View Full Version : Cory Gardner throwing a fit about pot
I didn’t see a topic on this yet but apparently Cory Gardner is putting a roadblock on appointments until Sessions and ultimately the POTUS change their position on federal enforcement of marijuana.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cory-gardner-vows-to-hold-trumps-judicial-nominees-until-marijuana-decision-is-reversed/article/2644989
BladesNBarrels
01-05-2018, 10:48
My impression is that Cory Gardner was more annoyed at the AG lying before his approval by the Senate and telling the Senators that he would not change the then current policy.
More of a question of State's Rights then approving or dis-approving of the legalization of marijuana. Just my impression.
[Dunno]
RblDiver
01-05-2018, 10:51
Yeah, I think he's more upset about being lied to than the policy per say. I'm against the policy too, but again on a states rights level. I think the 10th has been bastardized for a long time, and it's time for the states to reassert themselves. Perhaps it'd happen more if we got rid of the 17th.
Cory should shut his piehole and go back to his useless and pointless existence as a parasite.
My impression is that Cory Gardner was more annoyed at the AG lying before his approval by the Senate and telling the Senators that he would not change the then current policy.
More of a question of State's Rights then approving or dis-approving of the legalization of marijuana. Just my impression.
[Dunno]
States' Rights is dead. 10th Amendment is just as good as the 2nd. To many examples to list.
If Gardner doesn't like it, he should author/sponsor a bill to change the law. That's what legislators do and the FedGov is supreme. Of course, he'd have to spend some political capital putting his name next to the pot trade.
States' Rights is dead. 10th Amendment is just as good as the 2nd. To many examples to list.
If Gardner doesn't like it, he should author/sponsor a bill to change the law. That's what legislators do and the FedGov is supreme. Of course, he'd have to spend some political capital putting his name next to the pot trade.
Thank you, I was just going to respond with this.
My impression is that Cory Gardner was more annoyed at the AG lying before his approval by the Senate and telling the Senators that he would not change the then current policy.
More of a question of State's Rights then approving or dis-approving of the legalization of marijuana. Just my impression.
[Dunno]
That makes sense...I think I was looking at it with emotional bias and focusing more on the "what" of his stand than the "why".
Hon. Representative 2-year-old-tantrum notwithstanding, I think the feds are gonna have their hands full if they choose to actually go after the "legal" marijuana industry. Too many VERY wealthy people have too much skin in the game to walk away, and more states are coming on board every day. This will end up going to the Supreme Court as a 10th Amendment issue, which is actually a good thing for us, as it would call into question the authority of the USG to regulate firearms or any number of other things when the transactions are strictly intrastate. Currently, the authority of the BATFE is vested solely in the Commerce Clause, which has been serially abused for 150 years to expand Federal power.
Gardner was on with Ross Kaminsky this morning and this was the issue- AG Sessions lying about enforcement policy to Cory. But he did say that Senators Booker and Paul were working on legislation to remove MJ from the Schedule I list. Not sure what will come of it. But my estimation, with all the "old" republicans who share Sessions' view on marijuana, it won't pass or will die in some committee. I think that needs to happen. My personal feelings aside on the issue (I'm against, for the record), society seems to be more accepting of marijuana, as evidenced by the many states legalizing it. Congress should make moves to at a minimum move MJ from Schedule I to a lower drug scheduling, or decriminalize altogether. It is a problem drug still, but by comparison to opiates and amphetamines, it's small potatoes.
I am not a fan of the stuff, but this is a state issue and not a federal issue.
Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk
Gardner was on with Ross Kaminsky this morning and this was the issue- AG Sessions lying about enforcement policy to Cory. But he did say that Senators Booker and Paul were working on legislation to remove MJ from the Schedule I list. Not sure what will come of it. But my estimation, with all the "old" republicans who share Sessions' view on marijuana, it won't pass or will die in some committee. I think that needs to happen. My personal feelings aside on the issue (I'm against, for the record), society seems to be more accepting of marijuana, as evidenced by the many states legalizing it. Congress should make moves to at a minimum move MJ from Schedule I to a lower drug scheduling, or decriminalize altogether. It is a problem drug still, but by comparison to opiates and amphetamines, it's small potatoes.My personal feelings on it is that they should put it on the same level as alcohol and cigarettes. People under 18 shouldn't be able to buy it and it should be regulated and taxed like that.
Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk
http://scontent.fapa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26167132_1544756425645637_7420285982260248547_n.jp g?oh=f30fdd108469de6670ab37b76d41c798&oe=5AEE7697
My personal feelings on it is that they should put it on the same level as alcohol and cigarettes. People under 18 shouldn't be able to buy it and it should be regulated and taxed like that.
Why are you okay with the way that alcohol and cigarettes are taxed?
Why are you okay with the way that alcohol and cigarettes are taxed?You're gonna be taxed anyway. Do I like taxes? No, but that's life.
Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk
68Charger
01-05-2018, 14:11
I am not a fan of the stuff, but this is a state issue and not a federal issue.
Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk
It's still an international issue... the US signed "The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" in 1961 (Ratified in 1975) regulating (among many other things) Cannabis.
If the Feds ignore it, they're technically violating a treaty. If they really want to be "by the book", they need to amend that treaty.
It's still an international issue... the US signed "The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" in 1961 (Ratified in 1975) regulating (among many other things) Cannabis.
If the Feds ignore it, they're technically violating a treaty. If they really want to be "by the book", they need to amend that treaty.Now, that I'm not aware of. But like I said I'm not a huge fan of the stuff to begin with.
Sent from my 2PQ93 using Tapatalk
If people have a problem with federal enforcement of the controlled substances act, *gasp* maybe they should stop asking them to ignore it and say "We like weed, but not the other stuff" and instead, fix the too-powerful scope of federal enforcement in the first place.... which would create consistency in all the other areas as well (e.g. firearms)
To be honest, the government should have no say what you freely decide to inhale, drink or consume. They should not protect stupid and let you face the biological consequences of that choice. Get government out of paying for healthcare, and they have no reason to worry about your health. Drug use is a self solving problem. let the druggies have an unlimited cheap supply so they can overdose and die.
Here's what it really comes down to: Consistency.
If the FEDS are going to enforce their laws that conflict with state laws (such as with firearms under U.S.C. Title 18 opposed to State's authorizing non-interstate manufacturing) then they need to do it across the board.... e.g. marijuana as well. If people have a problem with that, they need to fix the underlying system.
What is really, really stupid, is the "vogue" selective enforcement of laws, for political purposes or outright bias. I've got an issue with that. If a judge is pro weed or pro firearm, that doesn't give them the right to ignore certain violations premised upon their own political standing. Likewise for the higher echelons of the feds. The system we are left with is one horrifically fucked in the judicial system, where bias and political preference is just about the ONLY determination factor inside many courtrooms.
Either you enforce them all, or you enforce none. If something needs to change, change it. But you don't look the other way and make a special class of people whenever it politically suits you.
That said, I believe the constitution should be followed including the 10th amendment; I also recognize that it's almost entirely ignored even down to the 4th and 5th. You don't improve that situation by selective enforcement, you only create bigger problems. If people have a problem with federal enforcement of the controlled substances act, *gasp* maybe they should stop asking them to ignore it and say "We like weed, but not the other stuff" and instead, fix the too-powerful scope of federal enforcement in the first place.... which would create consistency in all the other areas as well (e.g. firearms)
I like this. It dovetails into the 'rule of law' mind set. It's funny we used to pass judgement on banana republics, and kangaroo courts.
GilpinGuy
01-05-2018, 18:31
To be honest, the government should have no say what you freely decide to inhale, drink or consume.
This. None of their damn business unless you're harming someone else directly. Stealing shit to pay for your weed is directly harming someone. Buying it with your own money and sitting in front of the tv isn't harming anyone but yourself.
I have a whole other philosophy about legalization vs. decriminalization that Vin Armani described pretty well. I can't get all that out now.
This. None of their damn business unless you're harming someone else directly. Stealing shit to pay for your weed is directly harming someone. Buying it with your own money and sitting in front of the tv isn't harming anyone but yourself.
I have a whole other philosophy about legalization vs. decriminalization that Vin Armani described pretty well. I can't get all that out now.
In a society that shares negative consequences, nearly everything you do with individual consequences harms (or the gov claims harm as justification) someone else.
Eliminate the welfare state, social programs, taxation for redistribution, etc... And these freedom issues become a lot more clear. Until that happens, a middle class person is blackmailed into supporting statism if he wants to keep his paycheck, he really has no other defense.
And this is why I think pot has been bad for CO. The voters didn't really "legalize" it in a way that honored individual liberty with natural consequences. They regulated it within a status quo of artificial consequences.
It would be interesting to repeat the experiment in a more libertarian state and see what happens. I think it would be more positive.
Great-Kazoo
01-05-2018, 19:35
If the Feds ignore it, they're technically violating a treaty. .
Violating a Treaty, Not again
[panic]
I agree with Ben Shapiro on this issue, if you want to smoke pot you’re dumb but it’s a state issue and the federal government should back off. Congress is there to make law, if they want to make pot or any other substance legal again, Then change the law. The White House press secretary literally just stated that the president and his administration is interested in enforcing federal law, But I bet Cory Gardner is not willing to stick his neck out and submit a bill that would legalize/decriminalize pot at the federal level.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BladesNBarrels
01-06-2018, 09:51
Violating a Treaty, Not again
[panic]
For as long as the rivers flow and the sun rises!
73052
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.