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

Nilly · Feb 24, 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...states-where-recreational-marijuana-is-legal/

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday that he expects states to be subject to “greater enforcement” of federal laws against marijuana use, a move that could undercut the growing number of jurisdictions moving to legalize the drug for recreational purposes.

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:

"When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people," Spicer said. "There is still a federal law that we need to abide by when it comes to recreational marijuana and drugs of that nature."

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.

In a statement Thursday afternoon, the National Cannabis Industry Association took issue with that argument.

"Science has discredited the idea that marijuana serves as any kind of gateway drug, and the addiction and death rates associated with opioids simply do not occur in any way with cannabis," said Aaron Smith, the organization's executive director.

Slyfox696 · Feb 24, 2017

Nilly said:
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.

Yes, it's almost like Democrats and Republicans both believe in states rights, but only when it aligns with the issues they support.

I'm sure the idea of hypocrisy in politics is hard to believe, but I'd say it's barely possible.

Cardinal · Feb 24, 2017

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."

MrPeanut · Feb 24, 2017

I tend to believe that weed could be beneficial in tackling the opioid crisis. This isn't really surprising news though. The party of old people once again believes in old logic.

Cardinal · Feb 24, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
Yes, it's almost like Democrats and Republicans both believe in states rights, but only when it aligns with the issues they support.

I'm sure the idea of hypocrisy in politics is hard to believe, but I'd say it's barely possible.

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.

countryboy · Feb 24, 2017

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.

That's a shame, and I was afraid of that. But, it's a small price to pay to avoid the bullet that was Hillary.

Spartacus FPV · Feb 24, 2017

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.

WTF? These fentanyl overdoses among heroin users are caused by the prohibition and lack of legal regulated doses. The black market dealers are eyeballing a substance that can kill you if you're off by a microgram.

Prohibitionists are always idiots.

RAMOSS · Feb 24, 2017

I personally will wait to see the position that Sessions actually takes. He seemed to think Eric Holder's position was appropriate. I suspect that he might come down on recreational marijuana, while being more lenient on medical marijuana

reinoe · Feb 24, 2017

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.

Spartacus FPV · Feb 24, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
Yes, it's almost like Democrats and Republicans both believe in states rights, but only when it aligns with the issues they support.

I'm sure the idea of hypocrisy in politics is hard to believe, but I'd say it's barely possible.

Its called lip service, because in truth most politicians wouldn't pull a hair for liberty and feel constrained by those pesky rights of ours which they swear to defend.

Slyfox696 · Feb 24, 2017

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.

I'm sure you have. Education, guns, even healthcare can all be considered legitimate state rights issues which Republicans have talked about which in no way remove rights from citizens. I may disagree with whether they should be state rights issues and I certainly recognize the hypocrisy in their position, as Republicans generally have no problem with federal power when they wield it, but those are just some examples of state rights issues touted by Republicans which don't seek to squash anyone's rights.

That's not to say I don't agree with you that Republicans have, and do, invoke state rights on issues in order to reduce some freedoms of citizens (gay rights being the most obvious one of late), but I just want to point out there are examples where they invoke it and are not seeking to squash rights.

Spartacus FPV said:
Its called lip service, because in truth most politicians wouldn't pull a hair for liberty and feel constrained by those pesky rights of ours which they swear to defend.

I honestly don't think most politicians are evil and I feel many truly believe in their cause. But I DO think most of them care too much about being re-elected and that it gets in the way of doing what is right.

Risky Thicket · Feb 24, 2017

MrPeanut said:
I tend to believe that weed could be beneficial in tackling the opioid crisis. This isn't really surprising news though. The party of old people once again believes in old logic.

When you have an administration and supporters who are anti-science it is a given that facts are not valued.

Over the past two decades, deaths from drug overdoses have become the leading cause of injury death in the United States. In 2011, 55 percent of drug overdose deaths were related to prescription medications; 75 percent of those deaths involved opiate painkillers. However, researchers found that opiate-related deaths decreased by approximately 33 percent in 13 states in the following six years after medical marijuana was legalized.

“The striking implication is that medical marijuana laws, when implemented, may represent a promising approach for stemming runaway rates of nonintentional opioid-analgesic-related deaths,” wrote opiate abuse researchers Dr. Mark S. Brown and Marie J. Hayes in a commentary published alongside the study.

Source

Henrin · Feb 24, 2017

Why is enforcing federal law all of a sudden something the left is opposed to doing? I think it's funny the left doesn't want the federal government to enforce federal laws on pot, but were more than happy that the government punished a woman for not issuing a marriage license to a gay couple.

Anyway, the federal government should just make the states pay the same amount of money they collected illegally through taxes and then legalize pot. That way the states get a clear message that breaking federal law is unacceptable and pot is made legal.

Cardinal · Feb 24, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
I'm sure you have. Education,

Excuse me, I meant to also include "where poor people get screwed." When Republicans use "state rights," poor people and individual liberties get screwed.

guns,

I was going to include that but didn't want to instantly yank the thread in a 2a direction. That strikes me as a very obvious public safety issue.

even healthcare can all be considered legitimate state rights issues which Republicans have talked about which in no way remove rights from citizens. I may disagree with whether they should be state rights issues and I certainly recognize the hypocrisy in their position, as Republicans generally have no problem with federal power when they wield it, but those are just some examples of state rights issues touted by Republicans which don't see to squash anyone's rights.

And what did Republicans have to say about state rights when it comes to health care?

