Thanks much for the clarification on the Schedule 1/2 differences – of course you are correct. I’ve mentally put the two together because that’s about how too many in government treat them, and made the sloppy error. I shouldn’t have, and had I really thought about it, I wouldn’t have made that mistake. Good catch.
I do easily concur with your last paragraph, however. And I really did like Sessions until I specifically heard him speak about marijuana, and also read his comments on DOJ changes involving civil asset forfeiture. I’ve come to not trust the man’s motives, or judgement (not sure which are the issue if not both). As to the financial contributions, I find the descriptions of privately operated prisons in most of the MSM and others to be the usual generalizations in order to drive an agenda. But at the same time, the actual money figures popping up all the time from public records seem to show a very large amount of contributions going to the Trump campaign, and two highly placed former Sessions aides left and became lobbyists for two of the biggest private prison systems. Suddenly Obama-era roll-backs on the use of private prisons were reversed shortly after Trump took office. With over-crowding, yes, it makes sense to use whatever (properly run) prisons are available – public or private. So an argument could be made that the changes were reasonable otherwise anyway. But that doesn’t change the same questionable timing and size of contributions any less than the questions surrounding the supposedly coincidental (?) contributions to the Clinton Foundation from people directly or closely involved with Uranium One that weren’t even U.S. citizens. Proof? No. Just too much circumstantial evidence for me to trust Sessions. Just my 2¢.