Trump's DOJ gears up for crackdown on marijuana

Jeff Sessions' perfect world is a giant supermax prison run by robots with himself as the only unjailed human left.
 
superpunch said:
Do you believe that Americans should have had the freedom to racially segregate their private property in the 1950s? Even though it led to huge swaths of the country where black people couldn't even go grocery shopping?

Freedom isn't always good. Private property rights, including owning your own body, aren't always good.
Click to expand...

Yea I believe ending segregation was good. I believe ending the war on drugs and checking authority abuse would be good too. Im not a fascist or an authoritarian I want the government to have an extremely short list of things they can lock people up for. Not just jail either the police can fuck you up for no other reason than having cash on you. .... Shit like this never hits home for em til it does and they all say the same shit ... im not a criminal I never thought this could happen. Go ahead and google bout that i got all night


Also fyi we didnt used to have homeless people or druggies and cops had rules but at some point that broke down. Just cant put my finger on what it was ..... SOmething about a drug war and closing down state hospitals ..... But you just keep on thinking its the drugs that cause the plight and not the policy
 
We have 27 states now I think with some sort of weed policy

Thats a lot of representatives .... a body that can make laws .... I wonder why is it that these cocksuckers never serve us and vote on this shit and put and end to this stupidity
 
Peteyandjia said:
I blame television. From Cheech & Chong to Seth Rogen, a history of marijuana-fueled violence has ripped through our culture & glorified their hyper-aggressive, thug-like lifestyles
Click to expand...
Glad someone is finally doing something cause this is bullshit.
giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
Fawlty said:
That's because they don't believe in states' rights the same way the weird anti-pot crowd does. It's a consistent political view.

The inconsistent view is the one that ignores "states' rights" and "small government" to stop people from using a nearly harmless drug just because...well, they don't have a good reason. They just arbitrarily want to take away states' rights over vague moral butthurt and a desire to incarcerate black people.
Click to expand...
TBH, I dont think the states rights argument properly applies to either. You might not like the federal government's reasons for criminalizing possession of a substance, but that doesn't mean that the federal government doesn't have the power to do so. It'd be nice if the federal government was constitutionally obligated to only do things that are good ideas with good reasons, but that is not the case.

But there is an important distinction here that I'd like to bring up in response to @second sight 's claims of inconsistency.

Gay Marriage is a constitutional-rights issue - its about limits on government. The Fourteenth Amendment expressly limits state powers by requiring states to respect certain rights, and if you read gay marriage as coming under that - and there are several ways to do so - then it's not something a state can ignore. This end of "states rights" isn't about whether something is properly a power of the states or federal government, but about how broad of a limit the 14th amendment puts on state powers.

MJ is more about the extent of federal powers. Criminal laws are nominally the purview of the state government, and the federal government is limited in what it can criminalize based on the powers it is granted under the constitution. In the past 70 or so years, the overwhelming majority of people in the united states government, legal profession, politics, etc, have read those powers (esp. under the ICC) expansively, so the federal government has been able to make a pretty much parallel criminal code. The federal government cannot bar a state from legalizing marijauna under state law, but it can make it illegal under federal law. This is interesting because this effectively limits the ability of a state to legalize certain conduct, and thus effectively erodes state powers in that direction (but fully allows states to criminalize conduct).

Because these erosions of state power come from different constitutional clauses, and involve different methods of interpreting what you read, it can be logically consistent to accept one, both, or neither.
 
Last edited:
KONE said:
Pot smoking burnouts are insufferable and pothead culture should be heavily discouraged
Click to expand...
People who say insufferable are unbearable, and should consider smoking pot.
 
DangDaGawd said:
Will Sessions even make it long enough to do anything? Doubtful.
Click to expand...

Sessions is one of a tiny handful of Trump appointees actually capable of running a department. He's going to do a ton of damage before he's gone.
 
helltoupee said:
You feel the same about alcohol, McDonalds cheeseburgers, salt, potato chips, violent video games (nice av), tylenol, antibiotics, guns, etc etc etc?

I mean seriously, anything that is not consumed in moderation can be dangerous, including water.

When taken in moderation, MJ is not anymore detrimental to your health than a starbucks coffee.

