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.

(SFGate)   Puff, Puff, Passed   (sfgate.com) divider line 129
    More: Spiffy, Colorado  
•       •       •

2804 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2012 at 10:08 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-07 10:58:35 AM  

Wasilla Hillbilly: It was actually a much closer vote than I expected (55 to 45 I believe). This being the first southern state to get medical marijuana on the ballot, this is encouraging, especially considering there wasn't really a big push as far as advertising, etc for the measure. A lost opportunity in restrospect to be sure, but generally things are looking up across the board. I can't be too unhappy all things considered.


It also had some clauses that would have made it legal to grow your own if you live within so far of a dispensary. Which is basically a pie in the sky clauses that did nothing but sink the thing. It was going to be close anyway, so I don't understand why they didn't write a perfectly straight proposal.

Also, they didn't work with the Pharmacists Association. Hopefully they will next time.
 
2012-11-07 11:02:17 AM  

Amos Quito: nekom: Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.

You're right, but I have a hunch that without a re-election to worry about, Obama may do some surprising things. I don't suspect he'll go TOO far, but he may well tell the DEA to lay off, especially on the medical frontier. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but a second term is where things can really get done, IF he works toward good things.


Unfortunately he has shown that he has a authoritarian bent. Like the MMJ issue in CA, as a relevant example,

If you think about it, the people of Colorado and Washington just thumbed their noses at the All Powerful Feds BIG TIME.

This issue is not and has never been about public health or safety, it is about the Feds being able to force their will on the States and the People - a trend that, as you may have noticed, has been increasing in many areas of American life over the past several decades.

This is a cold, defiant challenge to Federal Authoratay: If the Feds back down, they will lose face, look weak, and open the door to having many more of their asinine powers challenged.

What will they do?


Oh, do please cite this california-related authoritarian bent I've shown.
 
2012-11-07 11:02:40 AM  

Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.


Go fark yourself.
 
2012-11-07 11:07:21 AM  

EnviroDude: Hey farkers, you need to remember that your jobs will still have anti-drug policies that can get you fired if you test positive.


not if you are a "job creator"...
 
2012-11-07 11:09:22 AM  

TheSwizz: I thought you were cool, Oregon.


nope
we suck

ironically of course

/booooooo fellow oregonians ... wtf?
 
2012-11-07 11:10:50 AM  

Rev.K: So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?


I'm only a 2nd year law student, but as I understand it the legalization measure is likely to be held as unconstitutional if challenged. The federal government's Controlled Substances Act preempts the ballot initiatives, and the supremacy clause says that once the feds start regulating things, unless such regs are unconstitutional, the states have to sit down and shut up. That said, it's up to the AG to actually challenge the measures.

If all the measure did was legalize, it would probably be easier to keep it around because you could make the argument that all they did was remove a state level prohibition, which doesn't conflict with the federal prohibition. That said, the wording on the ballot reads:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp"

Methinks they shot themselves in the foot by trying to actually create a specific permission instead of just removing the prohibition. Also by trying to dip into that sweet sweet tax money before the feds ;-P.

/Wish this wasn't my analysis, the CSA is dumb and the war on drugs is dumber
//On the plus side, the same logic lets Obamacare ignore the Alabama/Florida initiatives which tried to reject it
///Go home Alabama, you're drunk.
 
2012-11-07 11:16:42 AM  

Amos Quito: nekom: Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.

You're right, but I have a hunch that without a re-election to worry about, Obama may do some surprising things. I don't suspect he'll go TOO far, but he may well tell the DEA to lay off, especially on the medical frontier. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but a second term is where things can really get done, IF he works toward good things.


Unfortunately he has shown that he has a authoritarian bent. Like the MMJ issue in CA, as a relevant example,

If you think about it, the people of Colorado and Washington just thumbed their noses at the All Powerful Feds BIG TIME.

This issue is not and has never been about public health or safety, it is about the Feds being able to force their will on the States and the People - a trend that, as you may have noticed, has been increasing in many areas of American life over the past several decades.

This is a cold, defiant challenge to Federal Authoratay: If the Feds back down, they will lose face, look weak, and open the door to having many more of their asinine powers challenged.

What will they do?


4.bp.blogspot.com

so

content.internetvideoarchive.com
 
2012-11-07 11:20:32 AM  

Smackledorfer: Oh, do please cite this california-related authoritarian bent I've shown.



Are you Obama, Smackledorfer?
 
2012-11-07 11:20:50 AM  

Venter_Of_Russ: Rev.K: So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?

I'm only a 2nd year law student, but as I understand it the legalization measure is likely to be held as unconstitutional if challenged. The federal government's Controlled Substances Act preempts the ballot initiatives, and the supremacy clause says that once the feds start regulating things, unless such regs are unconstitutional, the states have to sit down and shut up. That said, it's up to the AG to actually challenge the measures.

If all the measure did was legalize, it would probably be easier to keep it around because you could make the argument that all they did was remove a state level prohibition, which doesn't conflict with the federal prohibition. That said, the wording on the ballot reads:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp"

Methinks they shot themselves in the foot by trying to actually create a specific permission instead of just removing the prohibition. Also by trying to dip into that sweet sweet tax money before the feds ;-P.

/Wish this wasn't my analysis, the CSA is dumb and the war on drugs is dumber
//On the plus side, the same logic lets Obamacare ignore the Alabama/Flori ...


It's an interesting wrinkle. Eventually the feds are going to get involved. With as much money as there is surrounding the issue, you can bet it'll go to the supreme court. Since the current federal regulation is based on the commerce clause and the current supreme court is very conservative, it's quite possible they'll decide for the states as they have in other recent commerce clause issues.
 
2012-11-07 11:26:51 AM  

JesusJuice: Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.

Go fark yourself.



I can't.

Yer mom has me in a scissor pinch and won't let go.
 
2012-11-07 11:29:46 AM  

rohar: Venter_Of_Russ: Rev.K: So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?

I'm only a 2nd year law student, but as I understand it the legalization measure is likely to be held as unconstitutional if challenged. The federal government's Controlled Substances Act preempts the ballot initiatives, and the supremacy clause says that once the feds start regulating things, unless such regs are unconstitutional, the states have to sit down and shut up. That said, it's up to the AG to actually challenge the measures.

If all the measure did was legalize, it would probably be easier to keep it around because you could make the argument that all they did was remove a state level prohibition, which doesn't conflict with the federal prohibition. That said, the wording on the ballot reads:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp"

Methinks they shot themselves in the foot by trying to actually create a specific permission instead of just removing the prohibition. Also by trying to dip into that sweet sweet tax money before the feds ;-P.

/Wish this wasn't my analysis, the CSA is dumb and the war on drugs is dumber
//On the plus side, the same logic lets Obamacare ignore t ...


Very fair point. Probably the biggest difference between a law student and a lawyer... I often end up thinking of things in terms of supreme courts past, rather than the current lot :-p.
 
2012-11-07 11:31:42 AM  

Amos Quito: Smackledorfer: Oh, do please cite this california-related authoritarian bent I've shown.


Are you Obama, Smackledorfer?


My bad, I misread which of Nekom's responses to me your post was responding to.
 
2012-11-07 11:31:50 AM  
And even better since the court went so far out of their way to decide the HCA as not being derived from commerce clause, so Alabama and Florida can -still- go fark themselves! =D
 
2012-11-07 11:37:20 AM  

Venter_Of_Russ: Rev.K: So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?

I'm only a 2nd year law student, but as I understand it the legalization measure is likely to be held as unconstitutional if challenged. The federal government's Controlled Substances Act preempts the ballot initiatives, and the supremacy clause says that once the feds start regulating things, unless such regs are unconstitutional, the states have to sit down and shut up. That said, it's up to the AG to actually challenge the measures.

If all the measure did was legalize, it would probably be easier to keep it around because you could make the argument that all they did was remove a state level prohibition, which doesn't conflict with the federal prohibition. That said, the wording on the ballot reads:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp"

Methinks they shot themselves in the foot by trying to actually create a specific permission instead of just removing the prohibition. Also by trying to dip into that sweet sweet tax money before the feds ;-P.

/Wish this wasn't my analysis, the CSA is dumb and the war on drugs is dumber
//On the plus side, the same logic lets Obamacare ignore the Alabama/Flori ...


heh. Don't quit school yet. Exactly how is Amendment 64 unconstitutional? Where in the US Constitition is weed prohibition?
 
