• 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!

Spicer: Feds could step up enforcement against marijuana use in states

yankintx said:
Trump and his AG are not on the same page with this issue, someone needs to get Mr Sessions a Twitter account, that way he can keep up with his boss.
Click to expand...

Seems like no one there is on the same level. Military operations... not really. Taking the oil... not really. Greater enforcement of marijuana laws.... I'll wait and see.
 
Ikari said:
It does for your analogy to the refusal to issue a marriage license. Don't bring crap up that you cannot defend.
Click to expand...

It was a comparison, not an analogy. Since both are violations of federal law my comparison works perfectly.

Asset forfeiture, States get to keep all sorts of stolen property. Feds ain't gonna get that money. If they want to make a big show about it, they can put boots on the ground and enforce Federal Law in the States that have legalized pot, but they ain't getting the money already raised.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. The property they acquired was illegally obtained and they can not be allowed to keep it.

Don't be mad bro because some States figured out they can save a lot of time and make a lot of money by legalizing marijuana. We've already spent it on schools and public utilities.
Click to expand...

I'm hardly mad. I do not however think states shouldn't simply be allowed to ignore the law because they feel like it. If they want to be defiant then they can leave the union, but they can't be defiant and desire to stay.
 
Henrin said:
It was a comparison, not an analogy. Since both were violations of federal law my comparison works perfectly.
Click to expand...

One revolves around the States making policy in contradiction to Federal law, but infringing upon no one's rights. The other is the use of government force to infringe upon the rights of the individual.

Henrin said:
I beg to differ. The property they acquired was illegally obtained and they can not be allowed to keep it.
Click to expand...

They can keep stuff they seize with asset forfeiture, despite it being done without burden of proof or conviction.

Henrin said:
I'm hardly mad. I do not however think states should simply be allowed to ignore the law because they feel like it. If they want to be defiant then they can leave the union, but they can't be defiant and desire to stay.
Click to expand...

As I said, if Trump wants to grandstand, he can put boots on the ground to enforce Federal Law. But he's not getting that money, that was collected under a legal system of commerce in the State.
 
Ikari said:
One revolves around the States making policy in contradiction to Fedearl law, but infringing upon no one's rights. The other is the use of government force to infringe upon the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

So what? Federal law still trumps both actions.


They can keep stuff they seize with asset forfeiture, despite it being done without burden of proof or conviction.
Click to expand...

So what? That's an entirely different issue.

As I said, if Trump wants to grandstand, he can put boots on the ground to enforce Federal Law. But he's not getting that money, that was collected under a legal system of commerce in the State.
Click to expand...

Since the money was collected on a product that is illegal on the federal level there is nothing legal about the commerce that took place.
 
Nilly said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...states-where-recreational-marijuana-is-legal/



Sean Spicer: Feds will step up marijuana law enforcement - CNNPolitics.com

Ah, there's that small government administration that people voted for! What a breath of fresh air!

A sharp reversal from the Obama administration's stance, which laid out in an official memo that the federal government wouldn't interfere in states where non-medical use of marijuana is allowed.

The justification for this is apparently the opiod epidemic we're currently having:



Which I personally think is absurd, if marijuana were to be available safely and legally then there is no reason it would be a gateway drug anymore than alcohol, nicotine or caffeine.
Click to expand...

To all those people who thought that "both sides sucked equally" in the last election: This is what you get! You happy now?
 
Henrin said:
So what? Federal law still trumps both actions.
Click to expand...

That's how one can be opposed, and why the discussion of individual rights is intrinsic to your comparison. State law that violates no one's rights, vs. the use of government force to infringe upon individual's rights. It can be quite consistent to support the State thumbing its nose at the Federal Government while opposing the use of government force used without cause or due process against an individual.


Henrin said:
So what? That's an entirely different issue.
Click to expand...

No it's not, you said the State cannot keep illegally claimed things. It can, it can just designate it something else if it needs to be. States and Federal government have been stealing for quite some time. They typically get away with it.

Henrin said:
Since the money was collected on a product that is illegal on the federal level there is nothing legal about the commerce that took place.
Click to expand...

There's nothing the Federal government can do to reclaim that money. The most it can do is to put boots on the ground to enforce federal law in the present, disrupting the practice and removing the future income.
 
Cardinal said:
State rights are used differently by Democrats and Republicans. Democrats will tend to recognize the rights of the individual whereas when Republicans use "state rights" they're invariably referring to the right of the state to squash those rights. I don't know that I've ever used Republicans use the term in any other context.
Click to expand...


this is incorrect democrats tend to lean towards the collective rights idea and they don't always support individual rights, like the 2nd , the right of property and association.

republicans talk of liberty and state powers, but they don't deliver on this, one of the problems with republicans is they are not united in a central belief.

some republicans are conservative, others moderate, very few slightly liberal, and some libertarians, this keeps the republican party from making big changes when they control government.
 
Cardinal said:
Sure, but when Republicans use "state rights," they're telegraphing that a poor person or an individual liberty is about to get steamrolled.
Click to expand...
Not always though. That's my point. I agree they do that sometimes...when it's convenient to use state rights to push an agenda they want. But there are other times they use it where it has nothing to do with poor people or liberty.

And that's why I didn't want to go in that direction. It's simply too asinine to even address. People with mental health problems should be able to have guns because....Constitution. This specific topic is too insane to include in any larger intelligent conversation.
Click to expand...
All fair, and I'm not disagreeing, but it doesn't change the fact this is just another example of Republicans wanting state rights which doesn't steamroll liberties. Which is my only point.

To what end?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the point. The point is that state rights in healthcare don't restrict individual freedoms or rights, which was the sole hurdle to jump over.

Again, understand I'm not disagreeing with you that many times state rights are about restricting freedom (again, gay marriage being the most obvious recent example). All I'm saying is there is plenty of evidence of things Republicans have claimed should be state rights which aren't.
 
Master PO said:
this is incorrect democrats tend to lean towards the collective rights idea and they don't always support individual rights, like the 2nd , the right of property and association.

republicans talk of liberty and state powers, but they don't deliver on this, one of the problems with republicans is they are not united in a central belief.

some republicans are conservative, others moderate, very few slightly liberal, and some libertarians, this keeps the republican party from making big changes when they control government.
Click to expand...

If education, health care and housing could be welded to the barrel of a gun, poor people in the United States would have nothing to worry about ever again.
 
yankintx said:
The horse is well and truly out of the stable. The federal ban will end, but not with this Pres or party. We all know which candidate was in favor of moving cannabis to schedule 2, she was the one who got more popular votes, but chocked with the EC. I stand by vote.
Click to expand...

A schedule to drug is still illegal in many circumstances and that was simply lipservice anyway.
 
Phys251 said:
To all those people who thought that "both sides sucked equally" in the last election: This is what you get! You happy now?
Click to expand...

Someone needs to tell Spicy that our heroin problem, is the direct result of the prescription pain killer epidemic, a complicated issue, dumbed down by the GOP.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Not always though. That's my point. I agree they do that sometimes...when it's convenient to use state rights to push an agenda they want. But there are other times they use it where it has nothing to do with poor people or liberty.

All fair, and I'm not disagreeing, but it doesn't change the fact this is just another example of Republicans wanting state rights which doesn't steamroll liberties. Which is my only point.

Irrelevant to the point. The point is that state rights in healthcare don't restrict individual freedoms or rights, which was the sole hurdle to jump over.

Again, understand I'm not disagreeing with you that many times state rights are about restricting freedom (again, gay marriage being the most obvious recent example). All I'm saying is there is plenty of evidence of things Republicans have claimed should be state rights which aren't.
Click to expand...

It's not irrelevant, because I have ten dollars riding on a bet that when Republicans are using state rights in reference to health care, poor people are getting the crap end of the stick.

As for the 2nd amendment, that topic simply exists outside of logic.
 
Phys251 said:
To all those people who thought that "both sides sucked equally" in the last election: This is what you get! You happy now?
Click to expand...
On the list of things I care about, whether or not people in Colorado get to smoke marijuana legally is so far down the list even the mating rituals of salamanders seems more interesting.
 
reinoe said:
The Democratic Party had control of the House and the Senate and the White House between 2009 To 2011. Plenty of time to legalize marijuana use and they chose not to do so. You don't have a right to complain is the republican government enforces the law that's written on the books.
Click to expand...

EVERYONE ALWAYS has a right to complain...it's called the First Amendment...DUH!!!
 
Last edited:
reinoe said:
A schedule to drug is still illegal in many circumstances and that was simply lipservice anyway.
Click to expand...

Schedule 2 allows easier access to study the plants true benefits, and I never claimed Clinton would end the ban outright. Something a Pres cannot due on there own, not even with an EO.
 
Ikari said:
That's how one can be opposed, and why the discussion of individual rights is intrinsic to your comparison. State law that violates no one's rights, vs. the use of government force to infringe upon individual's rights. It can be quite consistent to support the State thumbing its nose at the Federal Government while opposing the use of government force used without cause or due process against an individual.
Click to expand...

That wasn't their argument. They were claiming the no one can violate federal law.


No it's not, you said the State cannot keep illegally claimed things. It can, it can just designate it something else if it needs to be. States and Federal government have been stealing for quite some time. They typically get away with it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this point of yours even works. All it means is that the states have been getting away with breaking the law, not that they should be allowed to get away with it.

There's nothing the Federal government can do to reclaim that money. The most it can do is to put boots on the ground to enforce federal law in the present, disrupting the practice and removing the future income.
Click to expand...

What exactly is stopping the federal government from demanding the states give up all illegally obtained taxes from the sale of pot?
 
Cardinal said:
Well this was only a matter of time. I don't even smoke pot and one of my first thoughts on November 9th was "Well, states with legalized pot, enjoy it while you've got it."
Click to expand...

Our legislature here just introduced a bill 2 days ago to legalize recreational marijuana, and it's been very well received. I guess the small government folks in the White House aren't interested in state's rights and feel the need to nanny us. Live free or die, baby!
 
