2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSanders more progressive than Clinton or even O'Malley on marijuana
In my view, the time is long overdue for us to remove the federal prohibition on marijuana, Sanders said to cheers. In my view, states should have the right to regulate marijuana the same way that state and local laws now govern the sale of alcohol and tobacco.
It would be a dramatic departure from decades of federal drug policy. And while Sanders stopped short of calling for the full legalization of marijuana, he is now closer to it than any other candidate in either party.
Sanders framed the issue as one of racial and civil rights. Too many Americans have seen their lives destroyed because they have criminal records as a result of marijuana use. Thats wrong. That has got to change, he said. We are spending about $80 billion a year in federal state and local taxpayer dollars to lock people up. $80 billion a year.
The federal government classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, the highest level and the same as heroin. Sanders called that absurd and proposed removing marijuana from the federal governments scheduling system entirely. . . .
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has said states should be allowed to experiment with legalization and medical marijuana, but has said more study is needed. . . . Challenger Martin OMalley, the former governor of Maryland, decriminalized the drug as governor (though he opposed legalization) and has called for moving marijuana to Schedule 2, a less severe federal classification, along with other reforms.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-end-marijuana-prohibition
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,664 posts)msongs
(67,430 posts)of busting pot smokers
Vattel
(9,289 posts)aidbo
(2,328 posts)postatomic
(1,771 posts)I'm all for having flower available to anyone over 21. Maybe it will mellow out this country. It's going to come about on a Federal Level once more States come on board. They want to see how the States handle it. I agree with Hillary that there needs to be more studies but what she doesn't realize is that most of the "studies" being done now are by opponents of marijuana.
I just read recently where the sales tax collected on marijuana sales in Colorado has exceeded taxes collected on alcohol sales. Mellow out a few people and add to the states income. What's not to like?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I guess I don't see a good reason for more studies. I think it's time to stop the injustices of the war on drugs.
postatomic
(1,771 posts)The problem is there really haven't been any worthwhile studies. You and I know that marijuana isn't a gateway drug, it's not addictive, no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose, and there are medical benefits gained by using it. The Feds have no evidence to confirm this.
A change is coming but it will take more states to be on board, which is happening. The States that have made weed legal for recreational use are setting the tone for future actions. I know you'd like to see significant change NOW. So would I, but it's just not going to happen over night. Be patient.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)(Hillary) Clinton has very much taken a wait-and-see approach when it comes to states that have legalized it. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has raised money from the marijuana industry for his presidential campaign, has said the federal government shouldn't interfere with states who want to legalize it. He and and former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley (D) have said they'd support bumping down a notch the government's classification of pot as a drug. Only Sanders has supported taking it off completely.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/29/why-bernie-sanderss-marijuana-announcement-is-a-big-political-moment-for-pot/