Do you think this could be be the end of legalized cannabis?

Just a setback. Eventually there'll be enough political support just to get rid of federal enforcement of pot and make it 100% legal for the states that want it.

Lol.  You have no idea how many professionals come home from a productive day’s work and unwind by smoking a little weed.  skirting the CoC [ph]

... there is not a whole lot that can be done to reduce the number of really stupid and fucking lazy people out there which is essentially what you get with rampant recreational use. Dems are quite content to see those numbers escalate.

Skirting the CoC [ph]

signed, the rest of the world.

There is only one way I would like to see marijuana treated: The same way Codeine and other Opiates are treated.

The same way Codeine and other Opiates are treated.

You mean completely ignored by this administration?

There is only one way I would like to see marijuana treated: The same way Codeine and other Opiates are treated.

I'd prefer it be treated like whisky or vodka, as it is less addictive than either.   Replace massive drug enforcement costs with massive tax revenue.  Make Mexican drug cartels compete with Amazon and WalMart.  That's how everybody else gets put out of business.

Totally agree. Prohibition has proven itself to be a huge failure that costs the taxpayers a ton of money in enforcement and incarceration. 

My Uncle Cooney was a moonshiner back during Prohibition.  He had a thriving little business so I am told.  Every once in a while the local sheriff would pick him up and he'd spend a couple of nights in jail, then, back to business. 

Nah !

The way I look at it, if you want to fuck yourself up....Go For It !

Not my problem, and it shouldn't be made my problem because you now have a problem when you do something wrong. Pay for your own fucking attorney out of your own Fucking pocket !

If you Fuck someone else up because you are fucked up.....You should be toast.....LITERALLY !

This is about cannabis, hardly something to fuck yourself up with as you so typically un-eloquently put it, not alcohol.

hardly something to fuck yourself up

When one is fucked up...they don't know they are fucked up.

Been around plenty of my friends in my high school days that smoked "Cannibitchyousuck". They were fucked up.

Your problem seems to be your love affair and preoccupation with the new word you just learned, "fuck".

"Your problem seems to be your love affair and preoccupation with the new word you just learned, "fuck"."

I figured "adults" can Fucking handle it.

Or

Maybe Not ?

Read the CoC - think you're going overboard.

"Use profanity judiciously and sparingly. It is understood that certain profanity is commonly used, but be mindful that it may be deemed a personal attack or personally offensive to other posters/members.

but be mindful that it may be deemed a personal attack or personally offensive to other posters/members.

I NEVER said Fuck "YOU"....and I NEVER do that to anyone !

 skirting the CoC [ph]

" Use profanity   judiciously and sparingly.   It is understood that certain profanity is commonly used, but be mindful that it may be deemed a personal attack or personally offensive to other posters/members

please see the bold part. In other words - be considerate and polite of others, correct ? 

Would you be "Offended" if I showed pictures of my kills during a hunting trip ?

some people may be offended by that - doesn't always mean they are "snowflakes" - everyone is sensitive about different topics/subjects/things to different degrees (you and myself included, we all have topics that we are sensitive about whether its family or religion or swearing or people being rude in public etc etc) - the COC is only asking that you be a bit mindful of others since you are not the only one in this community and commenting. (at least in my opinion)

Use profanity judiciously and sparingly.

You're not in a classroom or in the gym or on the playing field or in the woods hunting.  "Good-ol'-boy/Little-boy-pants" language isn't appropriate in a public forum.

some people may be offended by that - doesn't always mean they are "snowflakes" - everyone is sensitive about different topics/subjects/things to different degrees (you and myself included, we all have topics that we are sensitive about whether its family or religion or swearing or people being rude in public etc etc) - the COC is only asking that you be a bit mindful of others since you are not the only one in this community and commenting.

I don't "Change" because of a minority (One) comment. When the Many "inundate" me, I'll consider changing who I am.

"The needs of the many outweigh . . .The needs of the few....... Or the one.”

I don't "Change" because of a minority (One) comment. When the Many "inundate" me, I'll consider changing who I am.

i don't remember asking you to "change" at all, unless you are naturally a person who likes to offend others constantly. Please read my comment again - let me know if you need any further clarification.

Since this is my seed I feel I should say something to you about the profanity but only because there were so many snarky comments directed towards my use of profanity last week.

Please watch the language. You're bothering people.

My last word on the subject

In case you missed it....Top Left....at the top of this page....and every page:

The NEWSTALKERS.......SPEAK YOUR MIND !

Comment removed [ph]

I'm not some princess that works at Disney.

Ain't that the truth!

BUT NOT WITH A LOCKER ROOM MOUTH - and, no, I'm not the only one offended by your language - just the only one who will say so.

THE NEWSTALKERS - Speak your mind "SOFTLY" as to not offend Some"ONE" ?

Better ?

You know better then that. I hope...

Around kids....sure I know better.

And around my WIFE !

You don't have to be a "snowflake" be offended by an overdose of gutter language by someone who obviously is so uneducated they don't know how to carry on a conversation without it as it is the only way they know how to SPEAK YOUR MIND. 

I'm not some princess that works at Disney.

congratulations - it still does not excuse you from not being considerate or mindful of others in this community since you are not the only one who is commenting in this community. Its extremely easy to "Speak Your Mind" without using profanity constantly that is offensive to some posters.

Is it hard for you to "Speak Your Mind" without using profanity ? 

Comment removed [ph]

Is it hard for you to "Speak Your Mind" without using profanity ?

Got your attention and got you commenting....didn't it ?

There is a Place for Profanity from time to time.

"Impasse"

I must be a frikken genius....

Got your attention and got you commenting....didn't it ?

this is one of the worst attempts in getting my attention and getting me to comment on an article - i would encourage you to do better since you set the bar so low.
It wasn't a specific comment you made that got me to reply - it was the consistent use of the profanity. I personally don't get offended by profanity - but i also understand this is a community with many members who are all different and i must be polite and mindful of them as well - its common courtesy , correct ?

There is a Place for Profanity from time to time.

sure, from time to time - and that's already stated in the COC (which i'm figuring you didn't read, even after posted for you multiple times - or you wouldn't have needed to make this inane statement). you didn't do it just "from time to time" and that's what started this entire conversation in the first place.

do you need any further clarification ?

i also noticed you forgot to answer my question - so here it is again:

Is it hard for you to "Speak Your Mind" without using profanity ? 

thanks

The dopers describe being high as “fucked up” so, now that they’re everywhere, people should get used to hearing it. 

Pretty much.

If they are that intelligent then they should be able to be adult enough to converse in a manner that does not include gutter language. If the person is truly intelligent enough to carry on an adult conversation then they are sure to know enough words to do so without the use of gutter language. Using that kind of language in such an endless manner also turns many people off to anything that might be intelligent that person might say. 

And.....if you don't care for my comments, don't read them. I don't read yours unless they are aimed at me. 

this is one of the worst attempts in getting my attention and getting me to comment on an article

Yet....here you still are.

Now....about my original comment, and I will repost it now, without the so-called "Offensive" words, so as not to "Offend" certain people:

"The way I look at it, if you want to "doodoo" yourself up....Go For It !

Not my problem, and it shouldn't be made my problem because you now have a problem when you do something wrong. Pay for your own "talkative" attorney out of your own "Nicely Pressed" pocket !

If you "Mess" someone else up because you are "Messed" up.....You should be toast.....LITERALLY !"

BETTER ?

Now....how about the comment ?

congratulations - it still does not excuse you from not being considerate or mindful of others in this community since you are not the only one who is commenting in this community.

But I'm so pretty....oh so pretty. Pretty, Witty and Wise !!!!!

Oh....but I'm not the Sugar Princess. Think of "It Is Me" more as the Ravenna type.

Why? Because you are not offended by the overdose of gutter language. Its in the CoC, voted upon by the Members of NT. Perhaps you should take time to read the CoC instead of ridiculing others of expressing their being offended by it.

Yup - 1st amendment gives people the freedom of speech - as long as that speech doesn't inflame nor incite nor "harm", mentally, physically, emotionally, another person/group.

Next question?

I guess not all Americans understand the Constitution. 

people should get used to hearing it.

Why? No one should have to "get used" to foul language just because someone uses it. 

Please clean up your language a bit.  Thank you, D.

Have you seen the other language on here?  Where have you been?

SPEAK YOUR MIND !

We get it, all you have on your mind is profanity.

Now, since multiple members have asked you to knock it off, KNOCK IT OFF. 

The dopers describe being high as “fucked up” so, now that they’re everywhere, people should get used to hearing it.

So do the boozers but usually, in 'mixed company' they have the manners to say 'stoned'. 

The dopers describe being high as “fucked up” so, now that they’re everywhere, people should get used to hearing it.

So do the boozers but usually, in 'mixed company' they have the manners to say 'stoned'.

I think the dopers would laugh that anybody thought it was an issue.

But I'm so pretty....oh so pretty. Pretty, Witty and Wise !!!!!

Oh....but I'm not the Sugar Princess. Think of "It Is Me" more as the Ravenna type.

now that's hilarious since only the "Princess" type would throw a tantrum over being asked to tone down his language as you have just demonstrated 

Yet....here you still are.

Now....about my original comment, and I will repost it now, without the so-called"Offensive"words, so as not to "Offend"certain people:

"The way I look at it, if you want to "doodoo"yourself up....Go For It !

Not my problem, and it shouldn't be made my problem because you now have a problem when you do something wrong. Pay for your own "talkative"attorney out of your own "Nicely Pressed" pocket !

If you "Mess"someone else up because you are "Messed"up.....You should be toast.....LITERALLY !"

BETTER ?

Now....how about the comment ?

do you have reading comprehension issues ? let's see what i've posted already:

I personally don't get offended by profanity - but i also understand this is a community with many members who are all different and i must be polite and mindful of them as well - its common courtesy, correct ?

gee.. i guess that means you wasted your amended paragraph on me, huh ? there is someone who did state they found your profanity offensive - can you read through the previous comments and discover who it is ?

Not!

i noticed your wonderful well-thought out comment lacked any explanation. Now's your chance to expound on it, don't waste it.

Got your attention and got you commenting....didn't it ?

But now the conversation is about profanity, not the topic. So it hasn't enhance your expression. It has distracted from it. Is that what you were hoping for?

lol

But now the conversation is about profanity, not the topic

Not my problem. I didn't "Lead" with the subject of "Profanity". All the other posters decided they needed to. Read my original comment that got these certain posters in a snow flaking tizzy. My "Original" comment was about drug users.....PERIOD !

I don't give two hoots about your off topic rant about "Profanity".

How do you feel about the topic of "pot/Drug" use, and what my original comment noted about that "drug" use ?

"The way I look at it, if you want to fuck yourself up....Go For It !

Not my problem, and it shouldn't be made my problem because you now have a problem when you do something wrong. Pay for your own fucking attorney out of your own Fucking pocket !

If you Fuck someone else up because you are fucked up.....You should be toast.....LITERALLY !"

DO "YOU" AGREE OR DISAGREE !

now that's hilarious since only the "Princess" type would throw a tantrum

Remind me "who" started the throwing of an "Off Topic" tantrum about "Profanity" again ?

" I Yam What I Yam & Dats What I Yam ....... PERIOD !

"Ravenna type"

So you're claiming to be a Catholic city in Italy??

"Ravenna is a city in Emilia-Romagna, Italy. It's known for the colorful mosaics adorning many of its central buildings, like the octagonal Basilica di San Vitale, the 6th-century Basilica di Sant'Apollinare Nuovo and the cross-shaped Mausoleo di Galla Placidia. North of the center, the Mausoleo di Teodorico built in the 6th century for King Theodoric the Great, is a Gothic, circular stone tomb with a monolithic dome."

Nope - wouldn't be offended.  Provided it was from a legal hunt, I'd probably ask you to sell me some of the tenderloin - goes great with eggs, toast, gravy and coffee.

Not my problem. I didn't "Lead" with the subject of "Profanity"

I get that, but it takes two to argue. Sometimes it's just more efficient to roll your eyes move on.

I don't give two hoots about your off topic rant about "Profanity".

obviously you do or you wouldn't have continued the conversation - that would be an epic fail on your part.

How do you feel about the topic of "pot/Drug"use, and what my original comment noted about that"drug"use ?

"The way I look at it, if you want to fuck yourself up....Go For It !

Not my problem, and it shouldn't be made my problem because you now have a problem when you do something wrong. Pay for your own fucking attorney out of your own Fucking pocket !

If you Fuck someone else up because you are fucked up.....You should be toast.....LITERALLY !"

DO "YOU" AGREE OR DISAGREE !

i only commented on your refusal to tone down your language as requested and pointed out the COC (as well as others). If i wish to comment on the topic or article at hand - then i shall do so, i don't feel your original comment was worthy of a reply from me which is why i didn't reply to it.

Next question ?

Remind me "who" started the throwing of an "Off Topic" tantrum about "Profanity" again ?

oh that's easy - it would be the poster named "It Is ME" when that poster threw a tantrum after another poster asked for the language to be toned down. Next question ?

That would be boring as hell.

how odd you feel that your own comments are "boring as hell"  

I have read the CoC many,many ,many times since I became a Member of NT, and have been a voting Member on the changes to the CoC over the years I have been here, so I am very familiar with the CoC. Perhaps you are the one who needs to read it a few times. 

Yeah...just one. Do you enjoy being so filthy mouthed? Ohhh...obviously you answered my question already. Never mind.

the CoC

This one?

Lol. You have no idea how many professionals come home from a productive day’s work and unwind by smoking a little weed. skirting the CoC [ph]

Judging from many of the posts,

one has to wonder how old some of these members are...............

That is your opinion. I have mine. Yours does not supersede mine, nor mine yours. 

While you are at it.....keeping NT clean, I suggest you tell a few others the same thing.  I have.  You think F is bad you ain't seen bad.  Try perusing around a bit as you might be amazed at the gutter talk.

So you're claiming to be a Catholic city in Italy??

You forgot to type in the word "princess" first didn't you.

Sometimes it's just more efficient to roll your eyes move on.

To many people doing that exact same thing for decades, is why we are in the situations we are in these days.

that's a great show - but i'd suggest you move back to reality, that may work out better for you.

I started my original comment in reality. you're the one that went into Snowflake mode !

Oh well !

I started my original comment in reality. you're the one that went into Snowflake mode !

oh dear.. it seems you need to brush up on your reading comprehension and review the chat thread.. let's review shall we ?

the first comment listed that was asking you to tone down your language was....

Read the CoC - think you're going overboard.

"Use profanity judiciously and sparingly. It is understood that certain profanity is commonly used, but be mindful that it may be deemed a personal attack or personally offensive to other posters/members.

and guess what ? that comment wasn't made by me... can you guess who it was ? (its very easy, all you have to do is scroll up until you find it - the poster's name is listed) in fact, i only commented to you after you made a response to the comment above by throwing your tantrum. looks like the "Snowflake mode" was started by the tantrum thrown because someone didn't want to be respectful of the community and abide by the COC as asked - this all could have been avoided if that poster had said "ok, no problem, no offense intended" to the original comment above, instead a tantrum was thrown (gee, what ever happened to that popular conservative minded viewpoint of "Personal Responsibility" ?? or doesn't it apply to everyone ?)

Any other questions ?

Oh Dear.....

Since you want to stay on this Profanity CRAP....I am guessing you don't think pot should be legalized, since you want to stay on the "Profanity" mantra !

I'll remind you of what I said in a non-snowflake way....which you HAVEN'T agreed  with YET :

"The way I look at it, if you want to fuck yourself up....Go For It !

Not my problem, and it shouldn't be made my problem because you now have a problem when you do something wrong. Pay for your own fucking attorney out of your own Fucking pocket !

If you Fuck someone else up because you are fucked up.....You should be toast.....LITERALLY !"

Oh Dear.....

Since you want to stay on this Profanity CRAP....I am guessing you don't think pot should be legalized, since you want to stay on the "Profanity" mantra !

Oh my... you should probably not make a career out of guessing what others think - you aren't doing such a good job at guessing my thoughts at all. I suppose you probably haven't realized yet that we are staying on the "Profanity CRAP" because that was topic of the posts that i responded to originally - give it time, you may realize it some day.

I'll remind you of what I said in a non-snowflake way....which you HAVEN'T agreed  with YET :

"The way I look at it, if you want to fuck yourself up....Go For It !

Not my problem, and it shouldn't be made my problem because you now have a problem when you do something wrong. Pay for your own fucking attorney out of your own Fucking pocket !

If you Fuck someone else up because you are fucked up.....You should be toast.....LITERALLY !"

again *sigh* i'll remind you of what i said in response to this earlier -

i only commented on your refusal to tone down your language as requested and pointed out the COC (as well as others). If i wish to comment on the topic or article at hand - then i shall do so, i don't feel your original comment was worthy of a reply from me which is why i didn't reply to it.

any other questions ?

Really???  Hmmm - all the dopers I know who get wasted say - exactly that - "Hey man - I'm really wasted".

'Course I live in a state where medicinal marijuana is legal and is not publicly smoked.

Oh Dear....Rule #7 is one you ignore huh.

I know it's scary ..... BUT...

Maybe an itty bitty thought on what I posted ?

Just a tad bit of actual acknowledge from you ?

" The way I look at it, if you want to fuck yourself up....Go For It !

Not my problem, and it shouldn't be made my problem because you now have a problem when you do something wrong. Pay for your own fucking attorney out of your own Fucking pocket !

If you Fuck someone else up because you are fucked up.....You should be toast.....LITERALLY !"

I'll make a prediction......You won't acknowledge my very, very original comment, except for one specific word.  

Kind of a WORP'ed way of looking at things....Mr...... Phoenyx is it ? 

Oh Dear....Rule #7 is one you ignore huh.

yes, keep digging -   - your link takes you to a random search for the #7   - you are nothing less than amusing.

as for "Rule #7" - is it Rule #7 for the COC ?

7. Members agree not to upload or post any content anywhere on the site, that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, known to be false, or invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; are prohibited.. Pornography and content that would be harmful to minors in any manner is prohibited. Distribution of personal emails, or "spam," is prohibited. Posting content that potentially infringes any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary right(s) of any person or entity is prohibited. Copyright infringement is illegal. Abandoned or inactive groups (groups with no activity for 6 or more months), can be removed by administration. 

so far i haven't violated that rule - unless you can prove otherwise, post it and explain how its in violation (or you could just flag it and let the mods deal with it - they will surely remove any parts of any of my posts that are in violation as they do with everyone else on this site, i'm not excluded from that nor do i wish to be). i'll be waiting 

I know it's scary ..... BUT...

Maybe an itty bitty thought on what I posted ?

Just a tad bit of actual acknowledge from you ?

" The way I look at it, if you want to fuck yourself up....Go For It !

Not my problem, and it shouldn't be made my problem because you now have a problem when you do something wrong. Pay for your own fucking attorney out of your own Fucking pocket !

If you Fuck someone else up because you are fucked up.....You should be toast.....LITERALLY !"

I'll make a prediction......You won't acknowledge my very, very original comment, except for one specific word.  

Kind of a WORP'ed way of looking at things....Mr...... Phoenyx is it ? 

i'm not sure i understand what you mean by "WORP'ed" - and i've never specified my gender, nor my age, nor anything of that nature -- nor do i intend to. I guess you are trying to figure out if i'm a previous poster or not - i can make that easy for you, i've always been Phoenyx13 on NT and on NV, i've never changed my name and i've never had multiple accounts. I've only ever had this account on NT and on NV (when it was around). 

I know, having at least a gender makes it easier for you to attack me instead of actually debating my words on the screen - you'll just have to tough it out, i don't make things easy on people

as for your post ? i'm flattered you are begging for my thoughts, but i've already given you my answer to your post. If i want to reply to your post any further - believe me, you'll know it.

now, if you have no other questions - it sounds like you are done with this conversation and have refused to admit your fault in the situation, i wish i could say i'm surprised but i can say that i'll move on since i'm not a fan of beating dead horses - but if you have any further questions, please feel free to reply or contact me, i'll be happy to answer them

I'll make a prediction

My Prediction......................Comes True !

Alinsky types are fun (and that was a Hint)......... WORP'ed REEFER MADNESS is here ?

Soooooo....how 'bout's getting to the meat of the matter you truly have this NEED to ignore:

Drug users should be responsible for what they do....on their own dime.

Your Thought.......even a little itsy bitsy one...if you can muster that kind of effort ?

My Prediction......................Comes True !

oh good, please tell everyone what part of your part comment - the specific word - that i supposedly focused on, this should be easy for you so i expect no dodges (or that could indicate that you were wrong and your "prediction" was false)

Alinsky types are fun (and that was a Hint)......... WORP'ed REEFER MADNESS is here ? 

who or what is "WORP'ed REEFER MADNESS" ? Please explain.

Please also explain why you think i'm an "Alinsky" type - if you wish to be insulting to my character then i deserve an explanation (or an apology, but i'm aware you won't take "Personal Responsibility" for that) or i will simply flag it since i have not personally insulted your character.

Soooooo....how 'bout's getting to the meat of the matter you truly have this NEED to ignore:

Drug users should be responsible for what they do....on their own dime.

Your Thought.......even a little itsy bitsy one...if you can muster that kind of effort ?

again *sigh* here's the reply you get - 

i only commented on your refusal to tone down your language as requested and pointed out the COC (as well as others). If i wish to comment on the topic or article at hand - then i shall do so, i don't feel your original comment was worthy of a reply from me which is why i didn't reply to it.

maybe this time you'll actually read it ? (p.s. i don't "NEED" to ignore anything, care to fail again ?)

Coward.

We're WORP'edly done ! 

I noticed you "Noticed" that comment....quite a bit.

Coward.

We're WORP'edly done ! 

what does "WORP'edly" mean ? i really have no idea what you are referring to with that odd acronym. I'm not a wireless router nor am i a woman of the romantic period ( acronyms.thefreedictionary), so i have no clue what you are talking about anymore.

I noticed you "Noticed" that comment....quite a bit.

i especially "Noticed" that you can't explain any of your comments, resort to personal attacks on my character, take no "personal responsibility" for anything and would rather blame everyone else.. in the words of another poster:

Coward.

.
any other questions or are you actually "done" ?

He's calling you a poster from the old NV days...a poster that was banned, re-regged, banned, re-regged, banned, re-regged, etc.

It's an insult and not a clever one at that

He's calling you a poster from the old NV days...a poster that was banned, re-regged, banned, re-regged, banned, re-regged, etc.

It's an insult and not a clever one at that

well i guess i was right in stating he has reading comprehension issues since i clearly stated:

 i've always been Phoenyx13 on NT and on NV, i've never changed my name and i've never had multiple accounts. I've only ever had this account on NT and on NV (when it was around). 

and i was lying about it either. I have no idea who the poster is that he's referring to, nor do i really care. I didn't appreciate the personal attacks on my character tho, it was uncalled for.

This whole thread is a waste of bandwidth. I have removed it, but took down the names of those involved. Next time the first violation is thrown, flag it, instead of turning someone's article into a mess.

Do you think this could be be the end of legalized cannabis?

No. Sessions needs to leave this alone. Liberal snowflakes really have nothing to go against on President Trump. But this can Turn a lot of people off on his bid for second run witch I doubt he would do. 

One of the few things that I don't like about the Trump administration. Why must there always be a choice between either individual liberty or less socialism?

good question

One of the few things that I don't like about the Trump administration. Why must there always be a choice between either individual liberty or less socialism?

Socialism is an economic idea of worker ownership of the means of production, so there is nothing socialist about this discussion.

Most people confuse socialism with an authoritarian government.

This article doesn't have to do with socialism, that's true. My point is that a lot of times the choice is between a religious right politician that wants to outlaw activities between consenting adults or progressives that want to redistribute earned income to those who won't work. Either way it's a nanny state.

Why must there always be a choice between either individual liberty or less socialism?

How else are the political elites going to keep us divided so they can maintain the status quo?

AG Sessions needs to go back and read the Constitution.  there is no authority in the Constitution for the Federal Govt to legislate what people ingest in their bodies.

there is no authority in the Constitution for the Federal Govt to legislate what people ingest in their bodies.

You wouldn't think so, but the ancient tradition of abusing the Commerce Clause makes virtually any federal intervention in our lives ok.

That "Commerce Clause" thingy?  Just ask the Native Americans how that works.

I’ve said several times Sessions was a bad pick. I was hoping Trump would have fired him a few months ago when it was rumored he was thinking about it. 

abcnews.go

Good news Freedom Caucus leaders are calling for Sessions to step down. 

politico

awesome

Nope, they want a non-recused AG so they can get rid of Mueller...

Nope, they want a non-recused AG so they can get rid of Mueller...

Bingo. 

4:10 - 4:44

oops. Jeff may have some other 'splainin to do.

So much for 'conservative' bs on States Rights and freedom, right?  Well, we knew they were always lying anyway.

I love watching conservatives eat their own.

I do not care if the 'faux conservatives' eat their own.  Except conservatism will steal everything for the elite.  Conservatism must be hammered with the most extreme prejudice freedom loving Americans can muster.

I think this is one seed where we can get along with the conservatives.

Let's all share a joint and sing "We're Not Gonna Take It"

Agreed. Real conservatives respect the Constitution and KNOW that it doesn't give the Federal Govt any authority to criminalize what people ingest in their bodies.

Make sure you record it and send copies to trump and Sessions.

Doesn't Sessions have interests in private prisons? If he can't throw non-violent offenders in prison for petty amounts, he loses money

Doesn't Sessions have interests in private prisons? If he can't throw non-violent offenders in prison for petty amounts, he loses money

My thoughts exactly TG!  Of course he does.  

Absolutely.  The private prisons must be relegated for those who support them and profit by them. 

Sessions, an Antebellum southern senator, is totally undeserving of any position in a democracy.

Sessions, an Antebellum southern senator, is totally undeserving of any position in a democracy.

The idea of private for-profit prisons must be abolished. They are a 21st-century version of slavery because the prisoners are a cheap source of labor.  The human rights abuses in such a system are obvious.

Show your proof that he has vested and monetary interests in private prisons.

The movie The Shawshank Redemption showed just how that could be done.

Wow! It MUST be a new year. I just agreed with epistte on something.

"So much for 'conservative' bs on States Rights and freedom, right?  Well, we knew they were always lying anyway."

I bet Jeff Sessions is just trying to keep those privatized jails filled up.  I wonder how much they're lining his pockets?

I made this comment before I saw yours TroutGiggles.  Great minds think alike.  

Only when it is something they "like" including but not limited to Abortion, Same Sex Marriage etc....otherwise States rights be damned!

The DOJ should not pick and choose which laws are "real" and which are to be ignored.

The answer to the problem is for Congress to change the law, not have the DOJ continue to arbitrarily enforce some laws and ignore others depending on the whims of an administration. 

This is no different than Obama deciding not to enforce immigration laws. 

The local cops here make that distinction all the time. Ever drag raced with your local cop? We do it here all the time.

Obama did 'not decide to enforce' the immigration laws.  The congress would not act, thusly the president did.

The congress would not act, thusly the president did.

Are you familiar with the Constitution? That's not how it works. The President can't order Congress to act and ignore it if it doesn't. This isn't a monarchy. 

Do you think the President can lower taxes unilaterally if congress "would not act."  Can the President declare war if Congress "would not act?"

Am confident I am aware of The Constitution. 

The congress would not act, thusly the president did.

Are you familiar with the Constitution? That's not how it works. The President can't order Congress to act and ignore it if it doesn't. This isn't a monarchy.

So how do you feel about Trump changing immigration regulations via EO? Fine with that are you? 

Got any links for the EO's Trump has done regarding immigration?

Can the President declare war if Congress "would not act?"

An OFFICIAL declaration of war? No, only congress can do that, but, the POTUS can act with the military without congress's approval. But an official declaration must come from congress. 

Got any links for the EO's Trump has done regarding immigration?

1st, PLEASE tell me that you are NOT unaware that ALL three of Trump's Muslim bans are Executive Orders. I think of you of being at least moderately informed.  

Here is the 1st one that failed miserably. You can look up the others on your own at the link. Sheesh really? 

whitehouse

Sorry - that's not an immigration order - it's a National Security issue.

Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States  - restates existing Fed law - not new.

Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements  - restates existing Fed law - not new.

Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States  - National Security, not immigration.

Presidential Executive Order on Resuming the United States Refugee Admissions Program with Enhanced Vetting Capabilities  - increased the vetting process of Asylum/Refugees under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).  Not a new process, just an enhancement.

Those are Trump's "immigration" EO's - totally unlike the previous administration.

Sorry - that's not an immigration order - it's a National Security issue.

Executive Orders
Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States
Immigration
Issued on: January 27, 2017

See that there Immigration thingy under 'issue' in the freaking title of the EO? 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Another 'hint' is in the first sentence citing the law under which Trump is acting. SHEESH. 

restates existing Fed law - not new.

Restates by CHANGING how an agency regulates the LAW. Which BTFW, is EXACTLY what Obama did with pot AND the Dreamers. 

Those are Trump's "immigration" EO's - totally unlike the previous administration.

You're correct there. None of Obama's immigration EOs were found totally unconstitutional. 

Thank you for confirming that:

None of Obama's immigration EOs were found totally unconstitutional.

Obama had issued a controversial Executive Order on immigration (attempting to protect 4 million or more undocumented immigrants from deportation).

The case rose to the top level appeals court and had been decided against by the appeals court.

Now, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the vote went 4-4 so the appeals court decision will stand and the Executive Order is considered illegal and not enforceable.

As such, the EO is considered unconstitutional, i.e. not Congressionally mandated as required by the Constitution.

Now, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the vote went 4-4 so the appeals court decision will stand and the Executive Order is considered illegal and not enforceable. As such, the EO is considered unconstitutional, i.e. not Congressionally mandated as required by the Constitution.

It WASN'T 'found totally unconstitutional', which is what my statement was predicated on. The SCOTUS sent it back to the lower court. The Administration chose not to continue to litigate, just as Trump's did. BTFW, just because a law isn't enforceable, that doesn't make it unconstitutional. As the EO has NEVER been found to be so, it is STILL an open question for the court. 

Yet nothing stops the POTUS from conducting a 'police action' like the undeclared 3 year 'Korean War'. 

This is no different than Obama deciding not to enforce immigration laws.

Obama set new records for deporting undocumented people in spite of his support for DACA.

 nydailynews

thenation

economist

newrepublic

deporting undocumented people in spite of his support for DACA.

You know Obama changed how  deportations were counted to make it look like deportations increased, right? No other administration counted turn-backs at the border as "deportations" but Obama did to juke the numbers.  You can see why he did it, the MSM and his followers believe and repeat any talking point he issued, no matter how divorced from reality.

In reality, and please look it up,  deportations of people actually in the country went down under Obama. 

I would like for everyone to get back to the topic.

Thank-you

I thought the DOJ following  the law was the topic. 

Congress is the appropriate venue for changing policy, not expecting arbitrary and selective enforcement of the law by the agency that's supposed to uphold it. 

The topic is legalized cannabis not immigration.

The topic is legalized cannabis not immigration.

Oh. I thought it was an interesting topic about the DOJ and it's power to interpret legislation..

Skirting the CoC [ph]

Pot Good! Legalize Now! Whoo!  Sessions Bad! 

Please read the title of the seed and read the article itself. There's no need to get nasty.

Please read the 4th link

I included that interpretation from a conservative source.

Almost all of the conservatives on the seed are in favor of legalizing.  When Trump considered firing Sessions it was the liberals on this site that cried that it was wrong for Trump to fire him. 

I think it was Mueller that liberals said Trump couldn't fire without a serious back lash. I personally would love to see Sessions booted out on his pointy ears

I think it was Mueller that liberals said Trump couldn't fire without a serious back lash. I personally would love to see Sessions booted out on his pointy ears

LOL -  Jeff Keebler Elf Sessions

I find it odd that conservatives would support Sessions enforcing the law.

Why odd? How can you fault the man for doing the job he was hired to do? I would be more impressed with his integrity if he were enforcing a law he didn't actually like, but I'm not about to suggest that the Attorney General of the United States violate the doctrine of separation of powers by refusing to enforce a federal law that passed Supreme Court review long ago and repeatedly. 

When Obamacare passed the conservatives decried states rights and fought.

Because as a mandate to buy insurance, it was unconstitutional. SCOTUS made it clear in their ruling that if Congress was trying to use the Commerce Clause (the tool used to outlaw pot) to make people buy insurance, the law would fail. That's why the law could only survive as part of Congress's power to tax. But either way, it made perfect sense to fight the law in court until its constitutionality was established. No one is fighting the enforcement of marijuana prohibition anymore because there have been multiple cases before the Supreme Court and pot advocates lose every time.

Our only true recourse is to get the law changed and Congress is always slow to decriminalize anything. Invariably, their next election opponent claims they are "soft on crime" and they get booted out of office.

When Trump considered firing Sessions it was the liberals on this site that cried that it was wrong for Trump to fire him.

The reason Trump wants to fire Sessions is because Sessions followed the ethics rules of the DOJ. Why would anyone support Sessions being fired for that reason? 

leafly

I find it odd that conservatives would support Sessions enforcing the law.

This explains the conservative position:

Whether or not the policy itself is a good idea, Sessions is at least bringing this back around to the rule of law. We need certainty and predictability in our common public life by determining as a body politic which laws we agree will be enforced on us and under what conditions rather than have a library full of laws that are only enforced by the whim of whoever is in power at the moment.  Don’t attack an Attorney General for insisting that laws be enforced properly — attack the previous administration for treating the law as its private fiefdom and Congress for its pusillanimity for avoiding this issue for the last two decades.

hotair

States rights are the foundation for modern conservatism

It should be up to the States, but it's not. The Court's spoken and the law is Constitutional. Until Congress says it's up to the States, it's simply not a State's Right issue.  Nullification hasn't been popular since the 1830s.

s a conservative you should support less government, personal responsibility and more individual liberty and freedom as should Sessions. This includes letting people choose what they do for recreation.

I support all of those things. I would vote in favor of legalization given the chance. 

It's just a bad idea to let an administration pick and choose which laws it likes,  which laws it will ignore and which laws they will change without Congressional approval.   There's nothing more dangerous to liberty than combining the legislative and executive powers in one man/woman. 

There's nothing more dangerous to liberty than combining the legislative and executive powers in one man/woman.

Now that's something I can agree with

I have always wondered (not really) why the MSN never attacked Obama for tearing apart families and being the "deporter in chief". According to liberals, he did far more deporting than Trump has, but sill loved (worshipped) him.

Only in a liberal mind.

I am in favor of legalizing marijuana to the same level as Codeine and other Opiates are legalized (for medical use ONLY).  I live in Oregon, and I still do not like the fact we legalized it for recreational use.

I hope that whoever they bust first has HUGE pockets and will litigate the ridiculous designation of pot as a Schedule 1 drug. 

I hope that whoever they bust first has HUGE pockets and will litigate the ridiculous designation of pot as a Schedule 1 drug.

That was tried and failed a long time ago.

That was tried and failed a long time ago.

Link?

Oh and BTFW, does the Trump Administration have it in for CA or what? Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Colorado. NOT A PEEP. But the freaking minute CA does it, Trump's minions are agin' it. 

Well, doctors and pharmacists aren't held liable now for pill popper overdoses

Not pharmacists but I think doctors have faced increasing scrutiny, starting with Michael Jackson's death

and more recently Prince's.

cnn

and naturally TX leads the way.........

Sessions is wrong about marijuana, but I can't fault him for enforcing the law. Congress needs to act.

Sessions is wrong about marijuana, but I can't fault him for enforcing the law. Congress needs to act.

Congress is owned by special interests of alcohol, private prisons, and pharmaceuticals and they are not going to act in an election year. 

It is just too risky for most Republicans to support legalizing weed. It is far easier politically to let each state do it with a hands-off federal government.

Congress needs to act.

From what I've read, the DEA can change pot from a Schedule I to a Schedule IV pretty fast without Congress. I think they go through the HHS but don't quote me. 

leafly

Thanks so much, good article. So we don't need the Congress to act. It's all about bureaucracy. Oh Joy!

I just wish people would not drive while intoxicated or medicated on any drug.

I drove yesterday after I took some tylenol. Lock me up! 

Oh good grief...it is a serious problem.  Hope an impaired driver never slams you or your family.

How big is the problem?

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
Of the 1,132 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2015, 209 (16%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver. 
In 2015, nearly 1.1 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That’s one percent of the 111 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.
Drugs other than alcohol (legal and illegal) are involved in about 16% of motor vehicle crashes.
Marijuana use is increasing and 13% of nighttime, weekend drivers have marijuana in their system.
Marijuana users were about 25% more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers with no evidence of marijuana use, however other factors – such as age and gender – may account for the increased crash risk among marijuana users.

cdc

Since recreational pot is starting to be legalized, it will start catching up with alcohol.  

I have no problem with deciding how we should treat our own health, but we need to find a way to keep the intoxicated from driving.

Since recreational pot is starting to be legalized, it will start catching up with alcohol.

Don't think so.

I bet there are 0 fatalities involved in someone who has ingested marijuana and driving.  

With the recent legalization of marijuana (cannabis) in some U.S. states, questions arise as to its potential effect on driving and driving safety.  The AAA Foundation for traffic safety commissioned a handful of studies to see what effects, if any, were shown in statistical data.

Among the various statistics unearthed by the studies, two main findings stand out:
Fatal crashes involving drivers who recently used marijuana doubled in Washington after the state legalized the drug. Washington was one of the first two states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, and these findings serve as an eye-opening case study for what other states may experience with road safety after legalizing the drug.

aaafoundation

You can choose to believe that it does not effect driving skills, but that is untrue.  It isn't any different than any other substance that changes ones ability to drive safely.  Most dangerous is defensive driving and the ability to react to any dangerous conditions on the road.

And it was DIRECTLY RELATED to the use of marijuana?

Show your proof.

Sorry, I didn't make the statement - you did - so, it's your proof that is needed, not mine.

How about this?

Marijuana traffic fatalities

That's some pretty damning data and at minimum makes it pretty obtuse to assume their is "zero" effect on the number of traffic fatalities

I recall VERY many years ago I was driving quite carefully while considerably under the influence of weed with a well known Canadian race car driver who remarked that I was driving better and more carefully than any other person he had ever been with in a car.

I can’t help but think there is more to this.

perhaps Sessions is saying: “I’m done here........fire me PLEASE!”

