Bernie Rakes Clinton on Half-Assed Marijuana Reform Plan

[Comrade Grumpy]

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-statement-on-criminal-justice-reform-and-marijuana-law/

PRESS RELEASE

Sanders Statement on Criminal Justice Reform and Marijuana Law

NOVEMBER 7, 2015

AIKEN, S.C. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday renewed a call to let states decide whether to legalize marijuana possession, a proposal detailed in a bill introduced Wednesday in the Senate. Sanders commented after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, at a separate appearance in South Carolina on Saturday, offered her own proposal to loosen restrictions on marijuana.

“I am glad to see Secretary Clinton is beginning to address an issue that my legislation addressed,” he said, “but her approach ignored the major issue. Secretary Clinton would classify marijuana in the same category as cocaine and continue to make marijuana a federally regulated substance.

“If we are serious about criminal justice reform and preventing many thousands of lives from being impacted because of criminal convictions for marijuana possession, we must remove marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act and allow states the right to go forward, if they choose, to legalize marijuana without federal legal impediments,” Sanders added.

Sanders was here at the University of South Carolina at Aiken for a rally to cap a two-day swing through South Carolina. More than 1,300 supporters turned out at the university’s convocation center.

------

Bernie would end federal pot prohibition; Hillary would not. I'm with Bernie.

[merrily]

1. What a kind person he is to call it a plan!

Last edited Mon Nov 9, 2015, 06:21 PM - Edit history (1)

[Fumesucker]

4. I was thinking half ass was too generous

But now I agree with you, calling it a plan was too generous.

[questionseverything]

15. here is bernie's plan

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-ending-the-federal-ban-on-marijuana

[merrily]

27. His health care plan is kinda simple, too: Medicare for All.

[merrily]

41. Not to be cocky, but I had a feeling I could win you over!

[MADem]

2. That article says he's sticking with a STATES RIGHTS plan of action--and of course, you made up the

headline:

Sanders Statement on Criminal Justice Reform and Marijuana Law

AIKEN, S.C. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday renewed a call to let states decide whether to legalize marijuana possession, a proposal detailed in a bill introduced Wednesday in the Senate. Sanders commented after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, at a separate appearance in South Carolina on Saturday, offered her own proposal to loosen restrictions on marijuana....

I completely agree with Sanders on this issue, FWIW. It's a weed, it grows wild. It has proven medicinal benefit.

Silly to make such a fuss over it.

[bravenak]

3. Silly to make such a fuss indeed.

I only fuss when it's dry. Then I get agitated.

[MADem]

5. :) !!

[bravenak]

6. I still think that the best way to move Hillary is from within her group of support.

That is how progress is made. Nobody is perfect. If I were in her inner circle I think I coukd convince her. I'm sure she has a me there, she has so many dynamic black women on her team, I think she is moving towards where we need her to go. Evolving.

[questionseverything]

7. 500,000 people in prison for it

that was the whole point of bill's 100,000 cops added

makes it pretty easy to fill up those for profit prisons the clintons support

[bravenak]

8. Then why did Bernie vote for mass incarceration and manditory minimums in the omnibus crime

Bill if he did not want things to be this way? I mean he VOTED for it. Look at the EXPLOSION in the prison population for drug crimes. What a great friend to the black community!!! Helped us go to prison more! For longer! Yay private prisons! Yay Bernie.

[questionseverything]

10. he has always supported the democrats in charge

that time it was bill and hillary clinton...i am glad to see he has figured out it was crap policy...hc has not tho

he did give a floor speech talking about the real root of crime which is income inequality and lack of prospects but certainly after what we have seen happen with this disastrous policy everyone that supported it was wrong

[bravenak]

11. Exactly. Plently of blames to go around.

He has his share, she has hers. Bill too. Hillary can be moved. Bernie actually DOES evolve. So glad we can see things as they are.

