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 99
    More: Scary, obama, Controlled Substances Act, United States Code, school zones, drug czar, Obama administration, United States, marijuana  
•       •       •

2317 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Oct 2012 at 4:08 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-12 11:58:48 AM  
9 votes:
It's states' rights until liberals do it.
2012-10-12 03:02:23 PM  
4 votes:
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

We're already a nation of drug addicts.
2012-10-12 12:11:52 PM  
4 votes:

logistic: I'm looking at it from the perspective of saving money on jailing/arresting/processing people for what really amounts to nothing at all.


Oh, absolutely. There's literally billions of dollars that could be saved by sending people to rehab instead of jail.

Personally, I think they should treat it like homebrewing: you can grow an amount for your own personal consumption and give as gifts, but you're not allowed to sell it and you're only allowed to grow X amount/year.
2012-10-12 05:24:01 PM  
3 votes:

Amos Quito: Too easy to grow = too hard to tax.


Tomatoes are easy to grow but I still pay money for them.

I sure as hell wouldn't waste my time cultivating plants when I could just run to the weed store and pick up a pack of joints.
2012-10-12 04:49:36 PM  
3 votes:

jigger:

How about instead of legalize, decriminalize. Let the government just stay out of it. In addition to not arresting people or harassing people for growing it, selling it, possessing it, or using it, they also don't tax it, subsidize it, etc. Just make it not a crime and leave people alone.


Decriminalizing is not the answer. Decriminalizing any narcotic means that people will still sell it unregulated, the profits will still go to those who don't pay taxes on it, the money will still be made by those who use criminal tactics to ensure their domination of the market.

When you legalize something, it is harder for young kids to get their hands on it. Drug dealers don't ask for ID when selling a bag of anything. Any highschool kid will tell you that it's easier to get pot than it is alcohol, because alcohol is legal and regulated.

Legalization is the only way around this problem. You starve the cartels and gangs of their profits, which eliminates a lot of the turf wars that are caused because of drug sales, you encourage a new source of revenue for a market that already exists, but is currently being run in the shadows.

And the most simple truth is that if alcohol is legal, than surely marijuana should be. I shouldn't have to tell anyone here that marijuana overdoses are impossible, and that alcohol creates an exponentially greater amount of health/societal/domestic issues than pot does.
2012-10-12 04:27:27 PM  
3 votes:

stewmadness: Yeaaaahhhh, somthing else legalized that is terrible for you.


So, by all means. Please post the statistics of deaths as a direct result of marijuana use.

Or maybe show the study that links marijuana to causing cancer or heart disease? I mean, I'm sure that you've formed your opinion about how terrible it is based on factual information and researched scientific study. It should be easy for you to find such evidence to support your position... right?
2012-10-12 12:21:45 PM  
3 votes:
It's about farking time. Just legalize it already. I have yet to see a single reason to keep pot any more regulated than booze.

/don't have any interest in using it myself, just tired of sanctimonious BS
//And I support the crap out of state's rights.
2012-10-12 12:00:19 PM  
3 votes:
Second term.
2012-10-12 11:34:07 AM  
3 votes:
I'm hoping that Obama's just staying out of the issue until he's re-elected. I think we'll see some movement then.
2012-10-12 06:18:53 PM  
2 votes:
An interesting graph about the war on drugs. Yes, I know pot isn't addictive like hard core drugs.

pjmedia.com
2012-10-12 05:30:54 PM  
2 votes:

Amos Quito: tricycleracer: Amos Quito: Too easy to grow = too hard to tax.

Tomatoes are easy to grow but I still pay money for them.

I sure as hell wouldn't waste my time cultivating plants when I could just run to the weed store and pick up a pack of joints.


You may not want to grow it, but some of your buddies likely would, and wouldn't you rather support a friend's happy hobby than pay taxes on Phillip Morris / RJ Reynolds frankenweed?

/Most people would


Look, I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just saying that I really think there is a market out there. If McDonalds can sell bland hamburgers to the American public, there's a market for Marlboro Greens.
2012-10-12 05:17:01 PM  
2 votes:
President Camacho: Now I understand everyone's shiat's emotional right now. But I've got a 3 point plan that's going to fix EVERYTHING.
Congressman #1: Break it down, Camacho!
President Camacho: Number 1: We've got this guy KingPsyz. Number 2: He's got a higher IQ than ANY MAN ALIVE. and Number 3: He's going to fix EVERYTHING.


Legalize Pot

Tax Pot

Budget fixed
2012-10-12 04:38:43 PM  
2 votes:
It seems Republicans are for state's rights until they're not for them.

"The states can govern themselves!"

What about weed, abortion and gay marriage?

Oh, well, the Federal Government has spoken.


disgusting
2012-10-12 04:35:40 PM  
2 votes:

Amos Quito: randomjsa: Doubtful. He knows the pot heads are already on his side.

Really? Why?

Medical marijuana trial for Aaron Sandusky continues with jury deliberations today

"LOS ANGELES - Jurors started deliberating late Thursday in the trial of Aaron Sandusky, a former president of three medical-marijuana dispensaries in Upland, Moreno Valley and Colton."

[...]

The jury will decide on six counts of drug trafficking against Sandusky, which could result in a sentence of 10 years to life in prison.

"Federal law states marijuana is illegal to manufacture, distribute or use," Judge Percy Anderson instructed the jury.

"You must disregard any state laws that state to the contrary."

END QUOTE


Yeah, Obama's your man.


I hope that at least one of the jurors knows about jury nullification.

/Unlikely, though
2012-10-12 04:24:32 PM  
2 votes:
Conservatives only like state rights when it comes to legalizing discrimination.
2012-10-12 04:14:43 PM  
2 votes:

slayer199: Using the ever-expanding definitions of the Commerce Clause, that's how. Again, if these 3 state legalize the use of marijuana...the fed can sit and spin because if the city, county and state police abide by the law, the Feds do NOT have the resources to enforce. In other words, if you grow pot in your home for personal consumption, the odds are VERY long against the feds raiding your home.


Which is why the feds will instead go after dispensaries (or their landlords), or in WA law, the stores selling MJ. The regulated sale (Whether by dispensary or other retail outlet) is probably the biggest plus to these laws. Instead of buying weed of unknown original (Cartel/Mexican), and unknown quality, in California you can walk into a dispensary, many of which test and list the chemical breakdown of the weed and know it was grown locally in the state, often by dedicated "craft growers".

While buying weed from a friend of a friend or growing your own in a closet works if you want to get high in college, that doesn't work for grandmothers (like mine) who need it to be able to eat while going through chemotherapy.

Its very important that weed not just be decriminalized, but sold through retail (Dispensaries, government owned "liquor" stores or whatever) and regulated. Its important that it be coming from a safe source (no hazardous pesticides), the proceeds not be going to organized crime, that customer know exactly what they are getting, and that they are easily able to procure it.

That's the problem with the Fed. Them going after dispensaries keeps the mj out of the hands of people who need it, while at the same time driving drug money to Mexican drug lords and increasing the risk of death or injury due to contaminates.
2012-10-12 02:20:52 PM  
2 votes:

logistic: States are getting tired of it. Look at the Oregon "Right to Die" decision that directly says "Piss off" to the federal government and the feds can't do a thing about it.


Pretty much this. Since states have to legalized medical MJ, the fed has gone after them with a vigor (despite Obama's 2008 promise NOT to use federal resources for that very purpose). If the states outright legalize pot, the federal government will NOT be able to enforce it given that 10-15% of the population already smokes pot. If it's state law, the cities, county and state law enforcement agencies cannot prosecute for it. The feds don't have the resources to enforce it on that scale.

I'm optimistic that the 3 states will pass the law and start the collapse of the failed "War on Drugs."
2012-10-12 01:58:58 PM  
2 votes:
I suppose it wouldn't matter if I mentioned that cannabis isn't addictive...?
2012-10-12 01:57:00 PM  
2 votes:

Leeds: Obama would win the election if he made ending the "War on Drugs" a priority for a second term.

And by "priority" I mean something he actually pushes for, not like all of his broken campaign promises from the last time around...


The problem is, even Rolling Stone admits Obama's war on pot makes Bush Jr. look like a piker.
2012-10-12 12:58:07 PM  
2 votes:

violentsalvation: Do you actually believe that, or is it just wishful thinking?


I believe if anything is going to happen at the federal level, it will be in Obama's second term. Certainly could be considered wishful thinking.
2012-10-12 12:56:51 PM  
2 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: olddeegee: I'm hoping that Obama's just staying out of the issue until he's re-elected. I think we'll see some movement then.

The DEA would almost disappear if marijuana were legalized, so it's not going to happen.


The DEA would be just fine. There are plenty of other drugs for them to go after. Local police forces don't like changing it. A bulky drug like pot is much easier to find than other drugs.
2012-10-12 11:47:17 AM  
2 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: olddeegee: I'm hoping that Obama's just staying out of the issue until he's re-elected.

There's really no reason for him to do anything unless something actually passes. And Lord knows that stoners ain't exactly the most reliable voting block.


I'm positive that's one of the biggest prohibitive issues with the entire movement. They are so busy rallying behind Ron Paul and the whack jobs that many supporters of NORML policy are their own worst enemy. If mainstream Americans started accepting and promoting the initiatives that these states are trying to adopt, I think it would be a huge positive change.

I'm looking at it from the perspective of saving money on jailing/arresting/processing people for what really amounts to nothing at all. And if we legalize marijuana, we cut off a major point of exposure to people for other drugs (drug dealers). Just my two cents.
2012-10-12 11:22:59 AM  
2 votes:

ferretman: I don't think so:

Federal Law trumps State Law


States are getting tired of it. Look at the Oregon "Right to Die" decision that directly says "Piss off" to the federal government and the feds can't do a thing about it.
2012-10-12 11:20:40 AM  
2 votes:
2012-10-12 08:23:23 PM  
1 votes:

ferretman: I don't think so:

Federal Law trumps State Law


Thrilling, when you want the DEA and federal government to actually get the funding to prosecute college kids with a quarter ounce of pot... you can pay for it... my state has other priorities.
2012-10-12 08:01:00 PM  
1 votes:

chuckufarlie: Weed is a lot less harmful than many of the things sold in stores all over the country. Booze and cigarettes top that list. Weed should be legal.


I'm a huge supporter of legalization. I would go so far as to say that if weed were legalized tomorrow, I'd be first in line for some white widow, but the reality is alcohol and tobacco are regulated by the government, and weed should be regulated as well. The taxes will help economies, You won't end up with ditch weed after some asshole promises you "it's the chronic", you won't be smoking a lung full of DDT, and hopefully less kids will have access to it.
2012-10-12 07:38:33 PM  
1 votes:

Amos Quito: TheBigJerk: violentsalvation: Dusk-You-n-Me: Second term.

Do you actually believe that, or is it just wishful thinking? This administration is worse for medical marijuana than the administration before it.

[CITATION NEEDED]


For the third time...


So this is worse than every previous administration...how? Because by not arresting every person related to that guy he was somehow worse? And didn't he officially "shift focus" telling the justice department to work on other things instead of marijuana, to much consternation and finger-wagging by Republicans?

I understand frustration at lack of progress, but a black democrat won't be legalizing pot in THIS climate, too many "implications" and too expensive in terms of political capital. It's like asking someone to enter their family car into a charity demolition derby. Good cause, bad use of resources.
2012-10-12 07:24:36 PM  
1 votes:

olddeegee: Marcus Aurelius: olddeegee: I'm hoping that Obama's just staying out of the issue until he's re-elected. I think we'll see some movement then.

The DEA would almost disappear if marijuana were legalized, so it's not going to happen.

The DEA would be just fine. There are plenty of other drugs for them to go after. Local police forces don't like changing it. A bulky drug like pot is much easier to find than other drugs.


The DEA resists changing it because they resist change and buy into some of their own bullshiat, but the real push comes entirely from the Prison Lobby. Private industry that has a vested interest in making sure there are a lot of people locked up and making them money.
2012-10-12 07:24:13 PM  
1 votes:

Rev.K: Drug addicts or Muslims.

Take your pick, America.


Homeland Security proudly announces its new "Terrorists or Tokers" program.
2012-10-12 07:10:19 PM  
1 votes:
only a matter of time....only a matter of time. and time to put the zetas, crips, vice lords, ms13, and bloods all out of business.

and no more mexican brick with those nasty little crushed black seeds anymore either. yay!

/iowan
//we can grow stuff here
///cough cough cough
2012-10-12 06:46:41 PM  
1 votes:

Explodo: Living in CO, I know many completely normal people, even some who've never tried marijuana EVER that are voting for legalization. It's not the "stoner" voting bloc versus everyone else, it's the rational versus the irrational.


And that's the kicker. It just isn't a big deal here to most people. Even if they don't smoke, they know someone who does. I think Amendment 64 may actually pass this time.
2012-10-12 06:19:01 PM  
1 votes:

Ego edo infantia cattus: I've seen many different types of dealers and growers, and I'm willing to bet that your "couple houses in the hood" grower had a few firearms around.


Lots of people have "a few firearms around." And?

And come to think of it, I never saw him with a gun or any gun associated with him ever. He was a total hippie that liked to go canoeing. The houses were usually unattended. I guess he just took his chances when it came to break ins.

Ego edo infantia cattus: The Mexican cartels aren't the only criminal element that Prohibition causes. There are some good mom and pop growers out there, but for every one of them there's a dozen tweekers and cartel grows in the woods, and believe me, people go missing because of that shiat.


It's because of the prohibition, man. If people who grow large quantities of weed don't have to skulk around because the state might throw them in prison for 20 years, then there would be less of that. And the cartel grows would either go out of business or come out into the open. The ones on federal land (or whatever, land they didn't own) would still be in the shadows and not worth the upkeep. Those would die out.

Ego edo infantia cattus: One of my towns city council members got killed because he stumbled on a grow while hiking in our state forest, and I've heard a few stories about the cartel grows up here too. The small dealers don't perpetrate too many violent crimes, but then there's the ones that are dealing more than weed. If we legalized it, normal average smokers wouldn't have to deal with scumbags that have a gun hidden between their couch cushions.


By "legalize" here, you're talking about regulated right? There seem to be some semantic disputes in this thread. Anyway, if the regulations are tight enough, then there's still ample room for a black market.

If anyone can buy and sell it, the less trustworthy (or dangerous) sellers will lose business to the more trustworthy ones.
2012-10-12 06:15:43 PM  
1 votes:
Decriminalization would be enough. Who wants weak government weed that's taxed and comes from a factory farm? Just stop heavily persecuting people who smoke it or grow it. Don't allow its use on the street, only in licensed shops and clubs. Everything will be groovy.

thumbs.anyclip.com

Grrroooooovy
2012-10-12 06:15:26 PM  
1 votes:

violentsalvation: Dusk-You-n-Me: Second term.

Do you actually believe that, or is it just wishful thinking? This administration is worse for medical marijuana than the administration before it.


[CITATION NEEDED]
2012-10-12 06:04:11 PM  
1 votes:

mongbiohazard: ferretman: I don't think so:

Federal Law trumps State Law

Federal law is supreme over state laws yes... but that only matters if you have the resources to actually enforce those laws. If several states were to fully legalize pot, refuse to arrest or prosecute for it, then there isn't much the feds could do.


Makes me wonder if there might be some teeth hidden in USA PATRIOT or some other bit of authoritarian legislation that requires local authorities to cooperate with DHS (or other Federal agencies) when enforcing Federal crimes.

If cops can't refuse to help, then local laws mean nothing.
2012-10-12 06:02:05 PM  
1 votes:

Amos Quito:
They wouldn't be if they mandated $20.00 per plate in taxes in BBQ restaurants, thinking it's going to be a cash cow.


Pretty sure it would fall under the same taxation as booze and cigs.
People will complain about the cost all the way up to the cash register, same as they do now.
2012-10-12 05:58:51 PM  
1 votes:
Marijuana is the cash cow of the privatized prison system.
2012-10-12 05:58:19 PM  
1 votes:

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


Legalized just means there's no law against it, and doesn't automatically imply regulation, thought most people would assume it would be regulated because other legal drugs are regulated. To be clear, you should say you're for the the unregulated, untaxed legalization of marijuana, not decriminalization, which means something entirely different than what you were trying to say.
2012-10-12 05:55:14 PM  
1 votes:
BTW, this a pretty good book regarding the complexity of growing if anyone wants to read it. Those good 'ol boys in Kentucky know a thing or two about making things under prohibition, that's for sure.
ecx.images-amazon.com
2012-10-12 05:52:34 PM  
1 votes:
Nah.
I mean it's marijuana, you can't get but psychologically addicted. Aspirin and tylenol are a bigger threat to your health and more addictive.
Unless this is all a cover while Obama channels Reagan and the CIA and starts pushing crack in white neighborhoods.
2012-10-12 05:50:53 PM  
1 votes:

Ball Peen Hammer Laxative: Not sure if anybody mentioned this yet, but I think Holder is purposely not answering and is deciding that the states' rights are more important, secretly hoping it passes. If it does, a lot of people will be pissed/paranoid, whatever, and Holder will say that too much government is not going to help the states. The Teabaggers believe that smaller government is the way to go. If they go against what they preach, they will out themselves as hypocrites.


Again?
2012-10-12 05:49:58 PM  
1 votes:

jigger: Ego edo infantia cattus: Yeah, my guess is that jigger lives in the middle of nowhere and has never had to deal with a paranoid grower or major drug dealer in his or her life.

Would they be so paranoid if there weren't a risk of a long prison sentence. And yes, I knew a guy who owned a couple houses in the hood, where the whole house was filled with plants. And yeah, he was paranoid, but he stayed super low key obviously. He didn't get into any "turf wars." It's not like there was some gang selling weed on the corner in the hood and had to fight over the corner. Jeez.


I've seen many different types of dealers and growers, and I'm willing to bet that your "couple houses in the hood" grower had a few firearms around. The Mexican cartels aren't the only criminal element that Prohibition causes. There are some good mom and pop growers out there, but for every one of them there's a dozen tweekers and cartel grows in the woods, and believe me, people go missing because of that shiat. One of my towns city council members got killed because he stumbled on a grow while hiking in our state forest, and I've heard a few stories about the cartel grows up here too. The small dealers don't perpetrate too many violent crimes, but then there's the ones that are dealing more than weed. If we legalized it, normal average smokers wouldn't have to deal with scumbags that have a gun hidden between their couch cushions.
2012-10-12 05:49:28 PM  
1 votes:
Not sure if anybody mentioned this yet, but I think Holder is purposely not answering and is deciding that the states' rights are more important, secretly hoping it passes. If it does, a lot of people will be pissed/paranoid, whatever, and Holder will say that too much government is not going to help the states. The Teabaggers believe that smaller government is the way to go. If they go against what they preach, they will out themselves as hypocrites.
2012-10-12 05:47:08 PM  
1 votes:

Amos Quito: MSFT: Amos Quito:
There's a slight problem with that plan. 

Too easy to grow = too hard to tax.

I love beer but don't take the time to brew my own. Same goes for weed.
Pretty sure I'm not in the minority when it comes to this.


Ask New Yorkers about cigarette taxes. Bootlegging has gone wild there.

People seem to think the GOV will be able to tax the shiat out of weed and make a killing off of dopers, but beyond a certain point you create a black market, and all the FUN (crime, violence, corruption, etc) that goes with it.


/Also, homestyle weed is much easier than beer


Tell that to someone who has been dealing with spider mites for several grow cycles. And let's not forget several hundred dollars in a decent lighting system, quality starter seeds, a grow room/ closet that can handle the heat from the lamps, three months to kill....

Some people will grow it just like some people brew their own beer, but why you think this will be a majority is beyond me. I make the most amazing BBQ in my smoker, but somehow all these crappy restaurants are still in business...
2012-10-12 05:45:32 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-12 05:37:14 PM  
1 votes:
I think it would be funny if the munchie manufacturing industries would start and heavily fund a pro-legalization SuperPAC.
2012-10-12 05:36:45 PM  
1 votes:

tricycleracer: Look, I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just saying that I really think there is a market out there. If McDonalds can sell bland hamburgers to the American public, there's a market for Marlboro Greens.


I agree. I think it'll be a lot like beer. Some folks will always buy the cheapest beer in the store. Some folks look for the most finely made handcrafted beers they can get their hands on. Still others will brew their own because the store bought stuff just doesn't have the love and care they would put into it themselves.

I don't see why marijuana would be any different.
2012-10-12 05:35:02 PM  
1 votes:

jigger: Karma Curmudgeon: jigger: So I have to pay a tax on my own homegrown tomatoes?

Oh, I think I see what you're saying now. You want people get a tax stamp to grow , is that it? Ironically, this is how the feds made what was a ubiquitous crop at the time, illegal in the first place.

Huh? No. Anything involving permits, stamps, taxes or anything like that would mean that it was "legal."

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.


So someone gets to enforce the law, just not the government?

/doublespeak is how we got the drug war, gun bans, and a bunch of other useless things.
/just make it legal and leave people the fark alone.
2012-10-12 05:28:44 PM  
1 votes:

Amos Quito:
There's a slight problem with that plan. 

Too easy to grow = too hard to tax.


I love beer but don't take the time to brew my own. Same goes for weed.
Pretty sure I'm not in the minority when it comes to this.
2012-10-12 05:28:39 PM  
1 votes:

jigger: mongbiohazard: ferretman: I don't think so:

Federal Law trumps State Law

Federal law is supreme over state laws yes... but that only matters if you have the resources to actually enforce those laws. If several states were to fully legalize pot, refuse to arrest or prosecute for it, then there isn't much the feds could do.

It depends. The feds can bribe the states with road funding, etc. like they do with all sorts of stuff.


Coincidentally enough, the SCOTUS just laid down a marker about that in the Obamacare ruling.
2012-10-12 05:27:03 PM  
1 votes:

fqhollis: Y'know who is one of the prominent supporters of the Colorado amendment to regulate marijuana like alcohol?

Staunch conservacritter Tom freakin' Tancredo.

Y'know who is one of the prominent members of the opposition to the amendment?

Former brewpub owner and current Democratic governor John Hickenlooper.

Strange world. Maybe Tancredo's for it because he thinks it would screw "the Mexicans" or something. Maybe Hick's against it because he has aspirations for higher office.

Linkage


Well, Hickenlooper has come out against Amendment 64 (hypocrite), but he isn't campaigning against it. So, I'm not sure calling him part of the opposition is fair. Ken Buck, Tea Party/small government proponent, however....
2012-10-12 05:25:41 PM  
1 votes:

MSFT: Eligarf: He's not talking about it because it is a non-issue for the POTUS. It has nothing to do with his jorb or his responsibilities as president, so his opinion means exactly dick. He knows full well that if it comes down to it the SCOTUS will be making the ruling on it, not the president, and he knows that if/when that happens he will be long gone anyway. So what would be the point of him getting involved with it, or even talking about it? The only thing it would accomplish is further national divisiveness. I actually think not talking about it shows a lot of responsibility and discipline on his part.

He's worth re-electing based on SCOTUS appointments alone. Anyone have any idea how many we expect to lose over the next 4yrs?


Possibly as many as five.

Ginsburg is 79 and I think we can count on her retiring sometime in the next 4 years, regardless of the nature of the administration.

Scalia is 76 and won't voluntarily retire under a Democratic president, but would probably retire if Romney wins.

Thomas is only 64, but may feel the heat over his conduct. He could take the assurance of a Romney-appointed successor and follow Scalia.

Kennedy is 76 and Breyer is 74, so who knows.

There's almost no chance of replacing Kagan, Sotomayor, Roberts, and Alito.
2012-10-12 05:25:10 PM  
1 votes:

mongbiohazard: ferretman: I don't think so:

Federal Law trumps State Law

Federal law is supreme over state laws yes... but that only matters if you have the resources to actually enforce those laws. If several states were to fully legalize pot, refuse to arrest or prosecute for it, then there isn't much the feds could do.


It depends. The feds can bribe the states with road funding, etc. like they do with all sorts of stuff.
2012-10-12 05:25:03 PM  
1 votes:

jigger: So I have to pay a tax on my own homegrown tomatoes?


Oh, I think I see what you're saying now. You want people get a tax stamp to grow , is that it? Ironically, this is how the feds made what was a ubiquitous crop at the time, illegal in the first place.
2012-10-12 05:23:40 PM  
1 votes:

Amos Quito: mongbiohazard: ferretman: I don't think so:

Federal Law trumps State Law

Federal law is supreme over state laws yes... but that only matters if you have the resources to actually enforce those laws. If several states were to fully legalize pot, refuse to arrest or prosecute for it, then there isn't much the feds could do.


Just like they couldn't enforce a national speed limit (55), or a national drinking age (21) etc, right?

They don't have to physically enforce the laws, they just threaten to withhold federal funds (highway money), and the states cave.


Ah, but that would require an act of Congress and would trigger a national fight discussion over MJ. There is no way the DEA and the prohibitionists want that. They want to maintain the status quo for as long as possible. The writing is on the wall and they know it.
2012-10-12 05:19:50 PM  
1 votes:
consenting adults with states' laws behind them can't have a harmless weed. but kids can be given Adderal for low test scores in school.
2012-10-12 05:17:52 PM  
1 votes:
Y'know who is one of the prominent supporters of the Colorado amendment to regulate marijuana like alcohol?

Staunch conservacritter Tom freakin' Tancredo.

Y'know who is one of the prominent members of the opposition to the amendment?

Former brewpub owner and current Democratic governor John Hickenlooper.

Strange world. Maybe Tancredo's for it because he thinks it would screw "the Mexicans" or something. Maybe Hick's against it because he has aspirations for higher office.

Linkage
2012-10-12 05:17:46 PM  
1 votes:

Ego edo infantia cattus: Yeah, my guess is that jigger lives in the middle of nowhere and has never had to deal with a paranoid grower or major drug dealer in his or her life.


Would they be so paranoid if there weren't a risk of a long prison sentence. And yes, I knew a guy who owned a couple houses in the hood, where the whole house was filled with plants. And yeah, he was paranoid, but he stayed super low key obviously. He didn't get into any "turf wars." It's not like there was some gang selling weed on the corner in the hood and had to fight over the corner. Jeez.
2012-10-12 05:17:31 PM  
1 votes:

EighthDay: It's a shame the legalization voting bloc can't get more momentum going.


You haven't seen major strides towards legalization?

So many people seem to think this is an all or nothing game where the "big prize" is the only goal. There are 17 states with legal medicinal use. Some states have decriminalized it. Three states are straight up trying to legalize it. Do you not recognize that each step forward makes the leap towards national legalization that much shorter? If we keep on with the pace we're going, I suspect national legalization will only be a baby step away in a few years time.
2012-10-12 05:14:27 PM  
1 votes:

EighthDay: I've never smoked pot in my life and even I think it should be legal and regulated.

The amount of tax revenue that could be generated is staggering, the amount of tax expenses it would save is equally staggering.

But we get bent over by Big Pharma, Big Prison, and Big Bureaucracy to keep it illegal.

Hell, the DEA could be kept intact and have all those who currently focus on pot arrests moving toward pot regulations and Big Bureaucracy still comes out ahead!

It's a shame the legalization voting bloc can't get more momentum going.


20 years ago no states had medical marijuana laws and public support for legalization hovered around 30%. Now 18 states and D.C. have such laws and 50% of the population supports legalization. There's plenty of momentum.
2012-10-12 05:13:17 PM  
1 votes:

ferretman: I don't think so:

Federal Law trumps State Law


Federal law is supreme over state laws yes... but that only matters if you have the resources to actually enforce those laws. If several states were to fully legalize pot, refuse to arrest or prosecute for it, then there isn't much the feds could do.
2012-10-12 05:12:51 PM  
1 votes:

Egalitarian: marijuana is practically legal in many parts of Colorado. You just need to pretend you have back pain or something, see an easy-going doctor, and you're on your way to a pot party.

The cops' business hasn't decreased that much -- the medicinal marijuana shops get knocked over as much as banks and convenience stores, if not more so.


I've been watching Boardwalk Empire lately. It's a great show, but you really need to start watching from the 1st episode to get what's going on. Anyway, it really is a little fictional window into the way the real world operates.

And sometimes the cops are the ones doing the knocking over.
Link
2012-10-12 05:08:23 PM  
1 votes:

jigger: Think of it the same way growing tomatoes in your backyard and eating them for dinner is decriminalized.


That's because those aren't decriminalized, they're legal.
2012-10-12 05:06:51 PM  
1 votes:

ferretman: I don't think so:

Federal Law trumps State Law


You think the people behind the legalization efforts don't know that? The point is to force the issue to be debated nationally, because our overlords will not under any circumstances even consider a change unless they are forced. Exhibit A: When Obama had an online "conversation" on youtube, 18 of the top 20 questions were about marijuana or the drug war, and he refused to answer even one of them. The powers that be refuse to treat marijuana as a serious or controversial issue, despite the fact that literally millions of Americans have had their lives destroyed over it and half the population thinks marijuana should be legalized. If at least one of these initiatives passes they will no longer be able to ignore it. The inevitable federal crackdown will also likely be farked up and unpopular enough to push more people into the pro-legalization camp. It's all part of the plan, and the plan is not simply to legalize marijuana in Colorado and Washington, or to legalize it state by state; you're thinking small.
2012-10-12 05:02:26 PM  
1 votes:
Really the best thing the POTUS can do right now is keep silent and not politicize the issue. A lot of conservatives support this issue on libertarian leaning grounds. Making it Red vs Blue just risks eroding that support. The best thing really is for the state to decriminalize it, see savings in their law enforcement budget (and perhaps a bit of a tax bump from the weed sales) which in turn leads other states to get in on this. Then you reach a point were either the federal government changes the federal laws or we can do the whole "States amend the constitution" thing to deal with the DEA and federal drug laws.

The minute the POTUS endorses this, Congress will turn into a shiat flinging mess over this issue and that just hurts the movement.
2012-10-12 04:57:57 PM  
1 votes:

Karma Curmudgeon: jigger: Decriminalize growing, selling, possessing, and using.

Decriminalize doesn't mean it's legal. Just that it's not a crime, like speeding is not a crime, it's a civil infraction.

Weed is decriminalized in Maine. A citation for possession or paraphernalia typically means a $350 fine, and confiscation of the pot and/or device. And FSM help you if you have it in more than one bag.


I see. We are looking at the word decriminalize differently. You're using it in the context that the state currently uses it. "Ok, this isn't a crime you just committed. It's a civil offense. Sure, you'll be punished for it all the same, maybe with jail time, but this is not a criminal case, ok."

I'm using the term to mean that there will be no force used against you for your actions. You committed no crime, therefore there will be no retribution. No tickets. No confiscations. You will just be left alone. Think of it the same way growing tomatoes in your backyard and eating them for dinner is decriminalized.
2012-10-12 04:53:50 PM  
1 votes:

jigger: Decriminalize growing, selling, possessing, and using.


Decriminalize doesn't mean it's legal. Just that it's not a crime, like speeding is not a crime, it's a civil infraction.

Weed is decriminalized in Maine. A citation for possession or paraphernalia typically means a $350 fine, and confiscation of the pot and/or device. And FSM help you if you have it in more than one bag.
2012-10-12 04:52:54 PM  
1 votes:
End prohibition.
2012-10-12 04:52:49 PM  
1 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: logistic: I'm looking at it from the perspective of saving money on jailing/arresting/processing people for what really amounts to nothing at all.

Oh, absolutely. There's literally billions of dollars that could be saved by sending people to rehab instead of jail.

Personally, I think they should treat it like homebrewing: you can grow an amount for your own personal consumption and give as gifts, but you're not allowed to sell it and you're only allowed to grow X amount/year.


Saved? Onerous regulation could probably curb usage, certainly by minors, and taxes on it could take in a hell of a lot of money. In Washington, the marijuana crop is estimated to be worth billions; possibly more than Apples. Sure costs probably would be reduced, greatly; but, the budget could be put well into the black without even counting on those savings. Not to mention the increased employment and attendant benefits.
2012-10-12 04:43:08 PM  
1 votes:

Eligarf: He's not talking about it because it is a non-issue for the POTUS.


He did talk about it before. He said that the DEA would not fark with medical marijuana operations that were in compliance with state law. That lasted less than a year, then the DEA started farking with medical marijuana operations that were in compliance with state law.

Eligarf: It has nothing to do with his jorb or his responsibilities as president, so his opinion means exactly dick.


He is the boss of the DEA.

Eligarf: He knows full well that if it comes down to it the SCOTUS will be making the ruling on it, not the president, and he knows that if/when that happens he will be long gone anyway.


SCOTUS ruled on it in 2005. They said, fark you, federal law trumps state law. Commerce clause, biatches.

Eligarf: So what would be the point of him getting involved with it, or even talking about it? The only thing it would accomplish is further national divisiveness. I actually think not talking about it shows a lot of responsibility and discipline on his part.


Or completely cold calculated cynicism and hypocrisy.
2012-10-12 04:36:57 PM  
1 votes:

MSFT: stewmadness: Yeaaaahhhh, somthing else legalized that is terrible for you.

No kidding. We legalize anything else and people will start calling this "the land of the free" or some BS.
I don't know about you, but if I wanted to be free I would move to Canada.


I'm moving there.

To a dugout in the wilds of the Yukon Territories. As far from other people as I can possibly manage. And I'll kill anything that approaches on less than three legs.
2012-10-12 04:36:53 PM  
1 votes:

MSFT: stewmadness: Yeaaaahhhh, somthing else legalized that is terrible for you.

No kidding. We legalize anything else and people will start calling this "the land of the free" or some BS.
I don't know about you, but if I wanted to be free I would move to Canada.


How about instead of legalize, decriminalize. Let the government just stay out of it. In addition to not arresting people or harassing people for growing it, selling it, possessing it, or using it, they also don't tax it, subsidize it, etc. Just make it not a crime and leave people alone.
2012-10-12 04:33:18 PM  
1 votes:

stewmadness: Yeaaaahhhh, somthing else legalized that is terrible for you.


No kidding. We legalize anything else and people will start calling this "the land of the free" or some BS.
I don't know about you, but if I wanted to be free I would move to Canada.
2012-10-12 04:28:03 PM  
1 votes:

stewmadness: Yeaaaahhhh, somthing else legalized that is terrible for you.


the stupid, it's burning one.
2012-10-12 04:27:22 PM  
1 votes:

ferretman: I don't think so:

Federal Law trumps State Law


So, states get to decide abortion, civil rights, etc, but the federal government regulates drugs. Oh, and federal law trumps state law on gay rights, but only when it's more restrictive. Do I have this right?
2012-10-12 04:25:07 PM  
1 votes:

randomjsa: Doubtful. He knows the pot heads are already on his side.


That's why his DEA is cracking down on them as we speak.
2012-10-12 04:22:45 PM  
1 votes:
I suspect the Obama admin will remain silent on the issue. There are so many other big fish to go after and marijuana prohibition isn't a strong polling point for Obama. In fact, any candidate coming out seriously hard against marijuana is likely to hurt their chances more than help these days. The majority think it should be legalized so it doesn't make sense for any political candidate to make marijuana their focus. The exception to that might be someone running for an office in an extremely conservative district somewhere. Outside of that, it's just bad politics right now.

Which is where I want it to be.
2012-10-12 04:18:15 PM  
1 votes:
Let me be blunt, I wish they would pass in every state. More realistically, one or two might legalize pot.

President Romney will probably be too busy with transition and other things to make federal intervention any sort of a priority.
2012-10-12 04:17:58 PM  
1 votes:

devildog123: It's about farking time. Just legalize it already. I have yet to see a single reason to keep pot any more regulated than booze.

/don't have any interest in using it myself, just tired of sanctimonious BS
//And I support the crap out of state's rights.


That. Except I'm not a big "states' rights" kinda guy; I see this kind of thing as more a kind of organized civil disobedience than anything else.

/though my mom is a medical marijuana patient
2012-10-12 04:15:03 PM  
1 votes:
I'm gonna stay in oklahoma at least one of us needs to be left here to vote for it and get out to word to start to think about not locking up smokers.

but it is tempting
2012-10-12 04:12:20 PM  
1 votes:

Hershey Highway Patrol: We already are.


^^^^^^^^
2012-10-12 03:42:40 PM  
1 votes:

Amos Quito: 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.


Using the ever-expanding definitions of the Commerce Clause, that's how. Again, if these 3 state legalize the use of marijuana...the fed can sit and spin because if the city, county and state police abide by the law, the Feds do NOT have the resources to enforce. In other words, if you grow pot in your home for personal consumption, the odds are VERY long against the feds raiding your home.
2012-10-12 03:16:13 PM  
1 votes:
Beyond the recreational use, which I don't pretend to hide the properties of or say they're bad, I'm genuinely interested in the use of cannabis as a psychosomatic drug and for its other medicinal properties. A friend of mine in California has a pot card and is legitimately on the stuff to treat bipolar disorder, and I can think of a lot of other friends who, while I can't guarantee it would help them, would at least benefit from looking into the possibilities of broadening their current treatment options.
2012-10-12 03:08:47 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-12 02:53:21 PM  
1 votes:

Mugato: give me doughnuts: Sadly, it isn't legal in any country in Europe. It has been decriminalized in a few, and the police really don't do much to enforce existing laws in some, but it isn't legal.

Alright, "decriminalized". I actually knew that but who can bother spelling the word? The point remains. Even in a "decriminalized" world, there should be a higher level of reefer madness than a world where it's illegal, right?


Since Portugal went de-crim 10 years ago, it has decended into such a hellish state that it is now the 16th most peaceful country in the world!

(Iceland is 1st, and the U.S. is 88th)
2012-10-12 02:50:43 PM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: not to mention it can be turned into one hell of a cheap and effective anti-biotic.


Also anti-spasmodic and ant-emetic.
2012-10-12 02:34:30 PM  
1 votes:

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

It's also damn near impossible to OD on.

And (something I have acute interest in) it has both analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties while being non-reactive even with weapons grade NSAIDs.

not to mention it can be turned into one hell of a cheap and effective anti-biotic.


It totally gets you high, too.

It's "win" all-around
2012-10-12 02:16:56 PM  
1 votes:

give me doughnuts: Sadly, it isn't legal in any country in Europe. It has been decriminalized in a few, and the police really don't do much to enforce existing laws in some, but it isn't legal.


Alright, "decriminalized". I actually knew that but who can bother spelling the word? The point remains. Even in a "decriminalized" world, there should be a higher level of reefer madness than a world where it's illegal, right?
2012-10-12 02:07:10 PM  
1 votes:

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

It's also damn near impossible to OD on.

And (something I have acute interest in) it has both analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties while being non-reactive even with weapons grade NSAIDs.


not to mention it can be turned into one hell of a cheap and effective anti-biotic.
2012-10-12 02:03:15 PM  
1 votes:

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


It's also damn near impossible to OD on.

And (something I have acute interest in) it has both analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties while being non-reactive even with weapons grade NSAIDs.
2012-10-12 01:54:26 PM  
1 votes:
Legalize it and tax the crap out of it.

It would help the states' budgets (which desperately need the money), and cut down on prison spending.
2012-10-12 01:46:50 PM  
1 votes:
"Could Obama's secret plan involve turning the nation into drug addicts?"

Turning? That corner is behind us subby. Prohibition kills.
2012-10-12 01:21:40 PM  
1 votes:
I don't even smoke weed but really, who gives a fark? Besides the DEA and Big Pharma?

/because all the European countries where weed is legal are Mad Max-post-apocalyptic hellholes
2012-10-12 01:04:52 PM  
1 votes:

Bloody William: It's states' rights until liberals do it.

Marcus Aurelius: The DEA would almost disappear if marijuana were legalized, so it's not going to happen.


That isn't really true. In fact, Mj legalization might make the DEA better, since they could concentrate on harder drugs like meth.
2012-10-12 12:53:04 PM  
1 votes:

olddeegee: I'm hoping that Obama's just staying out of the issue until he's re-elected. I think we'll see some movement then.


The DEA would almost disappear if marijuana were legalized, so it's not going to happen.
2012-10-12 12:47:02 PM  
1 votes:
img.photobucket.com
2012-10-12 12:25:26 PM  
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Second term.


Do you actually believe that, or is it just wishful thinking? This administration is worse for medical marijuana than the administration before it.
2012-10-12 11:40:19 AM  
1 votes:

olddeegee: I'm hoping that Obama's just staying out of the issue until he's re-elected.


There's really no reason for him to do anything unless something actually passes. And Lord knows that stoners ain't exactly the most reliable voting block.
2012-10-12 11:18:50 AM  
1 votes:
Drug addicts or Muslims.

Take your pick, America.
 
Displayed 99 of 99 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report