Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, December 03, 2016

Political leaders in several states are threatening to thwart the implementation of voter-approved initiatives specific to the regulation of marijuana. In Massachusetts, where voters decided 54 percent to 46 percent on election day to legalize the cultivation, use, and retail sale of cannabis by adults, politicians have suggested amending the law and delaying its implementation. Specifically, lawmakers have called for pushing back the date when adults may legally begin growing cannabis from December 15, 2016 to an unspecified point in time. Legislators have also called for delaying retail sales of cannabis until late 2018, and have proposed increasing marijuana-specific sales taxes.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

In Maine, where voters narrowly approved a similar ballot measure, Republican Gov. Paul LePage has said that he will seek federal guidance before moving forward with the law's implementation. Governor LePage, who adamantly opposed the measure, said that he "will be talking to Donald Trump" about how the incoming administration intends to address the issue, and pronounced that he "will not put this (law) into play" unless the federal government signs off on it.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson made similar statements following voters' decision to legalize the medical use of cannabis. "I don't like the idea of implementing laws in Arkansas that violate federal law," the Republican Governor and former head of the US Drug Enforcement Administration said. "This does not call for a state-by-state solution, it calls for ... a national solution."

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump voiced support for the authority of individual states to impose regulatory policies specific to the use and dispensing of medical cannabis, but was less clear with regard to whether he believed that state lawmakers ought to be able to regulate the adult use of cannabis absent federal interference. His nominee for Attorney General, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, strongly opposes any liberalization in cannabis policy, stating in April, "[M]arijuana is not the kind of thing that ought to be legalized."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"According to Gallup pollsters, nearly two-thirds of Americans support allowing states to decide their own cannabis policies."

#1 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-12-01 04:53 AM | Reply

Build a wall and make the pot-heads pay for it.

---dumb ding-dongs who will believe anything-----

#2 | Posted by kudzu at 2016-12-01 05:47 AM | Reply

The biggest damage to legal MJ just came from the Obama administration. Everybody smoking a joint is disqualified from the second amendment.

#3 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-12-01 07:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#3
Link?

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-12-01 08:00 AM | Reply

When are Americans going to finally get tired of being treated like children? The "prohibitionists" should be driven out of any public office they hold, they are just crazy cranks who think they should get to dictate what other adults can or should do. They are f*****g crazy too. The day we abolish the DEA with be a day of celebration in the USA. Those bastards have sucked up salaries and pensions with all sorts of benefits for 50 years and drug use hasn't changed an iota. A big. useless, give away to government employees who accomplish nothing. Where are the small government conservatives on this?

#5 | Posted by danni at 2016-12-01 08:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

the genie is out of the bottle. Sessions is not going to be a friend to anyone. Horrible pick Donald. Horrible. Sessions is a mental dinosaur. I thought you were going to be more forward thinking and progressive. Christie - bad for America. Ghooliani ain't gonna investigate 9/11 / himself.

ugh. not off to the best start.

#6 | Posted by AuntieSocial at 2016-12-01 08:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-12-01 08:0

"If your a medical Marijuana patient you lose your right to own a gun.

Are you a medical marijuana patient? Own a gun -- or want to? Legally, you can't do both.

According to the Gun Control Act of 1968, "Anyone who is an unlawful user or addicted to any controlled substance" is banned from owning a firearm. Because marijuana is still federally illegal, anyone who uses cannabis – including medical patients – is barred from owning guns. Medical users must admit their marijuana use on Form 4473 or face perjury charges.

Gun owners who are caught illegally handling cannabis may face severe punishment due to federal statutes that set mandatory sentencing for drug offences involving firearms at five years in a federal prison for the first gun and 25 years for each additional one."
www.coloradopotguide.com

#7 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-12-01 08:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

isn't "unlawful user" pretty much gone? and who can prove addiction to pot?
...mb i should read the guide, bit it all sounds rather preposterous except for someone whose been previously convicted.

take a look at how drugs are treated in passport applications.

drugs have been unfairly singled-out for far too long.

#8 | Posted by ichiro at 2016-12-01 08:49 AM | Reply

"According to the Gun Control Act of 1968..."

So...this has been law for nearly a half-decade? How often has anyone seen it enforced?

And "addicted to any controlled substance" covers more than MJ. Prescription drugs, liquor...heck, isn't cafffeine controlled?

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-12-01 08:59 AM | Reply

"Isn't "unlawful user" pretty much gone?"

No this is a federal law and according to the Feds it is illegal across the nation to smoke pot.

The Feds have decided at this time not to pursue to charge people for using Marijuana in states that has legalized weed.

but if you are a medical Marijuana user with a doctors prescription there is a good chance you will not pass a back ground check to buy a gun because of this federal law

#10 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-12-01 09:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

"So...this has been law for nearly a half-decade? How often has anyone seen it enforced?"

to think this law hasn't been enforced a heck of a lot through the years is pretty silly

#11 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-12-01 09:11 AM | Reply

"The Feds have decided at this time not to pursue to charge people for using Marijuana in states that has legalized weed."

Do you have any evidence of the feds taking away guns in states which haven't legalized? At any time since 1968?

"to think this law hasn't been enforced a heck of a lot through the years is pretty silly"

Feel free to post a dozen or so cases where someone's guns were taken away because they were tokers.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-12-01 10:01 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#12 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Court Rules That Medical Marijuana Card Holders Can't Buy Firearms - fortune.com

"If you have a medical marijuana card, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says that you can't buy a gun.

The court ruled 3-0 on Wednesday that a ban preventing medical marijuana card holders from purchasing firearms is not in violation of the Second Amendment, the Associated Press reports. There are nine western states under the appeals court's jurisdiction, including Nevada, where the case originated.

A lawsuit was filed in 2011 by Nevada resident S. Rowan Wilson after she tried to purchase a gun for self-defense and was denied based on a federal ban on the sale of guns to users of illegal drugs. Though marijuana has been legalized in some places on a state-by-state basis, it remains illegal under federal law. The court maintained that drug use "raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated."

Here's the googles - www.google.com

#13 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2016-12-01 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Actually the Obama admin just changed background check paperwork to reinforce the prohibition of pot. Smoke pot at all and if you are honest on the paperwork you are disqualified as a drug abuser. Not alcohol though, thats legal...

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-12-01 08:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The medical lists are separate issue. The update was due to rec legalization. I know people that dont get medical cards and buy on the black market because they happen to own a firearm.

#15 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-12-01 08:39 PM | Reply

Good to know:

Stock up on gunz & ammo before getting a med card.

Does the Obama administration's discriminatory action against lawful gun owners cover Joe Biden approved weapons like shotguns or only ScArY attachment-ready black longguns?

#16 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-12-01 10:27 PM | Reply

Do you have any evidence ...

Doesn't this fall under that macrostatistics thingy you're so fond of when you ain't got s**t?

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2016-12-01 11:10 PM | Reply

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-12-01 10:01 AM | Reply | F

What planet do you live on that you cant spend 2 seconds to google this stuff your self?

And the fact the law is there you would have to be a fool to believe that this law has not been enacted by the Feds, of course it has.

#18 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-12-02 03:21 AM | Reply

www.atf.gov

Question 11.e: Added a warning statement regarding marijuana that has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where the transferee/buyer resides.

e. Are you an unlawful use of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-12-02 07:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Feel free to post a dozen or so cases where someone's guns were taken away because they were tokers.

#12 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2016-12-01 10:01 AM | FLAG:

Lets just re-hash this so it's clear. If you smoke pot, at all, and try to buy a gun, you have to answer to question on the form either yes or no. If you tell the truth, you are automatically disqualified from the purchase. If you lie, it's a federal crime. So no, you can't have pot and your second amendment rights.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-12-02 09:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#20

Very good point. Im just wondering if the "unlawful use of" means actively using or having used in the past.

then this

"Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."

I have a feeling we're going to see some troubling times coming up for the legal states. I still remember when Obama was running for a second term the Feds raided the dispensaries in California.

#21 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-12-02 10:13 AM | Reply

I read it like this:

Would you take a hit off a joint if it were put in front of you? If yes, no firearm purchases for you through a federally licensed dealer.

I speculate that this would actually cause a small uptick in private party transactions that don't require background checks.

#22 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-12-02 10:27 AM | Reply

I bought a firearm last October and answered "NO" to that question because I didn't use MJ at the time. knowing in my younger years I smoked a boat load of the stuff but that was back before pissing in a cup got popular.

Now its a Hair folicol test that goes back 90 days. Just had to take one of those. My big issue with the hair test is that I feel if they want to know what i was doing three months ago they should be paying me back three months. A simple saliva test can check for everything in the last few days.

Do you think ATF will pursue testing prior to purchase in the future?

#23 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2016-12-02 10:35 AM | Reply

No, they can't afford it. 185,000 background checks on black friday alone. That's $20 to $40 million in testing fees for just 1 day.

#24 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-12-02 10:53 AM | Reply

#5 Danni, while individual weed users can be bright, articulate, responsible, happy people; the aggregate doper is a sxxt-for-brains, lazy, and stupid person who is never motivated enough to act beyond smoking more weed. Leave the couch to register and vote? No way. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

#25 | Posted by john47 at 2016-12-03 10:38 AM | Reply

Lets just re-hash this so it's clear. If you smoke pot, at all, and try to buy a gun, you have to answer to question on the form either yes or no. If you tell the truth, you are automatically disqualified from the purchase. If you lie, it's a federal crime. So no, you can't have pot and your second amendment rights.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-12-02 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:
| Newsworthy 1

Heh heh. You said "hash."

#26 | Posted by cbob at 2016-12-03 10:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#5 Danni, while individual weed users can be bright, articulate, responsible, happy people; the aggregate doper is a sxxt-for-brains, lazy, and stupid person who is never motivated enough to act beyond smoking more weed. Leave the couch to register and vote? No way. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

#25 | Posted by john47 at 2016-12-03 10:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

While there are undoubtedly waste-oids as you describe, my experience is the opposite. Most of the people I've known since high school have smoked reefer here and there throughout their adult lives, yet they support their families, have good jobs and a nice home. It all depends on the individual's personality and their motivation to succeed. For some, marijuana is a crutch. For most, it's an occasional buzz. I've known far more people to have problems from alcohol than from pot. In fact, I can't name a single acquaintance whose life spiraled into dysfunction because of pot, but I know of three or four who lost their jobs or got arrested for DUI (and in one case, died) from drinking.

#27 | Posted by cbob at 2016-12-03 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

John47,
We are all prisoners of our own experience.

#28 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2016-12-03 11:41 AM | Reply

The "waste-oids" will smoke whatever they want regardless of any law, don't kid yourself, it's readily available and not even expensive. Legalization though allows other folks to enjoy the finest quality cannabis in the privacy of their own home and the a*****s who want to prevent the will of the people to be the law of the land should be removed from office.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2016-12-03 11:50 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#28 OldWhiskeySour We're not communicating. First, I don't not care about the complete legalization of weed. I am in favor of legalization and the ensuing tax revenues. As more people get chased out of the work force by automation and artificial intelligence, and by simply aging out of work, there will be many people with nothing to do.

#30 | Posted by john47 at 2016-12-03 03:51 PM | Reply

When the people speak the politicians should bow down and listen.

#31 | Posted by Robson at 2016-12-03 07:16 PM | Reply

political leaders are not leaders of the people...FACT

stop voting for them

#32 | Posted by mutant at 2016-12-03 09:20 PM | Reply

Where are the small government conservatives on this?

Exactly! States want more power. Why don't they just seize it and force the feds to react? Of course they won't do it because legalization would (should?) result in the release of all prisoners convicted of non violent marijuana drug offenses. Their constitutional rights to vote and bear arms would be restored. The release of all of those black and brown people with restored voting and 2nd amendment rights might be to much to bear.

#33 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2016-12-03 09:58 PM | Reply

No, they can't afford it. 185,000 background checks on black friday alone. That's $20 to $40 million in testing fees for just 1 day.
#24 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

They could if they wanted to put the burden on the purchaser? Increasing the cost of a background check.

Where are the small government conservatives on this?

If the state wants to do this let them..... But....

Why don't they just seize it and force the feds to react?

Because it becomes an expensive lawsuit.

#33 | POSTED BY FEDUPWITHPOLS

Are they legalizing it, or decriminalizing it. Its a distinction, but an important one.

release of all prisoners convicted of non violent marijuana drug offenses.

There aren't many of them, but dealers yes there are lots of those.

The Myth of the Nonviolent Drug Offender
www.laadda.com

#34 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2016-12-03 10:26 PM | Reply

Man, that was close.
I was about to post something, and then I remembered my rule:
Do not post while stoned.

#staystrong

#35 | Posted by TheTom at 2016-12-03 10:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Lets just re-hash this so it's clear."

Yes, let's.

Any cases of folks having their guns taken from them because they're tokers? Any?? Ever?!?

Seriously, if these laws have been around since 1968, and no one has ever heard of them being enforced....

I mean, it's against the law to mispronounce the town of Joliet.

...or is it Jolly-ette?

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2016-12-04 01:36 AM | Reply

#34 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2016-12-03 10:26 PM | FLAG: The myth of anything Mackris ever posts having anything grounded in reality.

It's hilarious Mackris, Trumpbots don't even respond to your drivel, even they know it's BS. Let that sink in.

#37 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-12-04 02:14 AM | Reply

- It's hilarious Mackris, Trumpbots don't even respond to your drivel, even they know it's BS. Let that sink in.

Shouldn't you stick to leading the revolution in Ann Arbor, Comrade Bo? Why bore everyone here?

#38 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-12-04 02:33 AM | Reply

Shouldn't you stick to leading the revolution in Ann Arbor, Comrade Bo? Why bore everyone here?

#38 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2016-12-04 02:33 AM | FLAG: God you are a freaking moron.

#39 | Posted by bocaink at 2016-12-04 03:09 AM | Reply

#34 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2016-12-03 10:26 PM | FLAG:

Background check tax. Way to discriminate on poor people.

#40 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2016-12-04 08:14 AM | Reply

#5 Danni, while individual weed users can be bright, articulate, responsible, happy people; the aggregate doper is a sxxt-for-brains, lazy, and stupid person who is never motivated enough to act beyond smoking more weed. Leave the couch to register and vote? No way. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

#25 | Posted by john47

But alcoholics can buy all the guns they want, right? Alcohol leads to far more violence than weed, so where's the logic? I'd be far more fearful of a raging drunk with a gun than a guy who smokes weed. And by the way, if the smokers are to lazy to get off the couch and vote, how did these initiatives get passed in the first place?

#41 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-12-04 08:23 AM | Reply

The release of all of those black and brown people with restored voting and 2nd amendment rights might be to much to bear.

#33 | Posted by FedUpWithPols

Yes, because, according to the Reps, they would all vote Democratic.

#42 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-12-04 08:26 AM | Reply

#5 | Posted by danni

Please tell the name of the last Government agency that has been canceled.

#43 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-12-04 08:40 AM | Reply

#41 | Posted by WhoDaMan

Good to see you as Danni would say "off the couch".
There are laws for legally obtaining a firearm that cover excessive abuse of all drugs. Legal or not.
The problem is that Federal gun laws are enforced as well as the Federal illegal immigration laws.

#44 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-12-04 08:45 AM | Reply

#44

Where, exactly, do they define "excessive abuse" of alcohol?

#45 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-12-04 08:50 AM | Reply

Alcohol is a drug. Abuse of this drug will lead to a felony. A felony will not let you get a firearm license.

#46 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-12-04 09:02 AM | Reply

Alcohol is a drug. Abuse of this drug will lead to a felony.

No I can sit at home and drink until my liver pickles and never once commit a felony. Abuse of alcohol only leads to a felony if you do something felonious while drunk. Meanwhile with weed simply possessing, let alone using can be a felony.

#47 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2016-12-04 09:18 AM | Reply

#47 | Posted by TaoWarrior
Your barking up the wrong tree. I do not care if you smoke. I just want the laws to be enforced equally.

#48 | Posted by Federalist at 2016-12-04 01:04 PM | Reply

I just want the laws to be enforced equally.

#48 | Posted by Federalist

Doesn't sound very equal to me.

#49 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2016-12-04 04:07 PM | Reply

This calls for a bong hit.

#50 | Posted by coyote at 2016-12-04 08:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Decisions decisions, should I partake of the Green Crack, or the more insidious Deep Sleep, or go for the more ethereal Pineapple Cheese, or just get down and dirty with the Girl Scout.

Nawww. AK-47 will do.

#51 | Posted by coyote at 2016-12-04 08:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

...addicted to any controlled substance" covers more than MJ. Prescription drugs, liquor...heck, isn't cafffeine controlled? -- #9 | Posted by Danforth

"Controlled substance" has a specific legal meaning:

The federal government defines a controlled substance as any of the substances listed in the schedules of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 criminal.findlaw.com
Oddly, pot is listed as a Schedule I substance (most potential for abuse, along with heroin, meth, etc. -- www.dea.gov ) I'm pretty sure caffeine is not controlled, and while alcohol is regulated, I'm not seeing it on any "controlled substance" list.

#52 | Posted by Phoenix at 2016-12-05 06:01 AM | Reply

I thought the alt-right was all about state's rights?????? I guess until it's something they don't like. Hypocrites!!!!!!

#53 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2016-12-05 11:16 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort