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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Senator Leahy (D-VT) wants to know when the White House is gonna toke up with him   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 119
    More: Cool, White House, Controlled Substances Act, Talking Points Memo, drug czar  
•       •       •

2288 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Dec 2012 at 9:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-14 10:10:11 AM

Bloody William: Paul Baumer: Bloody William: Paul Baumer: Like Lincoln and the Mormons "I propose to leave them alone" is an excellent answer for the time being. We really do have other more pressing issues, social, financial and foreign at the moment

There will always be "More pressing issues." This is a problem that needlessly jails thousands of Americans. It bloats our prisons, limits our media treatment and therapy options for cancer and mental disorders, and continues a policy of prohibition that has absolutely no reason for being.

Baby steps. Once the commercial practice becomes established it will become that much more difficult to eliminate. Any notion that you can just hand wave away 100 years of public "Reefer Madness!" demonization is just as absurd as one that thinks the practice can be stopped through law enforcement. Let it grow and take hold, let other states begin to copy the example of Washington and Colorado, and the dominoes will fall.

Baby steps tend not to do shiat with social issues. We need short, sharp, shocks.


The "baby steps" were what we took between the 1930s Reefer Madness, the 1960s when our parents learned that the only thing harmed by the plant is your food budget. the 1980s when Say No To Drugs rekindled The Madness, and now, when 3 generations have seen right through the hyperbolic rhetoric and overblown fearmongering.

This is the "action" phase. Don't believe me? Check the polling trends (national and state-level) on people supporting full-on legalization. It's been at or over 50% for years now. We just got 4% of the states to legalize, on top of the medical states.
 
2012-12-14 10:11:19 AM

Paul Baumer: So, for me it's just not a top tier problem at the moment, and an issue that would be used to cloud other more salient things in the pipeline that need to get done


Don't try to reason with drug addicts, they are not reasonable people. You have to realize that their mental illness makes them see their drug usage as the most important thing for their survival, much like you or I would look at food or water.
 
2012-12-14 10:12:35 AM

Bloody William: mrshowrules: MFAWG: mrshowrules: Dusk-You-n-Me: Said Obama: "We've got bigger fish to fry. It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it's legal." Link

Second term. Second term.

As much as I support the decriminalization of pot, Obama didn't run on this so he has no business doing anything significant on the issue.

Rolling back Reagan's war on drugs would be a hell of a legacy, don't you think?

One thing a President can do that does not require a mandate is a pardon. He should pardon every single person in prison for pot possession/trafficing provided there is no link with another crime or violence. He could put Susan Rice in charge of managing the process (for the lulz).

Has there ever been an en masse pardon based on the offense before? While I like the idea, it sounds dangerously close to saying that the president can effectively annul any law he wants.


Is that more or less dangerous than selectively annulling a lawfully made sentence for any individual he pleases?

The whole practice is kind of distasteful, if you ask me.
 
2012-12-14 10:12:37 AM
Paul Baumer: Bloody William: Paul Baumer: Like Lincoln and the Mormons "I propose to leave them alone" is an excellent answer for the time being. We really do have other more pressing issues, social, financial and foreign at the moment

There will always be "More pressing issues." This is a problem that needlessly jails thousands of Americans. It bloats our prisons, limits our media treatment and therapy options for cancer and mental disorders, and continues a policy of prohibition that has absolutely no reason for being.

Baby steps. Once the commercial practice becomes established it will become that much more difficult to eliminate. Any notion that you can just hand wave away 100 years of public "Reefer Madness!" demonization is just as absurd as one that thinks the practice can be stopped through law enforcement. Let it grow and take hold, let other states begin to copy the example of Washington and Colorado, and the dominoes will fall.


Please! Take away that sweet confiscation swag and the Federal money fountain and state/local police will drop drug enforcement like a box of radioactive scorpions.
 
2012-12-14 10:20:43 AM

Shaggy_C: Paul Baumer: So, for me it's just not a top tier problem at the moment, and an issue that would be used to cloud other more salient things in the pipeline that need to get done

Don't try to reason with drug addicts, they are not reasonable people. You have to realize that their mental illness makes them see their drug usage as the most important thing for their survival, much like you or I would look at food or water.


