Charlie Kirk smokes Trump over push to reclassify marijuana as less dangerous drug: ‘Everything already smells like weed'
The conservative pundit and founder of Turning Point USA took to X to speak out against the change reportedly being considered by the Trump Administration.
'I hope this doesn't happen. We need to protect public spaces for kids. Everything already smells like weed, which is ridiculous. Let's make it harder to ruin public spaces, not easier,' Kirk wrote in response to a Wall Street Journal report claiming Trump was considering a reclassification.
Marijuana is currently considered a Schedule I drug, a category it shares with heroin, ecstasy and LSD. The Drug Enforcement Administration defines Schedule I as a 'drug with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.'
The push to reclassify marijuana, which has been legalized for recreational use in 24 states, goes back to former President Joe Biden's administration.
During a $1 million-a-plate fundraiser at Trump's New Jersey golf course earlier this month, he told attendees he was interested in reclassifying the drug.
Guests at the fundraiser included Kim Rivers, the chief executive of Trulieve, one of the largest marijuana companies, people familiar with the matter told The Journal.
During the event, Rivers reportedly encouraged Trump to pursue the change and expand medical marijuana research, the report claimed.
The effort would reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug, which wouldn't make the drug entirely legal, but it would ease restrictions on it, according to the report.
It would also allow for tax breaks for some marijuana companies and open the door for additional medical research.
In response to Kirk's tweet, social media users uncovered a post the conservative commentator penned in 2018 that read, 'People should not go to prison for using, producing, or selling marijuana.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Fox News pundit contradicts Trump's claims that ‘crime is out of control' in the nation's capital
Former Washington, D.C., homicide detective and defense attorney Ted Williams has taken to Fox News to reject President Donald Trump 's contention that 'crime is out of control' in the nation's capital. Over the weekend, Trump announced that he would be staging a press conference on Monday to address the matter, saying of the city: 'It has become one of the most dangerous cities anywhere in the World. It will soon be one of the safest!!!' He subsequently insisted that D.C.'s homeless citizens 'move out, IMMEDIATELY,' adding: 'We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital. The Criminals, you don't have to move out. We're going to put you in jail where you belong.' It was then reported that the president is sending 120 FBI agents on overnight shifts to help local law enforcement battle carjackings and other violent crime in D.C. His rhetoric has escalated since former DOGE employee Edward Coristine, also known as 'Big Balls,' was beaten up by muggers eight days ago when he refused to give up his car during an attempted hijacking. Asked by Fox anchor Jon Scott about D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser 's comment that violent crime is down 61 percent in the district from two years ago, Williams said: 'I have to agree with the mayor here… Yes, there is crime, and there will always be crimes in every major metropolitan city in this country. 'What I really found troubling and, I gotta tell you, as a lawyer I found it troubling… is that the President of the United States would say that crime is out of control. 'I take exception to that. Crime is not out of control in the District of Columbia. Yes, you do have some juveniles here that are out of control and those juveniles need to be addressed and arrested.' But, he continued: 'I think that even the Metropolitan Police Department is happy that the president has married up the federal agencies that help to try to combat crime in the District of Columbia.' Scott went on to present Williams with official data suggesting that juvenile offenders were the real problem, given that young people have been involved in half of the attempted carjackings this year and that 2,000 teens have been arrested in D.C. over the last two years. 'In any major metropolitan city you are going to have, unfortunately, juveniles committing crimes,' he responded. The ex-cop invoked the attack on Coristine as the likely motivation for Trump's new hard-line stance and added: 'I would like to ask Mr Trump: 'Where were you last month when a three-year-old child, Honesty Cheadle, was shot and killed as the result of a crime in the District of Columbia?' I didn't hear Mr Trump speaking out then. 'I want Mr Trump to do something for the district. Continue to have the federal officers partner with the district officers to try to bring down crime. But don't use this as a pretext to actually eradicate home rule... That seems to be what Mr Trump is interested in.'
