Drug Policy

Trump's Pick for Attorney General Is a 'Drug War Dinosaur'

Jeff Sessions opposes sentencing reform, defends civil forfeiture, and criticizes the Obama administration for letting states legalize marijuana.

|

Senate Judiciary Committee

When Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump's choice for attorney general, was nominated as a federal judge in 1986, one of the comments that got him into trouble was a joke about the Ku Klux Klan. A federal prosecutor testified that Sessions, at the time the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, had said he thought the KKK "was OK until I found out they smoked pot." Although Sessions, now a senator from Alabama, confirmed that story, in light of his longtime obsession with the evils of marijuana the anecdote reads like a joke about him. After all, this is the same man who recently opined that "good people don't smoke marijuana."

Sessions' retrograde views on marijuana, his opposition to sentencing reform, and his enthusiasm for civil forfeiture do not bode well for drug policy under Trump, who campaigned on a "law and order" platform that was consciously modeled after Richard Nixon's. Trump promised that "safety will be restored" the day he takes office, but he was pretty vague about what that means. It is more than a little disconcerting that an unreconstructed drug warrior like Sessions will help him fill in the details.

Sessions, who pines for the days when Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign helped "create a hostility to drug use," was outraged when President Obama conceded, in a 2014 interview with The New Yorker, that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. "I have to tell you, I'm heartbroken to see what the president said just a few days ago," Sessions told then-Attorney General Eric Holder at a Senate hearing. "It's stunning to me. I find it beyond comprehension….This is just difficult for me to conceive how the president of the United States could make such a statement as that….Did the president conduct any medical or scientific survey before he waltzed into The New Yorker and opined contrary to the positions of attorneys general and presidents universally prior to that?"

At a hearing last April, Sessions bemoaned the message sent by marijuana legalization. "I can't tell you how concerning it is for me, emotionally and personally, to see the possibility that we will reverse the progress that we've made," he said. "It was the prevention movement that really was so positive, and it led to this decline [in drug use]. The creating of knowledge that this drug is dangerous, it cannot be played with, it is not funny, it's not something to laugh about, and trying to send that message with clarity, that good people don't smoke marijuana."

In both of these cases, we see Sessions' insistence that truth be subordinated to the anti-drug cause. It is beyond serious dispute that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, as measured by acute toxicity, impact on driving ability, frequency of addiction, and the long-term effects of heavy consumption. But Sessions thinks the president should not admit that, lest he encourage teenagers to smoke pot. It is patently absurd to suggest that everyone who tries cannabis—which includes at least two-fifths of the population and probably more like half, allowing for underreporting by survey respondents—is a bad person. But Sessions thinks the government should "send that message with clarity," the better to discourage teenagers from smoking pot.

Sessions did not explicitly say the federal government should try to reverse marijuana legalization by challenging it in court (an iffy proposition) or by raiding state-licensed cannabusinesses. But he clearly did not approve of the Obama administration's tolerance for diverse marijuana policies. "It's far more important than just the details about whether federal prosecutors start prosecuting marijuana cases in Colorado," he said. "Colorado was one of the leading states that started the movement to suggest that marijuana is not dangerous. And we're going to find it, in my opinion, ripple through the entire American citizenry, and we're going to see more marijuana use. It's not going to be good….We need grownups in charge in Washington to say marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized….The Department of Justice needs to be clear, and the president needs to assert some leadership."

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 that ought to be legalized." Trump himself, while expressing concern about the consequences of legalization, has repeatedly said the issue should be left to the states—a position that has even broader public support than legalization itself. 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 interfere with state decisions in this area.

"While the choice [of Sessions] certainly isn't good news for marijuana reform," says Marijuana Majority Chairman Tom Angell, "I'm still hopeful the new administration will realize that any crackdown against broadly popular laws in a growing number of states would create huge political problems they don't need and will use lots of political capital they'd be better off spending on issues the new president cares a lot more about." As a practical matter, especially now that legalization has spread to eight states that include one in five Americans, the feds cannot stop the collapse of marijuana prohibition. But if Trump breaks his promise to respect state choices and gives Sessions free rein, the Justice Department could make a lot of trouble for state-legal cannabusinesses. In any case, it is hard to imagine Sessions supporting efforts to remove federal burdens on those businesses, which include not just the threat of prosecution and forfeiture but tax discrimination and barriers to banking.

