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.

(AZCentral)   Obama administration silent on 3 states initiatives to legalize recreational marijuana. Could Obama's secret plan involve turning the nation into drug addicts?   (azcentral.com) divider line 264
    More: Scary, obama, Controlled Substances Act, United States Code, school zones, drug czar, Obama administration, United States, marijuana  
•       •       •

2315 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Oct 2012 at 4:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-13 02:14:11 AM
"The Justice Department should speak out ahead of the ballot initiatives to avoid immediate court action," said Peter Bensinger, who was DEA administrator from 1976 to 1981. "The initiatives will be in direct conflict with federal law, international treaty obligations and Supreme Court rulings."

Really???
 
2012-10-13 02:30:46 AM
Of course they're quiet about it.

Can you imagine the Republican shiatstorm if Obama came out in support of weed?
 
2012-10-13 02:37:16 AM

cryinoutloud: We have another ballot initiative here too, one that will repeal the medical marijuana law and put into place some kind of much stricter law. Only 3 patients at once, you can't sell it, patients can grow their own, but only a few plants at a time, blah blah....

What I can't figure out is that I thought the damn thing had already been pretty much gutted. A few summers ago, the feds came in here and raided everybody, and the legislature had a shiat fit. At that time I thought they'd put this much stricter law into place, and most of the pot shops around town disappeared. Although there's still plenty for the size of this town. Now I got my absentee ballot, and here's this initiative to repeal the original law, but go with the stricter one.

Did the feds just come in here to scare the crap out of everyone, and then they went away? Because they haven't been back. Although some of the people they busted were convicted of one thing or another. Mostly the people who were the most outspoken about the law in the first place. Coincidence, I'm sure.

Oh, OK, I just looked it up. The whole she-bang is going through the rounds in the courts. 2, 3 court cases and appeals already.....and who knows what this new vote will do? Probably be fought, outlawed, appealed, raided, etc. etc. And this is just the STATE (Montana).

They're giving up. It's over, feds. I didn't even know this shiat was on the ballot again. I didn't hear a word about it. I don't think it's likely that we'll vote the stricter law into place--it was a big deal for about six months, when every stoner in town tried to open a dispensary and the parents freaked out, but they're just another store now. We don't even get the scare stories in the local newspaper anymore about how people are BREAKING INTO THE DISPENSARIES to get their weed.

/thank you for listening to my rambling


lol, wtf, I'm an MS patient, not a goddamn farmer.

You want to get the crime off the street... as much as I hate to say it... give the money to the bankers and the money men, not to street thugs... when people have a choice of buying weed at walgreens or going to some shady dude who might shoot them, guess where they'll go, You want to de-fund drug cartels and mexican crime lords... pit CitiGroup and BoA investment firms against them... your drug war will be done in a matter of weeks, and you won't need to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on doing it.

As for the scare tactics from the DEA and DoJ, the state is not obliged to enforce federal laws, we recognize your authority, and if you want to put a couple thousand more DEA agents on the beat and hundreds more lawyers, costing federal coffers billions of dollars just so you can keep propping this bullshiat up... go for it.. but I seriously doubt they're gonna go anywhere near that far, because if all the other states see they don't have to spend state funds on this drug war, then they'll pull back too and lean more on the feds to the point it just becomes untenable.
 
2012-10-13 02:39:35 AM

Amos Quito: give me doughnuts: Amos Quito: ferretman: I don't think so:

Unconstitutional and therefor ILLEGAL Federal Law trumps State Law


FTFY

Please detail what parts of the Constitution are being violated by Federal laws prohibiting the growth, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana.


Better yet, you show me where the constitution specifically authorizes the Federal government to regulate the growth, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana.

Failing that, please refer to the Tenth Amendment.


According to the court, through some really twisted logic in Wickard, as affirmed in the Gonzales decision, they affirmed that even if you grow something yourself for your own personal use, it's related to interstate commerce, so congress gets a say. Thank you, party of small government.
 
2012-10-13 03:41:06 AM
Um, Obama is silent on this because he's in favor of the drug war, as anyone with an attention span any longer than a caffeinated mayfly and any level of attention devoted to politics in the last four years damned well knows. GOP fanboi here seems to be a bit confused as to what the massively unpopular opinion to state that'll lose you a huge chunk of support is.
 
2012-10-13 03:59:55 AM
These Bush era prosecutors are just trying to make Obama look bad.
 
2012-10-13 05:15:00 AM

Weaver95: I suppose it wouldn't matter if I mentioned that cannabis isn't addictive...?


Not really, no.
 
2012-10-13 07:06:31 AM

jigger: Karma Curmudgeon: jigger: All I'm saying is let people grow some harmless plants, sell them if they want, and use them if they so choose, and don't go chasing after them for permits, licenses, taxes, and fees. Don't make it "legal" just make it not criminal.

What you wrote in the first sentence is outright legalization. I'm not sure why or where you're trying to draw a distinction between pot and tomatoes, or why you don't want to say that marijuana should be legalized when that is exactly what you're describing. I thought you were suggesting that a tax should be paid on homegrown marijuana and differentiating that with the by using the example of tomatoes.

/tomatoes

"Legalizing" involves all the permits, licenses, etc. Growing your own veggies and eating them isn't "legalized" it's non-criminal.


There has been enough threads about people growing crops on their front lawn getting in trouble with local authorities. Tomatoes might be "legal" but that doesn't mean you can plant them where you want (depending on local laws etc) nor can rezone your property for mass distribution of tomatoes either. A moderate smoker isn't going to want to go through the trouble to grow good quality in the amount that would need to be cultivated for that. Just saying ...
 
2012-10-13 10:16:01 AM
States Rights! Unless they do something the GOP doesn't approve of
 
2012-10-13 02:04:08 PM

drworm: "The Justice Department should speak out ahead of the ballot initiatives to avoid immediate court action," said Peter Bensinger, who was DEA administrator from 1976 to 1981. "The initiatives will be in direct conflict with federal law, international treaty obligations and Supreme Court rulings."

Really???


Yes.

Link

. . . The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs makes a distinction between recreational and medical and scientific uses of drugs. Numerous provisions state that nations are allowed to permit medical use of drugs. However, recreational use is prohibited by Article 4:
The parties shall take such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary . . . Subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs.
Furthermore, the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances requires its Parties to establish criminal penalties for possession of drugs prohibited under the Single Convention for recreational use. If a nation wished to completely legalize marijuana, it would have to withdraw from the treaties. . .
 
2012-10-13 04:05:31 PM

firefly212: As for the scare tactics from the DEA and DoJ, the state is not obliged to enforce federal laws, we recognize your authority, and if you want to put a couple thousand more DEA agents on the beat and hundreds more lawyers, costing federal coffers billions of dollars just so you can keep propping this bullshiat up... go for it.. but I seriously doubt they're gonna go anywhere near that far, because if all the other states see they don't have to spend state funds on this drug war, then they'll pull back too and lean more on the feds to the point it just becomes untenable.


Exactly. The Federal laws against marijuana will be unenforceable...especially as more states seek to pass laws legalizing marijuana.
 
2012-10-13 07:07:04 PM

Jim_Callahan: Um, Obama is silent on this because he's in favor of the drug war, as anyone with an attention span any longer than a caffeinated mayfly and any level of attention devoted to politics in the last four years damned well knows.


[CITATIONS NEEDED].
 
2012-10-13 07:14:49 PM

whidbey: CITATIONS NEEDED].


Study it out. You don't know? HE knows what he means. You haven't done your homework, mister, study it out.
 
2012-10-13 07:22:16 PM
d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net

/oblig and hot
 
Displayed 14 of 264 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report