Cagey B:Just came in to say what everyone else is saying. Feds will still come and bust your ass.

Nothing happens until Congress decides to take this one up.

Not true, nothing happens until the Supreme Court, Congress, or the Executive Branch decide to take this one up. I'll give you three guesses as to which is going to end up being the one who does it, and the first two don't count.

A previous ruling by SCOTUS was to imply that marijuana falls under interstate commerce due to another ruling based on something to do with corn. I'm not exactly sure how it works out, but the idea is that because Marijuana can be grown in California, it can also be exported, and thus the DEA has juridstiction to totally ignore States' Rights and bust every pot farm they find. Currently there's another case working its way up through the system that relates to a medical co-op farm that was being run by a cancer patient who is now in jail, IIRC. You can bet that it will be hitting SCOTUS in no more than a year or two, and we can hope to hell that they're smart enough to finally put this war on drugs bull to bed.

/Doesn't smoke pot, generally detests stoners, but think that it's SILLY there's any form of law against it when I can still get drunk and smoke cigarettes.

It's only a fine for 1/2 Oz or less in North Carolina. (new window) and 11 other states last count.

Big_Fat_Liar:grizzlyjohnson:Walker:They do a lot more than that. They charge in and arrest people, even for LEGALLY dispensing medical marijuana. So much for state's rights.

Federal law trumps state law. Marijuana is still a schedule 1 substance. It cannot be legally dispensed anywhere within the borders of the US. The places that are doing it are simply taking advantage of the fact that the DEA and law enforcement is undermanned and usually has bigger fish to fry.

Federal law trumps state law? Is that your interpretation of the 9th amendment? If not, then what does the 9th amendment mean to you? Was the 9th amendment repealed?

Or are you just stating the reality on the ground; that today, it appears that federal law trumps any state law based on laws and action passed and taken by traitors at the federal level?

Opps! I meant 10th amendment...

Big_Fat_Liar:Is that your interpretation of the 9th amendment?

I think you got your laws and your rights mixed up.

Walker:doublesecretprobation:if i'm not mistaken, every time something like this happens the feds threaten to end highway funding for the offending state(s).

They do a lot more than that. They charge in and arrest people, even for LEGALLY dispensing medical marijuana. So much for state's rights.


Yes the 10th amendment is largely dead, if you read the preamble to the drug statutes (21 USC 801 or so) it basically says because some drugs are involved in interstate commerce, and some arent, that they all are. The Supreme Court in the oakland cannabis club(medical farm) said that even if you prove 100% is not involved in interstate or foreign commerce, it still is.

Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of the constitution gives the feds the ability to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, but come on this takes it too far and includes things that are clearly outside of that. Remember folks per the 10th amendment any power the government is not expressely granted in the constitution is specifically prohibited.


I propose a new law, constitutional justification, for all federal bills. If they cant explain the clause(s) and justification that allows them to pass it, they cant pass it. I think that would certainly impose a new barrier to silly laws, although it wont stop it. It will make it easier for people to tie the constitutional authority to the law itself, something that largely is overlooked - most people seem to demand unconstitutional programs like national health care (its a state right, if they want to do it, fine, but the feds arent allowed).

grizzlyjohnson:Big_Fat_Liar:Is that your interpretation of the 9th amendment?

I think you got your laws and your rights mixed up.

Yep, see above.

timmypedersen:True. Yet there's only the guard, no other employees, so it's a start.

Do you want to stand around outside with a gun guarding a bunch of pot? Sounds like the job description of "drug dealer" to me, minus the glamour and air conditioning.

iaazathot:For those posting the Obonga '08 pictures.

The best part is they don't realize it will backfire. Conservatives are so close-minded and insular they have no idea that everyone gets high. Because those that do hide it from them in fear of judgment and being narc'ed on. The rest of America doesn't really feel one way or the other about pot. Calling someone a pothead is only an insult if you're a complete idiot. It's like calling someone a beer-drinker.

Here is an update on the legality of salvia per state. For anyone interested.

Link (new window)

grizzlyjohnson:Avoiding what life has for you by means of escape quickly becomes a crutch.

*closes Book of Judgment, folds arms meaningfully*

Save the speech next time, grandpa.

srtpointman:This again? Federal law trumps state law. They can't win.

Depends. Conceivably it could go to the USSC and congress could get told they're overstepping the bounds of the commerce clause again (given that it's a local crop). It doesn't happen often, but it's not unheard of, either.

Big_Fat_Liar:Big_Fat_Liar:grizzlyjohnson:Walker:They do a lot more than that. They charge in and arrest people, even for LEGALLY dispensing medical marijuana. So much for state's rights.

Federal law trumps state law. Marijuana is still a schedule 1 substance. It cannot be legally dispensed anywhere within the borders of the US. The places that are doing it are simply taking advantage of the fact that the DEA and law enforcement is undermanned and usually has bigger fish to fry.