Reuters
32 minutes ago
- Reuters
Fed structure may be in flux, not just rates: Mike Dolan
LONDON, Aug 11 (Reuters) - Whatever happens at September's Federal Reserve meeting will pale in comparison to a wholesale rethinking of the U.S. central bank's design, a possibility stirred by Donald Trump's latest appointment. The president nominated White House advisor Stephen Miran to temporarily fill Adriana Kugler's vacant Fed board seat, reheating a debate about whether the Fed structure, its independence, and even its central role in the monetary economy should now become live questions. That may sound like a giant leap in a discussion that has so far centered largely on how quickly the Fed should lower interest rates, and numerous big hurdles certainly limit the potential for massive institutional change. For one, Miran, who has written about re-ordering the Fed voting system and appointment process and binding the central bank more closely to government thinking, still has to be confirmed by the Senate. While that process may be expedited, because he was already confirmed as a White House official, he would ostensibly only hold the post until Kugler's term formally ends in January. He would also only get one vote under the current system, and Trump has yet to name his pick to replace Chair Jerome Powell next May. But most Fed watchers think Miran is likely to be confirmed for the full board term eventually, even if he's not considered a candidate for the top job. And his appointment, the eventual new Fed Chair, along with Chris Waller, the current favorite to replace Powell when his leadership term ends in May, and fellow Trump appointee Michelle Bowman, would then give Trump a board majority. On monetary policy at least, the five rotating regional Fed presidents on the 12-person policymaking committee can still push back. That said, their views are likely in flux since last week's employment report, and markets expect interest rate cuts to resume next month regardless. Sowing the seeds of longer-term structural change would reside more clearly with the board itself. The wider issue of rethinking Fed structure, its functioning and independence is a much harder nut to crack. Even if a Trump-dominated board opened the process, it would likely face considerable Congressional opposition and take some time. Many voices have been quick to downplay such speculation. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who spoke just last month of the need to examine the entire institution, also told NBC this week that Trump has "great reverence" for the central bank and just "likes to work the referees". Former Fed officials, such as ex-New York Fed boss Bill Dudley, also think the institution and its independence will withstand Trump's repeated attacks on the current leadership. In an opinion piece on Bloomberg this week, Dudley wrote, "Don't be fooled by the drama. In terms of how the Fed manages the economy, it's mostly a tempest in a teapot." And yet the appointment of Miran - whose work also includes a radical rethink of U.S. trade policy and the controversial "Mar-a-Lago Accord" idea on cutting U.S. deficits and debt obligations - indicates that a wider Trump worldview is being injected into the Fed. For some critics, Trump's dramatic embrace of digital assets, crypto tokens and stablecoins is already an indication of a very real direction of travel that could transform the monetary world and banking system. Former International Monetary Fund chief economist Kenneth Rogoff, opens new tab wrote this week that Trump's stablecoin framework bears striking similarities to the free-banking era of the 1800s, when the United States did not have a central bank. "At the time, private banks issued their own dollar-backed currencies, often with disastrous consequences such as fraud, instability and frequent bank runs," Rogoff wrote on the Project Syndicate site. While similar problems are "bound to emerge" with stablecoins, particularly tax evasion, he added that top stablecoin issuers today are at least more transparent and better capitalized than their nineteenth-century cousins. What happens to the Fed's role in a potential world of private money, however, is a whole other question. Trump supporters regularly insist that his asides and off-the-cuff remarks are often taken too literally and that people catastrophize what ends up being fairly sensible plans. Yet dismissing Trump's intention to reshape American and global institutions has proven to be folly this year as well. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters -- Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. Follow ROI on LinkedIn. Plus, sign up for my weekday newsletter, Morning Bid U.S.
Reuters
32 minutes ago
- Reuters
Landmark trial kicks off over Trump's use of US military in policing role
Aug 11 (Reuters) - A landmark trial kicks off on Monday over the Trump administration's use of National Guard troops to support its deportation efforts and quell protests in Los Angeles, in a legal challenge highlighting the president's break from long-standing norms against deploying soldiers on American streets. The three-day non-jury trial before U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco will determine if the government violated a 19th-century law that bars the military from civil law enforcement when it deployed troops to Los Angeles in June. Los Angeles suffered days of unrest and protests sparked by mass immigration raids at places where people gather to find work, like Home Depot stores, a garment factory and a warehouse. The administration denies troops were used in civil law enforcement and plans to show they were protecting federal property and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Many of the troops have been withdrawn, but California said in recent court papers 2,000 National Guard members are still going on immigration raids and restricting civilian movements in the state. A ruling against the government could restrict those troops' activities and constrain President Donald Trump if he tries to deploy troops to police American cities in the future. Trump said on Wednesday he might send the National Guard, a reserve force that answers to both state governors and the president, to patrol Washington, D.C., a city he said was "very unsafe." California and its Governor Gavin Newsom have asked Breyer to prohibit the troops from directly participating in domestic law enforcement activities. California and Newsom say the National Guard is accompanying ICE agents on raids and assisting in arrests, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and other laws that forbid the U.S. military from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Trump ordered 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June against Newsom's wishes. Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on U.S. soil and inflamed political tension in the country's second-most-populous city. California sued the Trump administration over the troop deployment, arguing it violates federal law and state sovereignty. A U.S. appeals court has allowed Trump to retain control of California's National Guard during the legal challenge. California's lawsuit ultimately seeks a ruling that would return its National Guard troops to state control and a declaration that Trump's action was illegal.
