Will President Trump take a major step toward ending or curtailing U.S. Drug War?

S

sear

serene
Will President Trump take a major step toward ending or curtailing U.S. Drug War?
Each of the most recent 3 U.S. presidents has used marijuana. The U.S. Drug War did not prevent it.

It's clear that Drug War is counterproductive. It didn't work with beverage ethanol, and it's not working the rest of it.

It also appears that ceding control of this drug commerce to the criminals is not as beneficial as restoring control to government, the way we do with tobacco and tequila.

President Clinton could have tried to end Drug War, but didn't (don't know why not).
President Bush could have tried to end Drug War, but apparently didn't want to look "soft on crime".
President Obama may not have tried, for fear of being remembered by history as Black doper president.

President Trump doesn't risk that. Trump presents himself as a pragmatic, do the sensible thing kind of business man. And Trump should know it's better to collect $10,000.oo per year in $taxes from a citizen than have to pay ~$30K / year for their food, shelter, clothing, and medical expenses.

But will Trump take that step?
If he does, I suspect history will herald him as a hero. But will he actually do it?
 
#2
Understood.
You may be right.

BUT !!
"Every Presidential campaign is an epidemic of economic illiteracy, but this year is a particularly egregious case when talking about the manufacturing [jobs] crisis. What that means is manufacturing employment as a percentage of total employment is declining. True. [It] Has been for 60 years. We make steel today, we made steel 20 years ago. We just make 1/3 more steel today with 2/3 fewer steel works who have gone on to other points of employment. If we have a crisis in manufacturing ... we have a calamity in agriculture, because in 1940 19% of our employers were in agriculture, 4% by 1970, 2% today. That's a triumph of American productivity, not a problem." George Will , years ago
Click to expand...
#3
Perhaps not as much as he cares about himself.

BUT !!

I don't think he'd refuse to make himself look better, just because it would be a fantastic benefit to the nation and People as well.
 
drug war is more then marijuana...I'm sure he'll leave the screwy Schedule 2 for hydrocodone -
which makes it much more difficult to prescribe then a Schedule 3..

My doctor is giving me Codeine 3 for my osteoarthritis ( which nods me out and makes it almost unusable)..
Meanwhile cheap heroin flood the states ( fentanyl)
 
#5

It's a point worth making a, and I appreciate your raising the issue. It provides me the opportunity to clarify.

I deliberately designated "Drug War", the entire thing.

This protracted half-stepping about toggling the War on Marijuana off one State at a time is painful.

And even legalizing marijuana nationwide wouldn't solve the problem.

There'd still be war on crack, cocaine, psilocybin, peyote, and all the rest of it.

No.

The most sensible play is to end Drug War entirely, return control of these commodities to government, and regulate the markets for the benefit of all.
 
^ agreed. i'm 100% libertarian on all this: the war is worse then the cure ( which isn't cured)
 
now that Trump has picked Sessions to head the Justice Department, we may get a clearer idea of how far Sessions wants to go in pressing the point that "marijuana is not the kind of thing to be legalized." While medical marijuana suppliers are protected from the feds by a spending rider that is likely to be renewed, if given free rein Sessions could easily wreak havoc in the recreational industry.

Every state-licensed marijuana business remains a criminal enterprise under federal law, subjecting its owners to the risk of prosecution and forfeiture. An anti-pot crusader at the helm of the Justice Department could make that risk salient again by raiding growers, manufacturers, and retailers, or just by threatening to do so.

Sessions also could challenge state legalization in federal court, although he might not like the results even if he wins. While the DOJ might prevail in arguing that state licensing and regulation of cannabusinesses conflicts with federal law, it cannot force states to recriminalize what those businesses do, so the upshot of a successful lawsuit could be less government oversight of the industry.

Any such interference by the DOJ would contradict Trump's commitment to marijuana federalism. "I really believe you should leave it up to the states," he said at a rally in Reno last year. "It should be a state situation…In terms of marijuana and legalization, I think that should be a state issue, state by state."

Most Americans agree with that approach. Recent national polls indicate that most Americans (60 percent, according to Gallup) think marijuana should be legal, while most Republicans continue to oppose legalization. But even among Republicans, most—70 percent, according to a CBS News poll conducted last April—think the feds should not try to override state decisions in this area.
http://reason.com/archives/2016/11/23/is-trumps-pot-tolerance-fading
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top