Federal law trumps state law? Is that your interpretation of the 9th amendment? If not, then what does the 9th amendment mean to you? Was the 9th amendment repealed?

Or are you just stating the reality on the ground; that today, it appears that federal law trumps any state law based on laws and action passed and taken by traitors at the federal level?

Opps! I meant 10th amendment...

Ah, right, well, one of the powers delegated to the United States by the constitution is the one where Congress makes laws that apply to the entire country, yes? So the Controlled Substances Act, being one of those laws, applies to the entire United States, yes? And so, since all states are within the United States, laws made by congress apply there as well, yes? Or are you suggesting that states have the ability to ignore or appeal laws passed by congress. I think that notion has been dispatched pretty effectively all the fighting over the Intersate system. Well, not to mention the Civil War, but I don't really want to go *there*...

As a drug dealer, I'm really hoping this doesn't pass.

/Kidding
//Or am I?

And if you look at the people who introduce the legislation, it's always to protect the children even though it seems the kids don't think it's any big deal.

grizzlyjohnson:That's interesting, one of the effects of smoking marijuana is an artificial sense of wellbeing. How do you know if it's actually improved your life or hasn't and just makes you think it has?

A fair question. And since there is no way to test a life both ways I may never be 100% sure. However...

A) The chemical sense of well being wears off. My sense of well being doesn't. (I now smoke only 1-2 times a month typically)

I was a typical nerd-spaz in, say Jr high school and always had issues in social settings. (egg head, nervous, smarter than my peers, but not as smart as I thought, etc... ).

As luck would have it I fell in with a pot-smoking peer group. In the span of less than a year I had developed a lot of social skills that transformed my life not just at school.

Teachers commented on the change. My family noticed it. I even learned to get along with one particular hard-ass relative of mine.

The key effect (in my opinion) was the "don't worry" aspect. It was the chill pill I needed. I gain that perspective while buzzed, but the perspective outlives the buzz. (as Sagan also note, not all buzz related perspectives are worth keeping, but some are very insightful)

As for success, I guess everyone has their own definition. I have an excellent job, high pay, a great wife, many friends in various circles, and I am generally enjoying life. Would I have been even more successful otherwise? I may never know. But where I am at feels just fine and I am here, partially, due to pot.

/Your mileage may vary. Previous performance is no indicator of future performance. Consult your doctor before taking pot. Not available in all areas.

mccallcl:grizzlyjohnson:Avoiding what life has for you by means of escape quickly becomes a crutch.

*closes Book of Judgment, folds arms meaningfully*

Save the speech next time, grandpa.

Ooh, sorry to try to make you evaluate your carefully constructed reality. In my day, the cry was "question authority". Today it's "don't make me think!"

skabbo:That 'artificial sense of wellbeing' is a temporary effect, associated with the intoxication from smoking. What he's talking about is a long term, retrospective improvement in his life. If pot could cause that, even when you aren't intoxicated, then what is 'artificial' about it?

What he said.

(gosh, I guess I was too verbose. but this is roughly what I meant.)

With a current medical card in CA, i carry bud, barter it, and smoke it as freely as i want. Light up a cigarette in sacramento and light up a j, see which one people on the street biatch about more.


/not the j

anyhow, the california dispensary model is the right idea, but there should be more controls over who can open a dispensary. there are very good ones out there, then there are the profiteers (think over $50-60 max). those are the ones the dea should target but they take the shotgun approach sometimes instead of the surgical approach.

grizzlyjohnson:Ooh, sorry to try to make you evaluate your carefully constructed reality.

You should be, it's a lame thing to do. We've all heard it a million times before. You're not blowing our minds, you're boring us to tears.

If any place can do this, it's California. They have enough influence (read money) to stand up to the Machine. Texas would be a distant second, but it is full of close-minded douchebags. Hopefully the governor who admittedly used much worse drugs to get where he is today can understand that a few people enjoy a nice cool high.

/Isn't California like the 6th biggest economy in the world or some shiat?

SpectroBoy:A fair question. And since there is no way to test a life both ways I may never be 100% sure. However...

Sure there is. Quit.

I'm not making a qualitative judgement (as others seem to think), I'm just saying the only way to find out whether you're smoking that shiat voluntarily or not is to quit. If you do and you're still cool with yourself then you're, it did help you. You can quit and you're not hooked. You're in control of your reality.

If you can't quit or you go back to feeling shiatty, then the drug is in control of your life, not you. Then you gotta decide whether that's where you want to be. I get better results out of my life when I'm in control of it, that's all I'm saying.

Fact Man:Odinsward:IT'S A MOTHERfarkING PLANT!!!

LEGALIZE IT ALREADY!!

/sorry about the caps.
//passionate about my weed!

I think the whole "identifying myself by the drugs I do" thing is really strange.

Like when people get marijuana leaf tattoos or wear marijuana shirts. Isn't that just as arbitrary as getting a pizza tattoo or wearing a shirt with Rolo's on it?

I feel the same way about rappers who brag about their weed and hennessy. So what? Why sing about it?

As opposed to identifying oneself with the music you listen too, crappy manufactured ironic statement, etc etc etc?

People identify with what is important to them. How is this weird?

trixter_nl:I propose a new law, constitutional justification, for all federal bills. If they cant explain the clause(s) and justification that allows them to pass it, they cant pass it. I think that would certainly impose a new barrier to silly laws, although it wont stop it. It will make it easier for people to tie the constitutional authority to the law itself, something that largely is overlooked - most people seem to demand unconstitutional programs like national health care (its a state right, if they want to do it, fine, but the feds arent allowed).

I couldn't agree more.
Since the reconstruction era (hence why I put 1865 on my 'gravestone' image), we've become less and less of a Constitutional democracy and more of a democracy based around the U.S. Code.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The bold part of the Amendment was the first to get shelled after the Civil War. Let's see a State try to ratify a law that contradicts the U.S. Code in this day and age and see how fast the Federal Government swoops in tells them they can't do that or holds some kind of monetary (or military [National Guard]) threat over them. After putting their collective thumb over the State Legislatures, it was easy for the Federal Government to grow in power. The Executive and Legislative branches just started assigning themselves more power that had been previously determined by individual States while the Judicial branch kept affirming the Constitutionality of the new laws.

Don't leagalize, de-criminalize.

/It'd be better that way.

The_one_with_that_guy:Fact Man:Odinsward:IT'S A MOTHERfarkING PLANT!!!

LEGALIZE IT ALREADY!!

/sorry about the caps.
//passionate about my weed!

I think the whole "identifying myself by the drugs I do" thing is really strange.

Like when people get marijuana leaf tattoos or wear marijuana shirts. Isn't that just as arbitrary as getting a pizza tattoo or wearing a shirt with Rolo's on it?

I feel the same way about rappers who brag about their weed and hennessy. So what? Why sing about it?

As opposed to identifying oneself with the music you listen too, crappy manufactured ironic statement, etc etc etc?

People identify with what is important to them. How is this weird?

Yeah, the pizza comparison doesn't really work. There are a lot of artists who feel that smoking pot inspires them creatively, and since they define themselves by what they create, pot is, by proxy, an integral part of their personality.

mccallcl:grizzlyjohnson:Ooh, sorry to try to make you evaluate your carefully constructed reality.

You should be, it's a lame thing to do. We've all heard it a million times before. You're not blowing our minds, you're boring us to tears.

Yeah, yeah, I know. You already know everything just like all my grandkids. Have fun with your omniscience while it lasts.

rawsta:federal funding to raid medical mj dispensaries in california and other medical mj states will be CUT OFF

I would think they have a budget, not a raid by raid allowance

grizzlyjohnson:Or are you suggesting that states have the ability to ignore or appeal laws passed by congress.

Constitutionally, yes, they do.
See bold part of 10th Amendment above.

some of Carl Sagan's thought on the value of pot

There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights

and

A very similar improvement in my appreciation of music has occurred with cannabis. For the first time I have been able to hear the separate parts of a three-part harmony and the richness of the counterpoint. I have since discovered that professional musicians can quite easily keep many separate parts going simultaneously in their heads, but this was the first time for me. Again, the learning experience when high has at least to some extent carried over when I'm down.

He goes on and on. It's quite a read....
http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html (pops)

This thread just gave me the munchies.

FTFA:
"Despite the harms of marijuana prohibition, politicians persist in imposing and upholding marijuana prohibition, because these politicians are not working for the People--they are working for the corporate executives who financed their campaigns, such as corporate executives in the alcohol industry who want to protect their monopoly on intoxication, corporate executives in the tobacco industry who want to protect their monopoly on smoking, corporate executives in the pharmaceutical industry who want to protect their monopoly on expensive medicines, and corporate executives in the many industries threatened by competition with hemp."

Yep. This is definitely US Code-bound...

/Not serious.
//I hope this isn't the literal text of the law.
///Was someone on an angry high when they wrote it?

Captiosus77:grizzlyjohnson:Or are you suggesting that states have the ability to ignore or appeal laws passed by congress.

Constitutionally, yes, they do.
See bold part of 10th Amendment above.

Once again, one of the powers delegated by the constitution is for congress to make laws for the entire country. As to what laws they can make, that is left open to interpretation and there's valid arguments on both sides of that fence.

