MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

White House Expects ‘Greater Enforcement’ Against States That Legalized Recreational Marijuana

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer says the feds' mostly hands-off approach to states that have legalized recreational marijuana may be coming to an end.

KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/NewscomKEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/NewscomWhite House press secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday that he expects to see "greater enforcement" of federal drug laws under President Trump's Justice Department in states that have legalized recreational marijuana.

During a White House press briefing, Spicer was asked what the Trump administration's policy would be on states that have legalized marijuana, placing them in conflict with federal law, where marijuana remains a Schedule I drug. Under President Obama, the Justice Department issued a memo in 2013 instructing U.S. Attorneys to take a mostly hands-off approach to recreational and medical marijuana in states that had legalized it.

"Well I think that's a question for the Department of Justice," Spicer replied. "I do believe you'll see greater enforcement of it. Because again there's a big difference between the medical use ... that's very different than the recreational use, which is something the Department of Justice will be further looking into."

Spicer referenced opioid abuse and addiction while talking about the administration's opposition to recreational marijuana.

"There's two distinct issues here: medical marijuana and recreational marijuana," Spicer also said. "Medical marijuana, I've said before the president understands the pain and suffering many people go through who are facing terminal diseases, and the comfort that some of these drugs, including medical marijuana, can give to them. That's something that Congress in 2011 put in an appropriations bill, saying the Department of Justice wouldn't be funded to go after those folks. There's a big difference between that and recreational marijuana, and I think when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people. There is still a federal law that we need to abide by when it comes to recreational marijuana."

Marijuana legalization advocates condemned the the comments, which appear to backtrack from Trump's statements on the campaign trail that marijuana legalization was a state issue.

"If the administration is looking for ways to become less popular, cracking down on voter-approved marijuana laws would be a great way to do it," Tom Angell, the chairman of Marijuana Majority, said in a statement. "On the campaign trail, President Trump clearly and repeatedly pledged that he would leave decisions on cannabis policy to the states. With a clear and growing majority of the country now supporting legalization, reneging on his promises would be a political disaster and huge distraction from the rest of the president's agenda."

The Justice Department declined to comment.

Photo Credit: KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's just good business.

  • Libertymike||

    See, you are H & R's primus inter pares.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I'm bona fide!

  • Charles Easterly||

    I hear that you were run over by a train.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Plenty of respectable people have been run over by a train.

  • Tionico||

    there's only one train that runs over people?

  • waffles||

    There's too much money in it for it to be legal.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    The law is the law, and I expect all laws to be enforced.

  • Hugh Akston||

    All the time, against every lawbreaker. Otherwise "Rule of Law" is just pillowtalk.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Yes. If you break the law you must deal with the consequences.

  • Not a True MJG||

    It's ABOUT TIME.

  • kevin_hunt||

    How about locking up unmarried couples for six months in jail? Is that a good use of law enforcement resources?

    Under Mississippi law, "if any man and woman shall unlawfully cohabit . . . they shall be fined in any sum not more than five hundred dollars each, and imprisoned in the county jail not more than six months; and it shall not be necessary, to constitute the offense, that the parties shall dwell together publicly as husband and wife, but it may be proved by circumstances which show habitual sexual intercourse." MS § 97-29-1

  • JFree||

    SC has a law that requires horses to wear diapers. I for one think that needs some serious enforcement. Plus, lack of enforcement is really harming the horse diaper industry and the slew of potentially well-paid horse diaper changer jobs out there.

  • pan fried wylie||

    *well-paid, FULLY LICENSED horse diaper changer jobs

    yw

  • Tionico||

    each having completed a two year programme to assure proper technique, and full understanding of all aspects of the position.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Position? Euphemism?

  • Juice||

    Hell yeah! Nullification fight!!

    It's almost perfect. Thank god it's something liberals and lefties want federalism on. Kind of a Nixon-China thing.

    The feds will lose this fight and it will be glorious.

  • JFree||

    No they will win this fight. And as long as libertarians think their future is with either the D's or R's, then they too will lose this fight because they will have divided themselves.

  • Tionico||

    eventually the Feds will return to their position pre-1934, when no one gave a rip about anyone using marijuana for any reason. E.I duPont de Nemours no longer cares, as their fibre, nylon, is in a secure position in the marketplace. They are the ones got behind outlawing hemp in all its forms in the US.. the fibre from which plant was the fibre of choice the world around for cordage aboard vessels of all sizes and types. Du Pont simply wanted the competition buried.

