By "I personally oppose recreational marijuana" do you mean opposing legalisation? I don't see how criminalising a drug that does less physical harm than alcohol is beneficial to anyone but organised crime, and for-profit prisons.
Yes, I mean that I endorse legalization for medicinal purposes, but not recreational.
In part, so that it does not become as rampant as alcohol in our society (and I say that as an alcohol drinker!).
But I understand your point about organised crime and prisons. That is another reason for reclassifying it from Schedule I to less serious Schedule III. Although the recent action only changes the classification for medical use--recreational would still treat it as Schedule I. I would agree that it should be Schedule III whether medical or recreational.
Still, while we may disagree on how far to go, I think we can agree that this is a good step (and, in fact, Biden was also looking to do something similar but he was following the slower regulatory process rather than just having a high official decree it).
But marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, so why would it be a problem if recreational use was more widespread? I don't use recreational marijuana or drink alcohol (or use any recreational drug besides caffeine), but most of the negative effects of marijuana use comes from its illegality and not marijuana itself (even the negative effects on the lungs from smoking marijuana come from smoking it rather than anything intrinsic to marijuana - smoking anything is bad for the lungs). If marijuana was sold like alcohol - requiring ID, subject to taxation, not sold to intoxicated people - you would halt organised crime's use of illegal growing overnight.
Would you be in favour of making alcohol illegal? If not, I don't understand wanting to keep recreational marijuana illegal.
I consider reclassifying marijuana to be a good decision. While I personally oppose recreational marijuana, the old classification prohibited it from being used for medical purposes---while happily letting doctors prescribe narcotics like hydrocodone and even morphine. That never made sense to me. The old classification put severe obstacles in front of American scientists to even properly research the medicinal benefits of marijuana.
It was almost like the pharmaceutical companies didn't' want research on whether a plant-based substance might be as effective at pain control as their high-priced pharmaceuticals!
So, yes, I applaud Trump for his actions in this regard. It was long overdue.
I agree that this is a good thing, but opioid drugs are very much also plant-based substances. Opioids very much have their valid medical uses too - they are very effective, the problem is the physiologically addictive issues with them. Pharmaceutical companies are very interested in medical marijuana so any lobbying was likely from religious organisations - my main suspects would be the Mormons, personally.
By "I personally oppose recreational marijuana" do you mean opposing legalisation? I don't see how criminalising a drug that does less physical harm than alcohol is beneficial to anyone but organised crime, and for-profit prisons.
Funny, I got a dental procedure done a few years ago and jumped a little when the ortho told me he was going to put me on fentanyl. He explained that fentanyl was simply the most effective painkiller for the job, and there was absolutely no risk to it if it was dosed appropriately. No side effects, no problems.
The problem with drugs isn't the use, it's the abuse.
Yes, fentanyl patches are quite common as a veterinary painkiller for example (I don't know if they're used for humans too, although a surprising number of medications can be used for both humans and non-human animals).
Canada is incredibly close to Europe, Pomona. St. Pierre et Miquelon are just off the coast of Newfoundland not to mention the proximity of Greenland to Baffin Island.
If Australia can take part in the Eurovision Song Contest, I don't see why Canada can't join the EU. And thinking about it, I can see quite a few benefits for both sides. Not that it will ever happen, though.
By "I personally oppose recreational marijuana" do you mean opposing legalisation? I don't see how criminalising a drug that does less physical harm than alcohol is beneficial to anyone but organised crime, and for-profit prisons.
Yes, I mean that I endorse legalization for medicinal purposes, but not recreational.
In part, so that it does not become as rampant as alcohol in our society (and I say that as an alcohol drinker!).
But I understand your point about organised crime and prisons. That is another reason for reclassifying it from Schedule I to less serious Schedule III. Although the recent action only changes the classification for medical use--recreational would still treat it as Schedule I. I would agree that it should be Schedule III whether medical or recreational.
Still, while we may disagree on how far to go, I think we can agree that this is a good step (and, in fact, Biden was also looking to do something similar but he was following the slower regulatory process rather than just having a high official decree it).
But marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, so why would it be a problem if recreational use was more widespread? I don't use recreational marijuana or drink alcohol (or use any recreational drug besides caffeine), but most of the negative effects of marijuana use comes from its illegality and not marijuana itself (even the negative effects on the lungs from smoking marijuana come from smoking it rather than anything intrinsic to marijuana - smoking anything is bad for the lungs). If marijuana was sold like alcohol - requiring ID, subject to taxation, not sold to intoxicated people - you would halt organised crime's use of illegal growing overnight.
Would you be in favour of making alcohol illegal? If not, I don't understand wanting to keep recreational marijuana illegal.
Agreed—I don’t think either should be illegal at all.
I have no good counter argument, @Pomona . I guess it is just an irrational prejudice on my part.
But, to get the thread back on topic, would you agree that, even though it is just a baby step, the change is a good thing that the Trump Administration has done?
Trump appears to have done good here on Oil company price gouging. I remember George Osborne, sometime Oxford Street shelf stacker, doing similar when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer under David Cameron.
Trump appears to have done good here on Oil company price gouging. I remember George Osborne, sometime Oxford Street shelf stacker, doing similar when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer under David Cameron.
I'm not an expert on the oil market and the intersection between natural supply/demand trends AND politics on the price, but I can't help but thinking this is mostly Trump trying to distract attention from his own role in creating a situation that at least arguably had a major influence in creating the recent price-spike.
That said, it's always interesting to see populist-conservatives brawling with the corporate-elite faction, especially because the tycoons usually have a lot more tricks and tools at their disposal than the usual left-wing opposition. From the POV of cynical politics, it would be good for the Democrats if the oil companies were able to stop Trump from carrying out whatever strategies he has to get the price down.
If I'm not mistaken, the recent hat-trick of anti-Trump SCOTUS rulings continues the pattern of Trump-appointed judges being the most likely among the conservative bloc to join in decisions smacking down Trump himself.
Because, of course, Trump had the sagacious wisdom to realize he should appoint independent-minded jurists with the willingness to follow their consciences and rule against anyone they thought was in the wrong, including, if needs be, himself.
Alternative theory: Trump just wanted judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and didn't bother examining any other implications of their respective legal theories because he wasn't thinking any further than his quid pro quo with the religious right.
Washington state went green (allowing for recreational marijuana) five years ago. There have been no real adverse social impacts that I can detect.
It was longer ago than that. 2012.
And how does this connect to the theme of "Trump, the Good Guy"? Because Trump never reversed the federal policy of tolerating legalization at the state level? That's true, and I remember him announcing that as a policy during the 2016 campaign season.
Washington state went green (allowing for recreational marijuana) five years ago. There have been no real adverse social impacts that I can detect.
It was longer ago than that. 2012.
And how does this connect to the theme of "Trump, the Good Guy"? Because Trump never reversed the federal policy of tolerating legalization at the state level? That's true, and I remember him announcing that as a policy during the 2016 campaign season.
Washington state went green (allowing for recreational marijuana) five years ago. There have been no real adverse social impacts that I can detect.
It was longer ago than that. 2012.
And how does this connect to the theme of "Trump, the Good Guy"? Because Trump never reversed the federal policy of tolerating legalization at the state level? That's true, and I remember him announcing that as a policy during the 2016 campaign season.
That long ago? Time certainly flies.
My comment applies to what would happen if Trump decided to lower, or eliminate, the marijuana ban?
My answer is: not much. The states would get another source to tax and the bootlegging would diminish.
If I'm not mistaken, the recent hat-trick of anti-Trump SCOTUS rulings continues the pattern of Trump-appointed judges being the most likely among the conservative bloc to join in decisions smacking down Trump himself.
