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.
The principle is that marijuana is illegal and law-breakers should be punished. Half-assed enforcement shows that Obama has no principle. Enforce it or don't enforce it. But if you're not going to enforce the law, then just make all marijuana legal. Half-assed enforcement plays right into Obama's role as Appeaser-In-Chief. Will he ever learn that that role is killing his credibility? I doubt it.
You do understand the role states right plays in this correct? All this boils down to is not using federal agencies to circumvent state law. It is not so much about marijuana as it is about accepting the fact that in several states, the public or the legislature, have legalized marijuana for "medicinal use" whatever that may be and Obama has made the decision that federal enforcement agencies should not try to circumvent those state laws using federal powers.
I...have...to...applaud...Obama! States rights! The Constitution!
I have to agree. Leave it to the state to decide how they will enforce marijuana laws.
Quote:
the pockets of violent Mexican cartels
I'm not sure how true that is still today (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/07/politics/washingtonpost/main5368594.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSidebarArea;topnews - broken link). I'd have to say I havent seen swag in almost ten years - that's the mexican seedy crap weed that comes from the cartels. We have to grow atleast 50% of our consumption anymore; most everyone smokes "kind bud" which is domestically grown or imported from BC. I know in SoCal we grow atleast 90% of the buds we smoke - I'd venture say 100% of our buds are locally grown.
Quote:
...have legalized marijuana for "medicinal use" whatever that may be and Obama has made the decision that federal enforcement agencies should not try to circumvent those state laws using federal powers.
Oh my God! I...have...to...applaud...Obama! States rights! The Constitution! He wasn't drinking while he made this statement was he? Either way...*clap, clap, clap*
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC
I wonder what the admin will do when states rights is used on an issue they do not support????
Somehow I do not see this admin believing states rights are above federal law when it comes to guns for example.
And hopefully both of you also believe that the Defense Of Marriage Act should be repealed since marriage has always been a "states' rights" issue.
You do understand the role states right plays in this correct? All this boils down to is not using federal agencies to circumvent state law. It is not so much about marijuana as it is about accepting the fact that in several states, the public or the legislature, have legalized marijuana for "medicinal use" whatever that may be and Obama has made the decision that federal enforcement agencies should not try to circumvent those state laws using federal powers.
This is not a "states rights" issue at all. Federal Drug Law is Federal Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the Fed could continue arresting medical marijuana patients and dispensers, effectively putting "states rights" argument to rest. This is nothing more than appeasement from Obama. He did the same for immigration raids. In other words, as I stated earlier, Obama lacks principle, and this is just another paltry attempt to garner support for his misguided policies at the expense of Federal Law and Federal Law Enforcement.
And hopefully both of you also believe that the Defense Of Marriage Act should be repealed since marriage has always been a "states' rights" issue.
I can't speak for oz, but I believe that no laws should exist regarding marriage other than normal contract law. I could care less who gets "married" as long as I don't have to subsidize their choice.
But you see, we're not for government meddling in individual rights or freedoms, unless somebody's getting high. So which are you for? Big government or no? I like how these self-styled "conservatives" play on both sides of the fence while only claiming one. Supporting the government in dictating what you're allowed to put in your own body is about as "big government" as you can get.
This memo acknowledged that black market pot sales give the Mexican cartels the majority of their money, and at the same time concedes that federal resources to stop it are stretched too thin. Basically they made a case for legalization.
Who? I am for no legislation regarding "drugs" or "marriage" whatsoever as it is none of the governments business how people conduct their lives if they are not aggressively acting towards another. These things are to be decided by people acting freely. Government's only moral role is to protect individual freedom.
If that sentiment represented the Republican Party, I'd probably register as a Republican today. What a shame that it does not.
That sentiment does not represent either party. That is why I hate both of them. Only the Libertarian Party represents a moral form of government. Sadly most Americans are simply arrogant little tyrants wishing to use government force against each other so the Libertarian Party is nearly non-existent...
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.
great news
