AG Chris Christie possible Hellscape for stoners

[Subgenius]

There is a much concern within the cannabis community about the possibility of Donald Trump actually winning the presidency. Within that consideration is also the nightmare possibility of an Attorney General Chris Christie. While “The Donald” has been as wishy-washy on pot policy as he is on any policy, except building a wall, Chris Christie is one of the most consistent foes of marijuana in the country.

So what would happen to marijuana legalization under a Trump/Christie Department of Justice?

Simple—all the legal states would become just like Washington, D.C.

The federal government enforces the Controlled Substances Act, which is the law that makes marijuana illegal as a Schedule I drug. That law is backed up by the federal government’s enumerated powers to regulate the commerce between states. And thanks to the Gonzales v. Raich decision, it doesn’t even matter if the marijuana is for personal use and never sold, the feds have the power to keep it illegal.

But what the federal government cannot do is force a state to enforce federal laws.

If an Attorney General Chris Christie decided he wanted to shut down marijuana legalization, he could file federal injunctions to prevent the commercial cultivation and sales of marijuana. He could invalidate all the licensing provided by the legal states to the commercial entities in cannabis production, processing, testing and retailing. Those all fall under the federal commerce clause powers.

But he would be unable to force Colorado, Oregon, Washington or Alaska police to arrest people for possession and cultivation of cannabis. Essentially, we’d end up like Washington, D.C.’s “grow and give” system, where it would be legal to grow, possess and give marijuana to one another, but not buy or sell it (*wink wink, nudge nudge*).

Keep in mind that if there should be an Attorney General Christie, he’d be reacting not only to four currently legal states, but also the possibility of five more legal states, which would include California. Those states would never get their commercial systems running, but their legalization of possession and cultivation would still hold.

Oh, sure, AG Christie could order the DEA to go around busting personal home cultivators, but their time is going to be dominated by serving raid warrants against commercial operators throughout the West. Nothing is going to stop the people in the legal states (except Washington) from cultivating their own cannabis.

With no threat of harassment or punishment for cultivating and possessing, the marijuana black market will flourish. The crime associated with black markets will increase. The local governments accustomed to reaping marijuana tax revenue will make drastic cuts. The horrible optics of medical marijuana being shutdown nationwide, with thousands of patients and caregivers protesting, will become ubiquitous on social media and the evening news.

Oddly enough, a President Trump/AG Christie could increase support for marijuana legalization by providing such a drastic example of what happens without legal marijuana markets. Before legalization, people just accepted the status quo of prohibition. Now that tokers and non-tokers have experienced shopping in dispensaries—and how that reduces crime, improves neighborhoods and increases the economy—going back to a prohibition economy with legal personal use will be unacceptable.

But just to be sure, let’s not ever find out. Don’t vote for Donald Trump.

[ÂçïÐ_Rëƒlü×®]

Christie is one of the most consistent foes of marijuana in the country.

So what would happen to marijuana legalization under a Trump/Christie Department of Justice?

Simple—all the legal states would become just like Washington, D.C.

I hope so

[Uruk-High]

Yeah, Christie is definitely a dick, especially with MJ. Mrs Pantsuit on the other hand is no friend of MJ either. She may be pandering the other way now, but that's all it is. Do a bit of research on that and you'll see what I mean. No effin way I'll ever vote for her to have a license to give us another Ojackass term on steroids. I'll take my chances with Trump and my black market bud, thanks.

[Subgenius]

I agree Uruk! I don't want to vote  for either one of these candidates. I think  Gov.Gary Johnson the Libertarian candidate would be a good choice since he wants to legalize weed. However, he doesn't stand much of a chance against Trump or Clinton. Voting for the Libertarian candidate is like voting for Pat Paulsen. This would be akin to throwing my vote away and in reality would actually help one of the other candidates.

[ÂçïÐ_Rëƒlü×®]

Trump or Clinton is going to win no matter what we do. I am going to stay out of this one. i have never missed a vote since I registered but this time I cannot in good conscience vote for either and I am not going to vote for someone who has zero chance to "make a statement".

Now that all those DNC leaked e-mails came out proving a conscience effort to get rid of Bernie it would be cool if they somehow got Bernie nominated...

FREE THE WEED 

[Uruk-High]

I was definitely hoping that this was Rand Paul's year. Figured that would get the GOP tracking more Libertarian, which is acceptable to me, so I know where you're coming from. I've voted third party ticket before, but don't think I can bring myself to do that this time around. The stakes are way too high, and the Republic is on the line. I totally get your desire to sit this one out, Acid, but don't do it. I would suggest that the Hildafelon will indeed make a statement if she's allowed to win. Her statement is going to be pay to play is just fine with her, so there's going to be a fire sale on everything that makes America great - as long as she gets to line her pockets along the way. This woman is truly disgusting. I think Assange made a great point yesterday about the leaks -

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Julian, your reaction to the announced resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz shortly after the release of these emails?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, I mean, that’s interesting. We have seen that with a lot of other publications. I guess there’s a question: What does that mean for the U.S. Democratic Party? It is important for there to be examples of accountability. The resignation was an example of that. Now, of course, Hillary Clinton has tried to immediately produce a counter-example by putting out a statement, within hours, saying that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a great friend, and she’s incorporating her into her campaign, she’s going to be pushing for her re-election to the Congress.

So that’s a very interesting signaling by Hillary Clinton that if you act in a corrupt way that benefits Hillary Clinton, you will be taken care of. Why does she need to put that out? Certainly, it’s not a signal that helps with the public at all. It’s not a signal that helps with unity at the DNC, at the convention. It’s a signal to Hillary Clinton partisans to keep on going on, you’ll be taken care of. But it’s a very destructive signal for a future presidency, because it’s—effectively, it’s expanding the Overton window of corruption. It doesn’t really matter what you do, how you behave; as long as that is going to benefit Hillary Clinton, you’ll be protected.

There's more here - http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/25/exclusive_wikileaks_julian_assange_on_releasing

Think about it. When most scandals erupt, those anywhere near it usually go into immediate damage control. 'I condemn these acts, this behavior is totally unacceptable, etc." As for Clinton, hell no! Not a word against, and she immediately hires the chief instigator. Truly flippin amazing, and I don't hear anyone on the left calling this stuff out. And there are still lemmings out there that will actually vote for this woman thinking she's really a good person. It feels like the media has successfully created some sort of mass delusion for these folks. That's some Orwellian shit there.

As for Bernie, oh well. Dude was full of it as far as I'm concerned. Not an ounce of integrity with that one, and Fauxcahontas Warren is just the same. They talk a good anti establishment/Wall St game, sure, but when push came to shove, they caved to the party line as quick as you can say, 'Now I'm gonna have to cover my ass and job, so screw the people.' Think about it. How sad is it that the much maligned Ted Cruz at least had the balls and integrity to withhold his endorsement of Trump, but Bernie and Warren were licking the boots of the very establishment that they rail against as soon as it was apparent things weren't going to go their way? Pathetic! They're apparently professional politicians to the very core.

So things are now far from optimal in this election, but there's a clear distinction between our two real options. On one side of the fence, the people managed to soundly kick the entrenched establishments ass and there's real hope for some change. On the other side, the people failed to win, and the establishment is looking forward to at least 4 more years of screwing the American people over for their exclusive benefit. With that in mind, both my choice and conscience are quite clear -

Trump/Pence 2016!

LOL, had to add this one -



And Free da Weed!