User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:31:11 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good and I hope they go after alcohol next if they truly want to help people from killing themselves and others That ought to be the first target. What medical purpose does alcohol serve? Where are the studies showing that it cures cancer? Nobody can argue that alcohol doesn't kill or that it's not both physically and mentally addictive. Pot on the other hand .... 
I live in a state where recreational marijuana is completely legal for adults but they can't own an 11 round magazine. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:31:14 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
States might have been able to slide on Medical MJ, but anyone who did not see a crack down on recreational use coming was smoking their own supply. Anyone remember the thread about the CO MJ law changes and the armed guard who were given the ok to smoke the reefer off duty. I posted that the state of CO was on borrowed time and anyone who was involved in that was a change in administration away from getting the pimphand of Uncle Sam. Meh, I doubt it. There is so much momentum toward full-on legalization that bringing the Feds in to undo it would bring real civil unrest. I don't mean a few hippies whining about border security either. There would be such widescale disregard for those laws by the consumers, that the Fed putting pot shops under would accomplish one thing and one thing only: residential areas would become grow-houses on a huge scale, and the government would literally be manufacturing crime. Consumption would not stop, or even change. The Fed doesn't have the resources to stop people who want to smoke from smoking (never has, never will). It would just create an extremely hostile environment between the Fed and the people. No one, anywhere, ever has ever had a hard time procuring weed. Despite the untold billions upon billions poured into the WOD™. Sessions, nor anyone, is going to change that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:33:27 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fed, leave it up to the States. States, leave it up to the voters |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:34:54 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
blame it on those same judges you turn to in your pursuit for oligarchical freedom. What is wrong with you? Is your spirit animal an armadildo or something? You don't behave this way in person. I've met you. You were quite agreeable in person. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:37:45 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If this is how it's going to be then change the laws, if not enforce the laws. The IRS needs to go after people who don't have health insurance then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:37:46 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
according to whom? so, in your view, the written law is worthless. It is merely the discretion of whatever power we choose (or, in the cases of judges and police, chosen for us by others) that is the key to liberty. Here is a question. legal weed is HUGELY popular. Right? I mean, this is the end of the republican party. Where is the bill in congress to remove it from Schedule 1? I can find bill after bill after bill restricting abortion and the all seeing progressive judges stopping those legally passed laws from being enforced. Surely there is a group of congressman out there willing to fix what is, I can only assume to the dank divisions, "ridiculous, ineffective, antiquated and immoral laws" How about we actually follow the constitution. YOu know, the executive enforces and the legislative makes. Who here having a fit about the president actually enforcing the law has contacted his congressman or senator to remove the all holy weed from Schedule 1? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Maybe you should look up tyranny. We decide how vigorously to pursue every single law. Your comments would suggest that unless every possible effort is being used to enforce every law, then they are being selective when in fact they are prioritizing, since using every possible effort to enforce every law would be wildly expensive, impossible, or insane. This is all to say nothing about rediculous, ineffective, antiquated, or immoral laws. according to whom? so, in your view, the written law is worthless. It is merely the discretion of whatever power we choose (or, in the cases of judges and police, chosen for us by others) that is the key to liberty. Here is a question. legal weed is HUGELY popular. Right? I mean, this is the end of the republican party. Where is the bill in congress to remove it from Schedule 1? I can find bill after bill after bill restricting abortion and the all seeing progressive judges stopping those legally passed laws from being enforced. Surely there is a group of congressman out there willing to fix what is, I can only assume to the dank divisions, "ridiculous, ineffective, antiquated and immoral laws" How about we actually follow the constitution. YOu know, the executive enforces and the legislative makes. Who here having a fit about the president actually enforcing the law has contacted his congressman or senator to remove the all holy weed from Schedule 1? You keep latching onto the parts that trigger your feels. With every single law, we decide how vigorously to pursue enforcement. You'll never "fix" the weed "problem", so how far do you want to go? How much more are you willing to pay in taxes? How much more power are you willing to give the central government? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:39:10 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In this thread we put pot on a pedestal. For the first hundred and change years of our Republic the federal government was kept in check and things like machine guns, short barreled rifles, suppressors, and marijuana were all completely legal. Hell I'm old enough to remember when you could have a pistol or rifle delivered to your door having bought them out of the Sears catalog. In many states now you can have canibus delivered right to your door just the same as you can buy alcohol from a privately owned store ... even on Sundays (damn heathens). Both parties have rather successfully destroyed the Bill of Rights and huge chunks of the Constitution ripping the heart of liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility right out of the Republic. We the people now suffer from an Imperial king-like worship of the President, a legislature that is not happy spending the treasury of the wealthiest nation in the known universe but twice it, and a court system that that no longer rules on the Constitutionality of a law by what's written in the Constitution or the law but what they think the author of the law thought months earlier. Our forefathers would have been shooting a long long time ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:40:43 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is wrong with you? Is your spirit animal an armadildo or something? You don't behave this way in person. I've met you. You were quite agreeable in person. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
blame it on those same judges you turn to in your pursuit for oligarchical freedom. What is wrong with you? Is your spirit animal an armadildo or something? You don't behave this way in person. I've met you. You were quite agreeable in person. The difference between how someone behaves online vs. how they behave in person can be quite telling. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:42:09 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
abortion and gay marraige, so popular, the scotus had to stop people from banning it. Government created the problem in the first place. The problem is government. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:44:34 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The IRS needs to go after people who don't have health insurance then. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If this is how it's going to be then change the laws, if not enforce the laws. The IRS needs to go after people who don't have health insurance then. A country having laws that are not getting enforced just shows that we the country is corrupt and weak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:47:23 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The difference between how someone behaves online vs. how they behave in person can be quite telling. lol... What you say online has no tone. It is easy to assign the wrong tone to a post. Furthermore, online, it is much easier to espouse an opinion that seems "controversial". When you are talking to someone face to face, having good manners and treating people nicely go much farther than proving them wrong. I am confident that 95% of the people that post here will act differently when talked to in person. It's human nature. EG: Calling someone a cock sucker online has no repercussions. Maybe a suspended account or more name calling. Maybe someone gets Arocked... Calling someone a cock sucker in person, can result in physical violence.... Internet provides a real barrier between an individual and what they say. Some instances it is good, others it is not. Either way though, expecting someone to act or speak the same way the do in person as the do online...well..You might as well go buy a unicorn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:48:02 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Guess what, you are right. At least they do until the law is changed. A country having laws that are not getting enforced just shows that we the country is corrupt and weak. We need to start a petition now to Trump, to enforce the law! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:48:02 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:If you ask the drunks around here I bet they'd say smoking half a joint every couple weeks is worst than being blackout drunk 5 days a week and driving home. /this I don't smoke and I haven't been drunk once in the last 30 years. Take the political argument out of it, be rational, and add up the costs of alcoholism and pot smokers and the pot smoking deaths and lives ruined is a rounding error on the cost to society of alcohol (or even cigarettes). The folks who want to regulate recreational drugs are delusional as the the true costs in not only money spent to try (and fail) to control them but also the cost to American liberties. I am old enough to remember when random roadblocks to check on your travel papers were laughably illegal. I am old enough to remember when states police officers didn't reach their hands inside of a woman's vagina on the side of the road to search for the flowers of a weed. I remember when the government wasn't allowed to tap every phone in a given neighborhood recording every phone call made. The tens of billions of dollars spent on the war-on-drugs isn't the biggest cost to the Republic ... it was the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We the people sat back and listened and ate up the government propaganda and allowed them to take our Republic from us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:50:24 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is wrong with you? Is your spirit animal an armadildo or something? You don't behave this way in person. I've met you. You were quite agreeable in person. the internet isn't fun without shit posting. I like you too.  Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown. To the point, we want an accountable government, right? The executive is unaccountable (as we are noting with all the bureaucrats (ink shitters) who are directly undermining and attacking the president and his policies) the judiciary is de facto unaccountable. all we have is the legislature. there is where we must focus our attention. If you want unaccountable branches of government dictating your life, you are on the road to tyranny, regardless if you enjoy the rest stops or not. If 70% of americans think MJ should be legal, then this is a no brainer. Use the legislature as the constitution envisioned to stop it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:51:14 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:Government created the problem in the first place.
The problem is government.  Yes!
You're halfway to enlightenment. 
Now ask yourself why would a people's government intentionally create problems and drama?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:51:28 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You keep latching onto the parts that trigger your feels. With every single law, we decide how vigorously to pursue enforcement. You'll never "fix" the weed "problem", so how far do you want to go? How much more are you willing to pay in taxes? How much more power are you willing to give the central government? What feels? I don't think marijuana or any other drug should be banned by the federal government. but whats worse than stupid drug laws is selective enforcement by an unaccountable executive branch of government. don't like the laws, change them. but don't ask judges to bail you out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:51:40 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And my cigarettes get taxed so hard, I have a deal with one of my delivery drivers to pick up a carton of my cigarettes for me when he comes back from Missouri, that the $5 I give him for buying me smokes, still saves me $15. He's going on vacation back to the Philippines next couple weeks, so back to paying ass raping prices on cigs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
It is now more socially acceptable to smoke weed than it is to smoke cigarettes. Times are a'changing. And my cigarettes get taxed so hard, I have a deal with one of my delivery drivers to pick up a carton of my cigarettes for me when he comes back from Missouri, that the $5 I give him for buying me smokes, still saves me $15. He's going on vacation back to the Philippines next couple weeks, so back to paying ass raping prices on cigs. HyVee has the cheapest smokes outside of the US Gas (I think?) station on SW9th kitty corner to the McDonalds. Still nothing in comparison to total ass raping $10+ prices in Chicago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:52:03 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Government created the problem in the first place. The problem is government. explain how government created the problem of abortion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:57:59 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
/this I don't smoke and I haven't been drunk once in the last 30 years. Take the political argument out of it, be rational, and add up the costs of alcoholism and pot smokers and the pot smoking deaths and lives ruined is a rounding error on the cost to society of alcohol (or even cigarettes). The folks who want to regulate recreational drugs are delusional as the the true costs in not only money spent to try (and fail) to control them but also the cost to American liberties. I am old enough to remember when random roadblocks to check on your travel papers were laughably illegal. I am old enough to remember when states police officers didn't reach their hands inside of a woman's vagina on the side of the road to search for the flowers of a weed. I remember when the government wasn't allowed to tap every phone in a given neighborhood recording every phone call made. The tens of billions of dollars spent on the war-on-drugs isn't the biggest cost to the Republic ... it was the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We the people sat back and listened and ate up the government propaganda and allowed them to take our Republic from us. He talked about his personal experiences in the field, he said take your uncle Ricky. He goes out back during a family get together, has a smoke, comes back in, and watches tv and eats the food. He doesn't start fights and creates troubles. Now say that uncle Ricky goes out back and takes 10 xanax since his tolerance is so high. Now the police are going to have to come out with smashed plates everywhere and a bad scene. He said never once in his entire 20 years of enforcement has he ever had to deal with violent pot heads. He said the state, local, federal police would be better off dropping the war on pot, and go after meth and heroine. Legalize pot, and take the tax money to help the state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:59:33 AM EDT
[#20]
Just leave it alone decriminalize and be done, collect tax and move on
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:00:44 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, States can do as they wish. The Feds can also withhold funding, shake down institutions that are aiding and abetting and make felony arrest. That is probably how Sessions intends to approach this. This is the same problem the feds are facing in regards to immigration at the moment. Sanctuary cities are saying no, the feds are saying, oh yeah, well no money for you. Lawlessness breeds more lawlessness. Sure, the feds can withhold funds, but there are limits to how funds can be withheld. It has to be related; they likely can't withhold funds for a state's medicaid program because the state won't help the feds enforce drug laws. They could probably withhold federal grants for state and local LE however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:00:53 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First off, people tried enforcing federal immigration law, gutting federal firearms laws, and so on. The law is not subject to your whims and the courts smack that shit down all the time. Look at what is going on in the 4th and 9th Circuits regarding firearms laws. Until Congress or the USSC stomps that shit down the law is the law. We do not have to like it, we just have to deal with it. Weed has been illegal for decades and Colorado and other trying to short circuit federal law does not change that. As I said in another post, if the states has stopped at Medical MJ they might have been able to get by with it, but no it was never about Medical MJ. Trump ran on enforcing the rule of law from illegal aliens to sanctuary cities. Remember that whole Obama deal of enforcing some laws and ignoring others, that pissed people off and it was one of the big reasons people voted for Trump. Remember the whole "are we a Nation of Laws" thing that was talked about during the campaign? As for your comment about not enforcing and AWB, that would be bullshit. Because the next President could enforce it and people who thought they were getting a pass would get busted. Just like what is going on with Pot. You either repeal the law or not, you can not just ignore it unless you want to face the consequences. The CO Mag Ban is a perfect example of this. Were people getting mags into Colorado? Yup. Were they risking a local PD and prosecutor enforcing it when the county sheriff would not, yep. Was I risking jail back in the 1990s for not registering my EBR with the State of California, yup and I knew it. I just sont don't understand this line of thinking. How are you following the rule of law by ignoring the constitution? If congress passed a law banning breathing, something they clearly don't have the authority to do, would it be ignoring the rule of law to not enforce it? You keep talking about Obama selectively enforcing immigration. Are you aware that immigration is one of the few things the federal government is charged with dealing with? Of course it's wrong to selectively enforce something that is illegal. If you can explain to me why congress needed an amendment to prohibit alcohol, but somehow can just pass regular laws making marijuana illegal without an amendment, then you might be able to convince me that enforcement of these arbitrary laws is acceptable. Under an originality view of the constitution, federal marijuana regulations are null and void since the federal government is operating outside of its limits. So you're saying, if Trump got in, there was an Unconstitutional AWB, he didn't have the votes in congress to repeal the unconstitutional law, he should just continue enforcing it and conducting raids on people's gun collections, shutting down manufacturers, and running sting operations on high capacity magazines? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:02:23 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We need to start a petition now to Trump, to enforce the law!  That's the sad part, a petition shouldn't be needed to make sure a law is actually being treated as a law.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:02:27 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
explain how government created the problem of abortion. Easy. Supreme Court essentially wrote a new law legalizing Abortion in all 50 States instead of letting each individual state decide whether or not it should be legal. Now we have federal funding and laws based of a court decision that affect all 50 states. If the feds stayed the fuck out, then the states could have decided what was right/wrong. Abortion is at an all time disapproval. We can't do anything about it, because feds suck and changing anything at the federal level is damn near impossible, especially in the legislature. Case in point, the current status of the federal government. "republican congress" "republican president" Why the fuck was there no bills already drafted and ready for vote on day 1? They have a huge amount of power right now. Instead, nothing happens. No wonder people want the Emperor in robes to fix their problems..its faster and obviously works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:03:16 PM EDT
[#25]
The only way that I can see the feds backing off, is in states where there are laws that comply with federal guidelines, or at least state laws that work to minimize the black market. When Oregon set up their recreational system, they spent more time on regulations on the medical side. The bipartisan committee made comments indicating that they were taking longer than anticipated because they didn't want federal intervention.
The seed to sale tracking racking system, mandatory testing by state certified labs, labeling requirements, and licenses for outlets help cut down the black market These requirements were then added to the recreational side. Without a large scale black market, the cartels have a tougher time getting a share of the market. Without similar laws in place in other states, I can't see the feds changing from Schedule 1. But what it does do, is give the feds an out when it comes to enforcement in states with those protections in place. That is IF the reason given for enforcement is control of organized crime, especially from other countries. But if the reason is that they don't like blacks playing jazz music and going out with white women, then enforcement will continue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:05:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only way that I can see the feds backing off, is in states where there are laws that comply with federal guidelines, or at least state laws that work to minimize the black market. When Oregon set up their recreational system, they spent more time on regulations on the medical side. The bipartisan committee made comments indicating that they were taking longer than anticipated because they didn't want federal intervention. The seed to sale tracking racking system, mandatory testing by state certified labs, labeling requirements, and licenses for outlets help cut down the black market These requirements were then added to the recreational side. Without a large scale black market, the cartels have a tougher time getting a share of the market. Without similar laws in place in other states, I can't see the feds changing from Schedule 1. But what it does do, is give the feds an out when it comes to enforcement in states with those protections in place. That is IF the reason given for enforcement is control of organized crime, especially from other countries. But if the reason is that they don't like blacks playing jazz music and going out with white women, then enforcement will continue. Its schedule 1. There are no medical benefits according to the feds. The feds need to unfuck the problem. Again, just take it off the list legally and be done with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:07:09 PM EDT
[#27]
Alexander Hamilton, probably the most pro-big govt founder wrote this about selective enforcement, which some of you keep touting as wrong. We just need to enforce unconstitutional laws until they're repealed right?
“If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers entrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union… EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION” (The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison, Jay, The New American Library, 1961, No 33, pages 204-205). "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid” (The Federalist, No. 78, p. 467). Thomas Jefferson - “whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:08:20 PM EDT
[#28]
legalize and tax it. If the state sells alcohol they damn sure shouldn't have an issue with weed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:08:55 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its schedule 1. There are no medical benefits according to the feds. The feds need to unfuck the problem. Again, just take it off the list legally and be done with it. Is it the DEA or FDA that controls the list? Either way though, they both fall under the president. He should be able to order them to remove it correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:17:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it the DEA or FDA that controls the list? Either way though, they both fall under the president. He should be able to order them to remove it correct? He couldn't order them to remove it, he could order them to conduct a review it would appear going wiki deep. But it does appear the scheduling of drugs falls entirely under the executive. here |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:21:38 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the sad part, a petition shouldn't be needed to make sure a law is actually being treated as a law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We need to start a petition now to Trump, to enforce the law! That's the sad part, a petition shouldn't be needed to make sure a law is actually being treated as a law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:26:15 PM EDT
[#32]
If they do this, they will lose a lot of support.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:29:17 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they do this, they will lose a lot of support. I think "real" Trump supporters support him for many things. Things that they would not trade for going the other direction on one thing. This should be a state thing, but a Trump admin going after it would not change my view of Trump and why / what I voted for in his candidacy. A.W.D. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:32:23 PM EDT
[#34]
GD pot thread....this is going to be filled with a bunch of people who never smoked pot and know nothing about it and think it's next to murder.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:45:32 PM EDT
[#35]
Trump should push to get it legalized on the federal level, that will take wind out of the midterm elections, and focus on 2020.
He has to win 2020 to shore up the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 12:57:03 PM EDT
[#36]
Well, there goes the Bernie and independent voters...............
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 1:00:08 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He couldn't order them to remove it, he could order them to conduct a review it would appear going wiki deep. But it does appear the scheduling of drugs falls entirely under the executive. here Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is it the DEA or FDA that controls the list? Either way though, they both fall under the president. He should be able to order them to remove it correct? He couldn't order them to remove it, he could order them to conduct a review it would appear going wiki deep. But it does appear the scheduling of drugs falls entirely under the executive. here |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 1:01:07 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many letters did you write to the ATF asking about shouldering the sig brace? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We need to start a petition now to Trump, to enforce the law! That's the sad part, a petition shouldn't be needed to make sure a law is actually being treated as a law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 1:01:18 PM EDT
[#39]
No government has won a war against self contained industry and only by doing so makes it's country increasingly economically insignificant. Why are people stupid enough to think the .gov can fix human behavoir when it's members are human?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 1:04:26 PM EDT
[#40]
For all the 'enforce the law' types, I still haven't seen one explanation of why an amendment was needed to ban alcohol, but not to ban cannabis. Unconstitutional laws should NOT be enforced, and cannabis prohibition seems like the definition of an unconstitutional law. No different than state side firearms laws like those in NY and CA being unconstitutional. Problem is that our government hasn't actually followed the constitution in ages. We just see a pendulum effect back and forth between elections where different unconstitutional laws get ignored or enforced.
"If you don't like it, have congress change it" -Swell idea, I'm sure those guys with a 19% approval rating will get right on it and do something useful for a change. http://www.gallup.com/poll/201974/congress-job-approval-start-new-session.aspx |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 1:13:07 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump should push to get it legalized on the federal level, that will take wind out of the midterm elections, and focus on 2020. He has to win 2020 to shore up the Supreme Court. I predict this will be the outcome. He can't argue against legalization without pissing off the Democrats. He can't argue for legalization without pissing off the Republicans. Fed gov washing its hands of it completely is the smartest thing to do; libs happy because it's no longer a federal crime, conservatives happy because it becomes a state issue rather than a federal one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 1:19:12 PM EDT
[#42]
War on Drugs is the same as War on Guns and Prohibition in the 30s. Just the government taking advantage of the ignorance of that generation, stripping them of their rights and advancing their power.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 1:20:45 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryTrump won't do this IMHO. He'll tell Sessions to "back the fuck off" in the end is my prediction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 1:30:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Obama could've earned serious brownie points if he would've at least made pot unscheduled federally, or Schedule 3 or whatever. It's the one social change I actually cared about. Didn't care about gay marriage, didn't care about trans bathrooms. Roughly half the population of the US has smoked or smokes pot, so the fact that it is illegal, and has always been illegal is a joke, and a affront to liberty. No matter what you think of pot personally, you should be well aware that it isn't on par with heroin or cocaine, and there is absolutely no stopping it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 1:34:38 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For all the 'enforce the law' types, I still haven't seen one explanation of why an amendment was needed to ban alcohol, but not to ban cannabis. Unconstitutional laws should NOT be enforced, and cannabis prohibition seems like the definition of an unconstitutional law. No different than state side firearms laws like those in NY and CA being unconstitutional. Problem is that our government hasn't actually followed the constitution in ages. We just see a pendulum effect back and forth between elections where different unconstitutional laws get ignored or enforced. "If you don't like it, have congress change it" -Swell idea, I'm sure those guys with a 19% approval rating will get right on it and do something useful for a change. http://www.gallup.com/poll/201974/congress-job-approval-start-new-session.aspx Because FDR expanded the role of government. You don't like it? Elect people who will retract it. good luck with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 1:36:16 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you smoke anything you are an idiot. I'm with this line of thinking |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 1:36:37 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
War on Drugs is the same as War on Guns and Prohibition in the 30s. Just the government taking advantage of the ignorance of that generation, stripping them of their rights and advancing their power. They didn't even do that with guns or marijuana, which makes the enforcement of these laws voidable since the laws are void in and of themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 1:39:43 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
what a fucking retard. If repubs would just leave weed, abortion and gay marriage alone we'd win 100% of the elections. 'BUT MAH JESUZ DONT LIKE DAT STUFF' I'm as conservative as conservative could possibly be and I whole heartedly believe this. Stay away from these issues and we will own the country and for a few generations will not have to worry about the liberals driving the direction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 1:40:43 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because FDR expanded the role of government. You don't like it? Elect people who will retract it. good luck with that. Actually, you're thinking of Richard Nixon. Pot was "banned" by virtue of a Federal tax stamp that required self-incrimination to apply for. Someone finally sued and the supreme court overturned the law as unconstitutional. So Nixon pushed for and got congress to essentially stitch out of thin air the authority for the executive branch to decide what drugs were legal to possess. Which kind of makes the whole "they have to enforce the law because it's the law!" point a little hollow. How does that old saying go? "I don't make the laws... I just |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 1:41:14 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm as conservative as conservative could possibly be and I whole heartedly believe this. Stay away from these issues and we will own the country and for a few generations will not have to worry about the liberals driving the direction. Marijuana is NOT WORTH IT!! Fuck it..............just legalize that fucking garbage and be done with it. NOT WORTH losing to the democrats over that crap. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
