If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Arizona's Governor on ObamaCare: This violates the tenth amendment. We shall fight this. Arizona's Governor on Medical Marijuana: This violates Federal law. Who are we to question them?   (bloomberg.com) divider line 158
    More: Ironic, Arizona, medical cannabis, United States Department of Justice, dispensary  
•       •       •

2089 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jan 2012 at 9:52 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-08 06:36:58 AM  
Opposition to ObamaCare is political showmanship, IMHO. I find it depressing that Republican state attorneys are using taxpayers' funds to challenge it across the country.
 
2012-01-08 06:50:05 AM  

AirForceVet: Opposition to ObamaCare is political showmanship, IMHO. I find it depressing that Republican state attorneys are using taxpayers' funds to challenge it across the country.


I dont think it is political showmanship, I just think they hate the law.

My opposition, for example, is basically centered on the individual mandate. I would not have liked this no matter who proposed it.
 
2012-01-08 07:43:35 AM  

cman: AirForceVet: Opposition to ObamaCare is political showmanship, IMHO. I find it depressing that Republican state attorneys are using taxpayers' funds to challenge it across the country.

I dont think it is political showmanship, I just think they hate the law.

My opposition, for example, is basically centered on the individual mandate. I would not have liked this no matter who proposed it.


Because we decided to go with a capitalist system we need to get those who use the system to pay for it. How would you recommend doing that.
 
2012-01-08 08:26:31 AM  
You have to understand, that Brewer's brilliant plan to budget deficits was to sell off State buildings, and then sign onto 30 year leases to the new owners, so that the state is bound not just to buildings with someone else's infrastructure and their whims to what will be repaired or serviced with the State's own money, but also to paying out rent and "service fees" for another generation. Yes, the State got some cash right now for the buildings, which will not even cover the long range cost of the rent on these suckers. It'shiatched the state of Arizona to some friends of hers, long after she's out of office.

She thinks this was the "fiscally Conservative" plan and an example of "belt tightening" and "creative thinking." Lashing the state to rent on properties that they can improve or expand upon. Her situational awareness isn't so much suspect, that she has selective blinders on when it comes to servicing the folks who got her elected...
 
2012-01-08 08:48:04 AM  
Aw, c'mon, folks. Haven't you heard that consistency is the bugaboo of small minds?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-01-08 08:49:00 AM  
Article fails to match Fark headline. She wants a ruling from a federal judge on whether Arizona's law is legal.

When medical marijuana went to the Supreme Court several "red state" attorneys general filed a brief in support of medical marijuana. They personally disapproved but thought California had the right to make its own policy.
 
2012-01-08 08:51:11 AM  

ZAZ: Article fails to match Fark headline.


Welcome to Fark

/You must be new here
 
2012-01-08 10:01:13 AM  
Jane should smoke up, grab a dildo & loosen up a bit.

/sure as hell won't fix the wrinkles.
 
2012-01-08 10:03:02 AM  
Hey after the libs on the Supreme Court ruled in Raich that the War on Drugs is perfectly Constitutional, the headline is right.

But Obama-care has not been ruled on yet.

/drtfa
 
2012-01-08 10:04:26 AM  

ZAZ: Article fails to match Fark headline.


It's spot on.
 
2012-01-08 10:07:47 AM  

AirForceVet: Opposition to ObamaCare is political showmanship, IMHO. I find it depressing that Republican state attorneys are using taxpayers' funds to challenge it across the country.


Yeah, count my state (Missouri) as part of that.

I mean we're slashing education budget and cutting programs for the eldery...but apparantly we have money to piss on this dick-waving contest that will probably produce no end result.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...no matter how terrible of a job Congress is doing...my state Legislature is doing much worse.
 
2012-01-08 10:09:45 AM  

cman: I dont think it is political showmanship, I just think they hate the law.

My opposition, for example, is basically centered on the individual mandate. I would not have liked this no matter who proposed it.


I heard a similar complaint from a dude who was working on my rain gutters. He was upset that he would have to buy medical insurance for himself, his wife, and three kids now. While I understood his limited funds due to his circumstances, I didn't mention the assistance ObamaCare would provide to help subsidize his needs, much like my employer does for its employees. Personally, he needs health insurance to pay medical bills if he, his wife, and/or his kids get sick.

So, you don't like having to pay for auto insurance either? Or are you one of the reasons my uninsured motorist premiums are so high?
 
2012-01-08 10:11:12 AM  

cman: AirForceVet: Opposition to ObamaCare is political showmanship, IMHO. I find it depressing that Republican state attorneys are using taxpayers' funds to challenge it across the country.

I dont think it is political showmanship, I just think they hate the law.

My opposition, for example, is basically centered on the individual mandate. I would not have liked this no matter who proposed it.


Thing is - the republicans spent almost 20 years proposing the individual mandate. Obama went that route in an attempt to reach across the aisle and win Republican support.

And now the entire GOP, in lockstep, is against a policy they spent almost two decades promoting as the Republican model for healthcare reform. And, frightenly, their supporters apparently have no memory of previous longstanding GOP policy, they have always been at war with Eastasia.
 
2012-01-08 10:12:15 AM  

Farking While Farking: cman: AirForceVet: Opposition to ObamaCare is political showmanship, IMHO. I find it depressing that Republican state attorneys are using taxpayers' funds to challenge it across the country.

I dont think it is political showmanship, I just think they hate the law.

My opposition, for example, is basically centered on the individual mandate. I would not have liked this no matter who proposed it.

Thing is - the republicans spent almost 20 years proposing the individual mandate. Obama went that route in an attempt to reach across the aisle and win Republican support.

And now the entire GOP, in lockstep, is against a policy they spent almost two decades promoting as the Republican model for healthcare reform. And, frightenly, their supporters apparently have no memory of previous longstanding GOP policy, they have always been at war with Eastasia.


It's because the GOP has seen the error of their ways and realizes what a terrible idea it was in the first place...which is why we should vote Republican.
 
2012-01-08 10:16:23 AM  

tomWright: Hey after the libs on the Supreme Court ruled in Raich that the War on Drugs is perfectly Constitutional, the headline is right.

But Obama-care has not been ruled on yet.

/drtfa


Yeah, we all know how the Supreme Court is overflowing with "libs" and how much "libs" hate marijuana.

/sigh
 
2012-01-08 10:16:27 AM  
Where's the ARIZONA tag?

/shockingly more backward-assed than Florida
 
2012-01-08 10:18:55 AM  
Republican ideology not consistent? No!
 
2012-01-08 10:19:08 AM  
So the gubmint mandating people have health insurance is bad but the gubmint mandating I not smoke pot, not marry a dude and not get the country's first androbortion is perfectly fine. I see.
 
2012-01-08 10:19:27 AM  
Conservatism
The deep and agonizing worry that somewhere out there, a black or hispanic child is getting medical care.
 
2012-01-08 10:22:10 AM  
Goddamit Jan Brewer!

In Jan Brewer, I am always disappoint.
 
2012-01-08 10:22:12 AM  

AirForceVet: So, you don't like having to pay for auto insurance either? Or are you one of the reasons my uninsured motorist premiums are so high?


Auto insurance is enforced by state governments, who have general police power. What's more, it's possible to opt out by not having a car or, in some states, proving ability to pay out of pocket. Obamacare is enforced by the federal government, which does NOT have a general police power-- it has only the power granted to it by the Constitution. Obamacare essentially ends the notion that the federal government is limited, in that Obama apparently believes that the federal government can force you to buy any arbitrary product from any politically connected industry, in this case using the force of law to help out his buddies in the health insurance industry. Amazingly, this isn't even the most unconstitutional thing Obama has done, what with declaring that the Senate wasn't in session (even though it was) and making "recess" appointments (even though Senate wasn't in recess). If Obama had any chance of getting reelected, he should be impeached. Unfortunately, absent good faith from the democrat party, it's unlikely that the process could be completed in less than ten months.
 
2012-01-08 10:22:24 AM  

AirForceVet: cman: I dont think it is political showmanship, I just think they hate the law.

My opposition, for example, is basically centered on the individual mandate. I would not have liked this no matter who proposed it.

I heard a similar complaint from a dude who was working on my rain gutters. He was upset that he would have to buy medical insurance for himself, his wife, and three kids now. While I understood his limited funds due to his circumstances, I didn't mention the assistance ObamaCare would provide to help subsidize his needs, much like my employer does for its employees. Personally, he needs health insurance to pay medical bills if he, his wife, and/or his kids get sick.

So, you don't like having to pay for auto insurance either? Or are you one of the reasons my uninsured motorist premiums are so high?


I actually do not drive.

When I was younger I made that decision because I knew that I was not good at it at all. Kinda pissed off my mom. She made investments for me to go to drivers ed.

I realized that after I both ran a shopping cart into another car then wrecked the fence at our house.
 
2012-01-08 10:26:48 AM  

cman:

My opposition, for example, is basically centered on the individual mandate. I would not have liked this no matter who proposed it.


careful with words like that around these parts. that means that you are a racist and you don't want Obama to succeed.
 
2012-01-08 10:29:43 AM  

Emposter: tomWright: Hey after the libs on the Supreme Court ruled in Raich that the War on Drugs is perfectly Constitutional, the headline is right.

But Obama-care has not been ruled on yet.

/drtfa

Yeah, we all know how the Supreme Court is overflowing with "libs" and how much "libs" hate marijuana.

/sigh


Ah, the arrogance of ignorance, and intellectual bigotry arises again. Check the source.

Case opinions
Majority voting FOR the War on Drugs: Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
All liberals

Concurrence Scalia
One conservative fascist

Dissenting against the War on Drugs: O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist (part I, II), Thomas (parts I, II)
all conservative/libertarian

Dissent Thomas
conservative/libertarian

For a real mind blower, read Thomas' dissent (PDF (new window))

"Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States."

Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
"

and
"

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
"


and further:
"

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."[10]"
 
2012-01-08 10:29:45 AM  

Forced Perspective: AirForceVet: So, you don't like having to pay for auto insurance either? Or are you one of the reasons my uninsured motorist premiums are so high?

Auto insurance is enforced by state governments, who have general police power. What's more, it's possible to opt out by not having a car or, in some states, proving ability to pay out of pocket. Obamacare is enforced by the federal government, which does NOT have a general police power-- it has only the power granted to it by the Constitution. Obamacare essentially ends the notion that the federal government is limited, in that Obama apparently believes that the federal government can force you to buy any arbitrary product from any politically connected industry, in this case using the force of law to help out his buddies in the health insurance industry. Amazingly, this isn't even the most unconstitutional thing Obama has done, what with declaring that the Senate wasn't in session (even though it was) and making "recess" appointments (even though Senate wasn't in recess). If Obama had any chance of getting reelected, he should be impeached. Unfortunately, absent good faith from the democrat party, it's unlikely that the process could be completed in less than ten months.


Appropriate Fark handle is appropriate.
 
2012-01-08 10:31:24 AM  

ZAZ: Article fails to match Fark headline. She wants a ruling from a federal judge on whether Arizona's law is legal.

When medical marijuana went to the Supreme Court several "red state" attorneys general filed a brief in support of medical marijuana. They personally disapproved but thought California had the right to make its own policy.


It's even less complicated than that. She wanted to make sure state employees would not be under threat of federal action for their actions in approving dispensaries. How dare she look out for her employees. Evil indeed.
 
2012-01-08 10:31:38 AM  

AirForceVet:

So, you don't like having to pay for auto insurance either?


Do all the people who live in NYC or SF have auto insurance? How about every person living in college dorms? Or many of the elderly or disabled? Oh wait, many of them don't drive and they don't have auto insurance.

Good idea though, lets have everyone in the country be required to have auto insurance even if they don't drive or own a car since that will lower the rates for everyone else.
 
2012-01-08 10:33:08 AM  

AirForceVet: Opposition to ObamaCare is political showmanship, IMHO. I find it depressing that Republican state attorneys are using taxpayers' funds to challenge it across the country.


I'm tired of the DoJ using federal funds to attack states when they have a losing proposition: see the DoJ spending millions to lose the fight against Employer Sanction laws in Arizona in regards to hiring of illegal immigrants.

OOOH, I'm sorry, were you on a political diatribe without basis in reality? You mean courts actually are used to decide laws? FOR SHAME STATES USING COURTS.
 
2012-01-08 10:33:16 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: cman:

My opposition, for example, is basically centered on the individual mandate. I would not have liked this no matter who proposed it.

careful with words like that around these parts. that means that you are a racist and you don't want Obama to succeed.


What color is the sky on your world?
 
2012-01-08 10:33:33 AM  

tomWright: All liberals


Your head is up your ass.
 
2012-01-08 10:34:07 AM  

deschinc: So the gubmint mandating people have health insurance is bad but the gubmint mandating I not smoke pot, not marry a dude and not get the country's first androbortion is perfectly fine. I see.


You honestly don't see a difference between "You have to do this under threat of fines" versus "no, that's not allowed"?
 
2012-01-08 10:34:41 AM  
Patients and their caregivers can still grow. She is just blocking licenses for dispenseries with this BS. She is still a hypocrite and should DIAF while EABOD though.
 
2012-01-08 10:37:51 AM  

DarnoKonrad: tomWright: All liberals

Your head is up your ass.


DarnoKonrad: tomWright: All liberals

Your head is up your ass.


Where apparently I still have enough light to actually read the source. So where is your head at that you can't?

But don't let that stop you. After all, we all know if someone disagrees with you on something, they must be an apostate or heretic and therefore in league with the devil and must be destroyed. Or at least insulted.

/politics ain't simple
//only simpletons think it is
 
2012-01-08 10:42:51 AM  

tomWright: /politics ain't simple


And yet your whole argument relies on simply placing the justices in ideological pigenon holes solely to support your argument. Calling O'Connor a Libertarian/Conservatives is even stupider than the list of "liberal" justices.

You are not the sharpest crayon in the box tomWright
 
2012-01-08 10:43:10 AM  

MyRandomName: deschinc: So the gubmint mandating people have health insurance is bad but the gubmint mandating I not smoke pot, not marry a dude and not get the country's first androbortion is perfectly fine. I see.

You honestly don't see a difference between "You have to do this under threat of fines" versus "no, that's not allowed"?


The difference between "do this or we punish you" and "don't do this or we punish you" escapes me. But I'm sure you're about to enlighten me so I'll sit tight.
 
2012-01-08 10:46:21 AM  

tomWright: DarnoKonrad: tomWright: All liberals

Your head is up your ass.

DarnoKonrad: tomWright: All liberals

Your head is up your ass.

Where apparently I still have enough light to actually read the source. So where is your head at that you can't?

But don't let that stop you. After all, we all know if someone disagrees with you on something, they must be an apostate or heretic and therefore in league with the devil and must be destroyed. Or at least insulted.

/politics ain't simple
//only simpletons think it is


Right - and only simpletons who think politics is simple start sentences with "all liberals" or "all conservatives".
 
2012-01-08 10:47:25 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: AirForceVet:

So, you don't like having to pay for auto insurance either?

Do all the people who live in NYC or SF have auto insurance? How about every person living in college dorms? Or many of the elderly or disabled? Oh wait, many of them don't drive and they don't have auto insurance.

Good idea though, lets have everyone in the country be required to have auto insurance even if they don't drive or own a car since that will lower the rates for everyone else.


Yeah, there's lots of people that never get sick or old or die.
 
2012-01-08 10:48:26 AM  

JRoo: tenpoundsofcheese: AirForceVet:

So, you don't like having to pay for auto insurance either?

Do all the people who live in NYC or SF have auto insurance? How about every person living in college dorms? Or many of the elderly or disabled? Oh wait, many of them don't drive and they don't have auto insurance.

Good idea though, lets have everyone in the country be required to have auto insurance even if they don't drive or own a car since that will lower the rates for everyone else.

Yeah, there's lots of people that never get sick or old or die.


And the 2016 Republican Nominee is... The Highlander!
 
2012-01-08 10:52:31 AM  

DarnoKonrad: tomWright: /politics ain't simple

And yet your whole argument relies on simply placing the justices in ideological pigenon holes solely to support your argument. Calling O'Connor a Libertarian/Conservatives is even stupider than the list of "liberal" justices.

You are not the sharpest crayon in the box tomWright


DarnoKonrad: tomWright: /politics ain't simple

And yet your whole argument relies on simply placing the justices in ideological pigenon holes solely to support your argument. Calling O'Connor a Libertarian/Conservatives is even stupider than the list of "liberal" justices.

You are not the sharpest crayon in the box tomWright


Every place I have seen the justices ranked liberal/conservative says the same thing, with the possible exception of Kennedy who is sometimes a swing voter, but usually considered liberal.

So my comment stands.

But don't let facts stand in the way of your religion
 
2012-01-08 10:55:29 AM  

EvilEgg: cman: AirForceVet: Opposition to ObamaCare is political showmanship, IMHO. I find it depressing that Republican state attorneys are using taxpayers' funds to challenge it across the country.

I dont think it is political showmanship, I just think they hate the law.

My opposition, for example, is basically centered on the individual mandate. I would not have liked this no matter who proposed it.

Because we decided to go with a capitalist system we need to get those who use the system to pay for it. How would you recommend doing that.


My take is not to deny care for uninsured, but to use the IRS to make all people who use emergency medical care be charged and have to pay off their debt over time. To make that work, medical care in this country has to stop being the money grab that it is, IE no $200 tylenol pm's, a quarter mil for a surgery. It'll never happen, It's like $200 toilet seats, an abuse allowed in our system.

But it makes more sense than using the IRS to fine them for not playing the "I'm going to get sick tomorrow" lotto. I chose to get second rate insurance this year, just because I don't want to chance it, or to get fined; I may zone out between now and 2014, but I really don't like the government subsidizing the insurance industry, or even saying that it has the right to. I hope it fails, and not only fails, but fails the full law, so it has to be redone.

I would get the industry out of it. If I have to buy it, or be taxed for it, if single payer comes out of all of this, I would want it to be in the black, but not denying me service to shore up the books. If you have to as an American buy it, it should be done through the government, like SS, like federal taxes, etc. no third parties, no-one getting rich, paying stockholders, and thinking up new ways to make money off their new acquisitions. Federally mandated acquisitions.
 
2012-01-08 10:57:29 AM  

tomWright: Every place I have seen the justices ranked liberal/conservative says the same thing, with the possible exception of Kennedy who is sometimes a swing voter, but usually considered liberal.

So my comment stands.

But don't let facts stand in the way of your religion



What "facts?" You defended your bare assertion with another bare assertion.
 
2012-01-08 10:58:11 AM  

JRoo: tenpoundsofcheese: AirForceVet:

So, you don't like having to pay for auto insurance either?

Do all the people who live in NYC or SF have auto insurance? How about every person living in college dorms? Or many of the elderly or disabled? Oh wait, many of them don't drive and they don't have auto insurance.

Good idea though, lets have everyone in the country be required to have auto insurance even if they don't drive or own a car since that will lower the rates for everyone else.

Yeah, there's lots of people that never get sick or old or die.


You are wrong.
everyone dies.
Some get old.
Can't stop it.

but we force everyone to pay money anyway.
just like we should force everyone to have car insurance even if they don't drive.
 
2012-01-08 11:03:59 AM  

1morerun: EvilEgg: cman: AirForceVet: Opposition to ObamaCare is political showmanship, IMHO. I find it depressing that Republican state attorneys are using taxpayers' funds to challenge it across the country.

I dont think it is political showmanship, I just think they hate the law.

My opposition, for example, is basically centered on the individual mandate. I would not have liked this no matter who proposed it.

Because we decided to go with a capitalist system we need to get those who use the system to pay for it. How would you recommend doing that.

My take is not to deny care for uninsured, but to use the IRS to make all people who use emergency medical care be charged and have to pay off their debt over time. To make that work, medical care in this country has to stop being the money grab that it is, IE no $200 tylenol pm's, a quarter mil for a surgery. It'll never happen, It's like $200 toilet seats, an abuse allowed in our system.

But it makes more sense than using the IRS to fine them for not playing the "I'm going to get sick tomorrow" lotto. I chose to get second rate insurance this year, just because I don't want to chance it, or to get fined; I may zone out between now and 2014, but I really don't like the government subsidizing the insurance industry, or even saying that it has the right to. I hope it fails, and not only fails, but fails the full law, so it has to be redone.

I would get the industry out of it. If I have to buy it, or be taxed for it, if single payer comes out of all of this, I would want it to be in the black, but not denying me service to shore up the books. If you have to as an American buy it, it should be done through the government, like SS, like federal taxes, etc. no third parties, no-one getting rich, paying stockholders, and thinking up new ways to make money off their new acquisitions. Federally mandated acquisitions.


Good luck with that..
 
2012-01-08 11:06:38 AM  

MyRandomName: ZAZ: Article fails to match Fark headline. She wants a ruling from a federal judge on whether Arizona's law is legal.

When medical marijuana went to the Supreme Court several "red state" attorneys general filed a brief in support of medical marijuana. They personally disapproved but thought California had the right to make its own policy.

It's even less complicated than that. She wanted to make sure state employees would not be under threat of federal action for their actions in approving dispensaries. How dare she look out for her employees. Evil indeed.


It was a completely b.s. way of trying to avoid getting the dispensaries up and running. As the judge (Bolton) correctly noted, the actions of federal officials in other states with medical marijuana laws "do not substantiate a credible, specific warning or threat to initiate criminal proceedings against state employees in Arizona."

It's quite giggle-worthy that you seem to believe she was doing this out of some altruistic attempt to help state employees. A handful (if that many) state employees responsible for getting the dispensaries through the application process. Yes, I'm sure the thought that one such employee may be prosecuted keeps her up at night.
 
2012-01-08 11:07:31 AM  
www.reece-eu.net

You know who you are.
 
2012-01-08 11:09:40 AM  

DarnoKonrad: tomWright: Every place I have seen the justices ranked liberal/conservative says the same thing, with the possible exception of Kennedy who is sometimes a swing voter, but usually considered liberal.

So my comment stands.

But don't let facts stand in the way of your religion


What "facts?" You defended your bare assertion with another bare assertion.


I just added 'willfully ignorant' to my note about you.

Basic knowledge about people you are discussing politically, is where those people are politically. I have been burned badly whenever I forget that. So my advice to you: Go look it up and we can continue.
 
2012-01-08 11:12:02 AM  

Yeah_Right: Good luck with that..


So insurance companies can't do that? Why require every American to be part of one? They make record profits every year, but if they offered what they sell, they would fail? They are selling health care. Mandated by law.
 
2012-01-08 11:15:12 AM  

tomWright: DarnoKonrad: tomWright: Every place I have seen the justices ranked liberal/conservative says the same thing, with the possible exception of Kennedy who is sometimes a swing voter, but usually considered liberal.

So my comment stands.

But don't let facts stand in the way of your religion


What "facts?" You defended your bare assertion with another bare assertion.

I just added 'willfully ignorant' to my note about you.

Basic knowledge about people you are discussing politically, is where those people are politically. I have been burned badly whenever I forget that. So my advice to you: Go look it up and we can continue.



I need to look up "facts" (that are really just more opinions of a justice's ideological stance) to address your bare assertion?

Okay fine. Your "liberal" justice Kennedy is in the top 10 most conservative justices

And do tell me where it's a "fact" Scalia is a "fascist."
 
2012-01-08 11:15:53 AM  

Salt Lick Steady: MyRandomName: ZAZ: Article fails to match Fark headline. She wants a ruling from a federal judge on whether Arizona's law is legal.

When medical marijuana went to the Supreme Court several "red state" attorneys general filed a brief in support of medical marijuana. They personally disapproved but thought California had the right to make its own policy.

It's even less complicated than that. She wanted to make sure state employees would not be under threat of federal action for their actions in approving dispensaries. How dare she look out for her employees. Evil indeed.

It was a completely b.s. way of trying to avoid getting the dispensaries up and running. As the judge (Bolton) correctly noted, the actions of federal officials in other states with medical marijuana laws "do not substantiate a credible, specific warning or threat to initiate criminal proceedings against state employees in Arizona."

It's quite giggle-worthy that you seem to believe she was doing this out of some altruistic attempt to help state employees. A handful (if that many) state employees responsible for getting the dispensaries through the application process. Yes, I'm sure the thought that one such employee may be prosecuted keeps her up at night.



It is bullshiat and we should open the dispensaries.

And I don't think protecting the workers is her motive -- at all.

But aren't the Feds going after California workers on precisely this ground?

alternet (new window)

Regardless, if there was someway I could be the Home Depot to the Marijuana dispensaries, I would, if I was an attorney I would open a practice to defend them, If I was a consultant, I would sell them all sorts of business planning shiat.
 
2012-01-08 11:20:03 AM  
I am forced to give money to private companies all the time. This happens every time the government signs a contract with a private company. I do not have the option to say "I will not pay the part of my taxes that will be given to Halliburton." I am forced to buy my piece of the goods and services Halliburton is providing for US citizens. This is fundamentally no different the the individual mandate, except that government is giving people a choice which provider they want instead of collecting the money directly and giving it all to one company.
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report