President-elect Trump picks attorney general and his choice could be the end of recreational pot business

By | November 22, 2016

Sen. Sessions endorsing Trump

 

Sen. Jeff Sessions, a nominee for the Attorney general post, is a devout adversary of the legalization of cannabis. If he were approved as Donald Trump’s first law enforcement authority, would he have any power to put his anti-marijuana perspective into action?

 

One could barely envision obvious unlawful cases for federal accusers to make. Mark Kleiman, a NYU professor, states that every lawfully licensed pot retailer not only filled out but signed a form as well, that records their intent to carry out a federal crime. Apart from arresting the proprietors and controllers of companies selling pot, Sen. Sessions would have expansive function under federal regulation to take their properties. Plainly menacing the business with combative administration may be enough to coax manufacturers and merchants to stop operations and take investors to put their funds somewhere else.

 

Is there anything that would restrain Sen. Sessions from putting the pot business out of the market? As in the case of marijuana use for medical purposes, the answer is nearly without a doubt, yes. The Congress before used money to prohibit any implementation of federal rules against medical pot producers and consumers, and the following Congress will probably be alike in its way of thinking.

 

The business of recreational pot does not have equal protection due to the lesser number of states and is connected to the political group that was defeated in the election. One state that rejected legalization of marijuana was Arizona and it supported Trump. Four states legalizing it (Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada and California) supported Clinton. Except for Alaska, states that legalized pot usage before are staunch Democrat supporters (Washington State, District of Columbia and Oregon).

 

Although many Americans support legalization of pot, that does not mean it is considered a priority politically. Dan Riffle, a former pot policy activist, defines backing for authorization as an inch deep and a mile wide. He added that voters don’t care that much to make them walk and march in the streets because of it.

 

Jonathan Caulkin, drug policy analyst, proposes that Trump and Sen. Sessions could broadcast interstate guidelines for agreeable industry attitude and position non-enforcement on agreement by pot merchandisers.

 

His perception of the fed government’s administration part grants the voters’ desire to have legalization of recreational pot at the same time inhibiting collective money-making schemes that could endanger the health of the public.