• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

White House says it will lift threat to states that have legalized marijuana

Reptile

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
28,001
Likes
20,272
Feedback: 123 / 0 / 0
President Donald Trump told a Republican senator this week that he will support efforts to shield states that have legalized marijuana from legal threats -- a policy that appears to be at odds with his administration's January push to ramp up federal enforcement.

The White House confirmed this week that while the Department of Justice rescinded an Obama-era policy, which largely kept federal prosecutors from pursuing marijuana-related charges in states that had legalized the drug, the change will not impact states' legal marijuana industries.

White House says it will lift threat to states that have legalized marijuana

Will they allow gun owners to use marijuana now?
 
Reptile said:
President Donald Trump told a Republican senator this week that he will support efforts to shield states that have legalized marijuana from legal threats -- a policy that appears to be at odds with his administration's January push to ramp up federal enforcement.

The White House confirmed this week that while the Department of Justice rescinded an Obama-era policy, which largely kept federal prosecutors from pursuing marijuana-related charges in states that had legalized the drug, the change will not impact states' legal marijuana industries.

White House says it will lift threat to states that have legalized marijuana

Will they allow gun owners to use marijuana now?
Click to expand...

Why doesn't Congress just change the law? With all the bills being introduced why not this one? This is just gov BS.
 
Reptile said:
Will they allow gun owners to use marijuana now?
Click to expand...

No, they won't change the 4473, not a chance in the world for that to happen.

At most it will just be like the AG AWB BS, maybe they won't prosecute "for now" subject to change, but you are still a criminal.
 
Emacs said:
Even better... legalize it and don't tax it at all.
Click to expand...

I would rather tax a consumption of a vice then my income. I'm all for shifting that burden... But lets be real - government needs tax revenue and it has to come from somewhere. I think this is a better option. Won't happen though as allowing the fed to impose a sales tax would require a constitutional amendment. Then once they have the power they'll tax everything and I'm all set with that noise. Well - absent the amendment also removing the Feds ability to impose an income tax... But that would never happen. The government never takes power away from itself.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
Kill 2 birds with one stone. LEgalize pot - and tax the shit out of it.

Save loot on enforcement.
Save on overcrowded jails filled with people who committed the victimless crime of possession
Offset the cost (pay for) the Trump Tax cuts
Click to expand...

Where do people go to jail for simple MJ possession?
 
ThePreBanMan said:
I would rather tax a consumption of a vice then my income. I'm all for shifting that burden... But lets be real - government needs tax revenue and it has to come from somewhere. I think this is a better option. Won't happen though as allowing the fed to impose a sales tax would require a constitutional amendment. Then once they have the power they'll tax everything and I'm all set with that noise. Well - absent the amendment also removing the Feds ability to impose an income tax... But that would never happen. The government never takes power away from itself.
Click to expand...

.GOV has tax revenue, and lots of it. Perhaps it should be spent more wisely.

As far as taxing vises, I think that is BS and the “vises” are arbitrary.
 
weekendracer said:
Where do people go to jail for simple MJ possession?
Click to expand...

Several states have 3 strike laws on the books. Cali - for example had jails full of 3-peat offenders. Prior to legalization there of course.

Other states will send you to the clink if you possess over a certain amount - say an ounce. That arbitrary amount crosses you from "possession" into "intent to distribute".
 
mecheenop said:
.GOV has tax revenue, and lots of it. Perhaps it should be spent more wisely.

As far as taxing vises, I think that is BS and the “vises” are arbitrary.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think taxing something that has a health consequence to the public - like alcohol, tobacco, and mary-jane is wise fiscal policy. Those substances do harm the public health and we all pay for that in higher premiums on our insurance and taxes. I think shifting that financial burden just to those who consume the substances via a tax is better policy. It discourages their use and fairly assigns the financial burden to those who impose such.
 
Coyote33 said:
This is wrong also. Instead of adding the tax as you propose, how about not imposing the burden of someone else's poor choice on everyone?
Click to expand...

Someone has to pay.... Health care isn't free. Society isn't going to turn people away at the hospital door if they can't pay for their care. That's what it would take in your world and that's not going to happen. So realistically the tax makes the most sense.

I would even go a step further and advocate insurance rates being set based on substance use. Say every so often someone can VOLUNTARILY submit to drug, tobacco and alcohol testing. Premiums go down based on lack of use. Something like that....

Think of it like the Progressive insurance VOLUNTARILY safe driver snap shot discount. They plug a monitor into the OBD2 port of your car. They use this monitor to make sure you don't speed. You get a discount. Your insurance rate is then set based on your driving habits.

I think we could do something like this in health insurance too. Someone who is obese and eats at BK daily, drinks, smokes, etc should pay more than someone who hits the gym 5 days a week, eats clean/healthy and doesn't drink to excess or smoke. Someone who gets a physical annually pays less than someone who never goes to the doctor until they get very ill and in need of costly care. That sort of stuff. Premiums become more habit/lifestyle based as opposed to one large pool. They'll always be people who just choose to live unhealthy lifestyles but the costs for that become more of a burden directly to them than the others. They pay higher premiums and pay the taxes on the vices. I think that as just and right.

Like anything, it's a slippery slope with room for debate. For example, where does the sin tax end? Do we tax large sugary soft drinks? How about meals/dinners at restaurants that are over say 1000 calories? How about taxing unhealthy foods like Twinkies, Funny Bones or ice cream? Those are the decisions we would need to make.
 
Last edited:
ThePreBanMan said:
Kill 2 birds with one stone. LEgalize pot - and tax the shit out of it.

Save loot on enforcement.
Save on overcrowded jails filled with people who committed the victimless crime of possession
Offset the cost (pay for) the Trump Tax cuts
Click to expand...


A little off base here. If you have dirt, seeds, water and sunlight you can grow weed. Thats why its called weed. In is not a difficult crop to grow and in a situation of outright legalization people will just grow it and give it away/ trade it for other varieties. Or they'll sell it under the table. Not exactly a taxable commodity or at least its not taxable in the way you envision it to be. Tourists from outside the country and lazy rich people will buy it in stores and pay the tax. Nobody else will.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
I disagree. I think taxing something that has a health consequence to the public - like alcohol, tobacco, and mary-jane is wise fiscal policy. Those substances do harm the public health and we all pay for that in higher premiums on our insurance and taxes. I think shifting that financial burden just to those who consume the substances via a tax is better policy. It discourages their use and fairly assigns the financial burden to those who impose such.
Click to expand...

My premiums are high because fat people and cigarette smokers are insured at the same rate as a healthy responsible person.

The way I see it the gov users vise taxes as a way to hide their fiscal irresponsibility they talk a good game in the name of public good but would never every dream of making a product like tabacco illegal. In reality they are being paid trough tax (legal extortion) to keep tabacco on the shelf

Alcohol tax, cigarette tax, junk food tax ( i think nyc does this) ammo tax (Seattle), gun tax see where this winds up going ? Poll tax? Right to assembly tax?
 
42! said:
Why doesn't Congress just change the law? With all the bills being introduced why not this one? This is just gov BS.
Click to expand...

Because jingoservatives have a pole up their ass about legalizing it, for some bizarre reason.

-Mike
 
They need to remove all laws against marijuana, period. It’s a waste of time , money and no reason to jail people on it. Personally I don’t care if people choose to partake in this habit. Hate to see my tax dollars being thrown away on a BS law
 
WanMan99 said:
Ahh, but you are forgetting that there is always a stick that comes with the carrot. Gov never just "gives" the people anything.
Click to expand...
Of course they will tax it. Didn't we have a revolution because we wanted a big government that would tax everything?
















(Sarcasm)
 
ThePreBanMan said:
I disagree. I think taxing something that has a health consequence to the public - like alcohol, tobacco, and mary-jane is wise fiscal policy. Those substances do harm the public health and we all pay for that in higher premiums on our insurance and taxes. I think shifting that financial burden just to those who consume the substances via a tax is better policy. It discourages their use and fairly assigns the financial burden to those who impose such.
Click to expand...

Taxes don't discourage use of anything, it just creates a black market for said product.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
Someone has to pay.... Health care isn't free. Society isn't going to turn people away at the hospital door if they can't pay for their care. That's what it would take in your world and that's not going to happen. So realistically the tax makes the most sense.
Click to expand...

they do that now, just in a more subtle ways.

Let me translate: "tax" - extortion of money with a threat of violence. We need more .gov and more taxes on dandelions and other weed like we need a f***ing enema.
 
Emacs said:
Even better... legalize it and don't tax it at all.
Click to expand...
Most sin taxes can be avoided by skipping retail:
-tobacco = grow your own
-alcohol = brew your own
-gas = walk, bike, public transport, EV

Marijuana will certainly be grown at home to avoid taxes, unless the market prefers the specifically engineered stuff.
 
weekendracer said:
Nah, have not seen it in practice unless something else is going on in addition to the MJ. Stacking charges on a scumbag, I've seen, but simple possession? Don't believe it. Especially in the Northeast.
Click to expand...

glide said:
Yeah. Like not being white.
I can’t tell if you’re joking or not.
Click to expand...

How would anyone even know about this stuff? I have no idea who is or is not in jail at any given moment, let alone why they are there.
 

Similar threads

Maine Gov. Mills Pushes to Make it Easier to Have Firearms Confiscated
Replies
3
Views
277
Uzi2
U
Expiring medical marijuana card and obtaining LTC
2 3
Replies
82
Views
1K
cams
cams
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
488
Zappa
Zappa
SWAT team responding to Arkansas shopping mall, police ask public to avoid the area: Officials called it “an incident that is active"
Replies
5
Views
222
TJ4
T
Smart gun will put fingerprint, facial recognition technology to work: Biofire has called it the 'first and only biometric firearm on the market'
2
Replies
40
Views
553
42!
42!
Back
Top Bottom