On marijuana: What Clinton, Sanders would do

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TonyS

Wow that's a really succinct synopsis of Texas. Since I don't live in Texas, I'll have to take your word for it, but you are describing a similar situation that is occurring in Maryland. Baltimore has been renovating its run down parts of the city promoting younger Democrats to flock en mass to the city. This forces all the lower income people to move to the surrounding Baltimore county. As a result, the conservative base that lived there already is moving further away from Baltimore as well. I-70 West, I-83 North, and I-95 North have all become gridlocked during rush hours from people moving further and further away from Baltimore but still commuting there for work.

Well, I appreciate your taking my word for it, but as some substantive proof of my understand, know that for years now, I've been in tight with the Hispanic Legal community in Houston. And I've worked to help them with legal documents necessary to buy up small tracts of land to develop for affordable housing.

Don't you just love this migration/redevelopment crap? More traffic, more down time with idling motors trying to get to work. Here's the question I've got for everyone........how long before the employers "get it" and start moving out of the cities? Why.........are they THERE?

As Cher would say...."and the beat goes on"; and the Devlopers/Redevelopers line their pockets with gold as they force whole populations to move about in a grand game of musical chairs.

What a friggin' WASTE!

a reply to: TonyS

I have more problems with our infrastructure that allows people to commute to and from work rather than where business developers want to put their businesses. Our infrastructure is highly out of date and needs to be expanded. We need to work in ways to reinvigorate or increase participation in commuters not using cars to get to work. We need to expand the size of highways to relieve congestion. It's becoming a nightmare, but all of this is a topic for a new thread.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


When I was younger this would have been an important issue to me but the older I get the more I see it being used as a diversion. Throwing folks a bone to placate them. That's why the ever so slow march towards legalization. Full legalization about the time of the next major financial crisis.

Presidents do not make the laws. This is just a pandering technique in regards to the two candidates in the OP. The dems sure do know how to pander to this new generation. They must have taken a page from Huxley. Throw them some sex and drugs and they come out of the wood works to vote. Soma and Feelies for all.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Presidents may not make the laws, but they are the final hurtle to clear before a law goes into effect. So it DEFINITELY behooves you to have the President in support of the position you are trying to get passed into law. Very rarely does a position garner enough support to have veto override support.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
The stupid cow wants to wait it out and see what becomes of Colorado etc as if this is some new revelation that no-one knows the effects that it has on an individual.

I wish she was wearing a shock-collar that was linked to a thumbs-down button - the hag would have copped it through-out her vague lack-of-substance text-book scum career politician diatribe.

I am vehemently anti-big government so Bernie agrees with a lot of things that I say - go after banksters, elites and big pharma, deconstruct the current corporate-owned government and enhance the middle class.

I think Bernie might be copying my ATS posting history - bit frightening actually - I found myself nodding with most things he said.

Bernie was the clear winner in all facets of the debate by a country mile......

As things stand, the election will come down to Bernie or Trump for POTUS - no-one else has the citizens support like these two.

Oh, and legalize the bloody plant FFS!

I'm in the same boat. Before I heard about Bernie, I had lost all faith in elections. He aligns with my ideas so much it is scary, but refreshing at the same time.

On Topic: Screw Hillary, she will say anything to be liked. I can't wait to get a chance to see that debate last night. I couldn't resist reading the thread about it though. Based on what I've seen from her, she will just go with whatever gets her more votes. That's about all she gives a crap about anyways.

Go Bernie

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't trust Clinton at all on the drug issue. People tend to forget or simply don't know, but she & Bill were Governor of Arkansas during the crack coc aine explosion in Little Rock. They allowed the CIA to ship tons of coc aine into Mena Airport as part of the CIA-coc aine scandal Gary Webb exposed. Then Reagan's War on Drugs policies disproportionately targeted the same inner cities that were being funneled CIA coc aine.

On top of that, she's a raving hypocrite. She was right there with Bill when he was in possession of & smoking illegal substances. But she has to the audacity to allow prosecution for the same things they got away with doing?

In fact, the last 3 sitting Presidents have admitted to illegal drug use & possession. And most of the current Presidential candidates also have. Their positions on the War on Drugs is very telling for me about their characters.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is more going on than just their stance on weed.

It does make me wonder what some people would give up in order to use weed.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I can't fault Obama though. Obama did more to further marijuana causes than any President before him. Though most of that support came after he saw that it was politically ok to take that position.

a reply to: deadeyedick

You're right. There are, and you are also more than free to make threads about those issues. So have at it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
That was my only point was to remind not to give support based on mj stance alone.

I want to see legal mj as much as anyone but all the changes mentioned last night would be the definite end of us.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Krazysh0t

“States with medical marijuana laws are no longer the outliers; they are the majority,” Rep. Farr said in a statement following the vote. “This vote showed that Congress is ready to rethink how we treat medical marijuana patients in this country. This amendment gives states the right to determine their own laws for medical marijuana use; free of federal intervention. It also gives patients comfort knowing they will have safe access to the medical care legal in their state without the fear of federal prosecution.”

Things are changing, is just up to the states to make the changes, as the federal government is no longer really taking a stance against it, thanks to

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4660, AS REPORTED (CJS APPROPRIATIONS) OFFERED BY MR. ROHRABACHER OF CALIFORNIA

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

SEC. ll. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

www.thedailychronic.net...

I believe that the states needs to do more.

Yea, I noticed my red state not on that list. Hmmmm....

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Paul has it right as well. Unfortunately there is so much money to be made keeping all these drugs illegal, I'm not sure when common sense laws would outweigh that illegal and legal money gained from keeping it illegal.

Not a fan of drugs but I would much rather have someone smoke a blunt and munching on Doritos than hitting up some of these crazy drugs like flakka and trying to munch on someone's face. All I ask is don't use drugs and drive a car, shoot a gun, etc. Pot is really not even on my problem list though.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Like most politicians, Clinton is going to wiat and listen to the polls before taking any position which might show she has a backbone.
From what I have heard for years, the main problem the government has for not legalizing "pot" is finding a way to get some money out of it.

May I suggest a very easy means of doing so? I only wished I knew a politicain who could present this to those who could do something about it.

There would be a "flood" of monies come into the governmental coffers if they would simply sell a "permit" for people to grow marijuana at home. This would allow the holder of a permit to grow, lets say two plants per year, at a permit price of $50. All other laws would stay in place so far as its use in public, at work, or while driving. Two plants should supply a casual user with enough product to keep them from buying or selling any. This would also almost elliminate the street dealers real quick.
As I said, all the laws which are in place now would still apply. Plus if anyone was caught selling they could be charged with tax evasion as well as dealing. If anyone with a permit is caught selling or buying, they would lose thier permit for the next several years.

The numbers I used are just number to be used, but I would hope the pricing of permits ant the number of plants allowed would be some where close to these numbers. Permits should be sold through at the county courthouse so everyting is done at the local level. Of course, the permit fees would be devided amoung the various levels of goverment, so everyone would benefit.

This may not be the best plan in the world, but it is at least a plan.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
Unfortunately there is so much money to be made keeping all these drugs illegal, I'm not sure when common sense laws would outweigh that illegal and legal money gained from keeping it illegal.

How does the government make money by keeping marijuana illegal? I would really like to see a detailed financial breakdown of this.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
Unfortunately there is so much money to be made keeping all these drugs illegal, I'm not sure when common sense laws would outweigh that illegal and legal money gained from keeping it illegal.

How does the government make money by keeping marijuana illegal? I would really like to see a detailed financial breakdown of this.

Politicians, police , judges, and whoever else takes bribes. Have we ever financed anything by getting funding or partaking in illegal drug sales? You can ask for a financial break down but my hope would be if we had one we would see mass trials related to corruption and bribery. Also how many politicians take campaign contributions from the private prisons? Who makes up the prison population? Drug people. Helps keep prisoners in and politicians campaigns financed. We ever have border patrol agents busted for allowing drug shipments through?

How many people are employees by the dea, how many by narcotics divisions of police forces fighting illegal drugs?


On the legal side how much money do you think flows to drug testing agencies for work place screening including from the government? You think these drug testing companies also make political donations? Ton of money involved

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
Unfortunately there is so much money to be made keeping all these drugs illegal, I'm not sure when common sense laws would outweigh that illegal and legal money gained from keeping it illegal.

How does the government make money by keeping marijuana illegal? I would really like to see a detailed financial breakdown of this.

Did you really just ask for a financial break down of illegal mj sales?

I think you will have problems finding such reports to be accurate.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Everything you mentioned is anecdotal. How does the government make money by keeping drugs illegal?

They do not, it actually costs us money.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

Did you really just ask for a financial break down of illegal mj sales?

Did you really just have a reading comprehension issue?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
How does the government make money by keeping marijuana illegal? I would really like to see a detailed financial breakdown of this.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Everything you mentioned is anecdotal. How does the government make money by keeping drugs illegal?

They do not, it actually costs us money.

Unless you can say what I listed doesn't happen and we don't have cases frequently, not anecdotal by any means. I can say people in the government make money from illegal drugs instead of the government makes money if you feel better. Whatever helps you wrap your head around it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I take that as a yes.

Of coarse any black projects funded secretly would benefit from illegal gains of transactions involving money and mj.

At the same time the tax payers would be paying for salaries of the gov. employees involved in seizure then said seized funds would go into secret programs. That is just one avenue and others are not as pretty.