Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 4, 2018 9:59:45 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 4, 2018 10:10:52 GMT -5
This is a very interesting issue in how it challenges conservatives on the question of federal government control.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 4, 2018 10:21:48 GMT -5
Another interesting aspect is that the new policy basically places enforcement decisions in the hands of the UD Attorneys for the states (recently appointed). They will determine how much federal resources will be used to enforce federal laws in these states.
With a state as large as Calif joining the legalization of marijuana, and the thriving economies, it’s going to be interesting, indeed.
From the link ”The legal pot business has become a sophisticated, multimillion-dollar industry that helps fund schools, educational programs and law enforcement. Eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for recreational use, and California’s sales alone are projected to bring in $1 billion annually in tax revenue within several years.”
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 4, 2018 12:09:30 GMT -5
Well Governor Inslee issued this response.... (I bolded the last sentence).....
If news reports are accurate, today’s forthcoming announcement from Attorney General Sessions is the wrong direction for our state. It is also disrespects Washington voters who have chosen a different path for our state. I am especially frustrated that this announcement comes after Sessions has refused offers from Attorney General Ferguson and myself to meet with him to discuss these policies in person, after he has disregarded the input that we and other state leaders have provided to his department.
In Washington state we have put in place a system in place that adheres to what we pledged to the people of Washington and the federal government; it’s well regulated, keeps criminal elements out, keeps pot out of the hands of kids and tracks it all carefully enough to clamp down on cross-border leakage. We are going to keep doing that and overseeing the well-regulated market that Washington voters approved.
Make no mistake: As we have told the Department of Justice ever since I-502 was passed in 2012, we will vigorously defend our state’s laws against undue federal infringement.
|
|
Cheesy FL-Vol
Junior Associate
"Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." -- Helen Keller
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:13:50 GMT -5
Posts: 6,791
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":""}
Member is Online
|
Post by Cheesy FL-Vol on Jan 4, 2018 12:15:54 GMT -5
I thought the general Republican stance was more power to the states to govern as they see fit with less interference at the federal level.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 4, 2018 12:18:10 GMT -5
I thought the general Republican stance was more power to the states to govern as they see fit with less interference at the federal level. Except when the activities take place in the privacy of your living or bedroom and it's among/between consenting adults.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 4, 2018 12:31:16 GMT -5
I thought the general Republican stance was more power to the states to govern as they see fit with less interference at the federal level. Except when the activities take place in the privacy of your living or bedroom and it's among/between consenting adults. Or involves a medical decision made by you with your doctor and/or significant other
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 4, 2018 12:38:19 GMT -5
Except when the activities take place in the privacy of your living or bedroom and it's among/between consenting adults. Or involves a medical decision made by you with your doctor and/or significant other That too.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,604
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 4, 2018 13:03:01 GMT -5
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 4, 2018 17:16:28 GMT -5
Seems that the feelings about Pot has surly changed...so many States , conservative as well as Liberal, jumping on board with legalizing the sale for medical and for some, recreational use too. With Federal funds for social issues seemingly being reduced by the federal government..especially as our debt is climbing and also the head honcho of the House has said he is interested in cutting social programs...the revenue of taxing pot will look more interesting to States who have not yet jumped on the wagon..IMHO.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,510
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 4, 2018 18:27:36 GMT -5
I thought the general Republican stance was more power to the states to govern as they see fit with less interference at the federal level. well, that's the libertarian response, which many republicans share some philosophy with. I agree that enforcing this seems silly, but I also think it was lazy not to fix the federal laws and instead just pass these rando state level laws that are clearly at odds with long time federal laws. pot proponents should have made it legal at the federal level, and then worked on state regulation and legislation. that would also fix the banking issue that these businesses have and would allow some states to still have pot illegal. This is an issue on which the people are ahead of their elected officials. All states where it has been legalized it has been by a direct vote of the people. As there is no way to do this at the federal level, it was necessary for it to be done state by state.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 5, 2018 0:27:42 GMT -5
Some Republicans aren’t happy with Sessions’ actions:
....Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner (R) tweeted. “This reported action directly contradicts what Attorney General Sessions told me prior to his confirmation. With no prior notice to Congress, the Justice Department has trampled on the will of the voters in CO and other states. I am prepared to take all steps necessary, including holding DOJ nominees, until the Attorney General lives up to the commitment he made to me prior to his confirmation.”
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) also weighed in on Thursday, stating in a Facebook post that she had “repeatedly discouraged Attorney General Sessions from taking this action.” Alaskans are waking up to media reports that the US Department of Justice is withdrawing the ‘Cole Memorandum,’ an Obama era policy statement that the federal government will respect state marijuana laws like Alaska’s,” she wrote. “My office can confirm that we received notification from the Justice Department this morning that they intended to withdraw the ‘Cole Memorandum.’ Over the past year I repeatedly discouraged Attorney General Sessions from taking this action and asked that he work with the states and Congress if he feels changes are necessary. Today’s announcement is disruptive to state regulatory regimes and regrettable.”
Statement from @randpaul on Sessions rescinding Obama-era marijuana guidance to U.S. Attorneys: "I continue to believe that this is a states’ rights issue, and the federal government has better thi
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 5, 2018 22:32:17 GMT -5
Some Republicans aren’t happy with Sessions’ actions: ....Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner (R) tweeted. “This reported action directly contradicts what Attorney General Sessions told me prior to his confirmation. With no prior notice to Congress, the Justice Department has trampled on the will of the voters in CO and other states. I am prepared to take all steps necessary, including holding DOJ nominees, until the Attorney General lives up to the commitment he made to me prior to his confirmation.” Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) also weighed in on Thursday, stating in a Facebook post that she had “repeatedly discouraged Attorney General Sessions from taking this action.” Alaskans are waking up to media reports that the US Department of Justice is withdrawing the ‘Cole Memorandum,’ an Obama era policy statement that the federal government will respect state marijuana laws like Alaska’s,” she wrote. “My office can confirm that we received notification from the Justice Department this morning that they intended to withdraw the ‘Cole Memorandum.’ Over the past year I repeatedly discouraged Attorney General Sessions from taking this action and asked that he work with the states and Congress if he feels changes are necessary. Today’s announcement is disruptive to state regulatory regimes and regrettable.” Statement from @randpaul on Sessions rescinding Obama-era marijuana guidance to U.S. Attorneys: "I continue to believe that this is a states’ rights issue, and the federal government has better thi Being totally honest, have these senators introduced a bill to amend the law, or just tweeted (which the President is often criticized for). they literally are the only people in the world who can properly fix this, so why not introduce legislation that massively scales back the criminality of marijuana? that would be the true best answer. then states are still free to be as restrict as they like Suggest you re-read post #11 It is extremely unlikely that conservative states would go for the decriminialization, let alone legalization of marijuana. Deginitely an issue for individual states to decide. The other issue is the opoid crisis, which Sessions seems to be oblivious to. Of course big pharma has a lot of influence with Sessions’ boss.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Jan 5, 2018 22:52:07 GMT -5
Conservative here and voted for decriminalization of pot in 2 different states...2 and 0.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,436
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 6, 2018 14:29:49 GMT -5
Arizona has medical and was close to making recreational legal. There were some problems with that particular law. I think the next push will be successful.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 6, 2018 17:46:12 GMT -5
Vermont to Sessions “FU”
..https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/01/05/defiant-vermont-legislators-vote-to-legalize-marijuana-just-hours-after-sessions-sets-stage-for-a-crackdown/?utm_term=.fedc171491b9
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Jan 6, 2018 20:14:03 GMT -5
Maybe sessions should pay a little more attention to opioids, since they kill people, pot doesn't.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 5:13:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2018 21:01:07 GMT -5
The answer to the question of "Do states have rights?" was given in 1865... when the seceding states were forced back against their will (and against the Constitution, as well as against the standards of the Country as laid out in the Declaration of Independence), and after MUCH bloodshed (on BOTH sides), into the Union.
