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  
•       •       •

1583 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Nov 2012 at 3:02 PM (2 years 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 04:39:11 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: As much as I support legalization of pot, I don't like the idea of opening the door to state laws such as (but not limited to) charging abortion doctors with murder, school segregation (you know what states would if they could), and institutionalized religion at all levels of government and schools.


I don't see how this would lead to it.

The bill in question is incredibly narrow in scope and only deals with marijuana. It doesn't allow States to preempt federal law however they feel like.

The federal government has always had the power to delegate it's authority to the states, this would simply be another case of them doing just that.
 
2012-11-18 04:39:25 PM  

machoprogrammer: I am totally for legalizing marijuana, but this is a bad idea. What is going to make it so states won't outlaw abortion using this?


The text of the bill?

/farking lazy farkers
 
2012-11-18 04:39:50 PM  

machoprogrammer: I am totally for legalizing marijuana, but this is a bad idea. What is going to make it so states won't outlaw abortion using this?


How could states use the federal legislature to outlaw abortion?
 
2012-11-18 04:40:16 PM  
If Congress can keep GITMO open by refusing to fund its closure and moving of the prisoners then it can just de-fund the DEA from doing any marijuana enforcement.
 
2012-11-18 04:40:22 PM  

Blue_Blazer: lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: In all seriousness, I understand the argument against this. It could be seen as a model for others wanting to ignore federal laws.

If that model is "if we want to ignore federal laws the best way is to get a bill passed in congress changing said law", then I am not not sure why that is a particularly contentious issue.

It doesn't seem bad now. But what happens if the pendulum swings back and we have a Republican majority in both chambers? They will point to this and say "well it worked great for pot, let's try it on (insert other states' rights issue here)." This is my concern dude.


And they can still do it on anything, regardless of if there's a precedent. Legislation does not work that way.
 
2012-11-18 04:40:29 PM  

machoprogrammer: I am totally for legalizing marijuana, but this is a bad idea. What is going to make it so states won't outlaw abortion using this?


Because it's a narrow amendment to the Controlled Substances Act, and last time I checked fetuses were not a scheduled drug?

Look, here. For everyone, the text of the bill:

A BILL
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide thatFederal law shall not preempt State law
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
1
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
3
This Act may be cited as the ''Respect States' and
4
Citizens' Rights Act of 2012''.
5
SEC. 2. IN GENERAL.
6
Section 708 of the Controlled Substances Act (21
7
U.S.C. 903) is amended-
8
2(1) by striking ''No provision'' and inserting
1
''(A) IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in sub-
2
section (b), no provision''; and
3
(2) by adding at the end the following:
4
''(b) SPECIAL RULE REGARDING STATE MARIHUANA
5 LAWS.-In the case of any State law that pertains to mar-
6
ihuana, no provision of this title shall be construed as indi-
7
cating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy
8
the field in which that provision operates, including crimi-
9
nal penalties, to the exclusion of State law on the same
10
subject matter, nor shall any provision of this title be con-
11
strued as preempting any such State law.''.
 
2012-11-18 04:40:45 PM  

Blue_Blazer: 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.

Dude. When I am stoned and am thinking way far into the future, like, millions of years. Thinking about aliens and space travel and zero-g bongs and shiat.


Hey, me too. I love weed, and still partake occasionally - but I don't take my pipe dreams seriously.
 
2012-11-18 04:41:02 PM  

Blue_Blazer: It doesn't seem bad now. But what happens if the pendulum swings back and we have a Republican majority in both chambers? They will point to this and say "well it worked great for pot, let's try it on (insert other states' rights issue here)." This is my concern dude.


They won't have to point to this, they already have the power to write federal legislation - in fact thats pretty much their primary function.
 
2012-11-18 04:41:27 PM  

incendi: incendi: it's

How'd that get in there? Jesus dick!


eloquentscience.com


Fun story:

I was once in a discussion where someone said "God has no penis." I thought this was funny and all until I got to thinking... If Jesus ascended bodily into heaven and Jesus was fully God and fully man...
 
2012-11-18 04:42:23 PM  

Blue_Blazer: In all seriousness, I understand the argument against this. It could be seen as a model for others wanting to ignore federal laws. I would rather just see HHS reschedule marijuana. It obviously has medicinal properties, why should it remain schedule I?


http://www.google.com/patents/US6630507
 
2012-11-18 04:42:37 PM  

actualhuman: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: They absolutely are. In fact, as I noted above, ACA is exactly this model, providing specific delegations of authority to states with a federal framework that applies if states choose not to supersede it.

And states have and should not have any right to dictate drug laws to the Federal government if there are existing Federal laws.

I mean seriously, do you want Vermont to steer national marriage law? Vermont?


Yeah, marriage and pot are the same thing. I said DRUG law specifically.

lilplatinum: Nor is a state trying to do so in this case, so I am left wondering WTF you are talking about.


This is a state trying to override Federal law, just doing so in a more ingenious method than usual.
 
2012-11-18 04:42:37 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: - A bill passed by the federal legislature is a legal case and provides precedent as opposed to be codified law that is open to legal challenges.


Good job completely missing my point.

/which is this. If a state law that nullifies a federal law is found to be constitutional, that opens the door to states nullifying the Civil Right's Act. It sets a legal precedent that states can follow or not follow federal law as they see fit.

/I'm pro-legalization (of pretty much everything - I don't think the govt. has any business telling competent adults what they can or can't introduce into their own bloodstreams) but if it's going to happen, it needs to happen federally.
 
2012-11-18 04:42:42 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: I've never been a big fan of the whole not owning slaves thing, so I'm just not going to follow that one. Not black people though, since that would be racist. I'll only nullify slavery for Eastern European ladies.

Good thing this is a federal law providing a narrow amendment to existing federal law, so there's no nullification concerns, right?


Can I still keep some Romanians locked up in my basement?
 
2012-11-18 04:44:05 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: In all seriousness, I understand the argument against this. It could be seen as a model for others wanting to ignore federal laws.

If that model is "if we want to ignore federal laws the best way is to get a bill passed in congress changing said law", then I am not not sure why that is a particularly contentious issue.

Yeah, this has been my point through the entire thread. Apparently the frightening thing about this is that it lays out a precedent where... the federal government can pass laws... regarding federal law.

How radical.


Look, my degree is in philosophy, and I tend to try to see all sides of any issue. Although I support this effort on its face, I am concerned that it will start the dogs barking in the south over things like immigration, abortion, etc etc. Rescheduling marijuana would be a much better idea, and make a whole lot more sense than this convoluted idea, which, as I said, I support on its face. Or maybe just a federal law that requires the government to reconsider the science and directs it to reschedule marijuana.
 
2012-11-18 04:44:10 PM  

GAT_00: actualhuman: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: They absolutely are. In fact, as I noted above, ACA is exactly this model, providing specific delegations of authority to states with a federal framework that applies if states choose not to supersede it.

And states have and should not have any right to dictate drug laws to the Federal government if there are existing Federal laws.

I mean seriously, do you want Vermont to steer national marriage law? Vermont?

Yeah, marriage and pot are the same thing. I said DRUG law specifically.

lilplatinum: Nor is a state trying to do so in this case, so I am left wondering WTF you are talking about.

This is a state trying to override Federal law, just doing so in a more ingenious method than usual.


Oh come one, you get that analogy.

/And the reference
//You want to federalize law enforcement, I thought it was a bit hasty.
 
2012-11-18 04:44:15 PM  

Snapper Carr: . If a state law that nullifies a federal law is found to be constitutional, that opens the door to states nullifying the Civil Right's Act. It sets a legal precedent that states can follow or not follow federal law as they see fit.


But that's not what's going on here! There's no nullification! This is a federal law amending a federal law to delegate certain authority to the states! This is a nullification concern in the same way - once again - the state exchanges in ACA are a nullification concern, ie in no possible way.
 
2012-11-18 04:44:54 PM  

Snapper Carr: A Dark Evil Omen: - A bill passed by the federal legislature is a legal case and provides precedent as opposed to be codified law that is open to legal challenges.

Good job completely missing my point.

/which is this. If a state law that nullifies a federal law is found to be constitutional, that opens the door to states nullifying the Civil Right's Act. It sets a legal precedent that states can follow or not follow federal law as they see fit.

/I'm pro-legalization (of pretty much everything - I don't think the govt. has any business telling competent adults what they can or can't introduce into their own bloodstreams) but if it's going to happen, it needs to happen federally.


This. Is. Not. A. State. Law. Morons.
 
2012-11-18 04:45:23 PM  

actualhuman: GAT_00: actualhuman: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: They absolutely are. In fact, as I noted above, ACA is exactly this model, providing specific delegations of authority to states with a federal framework that applies if states choose not to supersede it.

And states have and should not have any right to dictate drug laws to the Federal government if there are existing Federal laws.

I mean seriously, do you want Vermont to steer national marriage law? Vermont?

Yeah, marriage and pot are the same thing. I said DRUG law specifically.

lilplatinum: Nor is a state trying to do so in this case, so I am left wondering WTF you are talking about.

This is a state trying to override Federal law, just doing so in a more ingenious method than usual.

Oh come one, you get that analogy.

/And the reference
//You want to federalize law enforcement, I thought it was a bit hasty.


I got the reference fine. The false equivalence overrode it.
 
2012-11-18 04:45:58 PM  
Pot is going to turn into "before, I was for it, but now, SOROS LIBBY SOSHULIZM KENYAN U.N. CONCENTRATION CAMP WHARGARBL" for the right. They will dig in their heels, clamp their jaws and close their eyes.

Sure, we use birth control and smoke weed. BIRTH CONTROL AND POT THREAT FREEDOM RELIGION MY MARRIAGE!!!11

This country is farked.
 
2012-11-18 04:46:38 PM  

lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: It doesn't seem bad now. But what happens if the pendulum swings back and we have a Republican majority in both chambers? They will point to this and say "well it worked great for pot, let's try it on (insert other states' rights issue here)." This is my concern dude.

They won't have to point to this, they already have the power to write federal legislation - in fact thats pretty much their primary function.


You are welcome to your opinion. Mine is that this would give the Right something to howl and scream and point at. That's my point. I do not think this law, in and of itself, will bring the end of federalism.
 
2012-11-18 04:47:24 PM  

GAT_00: actualhuman: GAT_00: actualhuman: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: They absolutely are. In fact, as I noted above, ACA is exactly this model, providing specific delegations of authority to states with a federal framework that applies if states choose not to supersede it.

And states have and should not have any right to dictate drug laws to the Federal government if there are existing Federal laws.

I mean seriously, do you want Vermont to steer national marriage law? Vermont?

Yeah, marriage and pot are the same thing. I said DRUG law specifically.

lilplatinum: Nor is a state trying to do so in this case, so I am left wondering WTF you are talking about.

This is a state trying to override Federal law, just doing so in a more ingenious method than usual.

Oh come one, you get that analogy.

/And the reference
//You want to federalize law enforcement, I thought it was a bit hasty.

I got the reference fine. The false equivalence overrode it.


So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?
 
2012-11-18 04:47:34 PM  

Blue_Blazer: A Dark Evil Omen: lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: In all seriousness, I understand the argument against this. It could be seen as a model for others wanting to ignore federal laws.

If that model is "if we want to ignore federal laws the best way is to get a bill passed in congress changing said law", then I am not not sure why that is a particularly contentious issue.

Yeah, this has been my point through the entire thread. Apparently the frightening thing about this is that it lays out a precedent where... the federal government can pass laws... regarding federal law.

How radical.