[questionseverything]

12. honestly i do not think hc will ever move on this

the dea see it as there slush fund (so glad when blm educated bernie on civil forfeitures)

and the pharmaceuticals see a gold mine

and of course the private for profit prison industry needs it

the drug wars have led to the ruination of the 4th amendment and hc seems to support that too, considering her votes on the patriot act and her calling snowden a criminal

<shrugs>

[bravenak]

17. She has no choice.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. I agree, i think some of this is a difference in style vs. substance.

But again, it is good that Sanders is prompting her to take and clarify positions. It elevates the conversation.

The "but but its states rights warrrrrrrrhghhhggbllllloll" weirdness of some folks notwithstanding, I think that the states legalizing is doing more to move the ball on this matter than 40 years of yelling at disinterested and connected beltway poobahs ever could. The simple matter is, it is not feasible at this point for the federal government to come in and shut down marijuana in all the states where it is legal in some iteration or another. The resources (not to mention the public will) are simply not there. You have rising politicians of increasing prominence like Gavin Newsom calling for full legalization.

They're going to need to formally recognize the new reality, it is just a matter of how and when.

[bravenak]

42. My state did an awesome job. I would not take that chance from any other state.

If this is the way it has been working, then we all need to push forward. The more it spreads the harder it is to stop. Nothing she can do to turn back time. If Cher couldn't get it done, nobody can.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. The real question is if you believe in life after love

[Warren DeMontague]

36. The DEA knows the clock is ticking on pot prohibition.

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. Yes, that's my headline. This isn't LBN.

You misinterpret Sanders position and his bill. His bill would end federal marijuana prohibition. That's not a "states' rights" position; it's a no federal marijuana prohibition position.

Presidents can't make states legalize marijuana (or criminalize it), but they can open the way for states to do the right thing.

Hillary's position would maintain federal marijuana prohibition.

There is a difference. A big difference.

[MADem]

18. I don't misinterpret a thing. He's ALWAYS been a "states rights" kind of guy--for everything.

It's his raison d'etre for everything, DOMA, marriage equality, and now weed.

That's fine--he's consistent. But that's been his go-to excuse for a long while.

I said I agree with him on this issue. The way to kick the federal aspect to the curb is do it the same way marriage equality happened--come to a tipping point WRT the states and overwhelm federal objection in that fashion. It's just not going to change at the federal level without a push from the states--there are too many forces holding the status quo in place to overcome that. The states will have to lead.

His bill, in actual fact, has no hope of passing, so his bill won't end laws in opposition to legalization/decriminalization, etc. It's a posturing thing he's doing, a signal, a way of riling up the faithful to make it appear that he is doing something other than articulating a POV. That thing will disappear into the bowels of the Senate, never to be seen again. It has slightly more clout than a "strongly worded letter."

Your headline IS churlish. It's not a matter of your "right" to post a shitty, snarky subject line, it's all about your judgment in so doing.

If you really think you're on the right side of an issue, there's no need to slam your pointed boot into the opposition's ribs. Let the argument Sanders is making speak for itself, without gratuitous slams. The point is better made in that fashion.

[Comrade Grumpy]

25. Oh, you delicate flower! A churlish headline. In GD:P.

Maybe I could have gone with half-baked.

The point is that Hillary's position is less progressive than Bernie's.

You call the Sanders bill pandering. I call it momentum-building. Very few bills get passed in the first session, and you have to start somewhere. This is the first Senate bill to call for an end to federal pot prohibition.

And thanks for the lecture. I'll give it all the value it's due.

[SCantiGOP]

35. won't have to listen to your crap again

Couldn't stay here if it weren't for the Ignore and Trash buttons

[MADem]

56. Straight to the "delicate flower" snark! I guess the truth stings a bit, does it?

Maybe you could have just discussed the issue like an adult, and not misstated Clinton's POV?

