To: freepatriot32
is it just me .......
Probably.
The issue here is the federal law and a general California reluctance to eliminate pot.
The federal law is being enforced in California. The folks in California are not being allowed to cherry pick which laws they will obey and which laws they will not obey.
If you can't differentiate Ashcroft from the the Clinton Alcoholic Lesbo Reno, there is a significant problem.
6 posted on
01/16/2004 7:58:26 AM PST by
bert
(Have you offended a liberal today?)
To: bert; freepatriot32
If you can't differentiate Ashcroft from the the Clinton Alcoholic Lesbo Reno, there is a significant problem. I think that was what freepatriot32 was saying.
13 posted on
01/16/2004 10:46:05 AM PST by
Oztrich Boy
(The King of Cups expects a picnic. But today is not his birthday)
To: bert
The issue here is the federal law and a general California reluctance to eliminate pot. Query: Exactly how would you go about eliminating pot?
15 posted on
01/16/2004 1:57:45 PM PST by
William Terrell
(Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
To: bert
The issue here is the federal law and a general California reluctance to eliminate pot. Please tell me where in the constitution the feds are given the power to control something which happens entirely within one state.
To: bert
bert said "The federal law is being enforced in California. The folks in California are not being allowed to cherry pick which laws they will obey and which laws they will not obey."
Unless, of course, the laws in question deal with illegal immigration...right?
26 posted on
01/24/2004 9:31:06 AM PST by
pdunkin
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson