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  
•       •       •

2803 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2012 at 10:08 AM (1 year 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 01:37:53 PM

Amos Quito: 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.


Is this the butt-hurt that I've heard so much about? You sound soooooo pissed.
 
2012-11-07 01:57:54 PM

Smackledorfer: 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.



Damn straight.
 
2012-11-07 02:40:51 PM

Dr Dreidel: 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.


As more states legalize marijuana, I'm guessing fewer employers will test for it. Just like you can't come to work drunk, you can't come to work stoned. The tide is turning against the War on Drugs. If Colorado and Washington are able to show that legalizing it SAVES money, more states will adopt.
 
2012-11-07 02:44:13 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.


People's assumptions about pot smokers is that they are all liberal, and you are wrong. Most of the counties in that graphic are rural. All it shows you that "Good ole Christian Value" types like to burn one down from time to time. Don't pretend you thought that anyone east of the mountains or south of Olympia were ever going to vote to let gays marry. I was impressed that all those Republican counties voted for legal weed.
 
2012-11-07 02:47:54 PM
On the one hand, I've always believed that pot should be treated like alcohol and tobacco, ie: legalized, taxed, regulated. On the other hand, I fail to see people getting in line to put down in writing and submitting to the government that they run a business based on violating federal drug trafficking laws. In a practical sense, legalizing home growing is better until federal law is changed.
 
2012-11-07 03:29:45 PM
currently searching google for conferences being held in Colorado and Washington...
 
2012-11-07 04:50:51 PM

slayer199: Dr Dreidel: 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.

As more states legalize marijuana, I'm guessing fewer employers will test for it. Just like you can't come to work drunk, you can't come to work stoned. The tide is turning against the War on Drugs. If Colorado and Washington are able to show that legalizing it SAVES money, more states will adopt.


I come to work stoned all the time. I hardly ever mess up the pickles and onions on those burgers...I mean, I must have at least a 50% condiment to bun success ratio.

/...
 
2012-11-07 05:02:33 PM

slayer199: Dr Dreidel: 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.

As more states legalize marijuana, I'm guessing fewer employers will test for it. Just like you can't come to work drunk, you can't come to work stoned. The tide is turning against the War on Drugs. If Colorado and Washington are able to show that legalizing it SAVES money, more states will adopt.


Saves? No it will most likely cause an increase in revenue as well as a savings on policing. I predict a $200 mil swing in revenue during the first year of enforcement. /Also My lease is up in feb and I live across the river from Vancouver WA so I may have to look into apartment pricing up there.

//Damn Oregonian voters WTH!
 
2012-11-07 05:15:36 PM

ifarkthereforiam: I can see the promotions now. Buy a 12-pack of Bud and get a free bud.


Frankly, I hope they take the Dutch stance on this and not allow places that sell or serve alcohol the ability to sell weed. Alcohol x Weed = Really Drunk, Really Fast.
 
2012-11-07 05:27:30 PM

yousaywut: Saves? No it will most likely cause an increase in revenue as well as a savings on policing. I predict a $200 mil swing in revenue during the first year of enforcement. /Also My lease is up in feb and I live across the river from Vancouver WA so I may have to look into apartment pricing up there.


I've seen some estimates of over a billion dollars in yearly revenue from legalizing mary jane in those 2 states
 
2012-11-07 05:28:47 PM

yousaywut: slayer199: Dr Dreidel: 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.

As more states legalize marijuana, I'm guessing fewer employers will test for it. Just like you can't come to work drunk, you can't come to work stoned. The tide is turning against the War on Drugs. If Colorado and Washington are able to show that legalizing it SAVES money, more states will adopt.

Saves? No it will most likely cause an increase in revenue as well as a savings on policing. I predict a $200 mil swing in revenue during the first year of enforcement. /Also My lease is up in feb and I live across the river from Vancouver WA so I may have to look into apartment pricing up there.

//Damn Oregonian voters WTH!


You'll hate the commute; some days it takes an hour to go 15 miles. Who knew north westerners couldn't drive? Especially in the rain!!

...besides...we're full.

At least Jeff Smith got his ass handed to him.
 
2012-11-07 05:50:04 PM
I-502 doesn't go into effect until 12/1/2013 (from what I can tell). The Liquor Control Board(I know, ironic...) has to set up the permitting and infrastructure so we can't actually enjoy our freedom for another year... Anyone hear different?
 
2012-11-07 05:57:42 PM
Several states passed laws preventing the implementation of Obamacare.

State Rights will be front and center for SCOTUS next year.
 
2012-11-07 05:59:37 PM

PluckYew: yousaywut: slayer199: Dr Dreidel: 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.

As more states legalize marijuana, I'm guessing fewer employers will test for it. Just like you can't come to work drunk, you can't come to work stoned. The tide is turning against the War on Drugs. If Colorado and Washington are able to show that legalizing it SAVES money, more states will adopt.

Saves? No it will most likely cause an increase in revenue as well as a savings on policing. I predict a $200 mil swing in revenue during the first year of enforcement. /Also My lease is up in feb and I live across the river from Vancouver WA so I may have to look into apartment pricing up there.

//Damn Oregonian voters WTH!

You'll hate the commute; some days it takes an hour to go 15 miles. Who knew north westerners couldn't drive? Especially in the rain!!

...besides...we're full.

At least Jeff Smith got his ass handed to him.


What full damn it man:( That's ok I have friends who have already offered rooms until Oregon gets it's shiat together. Besides with all the extra cash inflo Wa will be looking pretty good for other reasons.

//Yes I know the commute sux but it is better than the one I had in Ma.
 
2012-11-07 06:20:42 PM
If the Feds try to strike down the bill, they'll probably succeed because of the tax issue (IANAL). However, if that happens, I hope the states clearly tell DC that, sorry, the people of our state have spoken, and do not wish their resources used on pot. Let DC round up the potheads themselves.

Currently, the DEA can bust medical grows that don't comply with state laws, and the states cooperate. If the DEA starts messing with people that are following state law, they may run into trouble. Counties could refuse to house the prisoners, and say "sorry, they didn't break the law". DEA does NOT have the resources to police this on their own.

Can't wait to watch this play out. Also can't wait to drive across the Columbia and score some weed.
 
2012-11-07 06:31:25 PM

stewbert: If the Feds try to strike down the bill, they'll probably succeed because of the tax issue (IANAL). However, if that happens, I hope the states clearly tell DC that, sorry, the people of our state have spoken, and do not wish their resources used on pot. Let DC round up the potheads themselves.

Currently, the DEA can bust medical grows that don't comply with state laws, and the states cooperate. If the DEA starts messing with people that are following state law, they may run into trouble. Counties could refuse to house the prisoners, and say "sorry, they didn't break the law". DEA does NOT have the resources to police this on their own.

Can't wait to watch this play out. Also can't wait to drive across the Columbia and score some weed.


Just don't drive back with the weed. I can foresee Oregon cops doing random checks on the crossings and a lot of people going to jail for interstate smuggling of illegal weeds.

//In other words be careful.
 
2012-11-07 06:35:46 PM

yousaywut: slayer199: Dr Dreidel: 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.

As more states legalize marijuana, I'm guessing fewer employers will test for it. Just like you can't come to work drunk, you can't come to work stoned. The tide is turning against the War on Drugs. If Colorado and Washington are able to show that legalizing it SAVES money, more states will adopt.

Saves? No it will most likely cause an increase in revenue as well as a savings on policing. I predict a $200 mil swing in revenue during the first year of enforcement. /Also My lease is up in feb and I live across the river from Vancouver WA so I may have to look into apartment pricing up there.

//Damn Oregonian voters WTH!


The Oregon measure wasn't crafted very well. The pro-pot folks with money decided to back the ones in WA and CO, as they felt there was a better chance of success. I think the measure did pretty damn good considering there was almost no advertising that I saw.

Besides, like you said, we're just across the river. It's easy enough to get in OR as it is, but once it's legally sold in WA next year, so much the better for us.

I'm a bit curious on the DUI limit that the law set for stoned drivers in WA, and heard some reports that a hardcore stoner could always be at risk of DUI, sober or not.
 
2012-11-07 06:44:52 PM

stewbert: If the Feds try to strike down the bill, they'll probably succeed because of the tax issue (IANAL). However, if that happens, I hope the states clearly tell DC that, sorry, the people of our state have spoken, and do not wish their resources used on pot. Let DC round up the potheads themselves.

Currently, the DEA can bust medical grows that don't comply with state laws, and the states cooperate. If the DEA starts messing with people that are following state law, they may run into trouble. Counties could refuse to house the prisoners, and say "sorry, they didn't break the law". DEA does NOT have the resources to police this on their own.

Can't wait to watch this play out. Also can't wait to drive across the Columbia and score some weed.


The DEA doesn't have the resources (only 5000 agents) to go after marijuana. Yes, the federal government can go after the state...but the Controlled Substances Act is going to be tested by the courts if it does.

Prohibition was passed (and repealed) via a Constitutional Amendment...which is a difficult process. Not so with the Controlled Substances Act. The People will have the final say on this....the electorate is speaking...and politicians better start listening (and on same-sex marriage as well).
 
2012-11-07 07:06:49 PM

yousaywut: stewbert: If the Feds try to strike down the bill, they'll probably succeed because of the tax issue (IANAL). However, if that happens, I hope the states clearly tell DC that, sorry, the people of our state have spoken, and do not wish their resources used on pot. Let DC round up the potheads themselves.

Currently, the DEA can bust medical grows that don't comply with state laws, and the states cooperate. If the DEA starts messing with people that are following state law, they may run into trouble. Counties could refuse to house the prisoners, and say "sorry, they didn't break the law". DEA does NOT have the resources to police this on their own.

Can't wait to watch this play out. Also can't wait to drive across the Columbia and score some weed.

Just don't drive back with the weed. I can foresee Oregon cops doing random checks on the crossings and a lot of people going to jail for interstate smuggling of illegal weeds.

//In other words be careful.


Appreciate the advice, but I don't think you're from OR. It's already decriminalized to possess under an ounce. So, there really isn't any benefit for OR cops to stop bridge crossers. I know some Portland PD; they don't give a shiat. People smoke weed on the riverfront in plain view of the Precinct. WA only legalized 1 oz; you can't be jailed for that in OR.

Basically what I'm saying is: it's already legal here in OR, just can't yet walk into a store and get some (without a medical card).

What I'm worried about is the WA cops. With their weird new pot DUI law, I'm probably guilty without smoking. I don't understand it yet, so I'm waiting to see how the cops respond.
 
2012-11-07 07:26:43 PM

stewbert: yousaywut: stewbert: If the Feds try to strike down the bill, they'll probably succeed because of the tax issue (IANAL). However, if that happens, I hope the states clearly tell DC that, sorry, the people of our state have spoken, and do not wish their resources used on pot. Let DC round up the potheads themselves.

Currently, the DEA can bust medical grows that don't comply with state laws, and the states cooperate. If the DEA starts messing with people that are following state law, they may run into trouble. Counties could refuse to house the prisoners, and say "sorry, they didn't break the law". DEA does NOT have the resources to police this on their own.

Can't wait to watch this play out. Also can't wait to drive across the Columbia and score some weed.

Just don't drive back with the weed. I can foresee Oregon cops doing random checks on the crossings and a lot of people going to jail for interstate smuggling of illegal weeds.

//In other words be careful.

Appreciate the advice, but I don't think you're from OR. It's already decriminalized to possess under an ounce. So, there really isn't any benefit for OR cops to stop bridge crossers. I know some Portland PD; they don't give a shiat. People smoke weed on the riverfront in plain view of the Precinct. WA only legalized 1 oz; you can't be jailed for that in OR.

Basically what I'm saying is: it's already legal here in OR, just can't yet walk into a store and get some (without a medical card).

What I'm worried about is the WA cops. With their weird new pot DUI law, I'm probably guilty without smoking. I don't understand it yet, so I'm waiting to see how the cops respond.


I live in Hillsboro just south of portland. so that's an incorrect thought. I don't know the law regarding MJ and what is or is not illegal so that could be good and true. I stopped smoking a long time ago so I haven't kept up with the laws. I would start again if it were legal.

//Allergic to alcohol so I can't even enjoy a beer:(
 
2012-11-07 08:23:46 PM

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: Pot smokers are dicks.


Go fark yourself.
 
2012-11-07 08:27:07 PM

nmemkha: Several states passed laws preventing the implementation of Obamacare.


They can pay taxes for my state to implement Obamacare AND pay regular insurance premiums on top of that cost. I don't mind.
 
2012-11-07 09:43:56 PM
low comment count in this one... everybody must be off enjoying themselves. i say, good for them.

/don't smoke but hellz yeah for this long overdue step!
 
2012-11-07 10:00:45 PM

slayer199: Prohibition was passed (and repealed) via a Constitutional Amendment...which is a difficult process. Not so with the Controlled Substances Act. The People will have the final say on this....the electorate is speaking...and politicians better start listening (and on same-sex marriage as well).


THIS

Why was a constitutional amendment passed for prohibition? Because a constitutional amendment was REQUIRED. Otherwise the feds had NO constitutional jurisdiction to intervene.

The Controlled Substances Act, OTOH, was slipped in under the Commerce Clause. The Constitution was side-stepped, and supported by activist courts.

The Federal Government had and has no legitimate constitutional power to enforce this act, or any of the other laws that were enacted under the same guise.

This does not necessarily mean that all of the laws, bureaus, agencies (etc) that were extraconstitutionally created are necessarily bad, but it does mean that they are illegitimate, and should be defanged until such time that they are vetted through the channels that are prescribed in the constitution, or the constitution is amended.

$.02
 
2012-11-07 10:56:23 PM

Amos Quito: The Federal Government had and has no legitimate constitutional power to enforce this act


The supreme court, how does it work?

Believe it or not, the founding fathers, who wrote the constitution that you believe you are the sole interpreter of, set up a body appointed by the presidents to determine the constitutionality of things. You are welcome to dislike their interpretations, but the very fact that they make a judgement that something is constitutional makes it... wait for it... constitutional. Things may be slipped in under an expanding interpretation of the commerce clause, but that's just the way it goes.

I don't know why this seems such a confusing concept for people. You move dangerously close to tea-party territory when you head in that direction.
 
2012-11-07 11:25:02 PM

Smackledorfer: Amos Quito: The Federal Government had and has no legitimate constitutional power to enforce this act

The supreme court, how does it work?

Believe it or not, the founding fathers, who wrote the constitution that you believe you are the sole interpreter of, set up a body appointed by the presidents to determine the constitutionality of things. You are welcome to dislike their interpretations, but the very fact that they make a judgement that something is constitutional makes it... wait for it... constitutional. Things may be slipped in under an expanding interpretation of the commerce clause, but that's just the way it goes.

I don't know why this seems such a confusing concept for people. You move dangerously close to tea-party territory when you head in that direction.


I think that Amos was talking about the questionable legality of the law under the Constitution, irrespective of how the Supreme Court decided. The Commerce Clause was meant to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce.

Under Gonzalez v. Raich the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that it WAS within Congress' right to regulate intrastate commerce under a class of activities that have economic impact. Ironically, it was the conservative justices that dissented (Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor).

Since Justice Thomas is usually ripped on Fark, This is what he said:

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

and

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

and

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

I believe the times are changing for the simple reason that people are seeing that the War on Drugs is a failure. I don't smoke pot (I haven't in 20 years) nor would I if it was legalized (not my thing). But I passionately support the right of others to do so.

If enough states pass laws legalize pot, Congress will be forced to deal with it. The DEA doesn't have enough agents to enforce state law. That being said, I can't see a lot of people rushing to sell pot through state regulation because of the risk that the Feds will come down on the operator under federal law.
 
2012-11-07 11:47:42 PM

slayer199: I think that Amos was talking about the questionable legality of the law under the Constitution, irrespective of how the Supreme Court decided.


You can't have one without the other is all I'm saying. You can't throw out the supreme court when you don't agree with them, and certainly can't throw them out when you don't like them, all while asserting that your interpretation lies closer to the founding fathers (and lets face it, they held slaves among other things, they weren't some kind of gods among men). The founders may have had a different plan for the commerce clause, but they had a very clear plan for the supreme court's function.

So Amos would what, throw out/ignore the surpreme court in order to make sure the commerce clause stayed true? That is nonsensical.

/legalize it
 
2012-11-08 12:12:44 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: Pot smokers are dicks.

Go fark yourself.


Don't speak for everyone here; I'm a pot smoker and I'm a Dick.
 
2012-11-08 07:46:49 AM

Smackledorfer: The founders may have had a different plan for the commerce clause, but they had a very clear plan for the supreme court's function.


I don't believe the framers intended the Commerce Clause to cover anything that the federal government wanted to regulate. That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court's decision isn't legal and binding...it is.
 
Displayed 29 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