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 62
    More: PSA, Mike Coffman, Diana DeGette, federal government, state law, Controlled Substances Act, Earl Blumenauer, Ed Perlmutter, Jared Polis  
•       •       •

1578 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-18 02:46:04 PM
15 votes:
Uuuuh, no. Liberals need to consider the long-term legal ramifications of opening the nullification Pandora's box.
2012-11-18 03:13:09 PM
10 votes:
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 03:07:10 PM
6 votes:

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.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-18 02:56:35 PM
6 votes:
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 03:07:28 PM
5 votes:
This sounds like a neo-Confederate wet dream.
2012-11-18 03:56:04 PM
3 votes:
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 03:40:57 PM
3 votes:

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 03:18:08 PM
3 votes:

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 06:50:35 PM
2 votes:

chuggernaught: Nope. Can't do it. If left to their own devices "States Rights" would still allow slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow Laws. The Federal Government needs to be able to step in and shut some shiat down.

/pretty much the reason I can't agree with any libertarian.


Doesn't work that way.

There is no constitutional ban on marijuana. There is a constitutional ban on slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow laws. In the case of slavery, the 13th amendment explicitly bans it in any form except in punishment of a crime, in the case of the other two the Supreme Court has ruled them to be illegal under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
2012-11-18 04:31:04 PM
2 votes:
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 04:02:43 PM
2 votes:
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 03:54:47 PM
2 votes:

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 03:53:37 PM
2 votes:
This proposal is absurd. State laws should never trump Federal laws, I don't care what you're talking about.
2012-11-18 03:42:57 PM
2 votes:

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 03:38:29 PM
2 votes:
How about no?

Call you congressperson and ask them to legalize marijuana, not tear down our system of government.
2012-11-18 03:08:27 PM
2 votes:
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 03:06:15 PM
2 votes:
SOOOOO

does that new law apply to Obamacare?
2012-11-18 11:28:53 PM
1 votes:
playing chemical russian roulette with 2 billion years of evolution (your brain) is so, like, cool man.
2012-11-18 10:36:27 PM
1 votes:
This is possibly the dumbest thread I've ever read.
2012-11-18 10:30:09 PM
1 votes:

Mija: Funny, when we Californians voted against gay marriage you people didn't like state law or respect the voters will but now state law is sooooooooooo important. Hypocrisy.


Funny, the Mormons money-bombed for bigotry. Also, bigotry. Please explain how out of state Mormons did not skew that vote, or how the black component of the vote for marriage inequality was not in itself hypocritical. Let's not gloss over nuance here.
2012-11-18 10:23:03 PM
1 votes:

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


This is a federal law amending a federal law
This is a federal law amending a federal law
This is a federal law amending a federal law
This is a federal law amending a federal law


Christ on a Triscuit. Do you morons get it now?
2012-11-18 09:40:26 PM
1 votes:

dickfreckle: 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.


Goddamn right. I've known a number of cops that were pro-legalization of weed. They all said something similar. [paraphrased and combined] "I've never seen someone beat their wife or children while on pot. I've never seen someone stab a random person over a minor argument while on pot. I've never seen someone OD on pot. The only tragic results of pot have been more of the fact that it's illegal, and some unscrupulous people will take advantage of the fact that people want it."
2012-11-18 09:30:53 PM
1 votes:

doyner: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

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.

The supremacy clause ensures equal constitutional freedoms across all states. Undermining it is inherently dangerous.

lilplatinum: 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.

Please. This WOULD open the nullification Pandora's box in that it would open the door for ONE session of Congress to allow for states to cherry-pick laws passed by all previous sessions. It is essentially asking Congress to allow nullification.

Nullification.

/Nullification

Holocaust Agnostic: more democracy, closer to the people.

Less Constitution != more democracy

Cyclometh: So we can only use "state's rights" to support conservative causes? Got it.

Did you just accuse me of being a GOP shill? Read ANYTHING I've posted on Fark and try again.


This is so farking funny I almost can't stand it. The Fark Libs are now Constitutionalists! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO! ROTFLMAO!
2012-11-18 08:55:57 PM
1 votes:
Um, no. States should not be able to supersede federal law. I will, hover, write to the president asking that we suspend the "War on Drugs" because it's a huge waste of time and lives.
2012-11-18 08:07:47 PM
1 votes:

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?


Hi winterwhile.
2012-11-18 06:26:20 PM
1 votes:
Nope. Can't do it. If left to their own devices "States Rights" would still allow slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow Laws. The Federal Government needs to be able to step in and shut some shiat down.

/pretty much the reason I can't agree with any libertarian.
2012-11-18 05:48:36 PM
1 votes:

Silly Jesus: So libtards like state's rights now? I can't keep up.


No. Potheads who see a shortcut to legalization do.
2012-11-18 05:35:40 PM
1 votes:
i18.photobucket.com 

Wow. Weed makes me calm - guess it doesn't effect everybody that way.
2012-11-18 05:23:26 PM
1 votes:
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 05:12:10 PM
1 votes:
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 05:03:34 PM
1 votes:

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 05:00:27 PM
1 votes:

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 04:49:31 PM
1 votes:
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 04:47:34 PM
1 votes:

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 04:44:15 PM
1 votes:

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 04:44:05 PM
1 votes:

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 04:42:37 PM
1 votes:

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 04:42:37 PM
1 votes:

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 04:32:45 PM
1 votes:

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 04:32:11 PM
1 votes:

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 04:31:36 PM
1 votes:

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 04:30:42 PM
1 votes:

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 04:26:38 PM
1 votes:

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 04:26:00 PM
1 votes:

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 04:25:24 PM
1 votes:

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 04:24:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:21:05 PM
1 votes:
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 04:12:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:05:51 PM
1 votes:
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 04:05:02 PM
1 votes:

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 04:01:51 PM
1 votes:

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 03:45:10 PM
1 votes:

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 03:42:21 PM
1 votes:

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 03:39:08 PM
1 votes:

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 03:37:45 PM
1 votes:

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 03:35:16 PM
1 votes:

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 03:29:42 PM
1 votes:
Or, maybe we could have federalism. I think I read about in some Papers or something.
2012-11-18 03:27:21 PM
1 votes:

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 03:21:31 PM
1 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com

R.I.P. John C. Calhoun
2012-11-18 03:20:20 PM
1 votes:

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 03:19:50 PM
1 votes:
Meh.
2012-11-18 03:11:09 PM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 62 of 62 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report