On February 23, Trump’s press Secretary Sean Spicer raised quite a stir when he stated the federal government could step up enforcement against recreational marijuana use in states.
Was that a trial balloon of some sort. Was Spicer just yapping his mouth not knowing Trump’s position? The number of miscues in this administration is so high one does not know what to think.
This morning Trump Told governors that he’s all about states’ rights. That should mean Trump will Leave Marijuana Laws Alone.
The actual title in the above link says “That Must Mean …” but I am not sure anything “must” happen or “must” be logical.
Nonetheless, let’s take a look at the encouraging details.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer rattled marijuana advocates last week when he warned that the federal government may start cracking down on states that have legalized recreational marijuana.
But that’s not the message President Donald Trump delivered to governors during a private breakfast at the White House on Monday.
According to one of the governors in the room, Trump repeatedly told the group he wants states to focus on crafting their own policies without fear of the federal government butting in. The president never mentioned marijuana laws, but for some, his strong defense of states’ rights signaled he’s not about to send the feds after states that are currently regulating the plant on their own.
“What I heard from him over and over this morning is they want to give more flexibility to the states,” Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) told The Huffington Post in an interview. “He wants to give the states a relative amount of freedom and flexibility. So we will be asking for that around, for example, marijuana policy.”
Asked about Spicer’s warnings of federal intervention, Brown said, “It’s totally counter to everything [the president] said today.”
Spicer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Leave it to the States
In a New York Times op-ed, Ethan Nadelmann says As Trump Said in the Campaign, Leave Pot to the States
In pulling back from Mr. Trump’s assurance during the campaign that states should be left to decide their own marijuana policies, Mr. Spicer made clear that a battle is coming over marijuana policy. It will be a fight that pits a Justice Department headed by a fervent prohibitionist, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, against the eight states — Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon and Washington — in which voters have approved ballot measures to legally regulate marijuana, as well as other states likely to legalize marijuana in the near future.
There’s probably not much the Trump administration can do to reverse public support for legalizing marijuana. A Quinnipiac poll last Thursday found voters in the United States favored legalization by 59 percent to 36 percent, with only Republicans and older voters opposed. An impressive 71 percent, including majorities of Republicans and older voters, think the federal government should not interfere in states that have legalized marijuana. Gallup and other polls report similar findings, including strong majority support for legalizing among Republican millennials.
hat Mr. Sessions’ Justice Department can do, however, is cast a chill over the rapidly growing legal and regulated marijuana industry by targeting key players with raids, seizures of property and prosecutions in federal court, and by challenging the ability of state authorities to regulate the industry. That would be shameful given the demonstrable benefits of legal regulation: tens of thousands of taxpaying jobs; hundreds of millions of dollars annually in state tax revenue; strict oversight of cultivation, product production and distribution; savings in law enforcement costs; and far fewer young people, disproportionately African-American and Latino, saddled with criminal records. Donald Trump the businessman should get this but Jeff Sessions, the reefer madness ideologue, doesn’t care.
Sessions is a Neanderthal
I nearly gagged when Spicer made those comments. Were they reflective of Sessions’ view or Trump’s?
Who is out of control here: Spicer? Sessions? Or is Trump going to go after recreational pot?
Sessions is clearly a Neanderthal. Trump is too if he takes this advice from Sessions.
Someone has some explaining to do, and it would be best at this point if Trump made his intentions clear.
If Trump really wants Sessions to crack down on pot, he is no states rights advocate.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
It should be legal at federal level to buy/sell marijuana or its derivatives for valid medical purposes. It is against federal law to do so now, I am told.
Yes it is against Federal law now
That should be changed pronto IMO
Trump has a absolute mania against drugs. He will make an exception in his states rights view to enforce the most draconian of drug prohibition at the federal level.
And again, Trump, the radical fascist monster, attempts to enforce laws that have been on the books for decades.
Makes you wonder what a conservative is?
Is it odd that with all of the potential world ending shit we face, it is the right to be stoned, to escape it all, that is the BIG issue of the day?
I will admit that many of our laws are nonsensical and sometimes destructive, but why drugs and why now, when we know there are serious drug epidemics killing people? As with abortion, it is less to do with the law’s effects than what message its legalization promotes. Do we really want drug liberalization to be our message right now? Advancement of our right to choose poorly seems ill-timed. We are in crisis and a Doobie right now doesn’t seem like the best choice.
No, what matters most about laws is their real-world effect, not the message they send.
No, the real-world effects of laws are what matter the most, not the message they send. The message a law sends depends on its real-world effect, not on some impressionistic feeling you have about them. Don’t know how anyone could believe differently.
So you don’t believe the legalization of abortion actually incentivized abortion, when in THEORY it was simply to make abortion safe but rare? Count the millions dead.
And you believe that the legalization of recreational pot does not implicitly legitimize pot use and in the same ways incentivize it as well. Every liberalization we have seen has not just relieved punishment for it but also created far wider response than was ever anticipated. We saw the liberalization of gay relationships, at first only claiming the desire for legal equality in contracts and hospital access,etc. And within a few short years we saw gay marriage… something the gay community swore they had no interest in prior.
When we ban something and then suddenly remove that ban, there is a surge reaction that pendulums far beyond what would be statistical normal. We see it everywhere. The one thing we must ALWAYS remember, is every freedom now granted us comes with an even higher cost. Our freedoms relate to our entitlements, and those entitlement costs are reverted back onto us in spades. Simply look at our cost of government….and the $20 trillion in debt PLUS future unfunded liabilities….ALL entitlements. Government assumes ALL costs for our social choices, and uses those costs as reason to impose ever greater controls on us, higher taxes, greater regulation. Our problem is that we have no means of actually measuring liberty as we conflate it with convenience.
It may not be the best choice, but it’s MY choice… not the Feds.
The choice here is for Conservatives to make: States Rights vs. Federal (social/moral/behavioral) Law Enforcement.
Conservatives cannot whine about Federal transgender bathroom laws, and then use Federal law enforcement to raid cannabis ops. HYPOCRITICAL.
Either we favor social/behavioral/moral enforcement at the Federal level, or we leave ALL social/behavioral/moral law creation/enforcement at the State level. We cannot pick & choose which behaviors to allow/ban and selectively enforce at the Federal level… to do so is not only hypocritical, but opens the door for the ‘other side’ to reverse & enforce the OPPOSITE social behaviors/morals…
If conservatives don’t want LGBQ/snowflake/collectivist influence in Federal laws, then must also keep THEIR morality out of Federal laws.
Let all matters social/behavioral/moral fall to the STATES to decide, experiment & enforce.
Federal law should be minimal & agnostic.
The conservative laws you complain of have been on the books for decades whereas the liberal laws you refer to are very recent.
Ultimately this is about constitutional issues, the force of LAW being primary. If we think laws unconstitutional, we should change them, NOT ignore them. Trump is simply attempting to reinstate the power of law over the power of man to “interpret” them. Americans can change laws and amend the Constitution, as THAT was the founders primary intent, NOR SIMPLY IGNORE THEM.
While acknowledging the supremacy of the US Constitution, the state governments are sovereign and are not branches of the federal government. States have POWERS, not rights.
May Sessions spend his time in office mired in litigation.
Mish, you really have no clue about trump. He will crack down on pot coming into this country and interstate transport while respecting states rights to decide the issue of use themselves.
So says you. Who knows what the hell he will actually do? Not even Trump himself knows what he’s doing day to day.
Really? How is it that you are the only person who knows this? All I see is wishful thinking on your part.
Sessions is a scary man. Very disappointed with his appointment. His misguided views on individual liberties make him a serious threat to this country. Pushing a misguided drug policy and promoting the use of private prisons is a major step in the wrong direction. Nevermind his take on privacy laws and the ability of the government to snoop/capture electronic communications.
Legalize recreational pot, and tax it to pay for health insurance/care for those insurance companies won’t offer policies. No individual mandate is necessary.
Like taxing tobacco or selling lotto tickets to pay for education, the burden falls into those with the least ability to pay. And let’s not pretend that we won’t be up to our eyes in more treatment centers. Legalize everything, but leave those who choose poorly to face the consequences ALONE and unaided. And how will relying on drug consumption pervert our government and economy. Don’t forget to tax and regulate prostitution.
Am I the only one here that sees a problem with taxing vice and becoming RELIANT on this tax stream?
What are we doing?
The scramble for vice tax revenue has been going on for decades. In itself, vice taxes are not a problem. But in the context of SHRINKING tax revenue sources elsewhere, the vice tax revenues represent a larger share of our tax base.
If we had healthy economic growth policy & incentives, the vice taxes would shrink in significance and our ‘reliance’ on them minimized.
But as our government is dependent on vice tax, there is no reason to incentivize it’s demise. Vice will rule as a necessity of budget.
I’m sorry, where were you when the states took over the numbers racket, “for the children”?
As a resident of Colorado I can tell you that the pot crowd crosses all income levels. Aspen has a number of recreational marijuana shops, as does my middle class town (although it is the first town east of the UT boarder that allows for rec. pot too). And I’m told the stuff is very expensive no matter where you shop.
Absolutely right on the button Mish. I’m surprised they trump and his peeps, would even want to get near the subject at all. Leave it to each of the states. That all being said it’s hard for me to see Trump not supporting a cash cow like legalized pot.
Both you and Mish are missing one important point. Seven of the eight states that legalized recreational pot are blue states. Enforcing federal law against these states is political payback, particularly in California where Trump lost by four million votes.
The big pot investors in these states are mostly democrats who heavily financed democratic campaigns. They will take the biggest hit when the crackdown begins.
This is not about pot, it’s about revenge and crippling the opposition. Asset forfeiture
used in drug enforcement includes business as well as personal assets.
What’s so hard to understand? Trump follows the law. I expect him to crack down on drugs until Congress deals with the issue. It’s certainly what I would do. Are you seriously defending the incoherent Obama policy?
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/19-ridiculous-federal-criminal-laws-and-regulations
There are plenty of stupid and pointless laws on the federal books. The administration has plenty of leeway about which ones it chooses to pursue.
And THAT is our problem.
Legal discretion that allows any or all government enforcers to DECIDE for themselves what to enforce. And we pretend to care about our Constitution. We pass laws which are arbitrarily enforced which means we are NOT ruled by laws but by MEN.
Is it everything you hoped for?
We have subverted everything our nation is based upon. We no longer amend our Constitution to reflect the people’s will, we simply allow a few unelected jurists to “interpret” words that they actively destroy any meaning. And we pass more laws than any human could read, much less comprehend, yet effectively have NO laws because we are ruled by men who DECIDE for us what is in our best interests.
This IS NOT what liberty looks like.
You may pretend to care about the Constitution, but nobody else does. The courts couldn’t care less. Almost nothing that the Federal government does would be permitted in the Constitution as it was envisaged; and the world would be a much better place.
Since I don’t smoke the stuff I really couldn’t care less what they do. And I don’t care if my next door neighbor smoke a pound a day. That’s his business. I do care if some clown furnishes weed to a minor. That should earn him a minimum mandatory 5 years.
I respect Trump because he enforces the law. That’s his job. If he didn’t do his job I would lose respect for him. That’s the reason I had zero respect for Obama.
Not that hard to figure out.
I don’t smoke the stuff either but I do care what they do because it’s about rights, and we should be concerned about all rights whether they pertain to us or not. I think that’s why we’ve lost so many, we’ve been concerned about how they apply to us instead of the principle.
I would think those same minors could get equally harmful stuff from their own parents’ booze cabinet or medicine chest.
Is there anything worse than authoritarians? It doesn’t matter if the law is wrong or right, only that we follow it. That kind of narrow thinking means you completely cede all sense of morals to an external authority. Terrible way to think.
Not what lf is saying. He says he is not concerned with what individuals do in their own privacy, but that law is to be respected outside of that if you want any kind of civil order. Afterwards you can discuss and change law at will, change/decide who holds that say at state or federal level, but if law is not even attemtpted to be upheld then might as well not bother for the argument and confusion it will bring to have people trying to follow when others flout it in their faces…you take your pick, if you don’t like specific laws then you have to change them or steer discretely around them while bothering no one.
Furnishing means purposefully supplying.
Both you and Root Hog miss the point.
Congress controls legislation on marijuana legalization. If Congress legalizes marijuana for recreational use then Trump vetoes it – you have cause to blame Trump.
But don’t blame Trump for enforcing the laws already on the books. That’s his job. If he didn’t enforce the laws he would be in dereliction of his duties. Do you want another Obama in the White House?
Place your anger where it belongs on the marijuana issue – at Congress.
In the meantime – if you want to smoke weed in the privacy of your home in most states nobody will bother you. The Feds aren’t going to knock down your door.
Personally I don’t consider smoking weed any more of a character flaw than I do drinking beer.
I choose not to smoke it because I want to think with a clear head.
“Rightful Liberty”
Oh what a joy (or horror!) it is to see how totally dysfunctional the Trump Administration is turning out to be! I can’t wait to see what happens when a real crises breaks out-say with China and the South China Sea. Now that we’ve seen how your Republican Members in Congress voted down the resolution to have Donald Trump’s taxes released, the midterm elections could spell trouble for the GOP and the Trump Administration-assuming that Trump hasn’t destroyed the world by that time….
Absolutely right, Mish. Apparently Donny has never gotten high on ANYTHING in his whole life, but that is not an excuse for ignoring the medical benefits and States Rights. Any clear thinking person can see the War On Some Drugs has been just as disastrous or even worse than 1920’s Prohibition.
You mean sleazebag billionaire Trump is a monumental hypocrite just like Obama, Bush and all the rest of them?
Stop the presses, Mabel! No one could ever possibly have seen this coming *eye roll*.
Karl you obviously want Donny to be a “monumental hypocrite”, but as Mish pointed out, we are still waiting to see what he will do. Speaking of hypocrites, look at the link I posted below ~
Donny needs to read this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-27/mexican-drug-king-worked-cia-says-his-son
Sometimes I think Donny is rather ignorant on some topics; but then again most politicians are.
“Who is out of control here: Spicer? Sessions? Or is Trump going to go after recreational pot?”
Sean Spicer was critical of Trump last Summer. Trump can get rid of him any time as he’s just a press secretary. I don’t think he’s that close to Trump.
I should have thought Sessions was for states’ rights but he also says that good people don’t smoke marijuana. Perhaps he believes it’s okay to eat it instead. He should be aware that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to ban personal possession of cannabis. The fact that alcohol prohibition, in 1920, required a Constitutional amendment rather than a simple statute, proves this, IMHO.
However, the government does have the power to regulate interstate commerce and carrying cannabis across state lines could net one a jail term. This is where a crackdown might occur. But it could also happen to any Colorado grower, any time.
Sooner or later, this is likely to end up in the SCOTUS.
If everyone who wants to use it can have a backyard full of pot, it’s unlikely that the interstate commerce clause will have much effect.
“This morning Trump Told governors that he’s all about states’ rights. That should mean Trump will Leave Marijuana Laws Alone…Someone has some explaining to do…” Mish
The Neanderthals understand better than the so-called logical species. The “eight states — Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon and Washington” openly violating federal recreational marijuana laws are mostly leftist Hillary states that also openly flout federal immigration laws with sanctuary cities. Federal law trumps State law in the USA system. The AG has to be consistent in enforcing federal laws. States rights only apply to that which is not under Federal jurisdiction. Congress should have long ago decriminalized marijuana, so that federal and state laws are not in conflict. In other words, Congress needs to return states rights on marijuana. Seems the only way to “motivate” Congress is by a federal marijuana crackdown that will force Democrats and libertarian Republicans to “trump” Trump with a carefully crafted legalization bill (e.g. medical research encouraged, recreational use by kids discouraged) that he can sign. It is all very logical, if you understand politics and government. Kick Trump now, but in the end he will triumph by signing a marijuana legalization bill and at the same time crack down on sanctuary cities and states. It is a winning formula.
What’s with Sessions right out of the gate going after weed? We’ve been led to believe there’d be some high profile pedophile indictments, a release of the 650,000 e-mails, and a take-down of the Clinton Foundation. Are we being had? Is this all business as usual??
Trump came out and said he wanted to make it possible for insurance companies to sell policies crafted in one state across the nation, therefore bypassing local state statutes and policies. A clear race to the bottom.
Trump is no friend of states rights.
My personal experience mainly as an observer suggests pot is no better or worse than alcohol, a little makes most folk mellow, some folk arse-oles, an excess compromises cognition and makes most folk an irritation and a nuisance, some folk a danger to others. On that basis I would say legalise it and treat it exactly the same as alcohol, a tax cash cow. In fact you could probably simply copy the existing alcohol laws and regulations and just substitute ‘marijuana’ for ‘alcohol’.
Been there, done plenty of both, don’t do either anymore. Alcohol is so much worse.
Alcohol is worse because it makes people feel capable and confident but the decisions they make are often useless/careless. Very deceptive. Eventually people follow their decisions and end up careless/useless as they need more to maintain confidence in themselves. With marijuana people tend to know well they are out of touch, too much and they end up visibly eratic and disconected, even manic , but there is little fooling but to themselves, there is little or no effort to convince others just usually more a waste of energy dealing with paranoias etc. People get addicted to both, but it is probably much harder with alcohol to deal with. I say probably because I cannot really speak for what others go through, just base my view on observed experience.
I didn’t interpret what Sean said as “stepping up enforcement”. I just felt he was repeating that the agencies will follow the law. Various members of the administration have so many times said that the job of the executive is to carry out the laws made by the legislature. They say that if people want the law changed, they should get it changed. Trump has listed his priorities so many times that we should all have them memorized by now, and marijuana was never listed. He does reference the cartels and the drugs “pouring across the border” but whenever the drugs are listed, they are harder drugs.
I have only seen him make an issue of a few things so far, that he did not run on. One was the human trafficking recently. Not that he made a huge deal of it, but his statement was strong. The other was that women thing with Justin Trudeau and Ivanka — I felt like that was a bone to the two of them.
Someone above said Sessions is going after weed right out of the gate? Did I miss something?
Trump is also the “law and order” president. is against the whole drug trade and on a personal level won’t even commit to drinking a glass of wine.
to me the problem with any of the analysis on whether trump is supporting states rights issues on the marijuana topic rests on whether one expects Trump to be consistent in how he applies his principles. I don’t believe one can expect consistency. At least I haven’t detected as much so far. He’s against drugs so states rights lose out.
States rights is only a convenience to cripple liberal fed regs. Fed regs rule to cripple liberal issues. It’s just culture wars kkkristianist strategy. Lil wingnut hobbit Sessions will do anything to promote his kkkristianist agenda.
Many of us who are strong believers in states rights do so because it weakens the lobbying powers of large private interests. The closer you can get to your government, the easier it is to see corrupt influences on your elected officials. And the easier it is to force those corrupt elected officials into retirement.
Certainly you run risks of dealing with that Old South mentality. But the world has come a long way in the last 50 years. While many on this board believe the federal government is a bastion of forcing liberal values on a conservative populace, it is really a bastion of enforcing a conservative economic agenda (healthcare insurance as an example) on a brain-washed populace.
The states voluntarily relinquished many of their rights when they agreed to the federal government model. Drugs do not constitutionally belong to states or the federal government, though under the confederation of states the federal statues take precedent over state laws.
Individual rights expressing themselves have led to the present situation. The inability of any level of government to fully extinguish the individual is where we are at. When the state tries to suppress us, we fight back. Perfectly programmed robots may be the goal of mass education, but individuality constantly asserts itself. Regardless of the laws, drug use will continue. Fighting drugs has been a huge growth industry, job creation for law enforcement, prison personnel, etc. Huge profits on both sides. Follow the money.
Other than tax revenue what does weed bring in the recreational use society? If it’s legal at all levels then is everybody ok with school bus drivers, pilots, medical professionals, construction laborer and the likes high when they work?
That’s a facetious argument. Do we let those people drink while they work? Try harder.
Functioning while high, and functioning with 1-2 drinks is quite different. Two different compounds, two different attitudes towards each, effecting brain chemistry differently. I recall a few PhD students who got high everyday, but didn’t drink everyday. I also recall, as a Dr. Of Pharmacy, on more than one occasion, questions on how to beat a drug test for weed so that they could get a job driving a vehicle. Culturally I believe the use of weed will be more liberal than alcohol while on the job. The wake and bake crowd is much larger than the wake and booze crowd. So other than tax revenue Phil, what will recreational weed do for society? If it’s just about the money, I’m not sure it’s beneficial. Too many mouth breathers in society, to add THC to their brain isn’t going to be a plus. Medical Weed is viable.
Fail.
There are people who prosper with only one leg or arm…Or even blind, but I doubt any would want to do so deliberately.
I’m tired of the continuing argument of functioning drug addicts AND alcoholics.
As they say, sure….Knock yourself out.
No place for people without their faculties in working order to be placed where that could cause harm to others. It isn’t clear cut and the line will always be arguable, but it is not something to encourage.
“So other than tax revenue Phil, what will recreational weed do for society?”
I’ll take that question:
1) It will take the whoopie weed supply business away from the drug mafia criminals.
2) It will make it easier for people on chemo to get it as well as other medical benefits, which are proven but hypocritically ignored by the government.
3) It will empty many prison cells of non-violent offenders who do not belong there, saving the government $millions and letting them become productive citizens.
4) It will remove some of the disrespect many people have for the stupid War On Some Drugs.
~ so with the tax revenue you pointed out, that’s 5 good reasons. There are more but enough for now.
The fact that there are “mouth-breathers” out there is no reason to punish guys like me who, ahem, “Breathe through our noses”. Since it has been documented that alcohol is so much worse than reefer, on so many levels, then why must I be penalized, prosecuted, persecuted, or be denied a job only because I choose to responsibly smoke a bone now and then? Each case should be on an individual basis.
I actually like these miscues. It’s a sign that federal government has gotten so large that unless tons of money is spent on groupthink the danger of bureaucratic fiefdoms is obvious.
That’s the trouble with so-called “States Rights”, ah, “conservatives”. They don’t agree with States Rights that are at odds with their SILLY religious dogma. If a State voted to give equal rights to, say, “Transgender” people, these so-called “States Rights” people would sick the Feds on that State. They don’t want States Rights…these bible-thumping LOWLIFES only want what they want, and that is it!
There is a lot of truth in this observation…
If they don’t want Federal transgender bathroom laws, then they can’t have Federally-enforced christian doctrine, either.
Conservatives must keep their morality OUT of Federal law creation/enforcement.
Federal law should be minimal & agnostic. All matters social/behavioral/moral should be left for the States to sort out…
He should just legalize it nationally, thereby kicking the legs out from under the leftist press, then take the huge sums of money saved on the fed drug war against pot and put some or all of it into immigration control and DHS.
Trump is a capitalist. I can’t imagine his administration spending a penny trying to prevent people from smoking grass recreationally. He knows these billion dollar industries belong in the free market and would help make America great again. It’s the DC Establishment that will want to keep control…
BTW, the #FakeNews phenomenon has been around since at least the 1930s. As ridiculous and deceptive as the Reefer Madness campaign was, it worked because cannabis and hemp are still classified as Schedule 1 drugs right along side heroin…
Trump won’t do anything about pot use. The media however will use the topic for sensational headlines to entertain rather than be journalists.
Trump’s consistent position has been that he will enforce all Federal Laws unlike Obama who picked and chose which to enforce and which to ignore.. Trump’s statement does not conflict with his position in favor of States Rights. He wants States to have control but he must enforce a Federal Law until the Federal Law is changed. It wouldn’t surprise me to see him advocate repealing the Federal Law.
Reblogged this on The Most Revolutionary Act and commented:
*
*
Yesterday Trump told governors that he’s all about states’ rights. That should mean Trump will Leave Marijuana Laws Alone.
Screw states rights! How about an individuals rights to own their own body? WTF?
Trump is not a States Rights advocate at all…unless the “State Right” we are talking about benefits him, and his Capitalistic kind. So-called “States Rights”, ahem, you should excuse the expression, “conservatives”, are only for Socially conservative States. Do you really think that these FIENDS will allow California, New York or ANY intelligent States to do what these bible-thumpers don’t like? They are OUR enemy, and that’s the way it is. Look at how Trump flip-flopped on the Transgender bathroom issue! He only did that to curry favor with the bible-bangers in the Republican Party, who were concerned about Trump’s conservative bona-fides.
The reason that he said that Caitlin Jenner could use any bathroom in his hotels is because he and Caitlin are friends. Do you really believe that he would extend his hospitality to a young, Black or Latin Transsexual? Ha!!!