|
MaxxBot posted:It might be low-hanging fruit in that he would have a good legal case but it's not low-hanging fruit in that it's very politically unpopular, there is no demographic group out there that supports federal raids on the legal marijuana market. Even the evangelicals don't really care about weed much anymore and strong opposition mostly comes from law enforcement and weirdos like Kevin Sabet. That said, all evidence points to the fact that Sessions himself is a drug warrior and might be interested in doing it just because he personally thinks it's a good idea. I very much doubt that Trump would encourage him to do something that's very unpopular around an issue he probably doesn't really care much about, I think it all comes down to how much Sessions personally desires to pick this fight. Trump has already indicated that he plans to be incredibly hands-off, so be prepared for his Czars to do whatever they feel like. The best hope for legal weed is that hands-off Trump allows for inter-departmental squabbles in his absence that hinders Sessions. I don't have high hopes.
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
Given that we don't have rational actors in the drivers seat right now, and we already are committing to a sisyphean waste of money in regards to border policing, I wouldn't put too much faith in "lack of resources" dictating policy. I suppose border policing is a more popular policy then weed crackdown, but then I go back to the irrational reactionaries we have who are deaf to criticism.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Yes, but. Assuming they get stymied on raid cooperation and get cold feet about the manpower needed, I assume they would then move instead to indirect action like cutting federal funds until they get cooperation. Would the tax income from weed sales cover the shortfall left from the absence of grants? Has anyone in the lobby groups tried to figure this out?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 03:43
|
|