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 215
    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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-18 04:06:42 PM
Sorry, subby, I'm for legalization but its near the bottom of my priority list
 
2012-11-18 04:08:22 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: 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?


To be fair, the article really didn't explain that point very well.
 
2012-11-18 04:09:36 PM

PanicMan: A Dark Evil Omen: 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?

To be fair, the article really didn't explain that point very well.


It wasn't really hard for me to click next and read the text of the bill.
 
2012-11-18 04:12:04 PM

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


So we can only use "state's rights" to support conservative causes? Got it.
 
2012-11-18 04:12:05 PM

madnessupmysoul: I'm not going to ask my representatives in government to support an act that is clearly unconstitutional. Article VI, clause 2.


I'm not convinced, but that is my fear. And the only arguments I've heard to the contrary here are to the effect that it's as plain as the nose on my face and i'm stupid for even having such a concern - not a good tack to take with me.
 
2012-11-18 04:14:32 PM

cryinoutloud: 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?


No that's Obama's position. Also it's option A.
 
2012-11-18 04:14:57 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.


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.
 
2012-11-18 04:15:05 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


Can you believe how many people still do not know what ACA calls for? Jesus dick!
 
2012-11-18 04:19:09 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.


/I see my work here is done.
//Tip of the hat(tm)
 
2012-11-18 04:19:40 PM
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".
 
2012-11-18 04:20:48 PM
www.theworkofgod.org
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-18 04:21:05 PM
Excweese, me, but federal law trumps state law. We need to address the real issue which is the federal law against pot. That's what needs to change.

/lib
 
2012-11-18 04:21:44 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: 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?


Take a chill pill. Being a Prohibitionist is a far cry from being concerned about the possible ramifications of having state law trump federal law.
 
2012-11-18 04:22:41 PM

Counter_Intelligent: Take a chill pill. Being a Prohibitionist is a far cry from being concerned about the possible ramifications of having state law trump federal law.


But there is noting in this case where state law would trump federal law, so talking about it is hardly relevant.
 
2012-11-18 04:24:04 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".


My grandmother went through 6 years of cancer without chemo, so fark YOU and YOUR "aches and pains." Jesus dick!
 
2012-11-18 04:24:28 PM

lilplatinum: Counter_Intelligent: Take a chill pill. Being a Prohibitionist is a far cry from being concerned about the possible ramifications of having state law trump federal law.

But there is noting in this case where state law would trump federal law, so talking about it is hardly relevant.


Because ignorance abounds. Even in my case.
 
2012-11-18 04:25:24 PM

Counter_Intelligent: A Dark Evil Omen: 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?

Take a chill pill. Being a Prohibitionist is a far cry from being concerned about the possible ramifications of having state law trump federal law.


GAT has a history of being vocally pro-prohibition. Like, in every legalization thread ever. And, yes, there's nothing about this that is state law trumping federal law, it's federal law delegating certain authority to the states, which has about a million precedents throughout the US Code.
 
2012-11-18 04:25:26 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: 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?


It's a Federal Law saying Federal Law should be ignored when a certain State Law is in force. This is stupid, and it's what I expect from a Tenther, not an elected Democrat.
 
2012-11-18 04:26:00 PM

Blue_Blazer: [www.theworkofgod.org image 262x372]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x265]


Oh, I hope this is a thing now. It is one of my favorite ridiculous expletives ever.
 
2012-11-18 04:26:38 PM

GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: 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?

It's a Federal Law saying Federal Law should be ignored when a certain State Law is in force. This is stupid, and it's what I expect from a Tenther, not an elected Democrat.


So you're against Medicare, Medicaid, PPACA...
 
2012-11-18 04:27:07 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Blue_Blazer: [www.theworkofgod.org image 262x372]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x265]

Oh, I hope this is a thing now. It is one of my favorite ridiculous expletives ever.


I'm trying to do my part, you know, for America.
 
2012-11-18 04:27:55 PM

wongway: SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?


This!
 
2012-11-18 04:28:41 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: 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?

It's a Federal Law saying Federal Law should be ignored when a certain State Law is in force. This is stupid, and it's what I expect from a Tenther, not an elected Democrat.

So you're against Medicare, Medicaid, PPACA...


Yes, those are roughly the same thing.
 
2012-11-18 04:29:39 PM
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.
 
2012-11-18 04:30:13 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".


Because it was the pot that made an unlicensed driver go 110mph at 3:35am, not his being an asshole.
 
2012-11-18 04:30:42 PM

GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: GAT_00: A Dark Evil Omen: 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?

It's a Federal Law saying Federal Law should be ignored when a certain State Law is in force. This is stupid, and it's what I expect from a Tenther, not an elected Democrat.

So you're against Medicare, Medicaid, PPACA...

Yes, those are roughly the same thing.


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.
 
2012-11-18 04:31:04 PM
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.
 
2012-11-18 04:31:36 PM

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?
 
2012-11-18 04:32:11 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


Legal Precedent
 
2012-11-18 04:32:45 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.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-18 04:32:45 PM
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?
 
2012-11-18 04:32:55 PM

jso2897: I have noticed that when people are stoned, they can only think a very short way into the future.


i think you're mistaken there, dude. marijuana decreases short term memory retention and increases creative and novel thought processes in most people.
 
2012-11-18 04:34:11 PM

jso2897: 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.


Only on the subject of marijuana - so the rest of your argument is invalid.
 
2012-11-18 04:34:22 PM
Well since we're not using the Tenth Amendment to the USC, we may as well get a new one.
 
2012-11-18 04:34:26 PM

Snapper Carr: 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

Legal Precedent


This is a legislative issue, there would be no challenge here and no precedent because it is not remotely a constitutional issue. This is federal farking law deciding how it is going to apply itself. It is not state law claiming supremecy over a supreme court decision, which would be nullification.
 
2012-11-18 04:34:46 PM
The title of the bill is what's causing all these knee-jerk reactions, since "State's Rights" has been a racist NeoConfederate dogwhistle of a century and change now. Unsurprising title, since the sponsor's a Republican, but theres' nothing wrong with the bill itself except not going far enough. As someone above said, they should just deschedule weed entirely, but this guy isn't the one to do it, since he's opposed to legalizing it, but feels that what the voters of Colorado said goes. I
 
2012-11-18 04:34:52 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?


I believe the argument is "slippery slope." If this were to happen, what is to prevent the things he is worried about? Then you get turtle marriages. No seriously, I do think this could be a slippery slope that could embolden the enemy, i.e. conservatives.
 
2012-11-18 04:34:59 PM

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.
 
2012-11-18 04:35:09 PM

Rwa2play: 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.


Actually it is a front door

With 31 states having a GOP governor maybe they would be okay with this.
 
2012-11-18 04:35:14 PM

Snapper Carr: 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

Legal Precedent


Wow.

Things I have learned in this thread:

- Any federal delegation of authority to the states is nullification, as opposed to be the exact opposite.
- 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.

Wow.
 
2012-11-18 04:35:16 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".


Too bad you live in a democracy, huh?
 
2012-11-18 04:35:32 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.


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.
 
2012-11-18 04:35:41 PM
This reminds me, I should go see that new Lincoln movie.
 
2012-11-18 04:36:29 PM

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.


Nor is a state trying to do so in this case, so I am left wondering WTF you are talking about.
 
2012-11-18 04:36:45 PM

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.


Okay, so you disagree with the law. So say so. Don't talk disingenuous handwringing bullshiat that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
 
2012-11-18 04:37:13 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


The feds delegate power to the states?

Looks like someone doesn't understand the constitution

No big surprise
 
2012-11-18 04:37:26 PM
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?
 
2012-11-18 04:37:47 PM

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.
 
2012-11-18 04:38:46 PM

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?
 
2012-11-18 04:38:54 PM

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.
 
Displayed 50 of 215 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