Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 78

Thread: Feds vow marijuana enforcement regardless of California vote, WSJ ...H/T Matt Drudge

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Feds vow marijuana enforcement regardless of California vote, WSJ ...H/T Matt Drudge

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._sections_news
    Quote Originally Posted by EVAN PEREZ
    Mr. Holder said in a letter Wednesday to nine former Drug Enforcement Administration chiefs that the administration would continue to enforce federal law if California legalizes marijuana. The DEA chiefs had urged him to speak out on the matter.

    The ballot measure would block state police officers from seizing marijuana that complies with state law. That would be a "significant impediment" for federal agents, Mr. Holder wrote, because the federal government typically works with local law enforcement when carrying out marijuana and other drug busts.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Hahahahahahaa!! Just what the fedgov needs. In addition to a buncha pissed off TEA Party-ers, the fedz will have a buncha pissed off liberals on their hands.

    And, not no West Virginia liberals, neither. The real deal: California liberals. Nothing like a buncha militant CA liberals to make headaches.

    Hahahahahaha!

    I wonder if they will start a new Weed Party. They probably wouldn't win the first few election cycles, but it will be fun to see them get signatures for their first Tokin' candidate.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-17-2010 at 11:53 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Hahahahahahaa!! Just what the fedgov needs. In addition to a buncha pissed off TEA Party-ers, the fedz will have a buncha pissed off liberals on their hands.

    And, not no West Virginia liberals, neither. The real deal: California liberals. Nothing like a buncha militant CA liberals to make headaches.

    Hahahahahaha!

    I wonder if they will start a new Weed Party. They probably wouldn't win the first few election cycles, but it will be fun to see them get signatures for their first Tokin' candidate.
    I see a lot of these as State trying to reassert their powers the Feds have stripped away. Washington won't be far behind California on this. It's the same with Montana and other states saying they can ignore many of the Fed's Firearm laws, that have nothing to do with interstate commerce. I applaud the states for doing so.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I wonder if they will start a new Weed Party. They probably wouldn't win the first few election cycles, but it will be fun to see them get signatures for their first Tokin' candidate.
    I dunno, when I used to see TV regularly, I also saw George Tokin' regularly and now he's in the WH.
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 10-17-2010 at 01:23 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    if enough states stop enforcing federal laws things will get interesting. I could see a few things happening:

    1. feds threaten to withhold money from the states.
    2. federal taxes go up.
    3. court cases to try and force the states to comply.
    4. expansion of federal agencies.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Holder will have plenty of help in L.A. County. Here's "Oathkeeper" sheriff, Lee Baca:

    http://cannacentral.com/news/la-coun...t-i-say-it-is/

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    It is not about Marijuana, it is about The 9th and 10th Amendments to The Constitution of The United States.
    The Vehicle is Marijuana, and in Firearm Freedom States..., Firearms.

    This is what The Civil War was about..., States Rights.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    It is not about Marijuana, it is about The 9th and 10th Amendments to The Constitution of The United States.
    The Vehicle is Marijuana, and in Firearm Freedom States..., Firearms.

    This is what The Civil War was about..., States Rights.
    Agreed. It is about the 9A and 10A on the citizen and state side of the argument. On the fed side it is about money and power. Its kinda hard to justify the police state when a huge chunk of the justification turns out to be a mistake.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I wonder if they will start a new Weed Party. They probably wouldn't win the first few election cycles, but it will be fun to see them get signatures for their first Tokin' candidate.
    I see what you did there.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    I see what you did there.
    I'm innocent, I tell ya! Its a frame! Get me a mouthpiece!


    PS: Just for the record, I neither support nor advocate recreational marihuanna use. I think it is a bad idea. However, I am absolutely certain it is an even worse idea to give government the power to seize and imprison people who use it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member elixin77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenville, NC, ,
    Posts
    591
    I'm of the opinion that the government doesn't have any right to tell me or anyone else what I can and can't do my own body, as long as it doesn't affect other people's rights. Whether or not anyone smokes isn't the issue - its the government saying "we can do this, you can't do that." this needs to stop. Not only is it super crazy expensive, it also does near absolutely nothing and is extremely inefficient.
    Taurus PT1911 .45 ACP. Carried in condition 1, with a total of 25 rounds.

    Vice President of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, ECU Chapter

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    unfortunately most people only want to repeal laws that affect them.

    I expect most people would not mind a law illegalizing the consumption of rat poison by consenting human adults.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    I expect most people would not mind a law illegalizing the consumption of rat poison by consenting human adults.
    Pretty sure there's already laws against it.

    I support Marijuana for medical uses. I don't support prohibition. But I don't actively support full legalization either.

  14. #14
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Ah the illusion of "states rights", welcome to the Madisonian(or maybe Lincolnist federal) federalist democracy! If only we'd won in Dixie.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    It is not about Marijuana, it is about The 9th and 10th Amendments to The Constitution of The United States.
    The 4th and 5th have been the major casualties in the War On (Some) Drugs, and that has affected gun rights as well. The 1st has also suffered; discussing certain subjects constitutes "conspiracy" in federal court, whether it's how to grow certain plants, or how certain firearms work.


    This is what The Civil War was about..., States Rights.
    Sorry, no. States don't have rights; people have rights. States have power, and authority, but not rights. "State" means "government", not "subdivision of the USA".

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    Ah the illusion of "states rights", welcome to the Madisonian(or maybe Lincolnist federal) federalist democracy! If only we'd won in Dixie.
    Please. The CSA was not for state's rights, it was for maintaining an economic status quo based on slavery. One need only look at their constitution to see the truth of this. The CSA constitution maintained or even strengthened the federal government in the following ways: it did not remove the ability of the federal government to suspend habeus corpus, it maintained the federal supremacy clause, it maintained the "necessary and proper" clause, it maintained the commerce clause, it removed or severely hampered the ability for states to freely trade with each other, it gave the federal government the power of line item veto, it removed the ability of states to make their own laws regarding whether the state was "slave" or "free", and it removed the ability of states to determine who may vote in elections. In no meaningful sense was the CSA a states' rights focused construction, but one that focused on entrenching slavery as the law of the land.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  17. #17
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Please. The CSA was not for state's rights, it was for maintaining an economic status quo based on slavery. One need only look at their constitution to see the truth of this. The CSA constitution maintained or even strengthened the federal government in the following ways: it did not remove the ability of the federal government to suspend habeus corpus, it maintained the federal supremacy clause, it maintained the "necessary and proper" clause, it maintained the commerce clause, it removed or severely hampered the ability for states to freely trade with each other, it gave the federal government the power of line item veto, it removed the ability of states to make their own laws regarding whether the state was "slave" or "free", and it removed the ability of states to determine who may vote in elections. In no meaningful sense was the CSA a states' rights focused construction, but one that focused on entrenching slavery as the law of the land.
    Citations needed. Fundamentally the civil war was a boil over of the same issue that had been bubbling in America's gut since the removal of the articles of confederation and the adoption of the constitution--Federalists vs. anti-federalists. American public schools as a product of white guilt love to shove the issue of slavery down our throats as the sole cause or underlying "real" reason, however this is just not the case. The issue of federalism vs. anti-feds had been around for 100 years or so, there were many more extenuating political and sociological reasons for the civil war rift. To sum it up under "slavery" is ignorance and narrow-mindedness from a history perspective. Also, seeing as the CSA didn't last long enough to fully implement policy, its constitution, and rights outside of a time of war, it would be academically flawed to judge them on what they never got the chance to fully ratify, implement, change, etc.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post

    I wonder if they will start a new Weed Party. They probably wouldn't win the first few election cycles, but it will be fun to see them get signatures for their first Tokin' candidate.