Nilly said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...states-where-recreational-marijuana-is-legal/



Sean Spicer: Feds will step up marijuana law enforcement - CNNPolitics.com

Ah, there's that small government administration that people voted for! What a breath of fresh air!

A sharp reversal from the Obama administration's stance, which laid out in an official memo that the federal government wouldn't interfere in states where non-medical use of marijuana is allowed.

The justification for this is apparently the opiod epidemic we're currently having:

Which I personally think is absurd, if marijuana were to be available safely and legally then there is no reason it would be a gateway drug anymore than alcohol, nicotine or caffeine.
Click to expand...


There isn't a clear right/wrong answer to the question of legalizing marijuana. (Really. There isn't.)

Would just like see that whatever position the Trump administration takes is based on some kind of objective criteria. We now have a "case study" with Colorado. It all hasn't been rose petals and happiness with their decision...but am sure there have been positives to the new marijuana laws also. So there is that opportunity (Colorado) to summarize some of the actual impacts of legalizing the drug.


Wouldn't it be nice to see leaders make decisions based on objective facts?? Rather than having polls and political spin dictating what directions they take??
 
yankintx said:
Someone needs to tell Spicy that our heroin problem, is the direct result of the prescription pain killer epidemic, a complicated issue, dumbed down by the GOP.
Click to expand...

OMG. "Spicy". I have to admit that one made me laugh right out loud.
 
Cardinal said:
It's not irrelevant, because I have ten dollars riding on a bet that when Republicans are using state rights in reference to health care, poor people are getting the crap end of the stick.
Click to expand...
Poor people already get the crap end of the stick. They did before the ACA, they are during the ACA and they will for the next fours.

Poor people get screwed. It's not right, but it's just a fact.

But, really, the poor people getting screwed isn't even really the original standard you set. After all, there's nothing to suggest gay people are more or less poor than anyone else. You know I disagree strongly with several things the national Republican party has done and said over the years. But one has to be realistic as well. Republicans are not your enemy, no more than Democrats/liberals are the enemy of Republicans/conservatives.

You can disagree with positions, but you have to at least be honest about them. You're not a dishonest poster, far from it in my experience, so I expect you can see there are a variety of issues where Republicans have clamored for state rights which aren't about removing individual rights.

As for the 2nd amendment, that topic simply exists outside of logic.
Click to expand...
It's still an example of where Republicans argue for state rights which don't remove individual rights. You can't ignore it because you disagree with the position.
tres borrachos said:
OMG. "Spicy". I have to admit that one made me laugh right out loud.
Click to expand...
Please tell me you've seen Melissa McCarthy's first Spicer press conference SNL skit. Absolutely hilarious. "Spicy needs to go take a big boy nap". Unbelievably funny.
 
Henrin said:
That wasn't their argument. They were claiming the no one can violate federal law.
Click to expand...

Obviously people can violate federal law, there are lots of people in prison who have done it. The fundamental with the marriage license wasn't that someone just violated federal law, it was the use of government force to infringe upon the rights and liberties of the individual without due process. No amount of deflection from you can change that fact.


Henrin said:
I'm not sure how this point of yours even works. All it means is that the states have been getting away with breaking the law, not that they should be allowed to get away with it.
Click to expand...

You said they cannot keep stolen property. They can, they do it all the time.

Henrin said:
What exactly is stopping the federal government from demanding the states give up all illegally obtained taxes from the sale of pot?
Click to expand...

They have no mechanism to do so. The best they can do is either hold back federally granted monies, which would land this case in the courts, or put boots on the ground to enforce Federal Law, disrupting the trade and drying up future revenue.
 
Risky Thicket said:
If Trump is to be believed then states will be left to determine their own positions regarding marijuana, medical and recreational. Trump has previously stated that that is his position.

Further, it would be an act of insanity (something not unknown to Trump and his small circle of controllers) for the feds to go after states that have legalized marijuana. The loss of the legal billion dollar industry would be felt immediately in most pot legal states. Also, tens of thousands of state legal marijuana related jobs would be lost. That's a lot of unemployment. Opoid use would likely increase. Law enforcement, court and jail/prison costs would most certainly increase.

Above all that, going after states that have state legal pot would be a hugely unpopular decision nationally. According to poll after poll most Americans support medicinal marijuana by a large margin, around 71% and recreational pot by approximately 59%. It would seem to be an issue that Congress would much prefer to stay the hell away from.
Click to expand...

All good points.

But Trump has time and again a) gone back on previous statements; and b) seems to care less what the majority wants so long as his base are happy ('white' hicks who live in the sticks and salute cardboard Trump boxes every morning).
 
Cardinal said:
If education, health care and housing could be welded to the barrel of a gun, poor people in the United States would have nothing to worry about ever again.
Click to expand...

ahh!..... the power of force....coercion.

government can force us to have a better life
 
I predicted this right here at DP weeks, if not months, ago.

Just one more reason for me to hate this ass-clown's guts.
 
tres borrachos said:
OMG. "Spicy". I have to admit that one made me laugh right out loud.
Click to expand...

Only an idiot would need a connect the dot diagram to link cannabis to the heroin issue. I guess the old gateway theory is still part of the GOP platform, knuckle draggers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom