CCW and Weed Card?

[wired]

It really does not matter what Sessions thinks or not about dope. Unlike the last 2 AG's the AG's job is to enforce the laws, not pick the ones he likes or dislikes. It is up to congress to change the law, not him.

You do realize that's not actually how the world works right?

 

[Wayne]

You do realize that's not actually how the world works right?

So are you saying we just let those in power do what they want without saying anything. That is not how I work And yes, it is the job of the congress to make or change laws.

 

[wired]

So are you saying we just let those in power do what they want without saying anything. That is not how I work And yes, it is the job of the congress to make or change laws.

Prosecutorial Discretion defined ...

"Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation. This discretion of the prosecuting attorney is called prosecutorial discretion."

Used in a sentence....

" When scholars discuss prosecutorial discretion, they often treat it as a regrettable concession to reality. "

Prosecutorial Discretion. Its part of the world you live in and always have lived in.

To learn about Prosecutorial Discretion and how reality is a great place to live in read more at ...
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2428&context=faculty_scholarship

 

[No_Regerts]

Prosecutorial Discretion defined ...

"Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation. This discretion of the prosecuting attorney is called prosecutorial discretion."

Used in a sentence....

" When scholars discuss prosecutorial discretion, they often treat it as a regrettable concession to reality. "

Prosecutorial Discretion. Its part of the world you live in and always have lived in.

To learn about Prosecutorial Discretion and how reality is a great place to live in read more at ...
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2428&context=faculty_scholarship

Unfortunately, you're right. At my level, its the "juice isn't worth the squeeze" mentality. I get it, but dont really like it.

 

[4Freedom]

It really does not matter what Sessions thinks or not about dope. Unlike the last 2 AG's the AG's job is to enforce the laws, not pick the ones he likes or dislikes. It is up to congress to change the law, not him.

Would you say the same thing if Congress passed a Federal Assault Weapon Ban (which they have in the past) and it was Attorney General Eric Holder saying he will be enforcing these laws? What about those "rogue" sheriffs and "rogue" states that said they would arrest any federal agents in their state and refuse to enforce any federal laws that infringe upon the gun rights of its citizens? How are these sheriffs and state governments any different than the states that have legalized weed?

Anyone remember this? A lot of people (including myself) supported this guy. But, is he really any different than the states defending their marijuana laws? He is violating federal law, just as the marijuana stores are.
Linn sheriff says he won't enforce federal gun orders

Some may argue it is the Constitution, but some may also consider agencies like the DEA and FDA to be unconstitutional, themselves. And, if a law has been voted in and is now federally mandated, who are we to speak out against the feds if they want to collect all our guns either, since the Attorney General is just doing his job? If you are going to support the letter of law you should then also support a Federal Assault Weapon Ban if this become federal law as well, then.

Why would anyone criticize Eric Holder for enforcing an Assault Weapon Ban, but then not criticize Jeff Sessions for enforcing another unconstitutional prohibition such as marijuana prohibition.

If Jeff Sessions truly tries to pull of this stunt, now we have to spend billions and billions of dollars incarcerating the once-legal marijuana growers/manufacturers/distributors and then fighting endless court battles as a result. The result of this will be truly catastrophic. It is a lot easier to give people rights and freedoms than to take them away. That is the foundations of our country and it goes all the way back to the Boston Tea Party.

What really will piss me off is that if they do try to pull off this stunt and the ensuing retribution that will result, I highly doubt we will ever see another Republican elected into the White House ever again. You can also kiss your gun rights goodbye, as even some of the pro-gun Democrats, Libertarians and pro-weed/small-government Republicans will refuse to vote another Republican in office.

I don't know, maybe this is a blessing in disguise. The Republican party really sucks in my opinion now and they are not all that much different than the Democrats. Both will waste your tax money, increase the deficit and increase the power and authority of the federal government and its endless bloated bureaucracy. Maybe this will help bring the rise of the Libertarian party as America's new right-wing party. I'm officially registering as a Libertarian and don't think I even want to associate myself in any way as a Republican anymore. I am hoping Trump will fix the mess before it gets out of hand, as he is already unpopular and this will bring the entire conservative party down. America needs to be more than a Two-Party system, which is becoming more and more fixed.

 

[wired]

Or what about a simple ban on "high capacity" magazines? Not just a ban on manufacture or sale but on simple possession? You going to turn in your magazines because the feds tell you to? I'm not. The feds can stick it. They have no business telling citizens what they may or may not do if it does not harm others and the States say its OK. As far as that goes the state can stick it too if they tell me to turn mags in.

Good luck if Sessions tells the states they cannot legalize anything. Are they going to send FBI agents out to force local police to enforce Federal law? Nope. More states need to join in open rebellion. Keep the Republican Party the party of limited government.

 

[Argonaut]

Don't get too comfortable with gun ownership either. Our Founding Fathers supported the rights of people to smoke "hemp" as they referred to it back then and the rights to keep and bear arms. All these laws we have today are not constitutional at all and if the government will criminalize one item what stops them from criminalizing another?

It's one thing if thousands of people are dropping dead because of marijuana. However, many liberals make the same claims about guns, that if certain types of guns are legal there will be bodies piling up. There has been no such disasters with legal guns or legal weed and when Big Brother wants to step in and control or criminalize something without good justification, there is no limits to how far they will go, since it is as their discretion. Over 60% of Americans support legalization, which speaks for itself.

Neither the Republicans or Democrats are our friends and if they had it their way , we would all be weak, helpless, indoctrinated sheep who do whatever we are told and give all our hard earned money to their bureaucracy. The USA has become one of the world's largest bureaucracies. We have one of the highest tax rates in the world, the largest prison population and a huge government infrastructure that infuses itself in every facet of our daily lives.

They will tell us "sheeple" what type of gun we are allowed to own, what type of leaf matter we are allowed to smoke and what type of drugs, herbs, supplements we are allowed to take. We have FDA and DEA to tell us what foods and drugs we are allowed to take, the ATF/BATFE to tell us what type of guns we are allowed to own, the NSA monitors our communications to make sure we are behaving. I haven't even discusses about dozens of other federal agencies out there to monitor, control and protect us from ourselves.

Jeff Sessions has an agenda which is probably a combination of increasing the power of Big Government (which many Republicans and Democrats want) and also helping to protect his financial interests in companies where legal marijuana has already proven to impinge upon their revenues, such as Big Pharma, Tobacco and Alcohol industries.

Sessions claims marijuana is the drug of death, but he, himself, has a big stake in the Tobbacco industry. Unlike marijuana, tobbacco has proven to be responsible for the deaths and sickness of millions of Americans. How ironic, coming from a guy who has waged war on Americans for using marijuana that he is enriching his pockets on the blood of Americans dying from lung cancer, emphysema and other tobacco-use related conditions.

https://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/jeff-sessions-anti-weed-crusader-was-a-shill-for-big-1792831457

What it comes down to is power and money. Big Pharma alone is in bed with several politicians and is the force behind marijuana's status as a Federal Schedule I which indicates it as dangerous as heroin and more dangerous than meth, cocaine, etc.

The simple answer is the right to smoke anything is not a right given by the constitution. The laws against marijuana use are spelled out in legally passed federal legislation. The states have no right to make laws contradicting the Fed. During prohibition there were states that did not ratify the 13th amendment but there were enough to make it the law of the entire country and they had to abide by them. That is what the issue is here.

 

[4Freedom]

The simple answer is the right to smoke anything is not a right given by the constitution. The laws against marijuana use are spelled out in legally passed federal legislation. The states have no right to make laws contradicting the Fed. During prohibition there were states that did not ratify the 13th amendment but there were enough to make it the law of the entire country and they had to abide by them. That is what the issue is here.

Once the next Assault Weapon Ban passes, I will see if you still agree with what you wrote. I guess we don't really have rights to do a lot of things under the Constitution. Some claim arms and "Assault Weapons" are not the same thing and will use grammatical and other nuances in the writings to either advocate for or against various rights as we interpret them. However, if the majority and our Congress passes a bill banning "Assault Weapons" and it because the letter of the law, then we would be obligated to respect the federal authorities and laws as well. Therefore, anyone challenging a law that was voted into effect, would be probably violating the constitutional laws in some way or other. Although, others can argue violating some laws may be in fact protected under the Constitution as well; especially, if we hear the statements the authors of our Constitution have made in regards to unethical laws.

According to our current laws, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are both federal drug offenders and should be prosecuted, fined and incarcerated for being users and cultivators of a Schedule I drug. Of course, back in the days before we have these so-called constitutional federal agencies, such as DEA, ATF, FDA, FBI, etc there was no such enforcement or regulations in our country. I think our Founding Fathers would be aghast to see how much money our government spends on arresting and incarcerating drug users.

I also believe our Founding Fathers would disgaree with the mentality that we should subjugate ourselves to the federal authorities. We are a Constitutional Republic and we are called the United "States" of America, not the United Socialist Soviet America who takes all its orders from the Kremlin in Washington DC.

What would Thomas Jefferson say about the federal government enforcing unethical laws that infringe upon the will of the majority of our country and challenge the autonomy of the states, which is one of the most important foundations of freedom in our country. It was rebelling against unjust and unethical laws is what made America the great and free nation.

""If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
--Thomas Jeffesron



I am proud to no longer call myself a Republican. I voted for Trump, mostly because I couldn't digest having Hitlary Fascist Clinton in power. However, I replaced one fascist with another. Probably the lesser of the two evils. However, I am sick of both parties and I will no longer vote any Republican ever again.

I am proud to be a Libertarian now and hope the party will grow as the Republican party falls to pieces and deteriorates. The Republicans have lost my vote and I am just as well ready to let the Democrats wreck their havoc on our country and let them meet their demise as well. I'm not the only once-Republican who is leaving the party. There are many more where I came from.

Jeff Sessions may get his moment of fame shutting down all the pot shops, but his glory will be very short lived and he will take the Rebublican party down with him. I hope the fascist is happy he got to enforce the laws. The same laws that were enforced putting thousands of gun owners in prison because they were violating federal laws to by owning high capacity magazines or rifles/pistols labelled as "assault weapons" during the Assault Weapon Ban, which had the support of both many Democrats and Republicans.

It's a crying shame that my tax money and vote is being used to go around fighting a war on marijuana when we have so many serious issues to worry about. We need to lower taxes and help our economy from being destroyed, support our personal freedoms, 2nd Amendment, protect our borders and keep real threats at bay , both from drug cartels and rogue regimes overseas.

I also find it ironic that Trump claims he will fight illegal immigration and protect us from drug cartels and then supports the very thing that has made the drug cartel as powerful as it is, the Drug War. Instead of billions of dollars going to fund states with marijuana tax revenue, now he has succeeded in making the violent and increasingly powerful drug cartels billions and billions of more money!

Slimebags.. I feel like such a fool for voting in this election and promise I wont' do it again with scumbag candidates like this, even if I have to kiss my 2nd Amendment rights goodbye. Our country is going to hell in a handbasket. Fascists will be fascists and politicians love power and the more criminals the better. That means more money and control for the government. If you and me are both criminals, we have no rights and the government owns our a**es.

 

[Argonaut]

When California elected Jerry Brown we decided to move back to Idaho for many reasons including the firearms trend. Now it seems to be getting more difficult to own guns than smoke marijuana.........so in hindsight we made the correct decision. If you are concerned about smoking and owning firearms, move to a place where you can...........oh, there is no place on the planet that the 2 are both legal together. I read this morning that many states are prohibiting medical marijuana users from owning guns. The trend isn't good for stoned shooters. The assault bill is a state law....certainly won't effect me in Idaho But don't get caught smoking pot here......there is no legal way to do it.....thank god,

 

[kott0n]

Yet I bet you have no issues with alcoholics/casual drinkers owning guns. This is because society and the government has conditioned this into you.

 

[wired]

And which do you think cause more damage with firearms? Drunks or pot smokers?

 

[4Freedom]

When California elected Jerry Brown we decided to move back to Idaho for many reasons including the firearms trend. Now it seems to be getting more difficult to own guns than smoke marijuana.........so in hindsight we made the correct decision. If you are concerned about smoking and owning firearms, move to a place where you can...........oh, there is no place on the planet that the 2 are both legal together. I read this morning that many states are prohibiting medical marijuana users from owning guns. The trend isn't good for stoned shooters. The assault bill is a state law....certainly won't effect me in Idaho.

One major reason I left Idaho because the taxes were too damn high and Boise had more restrictive gun laws than Seattle. Boise use to be cheap, but now it is becoming as expensive as Portland and has Portland taxes to match it. Look at the No Gun signs on the Ada County buses. You can carry a gun on a bus in King County. It is ironic, because we both know how anti-gun Seattle is and of course the Californians here in Washington will try to turn this into another California. For being such a conservative red state as they tout, the state has one of the highest state and sales tax in the country. They claim the state is business friendly, but I was getting hammered as a small business in that state and was happy to come to Washington where they had no state tax and seems to be much mroe accommodating to businesses. Of course, the Democrats are trying to change that and as I now espouse, I hate both parties and don't really support either.

I am very right-wing on many issues, but I guess being Libertarian I am staunchly against the drug war and even more against the war on marijuana. If we legalized drugs there would be no more drug cartel, gangs and the border wall would cost us a fraction of the money to build, as it would be much easier to monitor without going up against trillion-dollar drug cartels who are also in the pockets of many of our politicians.

One thing that shocked me about living in Idaho was the rampant alcoholism, domestic violence and the constant police-state mentality the Boise police had. I never seen so many car searches, police dragging people through the streets and so much intervention into people's personal lives in my life. I grew up in Oregon and going to Idaho was like going to another country with much stricter laws. I thought Idaho was suppose to be the bastion of freedom. I will say the Washington and Oregon have more personal freedoms than Idaho, but, with the large population of liberal Californians here, they will try to change that.

One more point, I guess you will feel safer being around a bunch of drunk and belligerent, pharmaceutically opiate doped up gun owners than a bunch of stoned ones, right? Can you tell me how many mass shootings and killings from extremely stoned people we have had here in Oregon and Washington since we legalized weed?

Seems to me pharmaceutical drugs and alcohol are still the kings in gun-related homicides and injuries. But, Jeff Sessions would definitely disagree with me.. I am sure he believes marijuana smokers are truly behind it all.

Today they go after marijuana smokers, tomorrow they will go after those dangerous assault weapon owners. Trust me, the government loves banning things and turning people into criminals.

 

[Argonaut]

Yet I bet you have no issues with alcoholics/casual drinkers owning guns. This is because society and the government has conditioned this into you.

I do not have an issue with non drunks owning or shooting guns, the difference is if you enjoy a beer, it doesn't effect your logic or reason unless you drink many......do that often enough and you are destine for a felony that will permanently restrict your ability to own guns. With drugs, no one uses and stops before getting high (similar to drunk) I don't like drunks a bit but someone that has a drink is no problem.

 

[Argonaut]

How smart are you? You moved from one of the lowest tax states in the country to one of the highest......good luck with the decisions you make the rest of your life.......I hope they work out better for you.

 

[Argonaut]

And which do you think cause more damage with firearms? Drunks or pot smokers?

As I said, you don't have to be a drunk if you take a drink. But a person smoking pot is always high.

 

[4Freedom]

I do not have an issue with non drunks owning or shooting guns, the difference is if you enjoy a beer, it doesn't effect your logic or reason unless you drink many......do that often enough and you are destine for a felony that will permanently restrict your ability to own guns. With drugs, no one uses and stops before getting high (similar to drunk) I don't like drunks a bit but someone that has a drink is no problem.

I would challenge you that someone who smokes a little weed has better judgment that someone who even has a few beers. Even a few beers, can impair judgment, numb your senses and give you more ambition to make stupid decisions. Look at someone who is buzzed off of a beer and feels really good and someone who smokes some weed. I have been around enough drunk and stoned people with guns to know who I feel safer around.

Weed makes people a bit paranoid and less likely to want to engage in confrontation. It is the exact opposite of alcohol which actually makes you more bold and less likely to use restraint. That may be the reason why there are many more accidents and gun-related homicides and injuries with people who consumed alcohol than those who consumed weed. Not to mention even a little alcohol throws off your balance much more than a larger quantity of marijuana. Coordination, balance are essential for handling a firearm.

Being heavily intoxicated on any substance is not wise.. Let the people have the freedom to chose and be responsible. We don't need the nanny state trying to control and dictate every little action of our lives.

Soda and candy are causing billions and billions of dollars of health maladies and straining our health system. Why not ban those and make our country a better place? You are better off smoking marijuana and eating organic food then chugging down booze and eating junk food. I grew up in Oregon around hippies who smoked marijuana every day and who are in much better shape than my junk food eating, pill popping, heart medication, statin using, non-marijuana using friends. Seriously, if we are going to ban anything, let's ban sugar.

Let me repeat again, I am for adults making their own decision and not supportive of a nanny state that constantly has to control everything we do. Let the people chose for themselves. If something is not extremely dangerous, toxic, like meth or heroin( proven to kill people with small dosages, even) then we should not be punishing people and spending billions of our tax money criminalizing it and enforcing these worthless laws and overflowing our already burdened prisons and law enforcement more than they are.

 

[wired]

As I said, you don't have to be a drunk if you take a drink. But a person smoking pot is always high.

What?

 

[Argonaut]

I am a militant anti drug person. The only person in modern history that ever effectively eliminated drugs in a society was Mao.......he had a problem with opium dens in the urban areas. He put out an edict that anyone caught in one after a particular date would be shot.........the people with enough wear with all, got out......the rest were shot. He eliminated the problem for generations.

 

[Argonaut]

I would challenge you that someone who smokes a little weed has better judgment that someone who even has a few beers. Even a few beers, can impair judgment, numb your senses and give you more ambition to make stupid decisions. Look at someone who is buzzed off of a beer and feels really good and someone who smokes some weed. I have been around enough drunk and stoned people with guns to know who I feel safer around.

Weed makes people a bit paranoid and less likely to want to engage in confrontation. It is the exact opposite of alcohol which actually makes you more bold and less likely to use restraint. That may be the reason why there are many more accidents and gun-related homicides and injuries with people who consumed alcohol than those who consumed weed. Not to mention even a little alcohol throws off your balance much more than a larger quantity of marijuana. Coordination, balance are essential for handling a firearm.

Being heavily intoxicated on any substance is not wise.. Let the people have the freedom to chose and be responsible. We don't need the nanny state trying to control and dictate every little action of our lives.

Soda and candy are causing billions and billions of dollars of health maladies and straining our health system. Why not ban those and make our country a better place? You are better off smoking marijuana and eating organic food then chugging down booze and eating junk food. I grew up in Oregon around hippies who smoked marijuana every day and who are in much better shape than my junk food eating, pill popping, heart medication, statin using, non-marijuana using friends. Seriously, if we are going to ban anything, let's ban sugar.

Let me repeat again, I am for adults making their own decision and not supportive of a nanny state that constantly has to control everything we do. Let the people chose for themselves. If something is not extremely dangerous, toxic, like meth or heroin( proven to kill people with small dosages, even) then we should not be punishing people and spending billions of our tax money criminalizing it and enforcing these worthless laws and overflowing our already burdened prisons and law enforcement more than they are.

I didn't say a few beers.......I said a beer. Your arguments don't hold up. So you have to modify my statements to compete..........

 

[4Freedom]

I am a militant anti drug person. The only person in modern history that ever effectively eliminated drugs in a society was Mao.......he had a problem with opium dens in the urban areas. He put out an edict that anyone caught in one after a particular date would be shot.........the people with enough wear with all, got out......the rest were shot. He eliminated the problem for generations.

Ah Communist Mao Zedung China.. Sounds like heaven on earth.. Yeah, well Fascist and Communist societies where people had no rights, freedoms and the government has ultimate control tend to manage to keep their societies in order. I am sure North Korea also has little in the way with problems of drug addiction. Now mass starvation, disease and genocide are other issues, but at least the drug laws are effective. But, then again, who wants to live in a society where they are a soulless zombie at the mercy of ruthless dictator?

Hitler's Germany was very effective at battling street crime. The Democrats look up to his tactics very closely and try to implement them as well.

The whole world had an issue with opiates and still does. Mass murdering the population to fix the problem will not lead to an ultimate solution. Trust me, if they mass murder all drug users today to fix the drug problem, they will mass murder all gun owners to fix the crime problem tomorrow. Whatever the state feels it needs to do to have control and authority.

My arguments hold up based on science. Even one beer can impair your judgment in ways you may not realize. And, if a 120lb person drinks one beer and has no alcohol tolerance it will be more significant than a 250lb person with a high tolerance. If you are using scientific research, there are people who smoke high quantities of marijuana who are quite functional. Just like with alcohol you develop a tolerance to marijuana. One hit of marijuana for a new smoker would be like one low alcohol beer for a new drinker.


Here, a Thurston County Sheriff deputy who handles DUI stops volunteered to do an assessment to see how much marijuana impairs the ability of users to drive. Despite having a legal THC limit, when the drivers were tested and observed by the officer, it appears that the people were able to safely operate the vehicle even being many times over what the state deems the legal THC limit. This would throw out the argument many make that people who consume a little marijuana have less control than alcohol users. In fact, this video proves that people who use larger amounts of marijuana have more control operating a vehicle than people who use large amounts of alcohol.