
Trump says he is likely to support ending blanket federal ban on marijuana - adventured
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-marijuana-20180608-story.html
======
wallace_f
Marijuana prohibition was never constitutional in the first place. In Gonzalez
vs Raich SCOTUS narrowly ruled the commerce clause ('the fed's constitutional
power to regulate interstate commerce') gave the feds jurisdiction over
personal consumption of plants. As Thomas noted: this case had nothing to do
with the commerce clause and gave the fed unlimited power.

Every single civil liberty from gay rights to privacy to prohibition of plants
and drinks has to somehow go through a political movement rather than just be
acknowledged as already constitutionally granted: the federal government was
just never intended to have that power.

------
tootie
Just to be clear, he said he is willing to sign a bipartisan bill to that
effect. Congress is doing the work and he's just not overruling them.

------
billfruit
Is there a consistant opinion from Democrats on this at a federal level? This
is one of the interesting topics that wasn't largely discussed much in the
past presidential elections.

~~~
foota
I don't think a lot of blue state democrats could get away with a hard stance
against marijuana, maybe more so in red states though.

------
wiredearp
What he would _perhaps_ support was a bill to ensure that each state has the
right to determine for itself the best approach to marijuana within its
borders [1]. To me, this sounds different from ending the ban on a federal
level, which is what the title would suggest.

[1]
[https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/STATES%20Act%20O...](https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/STATES%20Act%20One%20Pager.pdf)
(PDF)

~~~
dragonwriter
> To me, this sounds different from ending the ban on a federal level, which
> is what the title would suggest.

This is exactly ending the ban on a federal level. It is not affirmatively
creating a federal right to marijuana which would prohibit state regulation,
but then we don't do that with most things that are legal.

This is pretty exactly what the state was with the end of prohibition of
alcohol, for instance.

~~~
wiredearp
That does makes sense, thanks.

------
the-dude
GDPR block.

edit: other link [http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/national/trump-says-he-
is...](http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/national/trump-says-he-is-likely-to-
support-ending-federal-ban-on-marijuana-20180608)

~~~
SOLAR_FIELDS
Which country? I was able to access from Sweden.

~~~
whyever
It's blocked in Germany.

~~~
chris_wot
Under what grounds? Sure, GDPR and all, but what specifically triggered this?

~~~
CydeWeys
Laziness. Some sites are just blocking all European visitors on the mistaken
assumption that that complies with GDPR. They're not willing to undertake any
further dev work.

~~~
mirashii
I don't think it's useful to use laziness to describe this, as it's needlessly
perjorative. It may be that they've decided that the ROI is not there for
complying with GDPR, or that the risk of an inadvertant fail is too high and
expensive. Laziness may be the case, but it's unwise to assume.

------
MBCook
I bet a lot of money he’s only saying this to annoy Jeff Sessions. We already
know that Sessions wants to be hard on marijuana, and Trump is very clearly
mad at him.

Either way, does this matter? It should be clear by now the value of one of
Trump’s statements. We have more than enough history to know that they’re
often not a reliable indicator of anything.

~~~
jrs95
In the article it’s mentioned that Trump has already maintained Obama’s policy
on this issue by ordering the DoJ not to prosecute anyone in states where it
is legal. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that he would support this
measure as well.

~~~
MBCook
That may be. He’s very consistent on some things (the wall, Muslim ban) and
changes his mind wildly on others.

Given a single quote that I don’t know the history of, I just have to assume
it’s not trustworthy.

I didn’t know he had a history of saying this. If he did you’re probably
right.

------
chris_wot
I'll believe it when he puts a bill to Congress, and actively works towards
getting it passed. Till then, it's just another thing Trump says he's going to
do.

~~~
dragonwriter
He's saying he will likely support a bipartisan effort already in Congress, so
sending a new bill to Congress would be inconsistent with what he claims, and
a poor basis for believing it.

~~~
chris_wot
Fair enough. When he actively supports that bipartisan effort, then I'll
believe him!

With Trump, actions speak louder than words.

------
onewhonknocks
I made an identical submission yesterday, which was flagged.