Hey if you like throwing money into a pit and breaking up families ,taking productive people out of the workforce and incarcerating them to the tune of 40 k a year and not making a dent in the problem then go ahead and beat your head against the wall.
 
2012-12-14 10:20:52 AM

Shaggy_C: We've seen this play out before:
[www.history.com image 605x412]

If state law subverts federal law, the state loses. Always.


Life from your binary worldview must be quite comforting, eh? I know that if I could be so certain of things that I have no evidence of, I'd be a lot happier.
 
2012-12-14 10:27:37 AM

Paul Baumer: Holocaust Agnostic: Paul Baumer: Like Lincoln and the Mormons "I propose to leave them alone" is an excellent answer for the time being. We really do have other more pressing issues, social, financial and foreign at the moment

Such as?
I'd rather see the President spending his electoral capital on tax reform, appropriate foreign policy responses to the evolving Middle East situations in Syria and Egypt, and keeping the pressure on the Supremes for LGBT marriage reform rather than pick a fight over something that will occur organically, albeit more slowly, regardless. Pot is not going away, and it's going to be legalized. It's just a matter of time. In the interim almost anyone in this country can obtain and use marijuana at fairly trivial risk of prosecution. So, for me it's just not a top tier problem at the moment, and an issue that would be used to cloud other more salient things in the pipeline that need to get done, and by leaving it alone to grow will encourage other states to follow suit. Fabian, and the best strategy.


1) things in which they do not believe etc etc
2)put away your freedom boner, Syrians can sort out Syria.
3) no gay marriage makes some gays sad. The drug war was killed thousands
 
2012-12-14 10:29:31 AM

joonyer: Shaggy_C: We've seen this play out before:
[www.history.com image 605x412]

If state law subverts federal law, the state loses. Always.

Life from your binary worldview must be quite comforting, eh? I know that if I could be so certain of things that I have no evidence of, I'd be a lot happier.


It's funny because he actually does have a binary world-view.

/In that he'll argue either side of any issue ;)
 
2012-12-14 10:31:26 AM

imontheinternet: incendi: imontheinternet: If it's grown, sold, and smoked within the state lines, I don't see how the feds claim jurisdiction over it as a criminal matter.

Wickard v. Filmore.

Regulation and licensing, yes, but the article talks about the feds arresting low level offenders. I don't see how the Commerce Clause covers a federal criminal case against a guy smoking a joint in his living room.


It's a great example of the law of unintended consequences. Someone decided it would be a really good idea if we had an FDA, and successfully argued that it was constitutional under the commerce clause. Now that we have an FDA, it can regulate locally grown and consumed foods and drugs.
 
2012-12-14 10:32:25 AM

Holocaust Agnostic: Paul Baumer: Holocaust Agnostic: Paul Baumer: Like Lincoln and the Mormons "I propose to leave them alone" is an excellent answer for the time being. We really do have other more pressing issues, social, financial and foreign at the moment

Such as?
I'd rather see the President spending his electoral capital on tax reform, appropriate foreign policy responses to the evolving Middle East situations in Syria and Egypt, and keeping the pressure on the Supremes for LGBT marriage reform rather than pick a fight over something that will occur organically, albeit more slowly, regardless. Pot is not going away, and it's going to be legalized. It's just a matter of time. In the interim almost anyone in this country can obtain and use marijuana at fairly trivial risk of prosecution. So, for me it's just not a top tier problem at the moment, and an issue that would be used to cloud other more salient things in the pipeline that need to get done, and by leaving it alone to grow will encourage other states to follow suit. Fabian, and the best strategy.

1) things in which they do not believe etc etc
2)put away your freedom boner, Syrians can sort out Syria.
3) no gay marriage makes some gays sad. The drug war was killed thousands


I'm kind of split on this. I expect if the President made any attempt to tell congress what he'd like to see them do on cannabis reform that a significant number of Republicans who might support reform on Federalism ground would pitch a shiat fit and decide to make federal penalties even harsher or something equal silly. However I think the same thing would happen if he tried pressuring the SCOTUS on marriage equality (or pretty much anything else).
 
2012-12-14 10:35:03 AM
+spelling

/Not dignifying the Syria stuff with a response.
//It's a trap!
 
2012-12-14 10:38:13 AM

Lost Thought 00: Bloody William: mrshowrules: MFAWG: mrshowrules: Dusk-You-n-Me: Said Obama: "We've got bigger fish to fry. It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it's legal." Link

Second term. Second term.

As much as I support the decriminalization of pot, Obama didn't run on this so he has no business doing anything significant on the issue.

Rolling back Reagan's war on drugs would be a hell of a legacy, don't you think?

One thing a President can do that does not require a mandate is a pardon. He should pardon every single person in prison for pot possession/trafficing provided there is no link with another crime or violence. He could put Susan Rice in charge of managing the process (for the lulz).

Has there ever been an en masse pardon based on the offense before? While I like the idea, it sounds dangerously close to saying that the president can effectively annul any law he wants.

Yes, Illegal Immigration Amnesty by Reagan.


And the Whiskey Rebellion amnesty by Washington, and the Civil War amnesty for those who fought for the South by Lincoln...somebody gave all the draft dodgers amnesty after Viet Nam, was that Carter?

Obama's already done it once. The 2009 tax amnesty for people hiding their money overseas. Pay a civil penalty, no criminal prosecution.
 
2012-12-14 10:41:39 AM
Weed prohibition is a lot like Don't Ask Don't Tell. It doesn't actually prevent any behavior, it just creates needless, harsh, expensive consequences.
 
2012-12-14 10:43:58 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: Weed prohibition is a lot like Don't Ask Don't Tell. It doesn't actually prevent any behavior, it just creates needless, harsh, expensive consequences.


And "off-shores" a significant amount of the profits.

/If we can use "off-shore" to describe Mexico and Canada.
 
2012-12-14 10:50:29 AM

Hollie Maea: Obama is playing this smart. The best course of action is to allow WA and CO to do their thing for two years or so. Then when the world doesn't come to an end, maybe a couple more states legalize in 2014, and the electorate becomes a bit more sympathetic (read: codgers die off) then work on amending federal law in his last two years. To do it now would needlessly use way too much valuable political capital.


This.

There's also the potential that Obama Derangement Syndrome could take hold if he pushed it too hard. I'm thinking he should quietly loosen some rules, let the states get this going, and set up the eventual 2016 nominee with an issue that's slow and to the outside, just waiting to be smacked out of the park: saving money on enforcement, saving money on incarceration, raising money on a voluntary tax, stimulating entrepreneurship and some feel good moral stuff about freedom to boot.
 
2012-12-14 10:51:41 AM

Lost Thought 00: Bloody William: mrshowrules: MFAWG: mrshowrules: Dusk-You-n-Me: Said Obama: "We've got bigger fish to fry. It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it's legal." Link

Second term. Second term.

As much as I support the decriminalization of pot, Obama didn't run on this so he has no business doing anything significant on the issue.

Rolling back Reagan's war on drugs would be a hell of a legacy, don't you think?

One thing a President can do that does not require a mandate is a pardon. He should pardon every single person in prison for pot possession/trafficing provided there is no link with another crime or violence. He could put Susan Rice in charge of managing the process (for the lulz).

Has there ever been an en masse pardon based on the offense before? While I like the idea, it sounds dangerously close to saying that the president can effectively annul any law he wants.

Yes, Illegal Immigration Amnesty by Reagan.


Draft dodgers under Carter, Confederate troops under Andrew Johnson.
 
2012-12-14 10:52:02 AM
Obama is not going to use resources to go after and arrest individual pot smokers. However, I would guess there is about a 5% chance of him allowing the new legal weed dispensaries to open. Maybe Leahy can help the reps from CO and WA to get the legislation they wrote to leave it up to the states to decide whether or not pot should be legal to pass.

/not holding my breath
 
2012-12-14 10:55:39 AM
Obama does not want to legalize marijuana.

You would think with the combination of Republicans who disagree with everything Obama says/does and liberal Democrats who actually want legalized marijuana, this would be an easy veto override. Everyone is happy, the lefty libs get legalized pot and the conservatives get to lol all the way to the lollercopter about overriding a veto.

Come on people, lets do this thing.
 
2012-12-14 11:01:11 AM

lennavan: Obama does not want to be the one to legalize marijuana.


I think that what the issue's become - no one wants to be The Guy when the music stops. Even though any sort of federal legalization would have support from significant parts of both parties, would have to pass both Houses AND the President's desk, no one wants to be "The President Who Legalized Weed". I think it's pretty obvious Obama personally either doesn't care (IMO, that's it) or supports legalization.

I have no farking idea why - FDR was proud to be the one to sign away Prohibition. The People support legalization. It looks like Congress, on its own, will pass a "Leave the States Alone (if they have a law)!" law. It appears that the pro-hibition people are leaving the issue alone as well. The only ones left are private prison lobbyists, and the remnants of the creators of "just say no" (the ones who, like abstinence-only education, are convinced it works).
 
2012-12-14 11:01:30 AM

Communist_Manifesto: Obama is not going to use resources to go after and arrest individual pot smokers. However, I would guess there is about a 5% chance of him allowing the new legal weed dispensaries to open. Maybe Leahy can help the reps from CO and WA to get the legislation they wrote to leave it up to the states to decide whether or not pot should be legal to pass.

/not holding my breath


"he regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. "
 
2012-12-14 11:02:59 AM
Tired of hearing "oh, this will change when more old farts die off." Weed's good for old people, and an AARP poll showed 72% support medical marijuana.

In my 50s now and hoping to use legally when I'm older.
 
2012-12-14 11:05:29 AM

Dr Dreidel: I think that what the issue's become - no one wants to be The Guy when the music stops. Even though any sort of federal legalization would have support from significant parts of both parties, would have to pass both Houses AND the President's desk, no one wants to be "The President Who Legalized Weed". I think it's pretty obvious Obama personally either doesn't care (IMO, that's it) or supports legalization


No one wants to be the one that vetoed the legalization of weed, either. Nobody wants to touch it because either way you open an avenue for attacks.

That being said, second term. There is no third. I'd bet that if it made it to his desk he'd sign it in a heartbeat, but he's not going to push congresspeople into a vulnerable position to get it done.
 
2012-12-14 11:06:56 AM

Dr Dreidel: I think it's pretty obvious Obama personally either doesn't care (IMO, that's it) or supports legalization.


I agree with that, I don't think he personally cares either. TBH, I have no idea where I get that belief from.

Dr Dreidel: no one wants to be "The President Who Legalized Weed".


I don't understand why not. It seems to me to be a huge win for the taking. We significantly reduced our spending (jailing less people, less court cases, etc), we increased revenue (taxing it) while creating a whole new industry (jobs) and anything you have to argue about I'm just gonna bring up a comparison to alcohol. Besides, I thought less Big Government and less regulation is what you people wanted.
 
2012-12-14 11:08:29 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: Weed prohibition is a lot like Don't Ask Don't Tell. It doesn't actually prevent any behavior, it just creates needless, harsh, expensive consequences.


I am against any laws that aren't enforced consistently, fairly and fully. Any law which isn't being enforced consistently across a community should either be struck down or their should be repercussions against the authorities for not enforcing them properly.
 
2012-12-14 11:11:19 AM

Wooly Bully: Tired of hearing "oh, this will change when more old farts die off." Weed's good for old people, and an AARP poll showed 72% support medical marijuana..


It'll change when more old farts in Congress die off. Most of the senior people in Congress went through a drug warrior phase, and nobody likes to say "I was wrong." It's the senior people chairing committees and determining which legislation gets considered. A little more turnover and we'll have some legislators in charge that don't have a long history of voting for more draconian drug policy, and then maybe we can get something accomplished legislatively at a federal level.
 
2012-12-14 11:12:08 AM

joonyer: Life from your binary worldview must be quite comforting, eh? I know that if I could be so certain of things that I have no evidence of, I'd be a lot happier.


So we're going to throw away hundreds of years of federalism and our entire constitution so that some burnout losers can get high? Yeah, right. The jackboots will be marching, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but some day soon. The raids already happen all up and down the west coast; how long do you think a retail outlet engaged in the sale of drugs would last? This is as good as it's going to get for the druggies, individual decriminalization.
 
2012-12-14 11:12:09 AM

incendi: Dr Dreidel: I think that what the issue's become - no one wants to be The Guy when the music stops. Even though any sort of federal legalization would have support from significant parts of both parties, would have to pass both Houses AND the President's desk, no one wants to be "The President Who Legalized Weed". I think it's pretty obvious Obama personally either doesn't care (IMO, that's it) or supports legalization

No one wants to be the one that vetoed the legalization of weed, either. Nobody wants to touch it because either way you open an avenue for attacks.

That being said, second term. There is no third. I'd bet that if it made it to his desk he'd sign it in a heartbeat, but he's not going to push congresspeople into a vulnerable position to get it done.


Pretty much.

lennavan: I don't understand why not. It seems to me to be a huge win for the taking. We significantly reduced our spending (jailing less people, less court cases, etc), we increased revenue (taxing it) while creating a whole new industry (jobs) and anything you have to argue about I'm just gonna bring up a comparison to alcohol.


Because weed is for hippies, and we won't abide some granola-crunching hippie in the Oval Office! (I have no idea either. Probably the same inertia that prevented state-level legalization in the first place.)

Besides, I thought less Big Government and less regulation is what you people wanted.

Buh? Are you talking past me here?
 
2012-12-14 11:14:08 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Said Obama: "We've got bigger fish to fry. It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it's legal." Link

Second term. Second term.


Read that comment. He won't go after users. He can feasibly go after vendors/producers.
 
2012-12-14 11:19:03 AM

Dr Dreidel: Probably the same inertia that prevented state-level legalization in the first place


Actually, as a matter of personal preference, I'm glad the states are legalizing it one by one because the fed is dragging its feet (read: full of pussies). But were I a SCOTUS justice, I'd throw out those state laws. You can't be having state laws that violate federal law and you can't be deciding laws by majority vote.

Dr Dreidel: Besides, I thought less Big Government and less regulation is what you people wanted.

Buh? Are you talking past me here?


It was a suggested response to anyone who might attack a POTUS about weed from the right. I didn't mean to suggest you were in that group. =]
 
2012-12-14 11:22:44 AM

incendi: Wooly Bully: Tired of hearing "oh, this will change when more old farts die off." Weed's good for old people, and an AARP poll showed 72% support medical marijuana..

It'll change when more old farts in Congress die off. Most of the senior people in Congress went through a drug warrior phase, and nobody likes to say "I was wrong." It's the senior people chairing committees and determining which legislation gets considered. A little more turnover and we'll have some legislators in charge that don't have a long history of voting for more draconian drug policy, and then maybe we can get something accomplished legislatively at a federal level.


Well I hope you're right about all of that. These little Tea Party mofos prove that being reactionary isn't the exclusive province of the old, but hopefully they're just a flash in the pan.
 
2012-12-14 11:31:35 AM

Wooly Bully: hopefully they're just a flash in the pan.


I sure hope so. They're not the least bit interested in good governance, they exist solely to be anti-Democrat.
 
2012-12-14 11:31:50 AM

Shaggy_C: Paul Baumer: So, for me it's just not a top tier problem at the moment, and an issue that would be used to cloud other more salient things in the pipeline that need to get done

Don't try to reason with drug addicts, they are not reasonable people. You have to realize that their mental illness makes them see their drug usage as the most important thing for their survival, much like you or I would look at food or water.


You sound fat.
 
2012-12-14 11:32:40 AM

mrshowrules: Uranus Is Huge!: Weed prohibition is a lot like Don't Ask Don't Tell. It doesn't actually prevent any behavior, it just creates needless, harsh, expensive consequences.

I am against any laws that aren't enforced consistently, fairly and fully. Any law which isn't being enforced consistently across a community should either be struck down or their should be repercussions against the authorities for not enforcing them properly.


Is enforcement the same in Ontario and British Columbia?
 
2012-12-14 11:33:00 AM

lennavan: you can't be deciding laws by majority vote


Wait, what? Referenda aren't good now?

// did you mean "rights" can't be decided by majority vote?
 
2012-12-14 11:37:59 AM

Shaggy_C: joonyer: Life from your binary worldview must be quite comforting, eh? I know that if I could be so certain of things that I have no evidence of, I'd be a lot happier.

So we're going to throw away hundreds of years of federalism and our entire constitution so that some burnout losers can get high? Yeah, right. The jackboots will be marching, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but some day soon. The raids already happen all up and down the west coast; how long do you think a retail outlet engaged in the sale of drugs would last? This is as good as it's going to get for the druggies, individual decriminalization.


It's not "a hundred years of Federalism", it's an 80 year old law (or a 40 year old law, depending on where you start counting).

And we did the same - Constitutionally, even! - to let you have the right to be a fat drunken slob. The Federal government leaves you with the right to get blind drunk all damn day (assuming you can afford it). We literally threw away Constitutional law so that some drunken yambags could get legally drunk.

// "how long do you think a retail outlet engaged in the sale of drugs alcohol would last? This is as good as it's going to get for the druggies drunks, individual decriminalization."
// and now, something about how no sane, regularly-purchased dosage of pot can kill you, but the handle of Jack you just bough, if drunk in an hour, likely would
 
2012-12-14 11:38:43 AM

Shaggy_C: Paul Baumer: So, for me it's just not a top tier problem at the moment, and an issue that would be used to cloud other more salient things in the pipeline that need to get done

Don't try to reason with drug addicts, they are not reasonable people. You have to realize that their mental illness makes them see their drug usage as the most important thing for their survival, much like you or I would look at food or water.


You right-wingers are so CUTE.

By cute, I mean fascist.

Small government, except...
 
2012-12-14 11:41:10 AM

Dr Dreidel: lennavan: you can't be deciding laws by majority vote

Wait, what? Referenda aren't good now?

// did you mean "rights" can't be decided by majority vote?


Yes, I shied away from that word thinking someone might say marijuana isn't in the constitution and ending up in a stupid conversation with someone else.
 
2012-12-14 11:43:27 AM

mrshowrules: Dusk-You-n-Me: Said Obama: "We've got bigger fish to fry. It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it's legal." Link

Second term. Second term.

As much as I support the decriminalization of pot, Obama didn't run on this so he has no business doing anything significant on the issue.


I don't think it works that way
 
2012-12-14 11:45:37 AM

AeAe: Read that comment. He won't go after users. He can feasibly go after vendors/producers.


Absolutely he can. But I'm hopeful we'll see significant change in marijuana policy in his second term.
 
2012-12-14 11:48:43 AM

Shaggy_C: joonyer: Life from your binary worldview must be quite comforting, eh? I know that if I could be so certain of things that I have no evidence of, I'd be a lot happier.

So we're going to throw away hundreds of years of federalism and our entire constitution so that some burnout losers can get high? Yeah, right. The jackboots will be marching, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but some day soon. The raids already happen all up and down the west coast; how long do you think a retail outlet engaged in the sale of drugs would last? This is as good as it's going to get for the druggies, individual decriminalization.


30daysout.files.wordpress.com

Another fake conservative spouting big government authoritarianism. Shocking.
 
2012-12-14 11:49:21 AM

Dr Dreidel: It's not "a hundred years of Federalism", it's an 80 year old law (or a 40 year old law, depending on where you start counting).

And we did the same - Constitutionally, even! - to let you have the right to be a fat drunken slob. The Federal government leaves you with the right to get blind drunk all damn day (assuming you can afford it). We literally threw away Constitutional law so that some drunken yambags could get legally drunk.


The federalism comment was in regards to federal law versus state law, which actually is a lot older than a hundred years

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


Fact of the matter is as long as federal law is in conflict with state law, federal law wins.
 
2012-12-14 11:50:33 AM

a_room_with_a_moose: Small government, except...


You liberals are so cute.

Against "state's rights" except when the state in question is doing something you like.

Tad hypocritical. Just a little bit.
 
2012-12-14 11:51:43 AM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Communist_Manifesto: Obama is not going to use resources to go after and arrest individual pot smokers. However, I would guess there is about a 5% chance of him allowing the new legal weed dispensaries to open. Maybe Leahy can help the reps from CO and WA to get the legislation they wrote to leave it up to the states to decide whether or not pot should be legal to pass.

/not holding my breath

"he regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. "


Thanks for the laugh :)
 
2012-12-14 11:53:11 AM

Shaggy_C: Fact of the matter is as long as federal law is in conflict with state law, federal law wins.


Ah.

So, you're making an argument in favor of Congress amending the CSA, or something equivalent that removes the supremacy argument? Why all the negative talk about recreational pot smokers, then?
 
2012-12-14 12:02:04 PM

Shaggy_C: a_room_with_a_moose: Small government, except...

You liberals are so cute.

Against "state's rights" except when the state in question is doing something you like.

Tad hypocritical. Just a little bit.


Moderate, I.

States rights are fine, until they infringe on civil liberties.

Then they, like you, can choke on a bag of dicks.
 
2012-12-14 12:03:50 PM

Dr Dreidel: So, you're making an argument in favor of Congress amending the CSA, or something equivalent that removes the supremacy argument? Why all the negative talk about recreational pot smokers, then?


I think drug addicts are pathetic human beings, about on par with the way I look at homeless people or alcoholics. Doesn't mean I disagree with their right to possess a plant.
 
2012-12-14 12:04:38 PM
Why does Derpy_C care so much?
 
2012-12-14 12:08:48 PM

Shaggy_C: Against "state's rights" except when the state in question is doing something you like.

Tad hypocritical. Just a little bit.


Pretty much everybody has agreed that the states are acting on legally shaky grounds... we're just HOPING that, because we like this, the federal government will take the damn hint and act to make what they're doing legal instead of clamping down in accordance with current law. It's hugely different from the notion that the federal government is doing something illegal by acting in a manner inconsistent with a state law. Many of us have our issues with the expansion of the commerce clause, but we're all pretty much in agreement that with the current understanding of the law, the federal government can come in and regulate the fark out of dispensaries legally (i.e., shut them down and arrest the owners/employees for trafficking).
 
2012-12-14 12:09:16 PM

Shaggy_C: Dr Dreidel: So, you're making an argument in favor of Congress amending the CSA, or something equivalent that removes the supremacy argument? Why all the negative talk about recreational pot smokers, then?

I think drug addicts are pathetic human beings, about on par with the way I look at homeless people or alcoholics. Doesn't mean I disagree with their right to possess a plant.


That's nice, and how do you feel about the replacement NFL refs, or the price of oolong in Tibet, or Rifftrax done without at least 2 of the Big 3 (Nelson, Corbett, Murphy) or any of a million other things I didn't ask about?

Do you believe there's no difference between someone who smokes a J at a party maybe twice a year and someone who smokes one every morning, when they get home from work, etc? Is there no difference between someone who has a beer with a football game, and an alcoholic?

Basically - are you a "clean-living" asshole* who uses that as a high horse you use to look down on everyone else, or are you just not thinking about the words you're using?

*you'd only be an "asshole" for using at a high-horse. I'm currently dating a "clean-living"-type woman (who's not above a rare glass of wine on a Friday night).
 
2012-12-14 12:17:14 PM

incendi: Pretty much everybody has agreed that the states are acting on legally shaky grounds... we're just HOPING that, because we like this, the federal government will take the damn hint and act to make what they're doing legal instead of clamping down in accordance with current law.


I bet you felt the same way when all of the red states rejected Obamacare and refused to implement its required state-run exchanges, eh? They're just trying get the feds to 'take a hint'?

Dr Dreidel: Basically - are you a "clean-living" asshole* who uses that as a high horse you use to look down on everyone else, or are you just not thinking about the words you're using?


Of course, it's always a blurry line between "occasional user", "regular user", "enthusiast", and "addict", but I think you can tell from my tone I'm not out to rip the once a year or even the once or twice a month smoker. I'm thinking more of the multiple times a week types. I think there should be a certain taboo and shame that comes with drug usage even if it is legalized.
 
Displayed 50 of 119 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report