Laziness. Some sites are just blocking all European visitors on the mistaken assumption that that complies with GDPR. They're not willing to undertake any further dev work.
I don't think it's useful to use laziness to describe this, as it's needlessly perjorative. It may be that they've decided that the ROI is not there for complying with GDPR, or that the risk of an inadvertant fail is too high and expensive. Laziness may be the case, but it's unwise to assume.
If the site is the only business they have in Europe, it ought to be GDPR compliant. They’re essentially just pulling out of Europe rather than changing their product. It’s not like GDPR says every website on the internet is forced to serve the European market.
"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."
I bet a lot of money he’s only saying this to annoy Jeff Sessions. We already know that Sessions wants to be hard on marijuana, and Trump is very clearly mad at him.
Either way, does this matter? It should be clear by now the value of one of Trump’s statements. We have more than enough history to know that they’re often not a reliable indicator of anything.
Not sure where you’re located but where I’m from there’s been a growing heroin problem since the last recession. Crackdowns on prescription opioids (under Obama I believe) seem to have pushed even more people to heroin. No noticeable change in the last couple years honestly.
In the article it’s mentioned that Trump has already maintained Obama’s policy on this issue by ordering the DoJ not to prosecute anyone in states where it is legal. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that he would support this measure as well.
I think Jeff Sessions is a great political tool here. Have him start strictly enforcing the law, shutting down dispensaries all over the place. Then say you're just enforcing the law as your swore to, forcing the legislature to act.
Marijuana prohibition was never constitutional in the first place. In Gonzalez vs Raich SCOTUS narrowly ruled the commerce clause ('the fed's constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce') gave the feds jurisdiction over personal consumption of plants. As Thomas noted: this case had nothing to do with the commerce clause and gave the fed unlimited power.
Every single civil liberty from gay rights to privacy to prohibition of plants and drinks has to somehow go through a political movement rather than just be acknowledged as already constitutionally granted: the federal government was just never intended to have that power.
What he would perhaps support was a bill to ensure that each state has the right to determine for itself the best approach to marijuana within its borders [1]. To me, this sounds different from ending the ban on a federal level, which is what the title would suggest.
It should be left up to the states, as O'Connor noted in Gonzalez vs Raich and as Thomas noted in the same case: the Federal Government arguably does not even have the constitutional right to do this. In other words, there is a distinct federal ban on marijuana and ending it should have been done a long time ago.
The federal gov’t has no rights. The citizens of the United States have delegated powers and authority to the government. When government officials say the law gives them a right or that the constitution gives them a right, they are simply indulging in tyranny.
> To me, this sounds different from ending the ban on a federal level, which is what the title would suggest.
This is exactly ending the ban on a federal level. It is not affirmatively creating a federal right to marijuana which would prohibit state regulation, but then we don't do that with most things that are legal.
This is pretty exactly what the state was with the end of prohibition of alcohol, for instance.
Is there a consistant opinion from Democrats on this at a federal level? This is one of the interesting topics that wasn't largely discussed much in the past presidential elections.
I'll believe it when he puts a bill to Congress, and actively works towards getting it passed. Till then, it's just another thing Trump says he's going to do.
He's saying he will likely support a bipartisan effort already in Congress, so sending a new bill to Congress would be inconsistent with what he claims, and a poor basis for believing it.
29 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 50.1 ms ] threadedit: other link http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/national/trump-says-he-is...
"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."
Either way, does this matter? It should be clear by now the value of one of Trump’s statements. We have more than enough history to know that they’re often not a reliable indicator of anything.
Am I the only one who's noticed a huge come back of herion since he's been elected?
Given a single quote that I don’t know the history of, I just have to assume it’s not trustworthy.
I didn’t know he had a history of saying this. If he did you’re probably right.
Every single civil liberty from gay rights to privacy to prohibition of plants and drinks has to somehow go through a political movement rather than just be acknowledged as already constitutionally granted: the federal government was just never intended to have that power.
[1] https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/STATES%20Act%20O... (PDF)
This is exactly ending the ban on a federal level. It is not affirmatively creating a federal right to marijuana which would prohibit state regulation, but then we don't do that with most things that are legal.
This is pretty exactly what the state was with the end of prohibition of alcohol, for instance.
With Trump, actions speak louder than words.