    It is becoming more and more obvious that marijuana is NOT a schedule 1 product. For starters, it DOES have proven documented medical uses. Schedule 1 products are so labelled BECAUSE they have no redeeming medical use. Opium SHOULD be schedule one, but is not, because it DOES have some medical uses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Cause what fun is being a dick and not being a dick.

  • Juice||

    "Well I think that's a question for the Department of Justice," Spicer replied. "I do believe you'll see greater enforcement of it. Because again there's a big difference between the medical use ... that's very different than the recreational use, which is something the Department of Justice will be further looking into."

    Well, then isn't it interesting that "the law" says that there is no medical use? Shouldn't matter then, right feds?

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Trump Blunts would be really classy, and yuge.

  • Gene||

    Are gilded papers a thing?

  • kevin_hunt||

    Yes, Miley Cyrus was selling gold foil rolling papers for a while.

  • Snort||

    I'm afraid they would taste like dog shit.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Nah. Cheeto dust.

  • Not a True MJG||

    White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday that he expects to see "greater enforcement" of federal drug laws under President Trump's Justice Department in states that have legalized recreational marijuana.

    Does he have an inside tip or something?

  • Gene||

    So much for my prediction that they'd leave it to the states.

    They'll lose in the end, sorry if you're collateral damage.

  • uncletom_1||

    Seriously, fuck you. Actually, fuck everyone who voted for this ocher-faced buffoon. 2 dicks to everyone who thought there was a chance in hell that this bloated bag of moose crotch and ignorance would respect the idea of states rights. 3 swollen dicks to everyone who retorts with some inane and irrelevant "Hitlery would've been worse."
    All the dicks to whichever sub-intellect rationalizes the reversal of one of the very few decent things Obama did.
    Fuck. You.

  • Not a True MJG||

    Can I jam my dick in there?

  • uncletom_1||

    Please. These people cannot get fucked enough.

  • Not a True MJG||

    Thanks!

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Whoa whoa whoa whoa, I will not stand for the badmouthing of swollen dicks.

    You're on notice, fella.

  • uncletom_1||

    Not bad-mouthing swollen dicks. I'm admiring their utility.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    More open-mouthing them?

  • Juice||

    3 swollen dicks to everyone who retorts with some inane and irrelevant "Hitlery would've been worse."

    Except she would be. She'd be sending troops into Syria by now.

  • Zeb||

    4 dicks for you, then.

  • FreeRadical||

    Geez, where is uncletom_1 going to get all these dicks? Is there going to be a call for donations?

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I don't usually volunteer my time, but for this I'll make an exception.

  • SomeGuy||

    probably get tons of diseases :/...I'll pass.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Wear a condom then! Unless you're catholic. Those are of the devil. The pope says the good book says so.

  • uncletom_1||

    Changed my mind. Dumbassery like that deserves more than 3 dicks. You deserve the states-rights special: 50 dicks, all aiming for a different hole and a majority of non-human dicks.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Lube please. There's always time for lube.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Let's not confuse what Spicer said with actual policy.

    Also, let's not confuse what people say about what Spicer said with what Spicer actually said.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    How heavy is all that orange-tinged water?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Huh?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So are you for equal application of the law or not? Seems like not that long ago you were...

  • american socialist||

    I agree with ken

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Yes, he sucks total butt.

    Hillary was a big drug warrior, too, so it's not irrelevant. She would have been a more effective "man of system", so there's that.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    There is no conceivable way Hillary would not have been worse.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If I'm correct, the only state that legalized recreational marijuana and didn't vote for Hillary is Alaska.

    I'm not saying that progressives who run the Democratic party in those states are better than Republicans on recreational marijuana. All those states had to turn to the initiative process in order to get recreational marijuana legalized because they had to do it over the objections of the progressives that run those state governments. Hell, the progressives aren't sure people should be free to consume sugary soft drinks or eat at McDonalds, much less use marijuana recreationally.

    That having been said--among the voters? What do Washington state, Oregon, California, Nevada, Colorado, and Massachusetts all have in common?

    They all went for Hillary, and Trump doesn't have much to lose by going after marijuana in those states.

    Trump may stay out of Nevada and Colorado, but he doesn't have anything to lose by going after California, Oregon, or Washington.

