I won't have a problem with it at all when a Dem finally does it.

Asking for a friend.

I doubt we’ll ever have to learn the truth.

It is now classified as a Schedule 1 drug in those treaties.

and legalized marijuana.

Last edited Fri Aug 9, 2019, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)

won't address healthcare or gun violence.

One POTUS isn't going to change all that, or turn us into Canada. Especially when it comes to healthcare funding and gun violence.

And FYI, Canada didn't have any federal universal health care untill all the provinces had done so individually, and independently. That took decades. Then a very liberal PM was voted in during the 60's and a federal layer was simply added over the existing health care systems.

So there's that to consider about the way Canada does things.

I hope before I die,the right needs to come to center +.Center is way right of most anyone 55+ years old whether they know or not.

I certainly hope that Bernie is observing and learning that lesson.

Not by executive action.

lol

Nice to know.

and is, in fact, lolworthy.


Your lol indicates that you do. Which is nice to know.

Your "lol" in response indicated that you agree. Which I think is nice to know.

And it doesn't. Not at all.

And no I'm not. Thanks for asking!

And your point is...what?

Because that's what it looks like.

I can respect someone saying that they have changed their mind once they take a second look at what they wrote.

I stand by what I said. I was right and still am. If you read it again I'm sure you'll agree.

Right here:

Your "lol" in response indicated that you agree. Which I think is nice to know.

The president can rewrite our treaty obligations at will.

....more important priorities than recreational marijuana. Like renewing out nuclear treaties, trade agreements, NATO alliances, etc.

If a President had 100 priorities, recreational marijuana should be way down in the 90s.

Pot has been illegal forever. It’s everywhere.

Healthcare and a good education are not illegal but really hard to get.

than piling on yet another one.

That would damage the credibility of a Dem POTUS with the international community right away.

But it certainly is a spectacular campaign promise, isn't it? Legal Pot for everyone the minute I get into office!

Way, WAY sexier than "I will work to get the UN on board with dropping the ban, presenting evidence the economic impact that criminalization has on communities of color, and in the meantime, I will reinstate the Obama administration policy of not blocking state marijuana laws if distribution is regulated."

That's not an applause line, and those cheering crowds are some strong juju.

who cares if they are primarily POC?
who cares if they get tossed from public house, lose their student aid, or go to forking jail?
who cares if 60+% of voters think it should be legalized and that it is an issue we can own and win with?

....who have legalized recreational marijuana.

And there will likely be several more in western europe shortly, as Luxembourg just broke the ice there.

Officially legal:
Canada
Georgia
South Africa
Uruguay

Many other countries have partial legalization or decriminalization.

There are lots of countries where medicinal marijuana is fully legal.

....if it's grown and consumed within one's home. It's not really legal, but the courts have deemed it a violation of privacy for authorities to enter a home.

It's status in Georgia is similar, people can legally consume it privately but not in the presence of children, but the penalties for cultivation and sale are still in place.

So we're back to just two countries - Canada and Uruguay.

Medicinal marijuana is an entirely different issue - in the US it is essentially legal in states that pass laws making it legal. This was accomplished via a budget manipulation - the Justice Department is prohibited from spending funds on enforcing the federal prohibition in states that have made it legal.

Got it.

Meanwhile back here 500,000+ people as year discover once again that pot is illegal. At gunpoint.

I get that you are against legalization. Just be honest about it.

Thanks for the thread Autumn.

Love me some Bernie.

BERNIE? Seems to be a trend now.

I'm sure when they do AN ARTICLE ABOUT BIDEN it will be in ALL CAPS.

I haven’t seen a trend of ALL CAPS about Biden, or Beto, Warren, Mayor Pete, Booker, Harris, Gillibrand, either .

never mind. I can't say it here.

but I cant say it here either.

I'm pasting their headline below:


Bernie Sanders Says He Would Legalize Marijuana by Executive Order

Mine looks exactly like yours.

Bernie Sanders Says He Would Legalize Marijuana by Executive Order

as an OP remains in all caps.

When I previewed it, no caps.

Two out of six threads about Bernie on the front page of Democratic Primaries, in all caps, is "every thread about Bernie"?

Executive Order that will never happen doesn’t have much substance.

Maybe the fading polls, too.

IS IT NORMAL TO SCREAM ABOUT EVERYTHING ONE POLITICIAN SAYS???

What are odds that it’s that important?? Especially a pretend Executive Order, lol.

I'm a little concerned if Sanders has about the same grasp on the Constitution Donnie Dumbass does--which would be "none..."

gun violence, one candidate has said very little comparably, and seems to want to move on to different issues that can be discussed anytime, instead of focusing on the issue on everyone’s minds now

There is such a thing as priorities

interviews. He has been speaking out against racism and gun violence. Just because it's not posted here or if it has been and you missed it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

You can't make law by Executive Order. That's just not how they work.

I can understand trying to change the subject if the current one doesn't work for you, but Bernie is just asking for something to blow up in his face if he's suggesting legalizing marijuana by EO. The Right would kill him with this if he became the nominee....

They will blow up at anything any Dems does anyway so, fuck em. Also an EO is a directive issued by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government and has the force of law. Trump has made extensive use of EO's and not a lot of push back. The linked article is from April but it seems to say Trump could do it.

Executive Orders cannot violate the Constitution or set new law in any way. They DO, however, by virtue of the name, manage the way the Executive Branch enforces existing law.

In fact, that's what the opinion you posted suggests. It is not an EO that unilaterally legalizes marijuana, it is only changing the way the federal government prosecutes drug-related crimes. And BTW in Trump's case, that EO isn't even rooted in any consideration for the people, but rather is political strategy. But we know that's how he rolls.

Anyway, I'm digressing here...

Let President Trump or a "President Sanders" try to issue an EO that basically says "from now on, all marijuana sales possession and use in the United States are hereby legal and beyond prosecution." It won't go well for either of them. Either will be immediately taken to court and it will be struck down as unconstitutional.

Going the slow, legislative route, or through the courts is the way one creates lasting progressive change.

But that doesn't make for an applause getting campaign promise, does it?

and therefore doesn't do a deep dive into how they can be dealt with.

"Well that's definitely an issue, and that definitely needs to be addressed. And certainly it will be. But what really makes a difference is going to be the minimum wage going to $15 an hour...."

I could literally, right now, walk two blocks over from my place and buy a joint for about $8. (California).

Yet people are still in prison, still working through the court system, still being punitively fined in other parts of the country. It's total madness, and the ad hoc state vs federal system we have going now cannot possibly hold for very long. At least, I hope not.

I'd still wonder about Sanders' legal rationale though. Is this honestly something he could do? Or will it go to the Supreme Court, which currently doesn't favor us?

But legalization seems like an awfully big thing to use an EO on. Usually EO's are used to get around the edges of congressional policy or executive function. But national legalization would be a sea change in federal policy.

I just feel like that would end up deep in the courts immediately.

challenged again.

But how things should be and how things will be are often wildly disparate things. I can't see the current Court going along with it. Although, with Roberts, who knows. But it seems a little too liberal even for him.

I'm certainly not against Sanders coming out with this policy/position. I just wonder about practical viability. But at least we know what side he's on, and that is always a good thing.

regardless of which party(ies) has majorities and regardless that congress's nearly 500 members are sent by people around the nation to represent them?

I know he's been saying for decades that there's no significant difference between the parties (and believes it!), but promising to bypass and oppose the legislative power of what could be a Democratic Party controlled congress is not what I want. We must elect people committed to making the system work the way it is supposed to, not for continuation of dysfunction.

And of course none of our solidly liberal Democratic candidates support sending smokers to prison and all would decriminalize it. He really should stop implying otherwise.

which costs tons of time and effort (for something an adult should be able to decide about)

and if they don't complete drug court, they can still be sentenced to jail

prison costs the taxpayer about 27,000 bucks a year in illinois

not to mention people could still be fined

in mississippi people go to jail for not paying fines all the time (probably other southern backwards states too)

if mj is legal cops will have to consentrate on coke,meth ,herion ya know stuff that kills peops

60 plus % of the country wants it....why don't all the dem candidates listen to us?

that was a real factor in Republican control a majority of states, Trump to the presidency, and scary growth of religious right power at all levels. This was in spite of the fact that majorities in many red states were already sympathetic to LGBT rights.

This is another big culture wars issue. People who want to smoke pot without worrying about their state laws have my sympathy. But promising to impose legalization on conservative regions that will go up in flames if it's tried is exactly what the McConnells and Tony Perkins's are praying for. They're delighted to use all the help Sanders gives them as they always use it -- to keep and grow their power.

Until we can enact federal laws without tearing our nation apart further, I suggest those afraid because they live in aggressively antagonistic locales obey the law while they work to change their state laws, and of course, vote! if they need a drug until marijuana's safe, they can always consider switching to beer or wine, or states.

Wow.

should be overturned."

Considering that 2 hard-core social and religious conservatives have been named to the court since Obergefell v. Hodges -- and in part due to it -- with more to come if the next vacancy coincides with a Republican president, this is a real threat.

6-3 and this would be only the beginning of a return to the pre- civil rights era. How do you feel about birth control? Ethnic cleansing will leave a labor shortage. Speaking of, any objection to being required to work for your Social Security? Assuming it's not repealed as conservative leaders have planned for over 70 years.

Wow.

and Tony Perkins and anyone else who considers any American's civil rights an "imposition".

taxpayers' expense

I hate to tell ya but most repubs want mj legalized too so I wouldn't expect a big back lash

Bernie would try and get the law changed thru congress if possible I am sure, he is just talking about the eo to show where he is on the subject

you must of had a melt down when Obama used eo to protect the dreamers?

What ever living fork did I just read here?

LGBT people. Do you not understand that they could lose everything? Rights they’ve had for decades, including the right to be gay, to not be a walking crime punishable by prison.

You lived through a genuine devastating backlash that threatens to destroy our entire nation. And continues. It’s not all about gay rights by any means of course, or any of the other single E Normas changes of our times, but way past time to stop being blind.

This election is not about which healthcare plan we should choose or about imposing federal laws on states that won’t decriminalize marijuana.

It’s about whether we will be able to make those and any other choices in future.

super fabulous.

Let's roll that back and while we are at it, all of the civil rights legislation enacted under LBJ, as certainly that caused even more damage to our democracy than the SCOTUS decision. That gave us Nixon and Reagan.

Heck we might as well repeal the 19th too.

I think then the incels and deplorables and racists and fascists won't hate us so much. amirite?

By the way, the backlash actually started in 2010. That was before the SCOTUS decision, back when Obama and the party leadership were still officially not in favor of marriage equality. 2016 was just a side effect of the 2010 disaster.

By your logic our huge mistake was nominating Obama.

You might want a rethink.

That's the only justification I can think of for repeating that old bigoted spiel I've heard in response to any number of civil rights movements. Treat people like full human beings too quickly or there will be a backlash! As if bigoted assholes will be ok with it after they've gotten older and passed their bigoted views to a younger generation.

Also I suppose that makes President Obama's elections a huge mistake too. White racists weren't a big fan of that either.

I've gone to AA meetings since 2008 and many of the people I've run across chose drug treatment court instead of jail - for DWIs. They may have used marijuana, too, but it was the alcohol that got them in trouble.

The TREATIES!1!1

Breaking treaties, healthcare and all kinds of madness and anarchy!!!!!!

Are Bernie's devotee's following the leader?

I'm sure BS already did his homework before the big announcement. Perhaps the comedian/mixed martial arts color-commentator (who voted for Rand Paul in 2012 and Gary Johnson in 2016) should do some homework as well if he is going to conduct the follow up interview.

I do wonder if Rogan is the type of thoughtful journalist who would ask the detailed questions concerning the nuanced foreign policy considerations that must be addressed Maybe BS can do the follow up with a different outlet, like the PBS News Hour or NPR.

Although it's certainly not true of BS, he should nonetheless reassure voters that they are not in danger of casting a vote for another politician who panders to his base by making problematic promises that involve breaking treaties and/or laughing at the constitution.

I look forward to BS's endorsement interviews with the editorial boards of the major newspapers.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/pdf/CPRT-106SPRT66922.pdf

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32528.pdf

lol

lol