Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Is Trump's Pot Tolerance Fading?

By choosing a diehard prohibitionist for attorney general, the president-elect casts doubt on his commitment to marijuana federalism.

On the same day Donald Trump was elected president, four states legalized marijuana for recreational use, while four others legalized or expanded access to medical marijuana. As a result of those ballot initiatives, most states now recognize marijuana as a medicine, and one in five Americans lives in a state that has decided to tolerate cannabis consumption without a doctor's note.

During his campaign Trump said he supports medical marijuana but has concerns about broader legalization, a policy he nevertheless said states should be free to adopt. Trump's recently announced choice for attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions, casts doubt on those commitments.

The Alabama Republican, a former U.S. attorney and state attorney general, is an old-fashioned drug warrior who pines for the days when Nancy Reagan's Just Say No campaign helped "create a hostility to drug use." He was outraged when President Obama conceded that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, and he recently claimed that "good people don't smoke marijuana."

Sessions has repeatedly criticized the Obama administration's policy of tolerating state-authorized marijuana suppliers. During a 2009 Senate hearing, he complained that "Attorney General Holder has said federal authorities will no longer raid medical marijuana facilities in California, which is against U.S. law" and "contrary to the position taken by the Drug Enforcement Administration."

At a hearing last April, Sessions bemoaned the message sent by marijuana legalization, which he said implies that "marijuana is not dangerous" and encourages teenagers to use it. "We need grownups in charge in Washington to say marijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized," he said. "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." 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.

In other words, marijuana legalization is considerably more popular than Trump, who received less than 47 percent of the vote. Marijuana federalism is more popular still, and it is firmly rooted in conservative constitutional principles.

Many conservatives are skeptical of Trump, who until his recent political makeover was known as a liberal New Yorker. Keeping his promise to respect state marijuana policies could help reassure them while also pleasing left-leaning voters. All Trump needs to do is nothing.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

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.

  • Quixote||

    No, we are not too lazy to do what needs to be done to make America great again. Suggesting that the incoming president of our powerful nation lacks "commitment" to his promises is like saying the so-called First Amendment community (ha-ha-ha) lacks "commitment" to free speech because they have been wise enough not to defend the outrageous "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge in America's leading criminal "satire" case. See the documentation at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • Suicidy||

    Don't engage that troll.

  • Wizard4169||

    It's troll-on-troll. Let 'em have at each other.

  • Quixote||

    The insidious Trolls of the Net certainly have no place in our great nation. They should be rapidly placed under surveillance, and jailed wherever possible.

  • The Grinch||

    How this plays out obviously remains to be seen. An AG who is anti-marijuana but who does believe in federalism doesn't necessarily equate to a crackdown in states and locales where marijuana enjoys various levels of legality. Trump doesn't really seem to have a hard on for marijuana prohibition himself either and, as Holder and Lynch have shown everyone, the AG ultimately dances to the president's tune.

  • rudehost||

    What about Jeff Sessions views or voting record make you believe he respects federalism? This is the guy who wanted the federal government to crack down hard on MJ so by definition this guy is not a federalist unless he is a big believer in the 42nd amendment which I hear authorizes that kind of thing.

  • The Grinch||

    With respect to the EPA, Sessions is a believer in federalism and believes in states' rights. He may be a hypocrite, as most pols are, when it comes to marijuana but his personal views aren't necessarily going to bleed over into how he enforces federal law. Then again they may. What I'm saying is don't soil your undies just yet even though the online magazine we know and love would like you to.

  • rudehost||

    Perhaps his calls for the DOJ to heavily prosecute marijuana at the state level would be an indication that is how he would run the DOJ? Being surprised that Jeff Sessions would prosecute marijuana as DOJ is a little like being surprised that Elizabeth Warren would go after corporations. This is what he called for and voted for as a Senator. It seems like fantasy to believe he would suddenly change his behavior now.

  • rudehost||

    ok wow I should have proof read that garbled mess but you get the idea.

  • ||

    You're smoking too much weed. Sessions will fix that.

  • rudehost||

    Maybe he will introduce conversion therapy to get everyone to switch to alcohol.

  • Conchfritters||

    You must not have watched Dukes of Hazard growing up.

  • RaymondhW||

    I wouldn't be surprised either way. He may stay true to past actions and go after pot. Or he may understand his role is to push his presidents agenda, not his own.

  • ThomasD||

    Had Trump chosen someone expected to turn a blind eye to existing Federal law would that be a cause for celebration?

    Because selective enforcement is neither libertarian in principle, nor just in practice.

    How about we solve the problem at it's roots? If there is no Federal restriction on cannabis then we don't have much to fear from Sessions.

    Obama could have done this for us already but he chose otherwise.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Because Obama is not a radical lefty like the idiot Bitter Clingers say he is. His approach to everything is incremental.

  • ||

    Obama's only real concern is Obama and his shit 'legacy'. Yeah, he is a far leftist ideologically, that much is clear to anyone who's not a moron, but he's too caught up in his narcissism to put much effort into anything else.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Says the resident TEAM RED! sycophant. Obama spent years warding off the "retards" in the left of his party who cried for single-payer and also hated his embrace of Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction and his pro-corporate pals in Silicon Valley.

  • Conchfritters||

    His embrace of Simpson-Bowles? What Simpson-Bowles are you smoking?

  • ThomasD||

    If Nixon was the one who "could" go to China maybe Trump is the one who can do what Obama didn't have the guts to do - direct that cannabis be removed from the list of controlled substances.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Didn't Congress put it on that list? Wouldn't that require him to lobby Congress to change it?

  • Von||

    The controlled substance act allows the following to remove a substance up, down, on, or off scheduling: DEA with FDA & NIDA recommendation, DEA with order from the AG, and the president via executive order requiring the AG to order the DEA to remove it.

    The only other two methods, which become perment, is the Supreme Court finding it unconstitutional, or by vote of congress with a supermajority or with the president signing it into law.

    Additionally, the DEA can add a substance temporarily without congress for up to 1 year, at which time congress has to officially add it.

    So essentially, the president, AG or the DEA can go it alone/independently, but that action can be reversed by any of the above without Congress's action.

    It's all in that piece of garbage legislation Nixon created.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Ah, thank you.

  • Juice||

    Because selective enforcement is neither libertarian in principle, nor just in practice.

    Bullshit. If a cop decides not to enforce a shitty law, that's most certainly a libertarian act in principle and practice.

  • ThomasD||

    To the extent that that cop is not selective about his behavior he -himself- is behaving in a libertarian fashion. Meanwhile every one who interacts with the other cops is served an injustice.

    But do not confuse the issue.

    The Feds turning a blind eye to states flouting the Controlled Substance Act but not doing the same when states cross other Federal laws is wholly selective.

    The best way to make people want to eliminate a problem is to expose them to the full force of it. Mitigation only acts to prolong the issue.

  • Robert||

    So sacrifice this generation for the benefit of future ones? Worse is never better. Mitigation tends to lead to further mitigation more than "full force" does. One of the reasons people think "drugs" are so bad is that there's been so much drug enforcement. The less enforcement there is, the less bad people will think cannabis, etc. is. That's what's leading to the tolerance that leads to legality.

  • Robert||

    It's "the teaching fx of the law". People form opinions based partly on what other people say, & partly on how other people act. "Pot must be bad, because it wouldn't've been made illegal otherwise. If people are willing to put people in jail & take away their property for selling or having this stuff, it must be bad. People don't have such motiv'n for no reason at all, so our forebears must've considered this very carefully, especially when there are so many other dangerous things, like cars, that are legal."

    It's just like demonstrations. The idea of public demonstrations, & even more so civil disobedience, is to convince people of your opinion because you're willing to make such sacrifices for it. If you're willing to do that, it means you must've considered the issue carefully, because nobody does stuff like that for nothing. It's like drawing conclusions from the number of patrons at a restaurant too.

    As has been said, drugs are illegal largely because they're illegal. Their illegality provides reason for people to keep them illegal. Enforcement heightens the impact of that evidence. Non-enforcement blunts it.

  • Von||

    Exactly why we have continued to maintain drug prohibition. Ironically the earlier drug prohibition in the marijuana tax act, was passed by a voice vote with very little conversation. Harry Ashlinger testified a fake story about a 16 y/o who used this stuff and murdered his family, he had a handful of psychologists testify, and a few doctors who made chemical based medications. A doctor who testified against it, said that marijuana is canabis and a very important medication, in which Harry Ashlinger said the good doctor doesn't know what he's talking about, that they are not the same substances.

    This is how it began for canabis, a lie. A lie about a murder that has no record of ever happening. A lie to keep federal alcohol prohibition enforcement officers employeed. Well actually it all started with the idea of prohibition of alcohol from the temporance movement in which they campaigned to rid alcohol and other recreational substances. But this is what started the drug war against canabis.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    Selective enforcement leads to arbitrary government. The federal prohibition needs to end.

  • Von||

    That's my theory exactly. Outside of commerce / trafficking between states, the federal should not be in the business of prohibition. The job of prohibition should be a states right, the right to prohibit the right to not prohibit. I personally believe that the federal government has no constitutional authority to practice drug prohibition, i.e. They should have needed a constitutional amendment in order to do so, hence the 18th amendment. I know that they claim the commerce clause gives them that right, but it's a very twisted interpretation of the case that has to do with a wheat farmer who sold his allowed allotment of wheat plus kept extra for himself. Personally I think SCOTUS would not of ruled that way during any other time as it was clearly overreach by a at the time, very progressive government. I find it so insane that anyone who calls them self a conservative and at the same time being for prohibition, because it was a progressive idea to begin with.

  • Suicidy||

    The ginei is already out of the bottle. It will be a massive headache to recriminalize pot in states already allowing it at this point. Trump has a lot on his plare, and contrary to the opinion of the pants shitters here, is not a moron. It's a fight that isn't popular, will waste his time, and distract from his agenda. I don't see it happening. Sessions may or may not be willing, but Trump is too pragmatic.

  • wheelchairsinthesnow||

    Re: Follow the Money
    There is no money for them in legalization.
    The War on Drugs, like any war, can be quite lucrative especially if they are buddies who helped you get into office that need to be rewarded.

  • wheelchairsinthesnow||

    Re: Follow the Money
    There is no money for them in legalization.
    The War on Drugs, like any war, can be quite lucrative especially if they are buddies who helped you get into office that need to be rewarded.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Trump's views were governed before now by pure populism. Since the election, he seems to take his cue from the last person whose gums were flapping in his ear. Who knows at what point, if any, his decision on policy cements itself.

  • The Fusionist||

    To those who believe (like a 5-4 Supreme Court in the Raich case) that the Constitution has a Ban Dope clause, then that clause supersedes both state statutes and state constitutions.

  • Jgalt1975||

    That makes it tougher for the state to get rid of it, but it has no effect on federal enforcement. State constitutions are just as subordinate to federal laws as state statutes are.

  • SugarFree||

    SIV|7.11.16 @ 9:48AM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    Compare and contrast what the the candidates actually say about drug legalization during the current campaign:

    GayJay:

    "Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal."
    Trump:

    I said it's something that should be studied and maybe should continue to be studied.
    That a major party nominee remains open to the idea that drug legalization is something that should be considered is what Matt and Nick might call a "libertarian moment". Despite the Libertarian Party candidate being adamantly (and incongruously) opposed to broad drug legalization we can take heart in the fact that he is a proven loser who stands zero chance of attaining office.
  • SugarFree||

    SIV|7.18.16 @ 1:46PM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    Trump said "legalize the drugs" consistently, and for over 20 years. It was and is a politically unpopular position so it is likely his sincerely held belief.

  • SugarFree||

    SIV|7.18.16 @ 1:54PM|#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    Why would Trump support drug legalization from at least 1990 to as late as 2011 if he doesn't believe it is the right thing to do?
  • SIV||

    So? Trump hasn't taken office or reversed his campaign position on marijuana. Wait and see. Maybe he'll even have AG Sessions reschedule or de-schedule marijuana. You're welcome to link to this comment if Trump ever lives up to your prog-fears.

  • ||

    If Trump de-scheduled weed, it would make the left go completely insane. After 8 years of the 'progressive' Obama not doing that, I cannot even imagine the amount of pure cognitive dissonance that would erupt from the left. It would be fucking awesome. The odds of that happening, though, are near zero. THAT would be a libertarian moment.

  • NYer||

    So you think that the guy who said "good people don't smoke marijuana" is gonna willing move to deschedule marijuana. And why do you think Trump would care enough to ask him? Particularly since pushing that would come at the political risk of taking on career entrenched bureaucrats at the DEA, Big Pharma, half the GOP, Half of the Democrats, the Police Unions, the Prison Guard Unions, and his own AG. Trump doesn't care about pot and he has other priorities, why would he risk his political agenda by pushing or tolerating pot legalization?

  • Robert||

    And why do you think Trump would care enough to ask him?


    Because Trump might get a bug up his ass. I'm not saying it's more likely than not, but he's exactly the guy who'd say, "Fuck all those low-energy losers, I got an idea here."

  • ||

    I suppose the tiny hope is that he really does still think like that, but he had to back off it to get the SoCon votes. Also, he appears to feel he has some debt to those who loyally supported him during the campaign while almost all of the GOP establishment fiercely opposed him. Sessions is one of those who stood by him. So maybe he's just offering AG to Sessions because Sessions wants it, but Trump will not just stand by and watch Sessions play out his wildest fantasy of sending the goon squads into states who have legalized cannabis. Legal cannabis is supported by 60% of Americans and that's a trend that will keep moving in the right direction. I've always expected Trump to be a populist president, for better or worse. Going after people's legal weed is clearly not popular and would result in Trump's popularity numbers going downhill from an already negative. I guess we'll see.

  • paranoid android||

    Sug, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but Trump supporters have mastered doublethink. Shaming them about Trump's hypocrisy on all the things he claimed to support during the campaign won't work, because they've already forgotten that he ever said those things or that they supported them. Just yesterday we had people saying "Oh, nobody really believed Trump was going to send Hillary Clinton to prison" as if they hadn't spent months going on about how that was the only thing in the entire world that mattered.

    The best thing actual defenders of liberty can do at this point is distance themselves, strenuously and repeatedly, from every aspect of the new administration to avoid getting singed when the whole thing goes up in flames.

  • ||

    It doesn't mean that the Trump admin will not take down the Clinton Foundation. Trump is obviously a lot more shrewd of a dealer than most people have given him credit for.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Did the Clinton Foundation just get caught for criminal self-dealing like the Trump Foundation did?

    Holy shit, you have turned into the new Red Tony.

  • ||

    You should work for CNN, shreek. You have the lying and head up own ass thing down.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Hillary Clinton accepted money from Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Saudi Arabia--when as Secretary of State she had the authority to approve or reject arms sales to those vicious dictatorships. According to the Clinton Foundation, she also accepted millions from the defense contractors with pending sales to those countries: Boeing, General Electric, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, and United Technologies.
  • Suicidy||

    No, the Clinton Foundation has merely engaged in selling massive favors for billions of dollars for years. Including defrauding Haitian refugees, and selling plutonium to the russkies. It that's ok, since they have a D after their name, right comrade?

  • SugarFree||

    I know you can't shame those who have no shame, but I had to watch SIV suck this orange twat's dick for a year and he's not going to wiggle out of it that easy.

  • SIV||

    YOUR GIRL LOST, GET OVER IT

  • SugarFree||

    Yeah, that will work, ass-sucker.

  • Suicidy||

    Why don't you two just get it over with and have a violent, bitter, hate fuck already? Crusty could film it, and Warty could direct.

  • Hank Phillips||

    The MONEY matters. The 400% price hike prohibition usually causes make the ball of cash so large that its sudden evasion of lunging government looters causes banks to close and brokerages to go bankrupt. Asset forfeiture directly caused the crash and brought on the Great Depression, the Reagan-Bush crash and depression, and the G. Waffen Bush crash and depression. It also directly caused the flash crashes of 2010 and 2015... crashes that were so bad the feds forced stock market rule changes to shut down trading when the bottom-feeder algos and stop-loss orders are triggered. Plus it cost the bastards two years of Obama slapping their hands out of the cash drawer.

    After Hoover wrecked the economy prohibitionists lost every election and couldn't beat a yellow dog before 1952.

  • SIV||

    When a headline is posed as a question the answer is almost always "no".

  • Suicidy||

    ^ ^ +1.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    Is Trump's Pot Tolerance Fading?

    He should smoke more.

  • Swiss Servator||

    *narrows gaze*

  • ThomasD||

    I could see Sessions seeking to enforce Federal laws in some sort of under the radar fashion. But the moment any of it rises to a level that begins to expend Trump's political capital that will be the end of it.

    They may not be pro-legalization, but enforcement is simply not a high priority to the people that got Trump elected. And if they perceive his people are wasting their opportunity on foolishness that will not sit well at all.

  • ThomasD||

    I should add ..the moment any of it rises to a level that begins to expend Trump's political capital - or becomes a distraction - that will be the end of it...

  • NYer||

    I don't think Sessions is dumb enough to do the full scale raids that people are concerned about. I could see Christie doing that not Sessions. I think Sessions will have targeted raids specifically against large non-medical dispensaries in states Trump didn't win. And he'll go after them legally in the courts if he can. All of which would have a chilling on the legalization movement.

  • Conchfritters||

    (cue banjo music)

    Leather boots are still in style for manly footwear
    Beads and Roman sandals won't be seen
    Football's still the roughest thing on campus
    And the kids here still respect the college dean

  • Robert||

    I don't see this as evidence of Trump's pot (or other drug) tolerance as fading. It's just that it's only a small minority of people interested in public affairs make the issue a priority, so they vote for (or appoint, if they're in position to do so) officials almost entirely on other bases. Unfortunately this tends to leave drug policy a hostage of culture war, which has a major input into the "left-right" divide of the polity. It means that if you don't want officials who are mostly authoritarian (which overall the "left" is much more than the "right"), your pickings are very slim if you insist on pro-liberty narcotics views. I doubt Trump had anything about cannabis in mind when he made this pick.

  • Robert||

    Say Trump wanted a "pro-pot" (which is the way it'll be understood by all but radical libertarians even if the person is actually just pro-choice about it) AG. His choices would then be to appoint:

    1. someone few people have ever heard of;
    2. someone known as a "progressive" opposed to most other liberties and to most GOP views.

    The rxn to #1 would be, "See? Trump's not serious about appointing Top Men. Just as we thought, he was never serious about governing at all; this is probably a FOAF or someone he had a nice elevator convers'n with."

    And #2 would probably be very bad. The trouble is that to get a serious & prominent socio-political activist who wants legal pot, you have to pick mostly from a range of candidates who meanwhile favor prohibiting tobacco, heterosexual erotica, or most political speech.

    So he's gone instead for #3: someone who's mostly good & fits the role of Top Man, even though he's bad on this issue. And even on it, he's probably not much worse than the avg. person.

  • Africanis||

    OMG it's Pottageddon, it's all over kids, your pot smok'in days are done. The jack-booted alt right storm-troopers will be on the march searching every garden and back porch looking for your pot plants. Heck if your even wearing one of those shirts with the leaf on them you will be sent to the re-education camp. We need to shank his appointments in the buttocks with speculative articles at every turn.

    I personally despise pot, hate the smell and don't see the point. The way I see it, that just means there is more for everyone else.

  • Rockabilly||

    I'm smoking some reefer right now. Let the storm troopers come. I'm locked and loaded just like my great grand pappy was when the revenuers tried to bust his stills .

  • John Thomas||

    The D.C. Model

    It's funny how in all this shouting "The End is Near!" - no one is talking about the D.C. model. -- In D.C., possession, consumption, growing and giving away small amounts are all legal. Only sales are prohibited. - A thriving 'Grow and Give' system is evolving there.

    So, no, Sessions doesn't represent a total disaster. The whole country could just go on the D.C. model until we get rational leaders again. - That's tough for the industry, but consumers should be fine.

    Maybe if the "industry" had not fought against legalization for so long and so hard, we would have ended prohibition by now and this wouldn't be an issue. - They have only themselves to blame.

  • Robert||

    The trouble is, the DC model is close to the de facto status quo everywhere. If you're not using it in public, & not selling it, your chance of a bust is infinitesimal.

  • John Thomas||

    That's the perspective of someone who has never been arrested for marijuana. - That's great for you. - Unfortunately, More than 600,000 innocent Americans are arrested for simple marijuana possession each year and made second-class citizens - for life!

    They will forever face large obstacles to decent employment, education, travel, housing, government benefits, and will always go into court with one strike against them. They can even have their children taken away!

    25 million Americans are now locked away in this very un-American sub-class because of this bogus "criminal" record. That has a horrible effect on the whole country, being a massive waste of human potential.

    The fraudulent marijuana prohibition has never accomplished one positive thing. It has only caused vast amounts of crime, corruption, violence, death and the severe diminishing of everyone's freedom.

    There is no more important domestic issue than ending what is essentially the American Inquisition.

  • Kent||

    Because I'm bad, I'm bad (Shamone) (Really, really bad)
    You know I'm bad, I'm bad
    You know it (Really, really bad)
    You know I'm bad, I'm bad (Shamone)
    You know (Really, really bad)
    And the whole world has to
    Answer right now
    Just to tell you once again:
    Who's bad?

  • Hank Phillips||

    Good. Let the bastard commit suicide. After Herb Hoover lost to FDR, God's Own Prohibitionists tried their damndest to get jerk after smarmy jerk elected to restore Volsteadism state-by-state. Once people tasted that brew again, without dealing with gangsters, drinking morphine or sniffing ether, it was all over with.

  • Rockabilly||

    I have a natural and a US Constitutional right to own, control, and defend my own body.

    I own my body, not the government.

    Any so called 'law' which says otherwise is un Constitutional and will be gleefully ignored.

  • AlecWest||

    As a cigarette smoker (tobacco), I can tell you that in my entire life, I've never seen a politician (Republican, Democrat, or other) who would hesitate for a second to put a new tax on cigarettes. As the old political saying goes, "Don't tax thee and don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree." And cigarette smokers have always been that "man behind the tree" when it comes to revenue generation. Minority populations are easy to tax since the non-smoking majority would be glad to vote for a tax they didn't have to pay ... or rather, a tax that someone other than themselves has to pay.
    --
    President-elect Trump has some bold plans (infrastructure improvements, "the wall," etc., etc.). And bold plans cost money. Regardless of how the Attorney General feels, Trump may decide he'd rather see a Federal revenue stream (Fed taxes on pot) than a Federal revenue expenditure (renewed law enforcement and judicial costs to prosecute pot-related offenses). The non-pot-smoking-majority (I think they're a majority) would have no problem with a Federal tax on pot ... especially if the revenue was used to help pay for Trump's bold plans.
    --
    Even so, if someone smokes pot under the "current" umbrella of state legalization, it would probably be a good time to "stock up" on legal pot while they can. It may never be as "legal" as it is now. And even if it stays legal, it may never be as "cheap" as it is now.

  • Rockabilly||

    My imaginary interview with Sen. Jeff Sessions

    Me - Sen. Sessions, thank you for being here.

    Sen. Jeff Sessions - where are we anyway?

    Me - we're on the internet.

    Sen. Sessions - Ok, so what have you got for me?

    Me - Sen. Sessions, you say you're a proponent of limited government and the US Constitution. Is that correct?

    Sen. Sessions - Yes it is.

    Me - and you are proponent of the war on drugs?

    Sen. Sessions - Yes I am

    Me - Then, Sen. Sessions - show me were it says in the US Constitution that government has authority to tell people what they can or can't put into their own body and where it says the government has the authority to tell people what they can or can't grow on their own property?

    Sen Sessions - Taking peyote is bad and you should be arrested for that offense

  • wheelchairsinthesnow||

    Re: Follow the Money

    Recall during the election we were told to believe the OPPOSITE

  • buybuydandavis||

    Real chance for actual federalism and a scale back of the Commerce Clause.

    Let the Feds keep Interstate Pot illegal, and leave Intrastate Pot legal. No more "effect on commerce" bullshit.

    See what we can do to overtrun Raich v. Gonzalez.

  • HerbFolks||

    http://theholyherb.com/2013/10/edict-del-mar/
    There is no tolerance in them. - God

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online