Because, of course, Trump had the sagacious wisdom to realize he should appoint independent-minded jurists with the willingness to follow their consciences and rule against anyone they thought was in the wrong, including, if needs be, himself.
Alternative theory: Trump just wanted judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade, and didn't bother examining any other implications of their respective legal theories because he wasn't thinking any further than his quid pro quo with the religious right.
The pattern partly continues with the just-released decision upholding birthright citizenship, featuring Bush-family appointees, along with Trump appointee Gorsuch, as the three judges voting on Trump's side. GWB appointee Roberts and Trump-appointees Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett voted with the majority, albeit with Kavanaugh dissenting in part.
I was surprised to see the doctrinaire textualist Gorsuch in the dissenting camp. Maybe he has some hyper-literalist reading of "domiciled"? I gather that was the pivotal concept.
GWB appointee Roberts and Trump-appointees Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett voted with the majority, albeit with Kavanaugh dissenting in part.
Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part. That means he agreed with the majority’s ultimate resolution, but he thought the majority got to that ultimate resolution the wrong way. He disagreed with the majority’s constitutional analysis but thought a statutory analysis got to the same conclusion.
GWB appointee Roberts and Trump-appointees Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett voted with the majority, albeit with Kavanaugh dissenting in part.
Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part. That means he agreed with the majority’s ultimate resolution, but he thought the majority got to that ultimate resolution the wrong way. He disagreed with the majority’s constitutional analysis but thought a statutory analysis got to the same conclusion.
Kavanaugh’s qualified concurrence seems to leave open for Congress to legislate in favour of a further restriction on birthright without a constitutional amendment. He finds that the Trump Ezecutive Order is not forbidden by the 14th Amendment but by another piece of Federal Legislation which Congress could amend.
Kavanaugh’s qualified concurrence seems to leave open for Congress to legislate in favour of a further restriction on birthright without a constitutional amendment. He finds that the Trump Ezecutive Order is not forbidden by the 14th Amendment but by another piece of Federal Legislation which Congress could amend.
This isn’t over.
Except that a majority of the Court said that the Executive Order does violate the 14th Amendment, and would almost certainly say that any law by Congress that tried to do what the Executive Order tried to do would similarly violate the 14th Amendment.
Even with Kavanaugh’s dissent in part, there would need to be at least one more justice open to the possibility of Congress being able to eliminate or limit birthright citizenship. Actually, there would likely need to be more than one, as the odds are that the next appointee to the Court will be replacing Thomas or Alito, and it’s one of the five justices in the majority who’d need to be replaced by someone open to the possibility.
That indeed is the logic of the situation. I haven’t got the link but apparently Trump has said on Truth social that “it isn’t over” and “Congress can easily make up the ground by legislation”. He’ll be pressurising for some kind of counter-punch or rearguard action.
Logically, he’s doomed to fail but when has that ever stopped him?
Has SCOTUS given him any wriggle room? It really doesn’t look like it but we’ll see.
Trump may try to get congress to redefine citizenship by law, but the court has spoken for now. As long as the majority justices remain on the bench, it is not going anywhere.
I’d say what Trump has said on Truth Social are posts of an idiot, full of sound and fury, dignifying nothing.
He can rant and urge all he wants, but the comment was that “Kavanaugh’s qualified concurrence seems to leave open for Congress to legislate in favour of a further restriction on birthright without a constitutional amendment.”
Given that a majority of the Court disagreed with Kavanaugh’s position, his position alone doesn’t leave any doors open for Congress to do anything.
I hope you’re right. I remember when the Supreme Court verdict re the Nixon tapes came down, unanimously, Nixon is said to have asked a simple question. “No air?”By which he meant wriggle room. There was none and shortly after he was gone.
My layman’s view of the detailed ruling is that the dissenting voices plus Kavanaugh have produced detailed arguments which we haven’t hear the last of There will be Republicans loyal to Trump and steered by him who may try to make these arguments signify something. Watch this space.
