jeff sessions is ordering "justice" dept to review marijuana

packerfan79 said:

I totally agree, I have always been a registered independent. That being said I haven't found a Democrat who I could vote for in good conscience. Socialism has been an utter failure, every time. I had a Syrian English teacher who put it this way, "how many people have to die so you (not you specifically) can have your utopia". Unfortunately the mainstream media has pushed the racist, fascist, bigotry, name calling, now anyone who disagrees is nothing more. Americans want our freedom back.one day The left is going to push to far and the vast majority of America is going to take back America one way or another. Our government spies on all of us but the left is okay with it, even when done for political reasons.

Click to expand...

i live in mass(a deeply blue state) and i voted for our current republican governor. he leans toward libertarian policy ideals. i think he hits the nail on the head alot of the time. prob why he has the highest approval rating of any current governor. do i agree with everything he does no but IMO he was a better candidate than who we ran in 14. when it comes to policy and voting i go democratic 99% of the time. strictly because their views align with mine more than the others. that being said i have never voted for someone strictly because of the party theyre affiliated with. just wish more people would do the same

if there ever was a moderate/centrist party i believe they would decimate both R's and D's. most voters dont like politicians that are conservative and liberal. yet they like politicians that are moderate hence why there are so many independent voters.

as for spying both parties do it, have done it and will always do it. no matter what they say. its just a fact of life. no saying i agree with it. spying on your people goes back way beyond our country. it will go on as long as our species exist.

toxic hippie said:

as a liberal myself its not that we cant handle your views, its that the conservative view point has as a whole always been anti marijuana. in retrospect its incredibly difficult to see views of those that have been holding up progress and even pushing us into regression on this issue.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, the danger of making round pegs fit into square holes. IMO, the sins of a father should not be paid by his son. If one goes back in history...left was right and right was left.

Who was the party of KKK (anti-black)? Dems.
Who was the party of civil rights (pro-black)? Reps.
Who was the party of McCarthyism (the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence)? Reps.
Which party was in office when USA entered most of the past military conflicts/wars? Dems.
WWI = Woodrow Wilson (D)
WWII = Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D)
Korean War = Harry Truman (D)
IndoChina I (pre Viet Nam) = Harry Truman (D)
IndoChina II (aka Viet Nam) = John F Kennedy (D) & Lyndon Johnson (D)
Gulf War = George HW Bush (R)
Serbia/Bosnia/Yugoslavia Bombing= Bill Clinton (D)
Afghanistan & Iraq = George Bush (R)

As, I said--I should not be punished for the sins of my father. Said differently, stereotyping people today based on a perceived historical past--can be rather misleading and, imo--is seldom accurate. But that is not to say--past performance is an indicator of future performance.

U

toxic hippie said:

i live in mass(a deeply blue state) and i voted for our current republican governor. he leans toward libertarian policy ideals. i think he hits the nail on the head alot of the time. prob why he has the highest approval rating of any current governor. do i agree with everything he does no but IMO he was a better candidate than who we ran in 14. when it comes to policy and voting i go democratic 99% of the time. strictly because their views align with mine more than the others. that being said i have never voted for someone strictly because of the party theyre affiliated with. just wish more people would do the same

if there ever was a moderate/centrist party i believe they would decimate both R's and D's. most voters dont like politicians that are conservative and liberal. yet they like politicians that are moderate hence why there are so many independent voters.

as for spying both parties do it, have done it and will always do it. no matter what they say. its just a fact of life. no saying i agree with it. spying on your people goes back way beyond our country. it will go on as long as our species exist.

Click to expand...

A moderate/ centrist party would be great.unfortunately the bicameral system keeps independent parties out of the mainstream. Politics is so polarized I don't see it happening. To many issues that people won't bend on.I am guilty myself. I would never vote for social justice, equality, abortion, illegal immigration etc.

We better get this back on topic, or it will get shutdown. I have to hold out hope that common sense makes a come back. Cannabis is a big part of my life, let's focus on what we can agree on. Not what we disagree on

DocTim420 said:

Ahhh, the danger of making round pegs fit into square holes. IMO, the sins of a father should not be paid by his son. If one goes back in history...left was right and right was left.

Who was the party of KKK (anti-black)? Dems.
Who was the party of civil rights (pro-black)? Reps.
Who was the party of McCarthyism (the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence)? Reps.
Which party was in office when USA entered most of the past military conflicts/wars? Dems.
WWI = Woodrow Wilson (D)
WWII = Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D)
Korean War = Harry Truman (D)
IndoChina I (pre Viet Nam) = Harry Truman (D)
IndoChina II (aka Viet Nam) = John F Kennedy (D) & Lyndon Johnson (D)
Gulf War = George HW Bush (R)
Serbia/Bosnia/Yugoslavia Bombing= Bill Clinton (D)
Afghanistan & Iraq = George Bush (R)

As, I said--I should not be punished for the sins of my father. Said differently, stereotyping people today based on a perceived historical past--can be rather misleading and, imo--is seldom accurate. But that is not to say--past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Click to expand...

you can try to spin my statement anyway you please but at the end of the day conservatives are the reason for mj staying illegal.

as for the civil rights act it was introduced by emanuel celler a democrat and signed into law by LBJ a democrat.

you are right about the KKK being started by southern democrats. that was when the south was solidly blue. as soon as the CRA was passed they all jumped ship and went to where their views was shared and its where they remain today.

OK...so how many people are against cannabis? And what are today's demographics (what they were 5 years ago is meaningless)? Not what "we think" they are, rather let's study the actual stats (aka questimates) that paid professionals generate.

I think we can stipulate--our side has a good number of "grey haired" politicians (from both parties) that are pro-cannabis...not sure if they outnumber anti-cannabis gang (again both sides have em)--but that is not what matters. It is public opinion (aka votes)...and imo, that is the "dynamic" worthy of tracking. From what I see--the wind is at our back.

toxic hippie said:

you can try to spin my statement anyway you please but at the end of the day conservatives are the reason for mj staying illegal.

as for the civil rights act it was introduced by emanuel celler a democrat and signed into law by LBJ a democrat.

you are right about the KKK being started by southern democrats. that was when the south was solidly blue. as soon as the CRA was passed they all jumped ship and went to where their views was shared and its where they remain today.

Click to expand...

No spin--just suggesting that imposing a stereotype from the past to a fast changing issue (such as cannabis) can lead one, unintentionally down a shit load of dead end rabbit holes.

Just suggesting if one claims that ALL those that swing Republican are "the enemy", then unintentionally your enemies include all the cannabis loving conservatives (like me).

How does that further the cause--if you alienate those share your views on cannabis?

Ronald Reagan said: The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor.

IMO, we need more people to make a noise about cannabis--not less.

resin_lung said:

Please stop.

This conversation has been really good for me. Besides the politics.

Click to expand...

Yes, the forum owners do not tolerate hot-headed behavior (inability to control one's tendency to lambaste others). Please, if we can't control our own rudeness then we need to STFU or GTFO of this thread.

toxic hippie said:

you can try to spin my statement anyway you please but at the end of the day conservatives are the reason for mj staying illegal.

as for the civil rights act it was introduced by emanuel celler a democrat and signed into law by LBJ a democrat.

you are right about the KKK being started by southern democrats. that was when the south was solidly blue. as soon as the CRA was passed they all jumped ship and went to where their views was shared and its where they remain today.

Click to expand...

You need to check facts southern blacks started voting Democrat, after the New deal in the 1930s. It was a choice between the party that would create Jobs through the new deal, and the party of Lincoln, and the end of slavery. Every Republican voted for the era. Only a handful of democrats voted for the era.

Damn it stop making me point out the half truths and keep it on topic.

packerfan79 said:

You need to check facts southern blacks started voting Democrat, after the New deal in the 1930s. Every Republican voted for the era. Only a handful of democrats voted for the era.

Damn it stop making me point out the half truths and keep it on topic.

Click to expand...

After all, it was the party of Reagen that freed the slaves

subrob said:

After all, it was the party of Lincoln that freed the slaves

Click to expand...

here, i fixed it for you...

DocTim420 said:

...Which party was in office when USA entered most of the past military conflicts/wars? Dems.


IndoChina I (pre Viet Nam) = Harry Truman (D)
IndoChina II (aka Viet Nam) = John F Kennedy (D) & Lyndon Johnson (D)
...

Click to expand...

a small correction, advisers were inserted during Eisenhower's(R) time
not a large presence, but the beginning of an escalating situation

packerfan79 said:

U
To many issues that people won't bend on.I am guilty myself. I would never vote for social justice, equality

Click to expand...

okay, a show of hands here. how many people on here are against social justice & equality? i would really like to know...

QUESTION...

What happened to the "jeff sessions is ordering "justice" dept to review marijuana" subject of this thread?

brown_thumb said:

QUESTION...

What happened to the "jeff sessions is ordering "justice" dept to review marijuana" subject of this thread?

Click to expand...

the same thing that has happened to every thread involving politics

Damn extremist

Ohhh nooooo, the sky is falling (said the little chick).

Back on topic looks like Beauregard, wants mandatory minimum sentences back on the table...I think i will call him bogart sesh...

Trump And Sessions Could Ruin Conservatives’ Plans To Fix The War On Drugs

The attorney general’s past suggests he’ll push for long prison sentences for even non-violent drug offenses.

WASHINGTON ― For years, conservatives like Charles Koch and Newt Gingrich have joined progressives in urging Congress to reform inflexible sentencing laws that mandate lengthy prison terms for particular crimes. Critics say these laws, a relic of the failed war on the drugs, are unnecessary, costly and inhumane.

But Jeff Sessions did not fully get on board with reform when he was a prosecutor or when he was a senator. And now that he’s U.S. Attorney General, Sessions could require federal prosecutors to seek the most serious charge in every case ― which may trigger lengthy mandatory minimum sentences for low-level defendants.

The Obama administration’s Justice Department elected to no longer pursue mandatory minimums for certain low-level drug offenders, and it touted in 2015 that federal drug prosecutors were moving away from seeking minimums “at record rates.” Those changes contributed to a drop in the federal prison population for the first time in decades at a time when the system was facing an overcrowding crisis.

However, Sessions is expected to go in a different direction. He’s tapped Steven Cook, a prosecutor who says the federal criminal justice system is working just fine, for a key role in Sessions’ new Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety, which will re-evaluate the federal government’s response to crime.

As The Washington Post reports, Cook previously headed the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, a group that opposed Obama administration efforts to implement sentencing reforms. Sessions and Cook could re-emphasize the deployment of the across-the-board sentences Congress established for certain federal crimes, rather than allow prosecutors more discretion in charging decisions.

Mandatory minimums are controversial because they amount to a one-size-fits-all approach to punishment — which exacerbates racial disparities in sentencing. And they don’t allow judges to take individual circumstances into account. A 46-year-old man who allegedly sold $1,800 worth of painkillers to an informant, for example, faced a minimum 25-year prison sentence under Florida law in 2013. A 17-year-old who sold crack was sentenced to life in federal prison until his sentence was commuted by Obama (He now works as a school counselor).

Critics blame these laws for ballooning prison populations and for costs to taxpayers. This includes a growing number of Republicans. Conservative Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have all supported legislation that would reform mandatory minimum sentences. The American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative nonprofit, also has a model policy for states that gives judges discretion to depart from these sentences for certain nonviolent offenders.

“Sessions is grossly out of step with the rest of the party,” said Jessica Jackson Sloan, a human rights attorney who oversees #cut50, a bipartisan initiative to reduce mass incarceration. “It’s very alarming to us to suddenly see that Sessions ... is actually in favor of mandatory minimums and pushing for them so hard,” she added.

The attorney general came up as a federal prosecutor in Alabama during the 1980s, a time when the government was starting to take an aggressive approach to drug sentencing. The federal prison population subsequently ballooned from 24,640 inmates in 1980 to 219,298 by 2013. Sessions has pointed to this experience as influencing his views.

“When mandatory minimums are either eliminated or reduced substantially, it reduces the ability of law officers to negotiate and protect the public,” Sessions said at a Senate hearing in 2015. “I’ve been there, I’ve prosecuted cases.”

The DOJ declined to comment on Sessions’ plans for mandatory minimums, but he is known as a criminal justice hardliner: As Alabama attorney general, he called chain gangs “constitutional and proper.” While he backed legislation that lowered, but did not eliminate, the sentencing gap between crack and powder cocaine (which resulted in severe racial disparities), Sessions has largely opposed broader sentencing reforms.

It’s clear that President Donald Trump and Sessions are on the same page when it comes to pushing tough-on-crime policies. “If any other Republican presidential candidate won, you’d be looking at a different department,” said Kevin Ring, president of of Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

Ring is a former GOP aide on Capitol Hill who was convicted in connection with the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandalscandal and was sentenced to 20 months in prison. (Federal prosecutors had asked for much longer). He noted that some reform advocates on the right had been taking a wait-and-see approach to the Trump administration, with several hoping that the president would be “malleable” on criminal justice issues. But that’s beginning to shift, he said.

“I think people are going through the stages of grief,” Ring said. “Everyone has been so excited about playing offense, trying to pass reform at the federal and state level, that the idea that we’re going to spend four years playing defense has made people want to focus more on state work because that’s where you can actually effect some positive change.”

Right on Crime, a conservative criminal justice group, is “definitely not throwing in the towel on federal reform,” said crime policy director Marc Levin. The group and other organizations recently wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee requesting that U.S. Attorney nominees answer questions about their views on key criminal justice issues, Levin said.

He noted they’ve had some “good discussions with some folks at the White House,” and claimed that criminal justice reform has support from Trump associates including the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The Huffington Post reached out to several other prominent conservatives who have advocated for criminal justice reform about Sessions’ views. The offices of Sens. Cornyn, Paul and Lee did not respond to a request for comment. Mark Holden, general counsel for Koch Industries, declined to comment. Spokespeople for Gingrich and Grover Norquist — who last month advocated in support of ending mandatory minimums in Nebraska — also did not respond to requests for comment.

Jackson Sloan, the human rights attorney, said it “probably makes more sense for conservatives to work behind the scenes, rather than attacking a leader in their own party’s administration outright.” But at some point, she added, “it becomes obvious that they’re on different sides of the fence.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-sessions-war-on-drugs_us_58ee42c3e4b0cb574bb4ae12

DocTim420 said:

IMO, if you listened more and talked less, you might enjoy having a discussion with someone that is not a mirror image of yourself. I have learned more from people that know more than me...than from like-minded peeps that live in the same echo chamber.

Click to expand...

Totally agree...Subrob set me straight once....unfortunately I developed a tick afterwards

Sessions Is ‘Surprised’ At Public Backlash To His Marijuana Rhetoric

By Steve Birr, The Daily Caller



Attorney General Jeff Sessions expressed shock at the swift public backlash to his fiery rhetoric on federal marijuana policy and his opposition to legalization.

Speaking on a range of issues at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona Tuesday, Sessions addressed his opposition to further easement of marijuana laws in states across the country. He also expressed confusion over the amount of attention his comments on marijuana during his confirmation hearing received, reports AZ Central.

Sessions, a stanch opponent of legalization, is currently reviewing the Cole Memorandum, a set of guidelines established in 2013 that direct DOJ to focus marijuana enforcement efforts on violent crimes and distribution in states without legalization laws.

“When they nominated me for attorney general, you would have thought the biggest issue in America was when I said, ‘I don’t think America’s going to be a better place if they sell marijuana at every corner grocery store,'” Sessions said Tuesday, according to AZ Central. “(People) didn’t like that; I’m surprised they didn’t like that.”

Sessions also touched on illegal immigration and border protection Tuesday, reiterating his belief that a wall and bolstered enforcement will greatly cut down on the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S.

Sessions claimed in February “there’s more violence around marijuana than one would think, and there’s big money involved.” It is unclear how aggressive the administration will ultimately be on the issue, but officials in states with legalization laws are preparing for the worst.

The governors of Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, the first four states to legalize recreational marijuana, sent a letter to Sessions and Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin April 3, imploring them to leave marijuana policy to the states.

The governors say they previously opposed legal weed but argue the policy is boosting revenue and helping reduce the “inequitable incarceration” of minority groups.

Sessions and the Trump administration could cost the marijuana industry hundreds of thousands of jobs if they interfere with state pot laws. A report released in February by New Frontier Data projects that an unimpeded marijuana market will create more than 250,000 jobs by 2020. The booming projections for growth stand in stark contrast to manufacturing jobs, which are expected to crater by more than 800,000 by 2024.