• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...54261952309990.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news
EVAN PEREZ said:
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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.
0406.png
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I see what you did there.
0406.png

I'm innocent, I tell ya! Its a frame! Get me a mouthpiece! :D


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.
 

elixin77

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
591
Location
Greenville, NC, ,
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.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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.
 

ChiangShih

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
628
Location
KC
Ah the illusion of "states rights", welcome to the Madisonian(or maybe Lincolnist federal) federalist democracy! If only we'd won in Dixie.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
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".
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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.
 

ChiangShih

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
628
Location
KC
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.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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/
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
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.
 
Top