"What I do want is for us to support research into medical marijuana because a lot more states have passed medical marijuana than have legalized marijuana, so we've got two different experiences or even experiments going on right now," Clinton said after being asked about marijuana prohibition during a town hall. "And the problem with medical marijuana is there's a lot of anecdotal evidence about how well it works for certain conditions, but we haven't done any research. Why? Because it's considered what's called a Schedule I drug and you can't even do research in it."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-marijuana-reform_563e5fc4e4b0307f2cadb82a


I am a fan of legalization, but I realize that this is going to be a process. As states legalize, the federal argument grows weaker.

It's like marriage equality--once a tipping point is reached, the argument is done. Until that tipping point is reached, it remains a "culture war issue." No amount of posturing or opining or symbolic bills by POTUS candidates matters--state-by-state is how this will be won.

[restorefreedom]

90. the problem with legalizing it only for research

is that not only is it a big gimmie for big pharma, it does nothing to address the huge criminal justice aspects of the need to decriminalize it.

sounds like she is trying to seem progressive, but by only making it legal for research shows a corporate favoritism for which she is already heavily criticised.

[MADem]

91. It does not matter what federal politicians think. This fight will go the same way equality did.

There is insufficient support in Congress to change existing law. A baby step is going the research route, to get people used to the idea. No doubt Big Pharma will create "combo meals" of drugs that include our friends the cannabinoids along with other shit mixed in, in a proprietary blend. There's going to be some push and pull for awhile, and people on either side of the "culture divide" will have something to say.

I favor legalization, I currently live in a "decriminalized" state and I think the lucky legalized states are in clover, without having to go through sneaking around like a kid to buy weed or going to a doctor and jumping through hoops to get a dispensary card. Most of my aged peers feel the same way.

[restorefreedom]

92. the stepwise approach might eventually work

but there better be some protections to the plant and potential growers, or else big pharma will pull a monsanto and try to make anyone growing or selling it but them as illegal (once it were to be legalized). that is what makes me hinky about this particular stepping stone...there are many opportunities for big pharma to try and plant their flag as it were. any legislation or executive action would have to safeguard against such a bs proprietary claim of a natural product. if they alter it in the lab, then they can get a patent on the synthetic product, but no screwing around and trying to steal the plant, like some are trying to do with vitamins.

[MADem]

93. I don't doubt that the Monsanto - style bunch will try.

I also think they won't succeed. Once the barn door is open, it becomes pretty asinine to try and regulate a weed. It's like McCormick Spices trying to regulate celery seed!

The trick is to crack that door open in the first place--once that's done, the silly rules will fall. People are tired of dumb law.

[restorefreedom]

94. i hope you're right..i do think people have had it

and it would not surprise me if a spice company DID try and regulate a seed! corporate greed has no limit

[George II]

43. All it would do is throw it back into the hands of the state governments.....

....allowing southern states to continue their biased prosecution of blacks.

[jeff47]

32. As opposed to Clinton's position, which is to not allow states to legalize it

Schedule 2 means state's can't actually legalize it. And we're left with the wink-and-nod system where the feds are ignoring federal law in 4 states.

That state of affairs is TOTALLY going to work forever and ever and ever.

[MADem]

53. Did you make that up all by yourself? Since when does a POTUS candidate--any POTUS candidate--

have the power to "not allow" a state to do something?

She understands the bifurcated track this issue is on. She wants research to happen while this two pronged approach moves forward.

If you read her comments with an open mind, you would see this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-marijuana-reform_563e5fc4e4b0307f2cadb82a

"What I do want is for us to support research into medical marijuana because a lot more states have passed medical marijuana than have legalized marijuana, so we've got two different experiences or even experiments going on right now," Clinton said after being asked about marijuana prohibition during a town hall. "And the problem with medical marijuana is there's a lot of anecdotal evidence about how well it works for certain conditions, but we haven't done any research. Why? Because it's considered what's called a Schedule I drug and you can't even do research in it."

Funny thing about lawyers--they know how the law works.

[jeff47]

63. Uh...you not familiar with the supremacy clause?

If it's against federal law it doesn't matter what state law says. The feds get to "not allow" a state to do something. Like ban "gay marriage".