I wonder how much support there would be among Republicans in Congress to push for the end of birthright citizenship on Trump's behalf. It would definitely be a MAGA crowd-pleaser, but, as with a lot of other immigration-related issues, sudden and major changes in long-standing policy can likely butterfly pretty easily over into the economic realm, even if technically the crusade is only against the children of those in the country under improper legal auspices.
My layman’s view of the detailed ruling is that the dissenting voices plus Kavanaugh have produced detailed arguments which we haven’t hear the last of
We certainly may not have heard the last of it. But as things currently stand, the majority of the Court has rejected those arguments and has clearly stated that the Constitution is clear about birthright citizenship. Unless and until that changes, the arguments that Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch have articulated aren’t going to get the administration anywhere.
Oh I’m with you. Impeccable logic. I just don’t trust this Supreme Court. They aren’t above doing some kind of volte face with 60 pages of closely reasoned BS to justify it.
I’m reminded of something the veteran journalist Seymour Hersh said about the Nixon administration.
“The abiding characteristic of this administration is that it lies”.
True then and true in spades about the Trump administration. They spread poison everywhere.
Oh I’m with you. Impeccable logic. I just don’t trust this Supreme Court. They aren’t above doing some kind of volte face with 60 pages of closely reasoned BS to justify it.
But if they were gonna go to that trouble to do an about-face, why wouldn't they just have ruled in Trump's favour in the first place?
If you can understand the internal politics and divisions of the current SCOTUS you’re better than me. But I’m not wrong to suppose that future actions involving the Trump administration will be influenced by that administration’s reactions to previous rulings.
Regardless of their traditional independence under separation of powers, all institutions have to live with the wrath and volatility of Trump, and his indifference to separation of powers.
If you can understand the internal politics and divisions of the current SCOTUS you’re better than me. But I’m not wrong to suppose that future actions involving the Trump administration will be influenced by that administration’s reactions to previous rulings.
Regardless of their traditional independence under separation of powers, all institutions have to live with the wrath and volatility of Trump, and his indifference to separation of powers.
So, Trump will threaten to do something to the SCOTUS and they'll reverse their decision? Short of abolishing the court(which would likely necessitate martial law, in which case the whole discussion is in a very different place), the only thing I can think of is adding seats, or threatening to do so in order to provoke the switch-in-time-to-save-nine. I'd say that's not an impossibility, though he didn't do it after the tariffs ruling, so it's not something I'd mark down as anywhere near a certainty(*).
As for understanding the internal divisions of the court, as I said when I started this tangent, I don't think Trump's immediate aim in picking his judges was to find Trump loyalists, but simply to find judges who would overturn Roe v Wade, to fulfill an ironclad promise he had made to the religious right in the 2016 primaries. But he neglected to find out anything else about their judicial philosophies, possibly because he assumed they'd always vote for his position anyway.
(*) I'll also note that when Trump showed up at the court in person as an intimidation tactic during Trump v. Barbara, they didn't even acknowledge his presence. So they don't seem to be particularly in awe of him.
Oh I’m with you. Impeccable logic. I just don’t trust this Supreme Court. They aren’t above doing some kind of volte face with 60 pages of closely reasoned BS to justify it.
I wouldn’t expect individual justices to do an about face. What they did is, for the most part, consistent with their judicial philosophies. An about face for the Court as a whole requires new members of the Court.
So, Trump will threaten to do something to the SCOTUS and they'll reverse their decision? Short of abolishing the court(which would likely necessitate martial law, in which case the whole discussion is in a very different place), the only thing I can think of is adding seats, or threatening to do so in order to provoke the switch-in-time-to-save-nine. I'd say that's not an impossibility, though he didn't do it after the tariffs ruling, so it's not something I'd mark down as anywhere near a certainty(*).
Trump can’t add seats to the Court. Congress can, but Trump on his own can’t. And there are some strong reasons why Congress would be very reluctant to.
Trump has so far been unable to get his SAVE Act through the Senate, and there’s a good chance that after November, he won’t be able to get it through the House again. Adding seats that the Court would be a harder lift, I think.
Trump can’t add seats to the Court. Congress can, but Trump on his own can’t.
Yeah, I know. Though the original switch-in-time(assuming it happened and the judge wasn't planning to switch anyway) just involved FDR threatening to expand the seats and, IIRC, a Democrat in Congress introducing legislation to do so. I agree it's a long shot, in terms of convincing a judge to switch his vote, much less actually get new seats added.
But to clarify...
And there are some strong reasons why Congress would be very reluctant to.
Trump has so far been unable to get his SAVE Act through the Senate, and there’s a good chance that after November, he won’t be able to get it through the House again. Adding seats that the Court would be a harder lift, I think.
What are the reasons you think Republicans in Congress would be reluctant to go along with a court-packing scheme?
Comments
But marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, so why would it be a problem if recreational use was more widespread? I don't use recreational marijuana or drink alcohol (or use any recreational drug besides caffeine), but most of the negative effects of marijuana use comes from its illegality and not marijuana itself (even the negative effects on the lungs from smoking marijuana come from smoking it rather than anything intrinsic to marijuana - smoking anything is bad for the lungs). If marijuana was sold like alcohol - requiring ID, subject to taxation, not sold to intoxicated people - you would halt organised crime's use of illegal growing overnight.
Would you be in favour of making alcohol illegal? If not, I don't understand wanting to keep recreational marijuana illegal.
Yes, fentanyl patches are quite common as a veterinary painkiller for example (I don't know if they're used for humans too, although a surprising number of medications can be used for both humans and non-human animals).
Agreed—I don’t think either should be illegal at all.
But, to get the thread back on topic, would you agree that, even though it is just a baby step, the change is a good thing that the Trump Administration has done?
I'm not an expert on the oil market and the intersection between natural supply/demand trends AND politics on the price, but I can't help but thinking this is mostly Trump trying to distract attention from his own role in creating a situation that at least arguably had a major influence in creating the recent price-spike.
That said, it's always interesting to see populist-conservatives brawling with the corporate-elite faction, especially because the tycoons usually have a lot more tricks and tools at their disposal than the usual left-wing opposition. From the POV of cynical politics, it would be good for the Democrats if the oil companies were able to stop Trump from carrying out whatever strategies he has to get the price down.
Because, of course, Trump had the sagacious wisdom to realize he should appoint independent-minded jurists with the willingness to follow their consciences and rule against anyone they thought was in the wrong, including, if needs be, himself.
It was longer ago than that. 2012.
And how does this connect to the theme of "Trump, the Good Guy"? Because Trump never reversed the federal policy of tolerating legalization at the state level? That's true, and I remember him announcing that as a policy during the 2016 campaign season.
That long ago? Time certainly flies.
My comment applies to what would happen if Trump decided to lower, or eliminate, the marijuana ban?
My answer is: not much. The states would get another source to tax and the bootlegging would diminish.
The pattern partly continues with the just-released decision upholding birthright citizenship, featuring Bush-family appointees, along with Trump appointee Gorsuch, as the three judges voting on Trump's side. GWB appointee Roberts and Trump-appointees Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett voted with the majority, albeit with Kavanaugh dissenting in part.
I was surprised to see the doctrinaire textualist Gorsuch in the dissenting camp. Maybe he has some hyper-literalist reading of "domiciled"? I gather that was the pivotal concept.
Left out the names. That would be Thomas and Alito, voting with Trump.
Thanks.
This isn’t over.
Even with Kavanaugh’s dissent in part, there would need to be at least one more justice open to the possibility of Congress being able to eliminate or limit birthright citizenship. Actually, there would likely need to be more than one, as the odds are that the next appointee to the Court will be replacing Thomas or Alito, and it’s one of the five justices in the majority who’d need to be replaced by someone open to the possibility.
