The Justice Department enforcing pot laws
Tiredtraveler
Solo PL
When asked about it AG Sessions said his office is charged under the constitution to enforce the law. Congress may only change the law then he enforces the law. I was frankly amazed(I do not like Sessions much) by a bureaucrat following the law and telling the lazy POSs' in congress to do their job. If the idea of legal pot is so popular then legalize it or at least make it a state to state option like the drinking age. I suspect that that won't happen because most voters don't want pot legalized.
Bottom line is Pot is against federal law and allowing a bureaucrat to decide to change a law when ever he/she feels like it is wrong. If the will of the people is to legalize pot then congress needs to grow a pair treat it like booze and deal with the law not hide behind a criminal like Holder who broke the law in blocking enforcement.
My real issue is that currently there are no potency regulations for edibles, smoke-ables nor intoxication standards and for some unknown reason you can be arrested for smoking tobacco in the pot legal states but smoking pot is allowed everywhere? WTF?
Now you can feel free to blast me one way or the other, I think it is time for congress to do their job and settle some of these issues instead of just pissing away our money.
Please keep in mind this is actually not about any other thing AG Sessions has done or said.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
7 comments
https://reason.com/blog/2016/01/11/medic…
2) Most voters actually do support legalizing marijuana. The country is divided. But it's not a priority, even to people who want to legalize it. Hence it remains illegal.
3) Where can you be arrested for smoking tobacco in America? Did I miss something? And the drinking age is not a state to state issue anymore: in the 80s the Reagan administration told all the states to raise their drinking age to 21 or they would forfeit federal highway money. All the states complied.
4) The DOJ absolutely has the legal right to decide where to focus resources. And the president absolutely has the right to reclassify marijuana or to remove it from the drug schedule entirely if he so chooses. So it's not entirely Congress' responsibility. It is a Schedule 1 drug, which means that the government believes it has no medical value. The DOJ and the DEA say that we shouldn't reschedule it without FDA clinical trials; FDA clinical trials are illegal for Schedule 1 drugs, so it's a Catch-22. But the President can always reclassify it, or the DOJ can change priorities to protect users and sellers in states where it is already legal, or Congress can outright legalize it.
5) You said "My real issue is that currently there are no potency regulations for edibles, smoke-ables nor intoxication standards..." Really? That's your issue? How exactly are you a libertarian if you think we need potency regulations and intoxication standards? News flash: being a libertarian means more than just hating The Establishment and the Federal Government.
The loudest voices in the country want pot legalized and the trend is increasingly in that direction. I believe that it will be legalized nationwide within 5-10 years. As a non-user I’d rather it wouldn’t be legalized, but I’m pragmatic enough to recognize that it will be.
I have somewhat of a libertarian bent also, but there are times where legal restrictions are necessary. In the case of alcohol, for example, there is clear scientific basis for driving and workplace restrictions on alcohol use. In the case of pot similar scientific evidence is lacking. And, as BHF points out, the determination of such scientific evidence can not be obtained because any meaningful studies can not currently be performed due to laws against possession of pot.
Most people believe,based only on anecdotal evidence, that pot is less harmful and less dangerous than alcohol. It may well be. However, everything is toxic, i.e., harmful at some level. Alcohol is known to cause cancer, and known cancer-causing agents are usually restricted in their handling and distribution in some way. But alcohol isn’t restricted in the same way because the level of carcinicity is fairly low, and people want their alcohol too much to care. Pot will have some level of toxicity, but we can’t currently determine that.
Similarly with the behavioral effects of alcohol and pot. Anecdotal claims that pot will not impair driving reflexes, which I’ve heard quite a few times, may very well be bullshit. I believe there should be studies of pot to determine blood THC levels that do not impair reflexes for driving or workplace safety. And then those levels should be promulgated as limits analogous to the common blood alcohol limit of 0.08%.
As I said above, pot will be legalized relatively soon. Right now Congress should get off their asses and pass a law to allow scientific studies on pot. Law enforcement clearly has better things to do than chase down pot users. A return to the Holder approach is probably appropriate.
"As a non-user I’d rather it wouldn’t be legalized"
What does being a non-user have to do with it? I don't use it either. I actually believe that smoking pot can damage the lungs because of the potential for inhaling particulate matter. But I still want to legalize it. I don't know what to say about people who only want to legalize things that they themselves engage in.
"Right now Congress should get off their asses and pass a law to allow scientific studies on pot."
It would be a lot easier for the President to reclassify it himself. That's an executive prerogative, too. It doesn't make sense to put all the blame on Congress, especially since President Trump once publicly said that we should end the Drug War... in a speech he gave almost 30 years ago!
"... there is clear scientific basis for driving and workplace restrictions on alcohol use..."
If you believe that employers shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow their employees to smoke weed and that customers shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves whether to patronize a business where the workers smoke weed... well, that's not very libertarian. And neither is saying that you don't want it legalized merely because you don't partake.
I've heard a lot of strange stuff from self-described libertarians on TUSCL. One guy said he believes that child molesters and drug dealers should be publicly executed without a trial. Others are against immigration. Another guy said he believes that a lack of regulation caused the Great Depression and that we should impose tariffs on imports to punish other nations that impose tariffs on American goods. These are all perfectly legitimate positions to take. But they are not even remotely libertarian. Randommember claims that TUSCL is overrun by what he calls "Randoids." Well, if that's so, I have yet to meet any. Some smart thoughtful people, but few actual libertarians.