Fuck that confederate dwarf. Legal weed is Amendment 64 in the Colorado State constitution and is now a billion dollar a year business in this state. The first anti-weed squeak that pip made about enforcing fed weed laws in this state led the state legislature to hamstring the feds by making it illegal for local law enforcement to cooperate with them in their activities related to harming the legal weed business. It was a bipartisan act by the state legislature. The weed tax revenue is paid for only by users, but benefits all state residents. The first two changes to the law made by the legislature prior to legalization were to close the transparency window of who held the licenses and to increase the licensing fees times 100. Guess who owns 80% of the available licenses and what their political leanings are? It was a very embarrassing scandal 5 years ago when a local newspaper published the names of the license holders prior to closing the transparency loophole, especially after some of them made their political bones fighting the legal weed issue before the voters passed the ballot issue. By law, there is always someone in a retail location or grow operation packing heat. I hope little Jeff is the first one thru the door when he decides to bust a weed shop in this state.

Some of these cash-strapped red states are going to realize the money there is to be made. If it only taxes the users but benefits everyone it's a win-win. I'd like to see Arkansas use the money on education and state parks.

Most red states are quietly making the move to separate hemp from medicinal and recreational like Colorado did. A billion dollar hemp processing facility is being built by private money from Dallas, OKC, and Witchita in southeast Colorado in a little town that opted in for legalization. They are going after the CBD in weed to supply big pharma. The town has a rail line running thru it from Texas. Hemp will grow in any soil and doesn't need irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, and doesn't deplete the soil. In typical rightwing fashion, their hatred of anything is easily eclipsed by their greed. 

Some of these cash-strapped red states are going to realize the money there is to be made.

One would hope so, but they just leach off the blue states and stay poor. 

You are underestimating the influence and control by Arthur Daniels Midland in corn growing states. We generate ethanol from corn simply due to that influence although it is a poor substitute for other crops.

I know you're not serious, right?

"to hamstring the feds by making it illegal for local law enforcement to cooperate with them in their activities related to harming the legal weed business."

Wow - talk about a Sanctuary decision that's gonna bite them in the azz - IF Sessions decides to go after the recreational pot states.

You do realize, of course, that Feds out rank States, unless it's otherwise stated in a Congressionally/Constitutionally approved action - right?

There are times and reasons to claim 'states rights'.  This isn't one of them.  They're simply trying to usurp Federal law and bring in tax revenue.  Weed is still considered an illegal controlled substance on the federal level.

I totally disagree. It is up to local law enforcement to try, convict and incarcerate these users. And let's look at past history of prohibition... it didn't work. Finally weed is no better or worse for you than alcohol.  

If the feds accept this, they'll need to accept a state making it legal to discriminate, or kill someone or rob a bank.

Apples and oranges. No one gets hurt here.. in fact, maybe less people get hurt. Discrimination hurts a group of people, and the killing a person is a crime as is robbing someone. Smoking pot has been shown to be beneficial for many ailments. It helped my mother in law in her last days on this earth suffering from cancer. 

BF - you know where I stand on state's rights and Fed's rights.

The Constitution gives the states certain rights.  Other rights not listed are also considered as state's rights unless Congress says differently, but those rights have to be Constitutionally protected - as long as they don't violate any Federal rights/laws. 

In legalistic terms, state's rights are  the   rights   belonging   to   the   various   states,   especially   with   reference   to  the   strict   interpretation   of   the   Constitution,   by   which   all   rights   not  delegated   by   the   Constitution   to   the   federal   government   belong   to   the  states.

When states are admitted into the Union, most of them were admitted through an Enabling Act which gives/gave them certain rights -

"an "enabling act" is a   statute   enacted   by the   United States Congress   authorizing the people of a   territory   to frame a proposed   state constitution   as a step towards   admission to the Union . Each act details the mechanism by which the territory will be admitted as a state following ratification of their constitution and election of state officers.

Enabling acts can contain restrictions, such as the prohibition of   polygamy   in the   Utah ,   Arizona ,   New Mexico , and   Oklahoma   acts. ^[16]   Nevada   was required to abolish   slavery   and   involuntary servitude , except   as punishment for a crime ; to guarantee freedom of religious practice to all inhabitants; and to agree that all public lands owned by the federal government at the time of statehood would be retained after admission. ^[17]   The applicant territory then submits its proposed constitution to Congress, which either accepts it or requires changes. For example, in 1866, Congress refused the proposed   Nebraska   constitution because it limited   suffrage   to white males. Enabling Acts approved by Congress include:

• Enabling Act of 1802 , for the formation of   Ohio   from the   Northwest Territory
• Enabling Act of 1864 , for the formation of Nevada
• Enabling Act of 1889 , for the formation of   North Dakota ,   South Dakota ,   Montana , and   Washington
• Enabling Act of 1894 , for the formation of Utah
• Enabling Act of 1906   for the formation of Oklahoma from   Oklahoma Territory   and   Indian Territory
• Enabling Act of 1910 , for the admission of Arizona ^[18]   and New Mexico ^[19]

Although the use of an enabling act is a traditional historic practice, a number of territories have drafted constitutions for submission to Congress absent an enabling act and were subsequently admitted, and the act of Congress admitting Kentucky to the Union was passed before the constitution of Kentucky was drafted."  

en.wikipedia

And it would be a dumb of them to do that. This will just drag out in the courts. 

You know what I always find amusing is when people who love states rights for religious rights and women's reproductive rights are the same people who have no problem telling states that they can't control their own drug laws. Mind you, the first two are in our constitution and supposedly protected and they still try to clamp down state by state, for the items they hold near and dear. But OMG... pot.. Well, it is a fed law and not in the Constitution, and therefore this should get interesting. 

f you don't like it, talk to Chuckie Schumer have him modify FEDERAL law.

It sort of baffles me that people aren't upset with the branch that actually creates and passes laws and instead focus their anger on the branch that executes the law as written. It's like arguing with the mailman because he delivered a tax bill that's too high. 

And, that is the bottom line.  End of story.

It seems to me that the right screams states rights only when it suits their agenda, if not, then suddenly it's not a states right anymore. 

You obviously only like to enforce laws you agree with.

How ironic.. since I do believe I have read you being against Roe v Wade, and for breaking the 1st Amendment... 

Those aren't laws.. that is our Constitution. 

So be careful when you judge.. the finger is pointing right back to at you. 

btw.. in case you didn't notice, we wouldn't be in this discussion if our government wasn't so busy trying to undo laws.. 

Jeff Sessions has made a unilateral decision to undo a provision of the law made under Obama. Let's be clear about what happened and not make is sound like the states were running amok. It is nothing more than political spitefulness that makes no sense. 

Say what?

we wouldn't be in this discussion if our government wasn't so busy trying to undo laws..

You've got that mixed up.    We wouldn't be discussing this if Obama hadn't made the executive order in the first place.   Anything the Fed does from this point forward is reactive to that not the other way around.

"Jeff Sessions has made a unilateral decision to undo a provision of the law made under Obama. Let's be clear about what happened and not make is sound like the states were running amok. It is nothing more than political spitefulness that makes no sense."

They're trying to undo everything that President Obama put in place.  It's petty, pricky, spiteful - I'm running out of adjectives.  

we wouldn't be in this discussion if our government wasn't so busy trying to undo laws..

They wouldn't be so busy trying to undo laws, if congress would have gotten rid of inane and out of date laws first, every time they passed new ones on the same subject.

SOME STUPID LAWS STILL IN EFFECT !

dumblaws

we wouldn't be in this discussion if our government wasn't so busy trying to undo laws..

I don't think you understand what is going on. Obama is the one who "undid" the law by promising to ignore it. Obama never changed the law. 

Such anger.  And you accuse us libs/progressives of being so angry.  

He's simply ENFORCING the law which Obama wanted federal agents and agencies to ignore.

Nope

Yes, he is.

Is marijuana legal or not, according to FEDERAL law?

And you very obviously can't read very well.  I've always said if one doesn't like Roe v Wade...  CHANGE THE LAW.

Must you always be so nasty? Roe V Wade is in our Constitution. If everyone took that attitude, then you open the door to having the 2nd amendment taken away. Constitutional law, and falls into a different category, than Federal law. 

The rest of your comment is nothing more than a CoC violation, which don't surprise me. 

Sean, 

I understand what Obama did. It was a step in a specific direction and in my opinion, way overdue. But I have been watching Trump's administration go after everything good or bad that Obama did, and I am sorry, but to me, it looks like political spite. 

There are loads of conservatives on this article agreeing with me. Our pot laws never stopped the problem. Instead we incarcerated countless numbers over the years and wasted our tax dollars doing it, on a substance that is has benefits, and is really no different than alcohol. I saw the benefits when my mother in law was dying from cancer. I know vets with PTSD who have gotten better with it. These actions by Sessions makes no sense.  

January 22, 1973 -   The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision,  affirms the legality of a woman's right to have an  abortion   under the Fourteenth amendment to the  Constitution.

It has been declared as a constitutional right. I was wrong in how I expressed it. 

As for your CoC violations... here they are:  

if I don't like what you have to say, I'll ignore it or tell you to shove it up your ass. CoC violation 

Say whatever the hell you please, even when it's abject ignorance and pandering. Skirting

PS:   There's a finger pointed at you, but I'll be polite and not tell you which one. Skirting

But you knew that already... 

We wouldn't be discussing this if Obama hadn't made the executive order in the first place.   Anything the Fed does from this point forward is reactive to that not the other way around.

First of all, Obama is not the first Pres to make an executive order. It was one that was a positive step forward in not wasting our resources on a substance that is no better or worse than alcohol. One by one this administration has been making a point of undoing everything Obama did, and while I didn't agree with Obama on many things, just undoing them because they came from Obama is political spite. 

When Obama changed these governmental policies (the ones you are complaining about Trump changing), did he do so out of spite--to "get over" on his predecessors?

It was one that was a positive step forward in not wasting our resources on a substance that is no better or worse than alcohol. One by one this administration has been making a point of undoing everything Obama did, and while I didn't agree with Obama on many things, just undoing them because they came from Obama is political spite.

But that’s the problem. Under the constitution, Congress makes law and the president enforces it. However, Obama used his enforcement authority to essentially step into the shoes of Congress and indirectly make law by deciding which laws he would enforce. This is an executive overreach and, to me, a direct threat to the constitutional balance of powers. Every instance of executive overreach (with the intention of undermining federal law) should be undone . . . not because Obama did it but because it’s wrong for anybody to do it (including Trump). I’m glad Sessions undid Obama’s actions. If the drug laws don’t make sense, then Congress (not the president) should change them. And if Congress doesn’t change them, then the president should enforce the law as it stands. 

And, Perrie, the no drinking while driving laws haven't stopped people from driving under the influence.  But, the law has made a difference.

Medicinal purposes.....yes.  Recreational purposes.....no.

You were a teacher.  I was a soccer coach/referee and, mostly, the mother of two sons.  I saw what was happening with our young people and put my life on the line to close a drive by pot dispensing joint whose primarily function was selling to young people.

I saw my nephew (his parents smoked and grew the stuff in CA) go from smoking pot casually to a full blown drug addict who, also, Od three times.  The thing about young people they don't know when to stop.  If pot makes you feel good why not try the other stuff?  And, pot smoking and cigarette smoking can't be compared, except, for the damage done to your health.  Alcohol can be just as deadly and has been and will continue to be. 

What is the answer?  I don't know.  One, I think, is that it should not be allowed to be grown privately.  This would keep it out of the hands of some young people.......maybe.

It is illegal.  Drinking alcohol while driving or in public is illegal.  Smoking cigarettes in public places is illegal (most places).  Giving alcohol or drugs to a young person is illegal. 

An adult can do whatever they want to do.  If they can keep young people out of the equation.....go for it!

I must surmise one simply can't handle the truth.

No, you should surmise that when are on a discussion forum, you should talk like you would to someone face to face. Try that in real life, and you might get popped in the face. 

There are loads of conservatives on this article agreeing with me

It has nothing to do with conservative/progressive. You said Trump "undid" the law. That's 100% false, and it doesn't matter if a conservative or progressive states it.  This is basic civics.  The law hasn't changed for decades. Trump has simply reinstated the rule of law, rather than an arbitrary system where some laws are ignored and some are enforced, depending on the caprice of the President at the time. 

I agree that Congress should change the law. But it's wrong to attack the administration for following the separation of powers and deferring to Congress. The principle that Congress makes the law and not the President is vastly more important to a healthy, functioning republic than this or any other particular law. The President cannot be both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. 

It's easy to attack Sessions because you want this law changed and, as always, the ends justify the means for some people. While you don't seem to recognize or care about the Constitutional principles involved. But I doubt you'd be happy if Sessions followed your approved course of action and started gutting and overturning valid laws that you approved of.  

I saw my nephew (his parents smoked and grew the stuff in CA) go from smoking pot casually to a full blown drug addict who, also, Od three times. The thing about young people they don't know when to stop. If pot makes you feel good why not try the other stuff?

I knew many people who smoked and didn’t progress to anything else. However, others did and it’s really easy to try something else when you’re high. I smoked through high school and it led to other things. I was a straight A student and I stayed that way although it became harder to concentrate. My teachers never suspected anything. I’d get high every night with friends but my mother, a registered nurse, couldn’t tell . . . I was good at concealing it. 

One day, because I was high and not paying attention, I accidentally took five times the dose of a substance intended to be shared with four other guys. After a while, I started hallucinating and it kept getting worse. I was afraid to go home in that condition because my parents would kill me. My friends sat with me trying to wait for it to wear off. I told them I was reaching my limit and if it got much worse, I’d lose control completely and they’d have to take me to a hospital. We waited until 2:00 am and it leveled off but I was still high as a kite. It was a school night and it was way past the point where I could enter the house without a confrontation. My parents didn’t know where I was and, if I stayed out any longer, they would surely call the police (if they hadn’t done so already). So I went home. 

My mother was still up, worried out of her mind. I avoided eye contact and told her the car had broken down outside the city and we were stranded because we had no access to a nearby phone. She told me that my father was out looking for me. I almost fainted. If she got him to go out looking for me at 2:00 am when he had to work the next day, he’d explode the minute he walked through the door. I’d never be able to conceal my condition and they could potentially do anything like call the parents of all of my friends for some kind of joint intervention (my friends would kill me) or throw me in a drug program. I sat down on my bed and told God “if you can get me out of this mess, I’ll never touch drugs again.” My father came home, saw me sitting in the dark on my bed with my head in my hands, asked me if I was ok, said go to sleep, and closed the door. Later he said it looked like I had been through a wringer and thought I had suffered enough. And that was it. I kept my promise and never touched drugs again. 

But it was probably a good ten years before I was able to concentrate like I could before the drugs. Could that be measured and proved by science? No but it happened. I eventually went further than all my friends (they “vegged” out) but, if I hadn’t stopped the drugs, I’m not sure where I would have ended up. 

Says the one who loves to CENSOR what people say is umbrage at the truth is taken.

Says the person who doesn't understand that the site has rules, and breaks them on a regular basis. 

Recreational use in CA opens up a whole new can of worms including issues for states that don't have similar laws.

Why CA? Multiple other states passed recreational use, Washington and Colorado since 2012, Alaska since 2014, Oregon 2015. So WHY NOW? Oh and PLEASE don't say 'there's a new sheriff in town'. They've had a whole year to do this so why did all of sudden Sessions pull the trigger? 

Come to my house, if you speak to me that way, my husband will gladly pop you in the face.

Don't ignore them.  It really IS that simple.

Not when you have a congress that was deadlocked on literally every issue. 

But then Obama always ignored or tried to circumvent with his mighty pen what he lacked the balls to try to accomplish legally.

Oh and that is different from Trump how? He's been in office 1 year and this is his list of executive orders, Presidential memorandums, Presidential Determination, etc. 

Seems like not much has changed other than the party. Apparently Trump lacks the his fortitude, too. 

Look, I was no fan of Obama, but he didn't go about trying to undo everything that Bush did. in fact, in many cases, he doubled down on what Bush did, like remaining in the war, the expanding the Patriot act, etc. So yeah, so far it seems that all of Trump's executive orders (which may I remind you all, you were all down on Obama for.. )have been to undo what Obama did... good or bad. So yeah, I am going with political spite. His tweets reek of his spitefulness. His words.. not mine.

I saw my nephew (his parents smoked and grew the stuff in CA) go from smoking pot casually to a full blown drug addict who, also, Od three times.  The thing about young people they don't know when to stop.  If pot makes you feel good why not try the other stuff?  And, pot smoking and cigarette smoking can't be compared, except, for the damage done to your health.  Alcohol can be just as deadly and has been and will continue to be.

Mags I am sorry for your what happened to your nephew, but there are literally millions who smoked pot as kids and never went any further than that. Heck I know them. I also know some people who became full blown alcoholics, too. Why should alcohol be legal then? The reason is simple. Prohibition doesn't work. The same thing with pot. It has never stopped the pot smoking.. but it does fill up our jails. 

You were a teacher.  I was a soccer coach/referee and, mostly, the mother of two sons.  I saw what was happening with our young people and put my life on the line to close a drive by pot dispensing joint whose primarily function was selling to young people.

In no way am I for putting pot dispensaries near young people and I do believe that there should be an age of consent, like alcohol. 

I saw my nephew (his parents smoked and grew the stuff in CA) go from smoking pot casually to a full blown drug addict who, also, Od three times.  The thing about young people they don't know when to stop.  If pot makes you feel good why not try the other stuff?  

You kind of missed something there. Your nephews parents were pot smokers and growers. He was in a different environment than most other kids. Who knows the rest of that story.. lord knows most of us really don't know what goes on in friends and family homes. 

It is illegal.  Drinking alcohol while driving or in public is illegal.  Smoking cigarettes in public places is illegal (most places).  Giving alcohol or drugs to a young person is illegal. 

Yes, and it all goes on everyday, most with just a slap on the hand unless they kill someone. 

An adult can do whatever they want to do.  If they can keep young people out of the equation.....go for it!

It is not supposed to be for young people. It is supposed to be for adults i.e. over 18

in fact, in many cases, he doubled down on what Bush did

why would one globalist undue what another globalist did?

the last 4 presidents were all globalists ( IE: bush, clinton, bush 2, obama)

people who only see left and right are missing half the picture. (there are traitors and patriots in both parties)

 trump is deleting everything the past 4 globalist presidents did... regardless of which party they came from.

that is why we elected an outsider... the swamp creatures must go.

.

listen to the patriots shout... times are changing.  (the liberal world order AKA globalism = dead)

yepp, we took our country back as promised and it all is simply marvelous

It has nothing to do with conservative/progressive. You said Trump "undid" the law. That's 100% false, and it doesn't matter if a conservative or progressive states it.  This is basic civics.  The law hasn't changed for decades. Trump has simply reinstated the rule of law, rather than an arbitrary system where some laws are ignored and some are enforced, depending on the caprice of the President at the time.

I already said that was a faux pas on my behalf about "law' vs "policy". My point still stands. Sessions undid the policy which was IMHO a big mistake. As for presidential caprice, they all have them... I gave a link to Trumps caprice:

en.wikipedia

I agree that Congress should change the law. But it's wrong to attack the administration for following the separation of powers and deferring to Congress. The principle that Congress makes the law and not the President is vastly more important to a healthy, functioning republic than this or any other particular law. The President cannot be both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. 

Sean, in a perfect world, I agree with that. But we still have that above list that never saw congress. 

While you don't seem to recognize or care about the Constitutional principles involved.

Wrong. I totally understand the  Constitutional principles involved. I also recognize that Presidents have been making it up as they go along for a long time.. and so is Trump. So he is no different than the rest. What he can't get done with congress, he is getting done with executive orders, etc., which should hypothetically be made into law by our congress. How often do you think that happens?

On a totally different note... about the proper use of the quotation: If you copy and paste, it will set the auto quote into action. This is good if you want to quote someone, but confusing if you are talking yourself. What you have to do, to undo that is unclick the quote on the upper left side of the text editor. On the other hand if you want to quote, leave your cursor at the end of the comment and click on the quotation marks and that does that quote graying.

the last 4 presidents were all globalists ( IE: bush, clinton, bush 2, obama)

I didn't realize that we lived in this world alone and don't interact with other nations. He seems to be taking a global view of N Korea, and Russia. 

btw.. please list the laws he is undoing from Bush 1 and 2 and Clinton.  

There are reasons. Some personal some not. It doesn't really matter if you are aware of what they are.

What did your magic 8 ball say? 

We still have NAFTA the last time I checked. And congress not Trump has the last say on NAFTA. 

But it may not be that easy — Congress, not the president, may have the ultimate authority to unwind a big trade deal. Numerous lawmakers and legal scholars believe that full withdrawal from NAFTA would require Congressional approval — or at the very least, lead to lengthy court battles that could delay the U.S. departure for years.

foreignpolicy

The growers and pot smokers......that's the point. Available 24 hours a day.  Ok, kids, harvest time! 

Alcohol is illegal to minors.  Driving and public intoxication is illegal. 

Put the same restrictions on ALL drugs.  You drive high....off to jail.  Go into rehab.  Pay phenomenal fines.  Go on probation.  Driver's license suspended. 

You don't think this doesn't happen?  Check out the State of AL.  That breathalyzer thing....forget it.  It is left up to the officer to decide if you are under the influence. 

It is not ok with me.  Drugs including alcohol is not alright in the hands of young people. 

Except that he changed governmental policies through executive orders. Isn't that what Trump is doing?

Don't ignore them. It really IS that simple.

It always amuses me when I see that there are still people that believe that swill. The POTUS has ALWAYS had authority to implement our deferment program, a program that was in operation for decades, it isn't something started during Obama. The FACT is that the adjudication system has been grossly underfunded for more than 50 years and there is a HUGE backlog of people waiting for hearings. Y'all seem to forget that illegal 'aliens' get their day in court. 

Considering the COST of keeping CHILDREN in JAIL for fuck knows how long until they get a hearing, allowing them to 'assimilate' under the DACA program, go to school, support themselves, seems prudent. 

I just read your story.  I sat here with tears thinking about your sitting on your bed knowing that your Dad was out looking for you.  You must an incredible relationship with him.  What a wonderful Dad!

There are all levels of stories out there in the real world.  Thank you for sharing yours.

There are all levels of stories out there in the real world. Thank you for sharing yours.

Thank you mags. I shared because those who think they know don’t know. Nobody (other than a few friends) had any idea what I was doing or how far I had gone. Using drugs is like playing Russian roulette . . . it’s likley that the chamber is unloaded but you’re dead if it’s not. 

I shared my story of my friend’s alcoholism because I truly didn’t understand addiction until I had to deal with it myself. It’s like he suddenly found himself in quicksand. Once I recognized that he couldn’t save himself, I had no choice but to try and save him. I was the rope and, although everybody told me I would fail, I didn’t waste time wondering whether the rope would be strong enough or long enough to get him out. I just held tight and pulled. 

I’m not a counselor by any stretch of the imagination but this is what I learned. An addict is in quicksand. They will deny it and by the time they realize what’s happening (if they ever do), they’re up to their neck. They can easily give up and think that it’s hopeless. You are the rope and you can’t doubt yourself. Keep pulling with all your might no matter what he does or says. Honestly, I think my friend thought nobody really cared about him (which may have started the drinking in the first place). In the end, I think my continuing to pull against all odds inspired him (just enough at the last minute) to try and save himself. But I was mentally prepared to deal with whatever happened. 

I know exactly what you are saying.

I've told you about my son who is bi polar with anxiety.  He, also has sleep apnea.  He was on medication prescribed to him.  He had a job, an apartment and a car.  He began acting strange to me and I couldn't put my finger on it.  Slurring of words, zombie like.  He had two accidents with his car.....one, in a ditch and the other a collision with another car....his was totaled.  So, I started driving him to and from work....that was my kid.  He is "losing" his money which sounds strange to me.  A girl drives him to my house one day and he is really out of it.  He asks for more money and I turn him down; he gets angry, so, he gets into the car with this girl, again.  This is when it hit me. And, I had to do something.

I called the doctor's office and they could do nothing for me.....he was certainly of age.  Where do I turn?  Something said to me to call the doctor's office who originally diagnosed him.  I did.  He was not in, but his receptionist when I told her of my situation told me about a facility in our area who would help me.  I never heard of them.  I called them and was told the protocol and, also, that they would help me.  All I had to do was get him in there.

He came to see me and I fixed him some lunch.  This was the next day.  He sat at the glass dining room table and went to get up and crashed the table.....glass everywhere.  He always had a plastic bag with him and a few pills dropped out. I picked up the pills and put them in my pocket.  I called his Dad and told him that I needed help NOW!   He came over, got him properly dressed, put him in the car and we went to the facility.  They were wonderful!  The pills I showed the nurse were Xanax. 

He stayed in there for two weeks.  It was determined that he was self medicating himself with Xanax.  I found out that his money was going to that girl he brought over to buy this stuff. He, also, bought pot from her. She was his supplier.  I found her number and called her.  You can only imagine what I threatened her with,  Two weeks later she was arrested for drug trafficking. 

The good news now is he is doing great. My son could be dead right now had it not been for the help that we received from this facility.

I'm glad he's ok, mags.

Thank you, Sandy.

My best buddies don't know this story nor do my family, except, for his Dad and his brother.

Sometimes it's easier to share the hard stuff with people you don't see face-to-face.

Yes, they would judge.  We handled it like families do.

I don't know many people whose families haven't been touched by addiction in some way.  I know mine has.  It's a tough place for a family to be.

I am glad you understand.

I didn't realize that we lived in this world alone and don't interact with other nations.

no one said we did. and that has nothing to do with "globalism (aka the liberal world order)

we can interact with other countries without foreign regulations placed on our economy, schit trade deals and open borders.

ya know what... never mind, matters not. the globalists are screwed, their days of selling out this country are over.

Cheers :)

First of all, Obama is not the first Pres to make an executive order.

C'mon Perrie, i never said he was.

It was one that was a positive step forward in not wasting our resources on a substance that is no better or worse than alcohol. One by one this administration has been making a point of undoing everything Obama did, and while I didn't agree with Obama on many things, just undoing them because they came from Obama is political spite.

I agree in concept but XD is spot on in what i believe is the main point here.   Marijuana IS currently illegal at the federal level.   A stroke of a pen doesn't change that.   Changing the law does change that.   I see what Obama did as an abuse of the Executive Order process.

That said and as i've intimated several times, i don't think this should be legislated at the Federal level and is a "States rights" issue.   When in doubt i consider most things like this "States rights" issues but that doesn't change the fact that pot is illegal at the Federal level right now.   Generally speaking Presidents should not be picking and choosing what laws they think should be followed or not with a stroke of a pen.   We have a legal process to make such changes and i have little doubt that pot would become legal if put through that process.

So i say do it the right way and be done with it.   Thats what the people working for us in Government are suppose to do.   Not rule like Kings with no accountability to the process or the people they represent.

In my state gambling is legal, alcohol on every corner, sold every where (drink up), strip clubs, prostitutes walking up and down streets, some doctors will write a script for all kinds of pills yet god forbid some one gets caught with a joint.

Priorities people.

Yeah this shit has to end.   Latest scuttlebutt i heard was ATF was going to try and restrict legal marijuana users from owning ANY firearms.   Crazy!

We need to legalize it and get past all this nonsense.

As I understand it, only three states  have a question concerning weed on the Concealed application, it seems to be connected to the idea that using a psychoactive drug would be disqualifying. Just like you can't be drunk and carrying, being high should simply be prohibited as well.

This remark is to Tacos about the dangers of marijuana

I'd love to see some citations or sources or proof of all that you have just said.

I pass more Pot shops on my route to and from work than I do McDonald's.  I pass 3 on about a 10 mile route.  

Medical Pot business is good I guess.

My mother lives in a senior community apartment building and some of her friends get the candy bars...lol  Owners don't want the building smelling like pot.

I can understand why. The "new hybrid more potent" pot smells like skunk even before you light it. At least in the old days people just thought someone was burning leaves.

At least in the old days people just thought someone was burning leaves.

Well...........yeah.....

Of COURSE it's burning leaves, is it not.  Makes me think of a story I once read, when Crazy Al Yankovich (I'm not sure I got that spelling right) met with Bill Clinton and handed him a Cuban cigar, Bill didn't want to accept it, so Al told him: "Don't think of it as supporting their economy, think of it as burning their fields."

No, it's burning a flower...the sex organ of the cannabis plant

it's burning a flower...the sex organ of the cannabis plant

Kinky

Ah yes. The flowers were the gold - much better than the leaves.  Ah yes.....the sweet memory.

bilibili

Great song but I was totally distracted by the "fashions" of the suits, ties and how high the tie clips were.

Overall a good video, thanks.

I have no access to youtube, and this was the best version I could link to.  I really wanted to link to the actual stage version from CATS, but it wasn't available. I thought those guys were a little weird myself, but at least I thought the song would be meaningful anyway.

At some point you have to decide which is more important. Federal law or state/local law. There was no mention in the article from what I saw of an intention to outlaw medicinal. That to me would be an abomination. Rec use.....meh. But, to poo poo this move is much like poo pooing the federal government from enforcing immigration laws because California and some other states and cities have decided to defy the feds and become sanctuary "safe spaces" for illegals.

So, what do we do? Fed or state? I for one agree with the fed on the, not total take away, reduction in fed money going to those who defy federal law in the area of immigration and, if legality of marijuana is supposed to boost state tax revenue to the point everyone claims (article states that Cali alone could see $1billion increase) let those weed taxes make the determination as to the reduction in federal funding that state gets. Eases federal tax burden on everyone and the fed money could be used for things other than handouts.

JMHO and please, don't shoot the messenger.....  

reduction in fed money going to those who defy federal law in the area of immigration

What federal law would that be? 

let those weed taxes make the determination as to the reduction in federal funding that state gets.

Why should there be any reduction in federal funding for that state? 

Yeah put a federal tax on it that the goes straight to reducing the deficit.

Colorado is a popular state now for big pharma R&D into weed medicine. No filling out the long DEA forms to get put on a long waiting list to have the feds allow you to buy 1 pound from the only fed authorized grow facility. All they have to do in this state is get out their checkbooks and buy the farm. Their research labs all operate under cute names under the protective corporate umbrellas of pharmaceutical companies.

Good people don't smoke pot...Jeff Sessions 2016.

Sessions could use some weed...he's one uptight guy. 

Have made plans to visit California, taking in wine country, redwoods and dispensory!  He better not screw it up!

Awww....I'm not good people according to Jeffy.

Screw him

You'll never be welcomed to his lollipop guild with that attitude.

Now I'm really hurt

Don't be. His family tree looks like a Xmas wreath.

It only has one branch extending back to a brother and sister.

Laws that lack enough support will fail, prohibition was repealed and we got rid of that stupid 55mph speed limit

The next civil war started over states rights by a racist goober namesake AG in front of a weed shop in Denver would be too much irony to hope for. Looks like 8 legal weed states where teapublicans might as well fold up their tents for the coming midterms.

"I thought the KKK was a great organization until I found out they smoked [weed]". 

--- Jeff Sessions

.

Is it me or does The Elf have his priorities screwed up? 

The Keebler Elf has more hair

"The Keebler Elf has more hair"

And he's not an uptight little bigot prick like Sessions.

I bet the Keebler Elf gets stoned. Who but a stoner could come up with the deliciousness that is the fudge striped shortbread cookie?

"I bet the Keebler Elf gets stoned. Who but a stoner could come up with the deliciousness that is the fudge striped shortbread cookie?"

Yum!  That's one of my favorites.  My first favorite is the fudge covered graham crackers.  

For those of you that say Sessions is doing the right thing...and that, "states rights" do not apply, (but scream "states rights" when ever it supports your agenda). How would you react if every blue state shut down every single gun store, except one, and mandated that it could only be open every other Wednesday, between the hours of 12 noon and 5pm? I will admit that weed is a violation of federal law, (one that needs to be repealed and by the looks of it, most likely will be), but why shouldn't this be a states rights issue? WA., OR. Colorado? Making money hand over fist. It's a boon for the state coffers, why would these broke ass red states not jump in and stop being leaches on the blue states? It's just stupid...but then...that's Sessions in a nutshell. 

 why shouldn't this be a states rights issue?

It should be, like so many other issues the federal government has nationalized. But it can't be until Congress repeals the law. 

Marijuana use is not harmless, in some individuals. 

It can create paranoia in those individuals predisposed. 

My personal feeling is that drugs like marijuana should be decriminalized but not promoted by the government.

==========================================

theguardian

“I would not feel so alone,” sang Bob Dylan back in 1966, “everybody must get stoned.” It would seem lots of people have obliged: cannabis is now far and away the world’s favourite illicit drug, with approximately 180 million people having taken it in the past year . In England and Wales about 13.5% of 16 to 24 years olds have used cannabis in the past year, and almost one in three people will try it at least once during their lifetime. Of the 6.4% of adults aged 16-59 who reported using cannabis in the past year, over 40% said they used it at least once a month.

Given that a significant chunk of the population are consuming the stuff, it is perhaps not surprising that most people believe the risks involved in getting stoned are more or less equivalent to the risks from getting drunk. US president Barack Obama seems to be one of them: “I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life," he explained to the New Yorker . "I don't think it is more dangerous than alcohol."

Certainly many people use cannabis without adverse effects, and indeed with plenty of very pleasant ones. Moreover, there is evidence that cannabis can bring real medical benefits, for example in alleviating chronic pain . But there is also known to be a link between cannabis and paranoid thoughts.

“Paranoid” in this context means the unfounded or excessive fear that other people are trying to harm us. It’s a feeling that is far more common than previously thought. That is understandable given that we are all constantly compelled to interpret social situations, weighing up the attitudes and intentions of the people we meet. Because it is impossible to know for sure what other people are thinking, there is ample scope for our anxiety to get the better of us.

Like most psychological experiences, there is a spectrum of paranoia within the population: many people have a few, relatively mild paranoid thoughts, while for a few people those thoughts are numerous, persistent, and profoundly unsettling. Cannabis users are more likely to be at the problematic end of that spectrum. For instance, our study of the population of England found that the belief that people are deliberately trying to harm you is three times as common among cannabis users as it is among non-users. The belief that people are trying to cause you serious injury or harm is five times as common among cannabis users.

However, what we see here is an association between cannabis and paranoia. Experts generally agree that regular use of cannabis starting from an early age is an accurate predictor of later severe mental health problems, but what hasn’t been established is whether the drug causes paranoid thoughts. Maybe people suffering from paranoia are more likely to start taking cannabis; or perhaps the drug use and the suspicious thoughts are independent consequences of another factor entirely.

This question of the tangled interrelationship of paranoia and cannabis use was at the heart of a study we conducted with colleagues from the University of Oxford, the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, and the University of Manchester, published on Wednesday in Schizophrenia Bulletin . Why did we focus on paranoia rather than mental health in general? Other studies tend to lump all such problems together under the heading of “psychosis” or “schizophrenia”, but as we’ve argued previously on this blog such experiences frequently occur independently: having paranoid thoughts doesn’t mean, for example, that someone will also hear imaginary voices.

To discover whether cannabis really does cause paranoia in vulnerable individuals, we carried out the largest ever study of the effects of THC (∆ ⁹ -tetrahydrocannabinol, the drug’s principal psychoactive ingredient). We recruited 121 volunteers, all of whom had taken cannabis at least once before, and all of whom reported having experienced paranoid thoughts in the previous month (which is typical of half the population). None had been diagnosed with a mental illness. The volunteers were randomly chosen to receive an intravenous 1.5mg dose of either THC (the equivalent of a strong joint) or a placebo (saline). To track the effects of these substances, we used the most extensive form of assessment yet deployed to test paranoia, including a virtual-reality scenario, a real-life social situation, self-administered questionnaires, and expert interviewer assessments.

The results were clear: THC caused paranoid thoughts. Half of those given THC experienced paranoia, compared with 30% of the placebo group: that is, one in five had an increase in paranoia that was directly attributable to the THC. (Interestingly, the placebo produced extraordinary effects in certain individuals. They were convinced they were stoned, and acted accordingly. Because at the time we didn’t know who had been given the drug, we assumed they were high too.)

THC also produced other unsettling psychological effects, such as anxiety, worry, lowered mood, and negative thoughts about the self. Short-term memory was impaired. And the THC sparked a range of what psychologists call “anomalous experiences”: sounds seemed louder than usual and colours brighter; thoughts appeared to echo in the individuals’ minds; and time seemed to be distorted.

Why is cannabis such a potent trigger for paranoia? Our statistical analysis showed that in our experiment the culprits were THC’s negative effects on the individual’s mood and view of the self, and the anomalous sensory experiences it can produce. Negative emotions leave us feeling down and vulnerable. Worry leads us to the worst conclusions. So when we try to make sense of the anomalous experiences – when we try, in other words, to understand what’s happening to us – the world can appear a weird, frightening and hostile place. Hence the paranoia. Our analysis suggests that the impairments in short-term memory did not increase the paranoia.

Clearly cannabis doesn’t cause these problems for everyone. And the suspiciousness wore off as the drug left the bloodstream. But the study does show that paranoia isn’t tenuously linked to THC: for a significant number of people, it’s a direct result.

Perhaps most importantly, the research shines a light on the psychological processes underlying paranoia in general. When we worry, think negatively about ourselves and experience perceptual disturbances, it’s much more likely that we will feel needlessly suspicious of others.

In the past, having in those days been close to many musicians and artists, and having incorporated for one of my clients who was one of Canada's greatest advocates for legalization of weed, the first head shop in Toronto, the only thing that caused anyone I knew who used it (and I knew more people who used it than in the study you spoke of) to be paranoid was a concern of getting busted.

Hey, look, if the feds close weed legality down, move to Canada.

to be paranoid was a concern of getting busted.

I partook at little back in the day and went to a buy once with some housemates that partook a lot.   We get to this guys place and i swear i was in a Cheech and Chong movie.   This guy was so hilariously paranoid i couldn't stop laughing .... which only made him even more paranoid.

I had to leave the room before he would sell to my housemates.  It was funny as hell.

I know far more people that do than don’t where I live.  When we legalized it for recreational use 66% of the votes in my county were in favor of it. 

It’s also the least obese county in the country with a high percentage of extremely physically fit people. 

vaildaily

I expect there are many that you know that smoke, even if they don't share that privacy with you.

No, I would put money on it.

I think you would lose that money. I have friends in Colorado that not only smoke it but, grow it in their basement, he is an ex-cop, retired, she use to work for the DOC in Colorado.

LOL. Rose colored glasses. 

I would think you know your friends better than strangers do! 

“Iwould not feel so alone,” sang Bob Dylan back in 1966, “everybody must get stoned.”

That song was not about smoking marijuana.  

You'd be surprised at how much of that paranoia disappears when you can't be sent to jail for possessing a dead plant.