She understands the bifurcated track this issue is on. She wants research to happen while this two pronged approach moves forward.

And that approach isn't constitutional.

Let's say Clinton gets to roll out her plan. Federal law bans recreational use of Schedule 2 drugs.

The government is not enforcing federal law in (currently) 2 states, allowing recreational use. That violates equal protection - you get arrested by the feds in Utah, but not in Colorado for the same crime, despite it being against federal law in both states.

Funny thing about lawyers--they know how the law works.

Funny thing about Clinton fans - they seem to be utterly unable to tell when they're being lied to.

[MADem]

69. We'll see you at the Supreme Court, then!

You don't think "Federal Law" can be overcome? That it's immutable, unchangeable, static?

You don't understand that this is a process, a journey? That there are no magic wands (or magic pointing fingers)?

As for your comment:

Funny thing about Clinton fans - they seem to be utterly unable to tell when they're being lied to.

I can tell when you're lying to me--never worry.

[eridani]

65. Luckily for CO and WA, the Obama administration has decided to NOT use federal charges--

--and it is completely up to the Feds to decide if they want to do it or not. Several of the Repuke candidates have said that they would reverse this policy immediately. If Clinton wants to keep MJ on the list, her position is not at all clear hare. The fact that private prisons support her is worrisome.

[MADem]

68. Ah, more speculation, shading and making stuff up! Just the thing to enhance discussion.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-private-prisons_562a3e3ee4b0ec0a389418ec

I think it's pretty clear that she sees the handwriting on the wall. The law will change. The states will lead the way. The federal government will follow along. It won't happen overnight, but it will probably happen faster than we expect.

[eridani]

71. Please put the "made" up parts of my quotes in bold or italic or something

Your reference clearly states that Clinton WAS accepting private prison money. She stopped when her focus groups told her that this stance was pissing people off. Better late than never, but why not more leadership?

I'm also glad that she is against overincarceration. But it was in the 90s that it greatly accelerated over the already too high levels that Reagan gave us. Where was she then?

[MADem]

72. Why? You are averring that private prisons support (present tense) her,

when that's quite plainly not accurate.

If we're going to play the "Where was ...... then?" game, we could ask where Sanders was on a number of issues, like women and rape attitudes, or guns, or whatever--but it's all an unsavory game when you do that kind of thing-- just more gotcha, twisting and shading. It doesn't convince people to change their vote, it just suggests a certain willingness to use anything, to grab onto anything that looks like a handful of shit and fling it as hard as possible, simply to try and make a point.

[eridani]

74. Why did they ever want to support her in the first place? What did they see in her?

Getting back to the OP, keeping MJ on the list of scheduled drugs will do nothing to stop overincarceration. Do you think it will? Why?

[George II]

38. And what can a President do about state legislation in individual states? Nothing!

As for this questionably negative statement: "Secretary Clinton would classify marijuana in the same category as cocaine and continue to make marijuana a federally regulated substance.", that's true. As a "drug" that is used for medicinal purposes, she wants it in the same classification (Class II) as other medicinal drugs, which also includes morphine along with his scary "cocaine" and other medicinal drugs!!!

[MADem]

44. Indeed. But twisting is so much fun! What can a Senator do? What can a POTUS do?

This is all posturing. Talk-talk-talk. Neither Sanders nor Clinton will do shit about this--it's not in their charge. They cannot move this mountain.

There are people who have "views" on this issue, and those "views" inform their support (or lack thereof).

What did key state Ohio just do WRT this matter? They obviously didn't pay enough attention to CO, is what they did.

You're not going to see Congress tip on this. Not happening.

It will happen state-by-state, and CO with their millions in revenue from legalization are doing more than any speeches, finger pointing, hectoring, or demonstrations can do.

Revenue up, crime down. Win-win. Bring it on. It'll take a little while for people to get the spirit, but eventually, they will.