    Why NOT go after California? If it makes Californians squeal loud enough, it might goose his approval ratings up a couple of points in swing states that matter.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Agreed. He won so much of the vote he can do pretty much whatever he wants.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's not about how much of the vote he won.

    It's about where he won.

    Trump won without the support of voters in marijuana states.

    Nothing Trump does or doesn't do about marijuana is going to change the voters' minds in California, Oregon, or Washington state four years from now.

    Trump has little or nothing to lose by going after those states.

    The best we can hope for is bringing up his campaign promise. Trump said during the campaign that he would respect state laws on marijuana. We should be beating him over the head with that promise.

    Keep your promise, Mr. Trump.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    Trump has little or nothing to lose by going after those states.

    Other than four years of potentially turning off a lot of voters in other states.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Is marijuana popular with white, blue collar, middle class voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin?

    That's the question.

    If it were more popular there, they might already have legalized it.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    The question is whether or not it looks good when the federal government invades a state to go against the will of that states people. Believe it or not, I don't think voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin find an inefficient authoritarian appealing.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The pushback will be because ppl want it legalozed not because the feds are strongarming. The 3% that gary johnson got may care, the rest won't.

  • JFree||

    They voted for a guy who's vaguely promising rounding up 10% of the population and dumping them into the ocean. I'm pretty sure they don't give a shit about any excess authoritarian impulse.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If you really think 43% of union households broke for Trump because they want him to dump immigrants into the ocean, you might have been reading too much Dalmia.

    There are a number of reasons why those swing voters swung for Trump. I suspect part of it had to do with the progressive leadership of the Democratic party having demonized the white, blue collar, middle class for eight years--for being racist, homophobic, stupid, and selfish.

    Progressives find it hard to understand why voters feel put off for being demonized. Why won't the stupid rednecks in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin just do what they're told? Don't they know that sacrificing their own petty interests on the word of elitists is what being smart is all about?

  • JFree||

    It doesn't matter why they personally voted for him. Why someone votes is irrelevant and unknowable. They all knew what Trump was advocating - and that it was one of his two or three biggest issues - that was the source of huge applause at every campaign rally - and that was voiced in terms that were offensive enough so that his voters could be assured that that was not an issue he could walk back without blowback (whaa - he's allowing rapists and murderers to STAY??!?!?!).

  • ThomasD||

    Trump should direct the DEA to ignore relevant portions of the Controlled Substance Act at the same time that he tells BATFE to forget about the Gun Control Act and/or the National Firearms Act.

  • paranoid android||

    So you're saying he's considering increasing abuses of the government's police power by violently imprisoning non-violent consumers and business owners, not out of principle, but out of some realpolitik gambit to increase his approval ratings for his own fucking vanity... and knowing this is supposed to lessen my outrage about it?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Some people would be surprised to find that politicians' primary concern might be to get reelected. I'm not sure why, but I suspect it has something to do with them mistaking discussions about the way thing are for discussions about the way things should be.

    I didn't say Trump should imprison non-violent consumers and business owners, but I think the primary political calculus for what he's doing on everything from trade policy and immigration to, yeah, drug war issues, etc. are being driven by how it's likely to play with swing voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.

    That's what will determine whether he's reelected. That's the way things are. Why wouldn't he care about that?

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    So outrage is appropriate is what I read.

  • Tionico||

    except all three of those Worst Coast States are swirling vertically downward in the four inch black pipe and may well be ready for some serious change in four years. The elephants in their rooms are getting harder to ignore, and they seem to emit an enormous volume of elephant exhaust, right there on the nice Oriental rug.

  • chemjeff||

    All those states had to turn to the initiative process in order to get recreational marijuana legalized because they had to do it over the objections of the progressives that run those state governments.

    I am not familiar with how the legalization fights went in those states. Did the movement organizers first seek legislation to legalize pot, and when that failed, they then turned to the initiative process? Or was the initiative process the first strategy attempted?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well, the politicians in Sacramento certainly weren't falling all over themselves to legalize it.

    The Democrats and the progressives who run the party have absolute control of Sacramento--and I think it's been that way since 1996.

    Part of that is because the Democratic party is wrapped up with the police unions, the prison workers' union, etc. Part of that is because they don't think people should be free to do things that are bad for them.

    Regardless of why, they had 21 years to legalize but didn't.

    It took an initiative.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Or was the initiative process the first strategy attempted?

    I believe going back as far as the early 90s, the initiative process was where most of it began in WA.

  • JFree||

    In CO it was always an initiative amendment to the constitution (which can't be revised/overturned by legislature). It failed in 2006. They then spent a few years really crafting an initiative which was designed more to regulate pot - with legalization just the obvious consequence and side-effect of regulation. And that is why they got support from a variety of folks - churches, Tancredo, police unions - and opposition from elected officials, teachers unions, and many so-called 'libertarian Republicans' and 'fiscal conservatives'.

  • Tionico||

    Most, if not all, were citizens' initiatives. Most passed with a pretty wide margin. I know the legislarures of the three Worst Coast States resisted. Washington's got back at them by putting the regulation, licensing, taxing, of the weed under the liquor control board, which was super pissed at the people because, just a short while ago, had passed ANOTHER citizens' initiative that removed alcohol sales from that same control board, and mandated all retail sales in the state be by private entities. It also dismantled the three-tier distribution system that rose up out of the now-out-of-work bootleggers when prohibition was repealed. The liquor louts had a great racket going, and they knew it. All union workers, and state employees into the bargain. Three layers of distribution, all controlled by the same state board. Ripped out from right underneath these trough sloppers. They were more than a little upset about that, and got their vengeance in the insane hash they've made of the marijuana distributioin system. They've also just succeeded in getting medial marijuana folded into their dirty system, too. The black market thrives in Washington.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Why NOT go after California? If it makes Californians squeal loud enough, it might goose his approval ratings up a couple of points in swing states that matter.

    Using same logic, Democrats could split rural Trump vote with Meth for All initiative.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Or just make Oxycontin OTC and they'd all be dead before 2020.

  • ThomasD||

    Make it OTC and too many people will have to start paying out of pocket. That will actually tend to shrink the available supply.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What do Washington state, Oregon, California, Nevada, Colorado, and Massachusetts all have in common?

    People who camp in the left lane at 48mph?

  • Snort||

    The vast majority of people in California don't care. Sure, there will be a handful of prominent politicians that squeal and I'm sure Fox Lies will have every single squeal on TV to show how bad states rights people are. And those that think Fox Lies is the best thing since the new testament will eat it up.

  • Thomas O.||

    Good luck getting enough "resources" to do a legal-MJ crackdown in the most populous state in the union, Joykiller Jeff.

  • FreeRadical||

    Oh, the shit show is getting shittier every day.

  • Zeb||

    Because again there's a big difference between the medical use ... that's very different than the recreational use

    Bull fucking shit. Either the states have the power to make the laws they want about the use of drugs or they don't. There is no legal or constitutional basis for the federal government to treat them differently. On the other hand, there is a ton of constitutional basis for the federal government to stay the fuck out of it.

  • Juice||

    They shouldn't have that power at all, but that's another discussion.

  • Zeb||

    OF course I agree with that. But even in the context of the current state of the law and interpretation of the constitution, saying that medical and recreational are different issues is a load of crap. Either the federal government gets to set drug policy for the whole country, or it doesn't. Pick one. To anyone who claims to respect the constitution, the right answer should be obvious. But if they are going to be wrong, they could at least do it in a consistent way.

  • JFree||

    hahaha.'Constitutional basis'. hahaha

  • ThomasD||

    "Because again there's a big difference between the medical use ... that's very different than the recreational use"

    The only difference being who you are willing to privilege as Top.Men.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    "there is a ton of constitutional basis for the federal government to stay the fuck out of it."

    But there's a yuge historical precedent that they'll continue to stay the f in it.

  • Rothbard'sbitch||

    This would be one way for Trump to become a one term president. You've got enough on your plate bro, going after pot users should not even be on the priorities list.

    Still it would be amazing for the Supreme Court to scale back the Commerce clause dramatically in court. I just want to hear the Supreme Court explain how an amendment was required to make alcohol illegal but was not required to make marijuana illegal. It'll show just how much the Constitution doesn't matter to them they don't follow precedent they just pull shit out of their asses. There is no logical consistency to their rulings its all based on their whims. They are unelected aristocrats masquerading as judges.

  • FreeRadical||

    It's the all-purpose Commerce Clause to the rescue!! The truffle hogs of the Roosevelt administration unearthed a bunch of novel ways to use the CC after 1933. And a lot of new ways keep getting unearthed all the time!

    If they had just discovered those earlier, it would have saved everybody the trouble of passing the 18th and 21st Amendments.

  • Charles Easterly||

    Still it would be amazing for the Supreme Court to scale back the Commerce clause dramatically in court.