I would think a conservative like yourself would understand that the actions of those who can't control themselves shouldn't dictate curtailment of personal freedom.
Click to expand...

Echoing Pwent's thoughts from earlier, militant potheads are monumentally stupid and useless which is my biggest problem with it. Of course, everything in moderation, but there's a difference between drinking water in moderation and smoking pot. Despite what potheads will lead you to believe, it's addictive. There doesn't have to be anything physically addictive in it for it to be addictive. There are multiple, provable negative effects that come along with it, despite how many times people tell you it's "harmless." It's objectively not. Pothead culture should be discouraged by any means necessary.

The same goes for a lot of the other things you listed. You should be discouraged from being extremely overweight. You should be discouraged from sitting inside and playing video games all day.
 
fordman7795 said:
Good news. I dont know a single good person who smokes weed.
Click to expand...
You also probably don't know many folks in RL. Aside from the ones who visit your parents and accidently stumble into their basement.
 
Quipling said:
TBH, I dont think the states rights argument properly applies to either. You might not like the federal government's reasons for criminalizing possession of a substance, but that doesn't mean that the federal government doesn't have the power to do so. It'd be nice if the federal government was constitutionally obligated to only do things that are good ideas with good reasons, but that is not the case.

But there is an important distinction here that I'd like to bring up in response to @second sight 's claims of inconsistency.

Gay Marriage is a constitutional-rights issue - its about limits on government. The Fourteenth Amendment expressly limits state powers by requiring states to respect certain rights, and if you read gay marriage as coming under that - and there are several ways to do so - then it's not something a state can ignore. This end of "states rights" isn't about whether something is properly a power of the states or federal government, but about how broad of a limit the 14th amendment puts on state powers.

MJ is more about the extent of federal powers. Criminal laws are nominally the purview of the state government, and the federal government is limited in what it can criminalize based on the powers it is granted under the constitution. In the past 70 or so years, the overwhelming majority of people in the united states government, legal profession, politics, etc, have read those powers (esp. under the ICC) expansively, so the federal government has been able to make a pretty much parallel criminal code. The federal government cannot bar a state from legalizing marijauna under state law, but it can make it illegal under federal law. This is interesting because this effectively limits the ability of a state to legalize certain conduct, and thus effectively erodes state powers in that direction (but fully allows states to criminalize conduct).

Because these erosions of state power come from different constitutional clauses, and involve different methods of interpreting what you read, it can be logically consistent to accept one, both, or neither.
Click to expand...
Gay Marriage is a constitutional-rights issue
Click to expand...
sorry I just have a couple minutes, I pulled this out of your quote
it wasn't when we first started debating this here. I remember saying during the California prop 8 battle, that when one of these groups chose to continue the fight that win or lose it was a mistake, that once the supreme court took the case it would take all states decisions away. I also said it would essentially gut the first amendment, as it has. I take strong objection to the rights part of this argument, they strip one group of peoples rights....actual rights defined during the founding of our nation and twist the term to be used as a social construct granting others power to do as they will to anyone that disagrees with their behavior. its beyond fucked up

all the same things could be said if this marijuana battle took the same path to the supreme court.
I see way more similarities than differences.

edit: all this was pushed by the medical marijuana advocates, people lighten their stances and said "hey if it helps good, lets legalize medicinal" so it goes on ballots and passes a place or two. just like gay marriage it was never about a private ceremony for two people to have so they could get hospital visits or whatever excuse we heard. It was always about forcing an agenda.

so here we are a a few years down the road and while the federal government turned their backs on the propositions being passed for medical, they are passing recreational usage in all these states.
 
Last edited:
As long as you keep your shitty drug policies in America instead of trying to push them on the rest of the world.
 
This sessions really is a backwards hick. Only thing worse is civil asset forfeiture.
 
Pwent said:
in all seriousness, i think weed and other drugs should be legal, but militant potheads are annoying
Click to expand...

People can even walk and text without dying you trust the over consumption fat Americans to conduct themselves without infringing on others with addiction life draining options ?
 
This is the South, this is what the Confederate States of America would look like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,018
Messages
55,461,309
Members
174,787
Latest member
Santos FC 1912

Share this page

Back
Top