Look, my degree is in philosophy, and I tend to try to see all sides of any issue. Although I support this effort on its face, I am concerned that it will start the dogs barking in the south over things like immigration, abortion, etc etc. Rescheduling marijuana would be a much better idea, and make a whole lot more sense than this convoluted idea, which, as I said, I support on its face. Or maybe just a federal law that requires the government to reconsider the science and directs it to reschedule marijuana.


Look, I agree that descheduling is the better and proper approach, but let's debate things that are real. The "dogs" are already "barking" all over the south about derp; there's no slippery slope here nor any potential for one because you're worried about something happening that is already a thing.
 
2012-11-18 04:48:20 PM  

Blue_Blazer: lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: It doesn't seem bad now. But what happens if the pendulum swings back and we have a Republican majority in both chambers? They will point to this and say "well it worked great for pot, let's try it on (insert other states' rights issue here)." This is my concern dude.

They won't have to point to this, they already have the power to write federal legislation - in fact thats pretty much their primary function.

You are welcome to your opinion. Mine is that this would give the Right something to howl and scream and point at. That's my point. I do not think this law, in and of itself, will bring the end of federalism.


The right will imagine whatever they require to justify whatever they want to do at any given point in time. I'd think this was well known by now.
 
2012-11-18 04:48:25 PM  

Blue_Blazer: You are welcome to your opinion. Mine is that this would give the Right something to howl and scream and point at. That's my point. I do not think this law, in and of itself, will bring the end of federalism.


Everything gives the right something to scream and howl and point at... trying to pass things that do not get them to do means you are doing your job poorly.

But this law has nothing to do with states rights, federalism, or nullification as many people on this thread bizzarely think.
 
2012-11-18 04:48:37 PM  

actualhuman: Snapper Carr: A Dark Evil Omen: - A bill passed by the federal legislature is a legal case and provides precedent as opposed to be codified law that is open to legal challenges.

Good job completely missing my point.

/which is this. If a state law that nullifies a federal law is found to be constitutional, that opens the door to states nullifying the Civil Right's Act. It sets a legal precedent that states can follow or not follow federal law as they see fit.

/I'm pro-legalization (of pretty much everything - I don't think the govt. has any business telling competent adults what they can or can't introduce into their own bloodstreams) but if it's going to happen, it needs to happen federally.

This. Is. Not. A. State. Law. Morons.


Say it a few more times. Maybe they'll finally get it.
 
2012-11-18 04:49:31 PM  
Call me crazy, but here's an idea. How about we legalize weed on a federal level and leave it up to the states to decide how they want to handle it?


/They're doing whatever the hell they want to anyway.
 
2012-11-18 04:49:53 PM  

actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?


They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.
 
2012-11-18 04:50:56 PM  

GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.


So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.
 
2012-11-18 04:51:21 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Blue_Blazer: A Dark Evil Omen: lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: In all seriousness, I understand the argument against this. It could be seen as a model for others wanting to ignore federal laws.

If that model is "if we want to ignore federal laws the best way is to get a bill passed in congress changing said law", then I am not not sure why that is a particularly contentious issue.

Yeah, this has been my point through the entire thread. Apparently the frightening thing about this is that it lays out a precedent where... the federal government can pass laws... regarding federal law.

How radical.

Look, my degree is in philosophy, and I tend to try to see all sides of any issue. Although I support this effort on its face, I am concerned that it will start the dogs barking in the south over things like immigration, abortion, etc etc. Rescheduling marijuana would be a much better idea, and make a whole lot more sense than this convoluted idea, which, as I said, I support on its face. Or maybe just a federal law that requires the government to reconsider the science and directs it to reschedule marijuana.

Look, I agree that descheduling is the better and proper approach, but let's debate things that are real. The "dogs" are already "barking" all over the south about derp; there's no slippery slope here nor any potential for one because you're worried about something happening that is already a thing.


I get your point, I just think this would be more ammo for them. You are probably right that it wouldn't matter either way, but I do think they will turn it up if this were to happen, and we would see laws introduced with similar language as this bill directed at things like immigration. They are arguably already up to 11, so maybe they can't turn it up any higher, but I just have visions of Arizonans trying to pass a law directing the federal government to ignore federal immigration laws in favor of state ones, and similar things. I always worry about anything with both Republican and Democratic support.
 
2012-11-18 04:54:38 PM  

Blue_Blazer: You are probably right that it wouldn't matter either way, but I do think they will turn it up if this were to happen, and we would see laws introduced with similar language as this bill directed at things like immigration.


They couldn't do it with immigration due to current federal case law about immigration being the purview of federal government. Similarly, someone mentioned abortion above, but you could not have the federal legislature legalize abortion since it would be a violation of a constitutional right to privacy which has already been incorporated at a state level..
 
2012-11-18 04:58:01 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.

So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.


Because in the other instances measurable good is done.
 
2012-11-18 04:58:20 PM  
While we are at it, lets also allow each state to determine what it's voting laws should be. You get to have marijuana, Texas gets to only allow white males over 40 to vote.
 
2012-11-18 05:00:27 PM  

hbk72777: No
Link

And those that biatch Alcohol is legal, I'd ban that shiat too. Of course, people with nothing going on in their lives will fight it like they did during Prohibition, but they'd get over it.

/Mother went through 6 years of chemo without marijuana, so fark you and your "aches and pains".


DUI remains illegal. I'm glad you found one person who killed people while high on marijuana. 30 Americans die every day from someone driving under the influence of alcohol. That's over 10,000 a year. There's definitely nothing going on in their lives now.

About your mother? Perhaps you'll get over it.
 
2012-11-18 05:03:34 PM  

Blue_Blazer: Look, my degree is in philosophy, and I tend to try to see all sides of any issue. Although I support this effort on its face, I am concerned that it will start the dogs barking in the south over things like immigration, abortion, etc etc. Rescheduling marijuana would be a much better idea, and make a whole lot more sense than this convoluted idea, which, as I said, I support on its face. Or maybe just a federal law that requires the government to reconsider the science and directs it to reschedule marijuana.

Look, I agree that descheduling is the better and proper approach, but let's debate things that are real. The "dogs" are already "barking" all over the south about derp; there's no slippery slope here nor any potential for one because you're worried about something happening that is already a thing.

I get your point, I just think this would be more ammo for them. You are probably right that it wouldn't matter either way, but I do think they will turn it up if this were to happen, and we would see laws introduced with similar language as this bill directed at things like immigration. They are arguably already up to 11, so maybe they can't turn it up any higher, but I just have visions of Arizonans trying to pass a law directing the federal government to ignore federal immigration laws in favor of state ones, and similar things. I always worry about anything with both Republican and Democratic support.


Here's my position: If I come from a purely philosophical standpoint, then I don't care about any of this. It's all varying levels of repression courtesy of the capitalist state and this law can go on the bonfire with all other laws at every level. That, however, while it gives me a lens through which to view things, does not help me understand the workings of government.

I don't have the luxury of using who supports what as a shortcut because neither of the major parties resembles anything I have the slightest respect for. In the same way, however, that I can recognize that the Republicans are openly fascist as opposed to the Dems' capitalist business-as-usual positions, I can objectively analyze whether or not this carries any of the handwringing implications (particularly the especially dumb ones like "nullification" that have no bearing at all) without losing my philosophical grounding. At this point, all we're arguing is whether the slippery slope is fallacious in this case or not, and that is a very narrow point of contention.
 
2012-11-18 05:04:25 PM  

GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.

So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.

Because in the other instances measurable good is done.


So, yes, you're being a disingenuous toad and you don't believe "Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong" at all
 
2012-11-18 05:05:57 PM  

lilplatinum: Blue_Blazer: You are probably right that it wouldn't matter either way, but I do think they will turn it up if this were to happen, and we would see laws introduced with similar language as this bill directed at things like immigration.

They couldn't do it with immigration due to current federal case law about immigration being the purview of federal government. Similarly, someone mentioned abortion above, but you could not have the federal legislature legalize abortion since it would be a violation of a constitutional right to privacy which has already been incorporated at a state level..


That's just it. If they start trying to rewrite federal law to ignore federal law, then I'm not so sure where that ends. Obviously they aren't going to be able to ignore Constitutional matters. I just don't want to see this happening every day, and seeing people calling Democrats hypocrites. Once again, all of that will probably happen anyway. I'm not trying to claim that the sky is falling.
 
2012-11-18 05:06:00 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.

So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.

Because in the other instances measurable good is done.

So, yes, you're being a disingenuous toad and you don't believe "Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong" at all


Thank you for telling me what I think. You'd make a good Republican.
 
2012-11-18 05:06:28 PM  

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


Done in one. I'm for legalization, but that's a farking stupid idea.
 
2012-11-18 05:12:10 PM  
The problem with state-level drug laws is the same as the problem with state-level gun control laws: these things are easy to move across state lines. While I'm not a fan of current federal law in both areas, I think it only makes sense to make the policy at the national level.
 
2012-11-18 05:16:54 PM  

hbk72777: No
Link

And those that biatch Alcohol is legal, I'd ban that shiat too. Of course, people with nothing going on in their lives will fight it like they did during Prohibition, but they'd get over it.

/Mother went through 6 years of chemo without marijuana, so fark you and your "aches and pains".


Do you realize that the kid in your link could have smoked pot days to weeks before the collision and still have tested positive? You do understand that pot metabolites stay in the body LONG after the effects wear off, right?

Also,

pbs.twimg.com
 
2012-11-18 05:23:26 PM  
You know, for all the effort being expended to keep the feds out of marijuana enforcement, you'd think you could get a bill that either downgrades it from a schedule I to a schedule II or III, or takes marijuana off the controlled substances list entirely.

That would solve the problem right there without having to resort to the slippry slope of federal vs state powers.
 
2012-11-18 05:26:23 PM  

MisterRonbo: The problem with state-level drug laws is the same as the problem with state-level gun control laws: these things are easy to move across state lines. While I'm not a fan of current federal law in both areas, I think it only makes sense to make the policy at the national level.


This - the DEA needs to deschedule pot - period.
 
2012-11-18 05:27:31 PM  

Ambivalence: You know, for all the effort being expended to keep the feds out of marijuana enforcement, you'd think you could get a bill that either downgrades it from a schedule I to a schedule II or III, or takes marijuana off the controlled substances list entirely.

That would solve the problem right there without having to resort to the slippry slope of federal vs state powers.


It would have as much chance of passing as this would.
 
2012-11-18 05:35:40 PM  
i18.photobucket.com 

Wow. Weed makes me calm - guess it doesn't effect everybody that way.
 
2012-11-18 05:39:16 PM  
So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.
 
2012-11-18 05:41:44 PM  
No.
 
2012-11-18 05:43:32 PM  

Silly Jesus: I can't keep up.

 

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-18 05:44:46 PM  
Put another way:

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 civil rights will not be pre-empted by the federal government.

/Short answer: No.
//Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
2012-11-18 05:44:51 PM  

GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.

So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.

Because in the other instances measurable good is done.


We have the largest prison population in the world. Half our prison population is in because of drug offenses. Lessening our future prisoners isn't good?
 
2012-11-18 05:46:39 PM  

Dafatone: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: actualhuman: So, just to be clear, how is it that allowing states to set their own drug policy is unconstitutional or whatever your point is supposed to be?

They are not allowed to override Federal laws. Passing a Federal law that says ignore Federal law in favor of State law is a quite ingenious end-around, but it's still wrong.

So why are you not against all the other places this sort of delegation is done? Oh, right, because you're being disingenuous and you just want to continue prohibitionist policies.

Because in the other instances measurable good is done.

We have the largest prison population in the world. Half our prison population is in because of drug offenses. Lessening our future prisoners isn't good?


It is but it can't be measured so no.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report