    Actually, believe it or not The "US Marijuana Party" was founded in 2002 and had a candidate on the ballot in Wa. during the last presidential election.
    https://usmjparty.org/
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    if enough states stop enforcing federal laws things will get interesting. I could see a few things happening:

    1. feds threaten to withhold money from the states.
    2. federal taxes go up.
    3. court cases to try and force the states to comply.
    4. expansion of federal agencies.

    Yeah, they will just restrict Highway funding like when they forced states to change the drinking age
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  20. #20
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Prop 203 AZ

    AZ has a marihoochie prop on the ballot this year. Prop 203. I expect it to fail... but who knows? I don't use the stuff and am generally against legalization. To me... California is a soup sandwich of goofy 'laws' that would exist nowhere else. I blame that on legislators smokin' too much pot at some point. Also the people who put 'em in office in the 1st place. This is a perfect 'Catch 22' tho... I'll prob'ly get a snicker from watchin' California unravel on the tube. I never go there anymore. 'Bad enuff they come here 'n bring their goofy politics with 'em.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    How many legal 'lifestyle' drugs are available in America, on the market, and how many of those are without problems? One is a problem if only for the money and ad space spent trying to convince us that anything so good must be harmful somehow.

    Do we need another?

    We bear the cost of TWOD, if it is abandoned then the money and lives are wasted and the slide to Third World status is accelerated.

  22. #22
    McX
    Guest
    well, i suppose they will need something to calm their nerves, when the big one hits, and cali drops off into the ocean, after all, the beer stores may be closed.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    Citations needed.
    You can read it uncommented here: http://usconstitution.net/csa.html

    Or go through the section by section comparison and commentary: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/csa.htm

    Fundamentally the civil war was a boil over of the same issue that had been bubbling in America's gut since the removal of the articles of confederation and the adoption of the constitution--Federalists vs. anti-federalists.
    From a strict analysis of what powers the states were given and what powers the federal government maintained and or had expanded, that's BS. When people talk about the abuses of federal power, they speak of things like the supremacy clause, the suspension of habeus corpus, et cetera, NOT about the power to tax and regulate ships using waterways or impeach federal officials. Yet the CSA didn't touch the former (and in some cases expanded the federal government's power, e.g. line-item veto), and only really added the latter...and a whole lot of references to slavery.

    American public schools as a product of white guilt love to shove the issue of slavery down our throats as the sole cause or underlying "real" reason, however this is just not the case.
    You're going to need to present citations to back up your claim. I've shown that, from a constitutional perspective, the most powerful thing done by the CSA was to make slavery the law of the land. It was largely economic self-preservation, though there are certainly racial tensions that the south fought to maintain for a long period after reconstruction.

    The issue of federalism vs. anti-feds had been around for 100 years or so, there were many more extenuating political and sociological reasons for the civil war rift.
    The fact there has been such conflict does not change the reality of what the CSA fundamentally stood for as evidenced by its constitution. The primary reason was, in my opinion (and many others), economic - note that I consider slavery an institution of economics, not one of racism (so stop with the 'white guilt' bullshiat).

    To sum it up under "slavery" is ignorance and narrow-mindedness from a history perspective. Also, seeing as the CSA didn't last long enough to fully implement policy, its constitution, and rights outside of a time of war, it would be academically flawed to judge them on what they never got the chance to fully ratify, implement, change, etc.
    One need only to read their ratified constitution to see the direction of their ideal country. The only academic flaw is ignoring its existence because that violates the oft-repeated lie that the CSA was about states' rights, rather than preserving an economic status quo.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    I support Marijuana for medical uses. I don't support prohibition. But I don't actively support full legalization either.
    I'm not sure I support it for medical use. If it's that effective for management of pain, simply find and synthesize the ingredient.

    Oh, wait! They have.

    And interestingly, the picture of the bottled extract at the top is from 1937.
    Last edited by since9; 10-19-2010 at 02:25 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I'm not sure I support it for medical use.
    Why not?

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •