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.

(Westword)   If there is a time to call your congressperson, it is now. Ask them to support the "Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act" which would ensure that state laws regarding marijuana will not be pre-empted by the federal government   (blogs.westword.com) divider line 214
    More: PSA, Mike Coffman, Diana DeGette, federal government, state law, Controlled Substances Act, Earl Blumenauer, Ed Perlmutter, Jared Polis  
•       •       •

1577 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Nov 2012 at 3:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-18 02:46:04 PM
Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-18 02:56:35 PM
My comment on the redlit article last week (7427818) applies here so I'll quote it verbatim:

The 1st District Democrat suggests adding a phrase to the section of the federal Controlled Substances Act where it talks about federal pre-emption of state law if there is a conflict. At that point - it's Section 903, to be precise - DeGette would add language that exempts from the act any state provisions "relating to marijuana."

I don't think that's a fix.

Section 903 disclaims "field preemption," a doctrine where states are not allowed to regulate areas if Congress has taken over. If federal drug laws preempted state laws entirely then states would not be allowed to make drug dealing illegal. Congress wanted drugs to be doubly illegal.

The fix is to add "...in violation of state law" in various places around the act. Such references to state criminal law are common in federal law. For example, the Mann Act makes it illegal to transport a minor across state lines for immoral acts. What constitutes an illegal act is defined by state law. RICO references state laws on extortion and the like. The substantive acts required to prove a RICO violation may vary slightly from state to state.

The controlled substances act could prohibit transporting marijuana with the intent that it be possessed or used in violation of state law. In the majority of states that would be no change. In the "legal" states the feds couldn't bust you, seize your property, etc. as long as you followed state rules.
 
2012-11-18 03:06:15 PM
SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?
 
2012-11-18 03:07:10 PM

doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals Everyone needs to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.


Agreed. I wouldn't be even a little surprised if this was a ploy to be able to circumvent other, more harm-preventing laws, especially in Confederacies states with spotty records on protecting the rights of women & minorities.
 
2012-11-18 03:07:28 PM
This sounds like a neo-Confederate wet dream.
 
2012-11-18 03:08:27 PM
With all the lessons from the GOP about unintended consequences of legislation made under party rule, you'd think us liberals would be smarter than that.

We are, apparently, not.
 
2012-11-18 03:10:05 PM

Lochsteppe: doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals Everyone needs to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.

Agreed. I wouldn't be even a little surprised if this was a ploy to be able to circumvent other, more harm-preventing laws, especially in Confederacies states with spotty records on protecting the rights of women & minorities.


Ah, so the Dem-o-rat war on women has a new life?
 
2012-11-18 03:11:09 PM
Interesting that a man who isn't pro-pot respects the laws having passed. This is sort of how I feel about abortion - personally despise it but it's none of my damn business what you do, and I'll always support that freedom of choice.

It's also refreshing that marijuana legalization is going mainstream. In our lifetimes (I'm 38), we'll all be going to the corner Walgreen's to get high. That's what we already do with booze, but no one ever got stoned and beat his wife.
 
2012-11-18 03:11:36 PM

doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.


Such as?

wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?


I hope so, it was just a watered-down handout to Big Insurance
 
2012-11-18 03:13:09 PM
So, the bill as proposed simply and only says "the Federal Controlled Substances Act will not supercede state laws on marijuana". Tight, focused. You guys might want to actually read the really, really short text instead of saying irrelevant things about nullification or the Confederacy. Good lord.
 
2012-11-18 03:14:03 PM

Token Anarchist: doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.

Such as?

wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?

I hope so, it was just a watered-down handout to Big Insurance


Please.. go to Canada and try Socialism first.
 
2012-11-18 03:18:08 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: So, the bill as proposed simply and only says "the Federal Controlled Substances Act will not supercede state laws on marijuana". Tight, focused. You guys might want to actually read the really, really short text instead of saying irrelevant things about nullification or the Confederacy. Good lord.


This. The bill is incredibly narrow and only amends previous legislation. The federal government would be amending federal law, the horror.
 
2012-11-18 03:18:33 PM

wongway: Lochsteppe: doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals Everyone needs to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.

Agreed. I wouldn't be even a little surprised if this was a ploy to be able to circumvent other, more harm-preventing laws, especially in Confederacies states with spotty records on protecting the rights of women & minorities.

Ah, so the Dem-o-rat war on women has a new life?


You try too hard.
 
2012-11-18 03:19:50 PM
Meh.
 
2012-11-18 03:20:20 PM

Token Anarchist: I hope so, it was just a watered-down handout to Big Insurance


And yet our dimmer folks still call it "socialism." Oddly, no one ever said that about car insurance even at the state level. People were annoyed, but there was no FOX News telling them how a forced move of capital from citizens to private companies was commie f*g pinko 'socialism.'

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but at least I know what socialism is. Frankly, I'm kind of a fan of it. Democratic socialism, that is.
 
2012-11-18 03:21:31 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

R.I.P. John C. Calhoun
 
2012-11-18 03:23:42 PM

doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.


This. Freedom is dangerous, as all good liberals know. Why, give people the ability to protest and nullify restrictive regulations that are for their own good (or for The Children) and anything might happen! Best to be safe.
 
2012-11-18 03:25:39 PM

Token Anarchist: doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.

Such as?

wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?

I hope so, it was just a watered-down handout to Big Insurance


Yep. Who says the Democrats don't love Big Business?
 
2012-11-18 03:27:21 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Token Anarchist: doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.

Such as?

wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?

I hope so, it was just a watered-down handout to Big Insurance

Yep. Who says the Democrats don't love Big Business?


Only braindead rightists.
 
2012-11-18 03:29:42 PM
Or, maybe we could have federalism. I think I read about in some Papers or something.
 
2012-11-18 03:31:15 PM

wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?


There is no telling what it might be applied to. This is not a good idea.
 
2012-11-18 03:31:44 PM
People sure love their weed.
 
2012-11-18 03:35:16 PM

jso2897: wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?

There is no telling what it might be applied to. This is not a good idea.


There is telling! Go read it! It's a one-paragraph amendment to the Controlled Substances Act that specifically and only applies to marijuana! Jesus dick!
 
2012-11-18 03:36:44 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!

A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!

A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!

A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!

A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!


I don't really have much to add to that. It stands on it's own.
 
2012-11-18 03:36:44 PM
Interesting thread where the libs take off their little masks.....
 
2012-11-18 03:37:45 PM

incendi: A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!
A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!
A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!
A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!
A Dark Evil Omen: Jesus dick!

I don't really have much to add to that. It stands on it's own.


Damn right.
 
2012-11-18 03:37:45 PM

incendi: it's


How'd that get in there? Jesus dick!
 
2012-11-18 03:38:26 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Token Anarchist: doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.

Such as?

wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?

I hope so, it was just a watered-down handout to Big Insurance

Yep. Who says the Democrats don't love Big Business?


Well, then maybe the cons should have STFU and let them go single payer instead of fighting for compromise on their lame vision of Obamacare and then not voting for what they had fought for. Obamacare is what the Republicans wanted, so fark them and fark you.
 
2012-11-18 03:38:29 PM
How about no?

Call you congressperson and ask them to legalize marijuana, not tear down our system of government.
 
2012-11-18 03:39:08 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Interesting thread where the libs take off their little masks.....


Did your parents have any children they were proud of, or just you?
 
2012-11-18 03:40:57 PM

doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.


This. Sounds like a backdoor for those on the right to disregard anything D.C. says if they don't agree with it.
 
2012-11-18 03:42:21 PM

doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.


As this is federal legislation being proposed, I think you may need to go learn what nullification actually is prior to trying to use the word in conversation.
 
2012-11-18 03:42:22 PM

Emposter: Call you congressperson and ask them to legalize marijuana, not tear down our system of government.


I don't think this quite rises to level of "tear[ing] down our system of government." It does contribute, to some extent, to the speghettification of our legal code, which I disapprove of. I'd rather they just go ahead and deschedule it, which would basically have the same result of it still being illegal in most places. But it's not tearing down our system of government. Jesus dick.
 
2012-11-18 03:42:57 PM

Emposter: How about no?

Call you congressperson and ask them to legalize marijuana, not tear down our system of government.


Yes, you're right, a Federal amendment to a Federal law that provides a paper-thin delegation of authority to state governments on a single subject is the end of the Union. Of course.
 
2012-11-18 03:45:10 PM

incendi: Emposter: Call you congressperson and ask them to legalize marijuana, not tear down our system of government.

I don't think this quite rises to level of "tear[ing] down our system of government." It does contribute, to some extent, to the speghettification of our legal code, which I disapprove of. I'd rather they just go ahead and deschedule it, which would basically have the same result of it still being illegal in most places. But it's not tearing down our system of government. Jesus dick.


Yeah, that would be altogether better and make more sense, but in general I thought liberals were in favor of half-assed incrementalism.
 
2012-11-18 03:47:32 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?

There is no telling what it might be applied to. This is not a good idea.

There is telling! Go read it! It's a one-paragraph amendment to the Controlled Substances Act that specifically and only applies to marijuana! Jesus dick!


And when the DEA challenges it in court? Well, the 99% probability is that the courts would toss it - but if they ruled in it's favor, they would be making new, scary law. I have noticed that when people are stoned, they can only think a very short way into the future.
 
2012-11-18 03:51:14 PM

jso2897: A Dark Evil Omen: jso2897: wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?

There is no telling what it might be applied to. This is not a good idea.

There is telling! Go read it! It's a one-paragraph amendment to the Controlled Substances Act that specifically and only applies to marijuana! Jesus dick!

And when the DEA challenges it in court? Well, the 99% probability is that the courts would toss it - but if they ruled in it's favor, they would be making new, scary law. I have noticed that when people are stoned, they can only think a very short way into the future.


So the DEA is going to challenge federal law in court? By what standard?

Beyond that... What new scary law? That the federal government is allowed, by federal statute, to delegate authority on certain subjects to the states? I hate to tell you this but that is settled darling law and has been for a long time.
 
2012-11-18 03:52:10 PM

jso2897: And when the DEA challenges it in court? Well, the 99% probability is that the courts would toss it - but if they ruled in it's favor, they would be making new, scary law. I have noticed that when people are stoned, they can only think a very short way into the future.


On what basis would the DEA challenge it, out of curiosity?
 
2012-11-18 03:53:37 PM
This proposal is absurd. State laws should never trump Federal laws, I don't care what you're talking about.
 
2012-11-18 03:54:47 PM

GAT_00: This proposal is absurd. State laws should never trump Federal laws, I don't care what you're talking about.


Good thing this is a federal law being proposed, innit, Mr. Prohibitionist?
 
2012-11-18 03:55:23 PM

doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.


more democracy, closer to the people.
 
2012-11-18 03:56:04 PM
My congressperson will

a) ignore me
b) politely tell me to go fark myself

as usual. Representative government is a pipe dream.
 
2012-11-18 03:57:59 PM

doyner: Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.


THIS...
Or perhaps they want to through all civil rights laws out the window.
 
2012-11-18 04:01:51 PM

incendi: jso2897: And when the DEA challenges it in court? Well, the 99% probability is that the courts would toss it - but if they ruled in it's favor, they would be making new, scary law. I have noticed that when people are stoned, they can only think a very short way into the future.

On what basis would the DEA challenge it, out of curiosity?


On the basis that it would permit states to negate federal laws by passing contrary laws of their own.
The fact that the law is narrow in scope might not limit the principle established to the isuues in the law.
Maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight, but I have seen the intention of other good laws twisted into very bad things in our courts.
You might be right - I tend to be paranoid about these things. But why not just put forward a bill to deschedule marijuana? Wouldn't that really be the right way to go here? Because if the argument for this is that it might be politically easier to do - that's just not a good argument.
 
2012-11-18 04:02:43 PM
While I support legalized marijuana and in fact most other drugs I can't help but feel that this law would be used as an reason to pass other laws that allow states to create laws contrary to the stance of the federal government. For all you naysayers out their what would be the legal difference between this law and a law that stated that the federal government should respect states wishes when it came to healthcare laws?
 
2012-11-18 04:04:03 PM
Stupid bill, just re-schedule it to Class III.

//Princess Di is my Congressidiot, she's a stereotypical Prima Dona.
 
2012-11-18 04:05:02 PM

Anenu: While I support legalized marijuana and in fact most other drugs I can't help but feel that this law would be used as an reason to pass other laws that allow states to create laws contrary to the stance of the federal government. For all you naysayers out their what would be the legal difference between this law and a law that stated that the federal government should respect states wishes when it came to healthcare laws?


The federal government could pass that law now. Indeed, a limited version of that is the basis for the state exchanges under the ACA.
 
2012-11-18 04:05:41 PM

moothemagiccow: My congressperson will

a) ignore me
b) politely tell me to go fark myself


c) farking pothead--who cares what you dope smokers think?
 
2012-11-18 04:05:51 PM
I'm not going to ask my representatives in government to support an act that is clearly unconstitutional. Article VI, clause 2.
 
2012-11-18 04:05:58 PM
This *almost* made me feel better about Mike Coffman winning. I really didn't expect him to support this.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report