[Autumn]

48. His bill will end federal marijuana prohibition.

[MADem]

51. His bill will die in committee. nt

[Autumn]

52. His bill means he's doing something. Hillary's idea is a bit off the top and more of the same.nt

[MADem]

54. His bill will die in committee. nt

[Autumn]

58. You hope.nt

[MADem]

70. Don't be silly. His bill will die in committee. You do know who runs the

Senate these days, don't you? Vital Hint: It's not the Democrats.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. His Bill is the Seante version of the House bill introduced by Jared Polis, co-chair of Third Way

Polis introduced his version first in 2013 then again in March of this year. Now it is in the Senate as well.
But note that the originating Congressperson was Polis, and he's no Bernie Sanders. He's literally Third Way.

Polis's Bill has 18 co-sponsors, 17 Democrats and 1 Republican.

[JaneyVee]

9. 40 years in govt and now he comes around.

Sorry if you think this is anything less than pandering to the State's Rights crowd. FWIW, I do use mj and would rather just see it decriminalized, otherwise it will just become another giant corporate profit.

[Comrade Grumpy]

14. So, where's Hillary on this issue? Behind Bernie.

You want the people who grow the pot you smoke and sell it to you to go to jail, but not you? That's decriminalization.

I share your concerns about the corporatization of weed, but that can be addressed in state laws.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. So you are claiming the Clinton campaign is

opposed to market economies?

[arcane1]

24. Hillary would prefer you be incarcerated for it n/t

[Scootaloo]

46. As would Corrections Corporation of America

[BeanMusical]

60. +1000

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Hillary Clinton: "the states are the laboratories of democracy"

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/17/politics/clinton-town-hall-what-to-watch/

So, what was she saying there, Janey? Sure as shit sounded like she was saying that she endorsed a "states rights" approach to states that choose to legalize marijuana. In case you were not fully informed- i know, facts are tough- 4 states have fully legalized recreational marijuana and 3 of them are already currently operating successfully and bringing in revenue which can be fed into state tax coffers; and those businesses are barred from banking by ridiculous federal regulation.

What state do you live in? i'm gonna guess it's not one of those states. Also, next year it is increasingly likely more states, including one you may have heard of named "California", with a population of 34 million people, are likely to legalize.

Only difference with what Sanders is saying is, he supports making the same position HRC has informally adopted - and, will likely come around on after not too long, given the trajectory of public opinion- official now, and in the process allowing cannabis businesses - which are not going away- access to banking services and the like.

Also if you are hung up on the "states rights" bugaboo and conflict with federal law, guess what; medical marijuana laws are just as conflicted with federal law as recreational ones are. So, if 'states rights' on this issue makes you mad, better get cracking, there are a lot of cancer grannies flouting federal law with their chemo nausea pot brownies that need serious incarceratin'.

And guess what else? The ONLY candidate who has really promised to "get tough on those states rights potheads" is named Chris Christie.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Comrade Grumpy.

[George II]

20. But back in the 1990s he voted for legislation completely opposite. Is he "evolving"?

Or is he flip-flopping?

[arcane1]

23. He's "evolving" 1,000 times faster than Clinton.

She still thinks we should go to jail for pot

[Feeling the Bern]

30. Maybe she puffed but didn't inhale like her husband did

[Comrade Grumpy]

26. Why are you still here? Shameless, I guess. n/t

[sabrina 1]

21. Good for him. He has introduced legislation which, if she is changing her position now, she can

publicly support. I doubt we'll see her do that, but she should be asked about it.

[merrily]

28. sabrina 1, I'd like to state before God and everybody, I love you so much!

[sabrina 1]

31. And the feeling is mutual!

[arcane1]

22. I can't believe our front-runner wants people thrown in jail for pot, in 2015.

But she's getting donations from the private prison industry so she can do away with private prisons

[George II]

39. She's not getting donations from the private prison industry. Repeating that over and over again...

....won't make it true.

[arcane1]

45. But she DOES want you to go to jail for pot n/t

[eridani]

66. She was, but she stopped only in October 2015

http://fusion.net/story/220041/hillary-clinton-stops-accepting-contributions-from-private-prison/
More evolution in a good direction. Still Sanders leads and Clinton follows.

[George II]

80. The fact is she NEVER accepted any contributions from private prison companies. What happened....

....was that there were lobbying firms that among their clients were private prison companies as well as other clients.

They collected funds for Clinton from bona fide donors AND they collected funds for other campaigns from private prison companies.

Its easy for a writer to slyly misrepresent what actually happened and imply that they were collecting money for Clinton from prison companies.

So, here's a simple example of what was going on:

Lobbyist A accepts contributions on behalf of several clients.

A prison company contributes to client 1
Other companies (NOT prison companies) contribute to client 2 (Clinton)

Lobbyist A sends the respective contributions to both client 1 (among the contributions money from prison companies) and client 2 (Clinton)

BUT, those who want to damage Clinton's campaign moan "oh, she accepted from lobbyists that represent prison companies".

Once again, the lobbyists that people are moaning about represent a number of clients in several industries.

Read your article - nowhere in that article does it say that the Clinton campaign received contributions from private prison companies.

Now, if you go to the website for Capitol Counsel LLC, the most prominent lobbying firm that was "bundling" for Clinton, you'll see that in addition to two "private prison companies" their clients include:

American Health Care Association
Cardinal Health
Chevron
Chubb Corporation
Comcast
Edison Electric Institute
Exxon Mobil
General Electric
Health Care Service Corporation
JP Morgan Chase
Lockheed Martin
NAREIT
National Business Aviation Association
NCTA
New York Life Insurance Company
NFL
PhRMA
SIFMA
Wal-Mart

They just happen to also have those two prison companies as clients, which is what the Sanders people have latched onto.

[eridani]

88. The client list certainly has a lot of bad actors on it, no? n/t

[Feeling the Bern]

29. But. . .but, it's all worthless. He does nothing. He's in it for himself

He's sexist for challenging Hillary. It's all an act and everyone is seeing through it!

Waiting for the Hillarybots to come out and attack this fantastic policy decision from Bernie in 5,4,3,2,1. . .

[notadmblnd]

33. I'm still trying to figure out why she announced this to a predominately black group

As if all POC are chronics and they would applaud at the news of her new found stance on Marijuana.

But hey, I'm sure it wasn't an example of her bigotry slipping out. People here have given her the benefit of the doubt however, If Senator Sanders had said it to a group of AAs, I feel certain there would have been a different reaction in regards to it.

[MADem]

50. Probably because what you are being TOLD is not what she actually said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-marijuana-reform_563e5fc4e4b0307f2cadb82a

Hillary Clinton Proposes Reclassifying Marijuana As A Less Dangerous Drug
Doing so would allow more medical research, she said.

Hillary Clinton wants to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous substance in order to allow more research into the drug's medicinal properties, the Democratic presidential candidate said Saturday in South Carolina.

Marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule I drug, the most dangerous of five substance categories listed in the Controlled Substances Act. According to the federal classification, Schedule I drugs have "no currently accepted medical use." Other Schedule I substances include heroin, ecstasy and LSD.

Under Clinton's proposal, marijuana would become a Schedule II substance, which are considered to have "less abuse potential." Cocaine, OxyContin, Adderall and meth are Schedule II drugs. The move, Clinton said Saturday, would allow federal researchers to explore how to best use marijuana as medicine.

"What I do want is for us to support research into medical marijuana because a lot more states have passed medical marijuana than have legalized marijuana, so we've got two different experiences or even experiments going on right now," Clinton said after being asked about marijuana prohibition during a town hall. "And the problem with medical marijuana is there's a lot of anecdotal evidence about how well it works for certain conditions, but we haven't done any research. Why? Because it's considered what's called a Schedule I drug and you can't even do research in it."

"If we're going to have a lot of states setting up marijuana dispensaries so that people who have some kind of medical need are getting marijuana, we need know what's the quality of it, how much should you take, what should you avoid if you're taking other medications," she continued. .......

[Bluenorthwest]

55. The problem she will face on this issue is that there are millions of very informed people who

understand the complexities very well. She can't catch phase this, this is an issue that has in fact been repeatedly decided by American voters who know much about it having been educated by an organized and very effective movement.

[MADem]

62. Did you even read what she said?

This is just not an issue for the federal government. Congress will not act.

And there are also millions of NOT very informed people who don't like this turn of events one bit. They reject change--they like the status quo. Many of them live in OHIO. There's a corporate overlay to this issue that makes it both complex and unsavory--and that IS part of the mix, as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/03/ohio-rejected-legalizing-marijuana-what-that-means-for-the-future-of-pot/

She could change the schedule of the drug as POTUS, maybe with an executive order, to do research. Research might change minds--like that Sanjay Gupta special moved the needle a bit.

Sanders bill will DIE in committee. It won't move forward. No one is voting on that thing. Fuggedabout it. That was sop to his base, nothing more.

This battle will take place in the states, one state at a time, and people who want to move it forward would do well to align themselves with NORML because they've got the best lobbying scheme working.

I favor legalization, but I am not so stupid that I think that everyone feels the way I do just BECAUSE I'm right and the rest of those poopy heads are WRONG. There are a lot of people who are in need of more education on this subject, but they're not going to accept it fire-hose-style from a group of hectoring true believers.

State-by-state. That's how this rolls for now. When we hit the tipping point, the feds fold--but we have a ways to go on that score.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. Yes I did and I understood it.

You are years behind. What Bernie is saying is to de-list cannabis. That does not make it legal nationally, it does exactly what you claim to support, allow the States to do as they wish with cannabis laws.
If you say it is State by Sate you agree with Bernie. I live in a State where cannabis is legal today, that's the will of the people here. We agree with Bernie.

This is an area where Hillary needs to get up to date and up to speed. Flailing your arms won't work. We are the people who already organized and made change. We know what we are doing. That's why we have made so much progress.

4 States are already legal. So when you say 'the battle will take place' I'm telling you that in some places it already has. What you speak is not news, it's a report about the past.
East Coast: We need to think about talking about maybe discussing reform.
West Coast: Cannabis store opens at 10 am.

See the difference? We are living the difference. State by State.

[notadmblnd]

59. Nope, not convinced

It does not matter what I heard or how it was phrased. She chose that particular group of people to announce her position to.

Why would she assume that medical Marijuana was such an important issue for POC that she chose to announce her position to a predominately African American group (since it is predominately Caucasians that advocate for the decriminalization/legalization and use of medical Marijuana) when she has not made it a part of her platform in the past?

[dreamnightwind]

85. In fairness to her (not that she deserves any fairness from us)...

marijuana laws disproportionately impact POC because of asymetrical prosecution. Legalizing pot would hep their cause a lot.

Many of the stop-and-frisk and vehicular pull-overs have pot as the thing they hope to ail people on, and these tactics are usually used on blacks and hippies. Nobody but me and a few other losers care about hippies, but POC are an important election demographic.

If Bernie wins them over (which doesn't appear likely, sadly) Hillary is in trouble, so she's shoring up her support in that community. My take on it anyway.

[Enthusiast]

37. Kicked and recommended to the Max! Thank you, Comrade Grumpy.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Her 'plan' is no plan at all, she should have said nothing. Her cannabis policy is antique and

contrary to the will of the people of Oregon, of Colorado, of Alaska and of Washington. Bernie has been to legalized States and listened to the people.

[yallerdawg]

57. Senator Sanders (I-VT) pandering for the pot smokers contingency?

Doesn't he know these are 'least likely voters'?

Least likely to do anything?

[eridani]

67. They sure came out in WA and CO in 2012

Give them a reason, and they'll be out in force in 2016.

[MADem]

73. But not in Ohio in 2015. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

76. Didn't take long for people to start misinterpreting the "mandate" of that thing, did it?

Just as I predicted.

It failed because it was a SHITTY FUCKING INITIATIVE. Willie Nelson was against it. If your pot legalization initiative can't swing the Willie Nelson vote, you need a new fucking initiative.

That was a vote against craptastic initiatives and thinly veiled giveaways to large donors, not against legalization.



Also, why the fuck does everyone forget that Oregon is legal, too, now? And Alaska, although IIRC only Oregon has joined WA and CO in allowing retail sales for recreational use.

[eridani]

77. The certainly did. They voted against establishing a monopoly on MJ growing.

MPP did not even take a position on the law. Their statement post-election--

https://www.mpp.org/news/press/mpp-issues-statement-regarding-the-outcome-of-the-ohio-marijuana-initiative/

“It’s pretty obvious that the outcome in Ohio does not reflect where the nation stands or the direction in which it is heading when it comes to marijuana policy. It only reflects where Ohio voters stand on a specific and rather unique proposal in an off-year election. It will not have any bearing on the outcomes of the initiatives that we expect to appear on other states’ ballots in 2016.

“When voters in Nevada or Massachusetts get to the ballot box one year from now, they are not going to be thinking about what happened in Ohio a year earlier. They are going to be thinking about the problems marijuana prohibition has caused their states for so many years and the benefits of replacing it with a more sensible system. These initiatives will also benefit from heightened voter turnout during a presidential election year. The more voters that turn out, the more support we tend to see for marijuana policy reform.

“Polls show a strong and growing majority of Americans think marijuana should be legal for adults. There is a lot of momentum building behind the movement to end marijuana prohibition heading into 2016. Election Day was relatively uneventful this year, but next year it will be truly historic.”

[Warren DeMontague]

78. just as I feared, people are gonna flog that turd like "oh, see, legalization isn't very popular"

No, the shitty initiative wasn't popular.

Let Ohio vote on a halfway decent measure, and then you can make statements about the temperature of sentiment on the issue in the state.

Also, I suspect CA will be voting on legalization next year, too. To continue to promote the stupid saw that "potheads don't vote" after they came out in droves in WA, CO, OR and AK.. is ludicrous

[Warren DeMontague]

79. pop quiz: Name a state that bucked the national trend in 2014 & voted for Democrats statewide

perhaps not entirely coincidentally at the same time they were voting in a clear majority to legalize cannabis for adult recreational use?

where the State Democratic party has enjoyed continued support despite flagging support nationally?

Where the State Democratic party unequivocally supports legalization, unlike the DNC?

A state with the first US Senator to publicly come out in favor of legalization?



And, quite possibly the most beautiful state in the Union, although I'm biased.

[Bluenorthwest]

84. The cannabis reform movement opposed that bill, kid. Bad law. However 31 electoral votes are held

by States that are legal today. 31. Wait until California climbs on board......

[Warren DeMontague]

87. I remember being told here on DU circa '07 or so "pot will never be legal, it's not a SERIOUS ISSUE"

Not serious harumph harumph harumph.

Some people still haven't got the memo, I guess.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Yeah, keep treating it like it's a giant fucking joke. 4 states and counting, ha ha.

Colorado, a crucial electoral college swing state, yuk yuk yuk

Probably, next year, California. 34 million people. A Lt. Governor who supports legalization. 55 EC votes.

Har dee har har harrrrrrr

[BeanMusical]

61. Kick and R

[Babel_17]

64. This is a real issue for many families that don't have the connections, or the money

This is a real issue for many families that don't have the connections, or the money for lawyers, to deal with it when a loved one gets busted. You can lose your job and/or go to jail. You can find it harder to get employed again.

[UglyGreed]

81. K/R

[dreamnightwind]

86. K & R

Real change versus more of the same. I'm with Bernie too. Thanks for the OP, CG.

I wonder how long it will take for you to be accused of sexism for talking about half of Hillary's ass? I'd laugh if it wasn't an actual possibility.

[Cheese Sandwich]

89. It should just be legal already.