That indeed is the logic of the situation. I haven’t got the link but apparently Trump has said on Truth social that “it isn’t over” and “Congress can easily make up the ground by legislation”. He’ll be pressurising for some kind of counter-punch or rearguard action.
Logically, he’s doomed to fail but when has that ever stopped him?
Has SCOTUS given him any wriggle room? It really doesn’t look like it but we’ll see.
He can rant and urge all he wants, but the comment was that “Kavanaugh’s qualified concurrence seems to leave open for Congress to legislate in favour of a further restriction on birthright without a constitutional amendment.”
Given that a majority of the Court disagreed with Kavanaugh’s position, his position alone doesn’t leave any doors open for Congress to do anything.
@Nick Tamen
I hope you’re right. I remember when the Supreme Court verdict re the Nixon tapes came down, unanimously, Nixon is said to have asked a simple question. “No air?”By which he meant wriggle room. There was none and shortly after he was gone.
My layman’s view of the detailed ruling is that the dissenting voices plus Kavanaugh have produced detailed arguments which we haven’t hear the last of There will be Republicans loyal to Trump and steered by him who may try to make these arguments signify something. Watch this space.
Oh I’m with you. Impeccable logic. I just don’t trust this Supreme Court. They aren’t above doing some kind of volte face with 60 pages of closely reasoned BS to justify it.
I’m reminded of something the veteran journalist Seymour Hersh said about the Nixon administration.
“The abiding characteristic of this administration is that it lies”.
True then and true in spades about the Trump administration. They spread poison everywhere.
But if they were gonna go to that trouble to do an about-face, why wouldn't they just have ruled in Trump's favour in the first place?
If you can understand the internal politics and divisions of the current SCOTUS you’re better than me. But I’m not wrong to suppose that future actions involving the Trump administration will be influenced by that administration’s reactions to previous rulings.
Regardless of their traditional independence under separation of powers, all institutions have to live with the wrath and volatility of Trump, and his indifference to separation of powers.
So, Trump will threaten to do something to the SCOTUS and they'll reverse their decision? Short of abolishing the court(which would likely necessitate martial law, in which case the whole discussion is in a very different place), the only thing I can think of is adding seats, or threatening to do so in order to provoke the switch-in-time-to-save-nine. I'd say that's not an impossibility, though he didn't do it after the tariffs ruling, so it's not something I'd mark down as anywhere near a certainty(*).
As for understanding the internal divisions of the court, as I said when I started this tangent, I don't think Trump's immediate aim in picking his judges was to find Trump loyalists, but simply to find judges who would overturn Roe v Wade, to fulfill an ironclad promise he had made to the religious right in the 2016 primaries. But he neglected to find out anything else about their judicial philosophies, possibly because he assumed they'd always vote for his position anyway.
(*) I'll also note that when Trump showed up at the court in person as an intimidation tactic during Trump v. Barbara, they didn't even acknowledge his presence. So they don't seem to be particularly in awe of him.
Trump can’t add seats to the Court. Congress can, but Trump on his own can’t. And there are some strong reasons why Congress would be very reluctant to.
Trump has so far been unable to get his SAVE Act through the Senate, and there’s a good chance that after November, he won’t be able to get it through the House again. Adding seats that the Court would be a harder lift, I think.
I’ll be delighted if you’re both right and my fears are groundless.
Yeah, I know. Though the original switch-in-time(assuming it happened and the judge wasn't planning to switch anyway) just involved FDR threatening to expand the seats and, IIRC, a Democrat in Congress introducing legislation to do so. I agree it's a long shot, in terms of convincing a judge to switch his vote, much less actually get new seats added.
But to clarify...
What are the reasons you think Republicans in Congress would be reluctant to go along with a court-packing scheme?