2012-11-07 11:37:26 AM  
Brings new meaning to the term "Evergreen State"

/amirite
 
2012-11-07 11:41:23 AM  
...wait.......what?...
 
2012-11-07 11:42:59 AM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Venter_Of_Russ: Rev.K: So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?

I'm only a 2nd year law student, but as I understand it the legalization measure is likely to be held as unconstitutional if challenged. The federal government's Controlled Substances Act preempts the ballot initiatives, and the supremacy clause says that once the feds start regulating things, unless such regs are unconstitutional, the states have to sit down and shut up. That said, it's up to the AG to actually challenge the measures.

If all the measure did was legalize, it would probably be easier to keep it around because you could make the argument that all they did was remove a state level prohibition, which doesn't conflict with the federal prohibition. That said, the wording on the ballot reads:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp"

Methinks they shot themselves in the foot by trying to actually create a specific permission instead of just removing the prohibition. Also by trying to dip into that sweet sweet tax money before the feds ;-P.

/Wish this wasn't my analysis, the CSA is dumb and the war on drugs is dumber
//On the plus side, the same logic lets Obamacare ignore t ...


It isn't unconstitutional. The feds can still encforce federal law in Colorado.

Here's the thing: how many resources can the fed place there to make a difference? I think the end fight will be on the IRS v CO and not DEA v CO.

If the feds do nothing, CO goes on to actually create their retail and taxation rules and stores actually start popping up where allowed, it is possible the feds simply move MJ down a notch or two on the drug schedule.
 
2012-11-07 11:43:15 AM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Venter_Of_Russ: Rev.K: So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?

I'm only a 2nd year law student, but as I understand it the legalization measure is likely to be held as unconstitutional if challenged. The federal government's Controlled Substances Act preempts the ballot initiatives, and the supremacy clause says that once the feds start regulating things, unless such regs are unconstitutional, the states have to sit down and shut up. That said, it's up to the AG to actually challenge the measures.

If all the measure did was legalize, it would probably be easier to keep it around because you could make the argument that all they did was remove a state level prohibition, which doesn't conflict with the federal prohibition. That said, the wording on the ballot reads:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp"

Methinks they shot themselves in the foot by trying to actually create a specific permission instead of just removing the prohibition. Also by trying to dip into that sweet sweet tax money before the feds ;-P.

/Wish this wasn't my analysis, the CSA is dumb and the war on drugs is dumber
//On the plus side, the same logic lets Obamacare ignore t ...


I guess it's because it violates the supremacy clause that states that federal law always trumps state laws that are in conflict with federal law.
 
2012-11-07 11:43:19 AM  

Venter_Of_Russ: rohar: Venter_Of_Russ: Rev.K: So what is the next step here?

This sets up a showdown with the federal government?

I'm only a 2nd year law student, but as I understand it the legalization measure is likely to be held as unconstitutional if challenged. The federal government's Controlled Substances Act preempts the ballot initiatives, and the supremacy clause says that once the feds start regulating things, unless such regs are unconstitutional, the states have to sit down and shut up. That said, it's up to the AG to actually challenge the measures.

If all the measure did was legalize, it would probably be easier to keep it around because you could make the argument that all they did was remove a state level prohibition, which doesn't conflict with the federal prohibition. That said, the wording on the ballot reads:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning marijuana, and, in connection therewith, providing for the regulation of marijuana; permitting a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana; providing for the licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores; permitting local governments to regulate or prohibit such facilities; requiring the general assembly to enact an excise tax to be levied upon wholesale sales of marijuana; requiring that the first $40 million in revenue raised annually by such tax be credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund; and requiring the general assembly to enact legislation governing the cultivation, processing, and sale of industrial hemp"

Methinks they shot themselves in the foot by trying to actually create a specific permission instead of just removing the prohibition. Also by trying to dip into that sweet sweet tax money before the feds ;-P.

/Wish this wasn't my analysis, the CSA is dumb and the war on drugs is dumber
//On the plus side, the same logic lets Obamacare i ...


Oh please don't confuse me with a lawyer, I got my GED in Law from a cracker jack box. This supreme court has been interesting to say the least. There will be at least one appointment in the next 4 years so it could go either way, all depends on timing.
 
2012-11-07 11:54:06 AM  
A great thing indeed.

Since the DEA has reaffirmed that their position on enforcement has not changed, I am anxious to see how this plays out.
 
2012-11-07 11:54:47 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Wasilla Hillbilly: It was actually a much closer vote than I expected (55 to 45 I believe). This being the first southern state to get medical marijuana on the ballot, this is encouraging, especially considering there wasn't really a big push as far as advertising, etc for the measure. A lost opportunity in restrospect to be sure, but generally things are looking up across the board. I can't be too unhappy all things considered.

It also had some clauses that would have made it legal to grow your own if you live within so far of a dispensary. Which is basically a pie in the sky clauses that did nothing but sink the thing. It was going to be close anyway, so I don't understand why they didn't write a perfectly straight proposal.

Also, they didn't work with the Pharmacists Association. Hopefully they will next time.


It's not that they didn't try to work with the Pharmacists Association...they did, but the association did not endorse issue 5.

I'm also wondering why they didn't just write a straight proposal and push for an amendment in the future. Maybe after some of my extremist Christian neighbors realized that Little Rock streets wouldn't turn into late 1980's Mogadishu when MMJ gets legalized.

As an Arkansan and an MMJ candidate that's sick of eating pills from the VA for seizures, PTSD, insomnia etc., I feel like AR just isn't responsible enough for something this progressive. Portland, OR, here I come.
 
2012-11-07 11:56:48 AM  
Purple mountain majesty!
Let freedom ring!
 
2012-11-07 12:00:36 PM  

ManRay: Since the DEA has reaffirmed that their position on enforcement has not changed, I am anxious to see how this plays out.


No-knock warrants that kill a family's pet when they go to the wrong house? Or backing off and dedicating valuable police resources to actual crime? Correct me if I am wrong, but Obama has at least SOME power to dictate DEA policy, no?
 
2012-11-07 12:05:10 PM  
Obama will find a way to fark this up, just like everything else.

Now that he is a lame duck president, he can take off the gloves and really go after those useless potheads.
 
2012-11-07 12:06:13 PM  

PluckYew: Brings new meaning to the term "Evergreen State"

/amirite


www.spaceneedle.com

New paint scheme for the Space Needle's top. Also, woo WA! Not only have we legalized pot, its very likely the measure to make gay marriage legal will pass. Still too close to call but the yes vote has a good lead.
 
2012-11-07 12:11:50 PM  
Oh goddammit.

In Montana, a proposal to restrict the use of medical marijuana was leading, 57 percent to 43 percent, with 65 percent of ballots counted, the Associated Press said.

Not that I have a card or anything (if I did I could still get it), but since I'm surrounded by new pot states, I guess I won't worry about our backassward politics on this. This is amazing if it lasts. Let's see what happens.....

In other news, it looks like Democrats took the Senate seat here, and probably the governor too, although it's still too close to call. The referenda passed were largely bassackwards too, although we did manage to declare that corporations are not people......and then decided that the feds could not impose the new health care law on Montana (unconstitutional as soon as it was written.)
 
2012-11-07 12:15:20 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Fribble: I live in Colorado and I love weed.

This has been a great morning.

This. Girlfriend said I was giddy before I left for work lol


Oh dude I was shaking with happiness last night. I've been thinking about it all morning with a perma grin on my face.

Can't wait to say "hey we're going skiing today, lets swing by the weed store and grab some niblets"

Not that it's tough to get now but I would love to not have to plan ahead to get it.
 
2012-11-07 12:15:57 PM  

Kome: "The voters have spoken and we have to respect their will," Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper said in a statement. "This will be a complicated process, but we intend to follow through. That said, federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug so don't break out the Cheetos or Goldfish too quickly."

Lol. Nice.


Bahahahahaha! Well played, Governor Hickenlooper.
 
2012-11-07 12:17:17 PM  
On an unrelated but coincidental note, I'm moving to Washington next week. Too bad weed is one of the few aspects of the "long-haired hippie" stereotype I don't ascribe to.
 
2012-11-07 12:21:04 PM  

bbfreak: PluckYew: Brings new meaning to the term "Evergreen State"

/amirite

[www.spaceneedle.com image 525x525]

New paint scheme for the Space Needle's top. Also, woo WA! Not only have we legalized pot, its very likely the measure to make gay marriage legal will pass. Still too close to call but the yes vote has a good lead.


I heard that most of the uncounted ballots were from King county so I am encouraged that the fundies have been beaten back here in WA.
 
2012-11-07 12:21:10 PM  

nekom: ManRay: Since the DEA has reaffirmed that their position on enforcement has not changed, I am anxious to see how this plays out.

No-knock warrants that kill a family's pet when they go to the wrong house? Or backing off and dedicating valuable police resources to actual crime? Correct me if I am wrong, but Obama has at least SOME power to dictate DEA policy, no?



That's the spirit!

Damn right he does, but he won't if we don't call him to task.


/JUST SAY NO to centralized authoritarian bullying
 
2012-11-07 12:24:46 PM  

TheTrashcanMan: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!

Don't have to be a liberal/Democrat to believe in the recreational use of pot and the equality of marriage.

/Libertarian.


So, "What a GREAT day to be a lib"?
 
2012-11-07 12:26:18 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Hell, maybe the Free Market will decide that we need a better THC test than one that finds metabolytes from weed you smoked a month ago - getting a test that can measure ACTIVE levels of THC (think "breatholyzer for weed") would be much better than the test we have now.


I think a little work in cognitive psychology could give us a tablet application that would help determine if a person is impaired better than any blood level screening. A little match the shapes kind of time trial, and it would be applicable across a range of depressants or sleep deprivation BECAUSE MY farkING NEIGHBORS WERE LISTENING TO MEXICAN OOMPA LOOMPA MUSIC UNTIL 4AM!.
 
2012-11-07 12:30:38 PM  
It's too bad he did not get to see this day.

img688.imageshack.us
 
2012-11-07 12:31:31 PM  
Now we just have to get Christmas declared illegal.

/baiting the fundies
 
2012-11-07 12:32:03 PM  

wildcardjack: Dr Dreidel: Hell, maybe the Free Market will decide that we need a better THC test than one that finds metabolytes from weed you smoked a month ago - getting a test that can measure ACTIVE levels of THC (think "breatholyzer for weed") would be much better than the test we have now.

I think a little work in cognitive psychology could give us a tablet application that would help determine if a person is impaired better than any blood level screening. A little match the shapes kind of time trial, and it would be applicable across a range of depressants or sleep deprivation BECAUSE MY farkING NEIGHBORS WERE LISTENING TO MEXICAN OOMPA LOOMPA MUSIC UNTIL 4AM!.



LOL!

And speaking of Mexicans, there Dirt Weed Barons south of the border can't be too happy about the outcomes in CO and WA.
 
2012-11-07 12:37:56 PM  

MFAWG: My confusion is whether I have to get gay married before or after I get high?


In Washington, you would've very nearly been limited to just getting high.

Counties that said "Yes" on gay marriage (green):
img210.imageshack.us

Counties that said "Yes" to pot:
img13.imageshack.us

Pot smokers are dicks. So long as they can get high, screw basic rights for everyone else.

That those maps aren't at least equal if not completely swapped speaks very poorly for the state. Bunch of self-centered "I got mine, so screw you" asses.
 
2012-11-07 12:38:19 PM  

wildcardjack: Dr Dreidel: Hell, maybe the Free Market will decide that we need a better THC test than one that finds metabolytes from weed you smoked a month ago - getting a test that can measure ACTIVE levels of THC (think "breatholyzer for weed") would be much better than the test we have now.

I think a little work in cognitive psychology could give us a tablet application that would help determine if a person is impaired better than any blood level screening. A little match the shapes kind of time trial, and it would be applicable across a range of depressants or sleep deprivation BECAUSE MY farkING NEIGHBORS WERE LISTENING TO MEXICAN OOMPA LOOMPA MUSIC UNTIL 4AM!.


I will take eleventeen bong hits and ace your little cognitive test. ;)

Object oriented programming is so much more fun & creative when you have an attitude adjuster.
 
2012-11-07 12:44:10 PM  
Weeeeeeeeddddd.
 
2012-11-07 12:49:21 PM  
I can see the promotions now. Buy a 12-pack of Bud and get a free bud.
 
2012-11-07 12:49:28 PM  

Rev.K: FTA:

In Massachusetts, residents approved a measure to allow medical use, while Arkansas voters rejected such a proposal.

You stupid f*cks.

Seriously. For medical use and you say no? F*ck yourselves. All of you.


Yeah, Not only for medical use only but the most restrictive medical use of any state. It was close...closer than I would have thought from a populous mostly concerned with "God, Guns, and Gynecology."

Most of the against votes were out of either ignorance (and/or stupidity) or protecting self interests (Cops/Doctors/Pharmacists).
 
2012-11-07 12:54:37 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: MFAWG: My confusion is whether I have to get gay married before or after I get high?

In Washington, you would've very nearly been limited to just getting high.

Counties that said "Yes" on gay marriage (green):
[img210.imageshack.us image 633x414]

Counties that said "Yes" to pot:
[img13.imageshack.us image 638x413]

Pot smokers are dicks. So long as they can get high, screw basic rights for everyone else.

That those maps aren't at least equal if not completely swapped speaks very poorly for the state. Bunch of self-centered "I got mine, so screw you" asses.


Am proudly in Thurston county where we voted yes on both! Woo! :) I'm straight and don't smoke weed but voted yes for both.
 
2012-11-07 12:59:14 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh:
In Washington, you would've very nearly been limited to just getting high.
Pot smokers are dicks. So long as they can get high, screw basic rights for everyone else.
That those maps aren't at least equal if not completely swapped speaks very poorly for the state. Bunch of self-centered "I got mine, so screw you" asses.


You're blaming pot smokers for that? Get a farking grip. You are aware that a lot of the people who voted for legal weed aren't smokers, right?
 
2012-11-07 12:59:23 PM  

nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


I'm going to qualify that...as it's a great day to be a social liberal.
 
2012-11-07 01:03:14 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Hell, maybe the Free Market will decide that we need a better THC test than one that finds metabolytes from weed you smoked a month ago - getting a test that can measure ACTIVE levels of THC (think "breatholyzer for weed") would be much better than the test we have now.


So much this!

My company doesn't do drug testing. They long figured out that our consultants are prima donnas that probably do illegal narcotics from time to time. So long as they perform, the company doesn't care.
 
2012-11-07 01:03:24 PM  
George Washington toked weed.
 
2012-11-07 01:04:14 PM  

eurotrader: What I hope CO and Washington will cause by passing rec use is the Federal government to actually do something sensible. The 13.7 billion dollars a years spent enforcing an idiotic laws could be better use on programs to help people instead of ruining lives. Already have a red card so this is just a good thing.


Me too, and it needs to be renewed in February so this might save me some coin :)
 
2012-11-07 01:21:11 PM  

slayer199: Dr Dreidel: Hell, maybe the Free Market will decide that we need a better THC test than one that finds metabolytes from weed you smoked a month ago - getting a test that can measure ACTIVE levels of THC (think "breatholyzer for weed") would be much better than the test we have now.

So much this!

My company doesn't do drug testing. They long figured out that our consultants are prima donnas that probably do illegal narcotics from time to time. So long as they perform, the company doesn't care.


I've worked for hospitals and the Feds - so long as you don't give them a reason to drug-test you, they won't. It's costly, it's invasive (I think people outside wage-slavery understand that you really don't need to examine someone's urine to figure out of they're good workers), it's time-consuming (I couldn't start at the hospital until I passed, but that's somewhat understandable), and it might cost you some valuable people (how many of us know productive cokeheads?) in a random screening.

The only people who want to drug test anymore are people who bought the "Say no to drugs" (weed) crap HL&S. Anyone else knows that what someone does on their own time - so long as it's not affecting their work - doesn't farking matter.
 
2012-11-07 01:24:12 PM  

Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.


Why are you still here?
 
2012-11-07 01:29:38 PM  

ravenlore: Amos Quito: nekom: What a GREAT day to be a liberal!


Is it? How long 'til the Feds in jackboots tell the people of Colorado and Washington NO?

Okay, Obama won. He'll be there four more years, so you libs / dems can STOP making excuses for everything he does and START demanding that he behave.

Cut the partisan crap and start working in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thanks.

Why are you still here?


Why would he leave? I have it on his authority that he is the only farker who understands the constitution.
 
Displayed 50 of 129 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report