but i mean, to be fair, how are these programs going to help the prison industry

nice troll lol

I wish someone would thing of the prison guards and police officer unions? Or how about beverage distributors?

(all 3 give plenty to anti-marijuana politicians)

Gonna also chime in for those not so frozen microwaveable food vendors that put em where families and inmates meet up.

The underwear industry makes bank, I can promise you that.

What? Tons of prisons the inmates make and re purpose their clothing. You need to think bigger. Big Cotton and Big Textile

This guy prisons.

I wish someone would thing of the prison guards and police officer unions? Or how about beverage distributors?

(all 3 give plenty to anti-marijuana politicians)

The private prison industry is definitely a huge payer, too.

It's not about any of this. It's that states like California and Hawaii (assuming CO next) have been using the marijuana law as a way to disarm citizens. If you have a recreational cannabis card in Hawaii, you have been ordered to hand in all your firearms. Think about it.

I'm gonna need a source for this. Also, here in Vermont where we're about to legalize and have the least gun laws in the nation you can damn well guarantee that won't fly, ever.

The prohibition about firearms is a federal law. I don’t think the states have much say in it.

https://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/20160902marijuanarevenue

I'm not seeing anything about firearm ownership being revoked in your link.

There are multiple reasons, and they all benefit the New World Order.

How does Hogan, Hall, or Nash benefit?

Thank you for the cheap pop. I lol’ed.

Lol.

Amen to that brother.. or Om to that ;) people will realize there truly is a “new world order” when it’s to late and all us “crazies” will have known.

Well... I am hoping it is not too late for us. It might be, but I won't go down. Not an option.

I say push things to the middle and keep it there. It is more stable for more people.

Everything has been pushed far to the left, and they might push everything far to the right to keep people off balance.

For medical patients this has been done, but is largely not enforced (can’t speak to Hawaii, seems a different story there). I haven’t heard, and have no idea how one would, try to impose this restriction on recreational users

Recreational card? I don't think that is how it works at all. Definitely not how it works in California where you are definitely not ordered to surrender guns if you have a medical card (no such thing as recreational card).

It's illegal to possess a firearm while in position of an illegal substance. In any state. It may be legal in CA to burn your greens but you cannot possess a firearm as marijuana is a federally recognized illegal substance.

Source: mmj card holder who cannot possess a firearm due to federal regulations

Read: they claimed "recreational marijuana card", which isnt a thing. Medical card, yes.

If you want to be in compliance with federal regulations you shouldn't be anywhere near marijuana. As for possession of a firearm you would probably have to turn yourself in and I'm not even sure what would happen with local authorities (if anything) were you in a legal state. Purchasing of a firearm may be more difficult depending on the state you are in and how in depth they are with background checks but I think that the disjunction that you describe between the state and federal level is exactly what is being highlighted by Sessions' recent decision. Anyway, when states go recreational people won't be forced to carry registration cards (probably? I guess I could picture some dystopian state requiring a "marijuana registry" but lets hope not).

Last I saw, people who tried that were given the middle finger

you don't need a card to buy recreationally, only for medicinal use.

unless you're saying they want to keep it medical-only so they can track people like this

there is this guy i know who has his rec card and he purchases firearms without any problems.

that's the federal government not the states

Recreational cannabis cards don't exist.

I've had guns and a medical card for years in CA now. What the fuck are you smoking?

Exactly. It is the slave labor.

Which is why Jeff Sessions is ramping up private prisons and asset forfeiture while getting rid of forensic science oversight and forcing longer sentences and harsher punishments.

It's a big racist conspiracy that the "tough on crime" crowd is cheering on.

Yes, I agree. I wonder when we will do something about it. It seems like we get closer to the tipping point.

No. How are programs going to help our veterans and people with diabetes?

Ding ding ding. All three of those things directly hurt the prison industry on top of legalization itself.

Don’t forget that big Tobacco and liquor/beer company’s are huge contributors to the anti marijuana cause as well.

Which is good. Absolutly morally wrong imo to set up a system that causes and hopes for people to fail and fuck up theirs (and others) lives.

By not locking up people for smoking pot, that's how.

But prisons want more prisoners because prisoners=money

Why the hell would you want more prisons what is the logic behind any of this?

I, personally, do not want more prisons. I am saying that privately run prisons get money from the government for every prisoner they jail. These government payments are supposed to pay for the food and housing, medical care, etc for the prisoner. However, the for profit prison model has driven down cost of providing for prisoners to the point where the company that runs the prisons makes money on every prisoner.

For example, say the government gives you $100 a day per prisoner for meals alone. You spend $50 a day on low quality food per prisoner. You now make $50 a day per prisoner.

The prison industry is very very real.

Time to sell my prison stocks

Or ramp up Pharmaceutical sales?

I'm assuming it won't. But I'm also assuming it will more efficiently pump out little US citizen droids. Since they control what we do and do not learn in schools and whatnot.

Which is why it is important to remember that you control what you learn on your own and you control the supplemental education that you give your children.

My wife and I grew up in a state with good public schools. Unfortunately where we currently live has shit public schools that are horribly underfunded and unable to retain good teachers because they hardly earn a living wage. We are constantly working with them to pick up the slack and keep challenging them.

This is a huge conspiracy and I hope this sub talks about it more. Everything Jeff Sessions and Trump are doing right now is meant to transfer money from certain demographics into specific businesses.

This has been posted elsewhere:

In a letter written to Congress on May 1, Sessions argues that because marijuana remains illegal under the controlled substances act, representatives should disregard longstanding protections against the prosecution of medical cannabis.

http://observer.com/2017/06/jeff-sessions-war-on-drugs-medical-marijuana/

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in remarks prepared for delivery this week that he believes marijuana is "only slightly less awful," than heroin.

http://time.com/4703888/jeff-sessions-marijuana-heroin-opioid/

Attorney General Jeff Sessions will end a Justice Department partnership with independent scientists to raise forensic science standards and has suspended an expanded review of FBI testimony across several techniques that have come under question, saying a new strategy will be set by an in-house team of law enforcement advisers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/sessions-orders-justice-dept-to-end-forensic-science-commission-suspend-review-policy/2017/04/10/2dada0ca-1c96-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html

In the later years of the Obama administration, a bipartisan consensus emerged on Capitol Hill for sentencing reform legislation, which Sessions opposed and successfully worked to derail.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Friday that he has directed his federal prosecutors to pursue the most severe penalties possible, including mandatory minimum sentences, in his first step toward a return to the war on drugs of the 1980s and 1990s that resulted in long sentences for many minority defendants and packed U.S. prisons.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-issues-sweeping-new-criminal-charging-policy/2017/05/11/4752bd42-3697-11e7-b373-418f6849a004_story.html?utm_term=.0d31d35ee8d4

Sessions welcomes restoration of asset forfeiture: "I love that program"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sessions-welcomes-expansion-of-asset-forfeiture-i-love-that-program/

In the final months of the Obama administration, the Justice Department announced it would end the use of private prisons. In the first month of the Trump administration, the rule was rescinded. In a memo signed February 21, but released to the public late Thursday, the new U.S. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, rescinded the order.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamsarhan/2017/02/24/prison-stocks-soar-under-trump-as-sessions-oks-private-jails-again/#4d32c51810ce

When asked about racial tensions in the United States, Trump gave a rambling answer about promoting "law and order" while painting a picture of inner cities as places where people cannot "walk down the street" without getting shot. The Republican presidential nominee again touted the effectiveness of stop-and-frisk

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/26/trump-again-praises-stop-and-frisk-says-people-in-inner-cities-are-living-in-hell.html

Trump tells cops they should rough people up more during arrests

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/28/16059536/trump-cops-speech-gang-violence-long-island

Asset forfeiture, stop and frisk, longer prison sentences, ramped up drug war, removing forensic science oversight... all of it is meant to work together to steal from the most vulnerable Americans.

We're seeing the conspiracy play out right before our eyes and yet millions are cheering it on while claiming they love freedom.

Trying to put myself in his state of mind.... There's that phrase, liberals think humans are naturally good and aim for utopia, conservatives think humans are naturally bad and we need (the bible) to stop us from all going to hell.

Then he must think the prison industry is a beacon of light that maintains order and keeps the badies off the street.

I don't think many of these politicians are actually evil, they just have severely skewed world views. Oh and also a lust for power. Which yeah I guess, could be considered evil.

naturally bad

Religion aside, we are bad if we compare our morals to natural animal instincts. Go look at the mouse utopia experiments, humanity when given comfortable lives and excess is doomed to fail

I don't think we can compare human morality to animal's instinctive behavior. Albeit we have seen some altruistic behavior in elephants and dolphins. But to say they acted by a set of morals would be grossly anthropomorphic.

Saying humans are bad because we see animals live peacefully is like saying dogs have a good sense of humor because they do goofy things. Thats not a sense of humor that just their behavior in whatever setting they're in.

Humans are both good and bad and for a politician to form policy based on either one of those extremes is ignorant.

You forgot money. Money motivates people.

If I may add, the same mindset is used when the donald funnels money into his properties by taking frequent golf trips and hosting dinners at his properties.

Trump wants to do this because busting people for drugs will give him more of an excuse to turn America full fash. Searching people for drugs will give him an excuse to have the police invade homes without a warrant.

and what are they spending the rest on

Best way to decriminalize cannabis at the federal level is to assign all related tax revenue to Israel. It's the only welfare program that supersedes the prison system.

but i mean, to be fair, how are these programs going to help the prison industry

They will become brothels.

where is the actual proof in figures? thank you

Silly Billy, it's the Internet and you don't have to provide proof of your claims. Just make shit up, throw it out there and hope it sticks.

Not saying he doesn't have proof

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-tax-data

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/disposition-marijuana-tax-revenue

he probably got it from appropriations approved by the state Legislature for fiscal year 2016-2017.

thank you so much, i live here and have never seen where it actually goes. :)

DId you intentionally comment on your own comment?

no i am new i was just thanking whomever gave me my answer, i apologize.

No worries, it was a real question

Let me just say this. Maybe ten years ago here where I live they rolled out the attempt to get casinos and lottery legal here. Millions and millions to schools. I thought hell yeah I just had a kid!

Fast forward to today. The schools almost a daily basis send things home with my kid asking for money.

Not a fucking thing has changed since the casinos and lottery came here. It's exactly the same as it was when I was a kid.

So don't fall for this money for schools bullshit cause it won't happen.

Except for the part where it is actually happening? It's happening to the extent that the CO gov't had to give money back to taxpayers in their first year.

How can you say it won't happen when if clearly has been happening for a couple of years now?

Cynicism is understandable except when there's a shit ton of evidence to the contrary

Sounds like the politicians in your area are the problem. The money is there...ask them why it isn't going to where they said it would.

Yeah, only MY politicians would do that huh?

There are people in this very thread who claim theirs actually did put the money into their local schools, so.....maybe?

See ya in 10 years...

https://okpolicy.org/didnt-lottery-solve-oklahomas-education-funding-problems/

Downvote this:

"Sales tax on retail marijuana doesn't significantly boost overall per-pupil funding for Colorado schools statewide. Most funds are funneled through grant programs that districts have to apply for in hopes of extra funding for specific projects and programs. Marijuana revenue represents about 1 percent of the state's total education budget, according to Colorado Department of Education."

Didn't downvote anything, but ok.

It's weird how your solution to underfunded schools is to give them less money.

Also why shouldn't this be taxed. Everything else is.

Exactly. They put the casino money towards the schools, but pulled other funding.

They aren't waging war against that. They don't give a damn for funding public schools or helping Americans but they aren't waging war on it. Sessions supports the KKK, and is using pot as it's classical racist hammer. He even wanted the death penalty for pot users.

The war on drugs IS racist

how?

The majority of people arrested in the drug war are Minorities. TPTB (Other conspiracy you can tie into this) are creating a drug culture though media (music, TV, etc) to make drugs and illicit sex the norm.

The result is to make a culture that self-destructive.

Take for example a song that sings about how we are just medicating our lives away. https://youtu.be/iwxfmYR7ItM

thanks, that makes sense. just wanted to understand. it's a confusing issue.

Because black tar heroin is black.

cocaine and meth is white. crack is yellow. the other comments explain it better.

It was a joke. It looks like a lot of r/conspiracy aren’t too fond of them.

I appreciate it, I just got downvoted for asking a question. so I thought you were one of these other guys whose head is up their ass.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday. "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

It's a pretty classic approach - criminalize something that huge numbers of people do, then arrest the people you don't like.

Here in Texas, a public intoxication law was interpreted to allow cops to walk into bars and arrest anyone with alcohol in their system, on suspicion of intoxication. Shockingly, a large portion of these arrests were brown and/or gay people. Laws like these make it really easy to target groups.

How does that work? Isn't that just prohibition? Or is it only allowed in the home in Texas?

It’s legal to drink in public but not legal to be drunk. It’s fucking stupid.

so is the law racist or the officers?

Because only minorities use drugs? lol THAT is fucking racist.

The Nixon Era war on drugs (the first real crackdown on a federal level) was inherently racist. They specifically targeted poor urban communities that were primarily black, while also funneling drugs into the areas and limiting job and housing options for men. White people used drugs too, but only specific groups of them were targeted by the government. Namely, the hippies. Nixon was trying to heavily suppress the hippies because they were vocal opposition to the Vietnam War. Naturally the easiest way to squash opposition was to make (relatively) harmless drugs like cannabis illegal, and turn anyone caught with it into felons- thus making it impossible for them to vote.

No. Because Nixon wanted to break up the Black Panthers and wanted to arrest young liberal hippies. Yeah, it's pretty racist but not entirely.

The US attorney who filed several cases to desegregate Alabama schools, and sought the death penalty for a klan leaders son, “supports the KKK”..

Ooooookay then

I love Texas because that's where I was born. Colorado sure is fighting for that top spot...

Man it's gorgeous and their laws just keep getting better.

I was a little taken aback the last time I was up there. They're actually running PRO fracking commercials to try and get fracking legalized in Colorado.

I don't know much about mountains but my guess is they don't do well with earthquakes. So as an Oklahoma resident that now experiences regular earthquakes.. please don't frack in Colorado :(

Fracking is definitely legal in CO. There are fracking "tents" all over the place. It really fucking sucks.

Fracking is not what causes earthquakes, wastewater disposal is.

I thought it was the gays.

Don't those make frogs?

No, it's the frogs who are gay

It's not the frogs' fault. It made the frogs gay.

Where do you think all that "wastewater" comes from?

Buttsecks

That's like saying nuclear explosions don't render places uninhabitable for hundreds of years, radioactive fallout does.

If wastewater disposal causes earthquakes and is also part of the fracking process then guess what? Fracking causes earthquakes.

Do you think that fracking fluid is the only fluid which goes into wastewater disposal? Do you have any idea about this topic from the fracking level or oil and gas level? Or only from some editorialized environmental articles you saw on /r/everythingscience? I'm no bleeding heart Republican, but saying wastewater is like nuclear fallout is completely inaccurate and ridiculous.

Until it ends up in your fresh water supply with no way to remove it.

Nobody said that wastewater is like nuclear fallout...

Firstly, I don't know what that sub is and any issue you have with its content is not my problem.

Second, your reply see my to imply that I was equating the effects of radiation to that of wastewater disposal. I was not, it's an analogy. Nuclear explosions produce radioactive fallout which renders locations uninhabitable.

In my comment I said if wastewater disposal is part of the fracking process and if wastewater disposal (as per your own assertion) causes earthquakes then fracking causes earthquakes.

Trump is inching towards Colorado.

The administration shrank Bears Ears National Monument, a sprawling region of red rock canyons, by 85 percent, and cut another monument, Grand Staircase-Escalante, to about half its current size. The move, a reversal of protections put in place by Democratic predecessors, comes as the administration pushes for fewer restrictions and more development on public lands.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/trump-bears-ears.html

They’ve been fracking here in western PA for over 5 years now and we’ve never had an earthquake

How's the drinking water? I saw a documentary that shows folks lighting their kitchen faucets on fire.

I feel the exact same way

Fwiw, I went to Denver/Boulder this summer and they reminded me a lot of Texas suburbs. Denver felt like Austin and Boulder Denton, except they had beautiful mountains behind them. I assume the bbq and Mexican food isn't as good, but other than that Colorado seemed better in just about every way.

I was born in Texas, currently live in CO. The good things about TX are (mostly) here (except property prices, but the property taxes are significantly lower which compensates a lot) and the differences are (mostly) in CO's favor.

There are a number of good BBQ joints so don't worry about that. Regarding Tex-Mex, Chuy's just recently opened up a bit north of Denver, so don't worry there either. (In fact, there's a significant amount of cross-pollination of restaurants between CO and TX.) You likely drove right by the restaurant on your way between Boulder and Denver.

Chuy's

Fuck it, I'm renting a Uhaul right now. I'll figure everything else out when I get there.

Bring HEB with you, please.

I assume you mean the store and not Hurst Euless Bedford.

Of course. :) And Central Market, too.

No, Howard E. Butts

No that too. Wouldn't mind being relocated with errthing.

Please stay in TX.

Chuys is gross

As a current Texas resident — please slow down all these posts about how great CO is. I can only get so erect at once.

Hmm guess I'll have to check this Chuys place out

I didn't know people consider it good. When I went it was in the bad to mediocre range.

Good bbq? Where? Nothing I’ve had compares to Texas bbq and I’ve just resorted to cooking it at home because it’s better than every restaurant I’ve had here.

Dave’s smoke house is about as close as I’ve found. Only been to the one is S Westminster though

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on Georgia Boys and Avery.

Regarding Tex-Mex

CO has Taco Johns; good enough for me! :D

BBQ doesn’t compare but I actually like the Mexican food in CO more. I’m not really a fan of tex mex though so that might be why.

I live in Denton and what you just described sounds like the best of both worlds

Good BBQ is not as pervasive in Colorado but there are a few hidden gems. The best in the Boulder area is Wayne’s Smoke Shack, ironically captioned as “True Texas BBQ.”

Im from Virginia, Colorado seems more and more appealing to me every day. Many people I know are moving there or going to college there.

I went to Arizona over the summer and was very sad having to go back to Texas. It feels like the whole state is in prison compared to az

That's funny, doesn't Arizona have a ton of strict laws and tent jails that border on human rights abuse?

Yes. You definitely don't want to get arrested doing something like armed robbery here. Tent City is gone but the Fourth Street Jail is actually much worse than Tent City ever was, but no normal jails don't get much attention because they aren't special.

Word. There's nowhere on this hell planet where you can go. But at least in Arizona there are things that aren't behind fences and you don't have to drive hours and hours just to go camping.

Well don’t move here lol, we don’t need more people.

Lol. Don't believe the numbers. That money is going into pockets. Go look at small town Colorado news papers. Schools are not getting as much of the pie as you think.

How so?

Your comment would only sound profound to someone not sober.

Like someone on pot?

Because they too are obviously high. Do you think downvotes mean anything?

My buddy took his kids out there 2 months after recreational pot was passed. His kids' school now has up to date text books, an up to date computer lab, and renovated for the first time since 1970something.

This has happened all over the state.

You naysayers have no evidence to back up your claim when there's plenty of evidence in the schools there.

Its a fucking irrelevant argument. Marijuana shouldnt any less illegal than Tomato's and Potato's.

"Taken over"

Or just read the rules of the sub. They're not exactly consistent about enforcing them, but they're pretty clearly written out for you.

Okay, so on one hand, we have schools getting improved, which you admit, but maybe not as much as they should be, and we have tax refunds going back to the people.

and on the other hand, we're jailing people and crushing business because the wacky tabacky will cause reefer madness. Also we're ignoring the fact that states will legalized marijuana have improving opioid epidemics.

Small town Colorado resident here...Post is true, has been amazing for the little town of Glenwood Springs, our schools now have the same equipment and size as Aspen schools...

We can use a little help with our public schools in Los Angeles. They're utter shit compared to CO.

Maybe you guys should get rid of the millions of illegal immigrants sucking the money out of your state, just a thought

Hey you can't be telling people the truth like that, think about the downvotes.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-06/californias-undocumented-workers-help-grow-economy-theres-cost

Oh wow npr! What an unbiased source of information! The fact is that illegal aliens provide a cheap source of labor and a way for companies to cut corners, which encourages them to keep compensation/working conditions low even for citizen employees because, "hey joe if you don't like it jose will take your job tomorrow". They don't pay taxes, they commit way more crime proportionally than citizens do, and they send a ton of money out of this country and encourage their friends to come join them. It's disgusting. California taxes people more than any other state, has more people, has silicon valley + hollywood + so much agriculture, and it still has massive debt, bad infrastructure, and can't deal with fires or drought.

This is the complete right wing bullshit narrative about cali in one post, amazing. So clueless it's painful. Keeping it real my fucking ass rofl

Please explain how it's bullshit. Even the article the other guy posted doesn't dispute any of it. "So clueless it's painful" rofl man

There is no use talking to a brainwashed fool

Rofl

you're transparent as fuck, you've got no counter argument, you just wanna talk shit on reddit. stay delusional.

Why would I bring facts to people who are conditioned to deny them? It's a fruitless effort, no value.

Maybe just one fact would help support your argument. Coming from someone who straddles the fence on immigration issues so I have no horse in this race. But my neutrality on the issue aside, you lost this debate because you attacked the other side’s character instead of supporting your argument with facts and figures.

There was no debate, just my expression of awe at the perfect nutshell version of the right wing brainwashing.

as i said earlier, you're shit slinging. at this point you've invested way more effort acting holier than thou than you could have exuded explaining why you feel that way. you're a hack.

Nice

That article literally says that illegal immigrants allow for gdp growth at the cost of disrupting fair wages for lower paying jobs, and that illegals are constantly being "taken advantage of" by their employers when they get their tax free under the table cash. What are you trying to prove with that

It implied that was a possibility

I read the article and one thing that stuck out was this. "The worker demand is usually outpacing the supply" which is a valid point I'd think. It wasn't the resounding point of the piece but it definitely makes you think. Globalization/Capitalism has sped it up so much you gotta try to think of what the end game is. So is the issue the supply or the demand? Will we hit impossible standards eventually? Or the conditions surrounding both. Its not an easy question to answer and I don't expect an easy answer.

It's because they can always undercut the illegal laborers by hiring other illegals for cheaper. If those employers were held to standards and paid fairly their costs would be higher but they would still have plenty of workers willing to work

But borders are racist!

Or just help them get legal to help out with taxes?

Compare the demographics

Yes, I know there are a lot of immigrants and English learners causing poor scores but the school grounds themselves are shitty and generally lacking extracurricular activities and simple things like valet drop off. They've gotten rid off the crosswalk people. And I'd say I live in a higher end neighborhood.

Maybe you jackass Trump supporters here should rethink voting for Trump.

You think Los Angeles supports Trump? Dude, you need to get out more often.

This whole subreddit is T_D lite.

I really don't think it's about who we vote for anymore. All parties suck in one way or another. Education should be a priority regardless of your party.

All parties are the same is why the republicans are taking away pot. Literally NO Democrat wants this, but yes all parties are the same. You are stupid.

We can use a little help with our public schools in Los Angeles.

Former teacher: money isn't the problem. LA schools get much more money than the average school. They not only get regular funding for a ton of students, but they get additional funding for lots of low-performing reading students, most of which are legal and illegal immigrants.

The entire system needs to be completely dismantled and re-assembled from scratch. It's just horrid.

They need to do away with that perverse incentive to keep kids stupid.

Dae george carlin lel xD

In BC students are funded on a per student basis. School apply for grants which are given when need is seen. Its not perfect but are public schools are very good.

Our

lol, good catch.

How’s the mental health of cannabis absuers going?

Maybe you should contact your local congressman so they can pass a law and make legislated weed.. and stop crying about Jeff Sessions following the law.

bad troll is bad

Sentence fragment

In that case, your sentence is a fragment as well.

I was referencing the simpsons

That episode was great.

Your sentence is too wordy.

Which is proof Canada's schools suck.

Yes, BC schools are so good that our education minister sends her own kids to private schools.

Given the opportunity and money not an option, I’m sure most people would send their kids to private school. Especially a government official who knows how the world works

Public schools should be rewarded for performance. The better the overall test scores, the more money they get.

Maybe not that good after all

Remove the for profit model of standardized testing and then we can get to the business of education.

I'm so glad I graduated right before that shit was pushed hardcore.

I recall doing a few tests but the year or two after I graduated the amount of tests doubled (2006).

19-year-old here

In my state (IL) we took a few standardized tests in 5th grade, a couple in middle school (one was for placement IIRC), and then of course ACT and a couple others in high school. The SAT was optional, although recommended, but I never took it because I got kicked out of my home school and didn't want to bother with going back. I didn't plan on going to college.

Standardized tests left me with the impression that teaching practices were ineffective and the bar was set very low. As far as accomodation goes, not all students have the free time or appropriate home environment in which to do homework (or simply couldn't care less). In my case, I just didn't give a fuck because I thought homework was a joke, and drugs and reddit were a lot more fun.

Some people CAN do well without paying attention or doing homework, but their GPA suffers. I consistently scored very well on standardized tests, which isn't fair to students who try to comprehend material that isn't properly conveyed to them. On the flipside, my grades were shit-tier. I had trouble with regular math class because I had a shit teacher who was speaking another language I didn't understand. I wasn't the only one having problems with that class, and I have no doubts that I'd fail every quiz from that class if you gave them to me today. Comprehension for topics for which you're forced to study is low. That's why some students score well on quizzes but fail end-of-chapter tests.

I think some subjects (advanced math, science, english) should be elective instead of being required. When the FUCK will I need to use trignometry, statistics, or calculus if I'm going to end up as a QA inspector at an iron foundry?

Sorry, I'm ranting. I just wanted to vent some of my frustrations with school.

Just wondering but how's your life going?

I completed high school early through an alternative school on account of me taking more classes than required throughout high school. I started working at near-minimum wage early last year a couple months after I graduated for almost half a year before I decided the mediocre cashflow wouldn't cut it. I desperately wanted out of my mom's house.

I lined up a job at an iron foundry and I'm working there as a QA inspector. I was officially hired on a couple months ago, after spending three months as a contingent worker. I moved out of my mom's house in...October I think? Everything is going well. I have no problems paying the bills and making rent every month.

As far as my job is concerned, the labor is intense, it's usually hotter than hell, sometimes cold, dirty, the nights are long, and your respiratory health will definitely decline over time if you're not wearing a respirator. I didn't report my broken finger because we have a profit sharing program that awards bonuses based on plant yield and safety, and especially safety. The pressure to not speak up is enforced by the workers, not so much the company.

I know you didn't ask about specific details on my job, but I like to tell people about it. I take pride in the work ethic I've been told I would never have, haha.

topkek. and how do you propose to measure student achievement? because GPA is a lot more biased against poor or otherwised preoccupied students

The end goal is not education, it's to turn school into a factory of product coming out of the other end. So they can get menial jobs and keep the rich richer.

bbbbut privatization fixes everything! the gubberment paying for education is literally leftist propaganda!!!!!!

They need to do way with instain mother, who kill their babby

Smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, but dumb enough not to realize they are getting fucked.

Chopped up Carlin quote.

get rid of the perverse idea that all kids are the same and need to be treated equal.

they aren't. They don't. kids learn at different paces. one size does not fit all.

But stupid kids turn into adults that vote against their best interest..

Agreed. Like getting rid if the ILLEGALS. We need to teach our citizens not some other countries kids.

Lol you were just waiting to throw in some non sequitur, racist shit weren’t you

Tell me exactly what part of what I said was racist. I can't wait for your mental gymnastics on this one. I smell a leftist moron here. Gon a be fun destroying you. Go on little child I'll wait for you.

Oh well I don’t really believe in the terms “legal” and “illegal” so — “tick tack a doodle your dick is now a noodle”

"Most idiots make themselves obvious."

“Most obvious make themselves idiots”

Come on... you are 13 years old right?

Oh wouldn’t you like to know !

"Illegal" is not a noun. Set a better example by speaking English yourself.

There their they're dont get your gramatical panits in a knot.

Roughly 2k of the average 10k per student that is spent goes to the teacher amd thw classroom. Somewhere in the system, 6-8k per student gets spent on other things. CA spent $92.5 billion on K-12 education. The expectex 1 billion in increased revenue from Pot , even if it were only spent on education (which it won't) would be 1% of budget. These numbers don't i clude additional revenue for juco, state programs for college, waivers, etc. Teachers average class size of 30 and average 60k per year = 2k per student. Find the rest of the money.

administrator after administrator = bloat

Same thing is happening in colleges. Administrators have full control and decide the best thing to do is give administrators raises and hire more administrators to look for more ways to cut other costs...to pay more to administrators.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html

add apathy to admins' fiduciary responsibility, and you've see a large portion of the waste. School boards are notorious budget black holes. Oversight isn't a focus.

Then you have Allen High School here in Texas who spent 65+ million on a football stadium that didn't work due to bad cement and had to spend, I think, another 20 million more to fix the original mistake.

I work for a Jr. College and we just passed a 600 million bond election to expand the school and hire more administrators and build buildings. So we had our annual state of the union type deal where they laid out plans for the next year and beyond, passed out awards to faculty and staff, said goodbye to retirees and those who died, and finally announce the amount of raises we get. The last 8 or 9 years have been a steady 4% increase. They gave us 3.5% and their were audible groans, murmurs and chairs being pushed back as people got up and left. We gave them 600 million and we loose .5%.

We gave them 600 million and we loose .5%.

Oof.

I get free batteries?

Well, kind of. We'll supply one round of rechargables, then you're on your own.

The last 8 or 9 years have been a steady 4% increase. They gave us 3.5% and their were audible groans, murmurs and chairs being pushed back as people got up and left.

Wow, where do you work? We'd kill for even that lower increase. 2% or less has been the norm forever - which with inflation is actually a pay cut.

This is why I loved memorial high. Football stuff was all funded by donations. Got a few million in a year

God bless texas

I was in the spring Branch area by longpoint. Parents were in pts and helped run some stuff by the board that sent funding of the richer schools to Northbrook and spring woods. Then we left that area for the memorial area lol. It was nice to see that the school didn't suffer at all from the movement of funds

Yes, where my daughters went to HS, they had 6 (SIX) vice principals.

Insanity and no one is paying attentio - wait, gotta go, my tv show is starting.....

CA spent 92.5 billion on K-12?

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2017-18/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/Kthru12Education.pdf

Remember when the Lotto came to CA? They were supposed to help fund the schools, then the Republican gov Deukmejian slid back State support?

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/04/us/california-educators-assert-lottery-has-failed-to-pay-off-for-the-schools.html

What would they do differently with an overhaul on that scale? I know throwing money at a failing system will never work, but are they just using their funds improperly in LA? (not trying to sound patronizing, just curious)

You think Colorado doesn't have Mexicans?

You think all illegals are Mexican?

I consider my neighborhood nice-ish. Our highschool has a 10 rating but my elementary school is at a 3. Most people end up driving their kids elsewhere and there's no longer a sense of community like I had growing up. It's all crappy and I agree with you.

That does suck. I'm 40 and am still friends with the guys I met in kindergarten.

there's no longer a sense of community like I had growing up

it's like that everywhere. no one wants to leave their bubble anymore.

It really bums me out the way it works. Gotta go to the rich neighborhoods, Cause that’s where I can ensure I’m giving my kids a good education. If I want to stay in the places where I have always lived, I feel like I’m doing them a disservice. Then I think about the people that can’t afford to move to the nice hoods. How fucking shitty is it that even something “public” like educating your young kids depends on how much you make. House hunting is depressing man.

Yeah that's like my situation. I moved into a house I can afford but it's like right on the border of the nice part of the neighborhood. I thought I could get in to the nice elementary schools by lottery but haven't had any luck. Private school is like $20k a year per kid too so forget that. In LA you either have to be rich or poor. The middle is kinda screwed. I've been here 30 years and am seriously sick of it.

I'd love to hear more about problems with our school system. I'm new to hearing about these problems and it's honestly fascinating. Things in the vein of the department of education being a "recent" addition, which has apparently done nothing positive for our schools. Also I'm from Michigan and am very aware of the funding to Detroit schools making shit of a difference.

Let’s start with removing illegals who are wasting resources they don’t deserve.

Fascinating, OC resident who has to purchase school supplies for an affluent beach city elementary. Teachers also have to rent can't buy anything on their pay. No illegals here either, too expensive for them to live here. Schools are also falling apart built in the 60-70s.

They need to do a 5-8 year general education for small children then either 2 years trade / 2 year apprentice or 3 year college / 1 year intern depending on field.

So much wasted time and knowledge learned that i will never ever use. I would have rather learned about my field quicker

Also compare admin costs vs other expenditures. For the district I work in, we have the lowest admin costs in the state, but I still think the bloat in the ivory tower is too much.

At least you used the correct form of they’re.

that's not my L.A. schooling.. that's reddit grammar Nazis.

California spends about $11 billion on illegals and children of illegals, about 200 times as much money as is cited in the article. A good chunk of is LAUSD. They have also declared themselves a sanctuary school district so it won't change anytime soon. That is how they have decided to spend your money.

do you have a citation for that number?

https://www.google.com/amp/www.ajc.com/news/opinion/educating-illegal-immigrants-costly/Iafsqvt6ydowmSvgX9C4TM/amp.html

Here is one source that has good information. It's from 2008 so I suspect that the $11 billion number is actually less than today's spending. You can also piece it together from other sources to confirm this. It may take some work since this is a fact that California goes the extra mile to obscure.

In general, you have to find separate sources for education spending,and the number (or percent) of illegals. Alternatively you can multiply spending per pupil x number of illegals.

New Mexico: Laughing in poor spanish

Oh, it's coming, if the feds will keep out of your business....

it's coming - REVENUE!

All the money in the world won't save LA public schools.

That's because the ethnic demographics and their culture there are garbage, and your lovely blue government.

CA spends a lot more on schools than CO. It doesn’t all come down to money.

Problem is no one read the bill before voting on it. It has nobe of this money going to help out with things like better roads, schools, keeping folks off the streets. Its all going to find bettercways to detect DUIs in people smoking pot. I voted no on this bill it was a bad bill. So sad it passed. Now to be a medical patient you have to relibquish your firearms. F that

Which Bill is this? In L.A?

The one in CA

That’s encouraging to hear. Thanks for sharing.

Just visited Glenwood. Town is looking really nice. We were impressed even with Bridgemageddon.

My uncle lives in Denver and I saw him for my grandpa's birthday in November. He told me it's unbelievable where the money is going. He said that lot of the roads and streets are cleaned up.

They weren't that bad already. First place I've lived that rips up good road to out down a new one.

Limon, here.. we to feel the love and have a new school.

Wow, you guys get internet in Limon now? Congrats!

Well, it's a string tied directly to the phone line and a can taped to my PC.

dont get used to it dude, tax money is not meant to spent on stuff for the people! Its meant to make the rich richer!

Exactly this, it’s the war on the working/middle class. All of these things help the little guy. But keeping marijuana illegal not only keeps this potential help away from the the little guy, it helps the elite continue to line their pockets. It helps pharma, private prisons, law enforcement.

I visited Fort Collins last year, I loved the fact that all the roads are redone and have bike lanes making it super commute friendly.

People live in Aspen?

I just did some work at Basalt Middle School a few months ago, along with a bunch of community centers and things. I do Audio/Video integration and I thought it was obvious that the local economy was booming due to the influx in revenue. I mean to be spending money on renovation is one thing, but upgraded tech is another. I think it was in Denver public library we built a full recording studio that people could rent out for free.

Im like man I wish we had these in Phoenix.

Arizona has a particularly good chance of turning blue over the next few elections, get organized behind your local pro cannabis politicians.

Isn't it crazy how things are when money is spent on the people rather than simply added to the coffers of millionaires and billionaires

Yep. Thank you for what you do. It's good seeing an outside perspective. As a Denver resident, the only thing I see is that traffic has gotten unbearable. I don't have kids so I have no compass for what's happening in schools but I have heard about the full recording studio in the library. That is fucking amazing. Aside from the lame 420 dude weed lmao culture that has become more prominent, legalizing marijuana has been one of the best things that has happened here in my lifetime.

Hi Justin.

I have no idea what that means in size but fuck all if this pot ban is goddamn ridiculous

Are the things op listed bad things?

I can only assume Glenwood Caverns' Haunted Mine Drop being voted USA Today's Best New Theme Park Attraction of 2017 is because of this. http://www.glenwoodcaverns.com/winning-ride-haunted-mine-drop/?utm_source=Haunted+Mine+Drop+Wins+10Best&utm_campaign=Octoberfest+2017&utm_medium=email

Why not take care of the adult issues..are they so together that they use it for childrens issues? Maybe a portion but not the majority should go towards issues that the people who payed into benefit from...some of us are not about pampering the little heathen's!

Wow dude, you almost convinced me of something with your anecdotal bullshit.

Actually you are wrong because my autistic cousin lives in colorado and dropped out of high school this year

I think you’re my autistic cousin

As someone who has experience with both, this is amazing. The difference that 40 miles has is staggering.

You're anecdotal evidence is nice and all but that dope money is a fucking drop in the bucket in regards to public spending: https://www.bing.com/search?q=25%2B14.5&pc=MOZI&form=MOZLBR

I wish I could find the article I read recently, but there was a source that explained how marijuana related arrests are up since CO legalized it. Do you know anything about that or whether it is true?

Not one comment in here shows a vote count. That doesn't raise any eyebrows?

Aren't those numbers hidden for the first bit? To prevent brigading and such.

Exactly how long is a "first bit" because this was posted over an hour ago. I've seen other threads much younger than that which show vote counts no problem.

It's an hour on this sub

I apologize for being vague, 'the first bit' was my way of saying I'm uncertain of the time frame. I've only noticed it with comments, never entire posts. Over an hour does seem to be too long, though it could be a setting the moderators can change.

I apologize for being vague, 'the first bit' was my way of saying I'm uncertain of the time frame. I've only noticed it with comments, never entire posts. Over an hour does seem to be too long, though it could be a setting the moderators can change.

TIL: the constitution gave legislative powers to the legislative branch. Well, maybe Congress can pass a federal law legalizing THC and the whole "Session is a racist thing" can be put to rest.

Because Congress is failing at their job does not absolve sessions from further exacerbating the failed war on drugs for no obvious reason

So calling Sessions names is more effective? That's so 2008.

Ok. But AG did roll back DOJ policy designed to add stability for states that implement the will of their citizens. For no clear reason.

he took an oath to uphold federal law and federal law is supreme. don't blame him, blame Congress for not listening to it's citizens

When in direct conflict, it is. But when Congress passes law prohibiting DOJ from interfering with state medical marijuana programs (2014) and the DOJ issues regulatory guidance providing the framework for what has become a $8bn industry, the Supremacy Clause isn’t the panacea you are purporting it to be.

Which enumerated powers are we talking about here, anyway?

okay, the states are free to avoid using state resources. how is this different than when it was just California medical marijuana? idk why I'm getting downvoted for asking questions

It’s more than just looking the other way though. They are accommodating a new industry, collecting tax dollars and protecting it from other states. Under the 10th Amendment, states are supposed to be laboratories of innovation and the citizens vote with their feet. So the federal government has very specific delegates powers, like regulating commerce between more than one state and providing for the national defense, and the states have every power not specifically named, essentially. So this situation is a natural incarnation of that.

But this is a theoretical model, Supreme Court decisions over the past two hundred years make it more complex. But I hope this makes sense

What name, you mean his name? Sheesh

So calling Sessions names is more effective?

There's nothing wrong with calling a racist a racist and fixing the problem at the same time. The first takes very little effort especially with the target doing all the heavy lifting for you.

How is Jeff Sessions racist again?

Did you not pay attention in your government sanctioned gender studies class?

Lmfao. Take my upvote.

He's white and has a southern accent

Also, he says and does racist things.

It's weird how it never gets more specific than that...

Explain to me how pushing and crafting a narrative to keep Private prisons and the corrupt system around them which punishes minorities and the poor far more than any group is anything but racist?

It also harms poor whites far more than wealthy whites, I'm not saying Sessions isn't deplorable for other reasons he is really a terrible example of a human being but he is also racist.

For what reason do you want to defend a man who is willing to literally sell people into slavery just for increased donations from private prisons and the police unions?

You’ll have to stop the exaggerating if you want people to take you seriously.

You're not answering it and people arent taking your attempts to derail the topic via ridicule well.

Why not accept that some conspiracies are maintained while also being incredibly well known simply because people are willing to tolerate corruption and bribery because it supports their racist agenda or extorts the poor?

I mean look at school vouchers. It's a conspiracy to inflict religious law on american children right out in the open and supported by people who think they can fuck other people over to better their children.

I originally wanted an answer as to how a man who was a part of Alabama school desegregation and sought the death penalty for a KKK member is a racist. The term has lost its meaning.

Point out the OP calling Sessions a racist?

Maybe States have rights?

I mean if he stops being racist sure. He couldn't even call the kkk an extremist group.

Fuck Donald J. Trump for allowing this to happen. He can stop it simply by doing any of the following:

• Tell Sessions to reverse the order
• Ordering the DEA to reclassify
• Convincing spineless McConnell and Ryan to put up a bill to legalize Marijuana

Instead, he screams into his phone on Twitter. Fuck Donald Trump and his supporters.

Uhh... yeah no. I'd rather leave pot an uphill battle than have Clinton in office locking this country's arms with globalists just to legally smoke weed...

globalists

Good one. Best of luck in the real world.

Lol. First off, this is r/conspiracy, so you're doubt about the real threat of globalism indicates you're not a regular here. Just another shill bot taking the opportunity to spread their filth and not contribute any actual discussion.

Furthermore I speculate that you believe the Russia/Trump conspiracy which is falling apart with each passing day, yet you scoff at the possibility of the World's Elite trying to control everything... says all I and everyone else here needs to know.

the Russia/Trump conspiracy which is falling apart with each passing day

Just stop and go back to posting in russian

a-any day now they'll find the evidence of treason!

Trump Jr. did that when he released his emails.

It boggles the mind that people assume that this investigation is falling apart. Have they spoken with Mueller? What do they know that the rest of us don't?

They get all their info from Trump surrogates

This is r/conspiracy gatekeeping in a nutshell

And good luck to you too, my friend.

Just because you don't believe that "a threat of globalism" is real, does not mean you can't be into conspiracies.

Furthermore I speculate that you believe the Russia/Trump conspiracy

Why are you shitting on other conspiracies that other people believe in?

Are you fucking for real? He challenges my mental stability for believing in threat to globalism and you criticize my criticism of believing in Trump/Russia. Wow. Just fucking wow.

I don't think he was challenging your mental stability. He was saying that in the real world, the "threat of globalists" doesn't exist.

He doesn't believe in the "globalists" conspiracy and neither do I.

"Globalists. Good luck in the real world."

Yeah, you're right. It was clearly him stating he didn't believe the globalist conspiracy. I really don't care if either of you do or don't. It doesn't make you any more or less right.

I really don't care if either of you do or don't. It doesn't make you any more or less right.

I agree. Which is why I think we shouldn't be trying attack others just for believing in certain conspiracies and not others such as the whole Russia conspiracy.

Exactly. Hence why I called him out on his bullshit.

True, but you also called him a shill bot because he doesn't believe in the "globalists" conspiracies and then you mocked the Russia conspiracy.

Yes because his rhetoric was entirely unnecessary. You don't start a civil discussion with "fuck the President of the United States." His entire comment is indicative of taking advantage of a post to spew his bullshit.

Yes, his rhetoric was unnecessary.

You were both wrong.

Can I ask what the globalist theory is? Is it like a shadow global government or something?

Well, globalism is a thing and is debated all the time. Those who support globalist policies could be considered globalists. May not be some Uber secret conspiracy theory, but I find it strange you don't understand the term.

Oh it sounded like you were also using the term as a conspiracy theory. So you just mean like the international studies version of globalism? The movement of nations becoming more interdependent and intercultural?

Oh I wasn't the one commenting. But that's what I refer to when using the term. Some will use it also as a reference to the illuminati or something, but I think a lot of these 'conspiracies' are really just things you'd expect from globalism.

I'm not sure what you mean but "What you would expect from globalism"? Like what conspiracies relate to globalism? It's not really a controlled movement, it's just a term for the way things have naturally progressed between nations.

Yeah, I agree. But you can predict certain things from globalism. One might say an international cabal is conspiring to take away jobs to impoverish Americans or something, when in reality these jobs just moved to China because it's cheaper.

Ah I see. yeah I agree.

This sub has been compromised for a while now. It's politics/worldnews lite.

what a meaningful response you gave

How about America deserves better than the two pieces of trash it offered. Lol

No it doesn't. The two pieces of shit that ran perfectly represent America. Corrupt, lying, hateful, ignorant, and selfish.

They represent a portion not the entirety

President Trump's election was a paradox proving that if you don't want to be bought and paid for, but still win office you better bring your own money.

Except the dude barely put any of his own money into the election and only ran as a way to make money.

How many people voted last election?

60 % of the total population, point made, thanks for asking a question I have not thought of.

No, 60% of eligible voters voted.

Actual population was far less than half. And less than half of those voted for our current president.

No one mentioned Clinton so why bring it up?

As a friendly reminder that the alternative was not worth the possibility of legal weed.

What alternative? No one was discussing the 2016 election.

Lol. Stop defending the shill. When extremely negative and unnecessary rhetoric is spoken about the President, it's open to any kind of criticism. People want to bitch about not getting legal weed well, that's fine, but the alternative to possibly getting it wasn't worth it. I see more anger aginst the President than the fact that their ticket was stolen and that's half the problem. Instead of evaluating the failures of their party, they want to whine and complain about the President over every little thing. It won't get us anywhere closer to pot legalization and overall contributes nothing to the discussion.

For three comments now you've been providing nothing to the conversation, I'm not sure labeling me a shill is appropriate here. You came to a legitimate comment that outlined the steps Trump could take to help the cause for legal weed, and remember he said the issue should be left to the states not the feds. Yet here we are with the Feds taking strict action on the legalization of MJ and you're talking about Clinton like it's some profound comment. Again the OP statement has nothing to do with Clinton, so why even bring them up?

Didn't know you could tell the future.

What negatives are you seeing from globalism?

what has Trump done to reverse it and what positives have you seen because of it?

If you can't answer these questions then you're comment is nothing more than an irrational fear of a boogey man.

We have actual evidence and statistics of Trump being a horrible president. All you have is an assumption based on a fear you have.

I do get sick of hearing about Clinton, but so far, her fixing the primaries is the only real collusion that has happened.

Hillary basically bought her party of choice, fucked over the only legit candidate that could beat Trump and left the party in a shitty mess.

It’s sad what happened to Bernie and his organic following. I’m not really a believer of the socialist dream but that man had something going and you can’t deny that regardless of how you feel about his policies. He should have been the one running against trump, but Hillary’s greed and will to do whatever it took robbed America of a decent president.

Trump is a globalist, though.

Hey man, fuck you. stupid cunt.

Triggered?

he's as strait edge as it gets. He likely doesn't give the slightest shit about anything booze or weed related

It shouldn't matter what drugs he personally enjoys. His constituents want this.

I realize you aren't saying he is right to not care, just pointing out that he should.

Except he doesn’t do drugs or drink.

That's fine. It's his choice.

He doesn't get proper haircuts or exercise either. Doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to.

Rekt

You're telling me he doesn't bang Melania?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YyiRhALA9XI

Everyone needs to learn to be patient... but alas human nature..

What a lie. There are videos of him drinking wine and he’s clearly on cocaine at every one of the 2016 debates.

Easy there t_d retard. Trump is the farthest thing from a straight edge. Putin’s dick is so far up trumps Ass.

trump does not do drugs or alcohol. That means he's straight edge. I don't know why you're conjuring homosexual imagery. Are you in the closet?

He's a serial liar. why would you believe him when he says he doesn't do any drugs?

There’s plenty of clips where it very strongly suggests he’s on some sort of recreational drugs.

On Thursday, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked if President Trump agrees with Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to rescind Obama-era federal guidance discouraging prosecutors from prosecuting certain marijuana cases in states where it is legal.

“The president believes in enforcing federal law. That would be his top priority, regardless of what the topic is, whether it’s marijuana or whether it’s immigration.” Sanders said. “The president’s position hasn’t changed, but he does strongly believe that we have to enforce federal law.”

Looks like Trump changed his mind since last year when he claimed he wouldn't do that.

It's almost like he lies a bit.

So if his “position hasn’t changed” then he doesn’t believe weed should be banned but also wants to enforce weed being banned.... wtf

It's just weed dude, calm down.

This could end up being a deal breaker for many of us.

This? THIS is the deal breaker?

For a lot of ppl I know. One of my drug dealers is even a huge Trump fan. Sounds weird I know

They need to allocate a few million to send to washington to compete with the alcohol, pharma, and private prison lobbyists.

Better yet, figure out how to get the lobbyists on a boat to nowhere

honest question: Why would alcohol lobbyists be against legalized weed? Plenty of people drink and smoke, and I have a feeling that if an alcoholic can smoke legally they most likely won't stop drinking alcohol because of it. Is it a worry that people will never start drinking because they have a healthier alternative?

I’m not sure if there are any actual studies on this but many people will tell you that after having access to cannabis regularly they would much rather light up than drink. Many daily cannabis users rarely drink or don’t at all. There were many discussions about this yesterday in the comments of that cannabis post.

I only drink because I can't smoke

hmmm, I'll have to look if there are any studies on that. I'd never heard of that and I'm a bit skeptical that alcohol lobbyists would be pushing back hard on this. Pharma and prison are the obvious ones here, but maybe alcohol is more concerned on this than I would've thought

I can see alcohol pushing back hard on anything that could take away from sales.

Going from early 20s to late 20s, a night of smoking is way better than drinking. Hangovers fucking suck now.

Damn right. I don't have to drink enough to even get a buzz, and I'll still wake up with a hangover. I have a few cases of beer leftover from NYE, and every time I open the fridge, it just looks like pain.

It's about maintaining their position of power and privilege. Legal cannabis is a major disruption to the current legal intoxication industry, and it is currently a better deal for them to prevent the change than adapt to it.

It also puts them in position to control the new market, like in Nevada where liquor distributors were granted a temporary monopoly on all legal weed distribution.

If I’m home drinking on the weekend I might have like 5 beers. If I smoke a joint I’ll have one beer then drink pop or something. The whole “people like smoking and drinking” really only applies to parties and not evening rituals where booze INC. Is making most of their money.

And yet here in Orgeon, with all the new tax revenue from pot, we're cutting the state education budget.

And funny because car accidents increase as well as dropout rate.

How else is Oregon going to pay for the free reproductive health care for illegal aliens?

Where is the money going?

I'm not too educated on the matter, but I thought that was the deal in CO-- was that MJ would be legalized only if the taxes were put forth towards education / infrastructure.

Where is the money going?

Honestly don't know. There's some talk that there's huge issues with the public employees pension system eating huge parts of the budget but if that's the case, it's because of decades of mismanagement.

was that MJ would be legalized only if the taxes were put forth towards education / infrastructure.

Yeah Oregon has done similar in the past where a new revenue source, the lottery in the instance I'm thinking of, would be dedicated to education and then ends up getting used for something else.

The reality is, since education is something people care about, it's the first thing they threaten to cut because they know people will accept a tax increase if it's "for the kids".

Pension? Can't we just turn old people into food for poor people?

Money mismanagement is a major problem with all the states. Here in Jersey we receive a 911 service fee on our phone bills that was meant to upgrade the 911 system. 12 years later no system has been put in place. It's always diverted somewhere else, mainly law enforcement.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/10/rescue_911_how_nj_used_11b_of_your_money_on_everyt.html

That's not just "the deal" in CO, that's thanks to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). Every tax raised in Colorado has to be pre-earmarked for specific spending purposes, and all costs are published in public record.

Democrats hate it because it was passed by an (arguably very corrupt) Republican specifically to spite them; but it has been a godsend for the taxpayers of Colorado and efficiency of the state government overall.

There are some roadbumps; literally, like a hospital that couldn't use hospital funds to repair a road it relied on, but voters resolved this via referendum, it was paid for quickly with a 0.25% gas tax, and the tax went away after it was fixed. That would never happen in any other state.

Holy smokes. That sounds amazing! I've thought about moving to CO before and this is another great reason.

Grandpa Sessions is wasting time and resources with this. Unfortunately he's a product of the successful brainwashing that drugs are bad... or his ties to the prison industry are legit. The President needs to remove him and put someone else who isn't owned by lobbyists in place.

brainwashing

Except that he's got ties to private prisons so I don't know if he's drank the kool aid or if he's an intentional proponent of the war on drugs

You understand Trump is very pro-private prison right? Their stocks skyrocketed after he was elected, they donated a bunch to pro-Trump PACs and his inauguration, he openly supports them. Which is why it makes sense he'd choose Sessions.

Your comments in this thread seem confused and contradictory. Are we supposed to care about the drug war and private prisons or are we supposed to ignore it because some other piece of shit politician no one here is talking about but you would be "worse?"

Trump is in favor of private prisons, roughing up "criminals," asset forfeiture and stop and frisk.

He has only talked about getting rid of Sessions because he didn't protect him from the Russia investigation.

Here's a crazy idea: Congress could pass a LAW legalizing it, you know, like how things are supposed to be done.

Absolutely. However, the states-rights administration should NOT be revoking states rights in a 100 year old witch hunt.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

You can thank Wickard v. Filburn for screwing that up.

So, we have to deal with an overreaching government who's laws trump state laws, or you know, pass a law undoing federal regulation of drugs and allow the states to handle it.

Either way, legislation is how you handle this.

What about the spirit of the law? Blindly following rules makes people slaves. This is an archaic law that we can absolutely prove does no good and argue that it does significant harm, excluding the fact that it jails citizens for a 100% victimless crime.

We're either a nation of laws, or we aren't.

Cool story bootlicker

“Spirit of the law” doesn’t mean what you imply it does. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

The “spirit of the law”, as currently written, supports prohibition. It’s bullshit and I hate it but a “spirit of the law” argument doesn’t work here.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 134900}

you're absolutely right.

What about these "common sense" lawsthat politicians like to use to put their own biases into policy?

The law has a very tenuous relationship with “common sense”.

I've been hoping for that since I first became aware of the issue in the early 1970s. I do not expect to live long enough to see Congress end prohibition.

If only the previous administraction hadn't taken a hands off approach, then Trump wouldn't be modivated to undo this!/s

You can thank Wickard v. Filburn for screwing that up.

An 80-year-old unanimous decision that was never controversial until Internet "Libertarians" decided to make it so.

You mean the same issue that caused a Civil war in this country.

The Federal Government does not care about states rights and is the same on your rights.

Ask yourself this also How did it take an amendment to make alcohol illegal but they can make a plant illegal with the wave of a pen?

You mean the same issue that caused a Civil war in this country

And the same issue that freed us in the American Revolution.

And the same issue that is tearing the Kingdom of Spain apart.

Kingdom of Spain

That may be part of the problem.

The Federal Government does not care about states rights and is the same on your rights.

Sessions used to claim he cared about state’s rights... at least when it came to abortion and gays. They hypocrisy is why it’s being brought up.

There are few things as naturally human as hypocrisy.

States rights does not mean states have the right to chose not to follow federal law at a whim.

I agree it shouldn't be illegal and think the whole classification stuff is actually unconstitutional, but the argument of muh states rights doesn't really hold weight. I don't see how sessions is not being consistent, wrong, but not ideologically inconsistent.

Isn’t that basically what has happened with legalized marijuana though? A few states legalized it knowing that it would bring backlash on a national level? Obama was president though so they weren’t all that worried about anything being enforced?

Yes. When this was all going down I remember talking of how the potential for something like this was left open.

Presidents who rule by dictate can easily have their dictates rescinded. The same will happen with whomever follows Trump. A lot of what Trump has done will be removed.

Something has to happen through Congress. I have wet dreams at night about it being used as a bargaining chip to get bipartisan support on something else the Rs want.

I guess it all depends on what that that is. Death to the War on Drugs in exchange for the wall is a fair exchange and a surefire way to kill the cartel’s influence in America although the wall is a really stupid idea and would take away money that should be going to our school’s and rapidly declining infrastructure.

One can dream.

We have the equivalent of a Constitutional Amendment in the form of a 1961 treaty which requires cannabis prohibition.

That's from a bygone era when our rulers still liked to give the impression they gave a fuck about the Constitution. Now they blatantly don't give a fuck and want to rule you with a boot on your face.

I'd argue the rights of 300m American citizens is more important than the rights of 50 states. Even then most states will fold within a decade.

They don't trump civil rights?

I dont understand. Don't the majority of Americans in these states want legalized marijuana?

Yes

I guess I understood your comment to be saying that congress passing a law to legalize use of marijuana would be detrimental to the state's right to forbid it. My reply is based on the notion that the states don't (or shouldn't) have the right to remove rights from its citizens.

No, the opposite. I'm suggesting that a state that chooses to legalize marijuana should have the right to without the FBI kicking down shopkeeper doors in midnight raids like 2000s California.

That's not the state's door though. Does the state have a right to grant a license for something which is otherwise illegal? I would be surprised if there's not some mundane example where a state is allowed to license something that federal law prohibits by default, and I expect something like that to be the basis of an argument that allows the states to at least have medical marijuana.

Here's a better idea: Congress removes all laws on it, making it legal in every state.

Yes. I like that idea better, too.

Congress has the power to remove all federal laws regarding cannabis, but this wouldn't make it "legal in every state". The states still have the right to continue prohibition under state law (which is how 99.9% of weed charges are pursued currently). What Congress can do is leave it up to the states, though, which they absolutely should.

Yes. It is important to note however that as far as the federal government sees things, in large part, historically how it has seen things-is that these state laws ending prohibition are in conflict with the federal laws which take precedent. The feds have raided dispensaries in medical states before.

There's never been any federal or state action against any properly licensed Arizona dispensary. I'm quite surprised by this. Most of the opposition to AZ MMJ has been an inneffectual complaint from one county official who lost in court.

i don’t know for sure, but if i had to guess i’d say most of the raids happened in california.

Many of those were by state authorities.

california has had medical since 1996. the feds have raided them many times.

Correct.

Here's an idea: Maybe you shouldn't be using that word on the internet since, I don't know, you don't know these people on a personal level and using harsh language like that is insulting. Using language like that on the internet just shows how much hate you have in your heart. BYE

Your comment offended me. Please apologize.

I apologize with full sincerity

How about we follow the tenth Amendment

Wat

Check out this vid, it talks about how this could possibly be a step in the right direction when it comes to legalization.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YyiRhALA9XI

Vid is about 8 mins long.

Yup, saw that, which is why I'm hold out hope for all this.

If there is one thing I've learned so far from this administration is to not immediately react but to wait it out a bit to see what's really going on.

synopsis for the lazy?

According to the vid, Sessions recinding the MJ policy basically puts the Congress in position to be forced to discuss the matter. Being as how this is just another regulation, if it does go to congress chances are they will vote to legalize it because both parties are in agreement at the moment that less regulation is a good thing. Estimated 60-70% chance this happens.

Another way to look at it, is this is a clever way for Sessions to not go against his "integrity" by still saying no to weed, but allowing confess to ultimately make the decision.

thanks bro

Republicans in Congress have already voiced their views on the drug war.

Or the government could just remove it from scheduling. Don't need Congress todo that.

That's not entirely true. The 1970 CSA was an effort to bring the US into full compliance with a 1961 treaty requiring prohibition of cannabis. There are degrees of latitude in the nature of control, but they cannot simply relinquish control and remain in compliance with the treaty. Effectively we have a Constitutional Amendment requiring cannabis prohibition, in the form of a goddam treaty that nobody seems to know about.

I would like to know more.

I thought the play here was exactly this. Get states outraged in a bipartisan fashion. They come together and legalize it on a federal level.

Alright, so how do we convince conservatives in congress to do that?

Stop acting like its just one side holding it back. Its not.

No Democrat in DC has made any serious legalization attempt in the last 10 years since Obama was elected, Democrat majority in House and Senate, and a bunch of states got medical/recreational use.

And Democrats don't ever want to support states rights trumping federal because states rights could work around any federal firearm bans then.

And Democrats don't ever want to support states rights trumping federal because states rights could work around any federal firearm bans then.

That doesn't make sense. Legalizing pot at the federal level would remove it entirely from being a "state's rights" issue.

Great question. I doubt we'd need to convince any of the more libertarian leaning conservatives, but I'm fairly certain all the old school GOP lawmakers won't go for this. So vote them out.

Before they can do that they have to remove the US from the 1961 treaty which requires cannabis prohibition.

Eh, I don't think so. It may piss off some allies of ours (most likely not), but any law Congress passes overrides any treaties we may have formed. At least that's what I remember from PolySci.

We're the US, we don't adhere to treaties like some commie fascists.

They could legalize any drug, tax it and say that it’s been helping the school system. That’s not even a good argument for legalization. They say the same thing about those lottery machines. Lotto machines and pot are not helping anybody. It’s just one more thing out of the thousands of other products that are taxed.

So I'm confused are you for or against merijuana?

He’s saying that he cares so little that he wrote a paragraph about it

Going to need a source on this BS, OP. The idea that local municipalities and or corrupt state legislature would/could be spending drug money to make rainbows and lollypops more colorful and saccharine seems more than a little naive.

Go to r/trees. Top post with links for sources.

He's not going to do that. It would prove he's an idiot. I bet he'd rather live in blissful ignorance.

Hurr durr, poor people paying 3x as much for pot is a good thing. Hurr durr, giving billions of dollars to politicians is always a good idea. Hurr durr. Colorado already spends a ton of money per pupil, let’s throw more money at the problem. Hurr durr, lets have socialist projects to gentrify low income areas bulldozing small business and fucking over the same people who are paying a shit ton more for pot now. Hurr durr, never mind the fucking fact that now that pot has been legalized, the criminal drug industry can no longer make money off it and has therefor flooded the streets with cocaine, fetanyl and meth!

YOU PEOPLE ARE FUCKING MORONS

Lol, because you sure read like a smart person. /s

Local governments and municipalities have an equal amount of corrupt assholes in it as any other demographic.

You should instead provide a source for why your assumptions are batshit.

My hope is that this will force Congress to act on it in the same way they are being forced to act on the Dreamers. Get the do nothing Congress to make it national law.

That’s the one piece of optimism I can take out of this: create public outrage that forces Congress to stop being lazy cowards and actually do something.

Taxation is theft

The weed sent 'em Commie!

It's strange. /r/conspiracy is among my favorite subreddits. Here, I feel like I am around like-minded people. This makes it all more painful when every so often I am reminded that our perspectives do not align in a fundamental way.

I do not understand why anyone would be excited about the state spending their money. Everything the government touches is bloated with waste, mismanagement, and bureaucracy.

Given the freedom to do so people would renovate schools, run treatment programs, or do whatever else they want.

Most of you disapprove with the government massively. You don't like the wars, collusion with big pharma, FDA, actions of the police, etc. So why now do you approve of the government's actions? Would you not prefer the freedom to spend your own money, to improve society in the way you see fit?

Complicit in this sort of thread is a support for tyranny. The states throws the people a bone and everyone cheers.

This is just another d&c thread made in an attempt for the r/esist group/ communists to bolster their numbers.

They're under the illusion that they are getting a free lunch. Those gooberment schools are the PTBs most valuable asset.

So you're saying instead of taxing marijuana we should just treat it as illegal contraband because he possible tax dollars might be wasted?

That's such a shit argument you know that right?

That's like saying you shouldn't get a paycheck at all because you might spend some of it on unhealthy food....

You've massively misinterpreted what I said. Nowhere did I say marijuana should be illegal, nor do I think it should be.

So then you disagree with what the AG has said right?

Regarding marijuana, absolutely I disagree with him.

I don't want the government choosing what I can or cannot put inside my body. Similarly, I don't want the government spending my money.

It's why this thread baffles me. You're celebrating one type of freedom (marijuana legalization), but at the same time advocating for less freedom (loss of ownership to the fruits of one's labor).

Taxes in California are insane. Why is anyone happy to see the government spending their money? Marijuana shouldn't be taxed. There shouldn't be any legislation. There shouldn't any be money going to schools. Unless there's something that absolutely requires government intervention for the common good the government can fuck right off.

What would those millions of people have done with that tax money were it left in their pockets? What businesses will never exist? What experiences will never exist? What has been lost only so the government can have their cut?

Our right use the plants of this earth is not something that can be given or taken away. It's always been our right. The only difference now is that in California when you use weed men with guns will no longer come to put you in jail.

Sorry, I'm not impressed. Just because someone who was beating you over the head with a stick decided to stop for a moment doesn't mean you should thank them.

Don’t forget increased crime rates in Denver directly due to warehouse hold ups and robberies.

What about the decrease in drug dealers? Offset perhaps? Except there’s tax revenue this way.

Show me the statistics that say crime in Colorado decreased.

I’m speculating. Don’t care enough to look I️t up but common sense tells me Tha\T’ if I’m a drug dealer selling weed and now those customers can just go to the store and buy some kush, then who am I going to sell to?

I see the marijuana boogey man hurt you.

Well my sister had a gun pressed to her temple and my step bro had the shit kicked out of him as well by some thugs who thought they were a grow house so you could say that.

And the overall decreases in crime in virtually every state that has legalized.

Show me the statistics that say crime decreased in Colorado.

Sure thing! Always happy to help!

https://coloradopolitics.com/despite-claims-data-show-legalized-marijuana-not-increased-crime-rates/

Thanks, I will read and get back to you.

Do you have any sources or were you just talking out of your ass?

Yes, the Denver PD and their statistics are my source, will link when I’m not at work.

lol this nigga dodged that shit hard

Weird that a government can take tax money but the businesses can't use a bank or take tax cuts...

Seems like I remember a war that was predicated on a similar premise.

To all the statists out there that believe we need a federal government to take care of us, let this be an example to you. We dont need a strong fed gov. We need stronger state govs to take care of their own people the way their own people see fit.

Do you want to hurt the cabal? Vote for states rights. Vote for a weak fed gov. Make your state stronger.

I’m with you on voting for a weak federal government, but I’d rather that most of it not get redistributed to state government.

Shoulda spent a couple million lobbying congress to have it removed from the list instead...

A strong American middle class will be able to destroy the New World Order.

Why is the NWO so obsessed with pot?

Because people might use LSD or Mushrooms or DMT and expand their minds and realize the bullshit charade that has been played on them by the Govt

Because it was a quick and easy way to lock up those deemed "undesirables" and make a profit on private prisons.

I agree with the others that responded to you. Another thought is that we are using the tax money to strengthen the middle class and better ourselves. This makes it more difficult for the NWO to control us. They want us to be the slave class, which means we do not need to be educated.

It's something they can't control, multiple varieeties would be crazy to patent.

Weed is dead in the USA until the GenXers and Millennials wake up and start VOTING out the old baby boomers who voted Trump and Sessions in office. period. Sessions can go after the growers, sellers and banks who help process their businesses. Only GenX congressmen will create laws to repeal federal prosecution of marijuana. VOTE in 2018.

Fuckkkkk outta here with VOTE shit.

WE (THE PEOPLE . Young and old) DID VOTE in 2016 and what happened???

Our "democratic" party, slammed the door right in our fucking faces and gave THE PEOPLE, the middle finger. The game was rigged and we all knew it.. No matter how many us voted, no matter how many of us volunteered and marched for the better... We knew that no matter what, the VOTE is rigged. Fuck off with your partisan division. Both parties can get fucked.

Over 40% of the country didn't vote.

Because they're so busy living hand to mouth they have no time to figure out the political rhetoric that's flying from all sides. They have to keep their jobs or look for their next meal. Because apathy; they think they have no say in the matter when your vote counts one way but another is elected even though the majority voted for another. Because the vote machines are compromised. Because they've been lied to so much and so often that no one can believe anything anymore from anyone.

Millennials didn't vote. 2016 was an election for boomers, between boomers and decided by boomers. Nobody else mattered.

Unfortunately that was a consequence of the DNC’s meddling with the primaries that turned off so many young voters. I voted, but I also understood the sentiment

No, it was also decided by millennials if they decided not to vote.

Can you blame them when the candidates they were offered were a 70 year old, a 71 yr old and a 78 yr old???

Lets everyone not vote guys, then they'll have to listen to us!

What are you guys hoping for exactly? You put it all on Trump but what did Obama do when this movement was growing quickly? He cracked down on medical marijuana centers and wouldn't let banks accept legal marijuana business's money.

This isn't a partisan issue. Obama had the chance to reclassify weed and he didn't. Then he leaves office saying he should have like it was out of his control.

I'm usually on the "you guys are being unreasonable with Trump." But I fucking can't stand him for putting Session into power as Session is by far the worst thing about Trump's presidency. Civil asset forfeiture and the war on drugs, two moron issues that this dude is in love with.

But you guys need to stop this "the otherside is way worse than we are!!1!1!!" crap. Sessions is at least doing what you'd expect out of an old GOPer, Obama was suppose to be the man for change and he's was no better than a christian Neo-Con on many of these important social issues.

If you want this to change, vote on a local level based on ISSUES not what color is next to their name. At that national level they all start seeming very similar with minor differences and can't get much done. At the local level weed has been legalized and needs backing to fight the federal gov into at least respecting their decisions. There's too much money at the top for them to fight against all the lobbyist that desperately do not want weed to be legal.

Obama issued decree's that stated he would not prosecute marijuana on the federal level. You can't do much more than that . period. The congress has to write and pass the laws , not Obama. Not the president. You're way outer space here. Local legalization is meaningless without federal . period. Look at last week. Sessions can shut it all down if he wants to period. Local laws are USELESS if the FEDS still have it equal to heroin. Do your homework bro.

The DEA is a branch of the executive, not congress. If Obama had them reclassify marijuana then he could have effectively made it legal nation wide the same day.

The reason I say go at the local level is because if the culture changes so dramatically the fed has two choices, stand firm and deal with the people rising up against it which results in shit like we had with gay marriage. Which had less support than weed legalization as there isn't a big religious movement against weed, many people prefer not to use it and want their children not to, but they see the conflict of alcohol and tobacco being legal but weed not when the former two are much more dangerous.

The other choice is the fed adjusts either directly by reclassification through DEA, law in congress. Or if they want to be blameless to avoid voter backlash they let the supreme court deal with it, again like gay marriage. This way they don't worry about being voted out of office by people who disagree. BUT, if this changed at the local level, every state has legal marijuana usage, or at least decriminalization the perceived political backlash will be minimal, even favorable for passing laws at the fed that reflect what the states have done.

Gay marriage took over once states started legalization, to say it wouldn't work for marijuana is just ignorant of recent history. Politics is downstream from culture and politicians just want to keep their jobs. If you change at the local level the fed is either going to adapt or die and they know it. If every state has it legalized or decriminalized but the fed is still locking people up, eventually people will be getting voted out of office purely because they didn't do anything to change the law. That's the change we should be looking for.

It's much easier to change a local law than it is to vote out an incumbent congressperson.

If Obama had them reclassify marijuana then he could have effectively made it legal nation wide the same day.

WRONG. Its much much more complicated for an administration to remove or declassify a drug than for congress.

Controlled Substances Act. Under this law, marijuana is listed as a Schedule I substance, meaning it has a high potential for abuse and no current accepted medical use. Congress has the power to reschedule marijuana, either through new legislation specific to marijuana or through tailored amendments to the Controlled Substances Act.

Here is a link that shows why it's so difficult for the President and would NEVER EVER happen "in a day" : [How to Reschedule Marijuana]"(https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/how-to-reschedule-marijuana-and-why-its-unlikely-anytime-soon/)

Because I don't think you'll read it, In a nutshell, administrative rescheduling begins when an actor—the Secretary of Health and Human Services or an outside interested party—files a petition with the Attorney General or he initiates the process himself. The Attorney General forwards the request to the HHS Secretary asking for a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation, as specified by 23 USC 811(b-c). HHS, via the Food and Drug Administration conducts an assessment and returns a recommendation to the Attorney General “in a timely manner.” The Attorney General, often through the Drug Enforcement Administration, conducts its own concurrent and independent review of the evidence in order to determine whether a drug should be scheduled, rescheduled, or removed from control entirely—depending on the initial request in the petition. That won't be done "in a day".

1. 60% already approve of marijuana. But stones seem to be too unmotivated to march on Washington. So politicians don't make it a policy front and with the Trump admins stance on it, it's not going to happen anytime soon.

3.The Supreme court won't even hear a case, even on a "states rights" issue because the law has been clear for decades. The burden falls on congress, which could reclassify the quickest and the easiest.

1. While I agree that marijuana acceptance has grown and has started locally, and that all politicians want is to keep their job, it's still going to take an act of congress to change things. This will ONLY occur if millennials and GenXers get out and vote out Boomers in 2018 and 2020. Period. Changing local laws does nothing if the DEA can still override them.
   

You're fighting really hard to shame this one off Obama.

That chart you put in is nice, but it all ends at the AG, which the president appoints. The AG's decision is based on advice but it's his decision. If Obama cared about this issue, if the AG had a different opinion Obama could just replace them with someone who wanted to legalize marijuana.

In 2016, the process was followed and the DEA decided to keep marijuana's schedule I status. Guess what, Obama is in charge of the DEA, it's a branch of the Department of Justice and under the executive branch. The president can fire the head of the DEA and hire someone who supports his ideology, you know like how Trump fired Comey. FBI is also a part of the Department of Justice and is under the executive. So following the system that is in place, Obama just didn't have the right people in place to make the change.

Oh, you mentioned congress passing law. Well, Obama had a Democrat congress for 2 years, it's how he got Obamacare through. Marijuana, not important enough for him.

I feel we're on the same team but your hang up is me calling out Obama and the Democrats when really it's 100% their fault. This movement was starting up during Bush but caught full fire when Colorado made it legal at the same time Obama was voted into office. Obama had multiple opportunities, in many different ways but never took them.

Never mind Obama is known for expanding the power of the executive. The dude was basically declaring wars on countries like Syria, Libya, Yemen and I think a couple others through drone bombing and supporting rebel uprising, but somehow he couldn't just strong arm departments that report to him? I guess it's more important that the NDAA was in place than it was to give the people the legal right to consume a plant.

More towards the local level, a little known thing that everyone forgets about is jury nullification. So again, if you change the culture at the local level, so even more people find it acceptable, if a federal case goes in front of a jury of people who are against these laws and they come up not guilty, they can effectively change the law.

So sure, keep talking to me like I'm an idiot and fight hard to defend your team. Before you start attacking the GOP thinking that you'll get me, I'm not on either of your sides. I hate the GOP for being so stupid with this issue and I hate the Dems for having the chance to change it and just acting like the GOP. Shrugging off the blame like it was out of their control to get anything done.

No. It's simple. Which president has done more for Pots legalization and acceptance than Obama? NONE. You're just butthurt that he didn't pass out joints at his inauguration party. You're making a case that Pot legalization should have been Obama's NUMBER 1 issue and that any political appointee should have been immediately removed if he didn't make weed like distilled water.

Again, Obamacare, affected 30 million Americans, but less than 10% smoke weed. But they're the same issue in your eyes.

I am all for legalization. I've been to Colorado on April 20th. I've been to Oregon and Washington State in 2017. So we seem to be on the same team. But I am clear eyed that Obama advanced the movement further and NORML has been fighting for decades. Trump and Sessions is a major setback.

Do you invest in Marijuana stocks? I do. And now it's dead money until Sessions and Trump are out. It's just reality.

What you seem upset is that you perceive Obama to have had an opportunity to make weed like tobacco, and since it isn't he is a failure. I don't see it like that. The cat is out of the bag. You just might have to wait a couple years longer now in whatever state youlive in. that's all.

No. It's simple. Which president has done more for Pots legalization and acceptance than Obama? NONE.

This isn't saying much, most previous presidents were actively fighting it. He wasn't actively fighting it as much, still went after medical dispensaries, made these legal businesses have to act like criminal enterprises dealing in all cash, traveling with former military security to protect them.

I'm not saying it should have been his #1 issue, stop strawmanning. He had congress in his pocket for 2 years, never came up. He had the AG which could have changed it at any time, especially in light of all the medical research coming from places like California, didn't. The DEA had it in their lap to change it just before Obama left office, didn't. How many chances does someone get until it's clear they didn't want to do anything?

I also am very confused that you seem to be such a marijuana advocate, clearly a democrat or at least some version of lefty and throw this non-sense out at me.

You're just butthurt that he didn't pass out joints at his inauguration party.

...I don't smoke. I actually dislike weed and if it was legal I might buy it once to say I did (which I guess I could I live very close to MA) then never touch it again. This isn't an issue of me getting mine. This is an issue of me not wanting people locked up for smoking a fucking plant. I never expected such a stupid GOP talking point thrown in my face from someone who is fighting so hard to make Obama blameless.

Accept it, your golden boy had every opportunity in the world and he wanted nothing to do with it. Beside his interview of him saying he wished he did more as he was leaving office, is there anything to indicate he actually wanted it legal? I mean the dude ran against gay marriage and it took Biden saying they were cool with it for Obama to get on board with it. Obama seems like a fairly conservative guy and acted like one too.

Now you're just trolling.

But I bought stock in private Prisons when Trump got elected, and my portfolio has been booming ever since. I sold my weed stocks on the session announcement. I'll buy back in after the 2018 election results and if Trump loses in 2020 then I'll re adjust my strategy then. But until then, the weed industry is on pause in America.

I'm honestly not trolling. You picked your team and refuse to see your blind spot. You bring up this complicated chart and try to dismiss that Obama could have done anything. You praise his inaction as progress. The only reason we got into this back and forth is because you couldn't accept my attacks on Obama as we both agree weed should be legal.

Again, I hold zero love for what's going on now and Sessions is by far my biggest problem with Trump. Most of the Trump hatred comes from his appearance, how he's twitting like a moron or the stupid things he's saying about other people and countries. Sessions on the other hand is actively driving things backwards and making it worse.

But I give no love to Obama for making it possible in the first place. Obama was wrapped up nicely for me when he signed NDAA into law and said that he would never use it. Obama had no problem extending the power of the executive to do evil things but when it came to him forcing issues that people actually cared about he was indifferent. To him it was more important to extend wars into new areas when he got a Noble prize for his campaign promises of peace than it was to actually make policy that created more peace. Like not locking people up for smoking a fucking plant.

So, no, I'm not trolling you. I'm just sick of this awful president who had amazing public speaking ability being able to give the illusion that he's an amazing man when when at best he's just a more liberal neo-con.

What about Obama's Cole memo?

The Obama administration began issuing prosecution guidelines in 2009 and in 2013 settled on ones crafted by Deputy Attorney General James Cole. Cole’s memo basically left it to state and local agencies to enforce their own laws, while the feds would focus on marijuana when it was tied to gangs or drug cartels, violence (especially involving firearms), or was part of schemes to sell pot in states where it remained illegal.

Cole's memo urged federal prosecutors to use their own discretion. Giving a green light to Marijuana's current growth.

Executive orders have very little Teeth. But compared to what Trump has done in the 1st year, Obama is the real GENIUS.

You don't strike me as someone who would EVER be happy with a President. You simply want your way with NO compromise, and that's now how politics works. at all. Ask Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders.

I'm sick of Trump too, but if this new book is any indication, the heat is definitely turning up, and Mueller seems to have a clear strategy that leads to money laundering for the Russians through Deutche Bank and implicates Jared and Ivanka. It sounds like Trump has a 50/50 shot at making a full term. And I don't say that lightly or as a conspiracy left wing nut job. I truly think he is our generations Nixon and we are living in Historical times. I think that Trump will have dozens of books written about him, his campaign, his presidency and his Psyche. For decades. Most of them NOT GOOD.

Executive orders have very little Teeth. But compared to what Trump has done in the 1st year, Obama is the real GENIUS.

...this is what I'm talking about. You say I'll never be happy by any president, which honestly is pretty true. I mean right now Trump is the least evil president of my life time just because he has only had a year to go on compared to the rest having 8. I digress, you're holding Obama up simply because he leaned on inaction for an issue that had a large movement behind it but he clearly disagreed with.

Not it wasn't a priority to him, because if it wasn't he wouldn't have bothered with the memo, he didn't want weed to be legal. Swallow that and let it sink it. How many times does an issue have to come up before something is done? He had 2 direct times he could have did something, when doing this memo and when it was in front of the DEA, no real change. If it was at all important to congress they could have pushed it through a democrat congress and easily had it passed, nothing. Obama didn't want to change the law, he wanted to hold his position without losing votes for his party. Dance around that all you want but you're showing nothing that changes this.

You simply want your way with NO compromise, and that's not how politics works. at all. Ask Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders.

I know very little to nothing about Cruz, but Sanders isn't someone who doesn't compromise the dude endorsed Clinton after campaigning saying she is basically what's wrong with politics today. The dude basically threw his moral stance out the window to support his party and hopefully leverage it for something later on.

I can also see that you really want me to be a normal GOPer for you to fight with because the Trump rant at the end makes zero sense. You do come off as a conspiracy left wing nut job because I don't like Trump, I didn't remotely praise him nor am I saying he's better than Obama. You're trying to make this a binary argument because it's easier for you to "win." I'm not a republican and on social issues they are almost always 20-40 years behind so I'll never hitch my wagon to them on something like weed because they're still thinking about the "this is your brain on drugs" commercials from the 90s.

Stop trying to wiggle out of it. Obama is a social conservative. That's why there were no changes to drug laws. That's why there was no wide sweeping police or prison reform. That's why his acceptance of gay marriage was basically forced on him. Was there any social issue that he came out ahead of his voting block's outcries? Every social issue I can recall off the top of my head of him being involved in were a reaction to something. The only issue I remember him being the driving force behind, socially again, is like the Sandy Hook shooting where he went hard against guns.

Trump is the least evil president of my life

How old are you? I've lived through 8 presidents and it's not even close to how evil Trump is. His environmental orders alone put him at the top. Not to mention his human rights orders. If you aren't a white male, you don't exist. I'd love to hear you defend Trump on almost any of his policy decisions in year one. He is the worst in History. His entire policy is simply undoing anything Obama did , and the reasoning behind it is not policy based, but only to maintain is voter base. It's so wrong on so many levels it's insane.

I don't pretend, like you are, to understand or know what "Obama wanted". All I know is what his actions were. Which was to actively promote the NON ENFORCEMENT of laws that you disagreed with. Significantly fewer people went to prison for Weed than under any other president. And he pardoned a ton of drug offenders too. So again, you've got an impossible standard to meet for any president.

Cruz is hated in Congress for causing the shutdown over his lack of compromise. Sanders folded for the reasons you stated. But he read the writing on the wall. So maybe he is a pragmatist.

I really don't care who you support or what party you affiliate with. I just want to uncover your thinking process. If it's flawed, then I'll expose it. Right now you seem to not be very informed on politics. You don't even know who Ted Cruz is? Cmon. Did you even vote? You strike me as maybe a 30s millennial or an out of touch GenXer.

Haha. If Obama was a social conservative then Trump is what? Trump is a lifelong teetotaler! But wait, he had 3 wives so he's just a conservative hypocrite. Obama presided over gay rights, women's rights, drug rights expansion, immigrant rights. And Trump is actively fighting against ALL of those things. So I'm not sure which president that exists in reality you like? Again, there doesn't seem to be any person in history that can live up to what you expect a president to be able to accomplish. He isn't a KING, he is but one among 1000s in government that affect policy decisions and passage. Maybe you don't understand that a president doesn't pass laws, or change them. AT ALL. Only congress can do that.

His environmental orders alone put him at the top.

What do you mean specifically. Unless he's actively destroying the environment I just don't see how it's worse than the wars Bush and Obama put us in and expanded.

I'd love to hear you defend Trump on almost any of his policy decisions in year one.

Stop trying to put me in the GOP box. Saying Trump is the least evil is not saying he's the best.

He is the worst in History.

...History? Like all of it? Wilson forcing us into WWI isn't worse? Jackson's trail of tears? LBJ for starting the drug war? Nixon...enough said. You don't want to come across as a crazy left wing nut but how in the world is Trump worse than these that are off the top of the head of a non-historian? I'm sure someone with much larger knowledge of the issue could ramble off hundreds of examples.

I don't pretend, like you are, to understand or know what "Obama wanted".

Cop out. Look at his actions and stop shrugging it off because you want him to be your savior. You keep dodging all the opportunities he had and hanging all your hope on his decision of inaction on an issue he was aware was becoming a big one.

Right now you seem to not be very informed on politics. You don't even know who Ted Cruz is? Cmon. Did you even vote?

So if I don't know everything you do I'm completely uninformed? This is stupid logic and makes the standard for what informed is impossible to meet because the line moves randomly. Did you know about jury nullification? Can I dismiss everything you say because you don't know about a basic right? Of course not.

If Obama was a social conservative then Trump is what?

...not a social conservative. Trump is flamboyant, over the top, egoistical, throws his wealth in our faces, doesn't follow the norms of marriage and things related. Thaddeus Russell even goes as far to say Trump is black. He embodies black culture and is mentioned a ton of times in rap before his presidential run because of it. That rappers would look up to him and want to be him.

Obama presided over gay rights, women's rights, drug rights expansion, immigrant rights.

He had nothing to do with gay marriage. Again, he was against it. He never advocated for congress to move on it, it was done by the states then the supreme court. Would be the same thing as saying Nixon was the person to make abortion legal because Roe V Wade happened during his term. No lefty is praising Nixon for his pro-choice outlook on life, nor should anyone be praising Obama for being at his post when other people did things. With this logic of saying you're for something but doing nothing, Trump is our most gay-friendly president as he's the first to get elected believing gay marriage is acceptable. How does that one feel?

What women's right issues did he fight for?

You're putting a ton of credit into a memo saying don't arrest weed smokers, like a shocking amount to add it to this list next to gay marriage being legal.

Immigrant rights huh? Is that why he was labeled the Deporter and Chief? Is that why deportations are down under Trump?

He isn't a KING, he is but one among 1000s in government that affect policy decisions and passage. Maybe you don't understand that a president doesn't pass laws, or change them. AT ALL. Only congress can do that

You have to be trolling me. I've listed the ways Obama could have been directly and indirectly involved in changing the law in 3 ways, I think 3 or 4 times now. This is what you come away with? Are you just not reading what I said or is the cognitive dissonance too much for you that you literally cannot see the words because they disagree too strongly with your view of things?

Allowing off shore drilling, Expanding drilling into protected lands, reducing the amount of protected national monuments which leaves them open to everything from drilling, exploration, to hotels and motels.

When World War I erupted in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson pledged neutrality for the United States, a position that the vast majority of Americans favored. Britain, however, was one of America’s closest trading partners, and tension soon arose between the United States and Germany over the latter’s attempted quarantine of the British Isles.

LBJ created sweeping civil rights legislation and the creation of major social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start and food stamps.

Nixon's crimes were NOTHING compared to what both Clinton and Trump did during this last campaign.

because you want him to be your savior.

Quit trying to box me in to some Left wing liberal stereotype. I would never view any politician as my "savior".

Again, he was against it.

So if Obama was against Gay rights, what is Trump? Obama allowed gays in the military and Trump? What did Trump do about gays in the military?

You're putting a ton of credit into a memo saying don't arrest weed smokers

Now you've got me confused. Are you saying you WANT weed smokers prosecuted? Because before you said weed smokers shouldn't be prosecuted, and Obama did that, but now you're saying that wasn't enough. Do you see what I mean about holding an impossible standard?

Did Obama propose building a physical WALL? Deportations Are Down Under Trump, But Arrests of Non-Criminal Immigrants Surge.

But you seem to be saying that now Trump is the immigrant chief!

Your words, that I read, claimed that Obama could have changed everything "in a day". That was a lie, a falsehood, not true. You really don't understand what the process was, or is, for doing it from the Administration side vs the Congressional side. So you keep repeating your beliefs, but I don't recognize them because you won't accept your own cognitive dissonance on this. Obama NEVER campaigned on legal weed. It wasn't even on his platform. Yet you wanted it to be legal for recreation on day 1 or else he didn't do enough for weed. I just don't think you even know your own position.

No one is reading this man. Misrepresenting my arguments to try and gain points isn't going to get you anywhere. There's no crowd watching this that you can sway by twisting my words to give the impression I'm saying something I'm not. If you can't engage in a discussion properly just stop responding. Some of this stuff is off the walls. But let's unpack again.

Allowing off shore drilling, Expanding drilling into protected lands, reducing the amount of protected national monuments which leaves them open to everything from drilling, exploration, to hotels and motels.

Is this just a list or are these the exact things that make him worse than Jackson forcing Native Americans to leave their land? Is this worse than FDR putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps? I mean comon. We're comparing future destruction to immediate death and suffering. If I said I could kill you now or torture you in 50 years would you really say that the torture in 50 years is the worse option?

When World War I erupted in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson pledged neutrality for the United States,

...why wouldn't you just source this instead of pass it off as your own words?

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/america-enters-world-war-i

If you just read a little farther down.

On May 7, the British-owned Lusitania ocean liner was torpedoed without warning just off the coast of Ireland. Of the 1,959 passengers, 1,198 were killed, including 128 Americans. The German government maintained that the Lusitania was carrying munitions, but the U.S. demanded reparations and an end to German attacks on unarmed passenger and merchant ships.

It's believed that Wilson did this on purpose to spark favor to join the war effort. Like it's a common belief at this point. I mean he wanted into the war so badly that he did things like locking up people for speaking out against the war.

Listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episodes on WWI, as you needed to reference the history channel, I assume you don't know anything about it. Carlin tries to paint Wilson in neutral light and the guy still comes out badly. He's by far the worst president in US history. It's the US's involvement in WWI that eventually lead to WWII.

LBJ

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference."

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/did-lbj-say-ill-have-those-nggers-voting-democratic-200-years

If you read the link, you'll see why LBJ did those things. He was trying to buy the black vote. He was a raging racist but knew that the black vote was up for grabs and social programs are a progressives best friend for buying favors and shaping cultures to their will.

Easily a top 5 worst president as well.

Oh, caught that one too.

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/10-things-you-might-not-know-about-lyndon-b-johnson

Got you digging hard on history channel last night huh? Weird that's your go to source. Also weird that you think you need to mention these things and almost hope I don't have a good retort. I have a special hatred for Wilson, FDR and LBJ. I didn't feel like breaking down FDR as if you're a progressive I don't feel like fighting that battle as well as the Obama one. You're holding on to Obama for dear life, I didn't want to find out if FDR is also a hero of yours.

Nixon's crimes were NOTHING compared to what both Clinton and Trump did during this last campaign.

I'm not going to defend any of these 3 people. If you feel comfortable saying Nixon is a better person than Clinton, sweet whatever.

I would never view any politician as my "savior".

Then why are you not letting a single blemish stick to Obama? The only people I see other's defending as strongly as you're defending him is religious figures. You talk about him the same way someone would Jesus. That he did no wrong and the things we perceive as wrong were for a reason or out of his control. It's creepy and frankly the hero worship is scary to me.

So if Obama was against Gay rights, what is Trump? Obama allowed gays in the military and Trump? What did Trump do about gays in the military?

Uh...nothing? He tried to ban transsexuals which was overruled by the courts. So by your measures Trump is allowing transsexuals into the military. That's how this works right? Courts do something and the president gets all the credit? Or is that not what you're trying to imply when you talk about Obama and gay rights?

Now you've got me confused. Are you saying you WANT weed smokers prosecuted?

There's nothing confusing. My point has been consistent for like 4-5 posts now. I've spelled it out in multiple ways. Let me do it again, maybe in your old age you're struggling to keep up. If he wanted to change the law, he had 2 years with a democrat congress. He didn't. If he wanted to not make it as harsh federally he could have put in an AG that could have rescheduled it from schedule 1 to 2, putting it next to cocaine. So at least medical dispensaries didn't have to worry about being raided, which happened often under Obama. Towards the end of his term the DEA had the specific case of rescheduling on their agenda. If he wanted it done he could have strong armed the director into doing so or fired him and replace him with someone who would. He didn't. 1 direct chance to make the change as he's leaving office and 2 longer chances, one being 2 years with congress the other being 8 years with his AG. Never was important enough for him to make actual change. At some point you have to look at someone's half measure as a way to appease people without making lasting change.

Did Obama propose building a physical WALL? Deportations Are Down Under Trump, But Arrests of Non-Criminal Immigrants Surge.

So Obama was great for immigration because Trump is arresting more and wants to build a wall? This logic doesn't make sense. Also like how you didn't mention any of Obama's fight for women's rights. It's almost like you're just saying things that are opposite of Trump and saying Obama was known for them without any knowledge of what Obama actually was doing.

claimed that Obama could have changed everything "in a day".

Not even close. 2 years with congress. 8 years with his cabinet. Then whenever he found out about the DEA having the rescheduling on the table until they made their decision. Even if he didn't want full legalization he didn't have to go so hard after medical dispensaries. A reclassification keeps it illegal federally but doesn't make doctors and cancer patients potential federal criminals.

Yet you wanted it to be legal for recreation on day 1 or else he didn't do enough for weed. I just don't think you even know your own position.

I know my position well, you're trying to strawman me to make it sound like I'm saying it's his biggest issue or that he should have done it Day 1 or in 1 day. None of these things I've said and I've clarified his timeline multiple times at this point.

Again, if you can't have a discussion without misrepresenting my points then just stop responding. If you don't understand what I'm saying, rather than making wild assumptions, ask. You know, how I asked for specific examples of what you meant by certain things. I haven't been vague and I've repeated myself many times by this point.

While you make some good points on the debate of "worst president of all time", I have to disagree on President Obama being the worst president on Weed. You sort of , kind of dodged my question on that.

If Obama wanted to changed federal policy on Weed all he had to do was use the Cole memo. Which he did, which changed policy. Just not permanently. Obama's weed policy effectively allowed the weed industry to bloom. And opened the door for the states that have recreational usage now. This is fact, it's not debatable. But what it seems from your stated opinion is that Obama didn't make those changes permanent. But nothing in Washington is permanent. So at this point it seems that we have concluded our debate on Trump/FDR/LBJ and who are terrible people etc. I'll concede that we need to have a separate debate on the metrics of concluding what makes a "bad" president. But I'm not interested. The point I simply can't get my head around is how you feel that Obama was anti-weed. So again, if Obama was anti-weed, which president has been pro-weed?

if Obama was anti-weed, which president has been pro-weed?

None. It seems you need this to be binary and it's not. Not a single president, to my knowledge, was ok with the population using drugs. The main reason drugs are illegal is because they saw that the rebellious types were doing them so they saw it as an easy way to lock them up.

I mean think about it. LBJ hates black people but sees the writing on the wall that he can't leave Jim Crow laws or other obviously anti-black policy in place. Black people generally aren't following the same rules of be a good christian man and work hard, instead they want to do drugs and not work. So you make it a crime to do drugs and you can punish them according to what other people in that community want you to do. The blacks that are trying to assimilate love that you're trying to "clean up the community."

You hang your argument on Obama being the best but it really doesn't say much. LBJ was racist and has the civil rights act in his name. Obama was in place for a large revolution against the war on drugs and did nothing. Even if he didn't want to out right legalize it he could have made medical marijuana allowable. Again, weed is right next to heroin and cocaine is a better drug according to the government. That's not a major change and doesn't really measure up to what the states have been doing but it's something.

Marijuana is moving forward despite the federal government and it's one of the largest political conflicts we've seen since slavery. But it's not about keeping people as slaves and isn't dividing our country between ourselves. It's dividing our country between the people and the fed. It's a conflict Obama had control over stopping and especially as Trump is rising up when the DEA had the chance for rescheduling, him not changing it was accepting that Trump might get in and make things worse.

Our political leaders should be doing the will of the people and I get sometimes that can be conflicted. Which it probably is for Trump as he'll be hearing from more social conservatives even though he isn't one, as that's who he's surrounded himself with and therefore who is in his ear. Obama wasn't that way, he had a pulse on the social liberal movements in the country and he often spoke to them. He ignored there outcry here and it might be another decade before real change comes in and could lead to even larger conflicts between the states and the fed. I mean what if Trump starts threatening federal funding if a state legalizes weed?

The main reason drugs are illegal

No. the main reason drugs are illegal is because they are dangerous.

Obama was in place for a large revolution against the war on drugs and did nothing. Even if he didn't want to out right legalize it he could have made medical marijuana allowable.

Cole memo did this.

Marijuana is moving forward despite the federal government and it's one of the largest political conflicts we've seen since slavery.

A Joke. Not even close. An overstatement. Immigration is a much bigger political issue with larger implications than potheads.

was accepting that Trump might get in and make things worse.

Not even Trump thought he would win the election.

Our political leaders should be doing the will of the people

When have they EVER done that? And Trump only plays to his core base. Which are conservatives.

the stereotype of baby boomers was Vietnam, civil rights, Archie Bunker and Gloria Steinem.

In 10 years the boomers and Trump will be OUT of power. Millennials like pot, GenX is so-so on it.

In 10 years Pot will be legal for recreation nationwide. Possibly with Alabama as an exception. I have no doubt about that. That is why millennials and GenXers must vote out any person (R) or (D) who is over age 60. It's that simple.

No. the main reason drugs are illegal is because they are dangerous.

Nonsense. Go read about the war on drugs. Read about LBJ. It's not a safety issue. If it was there's no reason crack would have harsh sentences than cocaine, that's on purpose. Guess who uses each type? Blacks use crack, so put them in prison longer and cocaine is a drug of businessmen so that's a much lesser sentence.

It has nothing to do with danger as many medicines are dangerous but a doctor doesn't face prison time for using it. It's social control. If you want to lock people up make the behaviors of those people illegal.

Cole memo did this.

Keep saying it, maybe I'll eventually agree.

A Joke. Not even close. An overstatement. Immigration is a much bigger political issue with larger implications than potheads.

How? How is it even close? A great deal of the reason there's a conflict over immigration is the war on drugs. The two big reasons conservatives are for closed boarders is keeping their jobs (the stupid reason) and criminals coming across to sell drugs. We've spent trillions fighting the war on drugs domestically and aboard. Have you seen Nacros on netflix? Imagine if drugs were legal, how does any of that exist? Where does the US and South American conflicts play out differently? Immigration isn't on the same planet of an issue. From every angle, immigration doesn't have the death toll or cost. I can't think of a single metric it even comes close, no idea how you can say it's bigger. Notice I gave examples and explained my point. Making a wild statement like that with nothing to back it up is insane.

Not even Trump thought he would win the election.

Irrelevant. If you play the game like you can't lose then don't be surprised when shit falls apart because you didn't plan for the worse.

When have they EVER done that?

The states are legalizing weed. Where am I losing you? Slavery being abolished was driven by the people. Civil Rights Movement. Cultural revolutions start with the people, none have started with the government.

If you want to lock people up make the behaviors of those people illegal.

I think you have this backwards. If you want to control people's behavior, lock them up for doing it.

A great deal of the reason there's a conflict over immigration is the war on drugs.

Yeah. But mostly it's about the Rich donors and CEO's who like cheap labor. Today Trump hinted and changing his position because all those Rich donors really really like and need cheap labor in this country. It serves 2 purposes. 1. Profits. 2. Keep wages lower by offering alternatives to Union workers.

Imagine if drugs were legal, how does any of that exist?

We've wasted trillions on the war on drugs. Yes. But that doesn't make drugs a good thing for society. Nor is all that money a "waste". It paid for police budgets, familys, communities etc. It's like the defense industry. Sure, we spend a ton on it, but what would all those people do if we got rid of it?

I'd love to hear your argument for why Fentanyl should be offered on the shelves in WalMart though.

I'm also curious why the Drug war is never mentioned in Presidential debates? Nor is it asked by reporters, nor is it discussed in press conferences. But Taxes, the Economy, Jobs, Immigration repeatedly top polls when people are asked about their top concerns. Drug legalization is NEVER in the top 5. WHy not?

You're saying that Drugs should be the biggest concern of all Americans because of the points you're making. But I'm saying the reality is people care more about ISIS and terrorism, or Police brutality than drugs coming over the border .

Comparing Slavery to recreational drug use is a stretch.

I think you have this backwards. If you want to control people's behavior, lock them up for doing it.

I misspoke, what I meant is what you said.

Yeah. But mostly it's about the Rich donors and CEO's who like cheap labor.

I agree, but that isn't the movement behind Trump. The movement he's hitching onto is the exact opposite, it's the working class that fear losing their jobs to that cheap labor. Which really is more of a problem with the minimum wage. If we didn't need illegals to keep costs down it would solve this problem overnight.

But that doesn't make drugs a good thing for society.

Never even tried to imply that. I don't use any drugs. The hardest I've tried is weed. I don't even drink. People like to get intoxicated, we cannot stop it. They cannot stop it from happening in prisons, places designed to prevent things from entering and leaving without permission. Making it illegal is making something a person is voluntarily doing to themselves a crime and if someone wants to get high I don't see how anyone else's opinion factors in. Even if it results in death. It's for them and their family to deal with, not for society to ruin their life to help prevent them from ruining their life.

I'd love to hear your argument for why Fentanyl should be offered on the shelves in WalMart though.

Simply liberty. Me locking you up and immediately making your life worse is not any better than you rolling the dice and risking ruining it yourself. At least you can be a functioning drug addict in society. You can't function at all in society when in a cage.

But I'm saying the reality is people care more about ISIS and terrorism, or Police brutality than drugs coming over the border

Also people don't care about how Bush ruined Iraq. How Obama spread that ruin to Syria, Libya, Yemen. How Trump is continuing it and floating the idea of starting shit with Iran. I take great issue with the media playing high and mighty but ignoring major issues like the domestic war and foreign wars. Prohibition didn't work in the 30s, these morons didn't learn their lesson and are trying to convince us that it's not a complete failure this time around. It's all playing out the same, except the gangs are much larger, much more violent and oh, the government found a way to get a cut now too. Like how the CIA was funneling cocaine into LA for the Contras. Also the odd coincidence that Afganstan became the largest manufacturer of heroin after we invaded.

Comparing Slavery to recreational drug use is a stretch.

Not even my original idea.

http://newjimcrow.com/

http://fortune.com/2016/10/06/13th-netflix-documentary-ava-duvernay/

If we didn't need illegals to keep costs down it would solve this problem overnight.

There you go again, saying that a problem can be solved "overnight". This is a much larger issue in our society. The Rich asset owners now gain more share of the profits than 30 years ago. Wages are kept artificially lower, hurting the middle class and leaving them open to inflation creep. Where their dollars don't go as far year after year, and the cost of living goes up very slowly.

Making it illegal is making something a person is voluntarily doing to themselves a crime and if someone wants to get high I don't see how anyone else's opinion factors in.

Because it affects society. Drunk driving, crime, theft, murder on drugs affect society. There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Or victimless drug use.

At least you can be a functioning drug addict in society

Fentanyl is the most highly controlled drug in the country right now and it is killing more people than guns or alcohol in 2017. If it was allowed to get on the streets? Cmon. You sound like a libertarian.

As for the rest of your history of people being awful to other people. I used to think like you. I used to get so upset over all the injustice in the world. I still do, if I let myself. But the history of civilization has been injustice, abuse, horror, pain, selfishness and greed. People have been trying to "fix" things since 5000 years ago. Now we want women to be "equal" and THAT will fix society. We want poor people to have a higher wage, and THAT will fix everything. Drugs being legal will fix everything. Guns being more legal, less legal will fix everything. And the truth is, it won't. People, humans, are the problem. We evolved and survived by living in tribes of 75-150 people. So most of our cultural and societal instincts came from that. But now we live in a global world and the internet allows me to talk to YOU in some other tribe in some other place. The tribes in the middle east have been killing each other for CENTURIES. The American Indians used to fight each other before the white man wiped them out. Nothing has changed except the tools for our greed, fear and selfishness. So I don't think anything you or I propose or argue is going to solve that.

Wages are kept artificially lower, hurting the middle class and leaving them open to inflation creep.

Artificially implies something is holding them down, what is that then?

Because it affects society. Drunk driving, crime, theft, murder on drugs affect society. There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Or victimless drug use.

War on drugs has not only not solved any of these issues but made them worse. Instead of just worrying about being hit by someone DUI, you have to worry about drive by shootings from gang rivalries.

Fentanyl is the most highly controlled drug in the country right now and it is killing more people than guns or alcohol in 2017. If it was allowed to get on the streets? Cmon. You sound like a libertarian.

Quick look at numbers, Fentayl has 20k deaths, alcohol as 80k deaths. You're allow to look up and source information. Also I am a libertarian, using it as an insult is strange.

Nothing has changed except the tools for our greed, fear and selfishness. So I don't think anything you or I propose or argue is going to solve that.

...which is why I'm not arguing to fix society but to give everyone freedom. That if people want to ruin their lives over time, so be it. There's many drug users who live normal lives. They cannot if you lock them up. I'm even down for the money, all of it, being redirected towards treatment rather than locking people up. Look at Portugal for what a decriminalized society looks like. It's MUCH better than our's in regards to drug USE.

The actual problem is we keep trying to solve our problems which lead to unintended consequences that make the problems worse.

Wages are kept low by the illegal labor market. who benefit from not having to pay taxes on labor, or healthcare on labor. So the cost of labor is cheaper for illegal immigrants. This artificially lowers wages in a country where citizens costs are higher.

I don't know where you drive, but I don't worry about drive by gang shootings at my grocery store.

Your off the cuff numbers are vague. 80k are not killed in alcohol related overdoses per year. that's false. look it up.

I'm sorry you can't fathom why being a Libertarian is an insult. Maybe because it's a system that only works on paper and is usually championed by academics. In the real world, it has failed every time. I have no desire to argue Libertarianism with anyone again. It's failed. It doesn't work. And ascribing to it's principles should fade as you become more educated.

Did you go to college? Just curious.

Government and lack of freedom is to protect the good from the bad. Government control is NEEDED because freedom doesn't unilaterally cause all people to become good citizens. Law and Order is what has brought the greatest piece in human civilization, not freedom.

3-18% of the population use Marijuana, how is that "NORMAL" ? Drug users do not live normal lives. And normalizing drugs is part of the problem not the solution.

The irony is that Libertarianism attempts to solve all societies problems and universally leads to unintended consequences almost always leading to an outcome of LESS freedom that before libertarian institution.

Wages are kept low by the illegal labor market. who benefit from not having to pay taxes on labor, or healthcare on labor. So the cost of labor is cheaper for illegal immigrants. This artificially lowers wages in a country where citizens costs are higher.

How very conservative of you, but the reason they are wrong about this logic is if this is true it means the market is artificially high, not low. For prices to be at their current levels it requires cheaper labor than what we currently have. If you want higher wages you'll have to accept higher prices which then it comes out to a wash. This is the exact reason I say if we got rid of minimum wage much of this problem could go away because people who wanted to work for that lower wage could and we could do without illegals. There's a million other factors that go into the price and wage issue, but in regards to illegal immigrant labor, the minimum wage is one of, if not the single biggest issue. Of course taxes, health insurance and other benefits factor as well. Relieving that burden would allow employees to take home more money but go without things like vacation days, some people don't want that type of trade off and rather see it as built it and invisible. Nothing is free though.

I don't know where you drive, but I don't worry about drive by gang shootings at my grocery store.

Cool, doesn't exist then. Guess we're on to the next topic then. Because gangs don't exist near you they don't exist anywhere. Because people in your neighbor don't get killed in drug related events they just never happen. I'm glad we established this.

Your off the cuff numbers are vague. 80k are not killed in alcohol related overdoses per year. that's false. look it up.

No, you look it up and give me the fucking source. Stop making claims and giving nothing to back them up, this is getting stupid. Every reply you have some over the top claim that I have to either have you clarify or look up myself. If you want to prove a point that has hard statistics behind it, provide the stats or don't make the point. It's not my job to do your research. If you make it my job don't complain when I come back with things that disagree with your point.

In the real world, it has failed every time.

Where has it been tried. How did it fail? Another wild claim with no examples or backing. This is something that you cannot just say and hope I don't challenge. It's literally a meaningless statement without examples. I'm not going to guess what you think a libertarian society is nor guess what failure entails. Show your work.

And ascribing to it's principles should fade as you become more educated.

Reason I hate the left. It's not that people can hold different beliefs than you, it's that they aren't smart enough to see the world the correct way. Just arrogance, not like you're proving how you're much smarter than me. I rambled off those history lessons off the top of my head, you needed the history channel to even know what I was talking about. Yet you feel empowered you know more about Ted Cruz who will be forgotten by history in like 5-10 years unless he does something more. Wilson changed the course of American history and most wars are called Wilsontonian meaning we got involved without needing to in hopes of being a savior that ended up making things worse.

Did you go to college? Just curious.

Yes

Government control is NEEDED because freedom doesn't unilaterally cause all people to become good citizens. Law and Order is what has brought the greatest piece in human civilization, not freedom.

We've always had law and order, like ancient times we had law and order. We got freedom in the 1700s and advancements exploded. Horse and buggy was advance technology around 100 years ago. We've grown exponentially as a result of freedom and people being able to do what their heart desire at their own personal risk. Meanwhile the most law and order states in world history tend to be the worst possible places to live. North Korea has by far the most law and order in the world at this moment, are you saying that's better than even the 2nd least free country?

3-18% of the population use Marijuana, how is that "NORMAL" ? Drug users do not live normal lives. And normalizing drugs is part of the problem not the solution.

Source ALL of this. Where are you getting those numbers as there is an obvious qualifier. How can you make such a wide sweeping comment like drug users don't live normal lives. Have you not been around alcoholics? How sheltered is your life? Do you think every drug users is automatically homeless and steals for their next fix? Have you seen Wolf of Wallstreet? Drug use is heavy in high stress jobs. This isn't to say they are the best in their field, that they are great people or even should keep those jobs, but your statement is a wild assumption with zero backing. If you can even find a source for it it's going to have a million qualifiers to make it extremely specific when you're using it incredibly generally. Also where's the source on normalizing drugs is part of the problem? Again, go look at Portugal. You haven't so you are making assumptions based on zero information and just going on propaganda that has been feed to you over the years. Are you going to link Reefer Madness as a source to how normal pot heads act next?

The irony is that Libertarianism attempts to solve all societies problems and universally leads to unintended consequences almost always leading to an outcome of LESS freedom that before libertarian institution.

You either don't know what libertarianism is or have been around progressives calling themselves libertarians. Libertarianism centers around the idea that we cannot shape society to our will. That giving people freedom to do what's in their own best interest will always result in a better society. The main pillar of our beliefs is that we cannot solve societies problems, that society will evolve to solve the problems that it has no choice to or will die as a result of it. That if drugs are a major issue that society will look for way to help their people get clean and avoid them. That some politicians a thousand miles away cannot possibly know all the answers to why drugs are a problem and how that society can solve it. And their attempts to solve it just end up creating new issues elsewhere and most of the time don't even solve the problem they set out to fix.

I'm not sure what you think you know about libertarianism but your first quote sounds an awfully close to the same way I'd talk about socialism and the second quote sounds like progressivism. Libertarianism is pretty much the polar opposite of both. We believe in individualism, socialism is centered around collectivism. We believe in people's right to choose bad choices, progressives want to shape society to what they think is correct.

Eliminating the minwage is another Libertarian fallacy. To start, it’s actually a bit of a leap to assume that just because existing businesses could hire cheap workers to do new jobs, they necessarily would. although the value of the minimum wage fell 32 percent during the 1980s thanks to inflation, teen employment actually dropped slightly.Because we have minimum wages today, businesses are required to work at a certain level of efficiency. Unless a business is understaffed, adding a new worker, even a cheaper one, might not be particularly profitable. the median front line fast-food worker today is 28 years old. Lowering their wage would have consequence on society. But a libertarian isn't concerned with that.

Because people in your neighbor don't get killed in drug related events they just never happen.

I love this. As a libertarian, you are "free" to move to any neighborhood you choose. And living in a gang area is your choice. Also, as a libertarian, how would you combat gang activity? What would stop gangs from simply taking over areas by force in more aggressive ways if there is no police force?

A total of 2,200 Americans die from alcohol poisoning each year. IN 2016 Fentanyl killed 20,000. But you want to make it legal. Why? You haven't answered that yet.

Where has it been tried. How did it fail?

Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.

Reason I hate the left.

You're really projecting here. I don't feel arrogant or confident because you didn't know who Ted Cruz is , and I didn't feel like you "beat" me because you know about Wilson or made a good point.

North Korea has by far the most law and order in the world at this moment,

Without Justice, it's not the same thing.

Source ALL of this.

You do your own homework. Look it up yourself. That's what you told me.

My point is that if only 1 out of 6 people are smoking pot, then it's not a normal activity for MOST people. You can't deny this. The only way you could is to redefine the term "normal" to include drug use. Which is not the case in most people's daily routine. The rest of your rant is based on a fictional movie? Cmon. Even if based on true events they weren't even CLOSE to normal. Wild assumption with zero backing? How about your inference that most people in high stress jobs do cocaine and/or other drugs? Where is your research for that? Where are your citations?? Where is your back up? Since you want to turn this into a citation and notation contest, why aren't you holding yourself to the standards you hold me to? Fail.

That giving people freedom to do what's in their own best interest will always result in a better society.

Flawed Utopia.

I told you I have no desire to argue with Libertarians. I've done it for years, and most of them, like you already, can't or won't see reality. This allows the idea of libertarianism to continue to live in your head. Give me real world examples of libertarian societies! Central governments going away produce chaos! not order. Libertarians fail to realize that there has never been--and never will be--a government that functions according to their principles because it runs entirely contrary to human nature. I'll say this one last time on this topic. Read it and think about this:

The exercise of power by those in a position to wield it does not end with the elimination of federal authority: rather, it simply shifts to those of a more localized, more tyrannical, and less democratically accountable bent. Feudalism is the inevitable consequence of the decline of a centralized state.

Not a single link. Are we pretending we're experts in these topics now or something? That we're both so well researched that we can make claims without providing any sources? I know you're making claims that have qualifiers and conditions and are saying them more general. Give sources or anytime you cite an actual stat I'm not going to believe it, simple as that. I'm done googling things for you.

although the value of the minimum wage fell 32 percent during the 1980s thanks to inflation, teen employment actually dropped slightly.

Source

I love this. As a libertarian, you are "free" to move to any neighborhood you choose.

You currently are too. There's more factors that go into moving than just the desire to do so.

A total of 2,200 Americans die from alcohol poisoning each year. IN 2016 Fentanyl killed 20,000. But you want to make it legal. Why? You haven't answered that yet.

Source

Without Justice, it's not the same thing.

What does that mean?

You do your own homework. Look it up yourself. That's what you told me.

When? You mean when I gave you a source and told you to read it and you didn't?

My point is that if only 1 out of 6 people are smoking pot

Source

The rest of your rant is based on a fictional movie?

Knew you'd say this. It's not based on a movie, it's to show that people are using drugs in high stress jobs. It was made fun of in the movie but it doesn't take away from the truth of the actions. Look how many athletes get pinched for drug use today. Baseball was known for athletes using speed and other stimulates to handle their schedules. Alcoholics are common in all fields, Thaddeus Russell who I mentioned earlier was a college professor who was an alcoholic at the same time. These aren't rare cases.

Flawed Utopia.

Huh? It's the opposite, they either figure it out or die. You're ignoring the die part because it makes your argument, but death is a part of life. We aren't saying they'll always figure it out and society will just become the best place ever without a government. There will always be problems and if they can't figure them out they will die as a result. We aren't seeking a Utopia, we're seeking freedom for people to find their own subjective utopias. Whether that's a place that allows them to be creative or one that allows them to score easy drugs and kill themselves. It's up to the individual to define what they want and to go seek it. Not for the government to decide what's best for them and punish them for not playing inside their rules.

Give me real world examples of libertarian societies!

...waiting? You said every time it's been tried it's failed. If you didn't want to argue about libertarianism you didn't have to bring it up. I'm attack every weak argument you make. Again, you're using language that makes me think you have a totally wrong understanding of libertarianism.

1. I never claimed to be an expert. Nor a History professor. But you maid several historical claims that I accepted, did I not? Without a source. Nor did I simply DISMISS those claims with the comment: "source". As if because I did not provide one to YOU, the random Reddit guy, the claim itself is wrong? You are lazy. Instead of adressing the claim itself. You dismiss it wholely because of it's lack of a hyperlink? Here's the thing about that. It's really easy to simply take your mouse, and highlight my sentence, then lift click, then GOOGLE the sentence and google will provide the source. It's just about the exact same amount of effort required to click on the link I provide and READ the link. So why should I do all that work in formatting when there is a high probability you're too lazy to read it anyway? Instead, just dismiss it. I get it. Lazy.

2. We are all FREE to move to any neighborhood. And we don't live in a libertarian society NOW, so why and would it be "better" to destroy the American system again?

Look how many athletes get pinched for drug use today.

source.

Alcoholics are common in all fields

source

Whether that's a place that allows them to be creative or one that allows them to score easy drugs and kill themselves.

How does America inhibit those thing?

It's up to the individual to define what they want and to go seek it.

And so it is in America. Except that all people don't live on their own, self sustaining island. They live in a society. And once that happens, you need rules to govern, and people entrusted to enforce those rules. game over.

You said every time it's been tried it's failed.

Somalia.

1. I never claimed to be an expert. Nor a History professor. But you made several historical claims that I accepted, did I not? Without a source. Nor did I simply DISMISS those claims with the comment: "source". As if because I did not provide one to YOU, the random Reddit guy, the claim itself is wrong? You are lazy. Instead of adressing the claim itself. You dismiss it wholely because of it's lack of a hyperlink? Here's the thing about that. It's really easy to simply take your mouse, and highlight my sentence, then lift click, then GOOGLE the sentence and google will provide the source. It's just about the exact same amount of effort required to click on the link I provide and READ the link. So why should I do all that work in formatting when there is a high probability you're too lazy to read it anyway? Instead, just dismiss it. I get it. Lazy.

2. We are all FREE to move to any neighborhood. And we don't live in a libertarian society NOW, so why and would it be "better" to destroy the American system again?

Look how many athletes get pinched for drug use today.

source.

Alcoholics are common in all fields

source

Whether that's a place that allows them to be creative or one that allows them to score easy drugs and kill themselves.

How does America inhibit those thing?

It's up to the individual to define what they want and to go seek it.

And so it is in America. Except that all people don't live on their own, self sustaining island. They live in a society. And once that happens, you need rules to govern, and people entrusted to enforce those rules. game over.

You said every time it's been tried it's failed.

Somalia.

Nor did I simply DISMISS those claims with the comment: "source". As if because I did not provide one to YOU,

The reason I'm getting hung up on it is because you're using heavily refined stats. It's not just "here's something that happened in history" it's "here's exactly how many people are using drugs." I've interacted with both types of claims many times. Someone saying something about history I know it's their interpretation and they are learning some someone who is explaining the source data a certain way. They are just repeating someone else's information and it doesn't bother me as much to just listen and I'd ask for a source more to learn more rather than fact check. When going directly to the data though, it's another thing because you're interpreting data, you're drawing conclusions. Meaning I either take you at face value or I see the data myself as your claims seem off. When looking at the data it's important to factor who was studied, how many people, for how long, with what methods, what were the results and what were the researchers conclusions. Each one of these stages can be wrong. Just listened to a podcast by Malcolm Gladwell on Revisionist History called The Basement Tapes where he explains how difficult research can be and how people don't want like to accept research that is directly counter to their beliefs. He explains how difficult each step of getting the results can be. So you just pulling up random stats off the internet and not giving me any context means you're either trying to lie your way into a win, knowing something is fishy about the stats or you don't know how to interpret them, just see that it's a win for you and go with it.

Look how many athletes get pinched for drug use today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/sports/olympics/ioc-russia-winter-olympics.html

Like I said, hard stats and studies need sources because interpretation is important. Do we really need to source that athletes are using drugs? When hasn't that been a problem.

Alcoholics are common in all fields

This one is fair, mostly depends on the definition of common which really I don't know because that's an agreed upon type term and we're working all over the place so 10% of the population to me is common, but you're saying that 1/6th is rare.

But anyways, fair enough, I'll be the good boy and actually do the work while you just go on the offensive. I like rising above.

http://www.sapaa.com/mpage/wp_stats_workplace

We both know it's just to make a point and you won't read any of this shit so whatever.

How does America inhibit those thing?

How does America inhibit drug use? See you're not doing it right, I'm making you clarify things that you bring up and are new that have confusing meaning. You're asking me to clarify the entire argument. We started at America is fucked on drugs, we aren't going to revert to a point before this conversation even started for you to make a moral point.

And so it is in America. Except that all people don't live on their own, self sustaining island. They live in a society. And once that happens, you need rules to govern, and people entrusted to enforce those rules. game over.

Huh? Libertarianism is about how societies interact, not about the absence of them. You get that there are rules and order in a libertarian society right? That anarchy is the absence of government, not the absence of civilization. Is the only thing holding you back from killing someone is the government telling you it's wrong? Do you not steal from people because you might go to jail?

Somalia.

What's libertarian about it?

1. Either my facts are correct and I'm right, or my facts are incorrect and I'm wrong. It's not that either I'm misinterpreting them or they're wrong and you're always right. Your 80,000 number is from somewhere (no source) that include ALL alcohol related deaths. Which could include everything from DUI's to cirrhosis of the liver. But in the context of our debate, we were talking about Fentanyl overdoses vs Alcohol overdoses. And you were trying to argue that fentanyl should be allowed on the shelves of Walmart because every individual is responsible for themselves. And every individual in society is 100% informed about 100% of the products offered.

2. Everyone knows that some athletes do drugs. And everyone knows that that the Russians were banned for using illegal PEDs. But again, that's not the context of our argument. You said it's NORMAL for people to do drugs and live NORMAL lives. Olympic athletes aren't normal people. By definition. PEDs aren't even relatively NORMAL drugs! They aren't even recreational. So again, you've accomplished your goal. Of taking the discussion so far out of context that you can book a "win" without ever addressing my point. Which is that if drug use isn't done by almost everyone, how can it be "normal"? I'm conceding that some people are functioning alcoholics, and some people do narcotics and go to a job. But this is not MOST people, so it's not normal, AT ALL.

You missed my point here. It's concerning Libertarianism vs American capitalism/Democracy now. In order to win over the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans with your Libertarian alternative, you're going to have to show how it's going to provide a better life for them IN EVERY WAY. And if you can't, then it's just mental masturbation. If people still feel FREE in todays society, then why would they change? Will Libertarianism provide them with more choices of toothpaste or streaming services? How about this, give me a couple examples of how your version of LIbertarianism will make America better for MOST people? Go for it. I'm excited to hear them.

If there are rules in Libertarian society, who enforces them?

Even with a "police state" of America in place, people STILL murder each other, so why should I believe it will be LESS violent under your libertarian rules? There are MANY people who would murder and steal much much more if they could get away with it.

Somalia didn't have a central government but had civilization that devolved into a Warlord /Pirate economy.

You're ability to see the truth then try to argue against it is so strange.

If this is true:

Either my facts are correct and I'm right, or my facts are incorrect and I'm wrong. It's not that either I'm misinterpreting them or they're wrong and you're always right.

then this can't be true:

But in the context of our debate, we were talking about Fentanyl overdoses vs Alcohol overdoses.

Or this:

You said it's NORMAL for people to do drugs and live NORMAL lives.

What you original say is however you present the information means your correct. Which by nature has to apply to me as well or you're trying to give yourself an unfair advantage, that you can set the parameters and I can't. That you can go specific and general when you feel, but I have to stay within your guidelines which I have to constantly have you define.

You understand the contextual nature of these things when we're talking specifics but you feel the need to start your reply by saying things are absolute. Just stop and look at your arguments before you attack what I'm saying when you a sentence later go on to agree with.

Now to the content.

Your 80,000 number is from somewhere (no source)

Fair enough, again I'll hold myself to the standard I'm setting.

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

Your Fentanyl argument, on your terms, tobacco still beats it. Now if we set fentanyl to the standard you later try to get me to follow on the drugs in sports, as the drugs Russia are in trouble for are illegal in most countries without a doctor script, some even with. Most versions of steroids aren't prescribed by doctors. So this means you need to show numbers of people who have died from Fentanyl from purely unprescribed, recreational use.

Do you now understand how impossible your restrictions are making this conversation? It's easy to just change the parameters then claim I don't have a good response, but where is that getting us exactly? What's the end point you're trying to make? You're arguing below the line rather than above. In otherwords, you're arguing the irrelevant details and putting greater importance on those than the larger argument of drugs, as a global term, usage in most situations. Who is using them and how dangerous they are.

A death from a drunk driver isn't less deserving of attention than a death from an OD. Both were optional events that the user took part in where they didn't understand the potential harm of their actions. If people are dying because they are being told to take too much fentanyl rather than deciding to take it when they shouldn't, then there's a different argument. It's not the drug or user that's the problem, but the person prescribing them the drug.

So if we really need to play this game, I'll humor you because seems I'm still right.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

"Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 19,388" "Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 30,722"

So if you're referring to this article (I'm starting to feel like an idiot for doing your work for you, but guess I'll help the lazy)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/02/upshot/fentanyl-drug-overdose-deaths.html

Just need to point out that Fentanyl is a schedule II drug.

https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml

You know, below marijuana (not on that death toll list at all) and heroin, which is in 2nd place by 5k deaths. Also it's right next to adderall and ritalin, you know drugs commonly given to kids. Almost seems like the government has no fucking idea what they are doing with this scheduling and need to take a serious look at it huh?

How about this, give me a couple examples of how your version of LIbertarianism will make America better for MOST people? Go for it. I'm excited to hear them.

You're setting me up for failure by making it too board. On top of that I'm still not convinced you really understand what libertarianism is. And let's just be honest here, what's the point? You have as much bias against libertarianism as I do socialism. I'll argue all day with someone about socialism but they'll never convince me that it's good, at best they could convince me there's good parts but never that the entity as a whole is good. I won't be the college freshmen who were enlightened suddenly who want to share how great socialism is by yelling at people until they agree or give up. I'll cut my losses. I mean we've been going back and forth for a week now and all major themes you've just abandoned to focus on irrelevant details, why on earth would I start trying to convince you libertarianism is a good system. You've primed the conversation so I cannot possible win.

If there are rules in Libertarian society, who enforces them?

Well to the vast majority of libertarians...the government. You know, because they aren't anarchist. Anarchist don't form political parties and run for office. They separate from society and start their own communities. Do you see any ancomms running for congress?

If you mean ancaps, you're asking me to unpack an incredible complicated problem that much smarter people than me have attempted. If you're genuinely curious I can point you to some podcasts I've heard on the issue but I'm not totally sold on anarchism so I won't make their argument for them. Just like I wouldn't argue in favor of progressivism or neo-cons or socialism.

so why should I believe it will be LESS violent under your libertarian rules?

Well simply by ending the war on drugs violence would drop dramatically. I know you hate my magic bullet arguments but it's fact, not theoretical.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/opinion/sunday/portugal-drug-decriminalization.html

As you don't seem interested in looking up Portugal yourself, there ya go.

Somalia didn't have a central government but had civilization that devolved into a Warlord /Pirate economy.

Ok, wanted to make sure that's all you listed. You ignored some key points, like how they were a socialist country that was being raped by the rest of the world for it's resources and that it went into full blow anarchy. Not that libertarians settled there, tried that form of government and it went to shit.

Got another example or are they all based on failed socialist countries that fell into anarchy, which again there's a vocal branch of anarchist in the libertarian wing, but the left has the same thing and the right does kinda. The right's "anarchy" is a little different as somehow the party of small government's radical wing becomes fascism and nationalism, which is strange. But I'm all over the place. Somalia is a better example of the evils of imperialism or the failures of socialism. To call it libertarianism is to just associate all forms of anarchy with us which means you don't actually understand anything we stand for. We're more socially liberal than the left and we're more fiscally conservative than the right, not all of us are anarchist.

If you want my exact beliefs, I think the federal government should be the smallest and weakest form of government. It's job should be to be the glue holding states together, acting like a toothless EU basically. That cities and counties should have the most power as they are directly connected to the people they are serving and can shape the society to the will of the people actually living there. I don't think a congressperson from California should be telling a district in Maine how they should live. Vastly different cultures and require vastly different needs. My biggest hiccup with being a full ancap (anarcho capitalist, or what you think we all are...I think? you still talk like we're socialist) is I don't know how a criminal justice system works on a scale of 350 million people without it being somewhat centralized I also don't know how we pay for it without theft from someone. I'm open to a good idea but all the ones I've heard seem lacking as criminal justice was my major in college and I know how incredibly complicated it is and I think non-criminal justice types over simplify it too often.

1. I'm not really interested in arguing about arguing.

2. I don't see the distinction in the link you provided for alcohol related deaths. I want Alcohol poisoning. compared to Fentanyl ODs. It's that simple. We don't need to debate if a person was prescribed by a doctor or if they are life long drinkers. Also, has anyone overdosed on Tobacco? So again, I'm not sure why you'd include it in the debate. Fentanyl having only ONE overdoes "beats" tobacco overdoses.

While I agree that drunk driving deaths are important, this actually makes a case against your argument that drugs should be unregulated in Society. I think that my point can be summed up more succinctly: Drugs lead to the early death of MANY people, therefore they should be tightly controlled.

1. If your point is that the drug scheduling in America is "messed" up. Then yes. I agree. But only in that. Not that the solution is to make all drugs available over the counter.

2. I don't bring up Obama because it's a dead point at this end. You're never going to see it my way, so why should I beat a dead horse? You've admitted that NO PRESIDENT EVER can live up to your expectations so why try? I've already clearly, shown you, with the Cole memo, why Obama is the most lenient president on marijuana over the last 50+ years and it's still not enough for you. So why keep going? The Cole memo exists, Sessions threw it out. But somehow Obama should have could have done more, which makes him anti-pot. I don't know how to reason with someone so unreasonable on this point.

As far as libertarianism goes, great. I don't need to argue it anymore either. If you want to throw up your hands great. I win. I simply wanted examples of your thought process and the reasoning behind how or why America should switch from it's current democratic system to your ideas. But you dont' feel like offering any for debate and scrutiny. fine. great.

1. Responsible anarchism sounds great, on paper. But in reality humans simply don't behave in the needed ways. Capitalism plays better to human behavior. That's my problem with Libertarianism. It requires the average citizen to be 100% informed of 100% of all things, all the time.

2. In Portugal, drugs aren't legal. Those caught with drugs are hauled before a ‘commission for the dissuasion of drug addiction’. They may not get a criminal record but they can be fined, placed on a compulsory treatment program, or even have their passport confiscated.

3. 17 years after Portugal changed it's laws, have they cured drug abuse? No. Not one bit. Some studies point to increased abused. link

4. We're more socially liberal than the left and we're more fiscally conservative than the right, not all of us are anarchist.

So , like, you love Rand Paul?

1. Finally, on your views. Good luck. But you're not realistic. 2 senators from Nebraska, can affect EVERYONE in the country right now. And limiting government is a joke as both parties support bigger and bigger government. They only disagree on who gets the perks. Rand Paul is your hero then? But even his policies have real world implication problems. Personally, I feel that we are at a generational war point. Baby boomers have stolen the future from GenX and Millennials and I don't really care WHO you vote for as long as they are under 60. There are going to be some tough choices coming for future reps and leaders, and I want them to represent MY interests and not the boomer generation. WHich has only shown interest in protecting and benefiting itself at all others expense.

So you're still in your 20s or early 30s?

I'm not really interested in arguing about arguing.

Then why are we continuing this? At this point it's devolved into an argument about specifics and semantics. If we aren't going to get on the same page then we're going to keep throwing out things that are true in their own context but the other person is going to disagree with the context. That's what most of your reply ends up being in fact.

I want Alcohol poisoning. compared to Fentanyl ODs

And I want deaths from Fentanyl ODs from purely recreational use. If you can put arbitrary qualifiers, so can I.

Drugs lead to the early death of MANY people, therefore they should be tightly controlled.

And my point is the current methods of control are doing absolutely zero to stop this and creates more problems as people fear getting help, use dirty needles, fear being locked up for long periods of times, it's the main reason for most gang violence. It didn't solve the problem, it created a black market.

But only in that. Not that the solution is to make all drugs available over the counter.

So you talk about being reasonable and compromise but why wouldn't you clarify which drugs should be schedules as what, which should be legal or any thing like that? I'm cool agreeing to give more than we have, I'm not all or nothing as you're coming across in this comment.

I don't bring up Obama because it's a dead point at this end.

I've explained my point from multiple angles, I've given solid reasoning and examination. You've retorted by just bringing up the memo as if it has any lasting effect. You also act like someone taking a half measure means they are in total support when I gave good examples of how Obama is a social conservative. You're response to that was to laugh and ask about Trump, deflecting to something easily winnable because you don't have a good rebuttal to the issue at hand. I bring it back up because that felt like a dominating win and shows how you're the one unrelenting as you just choose to ignore issues you can't argue well enough.

You've admitted that NO PRESIDENT EVER can live up to your expectations so why try?

You have no empathy. Think about it this way. You're a democrat. Imagine every president ever was a republican or another party that is counter to your beliefs. All they do is enact policies that are directly counter to all your most important values, whatever they might be. Would you compromise and say one of them is good by your standard? If you do what do any of your values mean if someone can act in direct opposition to them and you still be in favor of that person. It's why I have so much contempt for Sanders. Hillary was the exact type of person he was preaching against and he folded in hopes of staying in good favor with the party for future success. He is an ideology who will push his ideas to the side if they will interfere with his career advancement. If he was to win, all of his policies would be watered down and toothless.

But you dont' feel like offering any for debate and scrutiny. fine. great.

I have, I'm just not going to go so general when I'm not an academic, nor a policy wonk. It's not my job to set up the transition and imagine what the end game is, in fact my beliefs are directly opposed to that type of thinking. I think there are steps we'd need to take but the philosophy centers around freedom and letting people figure things out in their own ways. I have given you some of my beliefs so don't pretend like I'm just straight up ignoring the issue entirely. I mean the last paragraph if my previous reply is how I'd prefer society to be governed.

Responsible anarchism sounds great, on paper.

What are you talking about? Are you trying to force me into the anarchist box against my will? I've said multiple times that I'm not an anarchist, nor are all libertarians. Should I just start calling you a communist because communist are a wing of the left? Stop type casting me to make dumb arguments.

Capitalism plays better to human behavior. That's my problem with Libertarianism.

Number 1 sign someone doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. Capitalism is an economic system, libertarians have opinions on how they want that run, specifically a unrestricted free market, but libertarianism isn't an alternative to capitalism, it's a political system. The reason for this confusion is because of socialism as that is an economic AND political system. Under libertarianism the economics that most people deal with wouldn't change, under socialism they change radically.

In Portugal, drugs aren't legal.

I didn't say they were.

Those caught with drugs are hauled before a ‘commission for the dissuasion of drug addiction’.

So at this point you're just trolling right? It comes off as you trying to get away with a lie. If you just kept reading, a common feature you come with, laser focus on what proves you right and ignoring the part that makes your ground shaky.

"The committee has the explicit power to suspend sanctions conditional upon voluntary entry into treatment. If the offender is not addicted to drugs, or unwilling to submit to treatment or community service, he or she may be given a fine."

Because getting treatment or a fine is totally on par with 5-10 years in prison.

17 years after Portugal changed it's laws, have they cured drug abuse? No. Not one bit. Some studies point to increased abused.

...who in their right mind thinks we're "cure" drug abuse? Cigarettes are legal and one of the most harmful things you can put in your body. We've spent 20-30 years and millions, maybe even billions of dollars at this point educating people to their harm. Cigarettes are taxed almost $10 a pack in some places. People still smoke. You don't "cure" drug use, you remove the optional and additional harms that take a potential life ruining problem and make it a guaranteed life ruining thing by throwing them in prison just for consumption.

Also if you're going to use studies, don't use ones that are closing in on 10 years old. It takes multiple years for them to gather the data and process it. Then it takes 2-4 years to get the research published and reviewed. If you're lucky that data is coming from 2005-2008 range. I can't seem to find it, but there was a chart I saw that showed murder rates went up after the decriminalization and just started to fall back to what they were before the new laws in recent years, like 2015-16 type recently. An article from 2011 is years away from seeing that end result.

So , like, you love Rand Paul?

Rand Paul is a conservative with some libertarian leanings. I like him sometimes and other times I don't, like most politicians, but he does end up on my "like" list more often than not. I wouldn't say I love any politician.

But you're not realistic. 2 senators from Nebraska, can affect EVERYONE in the country right now.

....so is this a good thing or something we should be just accepting as the BEST way as you're seeming to imply?

And limiting government is a joke as both parties support bigger and bigger government.

Duh, it's why I'm torn which party is absolutely worse as republicans are saying one thing and doing another while democrats are trying to warp society to their will, even if the people don't want it.

Rand Paul is your hero then?

lol I just figured it out. I have you over a barrel over your Obama worship and you're desperately trying to find someone comparable that I'll defend religiously. You won't find it and if you do you won't know enough about them to out argue me as you'll be going off strawmans built with the intention of discrediting them.

Baby boomers have stolen the future from GenX and Millennials and I don't really care WHO you vote for as long as they are under 60.

Yes, totally makes sense in an election where it was Bernie Sanders, Clinton and Trump as the front runners, all young politicians. -.-

As for the future being stolen, ya it was stolen in the form of debt and the generations after them's answer has been to spend even more and put future generations into an even worse spot. A significant portion of our annual budget is going to paying off the interest on the debt. There's talk of a $1 trillion deficit annually moving forward. That has to be paid off and your generation (assuming your gen X or you're talking shit about your own generation) and mine have decided to put the problem off on our children and grandchildren to figure out.

So don't act all high and mighty as it's not like any generation has done anything but make the problem worse.

1. I am not interested in semantics . So we can drop that part. These responses are getting too long anyway.

2. How would fentanyl ODs not from Rx help our point? Even WITH the FDA and DEA we STILL have a drug overdose and abuse problem in this country. And making those drugs easier to acquire would solve this HOW? That is the point you're avoiding with all this jibber jabber.

3. Removing the black market is your only concern? Ridiculous because you don't even know that removing regulations will get rid of the black market either! It didn't in Colorado, it hasn't in the Viagra market either. The black market exists in areas where drugs are legal. And even if you could prove it, that still doesn't solve your problem of abuse and overdose costs. How will you improve those numbers by making drugs MORE available???

4. It's not my job to classify drugs.

5. Now you're playing semantics again. I never said Obama gave his "full support" of marijuana legalization, which implies he did all he could. I ONLY said that did MORE than any other president to further advance the cause. Which he did. Unarguably. But you don't want to accept that. So you keep dancing.

6. So you supported Sanders? He was a socialist. I'm unclear on the vague point your making here. Why don't you use YOUR opinion and give me your actual views on this one. It might help to clarify. Sanders was a socialist. Clinton and Trump were very similar on most issues.

specifically a unrestricted free market,

1. Doesn't work. We get monopolies and robber barons and worker abuse, consumer abuse.

2. Please present the differences in a Libertarian political system vs a democratic one and how it would be better.

3. "Because getting treatment or a fine is totally on par with 5-10 years in prison. "

I never said it was. But don't imply that Portugal is just fine with drugs being over the counter. They're not. What you're really advocating for is a different approach to DRUG ABUSERS. You want to coddle and swaddle them like babies with a "disease" instead of adults who make bad choices. Portugal's results aren't spectacular enough to change our system.

1. "by throwing them in prison just for consumption. " We have harshest sentences for sellers not takers.

11."so is this a good thing or something we should be just accepting as the BEST way as you're seeming to imply? "

It's not and we shouldn't. We should remove gerrymandery laws and re establish the Census as a government funded project for starters.

1. I don't worship Obama. Your'e really stretching here to make it so , because I suspect you've railed against him to other people, so you have a bunch of arrows in your quiver. The ONLY thing I've defended Obama on is that he was the laxest president ever on marijuana. That's all. nice try though.

2. You're a millennial? That's my guess. If so, your generation didn't VOTE in the last election.Boomers elected BOomers to pass BOOMER legislation. Boomers control 80% of leadership rolls on state and fed levels. And because of those decisions, there are going to be some HARD choices going foreword. I'd rather have GenXers making them than boomers. GenX has half the population of Boomers and only teaming with Millennials can we overcome their voter numbers.

Debt, inflation, deficits, are all going to cost us in quality of life. Boomers don't care, they're on their way out. And they'd take it all to the grave with them if they could, burning up the planet and poisoning our water on the way too.

I am not interested in semantics . So we can drop that part. These responses are getting too long anyway.

What is this then?

Now you're playing semantics again. I never said Obama gave his "full support" of marijuana legalization, which implies he did all he could.

The ONLY thing I've defended Obama on is that he was the laxest president ever on marijuana. That's all. nice try though.

Isn't Obama the best president for women's rights (gave no answer to how), gay rights (done against his will), drug rights expansion (minimumal effort that I still argue was for political capital which is why it was a half measure, again he attack dispensaries viciously in his first term) and immigrant rights (which another one you didn't have a good rebuttal too, just said Trump is arresting more so therefore Obama is good I guess?). Follow the consistency of your own argument. This conversation started because I attacked how Obama handled this issue and you defended him on every single thing I brought up. You didn't concede a single point. If you don't want to appear to worship Obama then don't start talking about how he was great on every issue and how he's the best we've ever had.

Ridiculous because you don't even know that removing regulations will get rid of the black market either! It didn't in Colorado, it hasn't in the Viagra market either.

Means that it's artificially over priced which is a big problem with the prescription drug market and why people want stuff like being able to buy drugs from out of the country to drive costs down. I guess you just don't know why black markets come into existence. In places where cigarette prices are reasonable there's limited to no black market, in a place like NYC where they are taxed $10 a pack people sell loosies and get choked to death for selling them.

So you supported Sanders?

It's stuff like this that makes me want to end this. This is normal political horseshit where you're playing to an audience to make it seem like I'm saying something I'm not when you know full well I'm not even remotely saying this. You're purposely being a troll. If you want to continue a civilized discussion I'm down but if you just want to be a cunt I'm out.

Doesn't work. We get monopolies and robber barons and worker abuse, consumer abuse.

Monopolies exist until someone else finds a way to compete. We haven't had any monopolies without government restricting competition. Standard Oil was never a true monopoly even though it's the poster child for it, only getting to 88% market share and was already down to a 64% market share when they went to court for Anti-Trust violations.

Workers and consumers made out much better than they did prior to these companies coming into existence. We look at shit like children working in factors compared to now forgetting that people would have large families to have their kids all work on the farm. That the kids are working so they don't starve to death, not because the parents wanted to sit at home and be lazy.

I won't act like any company is perfect but to act like some of the largest advancers of society were objectively evil is idiocy and I'm sick of seeing it accepted as common knowledge. If the environment is a as big a concern as you made it out to you, then you should praise people like Rockefeller for how much he lowered the need for killing whales as that was what people used for lamp oil before.

Please present the differences in a Libertarian political system vs a democratic one and how it would be better.

Instead of a bunch of people who don't know your culture or life voting on what you can and can't do, it's more localized and people can live whatever life they choose too. Come together and form whatever society under whatever rules they decide as long as it's voluntary. Also we aren't a democratic society, we're a republic.

hat you're really advocating for is a different approach to DRUG ABUSERS. You want to coddle and swaddle them like babies with a "disease" instead of adults who make bad choices.

Sigh, you just are not understanding anything I'm saying if this is what you come away with. I'm compromising when I say take that money saved from locking them up and spend it on rehab. My actual belief is let them die in the streets as it's their choice to do so. That if people feel in their hearts to help them through charity, I'm all for it but it shouldn't be done by tax dollars. People should have the right to ruin their lives and kill themselves in horrible ways. That the government isn't our parents who are here to punish us into doing the right thing. Especially when that punishment can end up having a harsher effect on your life than the act it's punishing, a felony is much worse on a resume than saying you're a recovering addict. We cheer people who get clean, we assume once a criminal always a criminal.

If so, your generation didn't VOTE in the last election.Boomers elected BOomers to pass BOOMER legislation.

What's inherently different between the types of things each generation wants passed? I think you're hanging this entire argument on that but really don't see that it doesn't matter. The issues that really matter are the ones that are destroying our future, which are locking up people unfairly, all the generations belief that to different degrees. The wars aboard which are spending our money to shape countries in our image even though it's just causing more hatred for us leading to more problems for the future. And spending future money for improvements today and of course they don't actually solve the problems. Obamacare is an example of something designed to fail, has insane costs and doesn't give the same coverage that people would want out of a government insurance program. The only thing that really divides the generations is some social issues, but as for most policy they're on the same page. Government is good, spend more today/fuck tomorrow, kill brown people locally and globally.

Boomers don't care, they're on their way out. And they'd take it all to the grave with them if they could

...what is different about your generation or mine? The ones that want Obamacare even if it makes life more expensive and adds to the deficit. The ones who take a tax break that is going to add a ton to the deficit. The ones who want free tuition, health care or whatever other entitlement program people can come up forgetting nothing is free.

I don't get you people who put everything on a single generation but can't point to anything that's actually different about the generations. The only differences I see are cultural which those are changing. Your generation couldn't imagine gay marriage being legal, or buying pot legally. Stop pointing the finger at others and realize that you're just as much part of the problem.

Dude. This is out of hand. I have no interest to trade insults. SO save your arrogant attempts to show how much you learned in college. I'm going to try and keep these short. Because you go on too much.

1. Name a president that was better for Marijuana than Obama?

2. Who did you vote for in the 2016 Pres. Election?

3. Black markets form to trade contraband, avoid taxes and regulations, or skirt price controls. The term "artificially high" is a vague value term that places your opinion on the current market. Black markets have lower prices because the suppliers aren't paying the TRUE cost of production, which include taxes . If you assume that all taxes are theft (they are not), then you're biased. Based on the failure of libertarians to win elections, most people seem quite content with taxation.

4. Natural Monopolies exist. Read them.

5. " Come together and form whatever society under whatever rules they decide as long as it's voluntary." The stupidest thing you've said. This is some textbook hippy bullshit right here. Newflash, you can LEAVE America anytime, you're FREE to go. It's so unrealistic that I now put your age at about 25.

6. "My actual belief is let them die in the streets as it's their choice to do so." Sigh. So much to learn. I'm not interested in going into this . Except to say , you're arrogant to think this type of thinking would EVER produce a better society.

7. What divides the generations? A) Taxes. The older Boomers, who control the most wealth, want to KEEP it, and not be forced to spend it on roads, bridges, education and high speed fiber internet. Why? Because they'll never see the benefit. Instead, they want to focus on Old People Welfare, aka Social Security. Which is insolvent by 2034. The year that the last boomers die off. The boomers simply do not want to spend ANY of their money on anything that doesn't give them immediately benefit. Not the environment, not the infrastructure, and not education. They want THEIR taxes lower at the expense of future generations loss of purchasing power. The social issues you mention are all BULLSHIT. They're a distraction from the upfront THEFT that is taking place right now by boomer legislators and boomer CEOs, which run most companies. and control 80% of elected offices. wake up. If you actually read and knew what was in the latest tax bill , you'd be aware of this.

Obamacare is an attempt to mitigate the growing healthcare crisis. Nobody else has offered ANY alternative solution. NONE. The rising healthcare costs could not only bankrupt the US but crash the global economy. Obamacare was an attempt at a single payer system where the government could negotiate lower costs. It was kneecapped by the healthcare lobbyists and drugmakers. It's been sabotaged ever since. Who is your healthcare through?

1. Deficits in self-control were not limited to the sexual and marital. Perhaps the purest example of self-control and foresight is saving, the denial of pleasure now in favor of security later. This proved almost impossible for the Boomers, whose inability to save represented yet another radical break from earlier generations’ practices and ultimately required them to plunder the accounts of other generations. Here is a link to a book that spells it all out for you quite clearly why the BOOMERs alone are responsible for the current state of crisis we are in. A generation of Sociopaths: How the Boomers Betrayed America . It's free from Audiobooks. Impressively weighted with hard numbers and specifics, the volume serves as both an indictment of and rebuttal to a Woodstock Generation that has gleefully celebrated themselves for decades while gradually running the country into the ground.

The reason you "don't get" why people place blame on the boomer generation is because you simply don't know the facts, or you're too arrogant to think you can be misguided.

I have no interest to trade insults.

Then stop. You're purposely twisting my words. Should I just roll over and answer seriously? You keep replying, I've shown how I respond if you're going to be a cunt I'm going to call you on it. I'm long winded.

SO save your arrogant attempts to show how much you learned in college.

I learned exactly zero of this in college. I wasn't a history or economics major, I already said I was a criminal justice major. I went to a small college and both my professors (we only had 2 full time ones) were against marijuana legalization. Portugal was having it's first analysis of it's stats from it's recent change when I was at school and my profs couldn't be less interested.

I'm going to try and keep these short. Because you go on too much.

Because you have very little to say in response and your entire angle at this point is to attack semantics and ignore the overall point. Like your weed/president question. It's irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not Obama specifically had any interest in legalizing weed but he technically wins being the "most" in favor because he had a popular uprising coming against him. If there's anything a good politician knows how to do it's get behind a popular movement. Isn't it weird that Hillary was against gay marriage for her entire 30 year political career until this last election? Of course she is the most pro-gay marriage candidate now right? That's how that works?

he term "artificially high" is a vague value term that places your opinion on the current market.

What's vague about it? The price is much higher than people are willing to pay so rather than doing it the legal way they burden themselves with the risk of fines or prison time to get a cheaper price. In the case of Eric Garner the dude was killed for trying to supply cigarettes to people at reasonable prices.

Based on the failure of libertarians to win elections, most people seem quite content with taxation.

That's because the libertarian party is fighting to be seen as the cool guy in the middle of the two parties bickering. Ron Paul ran as a republican remember? Gary Johnson wasn't say taxation is theft, which is a common phrase thrown around /r/Libertarian, he was pushing for a flat tax. No one votes for us because we come across as weak democrats and weak republicans, the party is doing an awful job of showing the country our values which is why there are so many of us divorcing ourselves from the party.

Natural Monopolies exist. Read them.

https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly-0

The stupidest thing you've said. This is some textbook hippy bullshit right here. Newflash, you can LEAVE America anytime, you're FREE to go. It's so unrealistic that I now put your age at about 25.

So again you start by saying one thing then do the complete opposite. "Don't insult me...you moronic child!" This isn't a rebuttal, it's your opinion of a topic you aren't even bothering to consider. You even conceded the point to me somewhat. Are you saying it's better than a congressperson 3000 miles away decides the rules of your county or should you and the people who live there do? The question becomes why aren't all? If this is too difficult of a question for you just ignore it like everything else I've stomped out of not answering. It's your favorite "I got nothing" answer. Or I can just start throwing insults back at you, I warn you I'm much better at it than you've been so far, just like arguing and understanding all these topics.

you're arrogant to think this type of thinking would EVER produce a better society.

This is the problem. You keep thinking I'm trying to do something. The people will have the society they desire, it would be better or worse based on how much time, effort and desire they have for it. I'm NOT a central planner. Libertarianism is about individualism. Socialist countries centralize the control and decide who gets what and how much with the guise of improving society, to eliminate waste. Progressives want to "nudge" society in "better" directions to improve things and create more problems than their solutions were intended to correct. Central planning always fails, at best it drives a society backwards, look at the black community which by all metrics was better off during the 50s, you know during Jim Crow, than it was now. Pick up Black Redneck, White Liberal by Thomas Sowell if you'd like to see how. At worse, it kills MILLIONS of people because important things like food don't get where they need to be.

The older Boomers, who control the most wealth, want to KEEP it,

Ya...they're mostly retired at this point so what taxes are you wanting them to pay? Also everyone should want to keep their money. Are you paying more taxes than you're asked to? If not you're a hypocrite. You should be giving every penny you don't need to the government to help fund the projects you want to see completed. Why are you so apt to spend other people's money?

Because they'll never see the benefit. Instead, they want to focus on Old People Welfare, aka Social Security.

So we agree we should get rid of social security? Boomers are the last generation to get it so everyone under 60 doesn't get social security. I'm down for it, are you?

They want THEIR taxes lower at the expense of future generations loss of purchasing power.

I see nothing to suggest this is limited to only Boomers.

They're a distraction from the upfront THEFT

Yup, taxation is theft, we should abolish the income tax first.

If you actually read and knew what was in the latest tax bill , you'd be aware of this.

Another insult in the "don't insult me" reply. What exactly about the tax bill am I suppose to see baby boy?

Obamacare is an attempt to mitigate the growing healthcare crisis.

And in (to my knowledge) every metric it's making it much worse. Not only is it driving prices up but insurance companies are leaving the program because they can't afford to stay in.

Nobody else has offered ANY alternative solution. NONE.

This that hero worship again? I thought you were old? Obamacare is a version of Mitt Romney's bill. Hillary's bill is said to be the reason that democrats lost so badly to the GOP which brought in Bush. I mean, you lived this shit, it's just slipping your mind? I was only 2 years old when it happened for god sake and it feels like yesterday!

It was kneecapped by the healthcare lobbyists and drugmakers.

It was written by lobbyist and drugmakers. Still can't get insurance over state lines, that drives prices down. Can't get drugs from different countries, that drives prices down. Insurance agencies were suppose to get huge reimbursements from the government, they're dropping out because the government is refusing.

This proved almost impossible for the Boomers, whose inability to save represented yet another radical break from earlier generations’ practices

You're doing nothing to show the difference between your generation and the boomers. I'm not saying boomers are a good generation, stupid people can only think binary, I know it's hard for you but stay with me here. The boomers AND the generations that follow can be bad.

So what is your generation doing different to improve the situation? 40-60 year olds are in politics, you can't just act like all policy is being done by Boomers now, many GenXers voted for the tax bill.

The reason you "don't get" why people place blame on the boomer generation is because you simply don't know the facts, or you're too arrogant to think you can be misguided.

I "don't get it" because you're awful at arguing a point, spew off some rehearsed shit that you read somewhere that doesn't entirely apply to the questions I'm asking and then demand I unpack and explain your stupid rebuttals back to you. You keep trying to call me a child but this child has a much better understanding of economics, history and even politics it seems. Anything that's not on whatever news channel you watch just doesn't exist in your reality.

and yet you're name calling persists. It's because you're out of arguments. so you name call and insult. It's fine. it's indicative of your intelligence level.

You had 2 professors? Total? It was a REAL college right? It wasn't Clown College? Or Mime school? LMFAO. Did you guys have nap time?

So you're from Portugal? I'm unclear on that point. Or did you just study it's drug laws in one of your "classes"?

I have plenty to say. I just don't think you warranty the energy or the knowledge. You're an arrogant child.

A) So we AGREE! Obama is the most Pro-weed president ever. ! damn you're a stubborn one. B) Hillary isn't a candidate anymore, so you're wrong again.

Eric Garner was killed because he was obese and resisted arrest. He was also BREAKING THE LAW. But you keep defending criminals. It's a week point. People would love to pay NOTHING for marijuana, but that doesn't mean any price above NOTHING is "too" high. You don't understand economics. The black market exists because they are subverting the law and the true cost of production. Which includes TAX. What is your current job?

The underlying concepts are dumb. Not just the candidates, which are horrible. Flat tax is regressive, and punishes the poor. It's dumb. Ron Paul came off as a nut. Whenever a libertarian candidate tries to offer an economic model, all the economists laugh them off the stage. It's pathetic.

You're article sucked. It was based on turn of the 20th century examples. Outdated analogies, and just bad economics. But I would love to agree that Comcast needs more competition, "in theory", it would be great for consumers. in theory. The mating call of the libertarian. "but but but in theory....."

You're not "much better at it", you're just giving it your full attention, I've got 10 other conversations going concurrently, and they are all infinitely more interesting than this cafeteria style conversation we are having. You haven't earned my full attention . And most likely won't, until you clean up the bullshit. I'm much better at this than you. I'm stomping you. I'm awesome and Frolf.

I'd love for to expound on some meaningful insight into your claim that blacks were better off under Jim Crow, that is something interesting. Go on....

The boomers have CHANGED the tax laws to benefit themselves at the EXPENSE of future generations. It's THEFT. The only reason that have been able to do this is because of NUMBERS, their cohort numbers are too large for anyone else to matter. So they kept "their money" at the expense of infrastructure, education, defense. You may not believe it, but things in this system need maintanance, and that costs money. It has to come from somewhere. The many wars that boomers have started cost TRILLIONS, where is that money talleyed? Off the books of course. Not counted in our National Debt. The financial crisis? Caused by boomers, who methodically changed the regulations to allow it to happen. So private risk was offloaded to the public. And the public PAID for the consequences. In bailouts. BILLIONS in bailouts, voted for by boomers, to bailout boomer run companies. You didn't have a say in ANY of that. You were still in highschool. You were to busy learning how to wipe your nose to pay attention to what happened. You didn't even study it in college.

Boomers should NOT get Social Security. It wasn't designed for people who didn't need it. They should be confiscated and put back into the system to make it solvent and function as it was intended. For people who become to sick or injured to work, for the elder poor, who can't work and/or maintain a standard of living in old age. Why should anyone worth $100,000+ get social security? The boomers think they're entitled to it. Newsflash. They're NOT. we should take it away and lower it to minimal levels. But YOu are suggesting exactly what I said, Boomers, on average paid into SS about $750,000. But on average will take out of SS about $1.5 million. So who pays for the excess? We do. why should we?

A simple google will provide source reading.

"I see nothing to suggest this is limited to only Boomers. "

Keep looking.

" we should abolish the income tax first. "

Then who will pay for the boomers benefits?

The tax bill, my son, is a giant GIFT to the Corporations and the boomers who control them. Paid for over 10+ years by you and me.

And in (to my knowledge) every metric it's making it much worse.

This is due to Republican sabotage. Not flaws in Obamacare. Do your homework.

Obamacare is a version of Mitt Romney's bill.

Yes. I'm not hero worshiping Obama, I'm blaming those that deserve blame. YOU. You haven't offered a better alternative. You. You haven't given me your version of healthcare in the world that works best. I'll wait....

Still can't get insurance over state lines, that drives prices down.

Economists disagree. This is a red herring. Man health insurers already do business in multiple states under different entities, but you're just regurgitating sound bites now. This is why I don't want to waste time.

Can't get drugs from different countries, that drives prices down

W. Bush signed a bill that RESTRICTED the fed from negotiating drug prices. WHY?? Hmmmm. use your melon.

Adn TRUMP stopped payments. why? To sabotage Obamacare, as I said.

All people can be "bad" or "good" however you define those words. But my point is very clear. The boomers inherited a very strong and young country. And instead of passing it on, they milked it and abused it. It's still in their hands, so it's impossible for other generations to act the same, because no other generation has the control or power or money they have. Impossible. But if you look at the previous generation to the boomers you see very different behavior. Less divorce, less drug use, more savings. Gen X and Millennial actually have higher savings rates, less drug use, and better relationships than boomers. Boomers get divorced in later stages of life more than any previous generation. Read the book for source. They are unethical, narcissistic and emotion driven, not empirically driven.

Because you're young and stupid, I'll repeat myself again, Boomer still control 80% of elected posts. We have no say yet. This is why I said, vote R or D as long as they're under 60.

I have degrees and licenses in finance and economics. So again, you keep trying to convince yourself that you know enough. You're convinced that you're smart, but being smarter than your friends doesn't make you a genius. What I could easily do is copy and past your last paragraph and claim the SAME exact sentiment. You're awful and arguing a point. You spew off some rehearsed college lecture and it doesn't entirely apply. You keep trying to call me a cunt, but this cunt has more experience with econ, history and even politics. I actually WATCH the news on a daily basis on a screen bigger than my iPhone. Mic Drop. bitch.

Removed. Rule 10

Not that this could be right or anything maybe but Qanon says to trust sessions. Seems likely the media would try to make him look bad before he has to make big decisions about putting big people away including people involved with media.

How is the media making him look bad? The media didn’t make him rescind Cole Memorandum, he chose to do so. He’s singlehandedly somehow made himself, trump, and the Republican Party look even worse than they already did. Seriously, I can’t thibk of any single issue that could more easily galvanize people against this administration. It has to be one of the most politically short sighted moves I’ve ever seen; any democrat who runs on legalization will guaranteed win in legal/semi legal states as well as probably some illegal ones. This issue is a lost cause with anyone under 40, and many people over. Fuck sessions and his twink qanon

They're making him seem like he's stuck in the Stone Age going after weed smokers and not the important things. People are calling for the removal of sessions already. Watch the news and see how bad they're trying to make him look. Shill.

He IS stuck in the Stone Age, because he IS going after weed smokers instead of worrying about important things. The news doesn’t need to make it look like anything other than exactly what it is, which people already see as fucked. Because it is. Shill? Who the fuck am I shilling for, stoners? Authoritarian cocksucker

Yeah believe what NBC and CNN feed you.

LOL

I’m actually going to believe Jeff Sessions on this one, because he’s been pretty unequivocal on his backwards irrational beliefs on the subject.

You keep believing some nameless loser commenting on 4chan from his moms basement.

Actually look into the director of the NSA and the pin he wears on his suit. But tell me how you know he's fake? I'm sure we would all love to hear.

Just ridiculous. Pure fucking delusion. You’ll believe qanon, but not the asshole in charge actually saying shit like weed isn’t that different from heroin. You’ve lost your mind, and if you guys try to rally around sessions on this one you’re going to lose a whole lot more.

Who is you guys?

The ones rimming sessions and blowing trump.

So you just hate Trump and Sessions then?

I hate many of the things they are doing, this being a prime example.

Can’t help but notice that you’ve stopped trying to defend the policy decision though. Classic.

No I'm pointing out your disposition on them already so arguing with you is pointless.

My general disposition towards them is irrelevant in the context of analyzing just this one policy decision, which you still can’t defend besides saying “qanon says to trust him”....because he isn’t really as evil as all of the things coming directly out of his mouth sound?

So wanting to enforce laws is evil now? What is it that's so evil?

Yeah, in this scenario it pretty much is.

So states rights don’t matter now? Where in the constitution do you think the federal government has the right to do this?

Just came back to rub it in your face. Qanon confirmed by Wikileaks.

Care to elaborate? To be clear, you’re saying that Wikileaks has confirmed that there’s good cause to believe qanon when he says to trust that sessions isn’t zealously gunning for potheads? Because this was your claim which I called bullshit on. Unless you’re somehow going to provide a link showing that sessions’ decision wasn’t intended to reafffirm the draconian federal stance on marijuana then your reply falls flat and I can assure you that my face has not been rubbed in anything but your own mental shortcomings.

If you go back to my first post that was downvoted into oblivion for bringing up conversation. I believe it was you who said I was delusional for believing somebody larping. Go check it out yourself, you seem smart enough to figure it out.

Yea I did call you delusional, for believing an anonymous 4chan posters’ assertion that AG sessions was to be trusted on the marijuana issue. Trusted in such a way that one would have to disbelieve his self professed long standing prejudices on the subject. Have you encountered anything substantial that backs up this assertion? If not, then whether qanon is larp or not (if not, I would be wrong on that point), I stand by my claim that you’d have to be delusional to trust sessions on this issue despite his open convictions because someone on the internet named qanon said to. Go back to your original post, you’ll see that the original point of contention between us is over sessions’ trustworthiness on marijuana, not qanon’s true identity. You should be able to grasp this as well.

[watch](youtube.com/watch?v=1urQF47HJ0o)

Yeah, in this scenario it pretty much is.

So states rights don’t matter now? Where in the constitution do you think the federal government has the right to do this?

Isn't the issue that the US signed some international treaty agreeing to outlaw cannabis? Might be worth posting that link if somebody has it.

If you're using the amount of money the government can bilk out of the people with taxes as an argument to allow a person to have liberty, you already lost the argument, as you're merely showing your complete lack of principles.

Agreed that "pot" should be decriminalized nationally, but are we NOT a nation of Laws? Federal Laws lists it as a scheduled drug. Congress must do it's job and CHANGE THE LAW....

How is this conspiracy? This is plainly true and easily proven with numerous sources

The conspiracy is the war on drugs and the notion they fed America for 60+ years that drugs are the root of all our problems.

Hard drugs has caused real tragedies to addicts and families.

If only they could have gotten the help they needed safely and without the fear of punishment. Nah, let's just throw them in prison instead and take away any future prospects!

Right but those drugs being criminal didn't help those situations, and most of the time made them worse due to an addict now having legal problems.

Conspiracy isn’t synonymous with false...

Conspiracy requires 1) something done in secret, 2) something done with others, and 3) it is harmful or illegal. This fails 1 and 3.

You used the downvote button wrong

I posted the conspiracy above.

It's a targeted money grab from Sessions, Trump and certain corporations.

You should post that as a separate thread

Do you have proof that sessions is cracking down on weed to pad his pockets from his investments in private prisons?

Nobody claimed that. Take another look at the title of the post

Personally I think it’s a conspiracy on many levels.

Money for private prisons

Disenfranchise voters

Money for militarization of police force

Money for big pharma

And the school thing being discussed here.

You're totally missing the point. Colorado has legal weed and is funding schools, treatment programs, etc using the weed tax revenue. You're totally off base. This is not a conspiracy. These are voter-selected programs that are being funded and nobody is complaining about that. Hence my comment "why is this posted in conspiracy?".

You’re missing my point and the point others here are making. The conspiracy is the war on drugs. The fact that pot money is helping schools is being used to defend our point that the war on pot is ridiculous. Nobody is saying pot taxes going to schools is a conspiracy. People are simply using those numbers to defend their position in the conspiracy of the war on pot.

Why was this removed from the front page?

Because other posts were more popular, getting upvoted more quickly, etc...

It's on my front page. #4 actually. Right now.

No conspiracy here :D
Ironically.

I bet it will mean states will have more power and realize that the federal government is a joke and they won't need it..

Wait a post on here that isn't pro trump?

Have the mods been banning people recently?

The "libertarians" on /r/conspiracy that bounce between here and don's sub finally found a bridge they won't cross because something effects them. It was only women brown people before now.

It was only women and brown people before now.

This is what Hillary supporters actually believe.

To be honest though, this post isn't a conspiracy. Probably doesn't belong in this sub.

Uh, yea it is - it’s a conspiracy against the American people. Just because it’s a confirmed conspiracy doesn’t mean it isn’t one.

That's exactly what they want you to think.

This is one of those few-in-a-thousand posts with actual clarity in here.

This sub is like T_D, minus the retarded sheep

This is the dumbest argument. If we legalized anything, we could tax it and reinvest it. Does that mean we should legalize everything and put a tax on it?

yes

To those who aren’t paying attention: this is a move to cause outrage and get the opposition party to the administration to request Sessions removal, which is what they want because he is recused from the Russia probe. A new AG would have authority over Mueller. The timing of this indicates it’s transparent and desperate. I would not be surprised to see some majorly damning news come out in the next few days.

Tl;dr: this is a pr move to turn people on Sessions in an effort to make his firing not obstruction of justice.

Why would Sessions play along with a plan that results in him getting fired?

He already offered to resign and was turned down. If I were in their shoes, I’d wait for the right storyline too... but luckily I’m not in their situation and I’m not a depraved human like many people involved in this.

He gets to leave with two very cushy pensions. Dude doesn't need or want to work anymore. Also he genuinely doesn't like pot so is happy to die on this hill.

Hey sooner he gets fired tho...

Your brain just licked my brain,.. I liked It!

I think the bannon book is the same; some warped pr ploy. I hope I'm wrong.

Sessions has always been against marijuana. He has been working on this for a while.

It's nothing new. I have a comment explaining everything further up.

It could be that they are just using that now that it's convenient for them.

This is top notch fanfic. 9/10 would recommend.

People act based on the information available to them and how it incentivizes them to pursue their interests. During an already chaotic time that is also producing the lowest approval rating in history at this point of an administration, why would an embattled AG push forward a policy that is highly disliked across the polical spectrum? I mean we know he loves his private prison donors, but he is freely moving forward with draconian immigration policies and enforcement to keep their facilities full. This move will clearly further harm his standing as AG. Trump already said he would have picked someone else had he known Sessions would recuse. So, what non-Russia, non-investigation related topic would cause more negative feedback about the AG than rescinding the Cole Memo? I can’t think of any.

So ask yourself... Why this topic, and why now? Surely you see the desperate barage of polarizing policies? (MAGA people refer to this as the Trump Train, others see it for what it is). Everyone acts logically when you understand their end goals and the information set that defines their perception of a situation. What makes this a logical PR move right now?

It's not a PR move. It's strategic. Sessions can't back down from his principles. Like or dislike him, he sticks to his principles. He can't just come right out and say let's legalize pot. More than this, even if he did, it's still on the books which will just cause headaches down the road. The only true way to solve this is by getting the legislature to step in and do their damn job.

So how does he go about this? Well a plurality if states are already legalizing it, the national conversation has like 80-90% of people saying to just legalize it already. The argument is over. America wants pot to be legal, safe, and rare (lulz). So now we are in a situation where states have legalized it and the federal government has it condemned. We are in a good old fashioned states vs fed battle now. So sessions doubles down, says he's going to ignore all the wrist slapping and go hard in the paint. This puts the ball completely in the legislatures court. They are going to need to get off their asses and act.

And if you don't believe me, here's your boy Barry O saying exactly this:

During an interview aired Jan. 31, 2014, CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Obama whether he would consider changing marijuana’s status as a Schedule I narcotic, a distinction that bans the substance from sale or use for medicinal or recreational purposes. "Well, first of all," Obama contended, "what is and isn't a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress." "I think it's the (Drug Enforcement Administration) that decides," Tapper offered. "It's not something by ourselves that we start changing," Obama replied. "No, there are laws undergirding those determinations."

So you are saying that Sessions is doing this now surreptitious attempt to force Congress to legalize it?

If that were the case, why this week with everything else and the large discussion around his potential departure being mired in Russia/Obstrucion related tones? Why is this the right timing for that? Keep in mind, nothing in my original point argues against Sessions being honestly against legalization and I assume he actually does want to enforce the federal laws on the issue. My point was that if those were his goals, this is a garbage time to accomplish it and is beyond idiotic from a PR/politics standpoint. What explains the behavior is an attempt to attract controversy that would shield from obstruction discussions.

First of all, yes this is very convenient timing. Mueller gives a progress report every other day. Second, the real problem is the law the elf is gung-ho about enforcing. And third, when did this sub go back to regular wingnuts, instead of Russian bots, and pizza fearing hypocrites? I unsubbed last year, but this came up on r/all, and I am pleasantly surprised at the lack of racism, and britebart links.

I was curious about this, myself.

I noticed a shift back to sanity about 2-3 months ago.

It's still run by t_d mods, but I honestly think /r/topmindsofreddit have been helping by shining a light on the unabashed pro-Trump bias.

I really hope the irony of a conspiracy page being a propaganda machine for one of the most propaganda heavy administrations since ww2, isn't lost on those that contribute to it.

It would be nice to get back to trashing those who oppress others, instead of propping them up. Message me when they are gone. I'll be watching Mueller on c-span.

I hope so

This seems like a huge reach. I hate sessions and want him to be fired, I don’t really care if that means the new AG wouldn’t be recused from a nothing burger investigation, sessions is a backwards idiot who thinks weed is evil.

I'm sorry man but this is dumb.

Have you followed Sessions over the years? He's obsessed with marijuana. OBSESSED. This is all him.

Yes, of course he is. It’s the timing of it that matters here.

Damn dude..good shit.

As someone not living in America I can't wrap by head around someone like sessions even needing a campaign to make him less favorable.

Maybe it's just cultural differences. But politics aside he's just a horrible person. I don't get it. Do you really hate each other so much?

Many/every state that advertise as having funding going towards education/etc. merely replace existing funding as opposed to adding to it.

Now, there are certainly differences with legal marijuana and gambling, but it's just a reminder that what politicians say and what they actually do are entirely different. $40 million might be going towards school renovations, but they may have pulled $50 million of existing funds intended for that and re-purposed it elsewhere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/business/07lotto.html

Bingo. The excise tax on marijuana is ludicrous.

Make sure that when the doors or lighting is updated that handles and fixtures say, “renovation made possible with Marijuana taxes” because I really want people to know who their schools are renovated with drug money.

It's going to be like prohibition all over again with Canada being legal as before with alcohol.

It's going to be like prohibition all over again with Canada being legal as before with alcohol.

Who are "they"?

Trump, Sessions and most Republicans.

What the fuck does this have to do with conspiracies?

Fuck sessions and fuck trump. I will note vote for him again

That's over 50 dollars per student. Wow. I will NEVER FORGET. NEVER. THE WAR THEY ARE WAGING on those poor children ... we must save them by buying more weed.

I think its clear who the idiots are around here ...

Thanks for helping us clear that up!

Well, how will you keep the jails full of you educate the masses?

Fix it federally and everyone wins! That should be the goal.

Sad part is this how it should be everywhere with just regular tax dollars. Instead it goes into dirty politicians pockets and war.

Its great that this tax revenue is going to a good place, but the problem is there is plenty of wasteful spending as it is. No need to generate more tax revenue to subsidize wasteful spending...

So we shouldn't fund schools?

No we need to fund schools

Marijuana has the potential to remove the States reliance on the Federal Govt. When they don't need federal handouts anymore, they can say NO to a whole hella lot of Pork spending which is the Federal Governments primary way to get what they want - bribery. We will see big changes in how the legal States interact with the Feds. Those Senators and Congressemen won't have to wheel and deal with their co-conspiractors in govt. No more "I will vote yes on your bill to further militerize the police if you add some language that guarantees we get some more highway funding next year".

That's what this is really about.

Interesting. I would like to believe this. Although, it's kind of naive to think that congressman and senators give a flying fuck. Pretty sure they are there to be in the club to rape kids and get rich themselves.

Wish Washington State was this efficient with the tax money from pot sales.

How much does the state make over all off of Cannabis?

Here is the data from the marijuana revenue that CO has made since legalization in 2014

And how much crime is legal weed causing? Same as lotteries. Forty million is not a lot.

And how much crime is legal weed causing?

States that legalize actually have less crime in average after legalization. Even the police in colorado have admitted that crime rates drop after legalization.

Denver saw a 2.2 percent drop in violent crime rates in the year after the first legal recreational cannabis sales in Colorado. Overall property crime dropped by 8.9 percent in the same period there, according to figures from the Drug Policy Alliance. In Washington, violent crime rates dropped by 10 percent from 2011 to 2014. Voters legalized recreational marijuana there in 2012.

Medical marijuana laws, which have a longer track record for academics than recreational pot legalization, are also associated with stable or falling violent crime rates. In one 2014 study of the 11 states that legalized medical pot from 1990 to 2006, there was no increase in the seven major categories of violent crime and “some evidence of decreasing rates of some types of violent crime, namely homicide and assault.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkprogress.org/sessions-legal-pot-violent-crime-8640413ca090/amp/

Crime apparently dropped because the cops aren't arresting people for weed. Sloth is a sin. Low crime is not necessarily good when the criminals are high.

I want pot legalized but that has to come from the senate to be permanent. Call on legislators to take the power out of the hands of attorney generals, both federal and state. Being angry is fine but push back effectively and at the right level. The only lasting way to help that industry is legalization not memos and mandates.

It's funny, I'm seeing 2 liberal states with legalization. But it's only going to work in Colorado, I truly wonder why.

The only conspiracy here is what corporate entity is paying for these posts?

Same as this post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/7occmh/dear_trump_and_jeff_first_fuck_you_second_here_is/

OP grossly misinterpreted what Sessions is doing (i.e. his fucking job) with reallocating funds from federal to regional.

So who's paying you OP? Where'd you source this data from?

https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/7occmh/dear_trump_and_jeff_first_fuck_you_second_here_is/

i have seen kids with seizures, that cant be controlled by heavy pharma, take CBD drops under their tongue, and in minutes they are better. people also forget the rev. war, was won because of hemp fibers. 1st flag? HEMP. HEMP oil also was bigly in WWII. they made films about it. youtube: hemp for victory. fuck big pharma.

oh, and my vintage fender amp, has hempcone speakers that are creamy. clapton, santana, metallica, and more use hempcones.

Remember to put this in perspective as well. $40 million increase on a $6.4 billion dollar budget. You could have had these changing on a rounding error. So far the actuals and projections for states looking to do this are an increase of less than 1%

it's such a beautiful thing. Yet you can't get hired in any government agency if you smoke it (too woke). Most deep state people are against it. Hillary was against it. JEFF SESSIONS THE BEAST 666 MUST GO AWAY!! We should ship him to the greenest planet we can find...which is probably earth...so that's a bad idea.

Colorado should put a huge tax on booze to make up for it if they dismantle legal weed. Maybe the alcohol industry will chill the fuck out then.

Why would you post this in a t_d lite sub? They want these laws gone, they want pot smokers in jail.

This is not a conspiracy, overturning state cannabis laws is part of the platform of the nazis in charge that this sub now worship.

T_d supports weed.

Their dear leader and the party they support are actively showing that their support was just more bullshit and lies. If T_D supports weed and still supports their leader and party, that is just one more layer of stupid to add on top of what the world already knew.

Except for the 'good people on all sides', America was last great when we had slavery, etc.... Sure, there might not be the original German ones anymore, but the Alt-Reich sure does walk, talk, dress, and spout off the same nazi bullshit.

Don't bother, dude is a t_d troll

Take your toxic bullshit back to the politics sub, sessions is pissing off plenty of Trump supporters with this shit, and others are trying to justify it by convincing us it will lead to legalization. We want deregulation. Full Stop.

This entire subreddit is a T-D lite/troll subreddit now, that is why I was baffled OP would bother with this stuff here.

Of course someone named Clinton supports segregation and stereotypes. Go figure.

I didn't come here because of my t_d history, I came here in support and all you see is hatred. Nice.

T_d doesn't support a party , we support our president.

slavery

You said it not me. Yikes.

That was your leader's boy Moore.

What?

The pedophile your leader told his cultists to vote for.

Ohhh the accused pedophile that no one had actual evidence of him doing anything wrong. Also the race that is still being reviewed because of evidence that people from around the country voted in the state election? Got it.

The fake voter fraud myth on the elction that was already certified?

They asked for and got permission to wipe the machines immediately so there couldn't be a recount.

Yet they go and light one of the many accusers house on fire...

Keep on defending the rapists and pedo's. Congrats on your takeover of this sub.

For someone that is regularly on this sub, you really know what's real and what's not. Lol.

I'm not defending any rapist or pedo. If they have been charged with a crime and found guilty, then I will call them that. However I don't call people names to make me look better.

I love how you quit replying to his points

Points include proof not opinions

Hay, you may not believe he is a pedophile,but the guy actually said that, and it's painfully obvious you're ignoreing it

Please share that.

As with DACA, the administration is forcing Congress to do their jobs while removing the vestiges of executive overreach by the previous administration.

Full well knowing that his party in congress refuses to work in good faith if they work at all.

Run on a platform that govt doesn't work and then proceed to prove it true by not working.

There is no separating the idiocy of the man on top from his party bitches in congress or klu klux Keebler elf in sessions/the rest of his malicious cabinet.

But then again, they kind of ran on a platform of tearing down the system for the rich mains gains, so we get what fewer people voted for.

But it's cold out, so damn the Chinese for making up global warming, time to move on and enjoy the evening.

So you have to agree with every single point of a candidate’s platform to vote for them over someone else? Genius.

Hey, for those worth millions of dollars I can totally understand voting for that platform. If you aren't rich and still support it, well, pick whatever insult you want then.

People have the right to vote against their own interests or vote out of hate and fear, but it doesn't make them right or decent human beings.

Do you think Hillary’s platform was in the objective best interest of everyone except for those with net worths in the millions? Because I don’t. I’m not trying to make a moral or ethical argument, it’s ok if you think I’m not a decent human being. But I think you need to consider that different people value different issues subjectively and there isn’t really a right answer.

For example one person might feel like foreign policy is the most important issue and weigh their vote based on which candidate they feel would be better for that, another might feel health care is more important, or the economy, or size of government, etc. If your claim is that the only way someone could vote for Trump over Hillary is against their own interests, or out of hate and fear, then I would respectfully disagree.

Yes I believe Hilliard was objectively better and more mentally capable to understand the gravity of the position and the maturity it entails.

The platform, while far from being a perfect utopia for all, as nothing ever will be, absolutely goes miles farther to help ordinary Americans. In just about every way, let alone not throwing away all leverage and respect worldwide.

If you are okay with hurting the poor and the sick at home just so you can bomb brown people abroad, that says everything about who that person is to their core. I get the greed thing. Lower taxes for them at the sake of everything else. It's pathetic but understandable. The vote based on hate/fear/jealousy and willing to sacrifice American institutions for the sake of a senile puppet of a foreign leader is something I'll never understand and just have to pity and cut out from my life. I don't vacation in red states anymore, don't visit that side of the family, and am happier for it. You guys have your klan meetings or accuser house burnings or whatever you can go to, don't need my presence or money, the welfare red states steal more than enough of my tax money as it is.

I will side with the right wing though if they want to cut Medicare and social security for all current seniors. They have plenty, protect the systems for the future generations that are being left fucked by the right. If we need to let the boomers go to get Medicare for all, the health of future generations is worth it.

There literally are still Nazis. Oscar Groening is still alive. He's 96.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/3958690/nazi-war-criminals-still-alive

Also T_D supports whatever Trump tells them to. They are too uneducated to do research themselves. Go check out the posts there that talk about marijuana beong more dangerous than heroin.

He was a Nazi and did things for Nazis but there is not recognized Nazi regime. Try and keep up instead of being scared of old people.

there is not recognized Nazi regime

trump doesn't what you said he does

lol

Lmao I was going to quote those too

Think he had a stroke while typing

Or did the thought of a librul drive him crazy?

I think the thought of a librul gave him a stroke lul

And misguided college kids worship the legacy media... If you believe the official press release go back to the news sub. This is conspiracy where the Mainstream media has been the enemy since day one.

They also believe socialism works, communism was never truly implemented, and Islam is the religion of peace.

That dude ain't on Reddit, I guarantee it

This shouldn’t be a shock to anyone. Republicans undercut education funding any way they can. It’s one of their most successful paths for getting voters.

Colorado needs to say it's teachers more

It is teachers more indeed.

This is dusturbing to me. Im pro pot by a kilometer but we all know how much money is embezzled through public education. Its worrying. I doubt if half of that is actually getting to the schools after administrators and politicians. Wake up

The "Old Guard" of politics needs to just let it go and retire. It's getting a bit irritating that progress seems to be getting stonewalled at every turn. These old ass bastards need to go!!

but Muh Kids school roof money.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/12/15/police-arrest-budtenders-undercover-sting/

What's your point?

that there is another side to that look at all the great things story

Fuck all you Trumpets shilling for that asshole on this subreddit

Fuck all you CTR and Deepstate brainwashed idiots trying to push more agitprop.

Deepstate is comin for u boiiiii

Trumpets

So salty

buhhh, hillary's emails, states righ...I mean, Hillary's emails, buhhhh

To be 100% fair, I see no harm in weed. I think it should be legal and I don't want to see progress ruined here. How the revenue has been spent has been awesome.

Now, that said. My friends mom went to Cali from VA earlier this uear and had absolutely NO problem flying a shit ton of candies and other thc stuff back. Several hundred there that could be several thousand where we live. This kind of shit is what is going to ruin it for everyone and is what should be stopped until all or many more states either decriminalize or legalize.

Lock 'Em Up!

The Drug War is a cruel joke. It needs to stop. Stop punishing users. It only creates more problems. Legalize everything and regulate. It is the only solution.

First spam. Second no, this is a template to prove it works!

Great. Thank. You. Very. Much.

Fuck, Colorado really has its shit together.

"Nope the DEA told me it was the Devils work."

Many many old people.

They want you to Work, consume, and expire.

the executive branch of the federal government should uphold federal law

the law should be changed but that doesn't mean the executive should cease to execute

I am pro weed but why is this a conspiracy?

Who cares how they spend it? They shouldnt have to justify it. Sessions is a racist tree elf.

A friend of mine lived in Colorado. He moved because on 3 separate occasions he had meth heads waking up on his lawn. Something he claimed was never a problem until cannabis became legalized.

He left after he was arrested for getting in a fight. He was walking down the street in Denver, and some dude smoking a joint blew smoke in his daughters face.

What % of them are illegals?

What % justifies cutting off your nose to spite them?

The conspiracy is getting you against sessions so that they can fire him and replace him with an AG who will fire Mueller.

Holy shit. Mind blown.

haha that's insane but a way more interesting conspiracy than the nonsense posted in OP

Insane how? It seems like a pretty clear path to me.

but weeds bad mkay

/s

Yeah republicans unanimously hate education so ofcourse

Source?

They confirmed Betsy devos

And before her, education was the shining staple of the world?

Our education system should not be federal, let Oklahoma teach Conservative Values. Let New York teach 31 genders.

She sure isn’t going to fix that

What do you think she wants to do?

Make money for her and her friends

Source?

Are you seriously defending Betsy Devos? She only got appointed for her family's history of campaign funding. Her brother runs Blackwater for fucks sake. Why would you want war profiteers in charge of our educational system?

Par for the fucking course in washington.

I know, right? Funny how "Drain the swamp" led to one of the most crony infested cabinets in modern history.

Had to make consecessions to somebody... At least their all American companies this time.

Who would have thought a plant could better the whole community, once we learnt how to manage the distribution fairly to those who are in need.

Trump doesn't give a fuck about marijuana and neither does sessions

This is a slap to millennial and everyone that doesn’t believe in voting. The fact a lot of them didn’t vote, helped Trump become President. And his administration already appealed net neutrality and now is going after marijuana. This is exactly why every vote counts. Hopefully this gets their attention.

Here in Alabama all that extra income would be used to line the pockets of our crooked politicians

I hope they track real estate values along with all of these improvements.

Spot on good chap! Property prices in my neck of the woods are insane. There would be a mass exodus if they were able to shut er down.

You can’t just pick and choose what federal laws you want to obey. Change the law.

Source so I can paste it all over my social media??

Found this. Hope it's useful to others!

https://indusdictum.com/2018/01/06/marijuana-legalization-tax-how-colorado-spending-cannabis-revenue-india-ankur-borwankar/

You lost me at bullying

I love Jeff Sessions and all he's done for our country, that was my Joel Osteen impression. Jeff pull your head out of your neck through your ass. I know you might visit things like yesterday's lunch, and by the time your head reaches the exit point the anus, you would have experienced the most vile things inside you, but that doesn't have anything on what lies within your head! -Me

This really hurts. I thought we were making great progress. The majority of the American people support legalization. I know plenty of older conservative folks who also support it because they see the good the tax money can do. I hate that one man can try to take it away for no good reason.

Elections have consequences.

Taxation is theft. That’s the real conspiracy.

Saboteurs ruined the 420 festival last year by slicing and dumping the garbage from the event. They blamed the promoters and got the event banned for three years.

The event wasn't banned, just the people running it. The permit was issued to a new group that owns dispensaries around Denver.

Laaaaame... Imagine how many fireworks you could buy with that. Missed an opportunity.

Taxation is theft

Parker here, if I was a young woman I would leave America for good. But at almost 65 that’s really not possible anymore. I am coming to despise the country I grew up in.

i love my country, but hate my goverment

If only people understood there was a god damn difference.

Wow if you think Parker is bad then you must not know much about the rest of the world.

Good job on copying someone else’s post. /u/relevantlife

Check the time. I made my posts first lol

Yeah I know by a full hour I tagged you to show you that he straight up copied you.

Uhm... the war on drugs isn’t new

Wtf this has to do with conspiracy?

But educated people don't vote for people like Trump and his corrupt lot of Republicans, even Trump said, "I love the poorly educated".

The Lottery in California has raised billions for California schools since the 1980’s California schools are still fucked up.. oh yeah, it’s prop 13’s fault

Add into that a doped up, doc ile population who just sit and watch cartoons while snacking out and you've got a win-win!

Nice theft.

https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/7occmh/dear_trump_and_jeff_first_fuck_you_second_here_is/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Sin taxes are exploitative.

Y'all posting in a slide thread

And in Washington state 50% goes right to a general ...poof! And its gone. 740 million and were still paying for that damn bridge. Fuck WA state budget niggas.

Holy crap is this a sensible and quality post highly upvoted on /r/conspiracy!? And its not sucking trumps dick or gaslighting! Awesome.

That momment when you realize that everything is now legit a conspiracy because anything that isn't praising the president is fake news.

But...but...the pockets of already rich individuals aren't receiving any of that money. Taxes are in place to ensure the poor continue to pay the rich to drive expensive cars, eat small portions of weird food, and sexually assault whomever they please whenever they want. This isn't fair!

Our government is a piece of shit. Down with the system. Let's fire all those corrupt fucks

School renovations are a bullshit cost sink. Schools were under constant construction for my entire K-12, it disrupted classes, annoyed everyone, cost huge amounts of money, and benefited no one.

School choice. Problems solved. Let the shitty schools die.

What about the other 150 million?

Meanwhile Canada is legalizing nationwide in the summer.

While that's all nice the money isn't buying them anything as they are going deeper into debt as they had a $260M deficit last year. So all that about cannabis being a windfall tax revenue machine was just a load of crap.

I mean, I honestly don't think this is why they're doing it...I don't think any of that necessarily makes Jeff sessions unhapppy. That generation has a strange obsession with weed, I guess it's due mostly to misinformation or just some form of conservative values. But we're not talking about small government conservatives here, were talking about religious conservatives. My grandmother is a hard core liberal, somehow still manages to literally call potheads cockroaches

Sessions just shot one across the bow of the “Sanctuary State” to remind Gov. Moonbeam the rule of law. I expect it to be a big Nothing if CA gets it act together,

Pretty sure the War on Drugs, at the very least; rakes in billions more in tax dollars than this.

All taxation is theft. Never forget that.

Taxation is the implied contract between the government and it's citizens for public services.

You were born into the system, it's not theft if the money wasn't yours in the first place.

When my ancestors killed of the native population and defeated the greatest empire on earth, there was no direct tax on the American people.

I wouldn't describe you people as Americans during the initial genocide.

I do agree, there was no federa tax. But since you're not extracting this continents recourses your own good, you are setting up infrastructure for your corporation or crown.

The Sons of the American Revolution are the only true Americans.

Amen.

Woah! Are you telling me nice people do smoke weed?? I hope it becomes legal in Texas....a man can dream...

But how much have they made

Relax....all this is going to do is make federal legalization happen faster.

Never let ANYONE forget.

Seems a little extreme

They don’t care about weed it’s all about government regulations. The government has have there hands in everything. Plus the pharmaceutical companies own that rat sessions.

And this is why Trump is going to start chasing MJ again. An educated electorate is dangerous to him.

This is a dumb argument.

Weed (or anything) should be legal or not on it's own merit, not on the results. I can kill everyone under 30 and give their property to charity, the results doesn't make the action good.

So pot should definitely be legal, but this is a stupid point to argue.

What a stupid argument. Would you be in favor of legalizing meth if tax revenue went to things you like? How about hunting endangered animals?

Best way to decriminalize cannabis at the federal level is to designate all related tax revenue to Israel. It's the only welfare program that supersedes the prison system.

Yea.... in Canada we'll probably spend it on immigration programs....

I'm convinced that tax revenue is one of the reasons (along with protecting pharma, alcohol industry, and for profit prisons) the powers that be don't want weed to be legal. The neocons in power want to starve gov't of funds and privatize everything.

To nitpick. Money is fungible. All tax revenue supports all government programs, you can't separate it.

Slide thread. To many people in this thread want to link Trump supporters with the antiweed lobby... This is grade A deep state agitation propaganda.

Education. The enemy of the GOP.

So instead of a ‘war against drugs’ which destroyed lives and caused poverty, we can finally have a ‘war on poverty’ which will improve lives... using drugs?

Gosh... why didn’t someone think of that sooner? ;)

Now we just need to figure out how to turn some of the renovation money into increasing salary for teachers and hiring more teachers to reduce class sizes.

I know a lot of people who would have made great teachers, but with the exact same degree they can make 2-5x as much. I feel like the only people that end up being teachers are people who are passionate about it and those that can't get hired.

Truly Nacotics have seen no lower point

Pretty sure every dollar spent towards bullying causes $1.20 in damages by bullying.

I was told crime in Colorado jumped quite a but when they legalized. Is that not true?

I'm 100% for legalization and states rights. Just curious if that's bs.

It’s 100% BS

If you heard it without any sources then it's litteraly fake nees

Do you mind to share hospital admission because of the drugs addiction and related issues

Yes. I live in Cortez, Colorado which is a small mostly conservative town near the Four Corners/New Mexico border. We have 4 dispensaries alone in our town. It's incredible!

Maybe you shouldn't have rallied for Trump then /r/conspiracy.

Don't worry, the President's 12D mega-chess will make pot federally legal in no time

So they’ve spent around fifty million. Out of how much?
I think it’s about 400,000,000 short in spending.

better spend it before it gets seized

A state conspiracy to spend weed money for good?

'school renovations'? I hope that's not just contractor handouts.

This is exactly why they want to make it illegal. They see people pumping money into schools and after that we'll put the money into teachers salary and both of those things mean a better educated populous. That is the biggest threat to government control over the population having actual well educated citizens.

Oh, now this sub stops sucking the_donald’s dick?

You STUPID motherfuckers.

You rallied tooth and nail for the Republican party to win. And now you people pretend like you "care" what people want?

Now...let's take a lot at the average income of those mostly buying the pot.

Oh...what's that, another way to tax the low income?

Taxation is theft

Taxation is essential to run the society.

If there is no taxation, there will be no public good. Without a healthy society, you can't enjoy your riches peacefully no matter how much or little you have.

There is much more private good that doesnt have a gun to your head

Nice botted upvotes

Yet it's full of completely retarded voters who decided to pass a law in the 90's about limiting further taxation such as increasing fuel taxes and they are about $10billion short of maintaining their transportation infrastructure. Here in Utah we took that shit seriously and funded the shit out of our highway infrastructure. It's the best way to promote a pleasant outdoor activity tourism industry. Nobody wants to drive westbound I-70 to go day skiing when it's 4 hours each way.

Maybe next time don't for an idiot like Trump

*its

Why do all Redditors get this wrong?

Sessions did the weed advocates a favor removing the pass on enforcement. Now congress will have to act. It was about to be constitutionally challenged anyways by democrats. Kick it back to the states it's not a federal issue.

It's because of big pharmaceutical companies, but this helps the community.

W Oahdude

It's sad that is what the United States has been reduced to legalizing more mind altering drugs to anesthetize the masses in troubling times while doling out the dispensary licenses to the rich (Mostly fucking lawyers).

Somehow we can't bring ourselves to tax the superrich & corporations who are hiding their profits offshore & employing children as slave laborers.

Somehow it's become a 'liberating breakthrough'.

Brain fucking washed completely.

It's still a federal crime to sell marijuana.

Let's wage a war back! Grab your guns and fight,!

Everyone should be in a dating Trump's Twitter telling him that we do not want marijuana prohibition any longer!

But trump said he had the best people

How the flying fuck is this related to the sub?

If you want to smoke a drug that makes you smell like shit, then go ahead. Just get out of this country and go to some shithole where nobody bathes and you'll fit right in.

Do you really think they care? The US education system is purposely systematically underfunded to discourage the distribution of wealth.

r/trees

"War on drugs" is about drugs that fucking destroy peoples lives like cocaine and heroine, not your fucking weed.

Almost right, lol... That's its idealized version; the reality of the situation is that the "war on drugs" is a source of near-endless arrest and jail revenue, great crowd control via propaganda and fear mongering, and an extremely effective tool for protecting those in power and their investments. ""In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." --Dwight D. Eisehower

Why tax & regulate when you can straight-up steal? This move by Sessions is 100% an asset forfeiture money grab.

I saw some of my best friends' lives destroyed by pot. Glad to see their lives weren't lost in vain.

Maybe they had some deeper issues you weren't aware of or that none of you are willing to discuss/admit to.....Perhaps? It's ok to place blame for a bit... it can help... But eventually, we all have to take or place responsibility where it truly lies <3 I hope you have a good day. <3

I don't know, but I do know that before they started smoking they were bright, capable young people excited about life. Then they started smoking pot. Lost all interest in doing anything other than getting high. Never became anything other than stoners. Lost track of them after that.

Ah, well, we all go through periods of creativity and dormancy and without further observation it would be hard to tell... i will proffer the observation that the majority of societies' intellectuals consume marijuana, from renowned astronomer Carl Sagan to founding fathers such as Thomas jefferson... I myself hold a "genius level" IQ and consume over 1 oz per week of cannabis flower :) I also have (yes, count 'em, lol) 9 different hobbies, including acapella, classical guitar, jewelry making, sculpting, stone carving, YouTUbe content creation, several blogs, and a wide array of video games lol.... So, I stay busy ;)

Not too worried about this, sessions isn't going to be around long. Neither is the Republican party in the white house.

I agree, but how is this conspiratorial?

I am assuming that OP is implying that the gov't/those in power are waging war against education? Which is hilarious considering that all education in nearly ALL countries is based upon the Prussian Education Method and thereby has nothing to do with education whatsoever and everything to do with indoctrination; they wouldn't dare upset their status quo training academies (lol)... This is coming from big pharma, petro, paper, lumber, and textiles, like it always has... Commercialized cannabis has the potential to revolutionize dozens of industries in less than a single decade, to the point of eliminating some of them even... That's the real point here. #OpenYourEyes #FindTheOthers

How about Dems introduce legislation to reschedule or legalize it federally so it isn't in the DOJs hands? That would put pressure on Republicans running for re-election too.

I don't like Sessions and I'm a Trump guy. And I like pot. But it isn't the DOJs job to choose what laws to enforce.

I think Dems are scared R's will pass it and Trump will get credit. Just a hunch.

Support Rep Del Bene’s bill then.

No one is worried the GOP is going to legalize and steal dems thunder. There's zero risk of that.

Then lets see every Dem vote for it just like all of them vote against anything Trump wants. Put them on the spot and use it in campaigns if they don't.

Either way, its not on the DOJ. Just like immigration.

waging war is pretty hysterical interpertation of DOJ is allowing local prosecutors discretion in persuing charges

Here in Salt Lake City, teachers have to ask parents for money to purchase school supplies. Im sure certain regions are worst than othera in more rural areas in Utah. Goes to show where Utahs priorities stand. Good for that state though, they did it right.

Bullying?

Can someone explain this to me? Are they paying kids who are getting bullied?

I went to Vegas and visited a weed place. The lady that worked there was so happy there was extra money going in to the school system.

The solution is for the federal government to change their marijuana laws, not to ignore the laws that are in place. Don't blame Jeff Sessions for this, blame congress for the last 60 years.

It's all going to benefit minorities and illegal immigrants at the end of the day anyway.

Tax is still theft so what’s your point

What's sad is I think the taxes in Washington just go to a special fund that can be exploited. Glad Colorado is doing it right.

If you're gunna cite shit like this you need reference material

But don't they know the liberals are saying Jeff Session created laws against this!!!!!!!!! Oh nooooo!!!!! Everybody is going to jail in Colorado according to the liberal media as your government spends pot money!!!! Colorado is dooomed according to Bernie Sanders!!!!

Or the liberals are once again creating fake news and using fear tactics to manipulate their base against the White House.

I know that in the school I went to Glacier Peak in Washington State for my journeyman certification in aerospace machining they had better equipment then our shop.

Someone needs to make a strain of marijuana named “Fuck Jeff Sessions.”

Ive been thinking with the legalisation of cannabis, its a fantastic time for rehabs to start focusing on their future cannabis addiction programs. I've had many many friends go in to treatment for cannabis addiction, and the amount of mental suffering they experience to get off cannabis it is very different and very intense, I was in for alcohol addiction, so I got mainly physical withdrawal, and a few days of mental anguish, but with cannabis the mental anguish seems to take months to heal. But im sure the rehab programs are currently frothing at the mouth with the number of new cannabis admissions they will be getting in the near future

So although im glad that schools are getting the attention they need, funding into treatment programs, drop out and bullying seem to show that hidden message of where cannabis addiction can lead many people. I would also suggest they put money into suicide and depression programs, and regaining cognitive skills

How do you fight bullying for $8 million? Sounds like social programming. Let boys be boys and keep the $8 million. Better yet bring role models back into families and raise kids properly. Government is not God.

Perhaps the 8 million is for extra after school programs and actually paying the teachers what their time is worth?

After school clubs really help bring kids out of their shells sometimes and paying the teachers for extra time might help kids who have a really crappy situation back home.

The problem with letting kids be kids, is sometimes kids can be absolute asses, really go over the top with bullying.

I live just outside of Seattle and let me tell you, I have never seen a single cent of that money given back to the community. It's just all pooled up in some account. (It was revealed recently how much it is but don't remember off the top of my head.)

This is amazing. If all states would do this, there's no telling what kind of future we would be building in America. States with poor educational systems AND illegal marijuana like South Carolina could really use the boost forward with spending like this. It's crazy to me how states still haven't opened up this revenue flow.

Wonder what Washington is doing with their tax revenue?

Absolutely. However, the states-rights administration should NOT be revoking states rights in a 100 year old witch hunt.

he took an oath to uphold federal law and federal law is supreme. don't blame him, blame Congress for not listening to it's citizens

Here's a better idea: Congress removes all laws on it, making it legal in every state.

Yes. I like that idea better, too.

Check out this vid, it talks about how this could possibly be a step in the right direction when it comes to legalization.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YyiRhALA9XI

Vid is about 8 mins long.

Congress has the power to remove all federal laws regarding cannabis, but this wouldn't make it "legal in every state". The states still have the right to continue prohibition under state law (which is how 99.9% of weed charges are pursued currently). What Congress can do is leave it up to the states, though, which they absolutely should.

Like someone on pot?

Triggered?

How does Hogan, Hall, or Nash benefit?

Amen to that brother.. or Om to that ;) people will realize there truly is a “new world order” when it’s to late and all us “crazies” will have known.

Here's an idea: Maybe you shouldn't be using that word on the internet since, I don't know, you don't know these people on a personal level and using harsh language like that is insulting. Using language like that on the internet just shows how much hate you have in your heart. BYE

Kingdom of Spain

That may be part of the problem.

Or the government could just remove it from scheduling. Don't need Congress todo that.

Fracking is not what causes earthquakes, wastewater disposal is.

How about we follow the tenth Amendment

I thought the play here was exactly this. Get states outraged in a bipartisan fashion. They come together and legalize it on a federal level.

Alright, so how do we convince conservatives in congress to do that?

Before they can do that they have to remove the US from the 1961 treaty which requires cannabis prohibition.

That's not the state's door though. Does the state have a right to grant a license for something which is otherwise illegal? I would be surprised if there's not some mundane example where a state is allowed to license something that federal law prohibits by default, and I expect something like that to be the basis of an argument that allows the states to at least have medical marijuana.

Uh, yea it is - it’s a conspiracy against the American people. Just because it’s a confirmed conspiracy doesn’t mean it isn’t one.

I, personally, do not want more prisons. I am saying that privately run prisons get money from the government for every prisoner they jail. These government payments are supposed to pay for the food and housing, medical care, etc for the prisoner. However, the for profit prison model has driven down cost of providing for prisoners to the point where the company that runs the prisons makes money on every prisoner.

For example, say the government gives you $100 a day per prisoner for meals alone. You spend $50 a day on low quality food per prisoner. You now make $50 a day per prisoner.

The prison industry is very very real.

Wat

In that case, your sentence is a fragment as well.

Do you have any sources or were you just talking out of your ass?

Are you seriously defending Betsy Devos? She only got appointed for her family's history of campaign funding. Her brother runs Blackwater for fucks sake. Why would you want war profiteers in charge of our educational system?

I'm not sure what you mean but "What you would expect from globalism"? Like what conspiracies relate to globalism? It's not really a controlled movement, it's just a term for the way things have naturally progressed between nations.

Trying to put myself in his state of mind.... There's that phrase, liberals think humans are naturally good and aim for utopia, conservatives think humans are naturally bad and we need (the bible) to stop us from all going to hell.

Then he must think the prison industry is a beacon of light that maintains order and keeps the badies off the street.

I don't think many of these politicians are actually evil, they just have severely skewed world views. Oh and also a lust for power. Which yeah I guess, could be considered evil.

That episode was great.

If I may add, the same mindset is used when the donald funnels money into his properties by taking frequent golf trips and hosting dinners at his properties.

Yes, of course he is. It’s the timing of it that matters here.

Given the opportunity and money not an option, I’m sure most people would send their kids to private school. Especially a government official who knows how the world works

Almost right, lol... That's its idealized version; the reality of the situation is that the "war on drugs" is a source of near-endless arrest and jail revenue, great crowd control via propaganda and fear mongering, and an extremely effective tool for protecting those in power and their investments. ""In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." --Dwight D. Eisehower

cocaine and meth is white. crack is yellow. the other comments explain it better.

Trump wants to do this because busting people for drugs will give him more of an excuse to turn America full fash. Searching people for drugs will give him an excuse to have the police invade homes without a warrant.

I really hope the irony of a conspiracy page being a propaganda machine for one of the most propaganda heavy administrations since ww2, isn't lost on those that contribute to it.

It would be nice to get back to trashing those who oppress others, instead of propping them up. Message me when they are gone. I'll be watching Mueller on c-span.

You're fighting really hard to shame this one off Obama.

That chart you put in is nice, but it all ends at the AG, which the president appoints. The AG's decision is based on advice but it's his decision. If Obama cared about this issue, if the AG had a different opinion Obama could just replace them with someone who wanted to legalize marijuana.

In 2016, the process was followed and the DEA decided to keep marijuana's schedule I status. Guess what, Obama is in charge of the DEA, it's a branch of the Department of Justice and under the executive branch. The president can fire the head of the DEA and hire someone who supports his ideology, you know like how Trump fired Comey. FBI is also a part of the Department of Justice and is under the executive. So following the system that is in place, Obama just didn't have the right people in place to make the change.

Oh, you mentioned congress passing law. Well, Obama had a Democrat congress for 2 years, it's how he got Obamacare through. Marijuana, not important enough for him.

I feel we're on the same team but your hang up is me calling out Obama and the Democrats when really it's 100% their fault. This movement was starting up during Bush but caught full fire when Colorado made it legal at the same time Obama was voted into office. Obama had multiple opportunities, in many different ways but never took them.

Never mind Obama is known for expanding the power of the executive. The dude was basically declaring wars on countries like Syria, Libya, Yemen and I think a couple others through drone bombing and supporting rebel uprising, but somehow he couldn't just strong arm departments that report to him? I guess it's more important that the NDAA was in place than it was to give the people the legal right to consume a plant.

More towards the local level, a little known thing that everyone forgets about is jury nullification. So again, if you change the culture at the local level, so even more people find it acceptable, if a federal case goes in front of a jury of people who are against these laws and they come up not guilty, they can effectively change the law.

So sure, keep talking to me like I'm an idiot and fight hard to defend your team. Before you start attacking the GOP thinking that you'll get me, I'm not on either of your sides. I hate the GOP for being so stupid with this issue and I hate the Dems for having the chance to change it and just acting like the GOP. Shrugging off the blame like it was out of their control to get anything done.

1. I'm not really interested in arguing about arguing.

2. I don't see the distinction in the link you provided for alcohol related deaths. I want Alcohol poisoning. compared to Fentanyl ODs. It's that simple. We don't need to debate if a person was prescribed by a doctor or if they are life long drinkers. Also, has anyone overdosed on Tobacco? So again, I'm not sure why you'd include it in the debate. Fentanyl having only ONE overdoes "beats" tobacco overdoses.

While I agree that drunk driving deaths are important, this actually makes a case against your argument that drugs should be unregulated in Society. I think that my point can be summed up more succinctly: Drugs lead to the early death of MANY people, therefore they should be tightly controlled.

1. If your point is that the drug scheduling in America is "messed" up. Then yes. I agree. But only in that. Not that the solution is to make all drugs available over the counter.

2. I don't bring up Obama because it's a dead point at this end. You're never going to see it my way, so why should I beat a dead horse? You've admitted that NO PRESIDENT EVER can live up to your expectations so why try? I've already clearly, shown you, with the Cole memo, why Obama is the most lenient president on marijuana over the last 50+ years and it's still not enough for you. So why keep going? The Cole memo exists, Sessions threw it out. But somehow Obama should have could have done more, which makes him anti-pot. I don't know how to reason with someone so unreasonable on this point.

As far as libertarianism goes, great. I don't need to argue it anymore either. If you want to throw up your hands great. I win. I simply wanted examples of your thought process and the reasoning behind how or why America should switch from it's current democratic system to your ideas. But you dont' feel like offering any for debate and scrutiny. fine. great.

1. Responsible anarchism sounds great, on paper. But in reality humans simply don't behave in the needed ways. Capitalism plays better to human behavior. That's my problem with Libertarianism. It requires the average citizen to be 100% informed of 100% of all things, all the time.

2. In Portugal, drugs aren't legal. Those caught with drugs are hauled before a ‘commission for the dissuasion of drug addiction’. They may not get a criminal record but they can be fined, placed on a compulsory treatment program, or even have their passport confiscated.

3. 17 years after Portugal changed it's laws, have they cured drug abuse? No. Not one bit. Some studies point to increased abused. link

4. We're more socially liberal than the left and we're more fiscally conservative than the right, not all of us are anarchist.

So , like, you love Rand Paul?

1. Finally, on your views. Good luck. But you're not realistic. 2 senators from Nebraska, can affect EVERYONE in the country right now. And limiting government is a joke as both parties support bigger and bigger government. They only disagree on who gets the perks. Rand Paul is your hero then? But even his policies have real world implication problems. Personally, I feel that we are at a generational war point. Baby boomers have stolen the future from GenX and Millennials and I don't really care WHO you vote for as long as they are under 60. There are going to be some tough choices coming for future reps and leaders, and I want them to represent MY interests and not the boomer generation. WHich has only shown interest in protecting and benefiting itself at all others expense.

So you're still in your 20s or early 30s?