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.

(Denver Post)   The UN sends a letter to Eric Holder asking him to challenge the CO and WA marijuana ballot measures. If Holder does nothing, the UN will send another letter telling them how disappointed they are   (denverpost.com) divider line 284
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

8739 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Nov 2012 at 7:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-21 12:11:16 AM

gibbon1: dr_blasto: Problem being the treaties entered into by the US government are, per the Constitution, the law of the land.

Just because something is against Federal law doesn't make it illegal according to state law. I suppose the Feds could try and cut of Washington and Colorado's highway funding. Wouldn't be very 'state rights' of them though. Not that has ever stopped Congress.


That threat was used to push the drinking age from 18 to 21 decades ago. I'm sure it's still something they could try.
 
2012-11-21 12:25:16 AM

gibbon1: dr_blasto: Problem being the treaties entered into by the US government are, per the Constitution, the law of the land.

Just because something is against Federal law doesn't make it illegal according to state law. I suppose the Feds could try and cut of Washington and Colorado's highway funding. Wouldn't be very 'state rights' of them though. Not that has ever stopped Congress.


It will be quite interesting to see how this plays out. I'm suspecting that, like gay marriage and medical marijuana, this will spread across more states. The "will of the people" seems to be (from what I can tell, at least) quite largely for it across numerous demographics, but there is a seriously entrenched "establishment" that doesn't want to see change.

If they start withholding highway funds to get their way this thing will be nipped in the bud, so to speak, quite quickly from a legislative standpoint. However the state rights whargarble will get turned up to 11, and there will be a lot of disappointment, disenfranchisement, and lingering contempt and animosity towards the DC fatcats telling you what you can and cannot do in your own home.

Quite frankly I'm surprised that Prohibition 2 has lasted so long compared to the first. I suppose alcohol is much more ingrained (you can spell this engrained or ingrained, that's awesome, thanks spellcheck!) in our culture and society, and the detrimental effects were felt much more immediately and in a more blatant manner. But the principle isn't any different.

/If brevity is the soul of wit, I'm a farktard
//Potato slashies!
 
2012-11-21 12:30:38 AM

Eddie Ate Dynamite:

Quite frankly I'm surprised that Prohibition 2 ... the detrimental effects were felt much more immediately and in a more blatant manner. But the principle isn't any different.

I'll disagree. The detrimental effects WERE immediately felt by rural cannabis farmers, and the minorities the prohibition targeted in the first place. The difference being that the (at the time) all white, all male establishment didn't feel it quickly as in alcohol prohibition. It's easy to ignore things that don't effect your demographics (same reason missing white girl gets national headlines while minorities go missing without news organizations seeming to care)

 
2012-11-21 12:31:41 AM
I fail at HTML tonight
 
2012-11-21 12:32:16 AM
FTFA: The INCB has no enforcement ability.

So, then, this is the Strongly Worded Letter Gang that Can't Shoot Straight UN, as opposed to the Black Helicopter New World Order Illuminati Trilateral Commission UN.
 
2012-11-21 12:41:25 AM

SquiggsIN: I'll disagree. The detrimental effects WERE immediately felt by rural cannabis farmers, and the minorities the prohibition targeted in the first place. The difference being that the (at the time) all white, all male establishment didn't feel it quickly as in alcohol prohibition. It's easy to ignore things that don't effect your demographics (same reason missing white girl gets national headlines while minorities go missing without news organizations seeming to care)


Valid point, sir! So would you lay any of the blame on it being a more difficult web to unweave regarding the Interstate Commerce Clause as opposed to a comparatively simple and straight-forward constitutional amendment?
 
2012-11-21 12:58:44 AM

SquiggsIN: That threat was used to push the drinking age from 18 to 21 decades ago. I'm sure it's still something they could try.


Only difference is raising the drinking age from 18-21 doesn't cost the state much. Where the state might find recriminating pot possession costs them money they don't want to spend. We'll see what happens, California, Nevada , and New Mexico are likely next in line.
 
2012-11-21 01:01:17 AM

gibbon1: SquiggsIN: That threat was used to push the drinking age from 18 to 21 decades ago. I'm sure it's still something they could try.

Only difference is raising the drinking age from 18-21 doesn't cost the state much. Where the state might find recriminating pot possession costs them money they don't want to spend. We'll see what happens, California, Nevada , and New Mexico are likely next in line.


They will see the way, one way or another.
 
2012-11-21 01:44:24 AM

gibbon1: SquiggsIN: That threat was used to push the drinking age from 18 to 21 decades ago. I'm sure it's still something they could try.

Only difference is raising the drinking age from 18-21 doesn't cost the state much. Where the state might find recriminating pot possession costs them money they don't want to spend. We'll see what happens, California, Nevada , and New Mexico are likely next in line.


wasn't following the conversation.. next in line for what?
 
2012-11-21 02:03:09 AM

firefly212: naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.

I used to work for the UN (UNCTAD). On this particular issue, they can blow me. Neither they, nor holder, can make us waste more money on this failed drug policy. We're not going to throw people in jail and continue wasting billions of dollars pretending that smoking a joint warrants more government action than stealing billions of dollars.

Nobody from BP or Halliburton went to jail, but we're supposed to send some burnout, MS patient (me), or grandmom with cancer to jail... how the fark does that make sense to anyone?


My friend's Dad has MS. He smoked pot in the 80s to help cope. At FIVE YEARS OLD my friend's brother told his MS suffering Dad that he would turn his Dad in if he didn't stop.

In person, as an adult, my friend's brother was an awesome guy... who also ended up working for a Republican think tank.

/sigh
//met the Dad too... he couldn't hold silverware bc of the MS at that point but God Forbid he have a joint
 
2012-11-21 02:05:07 AM

X-boxershorts: firefly212: Suede head: Ah, American right-wingers and their UN hatred.

Funny, you liked the UN when their troops had to come and rescue your elite rangers in Mogadishu.

We didn't love them when they refused to go in because it was too dangerous.

Also, I'm not right-wing, I support socialized medicine, legalizing pot, taxing cap-gains at the same tax rate as salary income, abolishing the death penalty, and plenty of other left wing causes. Being against pointless oppression and for fairer outcomes and second chances doesn't make me a crazy right winger, it makes me proud to be a liberal. rational 

A little more accurate, because these positions are rational conservative positions.


"Reality has a well-known Liberal bias"

/Colbert +the only sticker on my Dad's car
 
2012-11-21 02:16:22 AM
As a Colorado resident that doesn't give a poop what the UN thinks about me about to smoke a fattie, I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.
 
2012-11-21 02:39:24 AM
Meanwhile, unknown to the UN:

europa.eu
 
2012-11-21 02:43:09 AM
Society, if there is one, of the future is so going to mock this period of Prohibition.
May top the charts right there with the Flat Earth thingie.
 
2012-11-21 02:47:24 AM

naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.


I'm as big an anti-UN person as you would ever hope to find and I hope Holder flips the letter over writes "Go F yourselves" on it before sending it back.
 
2012-11-21 02:58:41 AM

X-boxershorts: firefly212: Suede head: Ah, American right-wingers and their UN hatred.

Funny, you liked the UN when their troops had to come and rescue your elite rangers in Mogadishu.

We didn't love them when they refused to go in because it was too dangerous.

Also, I'm not right-wing, I support socialized medicine, legalizing pot, taxing cap-gains at the same tax rate as salary income, abolishing the death penalty, and plenty of other left wing causes. Being against pointless oppression and for fairer outcomes and second chances doesn't make me a crazy right winger, it makes me proud to be a liberal. rational 

A little more accurate, because these positions are rational conservative positions.


Too bad there aren't any rational conservatives in the GOP these days.
 
2012-11-21 04:16:54 AM
In the case of the Feds raiding anybody in CO or WA, it won't happen. They can't take the risk of somebody getting hurt or god forbid killed in a raid, the blow back would tear the entire DEA to pieces.
 
2012-11-21 04:32:40 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: In the case of the Feds raiding anybody in CO or WA, it won't happen. They can't take the risk of somebody getting hurt or god forbid killed in a raid, the blow back would tear the entire DEA to pieces.


Uhhhhh, what? You are aware that the Feds have been raiding medical marijuana dispensaries in California for over a decade, right? I highly doubt the Feds are interested in raiding users but they will raid any place selling marijuana in the US, no matter if it is legal in the state or not.
 
2012-11-21 05:02:55 AM

muck4doo: Nobody cares about drug users. We are a nation of punishing, not helping. Look at the Fark threads on meth users here, and you will see what i mean.


^ ^ ^ ^

Thank you for bringing this up here. Well said.

I know a number of self styled "libertarians" who smoke weed, or who advocate legalization of weed, who will turn around and tell me that it is perfectly all right to let heroin or crack addicts die in the streets, because it's all about free choice, man.
 
2012-11-21 05:15:58 AM

fusillade762: .

vicioushobbit: fark UN drug opinions.

Sincerely, Portugal.

See also: Cambodia, Cyprus, The Czech Republic, Ecuador, Peru, Spain, Switzerland and probably some others I'm missing.

I'm not a UN hater, but in this case they can go fark themselves.


Possession of reefer is *decriminalized* in most of these places, and possession of *small amounts* of the stuff is legal or effectively legal in some of them, but it is still illegal to import or sell large amounts of it just about everywhere. Get caught trying to carry a key of weed into the Netherlands or Portugal and you will learn the difference between decriminalization and legalization in no time.
 
2012-11-21 05:26:13 AM

MooseUpNorth: YouPeopleAreCrazy: But you might want to rethink who is carrying who.

There's only one plausible threat to Canada, and they didn't come by sea the last two times.


A la prochaine fois.
 
2012-11-21 05:29:30 AM
On patrol in case any them UN critters show up in these here parts.
t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-21 05:56:35 AM

muck4doo: It's money that everyone is happy with. From the corps that run the private prisons to the public sector unions who supply them with prisoners, and get that sweet cash from busts. It's not ending anytime soon.


I'm actually quite optimistic about it. We are at around 20 states that have medical marijuana, decriminalized personal use, and/or outright legalized marijuana. I think if it goes past 25 then there is no turning back. I liken it to the gay marriage issue, another traditionally liberal/libertarian cause being advanced through the states.

I know you are conservative/Republican so I really hope your party actually embraces the libertarian views that will get bipartisan support, they need to. I'm personally liberal (with libertarian views on some issues like guns and the nanny state and such) but even the Republicans I know in my generation are liberal on these kind of issues.
 
2012-11-21 06:01:15 AM

way south: What I find odd is that, while the war on Marijuana started because of US interests (We goaded most of the world into this mess), the UN isn't welcoming a potential end to our second prohibition failure.


Well not only did we goad the rest of the world into the drug war (in some sense, nations have had drug laws before us, just not on our scale), but we are the highest drug using nation in the world. The US drives the same drugs it attempts to stop. Perfect set up for widespread corruption.
 
2012-11-21 06:27:02 AM

Nothing To See Here: EABODUN


i got the first 3 strings of this tuning, but the rest is just garbage
i don't get it
 
2012-11-21 06:31:42 AM

gibbon1: dr_blasto: Problem being the treaties entered into by the US government are, per the Constitution, the law of the land.

Just because something is against Federal law doesn't make it illegal according to state law. I suppose the Feds could try and cut of Washington and Colorado's highway funding. Wouldn't be very 'state rights' of them though. Not that has ever stopped Congress.


Colorado passed it as an amendment; it will be hard for them to cave to the feds if they pull the same shiat out they used for the drinking age. I also think the SCOTUS decision regarding the PPACA knocked some of the feds teeth out in this regard.

In the end, if the DEA re-scheduled cannabis to Schedule I or II, we'd still be in compliance with treaty obligations and this would no longer be an issue. Fundamentally, the DEA hasn't the manpower to deal with individual users and the CO six-plant personal use rule means that even if they don't get to the retail pot stores part, there's little to no way that federal authorities are going to be able to anything to the individuals.

You'll likely still get fired from just about any job for pissing hot, though, so there's that.
 
2012-11-21 09:26:21 AM
Normally I would welcome input from the U.N.. In this instance however, as a resident of Washington State, and citizen of the United States of America, I would respectfully ask the U.N. to kindly STFU, and STFD.

This is a sovereign matter, and no business of the U.N..

Furthermore, one finds themselves forced to ask: Is this because Europe is about to lose a metric butt-ton of pot-tourism dollars?
 
2012-11-21 10:10:04 AM

kmmontandon: naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.

The anti-UN crowd is already a farce, what with believing both that the U.N. is a bunch of powerless letter writers, and at the same time a superpowered shadowy cabal that is conquering America from within.


I find your lack of awareness disturbing:

OOH: The UN's fairly ineffective in its primary mission (peace on earth); so much so that South Park made fun of 'Hans Brix'. Also, Rwanda.

OTOH: The UN provides a framework for totalitarianism, which though not yet realized, shows signs of growth with each attempt to control normal human activities like marijuana use.
 
2012-11-21 11:10:01 AM

chuckufarlie: take it to court


It's been done. The people lost.
 
2012-11-21 12:26:53 PM
The pressure is mounting. Since America already seems to mandate worldwide policy, it'll be interesting to see if they're able to backtrack on this one and say "whoops, our bad!" Doesn't seem likely, but then I really don't know how I see Obama enforcing federal law on the people on such a large scale. It would be unprecedented for most of us in our lifetime. But I don't know where he'd get the resources, unless he tapped into whatever the UN has on hand to help deal with it. That would be all kinds of farked up if he went that route. Would he? Could he? I don't like to think about it. Then again, who in their right mind would support such a move? Nobody here wants to see soldiers coming in from another country to enforce our own laws. We likely wouldn't embrace that, so perhaps the federal government IS up shiat creek. I think the American people will win on this issue just as we're winning with medical marijuana.
 
2012-11-21 02:54:19 PM

naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.


I hate the UN's bullshiat. I also think they should stay the FARK out of internal social issues. F them all and F you for good measure.
 
2012-11-21 06:59:00 PM

dr_blasto: You'll likely still get fired from just about any job for pissing hot, though, so there's that.


Assuming the Feds don't step in here and it spreads how much do you want to bet that you will be fireable (or not hireable) for smoking weed. True for tobacco, would probably be true for weed.
 
2012-11-21 08:25:43 PM
I'd be like: Dude, mellow out... take a hit, and watch this.
 
2012-11-21 09:21:06 PM
Someone needs to go to change.org and make a petition to tell the UN to go f*ck themselves.

I can understand reason for the UN but this is not one of those reasons. Hell, they can't even do their job right anyway.
 
Displayed 34 of 284 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report