Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Here's How the Obama Admin. Is Considering Responding to Legal Pot in Colorado and Washington
Reason.com ^ | Dec. 6, 2012 10:26 pm | Mike Riggs

Posted on 12/06/2012 9:26:57 PM PST by Red Steel

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

1 posted on 12/06/2012 9:27:03 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Weird how once the potheads got the crap “legalized”, we don’t hear anymore bull**** about “medical” marijuana. That whole thing was a joke and the dorks in this country fell for it. Whatever happened to that “legalize it and tax the hell out of it!” bull****. LOL! What a farce.


2 posted on 12/06/2012 9:31:46 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Don't tax me bro! Tax that guy over there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Here's How the Obama Admin. Is Considering Responding to Legal Pot in Colorado and Washington

Absent-minded er absentee ballots, free inside?


3 posted on 12/06/2012 9:31:46 PM PST by Ezekiel (The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Obama will throw his own voters under the bus, just to get into a pissing contest between state and federal law. Why should anyone in DC give a Sh!t if someone in Colorado smokes a joint, nothing but a power trip.


4 posted on 12/06/2012 9:36:10 PM PST by Husker24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Maybe for some but not for all, there are legitimate medical reasons people use pot (in a various ways).


5 posted on 12/06/2012 9:37:02 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Here's How the Obama Admin. Is Considering Responding to Legal Pot in Colorado and Washington

Resurrecting the Choom Gang?

6 posted on 12/06/2012 9:39:14 PM PST by jtal (Runnin' a World in Need with White Folks' Greed - since 1492)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

What are these loaded questions talking about exactly?


7 posted on 12/06/2012 9:40:53 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Husker24

Obama has flip flopped at least as much as the infamous Mitt by now.


8 posted on 12/06/2012 9:42:00 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (How long before all this "fairness" kills everybody, even the poor it was supposed to help???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
I have never smoked pot and never will, but if anything can save the constitution in our time, it is this issue. This is a tenth amendment issue if there ever was one, and the people of Washington and Colorado have spoken. As long as the battle is over the tenth amendment and the constitution, Republicans and conservatives should get behind this. It would show that they are consistently behind the constitution and its principles, and it is an issue to teach the citizens about the tenth amandment and federalism.

It also might be the straw that breaks Obamacare, because if different states have different laws, they would not want to pay for other state's citizens getting drug treatment or other medical services more than "dry" states. This would lead to fighting such that a federal health care program would be seen as unworkable when states had their own laws affecting health.

9 posted on 12/06/2012 9:50:26 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Well, if Washington state is really adamant about allowing this law to be law of the state, they need to tell their sheriffs to kick out all federal law enforcement agents.

Feds cannot operate in counties without the approval and support of the county sheriff. Generally not used, but that’s a critical reason why you should never get rid of your county sheriff level of law enforcement. They are the top LEO of the county and nobody else has the ability to kick the feds out.

The feds would love to get rid of sheriffs because of this fact.


10 posted on 12/06/2012 10:02:01 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

some law enforcement officials are so “alarmed at the prospect that marijuana users in both states could get used to flouting federal law openly,” that they “are said to be pushing for a stern response.”

Note to officials, that would be the majority of
canabis users anyway. Admittedly it’s not a good idea
to smoke in front of a LEO but state and federal laws
have NOT stopped people from growing or smoking pot.


11 posted on 12/06/2012 10:21:44 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

Respect federalism? Oh no. The Tenth Amendment and the very foundation of our governmental system is nothing compared to the enraging possibility that some grown people might have made the choice to get high. Marijuana used to be smoked by hippies, and hippies are bad and must be punished. Therefore, f*** the Constitution; full speed ahead with the drug war!


12 posted on 12/06/2012 10:33:59 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Bunk. Medicinal marijuana was the camel’s nose stuck under the tent. It was a ruse, and a cynical one at that.


13 posted on 12/06/2012 10:48:23 PM PST by JohnBrowdie (http://forum.stink-eye.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie

The real ruse was that the war on drugs was about fighting drugs. It was about the Federal Government gaining enormous power and raping civil liberties.

If it was about fighting drugs, the HSBC, Wachovia and other banks that knowingly launder the cartel money would have been dealt with very harshly, perhaps even seized under forfeiture laws. They aren’t.
If it was about fighting drugs, our troops in Afghanistan wouldn’t be strictly forbidden from damaging pot and opium poppy crops.
These hard facts tell you all you need to know about the war on drugs.

Last, if all you know about an issue is that our Federal government is in favor of it, it’s usually a good policy to be against their position.


14 posted on 12/06/2012 11:13:29 PM PST by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie

Sure it’s a ruse, but the ruse is a direct response to federal overreach. The feds have seized the power to ban any substance that they deem has no medical use. The courts won’t directly reverse that overreach, so the natural consequence is to work around it and just propose medical uses, however spurious, for the banned substances.

There’s no difference between that, and gun manufacturers finding ways to satisfy technical requirements of gun regulations in some superficial way in order to avoid those bans. Both of them are legitimate responses from the citizens to improper usurpations which the more proper methods of redress have failed to correct.


15 posted on 12/06/2012 11:19:28 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Where do you come up with this stuff?


16 posted on 12/06/2012 11:21:57 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

It will be fun to watch lib states fight the lib gov’t they elected.

I’d love to see the ‘the gov’t is here to help you’ fantasy go ‘poof’ over a pot smoking fight between states and fed gov.


17 posted on 12/06/2012 11:25:37 PM PST by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie

Then you did not read what I wrote.


18 posted on 12/06/2012 11:36:54 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie

Then you did not read what I wrote.


19 posted on 12/06/2012 11:37:02 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie

Then you did not read what I wrote.


20 posted on 12/06/2012 11:37:02 PM PST by svcw (Why is one cell on another planet considered life, and in the womb it is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson