Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One good thing that Holder did was make the determination to leave states alone to craft their own politics when it comes to Marijuana, free from interference from the Feds.....
How do you think his resignation might change the landscape in states like WA or CO? Will his replacement adopt the same passive strategy?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
One good thing that Holder did was make the determination to leave states alone to craft their own politics when it comes to Marijuana, free from interference from the Feds.....
How do you think his resignation might change the landscape in states like WA or CO? Will his replacement adopt the same passive strategy?
I would think so in this administration, I have to think Holder didn't adopt his position without Obama's approval.
But if a Republican wins in 2016? We can only hope we don't get some prig AG like ******** who found it necessary to drape nude statues.
One good thing that Holder did was make the determination to leave states alone to craft their own politics when it comes to Marijuana, free from interference from the Feds.....
How do you think his resignation might change the landscape in states like WA or CO? Will his replacement adopt the same passive strategy?
Wether we disagree witht he Law or not the AG is bound to uphold them, as per written, not per his view on them.
Wether we disagree witht he Law or not the AG is bound to uphold them, as per written, not per his view on them. Remember they take an Oath.
First, keep in mind that the States are the "Laboratories of Democracy." Sea changes in the law have often started with state actions that essentially forced change at the Federal level. The end of the Volsted Act (Prohibition) was generated at the states level. The states wanted to end the "criminal monopoly" on alcohol, and regain the tax revenues. Sound familiar?
What the Colorado and Washington "experiments" are already showing is that the states can generate tax revenue from cannabis and reduce the cost of "waging war" on a weed that readily grows everywhere... and without causing significant public health or public safety issues.
The function of the Executive Branch is very much about which laws to give emphasis to, and which to give lower priority to. That's what you want in a democratic society, an Executive who can move much faster than the Congress, to respond to the changes in circumstances.
History is moving inexorably in the direction of at least decriminalizing recreational use of marijuana, and legalizing medical uses. Eric Holder put himself on the right side of that flow of history. It would be hard for anyone else to try to reverse that now, and it's inconceivable to me that the President would nominate anyone who would espouse such a position.
Or to put it more directly, a lot of people realize that we just can't keep locking poor black and Hispanic kids up for selling weed. It's too big a drain on our society to do that. So the first step is simply to stop chasing them, as Eric Holder directed in Colorado and Washington. Who's going to mess with that at this point?
Wether we disagree witht he Law or not the AG is bound to uphold them, as per written, not per his view on them.
Remember they take an Oath.
"The powers not delagated to the United States by the Cosntitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"
The federal government has no Constitutional authority to tell states that they can't legalize marijuana to begin with, provided it stays within that state's borders.
Why did they have to have an amendment to the constitution to outlaw alcohol and an amendment to legalize it again, with regulations?
Yet, it is just a statutory law with other drugs. The Constitution has not enumerated the power in the federal Government to have a say so. It is left to the individual states.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