    If we are going to dream, let us dream on a large scale.

    I just want to hear the Supreme Court explain how an amendment was required to make alcohol illegal but was not required to make marijuana illegal. Excellently put.

  • Juice||

    They'll say that it wasn't required, but it was just done to "clarify" federal powers. Like the 16th amendment.

  • Libertymike||

    Well, have you read and studied the Pollack case?

  • chemjeff||

    It was actually somewhat of a hope of mine that Trump wouldn't actually get involved in the day-to-day operations of the government and would let his underlings run everything. That would have been a great hope if we had had someone like, say, Justin Amash as AG. But no, we have Sessions. So this is what we get.

  • waffles||

    Well I was on team Trump but then he had to fuck with the only issue I really care about of the Mexicans, weed, and ass-sex core of my libertarian soul.

  • Crusty Juggler - #2||

    You take the weed, I'll take the butt play.*

    *As long as you trim your fingernails, people. Show some class.

  • Juice||

    Well I was on team Trump

    lol really?

  • waffles||

    Well, I wasn't marching in the streets against him. Silence implies consent n'at.

  • american socialist||

    I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here...spicers comments appear to be guess work

  • waffles||

    NO. I WANT TO RAGE. I COULD JUST GET HIGH AND CALM THE FUCK DOWN BUT NO. RAGE AND RAGE ONLY.

    Now I understand why they protest.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Apparently it was buried deep in there compared to normal folk, but Trump finally pushed my button.

  • NYer||

    I doubt it. I suspect the only reason he suggested he leave it to states to decide was because he thought he might pick up Colorado. But the campaign is over now, Sessions is AG, and he already said during the campaign that he opposes recreational use, but supports medicinal use. That gives him cover in Florida and the red states that have legalized some medicinal use. He'll now just allow Sessions to approve raids and prosecutions of dispensaries in blue states and swing states that voted for Hillary.

    Really the only thing stopping DOJ from focusing on marijuana is them getting stuck in more legal battles over immigration enforcement. That would then maybe potentially distract them for the next year with most DOJ resources going to that fight.

    In the mean time the legalization forces need to get to lobbying the Senators and Congressmen from CO, WA, OR, CA etc. And maybe get to organizing in Michigan and Ohio, for next year's elections and 2020. The only way we're going to get the Federal Government to back off this issue entirely is by legalizing marijuana in more swing states, particularly the midwest.

  • LibertarianJRT||

    On the ground here, Florida is moving in tbe legalize direction. The gap between MMJ and RMJ isn't that large and MMJ has well over 60% and growing. The peole here are strongly against the legislatures attempts to limit popularly passed MMJ via tight controls and limited supply via governement endorsed nurseries. If the state or feds rock the boat / upset the applecart too hard, the tipping point will both legalize it and damage the red in this state. For those who are not aware, Florida is a light red state with dark blue spots. The size of those spots and the depth of the red is entirely dependent on wedge issues like MMJ/RMJ. If the feds push, the state government may concede but they do so at the risk the people may then throw them out of office.

    This is not isolated to MMJ/RMJ, but you get the idea. Florida is not a state that can be called 'red' without understanding what issues may endanger that. Smartly our governor has taken a hands off on the MMJ discussion. That keeps the centerist in his coalition. If the governor was staunchly anti mmj, his public support would swing to the negative. Not solely becauze MMJ support is a lionizing issue, but because MMJ is a bellweather for so many other government vs. The people positions.

  • american socialist||

    I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here...spicers comments appear to be guess work

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I'm normally a patient man -- but that's because of the herb.

    *initiates blind fury*

  • american socialist||

    Spicer was asked a question and he danced around it. It isnt clear that they will do anything.

    Also may get a nice sc case which imo seems to be more effective these days at scaling back (depending) authority

  • waffles||

    WHY WON'T YOU RAGE!?

    This is what I must have sounded like to the people who were freaking out about Trump and I was like "meh". You're not wrong, but I don't want to cut out the theatrics either.

  • american socialist||

    Lol

  • GLEEMORE™||

    Look at all these socialists defending Poor Dear Leader. You're anything if not predictable, comrade.

  • NYer||

    We might get a "nice sc case" out of this, or we could get another Gonzales v. Raich 6-3 decision in favor of Government's power to regulate intrastate commerce under the commerce and necessary and proper clauses.