That's not to say I don't agree with you that Republicans have, and do, invoke state rights on issues in order to reduce some freedoms of citizens, but I just want to point out there are examples where they invoke it and are not seeking to squash rights.
I honestly don't think most politicians are evil and I feel many truly believe in their cause. But I DO think most of them care too much about being re-elected and that it gets in the way of doing what is right.

Ikari · Feb 24, 2017

Henrin said:
Why is enforcing federal law all of a sudden something the left is opposed to doing? I think it's funny the left doesn't want the federal government to enforce federal laws on pot, but were more than happy that the government punished a woman for not issuing a marriage license to a gay couple.

Why would one be opposed to using government force against States who legalized marijuana and likewise be opposed to government employees using government force to infringe upon the rights of an individual?

...not sure.

Slyfox696 · Feb 24, 2017

Cardinal said:
Excuse me, I meant to also include "where poor people get screwed." When Republicans use "state rights," poor people and individual liberties get screwed.

Poor people get screwed all the time. They always have. Regardless of the year, regardless of the government/economic system and regardless of which party has power, poor people always get screwed.

It's just a fact of history.

I was going to include that but didn't want to instantly yank the thread in a 2a direction. That strikes me as a very obvious public safety issue.

I agree with you and I've made that argument many times myself. And I understand why you wouldn't want to take any thread in that direction, as reason generally tends to fly out the door. But, at the end of the day, you know as well as I do those who support gun rights would argue that state rights on the gun issue would be protecting or increasing individual rights, not removing them.

And what did Republicans have to say about state rights when it comes to health care?

Several things. Our current President, for example, has said certain aspects covered by the ACA should be left up to the states, such as Medicaid. And, to a certain extent, the Supreme Court agreed.

Don't mistake me. I believe our health insurance system before the ACA was awful. I believe a strong federal presence is a good thing in the healthcare/insurance system, for many reasons. I'm not saying I agree with the Republican position on the issue, as I've made clear many times over the years. All I'm saying is there are examples of Republicans arguing for state rights which are not about limiting the freedoms or rights of citizens.

Henrin · Feb 24, 2017

Ikari said:
Why would one be opposed to using government force against States who legalized marijuana and likewise be opposed to government employees using government force to infringe upon the rights of an individual?

...not sure.

What did liberals use as their defense at the time? Do you remember? Was it perhaps that the no one gets to break federal law? Oh right, it was.

Ikari · Feb 24, 2017

Henrin said:
What did liberals use as their defense at the time? Do you remember? Was it perhaps that the no one gets to break federal law? Oh right, it was.

Government employees cannot use government power to infringe upon the free expression of rights without due cause, and that's the fundamental with the marriage license case.

As for states with Marijuana legalization, they always ran the risk of the Fed stepping into their territory, but banked on them having better things to do. Which really...they do. But if Trump wants to grandstand, he can; though it's a waste of time, money, and resource. The real solution is that it should be federally legal, and left to the States to decide.

Risky Thicket · Feb 24, 2017

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.

Cardinal · Feb 24, 2017

Slyfox696 said:
Poor people get screwed all the time. They always have. Regardless of the year, regardless of the government/economic system and regardless of which party has power, poor people always get screwed.

It's just a fact of history.

Sure, but when Republicans use "state rights," they're telegraphing that a poor person or an individual liberty is about to get steamrolled.

I agree with you and I've made that argument many times myself. And I understand why you wouldn't want to take any thread in that direction, as reason generally tends to fly out the door. But, at the end of the day, you know as well as I do those who support gun rights would argue that state rights on the gun issue would be protecting or increasing individual rights, not removing them.

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.

Several things. Our current President, for example, has said certain aspects covered by the ACA should be left up to the states, such as Medicaid. And, to a certain extent, the Supreme Court agreed.

To what end?

Don't mistake me. I believe our health insurance system before the ACA was awful. I believe a strong federal presence is a good thing in the healthcare/insurance system, for many reasons. I'm not saying I agree with the Republican position on the issue, as I've made clear many times over the years. All I'm saying is there are examples of Republicans arguing for state rights which are not about limiting the freedoms or rights of citizens.

Henrin · Feb 24, 2017

Ikari said:
Government employees cannot use government power to infringe upon the free expression of rights without due cause, and that's the fundamental with the marriage license case.

And? States can't ignore federal law. Nothing about something being a right or not matters here.

As for states with Marijuana legalization, they always ran the risk of the Fed stepping into their territory, but banked on them having better things to do. Which really...they do. But if Trump wants to grandstand, he can; though it's a waste of time, money, and resource. The real solution is that it should be federally legal, and left to the States to decide.

No, the real solution to hold states accountable for breaking the law by taking their illegally acquired taxes and then legalize pot. You don't just let states keep their illegally acquired property or get away with breaking the law.

yankintx · Feb 24, 2017

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.

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.

americanwoman · Feb 24, 2017

When you're for it before you were against it .......

Ikari · Feb 24, 2017

Henrin said:
And? States can't ignore federal law. Nothing about something being a right or not matters here.

It does for your analogy to the refusal to issue a marriage license. Don't bring crap up that you cannot defend.

Henrin said:
No, the real solution to hold states accountable for breaking the law by taking their illegally acquired taxes and then legalize pot. You don't just let states keep their illegally acquired property or get away with breaking the law.

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.

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.

yankintx · Feb 24, 2017

americanwoman said:
In the man's own words.......

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.

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

Nilly

stb

Slyfox696

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

MrPeanut

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

countryboy

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World

RAMOSS

reinoe

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World

Slyfox696

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat

Henrin

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

Ikari

Slyfox696

Henrin

Ikari

Risky Thicket

Sewer Rat

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

Henrin

yankintx

americanwoman

dangerously addictive

Ikari

yankintx