Trump Administration moves to end legal marijuana.

Thing1 said:
Ridiculous. You know EXACTLY why he is doing this. It has nothing to do with "states rights."

You don't have to defend every single thing this admin does. This is a big government move.
Click to expand...

As I stated, it is completely dishonest on your part to be pretending you are for less government.

It is also dishonest to state anything other than what we know as fact. You are simply projecting what you want to believe his intentions are on to him. Period. Again, what I stated is factual. You are simply spouting off talking points based on 'guessing his intentions'.
 
Thing1 said:
This is basically tyranny.

Big government conservatives.
Click to expand...

More over the top exaggeration

Are you saying states are free to ignore any federal laws they want?

You seem to be solely focused on the fact that you want to get high. Don’t worry Cheech . Nobody is breaking down your door to take your bong
 
Thing1 said:
Republicans are going to lose on this issue, and lose big.

Sessions is an idiot.
Click to expand...

Really? Gonna add it to your 2018 list? Democrats are gonna be the pro pot party?

And please don’t hide behind states rights. You don’t really support them.
 
Thing1 said:
Sessions' views are mired in "Reefer Madness" era paranoia. It's an embarrassment to have someone like this making policy for hundreds of millions of people in a country like America.
Click to expand...

He isn’t making policy. He is following the law. Don’t like the law? Change it the way laws are supposed to be changed.
 
Superfreak said:
As I stated, it is completely dishonest on your part to be pretending you are for less government.

It is also dishonest to state anything other than what we know as fact. You are simply projecting what you want to believe his intentions are on to him. Period. Again, what I stated is factual. You are simply spouting off talking points based on 'guessing his intentions'.
Click to expand...

I have always been for smaller government. I can produce 100+ posts backing that up if you need 'em.
 
domer76 said:
You need to try and keep up, shitstain. BigBitch keeps claiming Nixon used the EO because the Democratic Congress blocked it (the ignorant fuck actually said “democrat congress).

THAT’S the lie, cherry-picker.

Dismissed
Click to expand...

Well there is more than an element of truth in that. Has your missus gone out to "smoke some more pork" by the way?

While there was some hesitation and concern regarding Nixon's intentions in creating the EPA, there is a general consensus that Nixon's true motivation was to purify the nation from an environmental standpoint. Disillusioned by the lack of cooperation and cohesion on environmental policy, as well as by the overall ineffectiveness of the NEPA, Nixon utilized an executive order to create the EPA, an independent government organization, in late 1970. The EPA subsequently passed its first piece of legislation, the Clean Air Act, in 1972. While Nixon is generally scorned as a presidential figure, his actions in the environmental realm appear, by most accounts, to have been genuine and thorough and are often overlooked in the historical record.
Click to expand...


http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Richard_Nixon_Environment.htm

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
For me, I disagree that this is the best way to go about it.

I think it's bad policy and definitely bad politics as many people are looking at the Republican Party as dinosaurs on this issue which we are.
Click to expand...

I would say it's mediocre politics, but not bad politics. Everyone knows I am a huge stoner, but let me explain:

Much of the nation now recognizes that outlawing weed is stupid, but us stoners are still a relatively small minority. People may want it to be legal, but it's not something they lose sleep over. It's not something that would decide an election, for example. I would put it into the category of being pro/anti- death penalty. People might be against the death penalty but they wont cry when a triple rapist murderer gets electrocuted. It's the type of issue that doesn't have enough fire or passion or critical mass behind it yet in terms of optics.
 
It's okay to be white said:
I would say it's mediocre politics, but not bad politics. Everyone knows I am a huge stoner, but let me explain:

Much of the nation now recognizes that outlawing weed is stupid, but us stoners are still a relatively small minority. People may want it to be legal, but it's not something they lose sleep over. It's not something that would decide an election, for example. I would put it into the category of being pro/anti- death penalty. People might be against the death penalty but they wont cry when a triple rapist murderer gets electrocuted. It's the type of issue that doesn't have enough fire or passion or critical mass behind it yet in terms of optics.
Click to expand...