I don't know why this is even a question anymore.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 6, 2018 22:51:08 GMT -5
The answer to the question of "Do states have rights?" was given in 1865... when the seceding states were forced back against their will (and against the Constitution, as well as against the standards of the Country as laid out in the Declaration of Independence), and after MUCH bloodshed (on BOTH sides), into the Union. I don't know why this is even a question anymore. The answer was “people do not have the right to own other people” Not a states rights issue. Time to get over it and move on.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 5:13:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2018 22:54:34 GMT -5
The answer to the question of "Do states have rights?" was given in 1865... when the seceding states were forced back against their will (and against the Constitution, as well as against the standards of the Country as laid out in the Declaration of Independence), and after MUCH bloodshed (on BOTH sides), into the Union. I don't know why this is even a question anymore. The answer was “people do not have the right to own other people” Not a states rights issue. Time to get over it and move on. The fantasy of "The Civil War was about slavery" has been debunked numerous times (had it been "about slavery", all that would have been necessary would be for the states to REMAIN in or REJOIN the Union... check the Corwin Amendment). Time for you and others that still believe that fantasy to get over it and move on. It was all about States' Rights.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,436
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 6, 2018 23:36:13 GMT -5
The answer was “people do not have the right to own other people” Not a states rights issue. Time to get over it and move on. The fantasy of "The Civil War was about slavery" has been debunked numerous times (had it been "about slavery", all that would have been necessary would be for the states to REMAIN in or REJOIN the Union... check the Corwin Amendment). Time for you and others that still believe that fantasy to get over it and move on. It was all about States' Rights. It hasn't been debunked. You are just stating your opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 5:13:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2018 23:47:51 GMT -5
The fantasy of "The Civil War was about slavery" has been debunked numerous times (had it been "about slavery", all that would have been necessary would be for the states to REMAIN in or REJOIN the Union... check the Corwin Amendment). Time for you and others that still believe that fantasy to get over it and move on. It was all about States' Rights. It hasn't been debunked. You are just stating your opinion. The Corwin Amendment is not opinion. It's verifiable fact. The conditions OF the Corwin Amendment are also not opinion. They are also verifiable fact. That Lincoln accepted the Corwin Amendment as de facto law is also verifiable fact (check his inauguration speech). That the slave states did NOT need to leave the Union to keep slavery is, via the Corwin Amendment, also fact. No opinions posted by me in that statement you quoted whatsoever. You might want to do a little research before presenting false claims.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 7, 2018 10:05:47 GMT -5
The fantasy of "The Civil War was about slavery" has been debunked numerous times (had it been "about slavery", all that would have been necessary would be for the states to REMAIN in or REJOIN the Union... check the Corwin Amendment). Time for you and others that still believe that fantasy to get over it and move on. It was all about States' Rights. It hasn't been debunked. You are just stating your opinion. As if it were fact. It is not. As has been demonstrated reoeatedly.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 7, 2018 10:08:07 GMT -5
Some information on the Corwin ammendment... which was never ratified
Most serious historical overviews of the Civil War contain at least a brief mention of the Corwin Amendment, the last-ditch compromise effort to protect slavery where it existed by enshrining it in the Constitution. They also do so tepidly and seldom acknowledge it as anything more than a historical footnote. Yet for a brief moment in March 1861, it was at the center stage of the secession crisis – the sole realized product of months of desperate compromise attempts in the lame duck winter Congress of 1860-61. It passed the requisite two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate only hours prior to Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration in March 1861, and went out to the states for ratification a week later. Its text is eerily simplistic, not to mention morally unsettling given what it sought to attain: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” The amendment failed to lure back the secessionists or even attain ratification, being overcome by the Civil War and largely forgotten.
..http://philmagness.com/?page_id=398
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,436
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 7, 2018 13:13:01 GMT -5
Back to pot. I wish sessions would put his effort into the Opiod problem, not marijuana. If he solves that, then we can debate pot.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jan 7, 2018 13:31:35 GMT -5
Back to pot. I wish sessions would put his effort into the Opiod problem, not marijuana. If he solves that, then we can debate pot. Ah, but big pharma is very profitable for this admin. Legal pot is only profitable for the individuals in the business and the states collecting taxes. And sending people (majority of them of color) to prison for minor pot offenses is profitable for the private prison industry. This administration is about money, not lives.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,436
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 7, 2018 18:53:02 GMT -5
Back to pot. I wish sessions would put his effort into the Opiod problem, not marijuana. If he solves that, then we can debate pot. Ah, but big pharma is very profitable for this admin. Legal pot is only profitable for the individuals in the business and the states collecting taxes. And sending people (majority of them of color) to prison for minor pot offenses is profitable for the private prison industry. This administration is about money, not lives. True, but, if they change the law, MJ can be profitable for them too.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 7, 2018 19:14:15 GMT -5
It hasn't been debunked. You are just stating your opinion. The Corwin Amendment is not opinion. It's verifiable fact. The conditions OF the Corwin Amendment are also not opinion. They are also verifiable fact. That Lincoln accepted the Corwin Amendment as de facto law is also verifiable fact (check his inauguration speech). That the slave states did NOT need to leave the Union to keep slavery is, via the Corwin Amendment, also fact. No opinions posted by me in that statement you quoted whatsoever. You might want to do a little research before presenting false claims. Have to say I never heard of the "Corwin Amendment" before now...did a quick google but instead of posting the wicki..believe I know why I am not familiar with it and I am a good reader but..feel reason never heard of the amendment is..: "Prior to the American Civil War, it was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and in an attempt to entice border slave states to stay.[3]" It seems it was one of many such, type of amendments presented trying to keep the union together and I am guessing like all of them it failed...leading to more Americans dieing then in any other of our many wars...Unless one is really into the War between the States..[Southern preference] and I am not..this amendment would not be familiar. Most likely, I am guessing here, ..and only from your avatar..that RichardinTn is a aficionado of the conflict so would be familiar with these type of happenings...and would question him if he would feel if accepted, the War could definitely be avoided. Lots more to the topic I believe...but thanks for exposure to the amendment...more knowledge is always a good thing.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 7, 2018 19:18:51 GMT -5
The Corwin Amendment is not opinion. It's verifiable fact. The conditions OF the Corwin Amendment are also not opinion. They are also verifiable fact. That Lincoln accepted the Corwin Amendment as de facto law is also verifiable fact (check his inauguration speech). That the slave states did NOT need to leave the Union to keep slavery is, via the Corwin Amendment, also fact. No opinions posted by me in that statement you quoted whatsoever. You might want to do a little research before presenting false claims. Have to say I never heard of the "Corwin Amendment" before now...did a quick google but instead of posting the wicki..believe I know why I am not familiar with it and I am a good reader but..feel reason never heard of the amendment is..: "Prior to the American Civil War, it was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and in an attempt to entice border slave states to stay.[3]" It seems it was one of many such, type of amendments presented trying to keep the union together and I am guessing like all of them it failed...leading to more Americans dieing then in any other of our many wars...Unless one is really into the War between the States..[Southern preference] and I am not..this amendment would not be familiar. Most likely, I am guessing here, ..and only from your avatar..that RichardinTn is a aficionado of the conflict so would be familiar with these type of happenings...and would question him if he would feel if accepted, the War could definitely be avoided. Lots more to the topic I believe...but thanks for exposure to the amendment...more knowledge is always a good thing. One thing is a definite...even with more civility I believe then in todays society..I believe the two sides really disliked each other...to say hated each others guts..for the vernacular probably would not be out of order and as was in Europe just before the 1st WW...really inching for a go at each other...not having any idea at all as to what such a war would lead to or it's severity and loses.....IMHO OF COURSE.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 5:13:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2018 20:25:52 GMT -5
Some information on the Corwin ammendment... which was never ratified Most serious historical overviews of the Civil War contain at least a brief mention of the Corwin Amendment, the last-ditch compromise effort to protect slavery where it existed by enshrining it in the Constitution. They also do so tepidly and seldom acknowledge it as anything more than a historical footnote. Yet for a brief moment in March 1861, it was at the center stage of the secession crisis – the sole realized product of months of desperate compromise attempts in the lame duck winter Congress of 1860-61. It passed the requisite two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate only hours prior to Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration in March 1861, and went out to the states for ratification a week later. Its text is eerily simplistic, not to mention morally unsettling given what it sought to attain: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” The amendment failed to lure back the secessionists or even attain ratification, being overcome by the Civil War and largely forgotten. ..http://philmagness.com/?page_id=398 The amendment was never ratified because it failed to draw back the seceding states BECAUSE the secession was never "about slavery" That's literally all the Corwin Amendment did... it would have authorized slavery in perpetuity, and been unamendable. Had the states remained and made ratification of that amendment a condition of remaining, there would have been no Civil War IF the issue had been "we wanna keep our slaves". The fact that the Corwin Amendment didn't change things PROVES that it wasn't "all about slavery". Your bolding proves my point. Interesting note that you leave out: The Corwin Amendment was ratified by FIVE States. All of those states were NORTHERN states. As there were only 34 states at the time, and adoption of an Amendment requires 3/4 of the existing states to ratify it, all that was required for ratification was 26 states. The 5 Northern states already done, that leaves 21. The 13 Seceding states would have ratified it (if slavery was the actual issue, which it wasn't... but we'll ignore that fact) leaving 8 more needed. To keep the union intact and avoid war, I'm sure that 8 more Northern States could have been persuaded to ratify it.... even if for no other reason than to avoid war.
|
|