. I'm not certain as to why. It would seem to me that people who advocate small government would support the legislation. Here again, at the political level it should be no secret that Big Pharma and Big Private Prisons likely own a hell of a lot of politicians, if not most. In essence politicians are being paid to be quiet.

One only needs to consider print and broadcast media to understand why the media isn't saying much. I'm too lazy to look up ad billing for Big Pharma, but we all know it is massive. It is difficult to watch a television program or read a newspaper without seeing drug advertising. In fact, I'd venture to say that commercial television would probably not be able to exist as a free to consumer medium if it weren't for car and drug companies' advertising dollars. You have to know that Big Pharma is leaning hard on print and broadcast media to influence favorable coverage or the amount of favorable coverage concerning medicinal marijuana or favorable and sensible legislative proposals.

Last thing. Hillary. It will be interesting to see where she might go regarding Sanders' proposed bill. Hillary's position at present is "wait and see". We have no idea what wait and see really means. Criteria? She hasn't offered any and likely has none. Time? Be serious. Maybe in her second term if it politically advantageous. Hillary's statement was/is nothing more than another facet of the Hillary facade. It is what you want it to be.

We all know that all things equal a brother is much more likely to get busted for simple possession than a white guy. It happens often. Fair? Just? You'd think Hillary would be supportive of a change in federal law that would help end the lopsided destruction of the futures of young non-white men and women.
Click to expand...

Republicans don't support small government.
 
Risky Thicket said:
What is also interesting about Sanders' proposed legislation is that the media and conservatives are staying the heck away from discussing it. I'm not certain as to why. It would seem to me that people who advocate small government would support the legislation. Here again, at the political level it should be no secret that Big Pharma and Big Private Prisons likely own a hell of a lot of politicians, if not most. In essence politicians are being paid to be quiet.

One only needs to consider print and broadcast media to understand why the media isn't saying much. I'm too lazy to look up ad billing for Big Pharma, but we all know it is massive. It is difficult to watch a television program or read a newspaper without seeing drug advertising. In fact, I'd venture to say that commercial television would probably not be able to exist as a free to consumer medium if it weren't for car and drug companies' advertising dollars. You have to know that Big Pharma is leaning hard on print and broadcast media to influence favorable coverage or the amount of favorable coverage concerning medicinal marijuana or favorable and sensible legislative proposals.

Last thing. Hillary. It will be interesting to see where she might go regarding Sanders' proposed bill. Hillary's position at present is "wait and see". We have no idea what wait and see really means. Criteria? She hasn't offered any and likely has none. Time? Be serious. Maybe in her second term if it politically advantageous. Hillary's statement was/is nothing more than another facet of the Hillary facade. It is what you want it to be.

We all know that all things equal a brother is much more likely to get busted for simple possession than a white guy. It happens often. Fair? Just? You'd think Hillary would be supportive of a change in federal law that would help end the lopsided destruction of the futures of young non-white men and women.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with your first point and would add to your second point, on Hillary, that whatever she says and does will be strategically based upon its effect on her bid for the White house and will reflect little if any on her ideology, and I won't say core beliefs because the only core belief she has is that she should be president. Many of her supporters are pleased with her recent move to the left, but that's just to combat Sanders. Should she secure the nomination, she'll move back to the center right where she dwells. The hawk, the Wall Street supporter, the friend of big oil, and Pharma as the insider that she is.
 
Risky Thicket said:
This sounds like a logical approach at the federal level. How can anyone not connected to Big Pharma or Big Private Prisons object to it?

Vermont senator Bernie Sanders introduced legislation on Wednesday that would end the federal prohibition on marijuana, removing the drug from the federal government’s list of the “most dangerous” substances – a move that distinguishes the Democratic presidential hopeful from the other candidates in the race.

Under Sanders’ plan, marijuana would not automatically become legal. Rather, states would have the right to decide whether or not they want to legalize the drug – without fear of federal impediment. In effect, states would inherit the power to regulate marijuana in the same way state and local laws now govern the sale of alcohol and tobacco.

1. Source for the above quote.


2. Ending Marijuana Federal Prohibition Act of 2015.
Click to expand...

It's ridiculous that it's taken us nearly a hundred years to mature enough to get serious movement on nation-wide legalization going, but better late than never, I guess. However, it won't truly be over until every single person who ever went to prison for drugs is freed.
 
David_N said:
Republicans don't support small government.
Click to expand...

That is correct, and for some reason, supporting the GOP is more important to the partisan right than supporting America.

From Oct, 2008

George W. Bush rode into Washington almost eight years ago astride the horse of smaller government. He will leave it this winter having overseen the biggest federal budget expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven decades ago.

Big government gets bigger - Washington Times
 
Montecresto said:
Exactly, and it similarly failed big in Ohio this week! I kind of wish he hadn't now.
Click to expand...

From what I read that was a pretty crappy proposal in Ohio. I read several people in the state who are big supporters of legalization but voted against that version because of the state cartel/monopoly it would have created on the growing side. Seemed pretty corrupt - 10 areas, with the owners already lined up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom