POLL: Should President Trump de-list (federally decriminalize) marijuana?
(media.patriots.win)
Comments (201)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
The proper Conservative position. IMO.
"I can assure you my wife's vagina is definitely dry"
"OK guys... full disclosure here.. I have never smoked marijuana and I cancelled my Sports Illustrated because of the swimsuit issue."
Same. I'm not interested in drugs at all, never have been.
I have dealt with many ODs of other drugs which are they issue, seen many people die, and many people shot over gang wars, but never marijuana. Tax the fvck out of it for all I care. Waste of money to enforce.
Fix our borders, ban gun laws, uphold the constitution, decriminalize self defense, go after gang members, terrorist, and the traitorous democrat party.
...there are so many other more important things...
I've "OD'd" on marijuana a couple times in my life. It was horrific. And it will probably happen again. And I'll live. And it won't kill my brain cells like alcohol does.
I didn't mean marijuana, I was implying I don't care about that. I work in prisons and jails as a medical professional, I mean meth, fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, alcohol, PCP, and I think we had some flakka once or twice in my area. I two intakes die in one hour, not the mention the smugglers ODing on the inside, and a couple of legit suicide attempts...marijuana is already legal in my area. It may affect your memory over time. What you are referring to about alcohol is after the liver is sufficiently damaged temporarily, or permanently which may cause cirrhosis, either may cause hepatic encephalopathy.
No my friend, I'm not talking about liver damage. Alcohol kills brain cells, period.
Our savage penal system is an entirely different story. We're paying something like 40k? Per prisoner per year? To turn them in to more violent criminals?
We can do better. Frankly, if you dosed all the prison food with THC, we'd be better off. Less rape. Less murder. Less recidivism.
I'll disagree. I don't know what you think about what lies in the heart of people you have not met, but the thousands I have met over 13 years already had all of the marijuana and drugs they wanted. They were simply out to take, kill, rape, torture, and cause violence because they could. There were a few crimes of passion as they say, a person who committed one or two murders when his wife cheated on him.
How is the penal system responsible for a mother pimping her 11 year old daughter out to by more drugs when she has never been in jail more than 6 hours for a process and release?
How is the penal system responsible for a 65 year immigrant from Mexico who was brought here by his niece and nephew to retire who decided to repeatedly rape 5yo daughter and 3yo son of the niece and nephew for weeks until the older kid finally let it slip to her parents?
How is the penal system responsible for the first crime committed by two aspiring gang wannabees who for their gang initiation decided to decapitate a registered nurse from the local hospital who just got off from a night shift and decided to was her car before going home?
How is the penal system responsible for an activist city council nearby, just last year, who decided she had it with local criticism, and with her two children in her SUV, decided to try but fail to run over a dozen police officers who barely managed to get out of the way.
These are all real stories I experienced, of crimes from people who had nothing besides maybe a speeding ticket or maybe 6 hours drunk tank. I don't know how old you are, but you sound inexperienced and misled.
Theres no rehab and much recidivism because there’s no escape from the stain of prison, especially a felony.
You can’t vote, can’t own firearms. You’re never getting a decent high paying job or a loan to start a business because you can’t pass a background check.
More crime just makes sense. Once you have one felony, a second or third means nothing.
I'm gonna call BS on this. I know for a fact that a 20 yo stole a car 30 years ago and since has lived a decent life. About 8 years after release and probation was over, worked a job making 60k at a desk job allowing the purchase of a home with 3% down and a 200k loan. Point is, stay out of trouble, pay your bills and keep a job, even felons can live happy productive lives and many do. Keep fucking around and you deserve what you get.
I don’t doubt your story’s true. The key part is “30 years ago”. Before the rise of big data, social media and easily searchable offender registries.
I applied for a job that did a background check. They hired me.
During my onboarding, the HR person said I was lucky to be hired and brought up the fact that I had gotten a citation for having an open container of alcohol at a lake. 8 years ago. That was dismissed.
Imagine having a felony. Your “permanent record” is now a real thing.
Back up a second, friend. How could a 20-year-old have stolen a car 30 years ago?
Or did you mean, "Thirty years ago, when he was 20 years of age, he stole a car?"
If your dad would vote for the senile child sniffer to oppose Trump, because mommy-government should guide us and own us and rule us, then he was never really a Trump supporter.
And the few states where those mommy-government Republicans exist in significant numbers, are not going for Biden regardless.
My dad could beat up your dad!
You're preaching to the choir though. I grew up in Portland before legalization and smoking in public was barely considered a crime. I saw plenty of cops confiscate weed and give kids a talking to and send them on their way.
This is my position on the matter as well.
Agreed
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: I personally think we should decriminalize (almost) all drugs. Primarily because it’ll take away one of the main funding streams to the cartels, but also because I’m a firm believer in personal responsibility.
Absolutely! The black market is why street justice is a thing. Take away the black market and you take away the violence associated with it, not to mention the drug cartels banking $.
It's pretty easy to distinguish what crimes ought to be legal, and it's victimless crimes.
Legalizing all drugs does kind of terrify my though because God damn is hydrocodone nice. I'd hope businesses would have a plan to keep otherwise successful people like be from ruining my life.
Is this some kind of racist dogwhistle here? I thought I heard about that from Don Lemon on CNN... /s
I'm in agreement. And I think it's an easy case for him to make, even with the old school Republican nanny-state types.
It's been legalized in enough places for enough time, for plenty of data to be compiled. It's a no-brainer. IMO.
If alcohol is legal then makes no sense for weed to not be
Yes, just to see the democrats be against it cause Trump supports it.
It’s not a war on drugs it’s a war on personal freedoms.
All drugs should be legal, freely available, and as cheap as possible. Especially fentanyl.
We need to let natural selection back into society to do its thing.
KEK
It's time.
January 20, 1981 was time.
YES!!!
Not only will he be the first president in decades to not start a war .. he would end a war??? The war on drugs ... oh boy I know half a dozen friends who would run to the polls for him.
Yes Just to piss off the liberals is on the top of the tick list for a why
Yes
Yes, responsible marijuana user (dont have to smoke it), tax payer, parent, still married to first wife. There are 10s if not 100 million of me.
Yes.
yes
Yes. Not a smoker and I hate the smell but it makes no sense that alcohol is allowed but weed is not. Legalizing it and or at least decriminalizing it will take money away from cartels and dealers. Also pardon those who are only in for weed crime.
Hate the smell? I love it.
IMO it's tangy and sour and sweet and should be respected on par with any other spice/herb when it comes to cooking.
I know people who like it describe it that way. But just like few people don't like the smell or taste of a few spices (cilantro), I don't like the smell of weed. It brings back some bad memories too lol
Not sure why someone downvoted you, I will give you an updoot.
We've got a couple Mormons here. It's embarrassing watching them sing Kamala's praises.
hell yes, and immediately.
the lib and libertarian support for Biden would evaporate instantly, not to mention its the right thing to do.
No link...? What is the actual point of this?
I messaged the mods asking for a poll option for TD posts.
The actual point of this is written in the title, in plain English. It's a simple question.
It's nice not paying $40k per year to lock up an innocent person over some victimless marijuana nonsense crime.
Yes
Yes.
It's no worse than alcohol, and we can crush the violence surrounding the dealing of it.
Also, I don't smoke pot.
Without a doubt.
The man revolutionizing the world and building cities on Mars, partakes responsibly... You can to. If you can't, there's some other issue involved. IMO.
Obesity is killing Americans. And basic simple walking could eradicate that #1 killer. You know why people don't do it? Because walking/jogging is boring. Marijuana makes it so much easier. Sooooooooo much easier.
Yes.
It should be legalized federally. Decriminalization sounds great and all, but doesn't make it easier for anyone in the industry working thier ass off to get the same opportunities as everyone else. For example, I cant qualify for a home loan because of where I work, even though it's medically legal in this state. They consider it illegal money. Cant have a "real" bank account if they know where I get my money. Maybe it's different other places but its pretty rough.
I work at a real farm supplying real medicine to people. Im not some street supplier wanting a house loan ffs.
Personal substance use should be legalized period. IMHO
I just think fed decriminalization is the first realistic step.
Yes
Leave it up to the states. Don’t tread on my pot.
Btw to those that do smoke, it is behaviorally addicting. Please don’t go overboard, be responsible and don’t give us a bad name.
cigarrettes are bad already
That's pretty typical. I played pretend the first time too. Nothing happened, but, I was with friends and peer pressure. etc.
Very common for people to experience nothing the first time.
Yes. Leave it to states to decide
OP, you should somehow get this to Trump or Trump Jr.
No.
He should instead explode the FDA itself.
A prize structure for "Exploring non-patentable cures" and a mass de-precriptionizing of a laundry list of things as a bare minimum.
I don't necessarily disagree with neutering the FDA itself.
But these aren't mutually exclusive things. Obviously you do think fed decriminalization would be a solid move?
The restructuring I'm imagining would have the "D" aspect of the FDA doing formal grading of everything as it's core purpose.
So - it would eventually get it's stamp of 'not quite full approval', similar to alcohol, etc.
The angst tied up in de-criminalizing it is a useful lever in getting the wider fixes rolling.
While we're at it, "condensers" need decriminalizing, that's effing moronic too.
Condensers?
Think 'moonshine gear'.
Distillation columns start running into "Are you a school, lab, or otherwise certify you aren't going to make alcohol with it?"
What the fuck? Where? You live in Utah Mormon-town central or something?
You're telling me if I build a still to condense essential oils from my lavender plants, I'm breaking the law, because, I could use that still to make booze?...
My understanding is that it is one of those where you suddenly end up "proving a negative" somehow. Washington State here, but I thought the core ruling was through BATFE. But it could easily just be "our state is the most Karen state evar and proud of it!"
A condenser actively hooked up, bottles of actual lavender oils, etc ... probably not a problem.
Cleaned up and all packed away... "Oh look, moonshine gear" if, of course, they're being assholes.
Also probably a matter of scale.
I have a gun. I'm an American. And I would defend myself.
If Trump tells mommy government to acknowledge that it's your body and therefore your choice, he should "designate areas"? What areas?
Dude... you’re generally being an asshole to people in this thread...
You debate the subject with the Kamala's who refuse to see reason. Let me know how it goes. It's irritating, I'm sorry.
You’re not “reasoning” with them, you’re just calling them boot lickers or Mormons (?), and being an overly-aggressive prick about it. Apology accepted, I think.
I have made my case. I'll continue to. And I'm sure I'll keep being a little bit short with every Kamala who comes in here advocating for police to throw me in prison. I'm weird like that.
“Weird,” ok.
Is that you Kamala Harris?
Seriously?! Is that you Mayor Wheeler? How’s Portland going for ya? You like those nightly psychotic rage-fests? Ever think it might be connected? Oh, and by the way, guess who helped fund marijuana legalization, Soros. Hmmm, wonder why.
You're obviously desperate to rationalize the fact that you grovel on your knees licking politician boots and asshole.
No. There's no correlation between marijuana and violence or aggression.
Sorry pal, there is plenty of evidence and I gave you a link. Do the research. I’m not doing it for you. You and your buddy Soros keep pushing the lies.
I'm not interested in your silly Mormon propaganda buddy. And Soros is the boot licking leftist, like yourself, begging mommy-government to own you and make decisions for you because free choice is scary.
Mormon? 😂. Sorry but you and Soros can keep the propaganda.
I'm the one who doesn't believe the government should own people. Soros is on your side. I believe in freedom and limited government.
I can understand why you'd like to play pretend about that though.
Yes, but with two goalposts that should be met before the legal change is enacted.
First, an accurate roadside test and legal standard for THC intoxication. Having to go to a hospital for a blood-draw because an officer claims that he smells marijuana in a vehicle seems like an unreasonable search based on unverifiable probable cause - open to potential abuse. Also, something similar for employers who might be exposed to liability issues by THC-intoxicated employees.
Second, a thought-out policy around impact on security clearances for use.
Our government tech professional industries are massively hampered already because of the reefer madness bullshit. It's a huge leg up for foreign countries who don't discriminate against professional autists. They all smoke weed. All of them.
"an accurate roadside test"
Exact same field sobriety tests should apply. IMO. Blood draw is useless because someone with practically no THC in their system could be freaking out borderline psychotic, while a person with a heavy dose is just chilling and a safer driver than the average sober commuter.
Field sobriety tests for alcohol require active participation by the driver. Failure to comply brings a roadside BAC tester into play, escalated to transport to a hospital for forced blood withdrawal for continuing non-compliance. Without similar testing path for THC, what does the jurisdiction do when someone refuses to perform field sobriety tests without similar testing options - forced transport to hospital for drawing blood? arrest for failure to comply? revoke driving license under suspected intoxication? Would you say that these seem like proportionate responses?
Not sure what you are designating 'government tech professional industries' - I have never had any piss-testing for any engineering position without a security clearance, but I was regularly tested to operate fabrication and warehouse equipment by company policies. So it seems like your focus on techie-autists probably is not all-inclusive for the corporate issue.
The current security clearance issue is based on the illegality of marijuana (i.e. any use is potentially grounds for revocation of clearance). Legalization would entail switching to looking for a pattern of abuse of marijuana (as it is done for alcohol). My point is that some research and legislation would be needed to define characteristics of abuse so everyone knows what they can and cannot do if they want to maintain their clearance. Unrestricted use is unlikely to be viewed as without risk for the same reasons that alcohol use is not unrestricted.
I hope this clarifies some of the ancillary legal issues that probably will arise with legalization.
"what does the jurisdiction do*"
They enforce the law. If the driver is not giving you probable cause to demand a sobriety test, then you fuck off, ticket them for whatever you pulled them over for, and you leave them alone.
"Not sure what you are designating 'government tech professional industries'"
FBI, CIA. etc. A lot of the professional autists at 4chan, are elite in every single relevant skills category, but you have to pass drug tests and lie detector tests regarding marijuana, before they will hire you. Programmers with aspergers, the best of the best, all smoke weed. And they can't be hired because of it. And that's stupid.
Somehow you're worried that legalizing marijuana will cause problems for officers who already have to perform sobriety checks for drivers under the influence of marijuana? Your big concern, basically, is no change at all. It's already illegal, and it would still be illegal.
"is not all-inclusive for the corporate issue"
And corporations don't need Nancy Pelosi or Kamala Harris to help them decide to hire people who test positive for marijuana or not.
OK, you seem to be jumping around a fair bit on the roadside stop process so let's give you the scenario and you describe what you think should happen. Officer observes vehicle crossing the lane demarcation line giving probable cause to initiate a stop for operating a vehicle while impaired. Officer approaches the vehicle and observes pot-related paraphernalia or (even vaguer but equally valid legally) smells marijuana so it is possible the operator was smoking in the vehicle (analogous to alcohol rules). Driver refuses to perform field-sobriety tests for THC intoxication. Officer, having PC for impairment and passive non-compliance by driver, then....<please fill in the blank assuming no accurate roadside testing options and guidelines for intoxication limits>.
The same issue as above applies for corporate employment. Insurance companies will use State and Federal intoxication and abuse guidelines for setting the employee acceptable limits. They may choose a tighter standard if they wish, but ultimately the issue of impairment while working is something that the companies would be looking to the Government standards to define. The current on-site testing is not refined enough to show whether someone has used it at home (i.e. not impaired, a liability risk, or a termination offense) versus the operator of crane/tow-motor/sheet-metal bender/diesel railroad engine who just had an accident at work and might be a legal liability if they cannot test him to determine whether he was intoxicated with a legal substance at the time. That's just the most obvious case of risk.
Corporations with any risk of accidental injury/death, breach of fiduciary responsibility, classified or NDA work requirements, working with children/elderly, medical/pharmacy work, and probably some other insurance risks that I am not thinking of at the moment would default to all having blanket prohibitions against employees engaging in a legal activity during the hours spent outside the company? I.e. any marijuana use anytime which is the current testable standard is grounds for dismissal even though it is a legal substance? First accident/mistake at work for anyone who doesn't consistently piss clean equals automatic termination? Because, otherwise, it appears that they will have the same insurance/bonding/licensing risk issues if they cannot define impairment at the time of any issue.
You've convinced me Braujager. Kamala was right. We should imprison people for marijuana, because DUI laws exist. And, corporate insurance considerations...
(smidge of sarcasm there)
I would rather suffer the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.
I'll mostly ignore the straw man, but I had hoped for a better quality of argument.
I have pointed out the legal issues that I can see in the body of law that would need resolution before Trump could meaningfully change the status of marijuana to legality. Nothing in my analysis argues for criminality of marijuana, only that the world as we know it establishes limits and simple tests for legal, intoxicating substances in popular use. Making the transition without those established opens up business liabilities and risks of government over-reach larger than you seem to understand if you think of them as 'inconveniences'. I fully encourage and support research into both of those necessary areas to allow legalization of marijuana at the earliest opportunity (for both my philosophical bias and financial benefit).
Oregon and California and Colorado have had no trouble managing it, despite the impotent unenforced federal ban that Trump could erase with an executive order.
If the geniuses who run Oregon and California can manage it, I believe that some how, some way, the rest of America can manage it.
No idea why you're continuing to explain to me that DUI is illegal.
Mostly because I want to see democrats really, really hitch themselves to their losing position (oppose anything Trump supports) by declaring that marijuana is dangerous and should be illegal. Watch the 18-24 year old vote completely turn out for Trump, and keep the dirty pot-smoking hippies at home "protesting" on election day.
PLEASE do it President!
Trump should do a Ron Paul!
Federally decriminalize EVERYTHING.
(Except illegal immigration, treason, USD counterfeiting, etc.)
It should all be left to state and local level.
An EO that makes all recreational drug use a state's rights issue... Along with increased protections for terminal patients in "right to try" situations.
Would be difficult for the MSMDNC to attack.
Yes. Not because I smoke marijuana, but because anyone who wants to use medical marijuana for pain relief (like my wife) is legally considered a "drug user," and cannot legally own a firearm.
Yes
Either decriminalize it or enforce the laws and shut down the states. This in between ignoring it needs to end.
You would support Trump sending in government agents to imprison millions of otherwise non-criminal marijuana users in Oregon and California and Colorado?
I really do not care if it is made legal just that if you are going to have a law then enforce it, or if no longer desired or needed get it off the books. I would leave the decision which way to go to GEOTUS.
Completely agree with that. We should get rid of all brown bag laws.
That's also why I didn't like bump-stocks and didn't flip out when Trump tossed them that bone.
Make full auto legal, or don't.
Yes, the whole premise for it being illegal is stupid and I honestly believe it leads to less bad decisions than alcohol.
TD needs an option to submit polls.
Skimming the comments, it's 90:10.