So, Sessions fnally ends the charade on pot.

Ever since this bizarre kabuki theater concerning pot "legalization" has taken place, I have been reminding people in this blog of two inconvenient factoids:

1.  Pot is still illegal and nothing this state or any other state has done has changed that.

2.  The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States has always been the law of the land.

Simply stated:  Article VI, Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This, of course, does not just apply to pot: it also applies to the insanity of "Sanctuary Anything."

Sanctuary cities, counties or states.

But as I have pointed out repeatedly here, the bogus initiative passed by the State of Washington changes nothing.

Oh, to be sure, Sideshow Bob will waste a few million of our taxpayer dollars as a part of his campaign for governor as he has done repeatedly.

But in the end, he'll also lose as will the other states that join his leftist jihad where he can spend unlimited amounts of OUR money only to lose.

As for me, the only disappointment I have in Sessions' action here is that it took so long to implement it.

Screen capture from the pro-pot initiative.

I was and remain opposed to the concept of legal pot in this state, not so much because I am opposed to pot per se', but because those behind it lied their collective asses off to get it passed.

While there were several falsehoods kicked around by the pro-pot heads the lie that grates on me the most was this one:

The entirety of all of the revenue collected by this state has yet to approach the promised per-year revenue blasted out there by the pro-pot side.

In short, had the potters been telling the truth, sales of pot would have raised $2.9 billion in state revenue by now.

Those supporting pot sales attempt to rewrite the history of the campaign:

The first month of legalization resulted in $3.8 million in sales and about $1 million in tax revenue. The Washington State Liquor Control Board, in charge of the program, estimates two-year marijuana tax revenue for the 2015-17 biennium will be $122,459,893; for the 2017-19 biennium it will be $336,898,396. Voters were told legalization could bring in as much as $1.9 billion over five years; Sharon Foster of Washington State Liquor Control Board notes that many people took that as the revenue estimate. So while actual collections are within the wide range suggested to voters, they will likely be on the lower end.

The italicized statement in front of the figure is an outright lie: as you can see from the screen capture, the phrase "as much as" was never used.

For another example, the democratian endorsement said the following about revenue:

The Columbian endorses Initiative 502 for many reasons, not the least of which is financial. I-502 offers Washingtonians the chance to radically change how we react to marijuana, from wasting $211 million over the past decade enforcing marijuana laws, to creating a revenue stream of more than $500 million annually via a 25 percent excise tax (plus other taxes) on legal marijuana sales.

Of note is the phrase "as much as" was not used in the endorsement.  In fact, the phrase "...a revenue stream of more than $500 million annually" was used.

Revisionist history changes nothing and justifies nothing.  The campaign relied on lies and exaggerations to get this crap passed, and political rule one of this blog is simple:

"If you have to lie, exaggerate or mislead to get your candidate, referendum, initiative or project passed, then your candidate should lose and your referendum, initiative or project should fail."

That would be my position (as it was my position during the campaign; the revenue number as an obvious lie since it would have required each man, woman and child living in this state at that time to purchase enough pot to generate roughly $75 each in revenue, a figure that will likely never happen.) during the campaign and that remains my position now.

Here's the reality: the Supremacy Clause speaks for itself.  As I have been stating all along, if you don't like the law, then change the law.  Otherwise, follow it.

Because you cannot pick and choose which laws you want enforced.  It is, for example, total legal hypocrisy to demand the enforcement of laws on illegal aliens while equally demanding that the laws concerning pot be ignored.

Those who spent big money on their grow operations or their retail outlets get no sympathy from me.

I knew it was illegal.  THEY knew it was illegal and what they hoped for was that they would present the Fed with a fait accompli and then dare the government to do something about it.

And that, ladies and gentlemen is ALWAYS a bad bet.

Simply stated, if you pro-pot types lose your shirts on this deal, then guess what?

You've got no one to blame but yourselves.