    Right now only there is only one person on the bench, Justice Thomas, who has consistently opposed the increasing expansion of the commerce clause power. Maybe when Gorsuch is seated we'll have two. If the case doesn't specifically deal with Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, then maybe Sotomayor might rule against the government and there is always the possibility that Roberts and Kennedy could surprise us.

    I disagree that the SC is more effective. For example, if there is a crack down on legal marijuana the only reason why medical marijuana dispensaries might be safe is because enough red states and swing states have legalized medical marijuana and have made it politically infeasible for the feds to shut them down. Which is a YUGE change from 2009-12 when the Obama Administration was raiding and prosecuting medical marijuana dispensaries.

    The courts from the SC all the way down have been a bit more problematic.

  • Joe Bright||

    Decentralize.

  • DFG||

    The problem with this admin is that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Spicer could be talking out his ass and have no idea what the boss wants to do.

  • Rockabilly||

    Listen up Enemies of Freedom!!

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

    I own my body NOT the fucking government.

    I consider ANY law which says otherwise to be null and void for it violates such rights as stated above !!!

  • DirkT||

    What happens to an administration that acts against the current of the culture? It will be interesting to see ...

  • GLEEMORE™||

    Obama proposes to change the number of bullets you can load in your gun and libertarians go bonkers. Trump proposes to send the Feds in to send pot smokers to jail-- presumably for years-- on federal drug charges and you guys say "meh". Tells you something.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Citation needed as I see no comments supporting Trump's policy, if it turns out to be one. Additionally, the few, like Ken S, are only arguing the article and other commenters are incorrect in believing Trump will pay a high price.

    Lastly, since Ken is a known libertarian, we can safely assume his accurate analysis of Trump's costs/benefits should not be inferred to mean he's for jailing pot smokers or any other drug user.

    But even if you didn't know Ken, since he never once implied agreement with jailing drug users, nor did anyone else, your complaint seems to lack anything nearing evidence to support your biased assumptions.

    C-

  • GLEEMORE™||

    Citation needed. Where did I say that anyone had made comments supporting Trump's policy? What I did say said is that there are plenty of "libertarians" here that jumped up-and-down any time Obama proposed a regulation outlawing the dumping of plutonium in the school swimming pool who are now silent when Trump proposes to build a 2000-mile long wall on the Mexican border. The reason they do so is pretty obvious to me.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    troll harder, amsoc

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    In the words of JCVD

    "I'm going to get in my boat and I'm going up river and I'm going to kick that sonuvabitch Trump's ass so hard, that the next Trump wannabe is gunna feel it."

  • Snort||

    Some cities are reporting more deaths by Oxycontin overdose than from auto accidents. Some articles are saying overdoses from drugs containing Oxycodone and related pain killers are dragging down the average life expectancy of all Americans. These facts don't even mention the addictive qualities of opioid drugs. To my knowledge there has never been even a single overdose death caused by marijuana. You tell me, which drug should our president focus on?

  • Not a True MJG||

    None, because it's not the federal government's business.

  • GLEEMORE™||

    You guys voted for him. Good choice!

  • Longtobefree||

    Really? You know how each poster here voted?
    And all voted for Trump? Not a single vote for Gary?
    No abstentions at all?
    Explains why your post has nothing to say on the topic at all, I guess.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    That had to sound smarter in your head.

  • William Clark||

    Consider the Federal Census stats on yearly driving fatalities from 1990 to 2009. All states, 'legal' or not, have seen their death rates drop, but on average, those with medical marijuana laws posted declines 12% larger than the non-medical states. Vehicle airbags helped as well, consistently throughout the country, without affecting the disproportion between the 'legal states' and those 'not yet, in 2009'.

    In 2012 a study released by 4AutoinsuranceQuote revealed that marijuana users are safer drivers than non-marijuana users, as "the only significant effect that marijuana has on operating on a motor vehicle is slower driving", which "is arguably a positive thing".

    Research at the University of Saskatchewan indicates that, unlike alcohol, cocaine, heroin, or Nancy ("Just say, 'No!'") Reagan's beloved nicotine, marijuana actually encourages brain-cell growth. Studies in Spain show that it has tumor-shrinking, anti-cancer properties. These were confirmed by the 30-year Tashkin population study at UCLA.

    Marijuana is a medicinal herb, the most benign and versatile in history. "Cannabis" in Latin, and "kanah bosm" in the old Hebrew scrolls, quite literally the Biblical Tree of Life, used by early Christians to treat everything from skin diseases to deep pain and despair.

    Now consider the politicians, prosecutors, and police who pose on church steps on their campaign trails, but can't face the scientific or historical truths about cannabis.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    Here's my one hope for this not happening: Trump himself said he would leave it up to the states. Regardless of what you think of what he's done, the man has so far had every intention of living up to the things that got him elected

    Here are the reasons to be pessimistic: it was not one of his signature issues, and he rarely seemed to mention it beyond that one comment. He also pushed the law-and-order thing much harder after that comment so perhaps he views this as keeping up that promise instead. Also, Jeff Sessions

  • paranoid android||

    Regardless of what you think of what he's done, the man has so far had every intention of living up to the things that got him elected

    How's that indictment against Hillary Clinton going?

  • SavedByZero||

    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out -- because I was not socialist.
    Then they came for the pot and I said hell no, and the revolution started.

  • Longtobefree||

    Sorry, but from my experience, the revolution will not be started by pot smokers.
    Unless, of course, they outlaw munchies!
    "A violent hash smoker shook a chocolate machine" - Donovon

  • ant1sthenes||

    Did someone tell them that legalizing it helps keep American jobs from going to Mexico?

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    And the wall would act as its own tariff on marijuana imports.

  • Tionico||

    The history of states that have refused to continue banning marijuana use have concurrently observed signficant drops in use and abuse of the opiates. Marijuana brings the relief, and often real healing, where the opium derived drugs do not, the penalties for opiod use are far more harsh, they remain a black market product, and so fall out of favour. The marijuana works better in almost every case, does NOT impede most normal aspects of life, are NOT addictive, do not have the harmful side effects or deleterious long term use problems of marijuana. So if this guy wants to see a significant reduction in opiate use, both prescription and black market, he'll stop his threats to persist in harsher enforcement in states that have legalised it. Won't be too much longer more than half the states will stop prohibiting its use. What then? A Constitutional ammendment to repeal the prohibitioin debacle?

    ANd no, I don't use any of those products. I know I COULD legally qualify for medical use... but choose not to.

  • LibertarianJRT||

    Prohibitionists are "on the wrong side of history" as the saying goes. Popular opinion is for legalization across the board for cannabis. This will only grow with time as the evidence is gathered. Yes, the states will eventually flex muscle against the Fed on this issue, and they will do it because the people will demand it. As the author stated, the people are using ballot initiatives to override the sloth and stonewalling of their own legislatures. California is the textbook example, a leader in MMJ it has had ample time and reason to legalize but did not. There are many political reasons to specuate as to why the lesgislature did not take up the issue, but at the end of the day what matters is the will of the people. At present on this issue the people in majority are driving this issue, not a minority with powerful backing. I believe this momentum will only continue in the face of real world evidence. Evidence that legalization does no harm; evidence that may even suggest legalization is a net positive.

  • MSimon||

    One symptom of PTSD is drug addiction. We don't have a drug problem. We have a PTSD problem.

    Making War On Abused Children

  • What's the frequency, Kenneth?||

    Did that moron just imply that there will be "marijuana addiction" like opioid addiction?

  • Longtobefree||

    Interesting comment by the press manager.
    Counter point - "Education is a states right issue" (where education has to do with where students shower)
    Counter point - "opiod epidemic"; If only there were some less addicting drug to relieve pain - - - - - -
    Counter point - Trump is not really a Republican, he just ran as one. No telling what he will negotiate with the party power brokers.
    Point - there are still a lot of votes in being against the devil weed
    Outcome - a coin toss

  • ||

    The marijuana cat is out of tje bag. It would give the clinton archipelego something to rally behind as well as lots of people everywhere else. And there are limited federal resources. I am going to wait and see. The first rec dispenary that gets the goon treatment, then i will worry. Or a big farmer.

  • ||

  • memoooa||

    "There's two distinct issues here: medical marijuana and recreational marijuana," Spicer also said. "Medical marijuana, I've said before the president understands the pain and suffering many people go through who are facing terminal diseases, and the comfort that some of these drugs, including medical marijuana, can give to them. That's something that Congress in 2011 put in an appropriations bill, saying the Department of Justice wouldn't be funded to go after those folks. There's a big difference between that and recreational marijuana, and I think when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people. There is still a federal law that we need to abide by when it comes to recreational marijuana."

    العاب فلاش
    العاب بنات

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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