Welcome to the Harvard Lunch Club Political Podcast for January 10, 2018, number 157, it’s the Let’s Go Get Sessions Stoned edition of the show with your Magical Mystery Tour guides Todd Feinburg and Mike Stopa.

This week we explore the non-changes to the federal law prohibiting the sale and use of marijuana and the radical suggestion (hasn’t he done this before?) by A.G. Jeff Sessions that we enforce the existing law!!! Where did they find this guy? Hasn’t he been around Washington enough to know that we pick and choose which laws we enforce based on our perceived anticipation of the arc of history? Our HLC edition #80 contains our interview with then Senator Sessions and is here.

And we will also discuss Oprah! or, as NBC likes to call her, OUR future President Oprah (nothin but respect here too). After the Dems and the left have gotten flattened by an eighteen wheeler from the reality TV world, does it make sense that they should go looking for and eighteen wheeler of their own? We will discuss.

We have our shower thoughts. And, our hidden gem for the week is from Brewer and Shipley: One Toke Over the Line. (p.s. they’re both still alive).

Subscribe to Harvard Lunch Club in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

There are 8 comments.

  1. Coolidge

    nightmare fuel

    • #1
    • January 9, 2018 at 8:49 pm
    • 1 like
  2. Coolidge

    I hate to say it but in this age of celebrity Oprah would be a powerful candidate, especially now ironically that Trump has broken though the wall of no President being a politician or general. She would have a broad appeal to women and minorities, thus being a two-fer. She obviously knows how to handle the media and would be well-funded. Black turnout would be huge. I would not underestimate her.

    • #2
    • January 10, 2018 at 3:31 am
    • Like
  3. Coolidge

    You sent him into the cornfield!!!

    • #3
    • January 10, 2018 at 7:04 am
    • Like
  4. Podcaster

    Thanks JeffHawkins. Now can you tell me how I can un-see that?

    • #4
    • January 10, 2018 at 7:19 am
    • Like
  5. Thatcher

    Getting Sessions stoned? I think this project will involve a join session of Congress!

    • #5
    • January 10, 2018 at 7:49 am
    • 3 likes
  6. Member

    “This week we explore the non-changes to the federal law prohibiting the sale and use of marijuana and the radical suggestion (hasn’t he done this before?) by A.G. Jeff Sessions that we enforce the existing law!!!

    I’m sorry, such sentiments lack credibility, when you notice OL’ Jeff has refused to enforce the law in the cases of the Uranium One scam, the Clinton Emails, the wholesale misconduct by the FBI and Justice and others that might affect his cronies.

    Selective enforcement of the law is hallmark of the Sessions Justice Department. He goes after his pet peeves like marijuana with howitzer, but he artfully fumbles away the prosecution of vastly more serious crimes that threaten the whole concept of the rule of law.

    • #6
    • January 10, 2018 at 8:30 am
    • Like
  7. Coolidge

    Great Podcast as usual.

    But… I about fell out of my chair when Mike cited seatbelt laws as reasonable and agreeable. Not even from a slippery slope to permanent danger. Those typical arguments can be set aside for the moment.

    The Seatbelt law is a perfect example of the over management of individual decisions to needlessly coerce behavior. It is not an example of an area where such behaviors should be managed by society. If I take a 3,000 pound vehicle up to 65MPH, and do that on a public road, sharing space with others, I am setting up (knowingly/unknowingly) a number of risk potentials for others. It would be a more reasonable argument to suggest a state, via regulation, can mandate insurance for the potential damage inherent to the participation in the activity.

    There is nothing causal to accidents by not wearing seatbelts. Various medical expenses etc can be mitigated by wearing them, but that is an individual and not a shared or passed along risk.

    Pulling someone over and citing them for running red lights makes sense, it mitigates shared risk, driver A doing something risky that harms drivers B-Z. Pulling someone over for not wearing a seatbelt does not and is coercion of behavior by punishment via fines.

    This confusion leads to Nanny State oddities like in my home state of FL where we have a mandatory Seat Belt law, but managed to recind the Motorcycle Helmet requirement law.

    • #7
    • January 12, 2018 at 10:09 am
    • 1 like
  8. Lincoln

    what!!!!! love one toke over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! alla 1976!!!!

    • #8
    • January 15, 2018 at 8:38 am
    • Like