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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
naughtyrev: Well, let's see how the anti-UN crowd reacts to this one. Could be humorous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nothing To See Here: EABODUN
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.
chuckufarlie: take it to court
dr_blasto: You'll likely still get fired from just about any job for pissing hot, though, so there's that.
If you like these links, you'll love
More Farking, less working
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: May 26 2018 11:52:59
Runtime: 0.412 sec (411 ms)