It also seems unlikely that Sessions will be lending his support as attorney general to legislation that reduces penalties for drug offenses, as Holder and his successor, Loretta Lynch, did. Sessions, along with every other senator, supported the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which shrank the sentencing gap between the smoked and snorted forms of cocaine. He nevertheless opposed applying the reduced crack penalties to people who committed their offenses before the law was passed but were sentenced afterward. In a 2011 letter to Holder, Sessions complained that "reducing sentences is not tough, creates unpredictability, harms public safety, promotes recidivism, and increases the negative, often devastating effects of illegal drugs, both for those whose sentences are reduced and in the consequent diminished deterrent effect on other potential drug offenders." Never mind that Sessions himself had supported shorter sentences, agreeing that the pre-2010 penalties were too severe.

More recently, Sessions was a leading opponent of the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, which would have made shorter crack sentences retroactive, reduced various other drug penalties, tightened the criteria for certain enhanced punishments, and broadened the criteria for the "safety valve" that lets some drug offenders escape mandatory minimums. "Drug trafficking can in no way be considered a 'non-violent' crime," he and three other senators declared in a letter to their colleagues last February. "It is an industry built on an entire edifice of violence, stretching from the narco-terrorist organizations in South America to the drug deal enforcers that afflict too many U.S. communities." Sessions thus rejects a central point of agreement underlying bipartisan support for sentencing reform: that there is an important distinction between violent criminals and offenders who engage in peaceful activities arbitrarily proscribed by Congress.

Sessions defends civil forfeiture as well as draconian drug sentences. As Robert Everett Johnson of the Institute for Justice pointed out last year, Sessions does not think it should be any harder than it is for the government to take property supposedly linked to drug offenses, which it can do through civil forfeiture without even charging the owner, let alone convicting him. At a hearing on "The Need to Reform Asset Forfeiture" in April 2015, Sessions said it's obvious that "criminal violators ought not to be able to keep their ill-gotten gains." He averred, without citing any evidence, that "95 percent" of people who lose money to forfeiture have "done nothing in their lives but sell dope."

Sessions, who at one point during the hearing accidentally told the truth by calling the targets of forfeiture "individuals whose money is stolen," rather alarmingly misstated the standard of proof in federal forfeiture cases, which is "preponderance of the evidence," meaning the government must show it's more likely than not that a seized asset is connected to a crime. He instead said the standard for completing a forfeiture (assuming the owner has the resources to challenge it) is "probable cause," which is what the government needs to seize the asset in the first place. Probable cause, which is also the standard for a search warrant, is substantially less demanding than preponderance of the evidence and much less demanding than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is required for a criminal conviction. Sessions nevertheless said probable cause is "appropriate for forfeiture cases" and "it's unthinkable that we would make it harder for the government to take money from a drug dealer."

Sessions added that there is nothing wrong with letting law enforcement agencies keep the proceeds of forfeitures they pursue, a policy that has been widely criticized for warping police priorities. He faulted the Obama administration for curtailing the use of federal forfeiture law by state and local agencies, who can use it to evade state restrictions. In short, Sessions thinks civil forfeiture is fine the way it is and sees no need for reform.

"Jeff Sessions is a drug war dinosaur, which is the last thing the nation needs now," says Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Aaron Hertzberg, partner and general counsel at CalCann Holdings, calls Sessions "the worst pick that Trump could have made for attorney general [when] it comes to marijuana issues."

I'm not sure about that. Chris Christie, who during his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination repeatedly vowed to reverse marijuana legalization in states such as Colorado, might well have been worse. In any case, given the the political costs it would entail, a full-scale crackdown on state-licensed marijuana businesses seems unlikely. But so does normalization of taxes and banking for the cannabis industry. Likewise sentencing reform, which Sessions helped doom this year as a senator, and civil forfeiture reform, which he deems unnecessary. Even if Sessions does not take us back to the days of Just Say No, he can do plenty of damage by blocking further progress in de-escalating the war on drugs.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

69 responses to “Trump's Pick for Attorney General Is a 'Drug War Dinosaur'

  1. By dinosaur, are we talking tyrannosaur, or a sauropod?

    1. Cocksuckersauras

    2. I was willing to wait and see what happened with Trump as President before I had an opinion. Now I already have one. He’s a total asshole. He should DIAF.

      1. This will be an administration of extremes. That shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.

    3. It means he is closely related to chickens. He is gonna peck, peck, peck at marijuana legalization.

  2. …has repeatedly said the issue should be left to the states?a position that has even broader public support than legalization itself.

    Are going to believe Trump’s words or his actions?

    1. Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?

  3. Trump’s Pick for Attorney General Is a ‘Drug War Dinosaur’ piece of shit

    Fixed.

    Who’s the chick behind him? His “staffer”?

  4. “It’s stunning to me. I find it beyond comprehension?.(knocks back a scotch)…This is just difficult for me to conceive how the president of the United States could make such a statement as that….(knocks back another scotch,eyes glaze over)…now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go destroy the lives of some non-violent potheads.”

  5. “I’m still hopeful the new administration will realize that any crackdown against broadly popular laws in a growing number of states would create huge political problems they don’t need and will use lots of political capital they’d be better off spending on issues the new president cares a lot more about.

    This is what I expect to happen. Raiding dispensaries would be a really bad move politically. There is entirely too much popular support for that to go over well. Personally, I would like to see pot taken completely off the controlled substance list, but I don’t think that will happen. Probably never. If it was taken completely off, the gov wouldn’t be able to create special taxes to get their cut of the business.

    1. No previous administration has ever realized that.

    2. Liquor is specifically exempted from being a controlled substance in both the state & federal laws, yet it’s still specially taxed.

  6. in light of his longtime obsession with the evils of marijuana the anecdote reads like a joke about him.

    Uhm, it sounded like a joke about him, *by him* back in ’86 too. Because it was. Its when you take these things out of the context in which they are said and apply strict literalism to them that you get the gotchas! to be slung around during confirmation hearings.

  7. It is patently absurd to suggest that everyone who tries cannabis?which includes at least two-fifths of the population and probably more like half, allowing for underreporting by survey respondents?is a bad person.

    Mmmm, drug peoples are bad, OK?

  8. bad people = anyone who doesn’t think like him

  9. What scares me most I see civil forfeiture. It is frightening to think that just about anyone can have their property seized.

    1. Asset forfeiture is what caused the banking panics of 1933, the Crash of 1987, the flash crashes of 1998, 2010 and 2015, and the crash and depression George Waffen Bush presided in 2007. Compared to God’s Own Prohibitionists, the dems are about as dangerous to the US economy as a communist takeover in British Grenada. But they too pimped for asset forfeiture, exactly like the GO-Pee.

  10. Screw this guy – looking him up on Wikipedia I notice that he fulfills the commenter stereotype of a SoCon – “conservative” on marriage and right to life, while pimping for the drug war.

    If he gets confirmed, the as far as the commentariat is concerned he’ll be the public face of social conservatism.

    And screw Trump for wanting this guy in office after suggesting he’d respect the states – the policies Sessions has historically supported are contrary to what Trump promised, so Trump has chosen to give a *major* seat at the table to someone who wants him to break his campaign promises right out of the gate.

  11. Maybe Nixon will go to China.

    1. Nixon was identified with a strong anticommunist police and a refusal to recognize the Mao regime. Then he shifted course, recognizing China in the hopes he’d help them counterbalance the Soviets.

      Trump hasn’t been identified with an untra-federalization of the drug war, his campaign promises were *not* to do that in those states which adopted legalization.

      So it’s the appointment of Sessions which constitutes “going to China.”

      Unless this is an oh-so-clever plan to put a drug warrior in office, then humiliate him by making him support liberalizing, states’ rights policies – which wil perhaps provoke a resignation and an give the drug warriors a chance to hog the spotlight some more.

      1. I was referring to Sessions.

        1. I know, but I found my comparison more appropriate.

          He sounds like the kind of guy who would do a high-profile, embarrassing resignation if he thinks Trump is getting Soft on Teh Weed.

  12. Dinosaur? I saw his fossil face in the Burgess Shale.

    1. The narc’s patter sounds like Herb Hoover when in March 1929 three agents murdered Henry Virkula, a candy store owner out with his wife and kids. Hoover tried to blame the whole thing on godless Canada for “waging war” against “our” laws. City governments passed resolutions condemning federal murderers and all got off scot-free without so much as a mock trial.
      Back then it was light beer that was the felony. Marijuana would remain legal until the kleptocracy thirsted for an increase in liquor excise revenues…

  13. Suggestion: Instead of multiple blog entries going over the same ground, just 1. The ads would get the same # of views, because what difference does it make whether they appear on this or that page, as long as the clicks are there? And we’d consolidate the comment thread into a single, more organized whole.

  14. Suggestion: Instead of multiple blog entries going over the same ground, just 1. The ads would get the same # of views, because what difference does it make whether they appear on this or that page, as long as the clicks are there? And we’d consolidate the comment thread into a single, more organized whole.

    1. & get rid of those squirrels!

    2. & get rid of those squirrels!

  15. What do you know, Trump is doing something really ugly and anti-libertarian and the resident trumpalos are nearly silent.

    I mean Robby does things 10x less stupid than this and gets endless shit. But the Donald wants to escalate the drug war??

    Crickets.

    I would love to celebrate Hillary’s loss, but you guys are taking all of the fun out of it.

    1. The Trumpalos are still drinking in their sweet victory, blissfully ignorant of its cost. But hey, “he’s better than her”, right?

    2. Not one actual directive has been issued yet, so what’s “really ugly and anti-libertarian?”

  16. Yeah, thanks to all the “he’s racist!” brou-ha-ha, that’s going to be the only issue explored at the hearing, after which he will be confirmed by a Senate that knows him not to be racist. So instead of questions about, oh, I dunno, his approach to the law, it’ll be this nonsense.

  17. “Trump himself, while expressing concern about the consequences of legalization, has repeatedly said the issue should be left to the states?a position that has even broader public support than legalization itself.”

    That is comforting.

    Also, there’s no reason to think that Trump picked Sessions specifically because Sessions is so anti-marijuana. Trump picked Sessions because he thought Sessions was the most qualified person for the job–from among the small group of people who were most loyal to him during his campaign.

    That being said, Trump could have picked Giuliani, and Trump did pick Sessions despite Sessions’ position on marijuana.

    1. I think that the whole issue is the idea that just because a person is loyal, it doesn’t always mean that said person is the best candidate available for the job, especially since the pool of people that supported Trump all the way throughout the campaign is extremely small. In all honesty, however, I don’t think that I or anyone else really knows too deeply about Sessions’ positions besides his past anti-marijuana positions, and nobody knows how horrible or passable he’ll be in office (it’s attorney general, so I have low standards/expectations). Honestly I’ve found Trump’s appointments so far to be OK on average. I like the Flynn, Bannon, and Priebus hires, don’t know enough about Pompeo, and a little shaky on Sessions. I’m not going to overreact either way.

      1. “I like the Flynn, Bannon, and Priebus hires…”

        FFS, why?

        1. I personally like the idea of including establishment and anti-establishment ideologies in a cabinet on a short-term basis. Not saying that it works out long-term, and I’m not saying that either side is going to be extremely libertarian-friendly, but if you want to make both sides of your main voting constituencies relatively happy, it’s not a horrible way to go about it IMO.

        2. With a majority of my generation (millennials) taking a turn towards progging it up even harder, I’ve sort of surrendered to the idea that libertarianism will ever make any mainstream noise besides on token platforms. As far as Trump is concerned, I view him as a non-ideological candidate that is a total blank slate on everything except his pro-America stance. If he appoints people in his cabinet that have a similar variation of thought, even with ones that have views that I don’t agree with, that’s not a terrible outcome IMO.

        3. They’re smart hires even if we don’t like them.

          Priebus’ greatest accomplishment was bringing the Tea Party and the establishment together–back when they were at each other’s throats. If I’m President Donald, I want him working that magic with both camps for me.

          Bannon is ingenious as a political adviser. Usually, those guys are from the polling/fund raising side of the universe. Bannon just got Trump successfully elected without spending hardly any money and despite what the pollsters were telling us. His job is to handle media and give Trump advice on how he’s playing to the people who elected him–people no one in the world seems to understand as well as Bannon. Why wouldn’t you want Bannon in that position?

          And whatever else there is to not like about General Flynn, he’s willing to work with vicious dictators if doing so is in the best interests of American security (like how we won the Cold War), and he’s in Trump’s camp on vetting immigrants from countries that feature a significant amount of anti-American terrorism.

          I wouldn’t give any of these guys carte blanche to act on my behalf, but that’s not what they’re being given.

      2. Being able to trust your AG on important matters is more important than it would be for other positions.

        Recent examples include Lynch somehow neglecting to make a determination on whether to pursue charges against Hillary for her email server. What did that have to do with Obama? Well, Obama sent classified emails to Hillary under a pseudonym, which means that if what Hillary did was illegal, then what Obama did was a crime, too.

        I mean, loyalty is always a perquisite for any position. That’s why you never accept a counteroffer if someone else hires you. Once you’ve lost that modicum of loyalty in your boss’ mind, it’ll never be the same again. Being responsible for someone else’s behavior is a hard thing, and knowing they can trust you is what lets them sleep at night.

        But since Watergate, especially, the Attorney General’s primary responsibility is to watch the President’s six.

        You want somebody you trust doing that, and Sessions was Trumpster when Trumpster wasn’t cool.

    2. Immigration is Sessions big issue, and as Attorney General Sessions would have a large impact on immigration enforcement. That’s what this is about, more than drugs.

  18. “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 interfere with state decisions in this area.”

    Two things:

    1) Those who support marijuana legalization may be heavily weighted to states that are unlikely to break for Trump in his reelection campaign. I think that may be true not just of Democrats but of Republicans in deep blue states like California, as well.

    If a disproportionate number of the Republicans who want marijuana legalized are in California, Washington State, and Massachusetts, Trump has little to lose by burning their votes.

    2) The interesting thing about the poll that shows some 70% of Republicans believe that the marijuana issue should be decided by the states is that only 55% of Democrats believe the issue should be decided by the states.

    Whatever else that means, it also means that Republicans are more appreciative of federalism and Democrats are bigger believers in the power of the federal government.

    1. That’s the thing that I find relatively healthy about even the worst SoCons that I know (maybe besides the single-issue abortion voters): they generally support the rights of states to decide and would rather be left alone to practice whatever they believe in. Even if I don’t agree with them that recreational pot is “the devil”, they’re a lot easier to reason with than the average prog who obsess about wanting to make legal marijuana federal law and label the other side as second class regressives.

      1. I’ve always found fundamentalists better than evangelicals that way.

        Fundamentalists generally prefer the government leave them alone on principle–especially if they’re a group that’s big on end times stuff.

        Evangelicals, on the other hand, tend to see government as the voice of God. They don’t quibble about whether the government should have the power to impose itself of the rest of us; they simply don’t like what the government is currently selling.

        It’s no wonder that the progressives emerged from the evangelical side of that equation.

    2. Well, Florida and Arkansas just passed MMJ initiatives (71% in favor in FL), so it’s not all liberalland anymore.

      I am bothered and puzzled by the Sessions nomination…we don’t know how many others were quietly sounded out and said no. Maybe this was the best he could do, which is itself a statement.

      1. “I am bothered and puzzled”…you certainly are,my condolences.

  19. Let me go on record and say that the Senator’s position on marijuana is the same position that Los Zetas, La Familia, Knights Templar, the Sinaloa cartel, the Juarez cartel, Beltran Leyva, Jalisco Nueva Generacion, Guerreros Unidos, Los Rojos, Los Granados, and the Tijuana cartel have on the marijuana issue. They all want to keep prohibition alive. Let me state that again: their collective position on this issue is in lockstep with one another. Now I’m not insinuating that these murderous beasts donated to Trump’s campaign, or working the phone banks for him – – no sir. But had they known that Sessions would be AG, I am sure they would have backed Trump 100%. Coupled with Trump’s stance on immigration and a “wall”, he may as well have made some hats that said: “Make La Familia Great Again!”

    1. With your run of the mill social conservatives from Alabama, giving up on ridding the world of marijuana is like giving up on God and America.

      You can be a social conservative and give up believing that America can be saved through laws and law enforcement, but it takes something like a second conversion.

      Desmond Doss (of Hacksaw Ridge fame) was a social conservative who probably thought the government could get in the way of God’s work. In fact, he was so socially conservative that he wouldn’t break the Ten Commandments to save his own life. Other social conservatives get mad as hell when confronted by social conservatives like that. I’ve grew up with people like that.

      You haven’t lived until you’ve been condemned by a social conservative for taking the Sermon on the Mount and the Ten Commandments too literally.

      1. Good points, all. But there were quite a few social conservatives from Virginia 200+ years ago who actually grew the sticky icky on their farms. The Declaration of Independence was written on hemp. It’s time to change the language and psychology when it comes to ending prohibition. We were sold a bill of goods not even 100 years ago that does not comport with the majority of American history. It’s time to automatically assume that anyone who is for the war on drugs is getting a kickback from the cartels. At the Senate hearings for Sessions I want to hear Chuck Grassley say: “You and the drug cartels see eye to eye on, well, pretty much everything. We know that the cartels love to blackmail and bribe government officials. Why do you love the cartels so much, and how much dirt do they have on you Mr. Senator?”

        1. He needs to be asked flat out whether he will respect the Rohrbacher amendment, and related court rulings. If he has to hem and haw on that one, he should lose a chunk of Republican support. None of the Democrats are going to support him anyway, so it would only take losing a handful of Republicans to kill his nomination.

  20. Hopefully Sessions will join Scalia before the next 4 yrs…..We dot need these old tyrants as AG….closed minded a*holes..

  21. Trump is picking the worst of the worst for his cabinet…He is doing it to piss off democrats….and he is showing his loyalty to conservative skullduggery….Of that he is the King.

  22. This is what the Democratic Party Platform called for… prohibitionism, asset forfeiture, branding potheads as felons to rob them of property and Second Amendment rights. They got everything in their platform except maybe women’s rights and the communist and green party carbon taxes and fines called for by the church of the Holy Warmers.

  23. He’s also a career politician/bureaucrat. Why can’t these people get real jobs? Why?

    1. How much would YOU hire them for?

  24. Good: I’m tired of stylish, trend-setters.
    Either repeal them, or enforce them.
    Someone once said that the way to be rid of uncomfortable laws is to enforce them to the letter, so that legislators would repeal them to insulate themselves from the negative pressures of their constituents.
    Of course, the unintended consequence of such actions could be that a noisy minority may discover that they are just that:
    A Minority!

    1. U.S. Grant said that on signing the Force Laws, and Herb Hoover repeated it in his inaugural speech. Hoover understood the sugar and yeast producers were prohibitionist so they could charge more. Sugar went up about 1000% in 1921.

  25. Frankly Sessions was likely chosen because of criminal aliens, hard drug smuggling, and Illegals, not pot. There’s already enough domestic pot.

  26. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    —————— http://www.Nypost55.com

  27. My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I’m a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can’t believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn’t be happier. Heres what I do,

    ……………… http://www.Nypost55.com

  28. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  29. My guess is that Trump & Sessions now realize the futility of marijuana laws & they will move to eliminating them. Certainly pot is very destructive but less so than the laws against it.

  30. Sessions is going to be a mixed bag, but we could have done a lot worse. Best be quiet about the “drug war”. The druggies have not shot back so far!
    “Asset forfeiture” is unconstitutional, really unconstitutional!!! Immigration is simply a matter of enforcement. The law is clear.

  31. I’m not a fan of the War on Drugs at all. I support blanket legalization. However, ending the War on Drugs is neither within the Attorney General’s power, nor his responsibility.

    That’s squarely the responsibility of the legislature. If you don’t like the War on Drugs, don’t blame the government’s hired heavy. Blame the people that made the laws (and who are refusing to repeal them).

  32. I for one would prefer to judge based on actions rather than words, especially when those words are merely repeated by an observer rather than heard directly by myself. I wonder what the priorities are. What he will focus on – if indeed Sessions is approved.

  33. Everybody can earn 150$+ daily… You can earn from 4000-9000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good earning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  34. Work oppertunity: Start your work at home right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 85USD/hr just on a laptop. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously.last week my check was 24551USD pop over here this site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://JobNews80.com

  35. Sessions was a gift Sheldon Adelson bought himself by being one of Trump’s biggest donors. If you can’t defeat marijuana reform by spending countless millions at the state level, why not go right to the top of the food chain? I don’t advocate force and violence against these evil hypocrites (anyone want to guess how many lives have been ruined in Adelson’s casinos), but that doesn’t mean I can’t wish they get incurable cancer and suffer horrible deaths because they want to force those horrible deaths on others.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.