Jeff Sessions coming War on Marijuana

[tinselwolverine]

Quietly, no kidding?

I didn't even know this is the current status on the Federal Government's position - by virtue, literally, of an Act of Congress - until I did a little research following up on the below from TigerMud's link in post #35:

Congress also passed a law barring the Justice Department from going after medical marijuana operators.

Wikipedia gives a more expansive report of the current status than any single on line article.

 

[tinselwolverine]

A little more digging - Costa Mesa, CA Republican Congressional Rep Dana Rohrbacher has introduced this bill to the House.

I called the Congressman's office - Most of you know I'm in LA and Costa Mesa is in the OC so he's obviously my Congressman; but the person I spoke to told me if I agreed, I should call my own rep in the HOR and encourage that person to support the bill.

So any of you who agree can also contact your own representatives if you want to.

 

[Michchamp]

^^^Some addictions are easier to acquire and harder to kick^^^. I do not know enough about Marijuana to comment.

my understanding is that weed is not chemically addictive like cocaine, alcohol, tobacco or even caffeine is, ie where your body forms a chemical dependance on it.

certainly it can be "habit forming" but i've never heard of anyone committing robbery or falling into prostitution to fund their weed habit. it's a different category of abuse here.

it's only a "gateway drug" in the sense that if youre around people that have access to it, they'll probably have access to other drugs to. but it doesn't make a person want to move on to heavier drugs. like sggatcl stated above, people with addictive tendencies (which is really a mental illness and should be treated as such) will find ways to harm themselves whether its legal or not. they cannot control their impulses.

it's amusing hearing about how harmful and addictive pot is, when I think about the number of successful people I know who were huge potheads both during and after college & law school. they didn't become raving drug fiends after smoking a joint or more a day, any more than a casual drinker plunges into full blown alcoholism because they decided to have a second glass of wine after dinner each night.

 

[tinselwolverine]

it's only a "gateway drug" in the sense that if youre around people that have access to it, they'll probably have access to other drugs to. but it doesn't make a person want to move on to heavier drugs. like sggatcl stated above, people with addictive tendencies (which is really a mental illness and should be treated as such) will find ways to harm themselves whether its legal or not. they cannot control their impulses.

Alcohol is by far the most insidious culprit when it comes to being a gateway drug.

It's been about 25 years since I last smoked weed.

Some people have unhealthy addictions to tobacco, Big Macs and buying lottery tickets at the 7-11 too.

 

[dubbsco]

Byco bottom line, if alcohol is legal and used for recreational purposes, you may as well make weed the same. Tax the shit out of it, and the absolute horrible battle with this "war on drugs" can move on.

 

[byco42]

Byco bottom line, if alcohol is legal and used for recreational purposes, you may as well make weed the same. Tax the shit out of it, and the absolute horrible battle with this "war on drugs" can move on.

I'm wondering how you'd test for someone who is under the influence of marijuana and behind the wheel of a car. Or what "probable cause" could be. Or what the legal limit is. Or if pregnant women should legally smoke it. Many, many unforeseen consequences out there.

 

[dubbsco]

Sadly, that stuff is never going to change in regards to people getting behind the wheel and driving if they are impaired in some way. I would gather that if it's legalized across the board and the police need to pay even more attention to it, the technology to test would improve.

Legal or no, people get behind the wheel when they are messed up.

 

[byco42]

Sadly, that stuff is never going to change in regards to people getting behind the wheel and driving if they are impaired in some way. I would gather that if it's legalized across the board and the police need to pay even more attention to it, the technology to test would improve.

Legal or no, people get behind the wheel when they are messed up.

And are they treated like DUIs? Same stigma? Same punishments? I don't know.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'm wondering how you'd test for someone who is under the influence of marijuana and behind the wheel of a car. Or what "probable cause" could be. Or what the legal limit is. Or if pregnant women should legally smoke it. Many, many unforeseen consequences out there.

A blood test.

Probable cause would be the same as testing for alcohol influence is and has long been.

The legal would be decided quasi-arbitrarily, just as the legal limit for alcohol is.

I guess pregnant woman would be advised to refrain, just as they currently are advised not to consume alcohol.

 

[byco42]

A blood test.

Probable cause would be the same as testing for alcohol influence is and has long been.

The legal would be decided quasi-arbitrarily, just as the legal limit for alcohol is.

I guess pregnant woman would be advised to refrain, just as they currently are advised not to consume alcohol.

Okay fine but remember that you would be putting enterprising entrepreneurs like Ricky Fitts out of business

 

[dubbsco]

I used to be one of the most staunch, anti-weed guys you would have ever met 5-10 years ago. And then I actually started doing my research and understanding the impact that painkillers have had and the ridiculous war that's costing billions of dollars and getting nothing done.

Just legalize the damn thing. People will get behind the wheel regardless of whether or not it's legal. The benefits have already shown up in countless studies from the states that have made it legal.

 

[sggatecl]

Okay fine but remember that you would be putting enterprising entrepreneurs like Ricky Fitts out of business

What a Beautiful reference.

 

[Michchamp]

I told Sbee the same thing when he posted the excerpts from the report - it was purely anecdotal. The "mountain" of statistics are weak at best and don't prove the Ferguson police are racist. Apparently, requiring data and actual proof rather than anecdotes and correlations nowadays is openly racist. And someone who filed multiple desegregation lawsuits in Alabama as the US Attorney, voted in favor of the extension of the Civil Rights Act, voted to confirm Eric Holder for AG and spearheaded the effort to award Rosa Parks the Congressional Gold Medal among many other Civil Rights actions, is apparently, a life-long racist. Classic michchamp, "disagree with me or vote in a way I don't approve - then you're a racist!"

Here's a link to the Chicago report. It's hefty... 164 pages of "anecdotes" I guess. People can read (or just scan) a few pages to decide for themselves whether its "anecdotal evidence only" or not. It's based on thousands of pages of CPD-provided dept policies, training materials, memos, emails, and communications, review of the entire database of police complaints, reviews of the official reports of 170 police-related shootings, reviews of the official reports of over 400 violent police-related incidents, interviews with police and community groups, and over 60 ride-alongs on police patrols.

That's all "anecdotal"?

From the report: "Our finding that CPD engages in a pattern or practice of force in violation of the Constitution is based on a comprehensive investigation of CPD?s force practices and a close analysis of hundreds of individual force incidents."

I assume the methodology used in creating the Ferguson report is similar. I will find the Ferguson report separately.

 

[Michchamp]

also note that the report also details police complaints about problems with training and equipment that add unnecessary risks to their jobs, and provides recommendations to reduce violent incidents that endanger the public (and police themselves) further. It's not just 100+ pages of ragging on the cops, and much of it is more than sympathetic to them. even the criticism of police is tempered by recognition that its a difficult job made more difficult by poor training and policy. But Sessions and his ilk are okay dismissing it all out of hand, rather than providing real leadership on this issue.

 

[biggunsbob]

Didn't Sessions lie in his confirmation hearing? Or is that just swamp Critter normal? .Also looks like the feds are going after a weed festival in Nevada..

 

[byco42]

On the face of this, lying is lying. So is parsing the truth ... with, of course making sure we understand the definition of "is." But neither party is concerned when one of their own lies under oath.

 

[Spartanmack]

"Prove that we do."

Countless articles and links given about why it has a massive benefit to people. Increased tax money for states, assistance to people who have chronic injuries, etc...

Move along boss. Stick to the 1980s and the fear-mongering about how horrible weed is.

And if you are curious, I've never smoked a joint a day in my life. I wouldn't even know how to do it. But the benefits it has had for people in pain compared to giving them painkillers is quite obvious.

how about your read my posts and understand why I said that. You can start with the one where I said that I don't really care that much about whether pot is legalized.

At least wait until I take a side one way or the other before you go after something I've said. You may not make yourself look so foolish.

 

[Spartanmack]

We are talking about two things Hack so keep up. Lol
Sessions stopped the doj in Texas to make it harder for people to vote.
Session wants to crack down on marijuana. I will make it plain for you so you can catch up.

I want to make it easier for all Americans to vote .
I want legalization of weed.

no, you're talking about two things because you can't stay focused on teh topic at hand. No one is talking about voting rights except you.

 

[Spartanmack]

Okay fine but remember that you would be putting enterprising entrepreneurs like Ricky Fitts out of business

If they "tax the shit out of it" as people have recommended here, there will always be opportunities for the Ricky Fitts' of the world.

Which brings up another question, how would cops distinguish between legal and illegal weed?

 

[Spartanmack]

Here's a link to the Chicago report. It's hefty... 164 pages of "anecdotes" I guess. People can read (or just scan) a few pages to decide for themselves whether its "anecdotal evidence only" or not. It's based on thousands of pages of CPD-provided dept policies, training materials, memos, emails, and communications, review of the entire database of police complaints, reviews of the official reports of 170 police-related shootings, reviews of the official reports of over 400 violent police-related incidents, interviews with police and community groups, and over 60 ride-alongs on police patrols.

That's all "anecdotal"?

From the report: "Our finding that CPD engages in a pattern or practice of force in violation of the Constitution is based on a comprehensive investigation of CPD?s force practices and a close analysis of hundreds of individual force incidents."

I assume the methodology used in creating the Ferguson report is similar. I will find the Ferguson report separately.

how does the Chicago report being so long disprove anything I said about the Ferguson report? I particularly like the line you've highlighted

Our finding that CPD engages in a pattern or practice of force in violation of the Constitution is based on a comprehensive investigation of CPD?s force practices and a close analysis of hundreds of individual force incidents.

If that's not the smoking gun, the authors telling us their report was comprehensive - well, who could dispute that?