Posted on Jan 8, 2018
Veterans Condemn Justice Department’s Rollback Of Obama-Era Marijuana Policy
3.08K
18
16
2
2
0
Marijuana
Medical
Law
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 6
3
3
0
You mean some veterans condemned the Justice Department, like the potheads. I didn't condemn it and I know plenty of other veterans that didn't. It really only leaves the discretion to the federal prosecutors should they want to pursue a case in some cases. It is still against federal law to possess/use pot. The Justice department is following the law that exists. The potheads need to get the federal law changed.
(3)
(0)
CW5 Edward "Tate" Jones Jr.
Cpl Jeff N. agree. This will give individual prosecutors one more tool to use in the fight. No one is interested in the individual medical user but pot IS a gateway drug even in states where it is locally legal. But pot can be LEs and prosecutor’s entry to sources of other far more damaging substances.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
A1C Doug Towsley - allowing prosecuters to enforce current law is not a step backward. Now I will agree with you that we should look at the law. However we should enforce the laws that we have.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MSgt Steve Sweeney - I operate in the world as it is, not as I wish it to be. There are federal laws on the books regarding marijuana. You can agree or disagree with them but they are laws that were duly passed and signed into law by legislators and chief executives over many years. None of these were signed by Trump. I know that hurts you to know that but there it is.
If you are going to become a federalist then get in all the way. Are you now for pushing things like marriage, abortion and a host of other items to the states to legislate and regulate etc? When Obama was king, the left thought the federal government had all authority, with Trump, they think the feds should have none. Funny how that works.
I have no issue with states legalizing pot. I am against it personally, I think it is a poor reflection on society that we continue to go down the path of drug and alcohol use and have the government make money of it etc. We are in an opioid crisis and have seen others in our recent past (crack, cocaine, meth etc). We continue to glamourize and push drug use (including alcohol) and wonder why we have problems with abuse, over doses and a drug culture in this country.
I would be for decriminalizing smaller "personal use" amounts so we do not hassle people and jail people for minor issues of personal choice. What this move does is allows federal law enforcement to go after people/businesses should they stray from the law and move into illegal activity in the "legal" pot business. I don't suspect you will see a rash of prosecutions of legal state businesses but you may see some prosecution of people participating in illegal trafficking or interstate movement of drugs etc.
So, Steve, are you all in on the Federalism now or was than another flaccid point you are trying to make?
If you are going to become a federalist then get in all the way. Are you now for pushing things like marriage, abortion and a host of other items to the states to legislate and regulate etc? When Obama was king, the left thought the federal government had all authority, with Trump, they think the feds should have none. Funny how that works.
I have no issue with states legalizing pot. I am against it personally, I think it is a poor reflection on society that we continue to go down the path of drug and alcohol use and have the government make money of it etc. We are in an opioid crisis and have seen others in our recent past (crack, cocaine, meth etc). We continue to glamourize and push drug use (including alcohol) and wonder why we have problems with abuse, over doses and a drug culture in this country.
I would be for decriminalizing smaller "personal use" amounts so we do not hassle people and jail people for minor issues of personal choice. What this move does is allows federal law enforcement to go after people/businesses should they stray from the law and move into illegal activity in the "legal" pot business. I don't suspect you will see a rash of prosecutions of legal state businesses but you may see some prosecution of people participating in illegal trafficking or interstate movement of drugs etc.
So, Steve, are you all in on the Federalism now or was than another flaccid point you are trying to make?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
All those vets and other dope smokers should have banded together and pressed the Democrat administration to take it of the list of controlled substances rather than let nature run its course. It's the law, and unless the folks don't understand it, there is such as a thing as the Supremacy Clause that over rides state laws.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
A1C Doug Towsley - the fact that a state has not law against something does not make it legal. Sadly we don't get to choose what laws we follow and which ones we don't. If you were still in you would not be able to use weed. That is just the way that it is. I would agree that we could use less laws and that the feds should not control as much as they do. I would vote for someone who would reduce the number of laws and simplify the legal system. The system that we have my have flaws but it is the best in the world.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
A1C Doug Housley, you really have a lack of understanding when I comes to laws, Constitution and quotations. The VA can’t help you with those.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Yeah, my one glass of wine a night may be a bit much for you, back to your grass and ignorance.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Ahh the party of "less government regulation" strikes again. This is why I get such a riot out of republicans saying they want less government interference yet want laws banning abortions and marijuana use. Its equally as amusing as democrats that want the government to force people to bake them a cake or come up with special laws to suite their needs.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google