I support the death penalty for those who smoke weed.
 
Superfreak said:
So you agree the health industry needs to be deregulated? End Obamacare? Go back to allowing people to pick policies that were right for them individually? Rather than big government forcing cookie cutter plans on everyone?
Click to expand...

liberals only dislike the feds stepping in when it goes against something they agree with. They wish they could be as un-hypocritical as me.
 
Dead Cops :) said:
Haha going to be so satisfying watching Sessions rip the joint straight out of your Nazi mouth Grind. :)
Click to expand...

I have said almost a billion times on JPP I am not a trump supporter but no one believes me. This is one reason why. Net neutrality was another. Still better than crooked hillary tho.
 
It's okay to be white said:
I would say it's mediocre politics, but not bad politics. Everyone knows I am a huge stoner, but let me explain:

Much of the nation now recognizes that outlawing weed is stupid, but us stoners are still a relatively small minority. People may want it to be legal, but it's not something they lose sleep over. It's not something that would decide an election, for example. I would put it into the category of being pro/anti- death penalty. People might be against the death penalty but they wont cry when a triple rapist murderer gets electrocuted. It's the type of issue that doesn't have enough fire or passion or critical mass behind it yet in terms of optics.
Click to expand...

I disagree w/ the basic premise. You don't have to be a stoner to be concerned about it. MOST people have stoners either in the family or as friends...it's a more personal issue than just "only stoners themselves really care." And certainly a lot of people either are or know those who have benefitted greatly from medical marijuana. Beyond that, in states where the industry is really starting to boom, there are plenty of small businesses and economies that have benefitted enough to affect those who don't necessarily partake in the substance itself.

And then there is just that whole swath of people who simply value liberty, and can easily see when a government is overstepping its bounds. Obamacare cost the Dems dearly, even among people who benefitted from it - because they saw it as an overstep. This is similar. Sessions is going rogue here - swimming hard upstream against broad public sentiment and plenty of states where the people have definitively spoken.
 
Thing1 said:
I disagree w/ the basic premise. You don't have to be a stoner to be concerned about it. MOST people have stoners either in the family or as friends...it's a more personal issue than just "only stoners themselves really care." And certainly a lot of people either are or know those who have benefitted greatly from medical marijuana. Beyond that, in states where the industry is really starting to boom, there are plenty of small businesses and economies that have benefitted enough to affect those who don't necessarily partake in the substance itself.

And then there is just that whole swath of people who simply value liberty, and can easily see when a government is overstepping its bounds. Obamacare cost the Dems dearly, even among people who benefitted from it - because they saw it as an overstep. This is similar. Sessions is going rogue here - swimming hard upstream against broad public sentiment and plenty of states where the people have definitively spoken.
Click to expand...

I have been on the "frontlines" of this issue for like.... 12 years now. I have seen every argument and poll and public sentiment. People care, but they don't care as much as you think. In liberal mass it only got 53% of the vote to legalize. We had to drag this shit tooth and nail and the state is still hemming and hawing and fucking us over. Most people don't lose sleep over weed smokers when there are more serious issues like war, the economy, civil rights etc. It doesn't crack the top ten. I wish it did, but it doesn't.
 
It's okay to be white said:
I have been on the "frontlines" of this issue for like.... 12 years now. I have seen every argument and poll and public sentiment. People care, but they don't care as much as you think. In liberal mass it only got 53% of the vote to legalize. We had to drag this shit tooth and nail and the state is still hemming and hawing and fucking us over. Most people don't lose sleep over weed smokers when there are more serious issues like war, the economy, civil rights etc. It doesn't crack the top ten. I wish it did, but it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Well, I won't discount your POV if you've been directly involved. I guess the caveat for my argument is that most politicians in purple or red states will still not make a big deal out of this. It's still a "vice" kind of issue, and not something most candidates will want to become champions of.

I'm just really pissed about this one today. Sessions' views are just so unscientific, and well dated - close to heroin? He's a nut on this topic, and the changes today COULD lead to some really negative consequences. I hope they don't, but at minimum, he is opposing the will of voters in a lot of states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top