Utopia Talk / Politics / GOP to legalize weed federally

Habebe Member	Tue Nov 16 05:02:05 http://www...level/ar-AAQJRme?ocid=BingNews Remember when they were many of the weirdos against it? As long as democrats don't consider it white supremacy its seems a shoe in.
murder Member	Tue Nov 16 09:30:29 It says right in the story that Democrats have already proposed this.
kargen Member	Tue Nov 16 12:29:42 No the Democrats proposal had many key differences a few that are listed in the article linked. There is a huge difference in 3% tax and 25% tax. So they didn't already propose this. Both sides have proposed different things in the past though. Here is an article with more detail. http://www...ill-to-decriminalize-marijuana
murder Member	Tue Nov 16 19:23:50 The thread is about legalizing pot ... not about making it cheap. Whatever it is for tobacco, make it the same for pot.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 16 21:45:17 "Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina, who is spear-heading the legislative effort, described the bill as a "compromise" with less onerous regulations than measures proposed earlier by other lawmakers including Democrats." she's a RINO according to the cult leader
patom Member	Wed Nov 17 05:06:41 If the legalize it and want to tax the bejesus out of it, they will make the mobile retailers very happy. Canada legalized it and built retail stores that aren't really paying for themselves. Too much overhead trying to compete with people selling pot from the trunk of their cars.
murder Member	Wed Nov 17 07:45:50 I believe it's not a point of sale tax.
kargen Member	Wed Nov 17 15:08:17 It is about decriminalizing pot not legalizing. There is a difference. Decriminalize leaves it to the state to decide to legalize or not. If the federal government sticks a 25% tax on marijuana that doesn't leave much for states and local governments to also tax. Tobacco products have a federal excise tax on them but for cigarettes it is a set amount per pack. Excise taxes are usually a set amount on a specific amount. Such as twenty cents on every gallon of gas or something like that. So as the price of gas increases the percent that is excise tax declines. So not sure how the 3% excise tax would apply. I know congress has considered several times on tobacco to increase excise tax and make it automatically adjust for inflation. I think the point is the Democrats want to use the issue to give the federal government more control where the Republican plan keeps most the power with the state. Also explains why the Democrats may want the FDA to oversee both medical and recreational where the Republican plan wants recreational to be under the Treasury's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau like alcohol is. The big thing this would do is get the federal government out of the way so states could decide for themselves what they want to do. It also provides a way for transport of legal marijuana from one legal state to another legal state.
Dukhat Member	Wed Nov 17 22:27:38 States are more onerous than federal law. My cbd oil is illegal in some states or in a dangerous grey area. Why? Because asshole republican legislators love to “own the libs.” It’s better to have everything standardized. And Republicans are simply virtue signalling. They would never rile their evangelical base by making more drugs legal. Rugian and kargen always buy this dumb shit because they are dumb shits. Also potheads are morons. Cbd oil by itself has all the good stuff.p without any of the other bad effects.
kargen Member	Wed Nov 17 23:34:32 All this does is get the federal government out of the way. Right now the marijuana industry is a cash only industry because of federal law. This bill would change that. These businesses could start using a bank to deposit funds and otherwise be treated like a real business. It would allow states to export marijuana to other states that also have legalized marijuana. So if marijuana is legal in Colorado and Missouri but not Kansas it would allow transport carrying marijuana to go through Kansas. That means other states get to experience some of what I have been told is among the best weed ever. Marijuana that has been grown in the Roaring Fork and Rifle areas of Colorado for decades. So this bill would be a double win for Republicans. They get to claim support for states rights federally and get to if they so choose oppose marijuana at the state and local level. States and local law would still choose. I live in Colorado but I still would have about a three hour drive to legally buy marijuana products because the county governments around here are opposed to legalizing marijuana. It isn't better to have everything standardized. We don't need a strong and overbearing (or even more overbearing than now) federal government. Just like a federal minimum wage isn't a good idea neither is this unless done properly. That would mean an amendment to the constitution and even then I think it is better to just let each state decide. Makes sense for the federal government to be out of the way on this one. And need I remind you, I am not a Republican. I've been an advocate of smaller federal and stronger state government since before Mehul created a political forum. My biggest complaints about President Trump was his willingness to increase the debt and his use of executive orders. The absolute biggest complaint was that he threatened withholding federal funds from cities that didn't do what he wanted. Even if I agreed with his position I abhor the tactic used.
patom Member	Thu Nov 18 04:38:35 Maybe it would ease the restriction at the US/Canada border. It's legal in both New Brunswick and Maine but don't cross the border with it. Even if you have a prescription for it.
murder Member	Thu Nov 18 08:10:51 "It isn't better to have everything standardized." Do you favor every state having it's own patent and trademark office? It's own money?
Habebe Member	Thu Nov 18 08:23:29 Screw you, English and your currency. #Whiskeyistheonlycurrency
kargen Member	Thu Nov 18 13:49:21 murder are you aware of a document titled Constitution of the United States of America? Section 8 applies to currency and patents. Remember my view is the federal government should as much as possible be limited to specifically the powers granted by the constitution. And you can get a state trademark. The trademark is then only applicable in that state. I am Libertarian but I understand the need for meat inspectors.
murder Member	Thu Nov 18 16:33:51 So you do see the value of standardization ... you just want to limit it to whatever you think is beneficial.
kargen Member	Thu Nov 18 16:57:36 Has nothing to do with what I think really. I don't think the government has any cause to be in the abortion debate one way or the other. If the government is going to be on one side of that issue it is better at the state level that the federal level. States rights and decisions should whenever possible take priority over federal laws and regulations. Where an issue has an affect on the entire country it then and only then should be elevated to federal level. Infrastructure is a good example. It makes sense for the federal government to maintain the interstate system and regulate the airline industry in some ways. Federal standards for safe bridges along the interstates and highway system is good. THe federal government threatening to withhold funding because a state doesn't want to comply with the speed limit or minimum age to purchase alcohol not good. Living wage based on a federal standard not good. Living wage based on a local cost of living index not so bad. States having the ability to decide for themselves legalize marijuana or not considering what we have now a good thing. Even better would be if it weren't criminalized by states or federal governments at all. Same with most drugs.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: