White house to crack down on Rec. Marijuana

There are a good number of states where medical pot is legal and several where recreational pot is legal.

We can look at those states to understand what happens when we move away from prohibition.

What problems do you see occurring in my state of Washington?

 

I'm from Florida and cannot really judge that great northwest. But these legal systems exist have been favorable as I understand it. Tax revenues delight the elected tax collector, and to some degree or other some crime is down.

People will not stop smoking weed, but they just acquire it differently. Many grow their own, most others prefer to buy through the easy legal system.

I suppose Washington is not much different than other places, but each version is a little bit different from another.

 

Yes. Huge amou ts of pot are entering our country illegally. Legalizing it here and having adequate legal local suppliers would make a huge difference, as it would kill the financial argument for crime.

 

OK, I live in Colorado, which has recreational marijuana, medical marijuana, etc. I'm the typical rock-solid, arch-Conservative -- BUT, I voted for the unrestricted sale and consumption of marijuana, partially because people should have the RIGHT to do what they like as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. AND, it was obvious to everyone from the very beginning that it would generate a huge income in state taxes, and that would keep the damned liberal-dominated state government here from digging into our pockets all the time for more money for (of course) social programs and MORE government! I've been very happy up until recently to see that a lot of the tax revenue was being used to feed the unending appetite of the public school systems. That's very good for property owners, because we are the only ones who get stuck with paying school taxes whether we have ever had any children in these "schools" or not....

So, everything was working just fine for several years, but then all of a sudden, what does our idiot liberal Democrat Governor Hickenlooper do? He proposes that we should take a huge amount of the taxes that MJ sales generate and blow it on homeless complexes, where the State of Colorado can shell out millions to ever-growing numbers of drunks, druggers, leeches, and other parasites. This, of course, would just make Colorado even more a magnet for this roving population of bums than it already is. We've already got as many "cardboard sign" bums on every major traffic intersection in the Denver - Colorado Springs area as we have room for!

Oh, and most insane of all -- our fine Libocrat Governor also wants to spend money on so-called "prevention programs" which are designed to discourage the consumption of the very thing that generates the tax revenue -- MARIJUANA!

Bottom line... I'm so pissed off about this whole thing now, and the fact that it has, indeed, made Colorado a year-round destination for even more of these vagrants, bums, and "campers" that I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what happens with marijuana sales now. Leave it to a bunch of stupid moron Democrats to find a way to (*)(*)(*)(*) this whole thing up!

. "That's nothing! I also took Nathan Dunlap off death row after he was convicted for MASS MURDER!"

 

I'm just saying there's pros and cons.

There are 100s of places in our nation where drugs are the only real economy.

They are the economy because with government out of the picture, it is an actual industry where people get out what they put in.

There is no other market in America that is free. In order to participate in any other industry, you are completely subservient to the established money and their state muscle, making you jump through hoops of fees and regulations.

The government didn't save us from robber barons. They handed them the keys to the castle.

There isn't a cartel on earth who isn't 10xs more ethical than any corporation you will come across.

If you want to know the truth in life - imagine the opposite of whatever the TV or professors have told you.

 

Enforcement of prohibition of possession (of anything, guns included) simply raises the price of that good. It transfers money from taxpayers to black market dealers.

 

You must have missed my post #217

The sentence was written by Evan Halper and Patrick McGreevy in a piece in the LA Times after listening to Spicer (quoted above). Their wording accurately reflects the views Spicer was communicating.

 

What is not an exact quote from the press conference? The parts of my post that you didn't show? The LA Times writers quoted Spicer. I showed those quoted comments.

 

If you were genuinely interested, you could research this yourself. But you are not interested in truth, and anyway, this is all probably above your reading level:

http://www.rmhidta.org/html/2016%20FINAL%20Legalization%20of%20Marijuana%20in%20Colorado%20The%20Impact.pdf

https://www.dea.gov/divisions/den/2016/den062216.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811144/

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/legal-pot-and-the-black-market/481506/

http://reason.com/archives/2017/01/31/taxes-and-red-tape-keep-colorados-mariju

http://www.today.com/parents/edible-marijuana-looks-candy-sending-kids-er-t94486

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/11/marijuana-brain.aspx

https://hornsofjerichoblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/big-tobaccos-playbook/

Report back to me when you're finished reading and I'll provide more facts.

 

(The topic starts @ around the 24:40 mark)
[video=youtube;2kagnaxYUPc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kagnaxYUPc[/video]

The closest he comes to that quote, is where he says that the DOJ COULD --More to the exact quote-- MIGHT be looking into the recreational issue. Not that he was putting out any warning that anything will be happening "soon".


No need for anyone, on either side, being Chicken Little, expecting the "worst" anytime soon. Many many more important items on the plate.


Honestly, with Trump being sympathetic to medicinal, I predict scedule 2 may be in the future for weed.

With that, decriminalization may follow close behind @ the federal level.

Again though, it all boils down to electing legislators willing to vote as such.

 

Please read my response to WildHorses post #234.
And here's some more:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/29/us/absenteeism-and-accidents-in-workplace-tied-to-drugs.html

https://ohsonline.com/Articles/2016/02/01/Marijuana-Use-and-Its-Impact-on-Workplace-Safety-and-Productivity.aspx?Page=1

Read and respond.

 

Money orders is how the cash made from sales is converted in order to pay the bills. That & cash.

The banks won't touch the cash from dispensories, or growers. RICO & all... Money laundering & such.

 

Here is the official transcript - read it: (my emphases)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...iefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2232017-15

Q Thanks, Sean. Roby Brock with Talk Business & Politics here in Arkansas, the home of the rowdiest town halls in the nation.

I have a question on medical marijuana. Our state voters passed a medical marijuana amendment in November. Now we're in conflict with federal law, as many other states are. The Obama administration kind of chose not to strictly enforce those federal marijuana laws. My question to you is: With Jeff Sessions over at the Department of Justice as AG, what’s going to be the Trump administration’s position on marijuana legalization where it’s in a state-federal conflict like this?

MR. SPICER: Thanks, Roby. There’s two distinct issues here: medical marijuana and recreational marijuana.

I think medical marijuana, I’ve said before that the President understands the pain and suffering that many people go through who are facing especially terminal diseases and the comfort that some of these drugs, including medical marijuana, can bring to them. And that's one that Congress, through a rider in 2011 -- looking for a little help -- I think put in an appropriations bill saying the Department of Justice wouldn’t be funded to go after those folks.

There is a big difference between that and recreational marijuana. And I think that when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing that we should be doing is encouraging people. There is still a federal law that we need to abide by in terms of the medical -- when it comes to recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature.

So I think there’s a big difference between medical marijuana, which states have a -- the states where it’s allowed, in accordance with the appropriations rider, have set forth a process to administer and regulate that usage, versus recreational marijuana. That’s a very, very different subject.

Shannon.

Q What does that mean in terms of policy? A follow-up, Sean. What does that mean in terms of policy?

MR. SPICER: Shannon. Glenn, this isn’t a TV program. We’re going to --

Q What is the Justice Department going to do?

MR. SPICER: Okay, you don’t get to just yell out questions. We’re going to raise our hands like big boys and girls.

Q Why don’t you answer the question, though?

MR. SPICER: Because it’s not your job to just yell out questions.

Shannon, please go.

Q Okay. Well, first, on the manufacturing summit, was the AFL-CIO invited? And then, yeah, I did want to follow up on this medical marijuana question. So is the federal government then going to take some sort of action around this recreational marijuana in some of these states?

MR. SPICER: Well, I think that’s a question for the Department of Justice. I do believe that you’ll see greater enforcement of it. Because again, there’s a big difference between the medical use which Congress has, through an appropriations rider in 2014, made very clear what their intent was in terms of how the Department of Justice would handle that issue. That’s very different than the recreational use, which is something the Department of Justice I think will be further looking into.

 

Right. Nothing said about definates, or surelies, or are going tos.


Ambiguous comments, with no clear statement of intent.

 

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*)ing (*)(*)(*)(*). You can't really be impaired at all on marijuana, not the way you get on alcohol. Weed heightens your senses, booze deadens them.

 

Your moving the goalposts. The question was not about you complying with the law - it was about supporting enforcement of a particular law.

So if there was a law saying that Irish people were subhuman - and you knew that the Gov't was rounding these people up and putting them in Jail and torturing or killing them, and you had a friend that was Irish and you knew where he was hiding, would you call the Gov't and rat him out ?

 

I can't think of anyone on this planet that needs to smoke a joint than the idiot in the white house.

 

This planet is chock fulla idiots that need to smoke a joint.

Most of them are in politics.

 

Suuuuure it does.

 

Who is moving the goal post? Subhuman Irish? We are talking drug laws and enforcement of them not making up something that is not nor ever has been law. If the people don't like a law as written, they get it changed, not ignore it. Whether or not I obey the law is irrelevant as to whether it should be enforced.

 

But if you smoke tobacco, then you're harming others and you need to be on lock down anytime in public, amirite?

That's always the argument I hear, anyway.

 

True fact. You can't ever black out from weed.

Nor would you want to.

 

It happen exactly like that when prohibition ended. How could it not???

 

Imagine the heights you might have reached if you hadn't smoked. It boggles the mind.

 

Because every person who doesn't smoke weed is such an enlightening, intelligent creature...

Yeah, honestly, I've smoked weed for years, near daily. I'm 28, with a 4BR house and a brand new truck. I've got a corporate job, and I've got a years salary in my bank account.

Weed may be detrimental to some, but to others, it's no different than coming home and cracking open a beer or pouring a bottle of wine every night (like my girlfriend does).