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
Amos Quito: give me doughnuts: Amos Quito: ferretman: I don't think so:Unconstitutional and therefor ILLEGAL Federal Law trumps State LawFTFYPlease 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.
Weaver95: I suppose it wouldn't matter if I mentioned that cannabis isn't addictive...?
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.
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???
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.
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.
whidbey: CITATIONS NEEDED].
Want to see behind the curtain? Try
It's how we feed the squirrel
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 22 2017 03:44:52
Runtime: 0.418 sec (418 ms)