People would turn ape-shit angry at Trump too.

I know he hates it but big money is already lining up.

Sid

because those industries would love nothing other than to keep marijuana illegal. The pharmaceutical industry is petrified about medical use of marijuana because pot can replace so many of their horrific and costly prescription drugs and do a better job, a safer job, and for a fraction of the cost. For obvious reasons, the beer industry is petrified of the thought of legal recreational marijuana usage. The only other ones who might be happy to see Sessions in there would be the illegal pot dealers.

Now, it's pretty damn apparent to those of us on the West Coast that the Eastern Seaboard is behind the curve on this issue, but not by much, as witnessed by Mass. and Maine.

It remains to be seen what Sessions will do. He may be focused on immigration, which is Trump's signature issue. Trump may not want to expend a ton of political capital going after weed, when it enjoys bipartisan support and there are lots of Republicans, from Rand Paul to Dana Rorbacher, who take a more libertarian approach on it.

Last edited Sun Dec 4, 2016, 09:55 AM - Edit history (1)

We had similar results with Gore and Nader re: Bush.

Nader: "Gore and Bush are functionally the SAME re: X, Y, and Z...!!!11!!11!!11"

Oh no they weren't.

And no Hillary and Trump aren't.

I don't know where they are, but, you know... knock yourself out.

Yes, in terms of actual statements on the stump; both Hillary and Trump essentially said "states should decide" on marijuana. Hillary was more specific, but then Hillary had a comprehensive grasp of the issues while Trump just said oft-random shit that came into his head. Hillary also called for a rescheduling from I to II, which, by the way, wouldn't have done anything to reconcile the conflict between federal and state law. Trump never mentioned scheduling at all. But they both said "it should be up to the states", of course given the fact that Colorado is a fairly crucial EC swing state I question whether any candidate would have done different on the stump this year. Taking the opposite tack sure didn't help Christie in the primaries.

Now, those of us who dug deeper would have seen that at least the Democratic Platform was a bit more committed and specific on the matter, calling for a "reasoned pathway to future legalization", etc. (Language which, of course, was driven entirely by Sanders people on the platform committee.) And certainly anyone with a memory going back more than 8 years would acknowledge the GOP's traditional authoritarianism on these matters.

But Hillary's campaign wasn't out there highlighting a more progressive approach on cannabis. They didn't make it a focus.

Here, I'll help you out: "You're saying there is no difference which is exactly what the Nader people said about Bush and Gore"


derp.

Hillary: "I believe, as louis Brandeis said, states are the laboratories of democracy"

Trump: "I really believe we should leave it up to the states."

Again, whether people dig deeper or take the candidates at their word is another matter, but in terms of the implications of actual statements, again, they are functionally equivalent.

And yes, the pronouncements that Nader vomited forth from his mouth re: Bush v Gore is all the history you need to understand what is going on.

Anytime you think that the Democratic position is the same as the Republican one, chances are, you are wrong.

We no longer need to elect the Republican to find this out. We should all know better.

But our candidates can help dispel disinformation like this:

Trump Trolls Target Clinton's Questionable Cannabis Stance in Satirical #StopThePot Campaign




by clearly and forcefully articulating a distinct position.

She teamed up with Sheldon Adelson to try (unsuccessfully) to defeat Medical Marijuana. Which passed by over 70% there. Meanwhile during the campaign she was going to the NY Times talking reefer madness and defending throwing grannies in prison for eating pot brownies.

Is it conceivable, given the strong plurality that weed won that state by while the electorate was divided for President, that her enthusiastic advocacy for pot criminalization hurt our chances there?

If Trump is what it takes to reinforce that message, I can live with that.

Again, 70%+ people voted for MMJ in FL this year, while DWS has spent the past 3 years defending laws that put sick people in prison for using pot. You don't think that hurt our brand?

that the reality of the situation we faced was at worst, a Democrat who would not create additional anti-pot legislation if elected versus Republicans who would attempt to turn back the progress made on that, no matter what BS they were selling during the campaign.

A Democracy depends on an electorate willing to educate themselves on the issues and the history of the behavior of the parties and individuals involved. We have seen this before again and again. There is no excuse for not knowing this.

You're not addressing my point, instead you're clearly on some crusade to battle this ever-elusive "some folks". Maybe try JPR?

In the meantime, prodding our leaders to actually lead in the direction of where voter sentiment lies- and a majority of Americans, now, support legalization- seems to me to be both a moral imperative and good political strategy.

The last two times a Republican was elected to the Presidency, we heard from one portion of the left that the Democratic nominee wasnt progressive enough and that the Democratic nominee was so functionally equivalent to the Republican that there was no point in voting for the Democrat.

I can almost forgive it the first time because we had no real world example to show that even if they seemed the same, the Republican would be much, much worse. So much worse that anyone on the left not voting for the Democrat would regret it.

There is no excuse this time. And no, I am not referring to you Warren.

site anymore. I'm not playing. But... if you're going to use cannabis as a shovel to try and dig up all that DU primary fighting goodness we all so enjoyed here this past year, I'm gonna point out that we still could have done better, DWS as figurehead of our party was a fucking clusterfuck of a disaster on that issue, and it was Bernie Sanders' team that got the pro-legalization language into our platform, and rightly so.

You don't have to lecture me about Ralph Nader. I lost friends over that shit.

Whether it is a good idea to have this forum is still an open question in my mind, but as long as it is here and these topics are being discussed, I think it's important to point out how this pot question played out.

And the way it played out, like many other issues, is that there was a contingent that said that Hillary wasn't progressive enough and was essentially a Republican.

We see how that is turning out on Pot, yes?

that caused HRC to lose the rural rust belt.

Whether DWS's alliance with Sheldon Adelson against the will of 70%+ of the electorate in Florida hurt our chances there is a separate question, to my mind.

Trump is a nightmare on every issue. Amazing how some cared more about the former than the latter.