The quote in bold face has nothing to do with that. It's talking about the States not being able to take to themselves rights denied to them by the constitution.

grizzlyjohnson:Or are you suggesting that states have the ability to ignore or appeal laws passed by congress. I think that notion has been dispatched pretty effectively all the fighting over the Intersate system. Well, not to mention the Civil War, but I don't really want to go *there*...

I think you have to go *there*. The states and the people should ignore laws that step on the tenth. This isn't slavery - we are now talking about the federal government taking away rights, not granting them. Currently, the tenth amendment means next to nothing, yet it was not repealed. You cannot repeal the bill of rights with passage of new laws without explicitly amending the constituition. I don't think using the "T word" for people who knowingly do or have done this is too harsh.

doublesecretprobation:if i'm not mistaken, every time something like this happens the feds threaten to end highway funding for the offending state(s).

meh. Us californians don't care about that. Hell, CA makes up for 30% or so of the GNP, so they can threaten us all they like.

/long live the state of jefferson.

mccallcl:tweekster:I couldn't understand someone even attempting to us it as a weed alternative because it is totally different from what I understand.

Oh yeah, way different. I tried it once. Basically, you fall down and have a waking nightmare for about three minutes. It's the most potent psychedelic in the world. If it lasted for an hour you'd go insane.

My experience with Salvia was that of feeling that my entire mind was being twisted & warped uncontrollably. I heard voices in my head that I absolutely knew were real, and felt like I wasn't even in control of my own body, like a puppet on a string.

Not a fun drug, and certainly not an MJ alternative.
Thankfully it only lasts a few minutes like you said.

grizzlyjohnson:Yeah, yeah, I know. You already know everything just like all my grandkids. Have fun with your omniscience while it lasts.

It's not perceived omniscience, I understand your ideas, they're all just flawed and boring. The effects pot had on you, personally, you're now trying to apply to everyone that uses pot. The value of not having a "crutch" is one you're assuming has some importance in the lives of others. The reality of being independent is one you have manufactured for yourself, since it's pretty likely you have your own set of crutches, they just consist of media consumption, some kind of athletics or other diversion, or ingestion of one chemical or another. Put this all together, and on top of being wrong or misapplying your own value structures, you're spouting a message that anyone who participates in modern society has heard over and over.

To summarize: you're wrong and boring. I'm in my thirties and have accumulated enough life experience to know that my stance on your position is not going to change.

grizzlyjohnson:
Sure there is. Quit

I got 1-2 years at a time without smoking sometimes. I am a middle aged white guy (ie look like a cop) and finding a dealer ain't exactly easy.

And I will freely admit, I LIKE THE WAY IT MAKES ME FEEL. Since I get positive long term effects, occasional insights, AND I LIKE IT I see no reason not to do it once and a while. It is no more in control of my life than reading, web surfing, or traveling. They are just things I like to do that also teach me something once and a while.

I think maybe your fear of weed is a little irrational. Sure SOME people have a problem with it. Some people go bankrupt at casinos. Some people drink themselves to death. The common element is "some people". If it was possible some people would masturbate to death.

Personally I hate Pot, it screws with your mind and makes you a slug.

As a nutball libertarian though I don't want my government in peoples religion or social habits. State Rights should trump federal laws that do not infringe on a persons constitutional rights.

Frank N Stein:Odinsward:Are you on crack? My gods man the absurdity of that statement knows no bounds.
Here read this Link (new window)
or this
Link (new window)
perhaps this
Link (new window)
Do you really want me to continue?

If you read a couple posts down, you woulda seen that I was trolling

This is why so many people troll. You people get so worked up

But I wanted to feed the troll. It was my first attempt!
How did I do?

Big_Fat_Liar:grizzlyjohnson:Or are you suggesting that states have the ability to ignore or appeal laws passed by congress. I think that notion has been dispatched pretty effectively all the fighting over the Intersate system. Well, not to mention the Civil War, but I don't really want to go *there*...

I think you have to go *there*. The states and the people should ignore laws that step on the tenth. This isn't slavery - we are now talking about the federal government taking away rights, not granting them. Currently, the tenth amendment means next to nothing, yet it was not repealed. You cannot repeal the bill of rights with passage of new laws without explicitly amending the constituition. I don't think using the "T word" for people who knowingly do or have done this is too harsh.

I'm really not following you. What rights are confered by the tenth amendment that you think are being violated?

thisisntnamtherearerules:For all intents and purposes, weed is already legal in California. It is already basically a free for all, so why not just simplify things by making it legal for everyone? Makes sense to me.

If it weren't for the fascist gun laws in Cali I would consider living there. At least the rest of the country can see what has happened there and hopefully realize that prohibition does not work, whether it be guns, weed, or alcohol.

/I can haz weed in Florida?

THIS

The states are *dying* for revenue. The economy doesn't really look like it's going anywhere for a while (perhaps).

I think it's a great way for the states to bring in more revenue.