War On Pot

#77
#77
Btw, sending a memo != actual enforcement. It just gives the resident prosecutors the discretion. And that's something that wasn't even absent from Obama's order. They threatened that it did not in any way alter the federal government's authority to prosecute crimes regardless of what the state's laws say.
DStFY2JXcAEB6wC.jpg


But you know, freakout.
 
#80
#80
rjd970 said:
Not disagreeing with drawing a line. But the line neds to make sense. Tobacco and Alcohol being legal and marijuana not is not a straight line. Out of those three...one is clearly the least harmful.
Click to expand...

as far as we know.
I would say tobacco is by far the worst. and compared to alcohol the government treats it as such. Taxs, no commercials, no smoking inside off the top of my head.
however, I would like to see the prolonged usage by as many people to say that weed is any less dangerous than alcohol.

a lot of the dangers of alcohol are tied to its social usage more than the alcohol itself that you don't get with an illegal drug. (bars)

also THC tends to stay in the human body a lot longer than alcohol does, so I would say there is some implications that it might have some long term effects we don't yet know of.
 
#82
#82
FLVOL69 said:
Actually what it leads to is less herb smoked to catch a buzz, you should try it sometime..
Click to expand...

I think weed should be legal, but it ain't for me. Not a fan of the high and hate smoking it. I have had some edibles from time to time, but it really just isn't my thing.

As far as less herb smoked, what I have noticed is daily smokers have a far greater tolerance now than they did before.
 
#84
#84
SDV said:
In 50 years, our society will look back on this and laugh, similar to the Probibition Era
Click to expand...

It's a nice thought, but this has been going on a lot longer than 50 years. I doubt drug prohibition ever ends in this country, sadly
 
#86
#86
Vol0725 said:
There's pro's/con's...

Weed made me a loser (more of an underachiever you might say, and paranoid. Personally despise it). And I gravitated towards losers etc... Not one to judge, but the 'majority' of users I know are content with living a life of mediocrity. To each their own however, everyone's different...some can't get out of bed and go to work, or function/deal with people without it...so whatever.

Opioid pharmaceutical companies DO NOT want it legalized medically. In about 100% of all heroin cases, they all started with opioids. To me, the biggest pro is having the :

Availability Of Medicinal Cannabis

Medical marijuana (both THC and CBD) has been proven to treat a wide array of “untreatable” conditions including:

  • Crohn’s disease
  • Epilepsy
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Migraines
  • Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
  • Cancer
  • Problems due to chemotherapy
  • Many more

Making medical cannabis products available to those who suffer from these conditions would mean improved public health and less of a drain on the healthcare system. That would result in more public funds being available for roads, schools, and other public safety initiatives.

Other Pros:

  • Dismantling Of The Black Market
  • Improved Quality & Safety Control
  • Increased Tax Revenue
  • Decrease In Gang-Related Drug Violence
  • Allows Police & Courts To Focus On More Violent Crimes

Some Cons:
  • Marijuana Is Addictive
  • Second-Hand Smoke Could Become A Problem
  • Decreased Mental Health
  • Marijuana Users’ Lungs Are At Risk
  • Marijuana Alters Your Perception
  • Marijuana Is A Gateway Drug
Click to expand...

This is the most honest assessment i have ever read. FtR, i dont smoke it, but support legalizing it and treating it just like alcohol. Sin taxes, regulation, etc. Not sure why alcohol gets such different treatment than all the other drugs tbh...oh thats right, because people took a stand for alcohol, and it is slightly more socially acceptable than pot due to that. Raise tge sentences for coke, heroin etc, with in house treatment,and legalize herb so we can tax the crap out of it to pay for treatment for the millions addicted due to big pharma and their pill pushers
 
#91
#91
n_huffhines said:
I'm seriously disappointed in you. This is golfballs level dumb.
Click to expand...

Again, you obviously have no clue how checks and balances are supposed to work. If congress passes a law and it's signed or a veto is overridden and a court upholds the law an administration is supposed to enforce that law. Ignoring the constitution isn't "checks and balances".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#92
#92
I'm looking at this legalization issue in a complete different manner. I do not believe addiction vs non-addiction, this study vs that study, helping your health vs hurting your health, etc, etc, etc. will have any bearing on legalization. Legalizing marijuana will be just like the lottery......once non-legalized states see the amount of tax money being generated, slowly one-by-one, each state will legalize. Folks, you got to remember, politicians are very, very, very, very greedy and with more tax money coming in---the more money each politician will make (not to mention putting their family, relatives, and friends on the payroll). Regardless of the circumstance, on average, money will overpower any opponent.

Personally, I am not for or against legalization as I believe it is each person's choice. I will say this, I know nothing about marijuana, but after watching a few episodes of those marijuana shows on television, I am interested simply because of the money being made.

To tie this into federal vs state......each state representative will receive money from his/her state to allow the legalized sale to continue through either simply no enforcement of the current law or the passing of a new law.....no politician is going pass on or lose money.

I am absolutely certain money will be the deciding factor in legalizing marijuana.
 
#93
#93
hog88 said:
Again, you obviously have no clue how checks and balances are supposed to work. If congress passes a law and it's signed or a veto is overridden and a court upholds the law an administration is supposed to enforce that law. Ignoring the constitution isn't "checks and balances".
Click to expand...

What part of the constitution would the executive be ignoring?
 
#94
#94
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows.

Before he enters the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Click to expand...

Where does it say the executive has to enforce every law?

If congress passes an unconstitutional law, it is his duty to ignore/nullify it.

You couldn't be more wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#95
#95
Not exactly the man of honor people make him out to be

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) threatened on Thursday to start holding up the confirmation process for White House Justice Department nominees unless Attorney General Jeff Sessions reverses a decision to roll back a policy allowing legalized recreational use of marijuana in some states.

Gardner said in a series of tweets that Sessions had told him before he was confirmed by the Senate that he would not change an Obama-era policy that discouraged federal prosecutors from pursuing marijuana-related offenses in states where the substance had been legalized. Colorado is one of those states.
Click to expand...

GOP senator says Sessions broke pledge to him on marijuana policy | TheHill
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#97
#97
LouderVol said:
how is this law unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

We can have an originalist interstate commerce and general welfare discussion, but I don't care to. My point isn't that this is unconstitutional, it's that the executive can nullify the law. It's implied in the wording and that's the way it has always worked.
 
#98
#98
n_huffhines said:
Where does it say the executive has to enforce every law?

If congress passes an unconstitutional law, it is his duty to ignore/nullify it.

You couldn't be more wrong.
Click to expand...

If the executive branch thinks congress passed an unconstitutional law the POTUS vetoes it. If congress overrides the veto the executive branch sues and then the judicial branch decides if the law is constitutional or not.

Checks and balances! Where in the **** did you take civics? You might want to read article 2, clause 5 of the constitution.

Why are you giving congress a pass on not doing their job?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#99
#99
hog88 said:
If the executive branch thinks congress passed an unconstitutional law the POTUS vetoes it. If congress overrides the veto the executive branch sues and then the judicial branch decides if the law is constitutional or not.

Checks and balances! Where in the **** did you take civics? You might want to read article 2, clause 5 of the constitution.

Why are you giving congress a pass on not doing their job?
Click to expand...

All this jabber and you haven't pointed to the part of the constitution that says the POTUS has to execute/can't nullify. What a surprise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#100
#100
n_huffhines said:
We can have an originalist interstate commerce and general welfare discussion, but I don't care to. My point isn't that this is unconstitutional, it's that the executive can nullify the law. It's implied in the wording and that's the way it has always worked.
Click to expand...

what if el presidente doesn't think the law is immoral?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top